Current Trends …
We need to have more babies born in America … if we are going to survive long-term … not less babies. For the population to reproduce itself at current numbers, the “total fertility rate” needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age over their lifetime, researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in their report, released early Thursday. This means we need to have 2.1 babies born to each woman that can give birth. Child bearing age in America refers to women who are between the ages of 15 and 44.
I realize some give birth below the age of 15 and some above the age of 44. I did not choose the age limits. That was done by someone at a higher pay grade than me.
However, latest data shows that we are only producing 1,765.5 births for every 1,000 women who can bear a child. That is 16% below the number needed to keep our population stable without additions through immigration. Again, we need 2.1 babies per female that can bear a child – not less than 1.8. The map below shows the only two states to meet our needs currently would be South Dakota and Utah.
Experts say the decline isn’t due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including …
- changing economics,
- delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education,
- the greater availability of contraception, and
- a decline in teen pregnancies.
I find it very interesting that they choose to use the terms “the greater availability of contraception” and not the term “abortion/murder of babies.”
Accept for the last sentence about abortions, most of the above was quoted by NBC News. However, here is what the CDC has to say about it.
The provisional number of births for the United States in 2017 was 3,853,472, down 2% from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years. The general fertility rate was 60.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 3% from 2016 and another record low for the United States.
Notice how CBS reports 1,765.5 births for every 1,000 women who can bear a child and the CDC states it is only 60.2 births for every 1,000 women age 15-44? Is it any wonder why Americans are so confused by our news channels today? I think what one is stating as a life time birthrate the other states as an annual birth rate (e.g. 60.2 per year per child bearing aged women vs. 1,765.50 over the lifetime of a child bearing aged woman).
Again, according to NBC News … The report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, counted 862,000 abortions in the U.S. in 2017.
That is certainly a lot of Dead Babies at the fault of living humans.
When I do a Google search of the number of women in the U. S. between the ages of 15 and 44 the result ends up being 63,613,014. So, if we need for each woman to have 2.1 children that means they should generate 133,587,329 children over their child bearing years. Over a generation of about 30 years that would be about 4,452,911 children per year. According to the CDC in 2017 there were 3,853,472 children born. Had 862,000 not been executed in an abortion that number could have been 4,715,472 … which would be more than enough to carry our society to infinity if done year after year.
Why is this so important …
Whenever a country’s rate drops below approximately 2.1 then populations will eventually start to shrink.
According to BBC.COM … There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having, say researchers.
Their report found fertility rate reductions meant nearly half of countries were now facing a “baby bust” – meaning there are insufficient children to maintain their population size. The researchers said the findings were a “huge surprise”. And, there would be profound consequences for societies with “more grandparents than grandchildren”.
In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. The fertility rate all but halved to 2.4 children per woman by last year. But, that masks huge variation between nations. The fertility rate in Niger, west Africa, is 7.1, but in the Mediterranean island of Cyprus women are having one child, on average.
In the UK, the rate is 1.7, similar to most Western European countries. As stated earlier the rate in the U. S. is below 1.8 children per child bearing aged females.
The chart below which was taken from the BBC.com article shows how births have declined worldwide since 1950. I have drawn a line across that approximates the number of births in America now.
More economically developed countries including most of Europe, the US, South Korea and Australia have lower fertility rates. It does not mean the number of people living in these countries is falling, at least not yet as the size of a population is a mix of the fertility rate, death rate and migration.
It can also take a generation, for changes in fertility rate to take hold. But, Prof Murray said: “We will soon be transitioning to a point where societies are grappling with a declining population.” Half the world’s nations are still producing enough children to grow, but as more countries advance economically, more will have lower fertility rates.
I believe that since America is the most advanced country in the world, economically, this will have a huge adverse affect on us.
Here are the top ten birth countries in the world according to the BBC article I’ve researched:
Please note that not only are some of these the poorest countries in the world most of these countries have large populations of the Muslim faith living in them.
Here’s the countries that are producing the least children now:
You can read the rest of the BBC article here (and I encourage you to do so as it will open your eyes to the problems that could exist in the near future).
According to research from the Wikipedia website (here), the Muslim countries are producing, on average, 3.1 children for every 1 child bearing aged woman. That’s about 72% higher than the U.S and 82% higher than western European countries.
By 2050 … just 30 years from now …
On April 2, 2015, the Pew Research Center published a demographic study about “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050” with projections of the growth of Islam and reasons why “Islam will grow faster than any other major religion.” The study concluded that the global Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population due primarily to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims.
- If current trends continue, by 2050 the number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
- In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.
