Be careful what you wish for.

Religious fundamentalists in America fear changing demographics and think banning abortion will slow down the declining (white) birth rate -- but the opposite may happen.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3mv84/poland-abortion-ban

Last year – two years after Catholic-majority Poland banned abortion even in the case of foetal abnormalities, sparking massive street protests – the country recorded its lowest number of births since the Second World War.

Recent data from the state research agency CBOS showed that less than a third of women aged 18-45 were planning on having children. Around two thirds of 500 women surveyed said the new abortion rules were making people less likely to want to get pregnant, according to a poll by ​United Surveys for the Polish media Dziennik Gazeta Prawna and RMF24.

If the country’s right-wing leadership had hoped that the change in the law would herald a return to large Polish families and “traditional” values, it has spectacularly backfired.

Today, abortion is only officially allowed if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if it puts the mother’s life at risk.

Look at 2022 population pyramid https://www.populationpyramid.net/poland/2022/

Their economy is in for a rough ride in the next 20 years

Thank you for that chart.

I'm skeptical of the argument that the prohibition against abortion has significantly affected the fertility rate. My reason for saying this is that as a demographics nerd I know that changes in government policy rarely if ever affect birth rates in the short or medium term, arguably even the long term.

We have a lot of empirical evidence on this topic since governments often try to influence household formation. Sure, China's ruthlessly enforced One Child Policy worked since the penalties were literally vital, but Beijing has been unable to reverse the trend now that it faces a demographic crisis. Japan's experience is the same: you can offer all sorts of incentives to propagate and yet people's decisions inexorably reflect the more fundamental dynamics. The bottom line is that fertility falls as education and living standards rise. Italy and other rapidly aging European countries have run into the same problem.

anybody's article actually hedges its bets on whether the ban on abortion is a major factor. It notes that Polish fertility has been falling for a decades. "Birthrates have long been declining across the West, but in Poland the drop is particularly steep. . . Many women cite concerns about money, housing and the future as reasons for wanting not to have children, or delay getting pregnant."

Moe's chart shows the same thing. Poles had a very high fertility rate until the Soviet glacis collapsed 30+ years ago and living standards began to rise. Then women's willingness to bear children started to fall as alternative futures involving further education and careers became available. That's the usual pattern, and Poland fits it to a "t." To tie this to the abortion restriction, we would need to see an acceleration in the decline that dates to the adoption of the new law and persists for years thereafter. We don't have anything like that evidence yet. Moreover, UN data show that so far 2023 has brought a marginal increase in Polish fertility, which, if vindicated, will contradict the narrative in this thread.

I think the Polish law is an enormity because it robs women of control over their bodies. But that moral statement is independent of the abortion ban's possible impact on fertility. In my view this is the sounder argument.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the Polish law is an enormity because it
> robs women of control over their bodies. But that
> moral statement is independent of the abortion
> ban's possible impact on fertility. In my view
> this is the sounder argument.


I agree.

My point is that the fundies think an abortion ban will slow the population decline, but it won't for reasons that have nothing to with abortion.

WNs and fundies in the USA think the same thing, and it won't work here for similar reasons.

We are on the same page as far as that goes, but at some point we must ask whether they are that abjectly stupid.

What's the alternative explanation? Pandering to their constituents. I am so cynical that I suspect the conspicuously moronic are sometimes motivated by other incentives--like doing what is necessary to increase one's own political influence by giving the punters what they want.

In the US context, for instance, I reckon that some of those Harvard- and Yale-educated pols know their policies are stupid or even counter-effective and persist for the simple reason that they want one day to run for president.

Ignorance is forgivable, tactical immorality is not.

Don't forget the religious component.

https://jemartisby.substack.com/p/the-myth-that-powers-white-christian

"America was founded as a Christian nation; the founders were traditional Christians; the founding documents are biblically based; God has therefore bestowed immense wealth and power on America and given it a mission to spread freedom and religion around the world; but that mission and those blessings are now threatened by the presence of non-Whites, non-Christians and non-native-born people on American soil."

