Demographic Winter Hokum

A recently released documentary called Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family purportedly sounds the alarm that if nothing is done to reverse declining fertility rates our planetary society will reap enormously bad consequences. That characterization, of course, is too broad and too friendly. First, the theory of demographic winter, or "birth death" is not new. It is the same fear of western white and Christian people seeing their numbers dwindle and surrounded by strange others. In short, it is a modern version of the cry "the barbarians are at the gate." Second, it is not everybody they are concerned about, but declining fertility rates in "developed countries." That should give you a few hints as to some ideological assumptions underlying such an effort.

Their concern is truly about birth rates in developed countries, and for a set of ideological constructs that they present as "natural" and imbue with such unalloyed goodness and virtue that any modification leads potentially to doom. In sum, demographic winter arguments read more as a version of end times eschatology. Here are a set of quotes from their site:

"Sub-replacement fertility rates are now spreading to every corner of the globe. Fertility in every developed country is now beneath "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per woman." (Philip Longman, Author of The Empty Cradle)

"Today, as native populations decrease and immigrant populations increase, the cultural mix is changing, very rapidly, causing political and cultural fragmentations"

"Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found."

"Resources are used inefficiently when directed towards policies that weaken families instead of policies that strengthen them. This, in turn, hampers the sustainability of real economic growth and perpetuates poverty." (Dr. Maria Sophia Aguirre, Ph.D., Economics)

I don't know about you, but in that short set of quotes I find lots to worry me. First, the issue of fertility in developed countries being beneath replacement rates is presented as such a negative trend that reproduction is highlighted as the highest positive good. There is no argument presented of what such a decline might positively engender, such as less damage to ecosystems and the environment, a more sustainable global society, greater freedom by individuals in managing their reproductive health, greater degree of moral autonomy, less overpopulation, perhaps individuals having wanted children, etc.

Moreover, decline in fertility rates in such countries does not mean a corresponding decline in the unity of the family. I know more and more couples that choose to adopt. Their families are no less because of that, and simply no less whatsoever because the parents choose not to propagate their own kind. This argument only makes sense in the face of a decline that worries these folks because they assign a particular high value to such populations they fear we stand to lose. In other words, there must be something magical to the population of these developed nations that we just don't want to lose. If you have done even any simple reading in western history you'll find that the notion underlying such a belief has usually revolved around the West bringing civilization, "smarts," and the blessings of wise political, economic, and every other kind of stewardship, to the rest of the world. It makes you wonder if we would see theories of demographic winter, not to mention the same level of concern, if the supposed decline was in "underdeveloped nations."

Notice that native is used in opposition to immigrant populations. In such usage, native does not mean indigenous native peoples. This is a classic nativist argument that quite simply (if not explicitly) tells us that there is a rightful population that belongs, and other populations that come, take over, and displace the right "people" and their rightful heirs. Scratch such nativist arguments deeply enough and you will find all sorts of other arguments regarding the challenge that "non-natives" pose to linguistic, religious, moral, ethnic, and cultural pieties of the "right people." Note also that no argument for political and cultural fragmentation is posed within the "native" population, such dilemmas are brought about apparently by immigrants. That argument is amazingly totalizing and naive in how it constructs peoplehood and ideological unity.

Finally, the supposed dilemma faced is further compounded by "political incorrectness" that prevents us from truly addressing the problem. Of course, the political incorrectness arguments are implicitly presented as emerging from the other side. This claim to political incorrectness is simply not believable. Constructive arguments about family planning, overpopulation, sustainability, and more, have been carried out for a long time. The problem does not lie with the arguments not being had because of political incorrectness, but because particular ideological assumptions and interests have at different times refused to fully engage in open conversation. For a parallel example see for instance the various events of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR).

What's more, the quote highlights the "natural family" which I imagine means a biological mother and father and offspring. Natural in this context however opens up to more texture: natural gives an imprimatur of rightness and is reminiscent of what Murray Edelman has called, the “sanctification of ideology." Holding a particular principle as natural renders it morally correct and consequently embraced within a compelling aura of the sacrosanct for the species, or the nation. Natural points to nature, in Latin, Natura, as the way things not only are but are meant to be. This "natural family" thus becomes the most sacred of collectives, a notion that needs special protection.

When you load the site you see a flash based short scene that ultimately posits that we are leaving our children with the burden... I'm befuddled by this because in my estimation children are carrying a vast burden right now: from economic disaster, famine, war, increased violence, environmental degradation... we are leaving them a world in shambles already.

So what about the argument that birth rate decline will mean economic growth decline? Some times I hear the argument that we just get more efficient, that technology and human ingenuity finds ways to solve our problems (that argument has also been advanced for not dealing with global warming now)-- and at other times I hear these dystopic predictions about our world as presented in the Demographic Winter documentary. Well, which is it? Shouldn't we be able to modify our economic system in such a way that such catastrophic consequences, as predicted in the documentary, don't come to pass? Might not the problem lie more with the economic system that oppresses so many, destroys the environment, accumulates profit for the few instead of creating wealth, ravages natural resources, and makes living in this planet an unsustainable proposition?

It all strikes me as a whitewash... if you know what I mean.

(see also this piece by Kathryn Joyce: "Missing: The Right Babies," in The Nation.

Comments

[Danny]

I've only just recently even heard the term "demographic winter", and almost right away I wondered if I must be missing something: isn't this just a concern for white or european ethnic or religious populations projected out into a global crisis? Isn't the birth rate in Africa skyrocketing? Isn't overall global population projected to increase well into the future?

At the same time, the survival of any and every culture is worthwhile - American or white or western culture no more, and no less, than any other. But can't it be framed that way, at least, by the demographic winter alarmists (I mean that in a neutral way)?

Anyway, thanks for digging down into the underlying assumptions of this concern about falling birth rates - it's given me more to think about.

[EvaMom]

Too bad you didn't watch the entire documentary. It further states that the immigrants to developed countries (from undeveloped countries) are predominantly men aged 15 to 64...so the undeveloped countries lose workers AND the children of those countries lose their fathers. Essentially, immigration is a temporary remedy for our population lag, but does not provide us with many children AND it leaves undeveloped countries in the lurch by stealing key components from their demographic. Hmm...doesn't seem like it's all about rich, white folk to me.

Sure, we could let the population collapse the global economy by failing to replace ourselves. It wouldn't render us extinct. But, is there a better way? That, to me, is what the film is asking.

[Amused]

I don't wish to defend or debunk this film but I do have an observation.It is amusing to me that you enjoy exposing others "underlying assumptions" but seem not to see your own. Such as...
"There is no argument presented of what such a decline might positively engender..." Positive for who? The lucky few(er)?
In your last paragraph you seem to think the answer is an economic system emerging from human ingenuity plus more efficient methods and technology.(Hmm...sounds like YOU had an underdeveloped country in mind!)This system is supposed to create wealth...not profit for the few. Which few?Oh...not the few that are wealthy now but the few(er) that will share all wealth when the population declines? I guess it will be so much more enjoyable when there aren't so many oppressed poor around to watch.
You used the phrases "wanted children" and "moral autonomy" and "overpopulation" I don't know about you, but in this short set of quotes I find a lot to worry me.Am I to understand that you mean we should be able to have any and all sex (moral autonomy) without (overpopulating)the world with (unwanted) children? What child should be unwanted? What is the exact number of population before it becomes overpopulation and who should determine these things?
You implied that THESE men have an elitist veiwpoint.THAT strikes me as a whitewash...If you know what I mean.