Averages and hidden patterns
Most countries will be in same boat as NE Asia in coming yrs but avg’s hide some key underlying patterns. Both Japan & Germany have high rates of childless women but both also have significant % of women (17%) who have 3+ kids, that is 3% more than Russia & 6% more than Spain.
Replacement fertility
Also keep in mind that replacement TFR is only 2.1 in 1st world countries with natural balance between men & women. In countries with high IMR (India & PRC to some extent) & skewed sex ratio (PRC, India) women need to have more than 2.1 to keep the population from declining.
“Switzerland has some data on the development of the replacement level. In 1920 it was 2.56, in 1930 2.32, in 1940 2.26 and in 1950 2.16. Switzerland always had better health indicators than Germany, so it is a safe bet that Germany’s replacement level was somewhat higher.”
General Impact on State power
“The triumph of small nations or armies over large ones are remembered precisely because they are the exception to the rule.” - The Human Tide: How Population Shaped the Modern World by Paul Moreland
Tacitus, the Roman historian and statesman, compared the small families of the Romans unfavourably to the fertile Germans, while Ibn Khaldun, the medieval Arab historian, associated depopulation with the desolation and reversal of civilisation. Vauban, Louis XIV’s great military architect, was under no illusion about what ultimately drove power; however innovative the defensive buildings might be, he declared that the greatness of kings… is measured in the number of their subjects’. Clausewitz, a Prussian theorist of war living in the Napoleonic era, considered superiority of numbers to be the most general principle of victory’, and it was Voltaire who insisted that God was on the side of the big battalions. Adam Smith declared that the most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase in the number of its habitants’. Asked which woman he loved most, Napoleon is reported to have replied: ‘she who has the largest number of children’.
Of course, a big technological advantage can undoubtedly be decisive. But often such an advantage, whether it be the Maxim gun or the atom bomb, cannot be indefinitely sustained, since it is invariably adopted by the enemy, whereupon population again becomes key. Iraqi and Afghan militants in recent decades were able to deploy devastating weapons against their first world invaders. Russian efforts to dominate Afghanistan in the 1980s and American attempts to dominate both Iraq and Afghanistan in the first decade of the twenty-first century were in large part frustrated by the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq had populations with a median age of under twenty, while those of the USSR and the USA were well over thirty. It could be argued that in the end what was lacking on the part of the Russians and Americans was not sheer numbers but will; but even here, demography has a role to play. A country with a fertility rate of two or less is much more likely to have a culture in which civilian or military losses are unacceptable than a country with a fertility rate of over seven or nearly five, as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively around the time of the US invasions in 2002 and 2003.+++(5)+++ Each mother in the former case simply has fewer sons to lose. It seems callous to imagine that mothers of large families are any more willing to lose their children in a conflict, but there is compelling evidence to suggest that societies with smaller families are generally less bellicose.
Case studies
Greece
When Greeks depopulated themselves through hedonism (Polybius), fecund Rome was on the ascent & made them a colony
France
In 1800, France’s population comprised a little under a fifth of the European total, and France could attempt to dominate the whole continent; by 1900, with a population that was less than a tenth of Europe’s, France was on the way to becoming a second-rank power. Asked which woman he loved most, Napoleon is reported to have replied: ‘she who has the largest number of children’.
As early as 1849, a French parliamentary deputy saw national decline as rooted in demography: “The first element of power is population, and on this point … France is in full decay."
More dramatic is demographic inversion between Germany & France, clear factor in emboldening Ger for WW1. For several centuries, right up to the 1860s, France was the most populated country in Europe, even ahead of Russia at certain times. Then, mainly due to the effect of a low birth rate at the end of the 18th century, when France entered into war it occupied fifth position in demographic terms in Europe, behind Russia, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain, closely followed by Italy. In 1914, the population of France was still very rural, stagnant and ageing. The 1914 war struck a country which was struggling demographically.
The enforced effort was huge, and the consequences after the war weighed heavy. Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau may have got a lot of what he wanted in the Treaty of Versailles in terms of punishing Germany, but he declared: “The treaty does not say that France must undertake to have children but it is the first clause which should have been included in it".
British kid export
The child migration scheme founded by Annie MacPherson in 1869, under which more than 100,000 children were sent from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. Canada’s best kept historical secrets, the mass immigration of tens of thousands of children to be used as a source of cheap labor. Between 1863 and 1949, over 110,000 children were forcibly removed.