Does it matter if those in power don't really believe, but do as their supporters do anyway?

The way the rank and file fundies in the pews see it, all the storms, political and economic troubles, natural disasters, etc are warnings from Sky Daddy that we aren't following the "rule book" and the only way to make like nice, happy, and safe again is to ban "race mixing," same-sex marriage, gender equality, women's rights, environmental and gun restrictions, ya ya ya.

"tactical immorality is not." I really enjoy some of your lines.

Decline of country's birthrate opens up a plethora of talking points. Do I think an abortion ban decreases birth rate? I would need more data.

I found this chart which shows the average age of woman having their first child. https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb/en/Table?IndicatorCode=34

Google declining birthrate in Japan which gives some interesting theories including environmental.

Interesting. Looking deeper at this web link...if you can believe it...If this is at all accurate, it shows most of Europe (except UK), on a similar trajectory of a total loss of all population by 2100. North and South America show a decline, but not that bad. Even most of Asia drops at least by half. But the real eye opener is Africa...triples to over 3 Billion people. Guess who's taking over the whole world after 2100 AD! It's not China.

Some of our grandkids may still be living then!

Yes!

The charts are accurate, at least with regard to trends so far and into the reasonably distant future. And yes, "demography is destiny," meaning that these trends will change the world.

You need to be careful about projecting lines too far into the future: "if present trends continue" is a phrase that would, if accurate, have resulted in Mormonism taking over the world by about this time. The same caveat should be born in mind when thinking about the long-term future. Few if any countries will see their populations anywhere near zero. At some point the fertility rate will start to rise and even Japan's population will stabilize and then begin to increase.

But for the medium term, what you infer is correct. As I've written before, the two most important factors behind demographic change are 1) rising standards of living, and 2) greater education for women. Where those two dynamics are at work--i.e., in the rich and middle-income countries--the fertility rate falls gradually, then declines to below the 2.1 per woman necessary to keep the population stable, and keeps decreasing. One implication is that if you want to stop overpopulation from destroying the world, the answer is to invest in girls in the developing world. Here we are looking at a policy that is both prudent (saving the environment) and moral (improving the lives of half the people in the world).

Another implication is that countries with older population profiles will see slower economic growth. That is true in spades. Look at Japan, which is an excellent example of a country whose demographics have caused GDP growth to stall for decades. China's at the beginning of a similar but sharper decline, which may be why Xi Jinping is pressing Taiwan so hard right now. For in 20 years China's growth rate will be a lot lower and its relative economic and military strength less daunting. Even India will enter a demographically-induced slowdown in 10-20 years.

Another implication is that the only way for an aging society to maintain a decent rate of GDP growth is by importing labor. That's the reason the United States fares so well in relative terms: immigration is large enough to increase the labor supply as well as the demand for goods and services, thereby keeping economic growth strong. You'll see something similar happening in southern Europe and even Japan, where the authorities have quietly encouraged immigration even as the tatemae of tight immigration laws remain in place.

But yes, again, you are reading the data correctly.

I do have a quibble with the population pyramid projections. It looks like they are just doing a linear projection into the future, with various countries having near zero population by 2100.

In reality, declining populations decline exponentially, just like they grow exponentially. Exponential decay goes down relatively quickly initially, but the curve tends to flatten out, so it takes a very long time to actually get close to zero.

I’m puzzled as to why their population projections look linear rather than (negative) exponential.

I suspect you are using the word "pyramid" in reference to the line chart on the right whereas I'm using the term for the chart on the left. The linear projection on the right is, for the reasons I offered in my second paragraph and you describe here, problematic. "Current trends" rarely if ever go on forever.

The chart on the left, however, is credible. Why? Because the people in each cohort are already born. It's a matter of counting rather then projecting.

I presume we are on the same page?

We are on the same page. I was referring to the chart on the right.

That’s also why I said earlier that Poland needs a bunch of immigrants under age 30. In fact, a bunch of young mothers with infants and small children would be ideal. Men under 30 would be fine too, but no way the military would let them leave Ukraine.

