3 ms·

The thesis that liberal societies are not replacing themselves seems incorrect. UK population was 60 million in 2000, and is 67.5 million today. The demographi

The thesis that liberal societies are not replacing themselves seems incorrect. UK population was 60 million in 2000, and is 67.5 million today. The demographics are somewhat interesting in that 'white native British' has dropped from 99% or so of the population in the 1950s to about 82% today. In comparison the USA population is also steadily rising from ~280 million in 2000 to ~330 million in 2020. Now if the concern is that the relative ratios of different race-ethnic-religious groups is changing, why is that an issue? Children tend to adopt the societal norms they're surrounded by, even if this upsets their traditional-minded parents. That's certainly been the case in the USA, it's an assimilative process. As far as birth rate data, as women acquire more rights and wealth they tend to choose to have fewer children later in life, and as medical care and knowledge improves, those children tend to survive to adulthood at rates unheard of a few centuries ago. Thus, while birth rates may indeed be falling, the population is stable or even growing due to the other factor the author seems to ignore, i.e. lower childhood death rates.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Hmm. Taking just the UK, if "white native British" dropped from 99% to 82%, that would imply a lot of immigration between 1950 and 2023. How much of that was between 2000 and 2023? Does it account for all of the population growth? Some of it? Looking at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06..., I would eyeball net immigration at around 200K/year from 2020 to 2023. That would amount to 4.6 million people. That's over half of the 7.5 million change in population, but not all of it. Anyone with better numbers, step right up...
tivert 3y ago
> The thesis that liberal societies are not replacing themselves seems incorrect. UK population was 60 million in 2000, and is 67.5 million today. The demographics are somewhat interesting in that 'white native British' has dropped from 99% or so of the population in the 1950s to about 82% today. That's not a society that's replacing itself. It's one that isn't but has managed to kick the can down the road because it's in a position to exploit external sources of population. Those ex > Now if the concern is that the relative ratios of different race-ethnic-religious groups is changing, why is that an issue? Children tend to adopt the societal norms they're surrounded by, even if this upsets their traditional-minded parents. That's certainly been the case in the USA, it's an assimilative process. Assimilation is rarely that complete. And, as the OP notes, the birth rate problem reproduces itself in those who assimilate into contemporary liberalism, and doesn't in those who do not assimilate. It's worth noting that, over the course of history, many cultures have been destroyed while leaving small cultural echos in the new replacing population. The OP stated: "On the current trajectory, there will at some point in the coming centuries be no Italians..." It would be cold-comfort to an Italian that cared about Italian culture to have it "live" on in a form akin to an Olive Garden restaurant franchise. > As far as birth rate data, as women acquire more rights and wealth they tend to choose to have fewer children later in life, and as medical care and knowledge improves, those children tend to survive to adulthood at rates unheard of a few centuries ago. Thus, while birth rates may indeed be falling, the population is stable or even growing due to the other factor the author seems to ignore, i.e. lower childhood death rates. No. IIRC, many places are falling below replacement rate reproduction. That means that lower infant mortality isn't fully compensating for the other changes.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Hmm. Taking just the UK, if "white native British" dropped from 99% to 82%, that would imply a lot of immigration between 1950 and 2023. How much of that was between 2000 and 2023? Does it account for all of the population growth? Some of it? Looking at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06..., I would eyeball net immigration at around 200K/year from 2020 to 2023. That would amount to 4.6 million people. That's over half of the 7.5 million change in population, but not all of it. Anyone with better numbers, step right up...

tivert 3y ago

> The thesis that liberal societies are not replacing themselves seems incorrect. UK population was 60 million in 2000, and is 67.5 million today. The demographics are somewhat interesting in that 'white native British' has dropped from 99% or so of the population in the 1950s to about 82% today. That's not a society that's replacing itself. It's one that isn't but has managed to kick the can down the road because it's in a position to exploit external sources of population. Those ex > Now if the concern is that the relative ratios of different race-ethnic-religious groups is changing, why is that an issue? Children tend to adopt the societal norms they're surrounded by, even if this upsets their traditional-minded parents. That's certainly been the case in the USA, it's an assimilative process. Assimilation is rarely that complete. And, as the OP notes, the birth rate problem reproduces itself in those who assimilate into contemporary liberalism, and doesn't in those who do not assimilate. It's worth noting that, over the course of history, many cultures have been destroyed while leaving small cultural echos in the new replacing population. The OP stated: "On the current trajectory, there will at some point in the coming centuries be no Italians..." It would be cold-comfort to an Italian that cared about Italian culture to have it "live" on in a form akin to an Olive Garden restaurant franchise. > As far as birth rate data, as women acquire more rights and wealth they tend to choose to have fewer children later in life, and as medical care and knowledge improves, those children tend to survive to adulthood at rates unheard of a few centuries ago. Thus, while birth rates may indeed be falling, the population is stable or even growing due to the other factor the author seems to ignore, i.e. lower childhood death rates. No. IIRC, many places are falling below replacement rate reproduction. That means that lower infant mortality isn't fully compensating for the other changes.