Spain vs Britain
The great cultural historian Fernand Braudel said of the Spaniards that they could conquer but not grasp Central and South America. The suggestion is that although the Spaniards had a vast empire on paper, in practice they had little impact or control over much of it, even before losing most of it early in the nineteenth century. In large part this was because there were simply not enough Spaniards to make a real population impact on the lands they conquered, even if they succeeded-intentionally or otherwise-in wiping out large swathes of the populations who had been there beforehand.
When the US annexed the northern half of Mexico in 1848 (including what are today the states of California, Arizona and New Mexico) they were able to do so easily because there were hardly any Spaniards or Mexicans there. This is in sharp contrast to the British, who peopled their empire-for which, of course, people were required. And people is what Britain came to have in abundance. The difference between the Spanish and British in this respect depended critically on the fact that Britain was undergoing a population explosion at the time, producing enough people to grow the population dramatically at home while exporting millions to the colonies and beyond. Spain had never been able to do this.
Great waves of people from the British Isles settled in the imperial territories of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, bringing with them diseases that devastated the indigenous peoples-much as the Spaniards had done in Latin America two or three centuries earlier-while themselves rapidly growing in number.
… What is noteworthy in all these cases is that although Britain had nominally held colonies in North America since the early seventeenth century and in Australasia since the eighteenth century, it was only once a population boom at home could fuel mass emigration that these territories came under meaningful control of Britain through a process of settlement. Without the population boom there would have been no mass settlement, and without mass settlement Britain’s imperial claims to these territories might have remained as insubstantial as those of Spain to most of Latin America.+++(5)+++ Equally, without mass settlement these lands could not have become the great granaries and providers of meat and other essentials to a global trading system of which a newly industrialised Britain was the heart.
While some European countries were following Britain’s demographic take-off, others, for much of the nineteenth century, were not. Italy, Spain and Austria-Hungary were still largely mired in the peasant-dominated misery of large family size but high infant mortality. In 1900 in Spain, for example, life expectancy was still under thirty-five while in England it was over forty-eight. Parts of Austria-Hungary did start to see improvement in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth, and its loss of ground against Britain slowed. This was less so for Spain and Italy.
Indeed, it is telling that, at the time of the Spanish Armada, Spain had a population twice the size of Britain’s, while 300 years later it was half the size.+++(5)+++ Over those years, Britain went from seeing Spain as its most dangerous rival and existential threat to a country barely worthy of strategic attention. Of course, this had much to do with Spain’s loss of empire and internal economic decline, and its failure to modernise and industrialise beyond a few very limited areas, but it also had a lot to do with the relative shifts in the population balance. The Britain of Queen Victoria had much less to fear from Spain than had the England of Queen Elizabeth I, to the point where Spain was seen not as the principal global threat but as no more than a hot, dusty backwater. Population explains much of the reason for this change.
North vs South USA
(Lincoln’s) secretary recalled:
We lost fifty per cent more men than did the enemy, and yet there is sense in the awful arithmetic propounded by Mr. Lincoln.+++(5)+++ He says that if the same battle were to be fought over again, every day, through a week of days, with the same relative results, the army under Lee would be wiped out to its last man, the Army of the Potomac would still be a mighty host, the war would be over, the Confederacy gone, and peace would be won at a smaller cost of life than it will be if the week of lost battles must be dragged out through yet another year of camps and marches, and of deaths in hospitals rather than upon the field. No general yet found can face the arithmetic, but the end of the war will be at hand when he shall be discovered.
The election has exhibited another fact not less valuable to be known—the fact that we do not approach exhaustion in the most important branch of national resources, that of living men. While it is melancholy to reflect that the war has filled so many graves and carried mourning to so many hearts, it is some relief to know that, compared with the surviving, the fallen have been so few. While corps and divisions and brigades and regiments have formed and fought and dwindled and gone out of existence, a great majority of the men who composed them are still living. The same is true of the naval service. The election returns prove this. So many voters could not else be found. The States regularly holding elections, both now and four years ago, to wit, California, Connecticut Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, cast 3,982,011 votes now, against 3,870,222 cast then, showing an aggregate now of 3,982,011. To this is to be added 33,762 cast now in the new States of Kansas and Nevada, which States did not vote in 1860, thus swelling the aggregate to 4,015,773 and the net increase during the three years and a half of war to 145,551. A table is appended showing particulars. To this again should be added the number of all soldiers in the field from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, and California, who by the laws of those States could not vote away from their homes, and which number can not be less than 90,000. Nor yet is this all. The number in organized Territories is triple now what it was four years ago—while thousands, white and black, join us as the national arms press back the insurgent lines. So much is shown, affirmatively and negatively, by the election. It is not material to inquire how the increase has been produced or to show that it would have been greater but for the war, which is probably true. The important fact remains demonstrated that we have more men now than we had when the war began; that we are not exhausted nor in process of exhaustion; that we are gaining strength and may if need be maintain the contest indefinitely.+++(5)+++ [This sentence recognizes the concern of a guerilla war after the main war finished.] This as to men. Material resources are now more complete and abundant than ever. The national resources, then, are unexhausted, and, as we believe, inexhaustible.