- In India, a Hindu majority will be retained, but India will also have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia which in 2015 has the largest Muslim population.
- In the United States, Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion, so Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion.
While there are various reasons for this projected growth … here are some of the major ones found by the Pew Research Study:
- The change in the world’s religions is driven primarily by differences in fertility rates and the size of youth populations among the world’s major religions, as well as by people switching faiths.
- Fertility rates. The world’s total population is expected to rise to 9.3 billion, a 35% increase between 2010 and 2050, However, over that same period, Muslims, who have a comparatively youthful population with high fertility rates, are projected to increase by 73%. Muslim growth benefits from the fertility factor because globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman. This is above a replacement level of 2.1 which is the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population.
- Size of youth population. In 2010, more than a quarter of the world’s total population (27%) was under the age of 15. But a higher percentage of Muslims (34%) were younger than 15.
- Size of old population. In 2010, 11% of the world’s population was at least 60 years old, but only 7% of Muslims were over 60.
- Switching. Between 2010 and 2050 a gain of 3,220,000 Muslim adherents is projected to come through switching, mostly found in the Sub Saharan Africa (2.9 million). Also, the Muslim population are projected to add 1.3 million and lose 880,000 via switching, for a net gain of 420,000 between 2015 and 2020.
- Migration. Migration is the third reason for the Muslim population growth. For example, 1.8% of the projected growth in Europe is attributed to Muslims migrating in.
What are governments doing about the slow rate of birth?
Bottom Line: Governments world wide are doing little to fix the problem. This is one of those that we cannot depend on any government to fix during our current period of “political correctness.” Only a few governments are openly discussing the issue that I know of; Poland who produced a video calling on its citizens to “breed like rabbits,” and Denmark who urged it’s citizens to “Do it for Denmark” and have more sex on vacations.
There is one European Leader who has addressed the problem with real zeal … Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a nationalist who has governed since 2010 and was reelected this year. Orban’s speeches about demographics are usually accompanied by a robust defense of “Christian” values and a rant against immigration, and he was recently labeled a “racist” by U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein for a speech in which he said: “we do not want our own color…mixed with those of others.” With birth rates languishing at 1.5 births per woman, Orban has offered a bulwark against migration and the “mixed cultures” he frequently rallies against: Have more Hungarian babies.
His government is offering a package of incentives that would make aspiring parents tear up around the world: up to five free IVF cycles for couples having trouble conceiving; three years parental leave; housing subsidies per child running up to tens of thousands of euros; subsidized childcare. The aim is to get to the 2.1 replacement level by 2030, and Novak says their policies have already boosted the birth rate from 1.3 in 2011 to 1.5 today.
But here in America and most of Europe we are doing nothing. The one thing we could do is simply to outlaw needless abortions. By needless I am referring to those that are done simply as a contraceptive method for the mothers who failed to use contraception. Many people claim that rape and incest is a good reason for an abortion. That may be but here’s what we know:
- The number of rapes and sexual assaults against females in the on an annual average is approximately 250,000.
- The number of children conceived from rape each year is about 7,750 to 12,500.
So, how does 7,750 to 12,500 conceptions from rape lead to 862,000 abortions last year if abortion is not being used as a contraceptive?
I see three things the government could do to curb abortion and improve the rate of birth in the United States – if not also in the rest of the world:
- Charge abortion as a crime of murder in the first or second degree for the doctor performing it when there is no real reason to perform it other than to take the child away from the womb (e.g. no health danger to the mother).
- Equally charge the mother with a crime of murder in the first or second degree for requesting the doctor kill her child.
- Reduce the bureaucratic paperwork on legal child adoption in the U.S. and make it easier for mothers who do not want the child to put it up for adoption and make it easier for those families who cannot have children, or who want more children, to adopt an unwanted child.
In addition to the above … the U.S. Government and the other governments of lower fertility rate countries need to get on a plan to increase births by giving tax incentives or other incentives for women to reproduce (such as longer maternity leave time requirements of employers). They could do this for little or no cost if they would simply take away from some other programs that promote laziness and non-working (like welfare) and put it toward those who want to support themselves and family.
In Summary …
We need more babies or we need to get ready for an entire population shift that could destroy us. When we end up having more older non-working people in the population than we do working younger people … we are in for a “world of hurt.”
Remember in 1940 we had 159.4 workers for every 1 social security beneficiary. By 2013 that number had dropped to 2.8 workers for every 1 social security beneficiary. Source SSA.GOV.
With people living longer and creating less replacements for the workforce … we could be spelling disaster for the American Human Race as we know it today.
I’d love to hear your thoughts …
Jerry Nix, Freewavemaker, LLC