Abortion prevention impact
Abortion prevention won’t raise TFR much (see Abkhazia’s ban results). To work u need to combine it with a ban on contraception & implement it rigorously. This was possible in closed Romania which is why Decree 770 “worked” for sometime.
Shia power
- Iran’s dream of being an Islamic powerhouse is threatened by baby drought. by Michael Cook Nov 24, 2021
- Hezbollah’s demographic problem explains its restraint By HILLEL FRISCH SEPTEMBER 4, 2019.
By far, the most important restraint for Hezbollah is that small families are reluctant to sacrifice what is all too often their only son. We know this from Israeli data. Every year, the IDF identifies the high schools with the highest percentages of male graduates that volunteer in fighting units… common denominator is these high schools is that these recruits come from larger families than from secular schools.
Iran
TFR down to 1.6 from close to 1.7 in 2021, doubt all these measures will do anything.
80s under the pressure of the Iran-Iraq war, the initial rhetoric of the Islamic Republic was pronatalist. Ayatollah Khomeini called for e a “20 million man army”. Iranian mullahs encouraged baby boom during war with Iraq for future cannon fodder & later encouraged family planning as they realized they couldn’t create jobs for the explosive pop growth. E. g. of how even Abrahamic kooks who think “God will provide” are forced to conform to the reality of a finite planet when shit hits the fan.
Ahmadinejad pilloried family planning as a Western conspiracy and in 2010 he rolled out a program of lavish subsidies for large Iranian families. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei now denounced his governments’ previous population control measures as a “mistake.”
Israel
- In Israel, an only child who wishes to join a combat unit must obtain parental consent. Ironically, many Force 100 soldiers are only children whose parents objected to them performing combat service. In some of those cases, a decision to revoke permission for an only child meant that a soldier’s entire unit had to leave the Gaza.
China
Rural depopulation
37% of people living in “rural” China doesn’t mean much for TFR if most of them r 60+ yr old geezers
- surveys show TFR & fertility intentions of rural Chinese to be fairly low. Many of those young women still stuck in rural areas don’t want to marry farmers & want to move away to cities. Those with rural hokou+++(=residence registration)+++ r also subject to gov’t sponsored discrimination which contributes to the phenomenon of left behind kids & probably further incentivizes them to suppress having any more kids.
Settlement
China is in no position for any conquest of Siberia. If such an unlikely thing were to even happen, it will be temporary & the people who will control Siberia long term is the people who can populate it as history shows. People ignorant of demography may argue but Dongbei has millions more than the Russian side but again as in war the composition matters, pioneering settlers r young men & women not 60 yr old geriatrics. You might have 10 million but if 40% of them are 60+, your potential settlers are a a lot less than 10 million, especially for a harsh environment like Siberia. Look at permanent settlement demography of 19th & 20th centuries whether its Americas, Canada, Oz, Nz, Hokkaido, Siberia & even Andamans. Usually young men 1st, joined by young women capable of reproduction.
Costa Rica
The TFR declined from 1.41 to 1.31. 21% of births were to mothers of foreign origin, mostly from Nicaragua. The number of middle income countries whose demographics resembles developed countries is growing rapidly.
Germany
“If we had multiplied in Germany like the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, there would be 550 million Germans today. And there would be 80 million young people between the ages of 15 and 30. Do you think the 80 million young German men are ten times as pacifist as the 7 million we have today?”
Turkey
The Turkish population register counted 4% fewer 0-year olds in 2022 than the year before. From that, it follows that the TFR of Turkey in 2022 was 1.64, down from 1.70 in 2021.
Lebanon
“By 1970, the Christians had landed themselves in a declining fertility rate of 4 children per woman, while the Muslims maintained a steady fertility rate of 6 children per woman. The result was that between 1965 and 1970 Lebanon became a Muslim majority country during a raging civil war. In the ensuing bloodbath and mayhem nearly five million Christians out-migrated within 2-3 years.”[IT15]
Disincentives
1 child policy impact
Neighbors & many Euro countries also have similarly low TFR’s without any 1 child policy & TFR more than halved in 10 yrs before 1 child policy, in 1980 it was 2.32. If there is a crisis it will be felt all over the world except Israel & may be Iceland. Taiwan’s TFR in 2020 was 0.99, SK 0.84, neither had 1 kid policy. Japanese are breeding like rabbits in comparison to these 2 at 1.34. Middle income Thailand was 1.18, so < Japan, no 1 kid policy. PRC’s true TFR is suspected to be between SK & Taiwan by @fuxianyi.
NE China is rust belt with lowest TFR in world & rapid depop due to lack of jobs So much for Western fantasy of China conquering Siberia from Rus.
False explanations
Some unexpected countries/territories (unless u follow demography) more rural & lower in per capita GDP than Japan (1.3) yet with lower/on par TFR’s for 2021
- Costa Rica (1.31)
- Chile (1.22)
- Thailand (1.18)
- Puerto Rico (1)
- PRC (1.16 as per CCP fraud, likely below 1)
- Pre-war Ukraine in 2020 1.34 (same as Japan), now lower
- Bosnia & Herzegovina 1.22-1.24
- Spain (1.19)
- Italy (1.25)
RW have a lot of retard takes that conform to their beliefs like porn, work hrs, feminism, megacities etc to supposedly explain low TFR in East Asia. No one associates Ricans with workaholism, CCP fills Chinese heads with wolf warrior BS & censors feminists.
Thailand, CR, & Chile r all more rural, 2 of them even follow Catholicism (this is for those ecath LARP retards who fantasize about a Catholic Japan, see attached image) with incomes well < Japan. I guess its easier to think world confirms to ur pet beliefs
Female Edu and TFR: It correlates but not perfectly (Japanese female edu > Chinese but higher TFR).
Belief in government
- Eberstadt is typical e. g. of reaching a conclusion & then trying to fit the data to supp ur predetermined conclusion, quiet similar to right wing kooks who think low TFR can be explained by porn, anime, & whatever else takes their fancy.
- If highlighted bit had any truth to it, what do similarly collapsing births in Taiwan, SK, Uruguay, Chile etc indicate? A vote of no confidence in democracy?
- PRC could become a liberal democracy tomorrow & it wouldn’t make 1 whit of difference to its TFR except continue its decline as under Xi.
- Supposedly North Korean TFR is 1.8-1.9, way higher than SK’s dismal 0.78. By Eberstadt’s logic, there is a vote of confidence in the glorious Kim dynasty & Juche against the decadent capitalist democracy of SK & its Hallyu
Polygyny
If u have 5 wives & produce 10 kids, that’s merely replacement. Mormon polygamists shared the flaws of the fruit fly.
Hard to sustain
You can’t just indefinitely project 7 kids per women because as the groups bigger it gets harder & harder to swim against constraints that begin to impose themselves, just like how Iranian mullahs encouraged a baby boom during war with Iraq but then implemented family planning when they realized they couldn’t provide jobs for the youth bulge.
Amish rely on non Amish to consume their stuff & as they get bigger they have had to shift from agriculture to other jobs as land is increasingly expensive, probably why they went from 7 to below 4 in some groups.
As for Mormons, more Mormon men than women leave. This implies some Mormon women in Utah will end up childless unless a) they convert enough non Mormon men or b) Revert to polygyny or c) combo of a&b
Incentives
There is some evidence incentives may work like the recent uptick in Hungary’s TFR attributed to Orban’s pro natal policies but the rises don’t seem to sustain themselves + r far from replacement.
Only 1 1st world country consistently above 2.1 is Israel & that is due to relatively high Arab TFR, Ultra Orthodox Jews (6-7 kids per woman), Orthodox Jews (3 kids per woman), 2-2.2 per woman (secular Jews). So pro natal religiosity plays a big role.+++(5)+++
When a CCP mouthpiece recently published an article exhorting party members to set the e.g. of role models by having 3 kids each, it was widely ridiculed online & quickly pulled. Evidently not enough “state capacity” to keep unpopular articles online.