Yes, it is expensive to educate children, but then they are both productive and consumers for the next four decades plus.

Finance Clerk--

A friend serendipitously just sent me one of those guest links to an article on African fertility and population growth from The Economist magazine.

The article is entitled "The world’s peak population may be smaller than expected," and subtitled "New evidence suggests Africa’s birth rates are falling fast." It provides evidence that fertility is declining much faster than even the most recent data seemed to indicate. Since I can't reproduce the chart, I'll just eyeball some of the data here.

Uganda's fertility rate was nearly 7 in 2005-2007 but is now 5.0.

Zambia was 6.2 and is now 4.7.

Rwanda was 6.1 and is now 4.1.

Ethiopia was 5.3 and is now 4.1

You get the idea.

This new information indicates that the previous projections for future growth are probably much too high. The population of Nigeria, for instance, which is Africa's most populous country, is now on track to reach just 550 million in 2100 as opposed to the 900 million previously forecasted. For the continent as a whole, the 3.4 billion projection for 2100 must now be cut to about perhaps a little over two billion--which is obviously a major change.

The article quotes a prominent demographer at Johns Hopkins as saying "We have been underestimating what is happening in terms of fertility change in Africa. [It now appears that] Africa will probably undergo the same kind of rapid changes as east Asia did.”

Yes, East Asia, meaning Japan, China, and South Korea.

Then there's the list of contributing factors. Birth control and family planning are important in this respect, but so too is the ubiquitous issue of women's education. Thus. . .

"Girls’ education also makes a big difference to fertility rates. In Angola, for instance, women without any schooling have 7.8 children, whereas those with tertiary education have 2.3. Educated women have a better chance of a job, so the opportunity cost of staying at home to look after children is higher and they are more likely to win arguments with their husbands over how many kids to have."

The ramifications of these trends are profound. First, the new information probably shaves a billion people off global population in 2100--news for which all four of the surviving polar bears will presumably be grateful. Second, it implies rising incomes and standards of living through much of Africa, which will help stabilize countries' politics as well as shrinking most of the worst pockets of poverty. Third, the new data means that there will be much less immigration into Europe than the Cassandras have been prophesying. In fact, fewer immigrants will retard Europe's GDP growth since immigration is one of the main factors bolstering the economies of countries whose domestic populations are already shrinking.

Interestingly, these changes will entail a significant redistribution of income and wealth away from the rich immigrant-dependent nations and towards the poorer African countries, whose workers will received higher wages. Good news on many scores.

> news for which all four of
> the surviving polar bears
> will presumably be grateful.


I feel a dreadful, even remorseful, je ne sais quoi, that I've been a bad influence . . .

Are you passing out free subscriptions to The Economist? I call dibs.

I think we can expect (right or wrong) to see a lot more people with severe abnormalities born.

That is not good considering the people forcing birth are also doing all they can to cut aid to children in multiple ways. Many of us know it is a life changing event to have a child that requires continuous care and medical expenses.

If I had certain genetic markers in my family, I would not risk a pregnancy. If I had no other options should an accidental pregnancy occur, it would make me think twice about sex out of fear.

It can cost substantially more money to educate high-need children as well. I'm not talking about garden-variety ADHD or mild learning disabilities. A child with profound disabilities can cost a public school system $80K or more per year to educate and service properly. Advocates of charter schools and school vouchers seldom take that into account. I support the concept of charter schools, but those schools need to pay into the pot for the public school students they won't or can't take.

Thanks, summer. I can only imagine how hard it must be to accommodate every situation. There is a special bus that picks up a special needs child in my neighborhood. I can't express how much I respect all the people involved trying to provide education to our children with so little support.

While so many people are busy finding ways to funnel money away from public schools to private schools, the ability for public schools to function decreases. I don't understand why there are so many selfish people who only care about their own child. When the community suffers, we all suffer.

I have been expecting exactly what the vice article reports. Women will start being very conscientious about contraceptives, and the overall birthrate will drop.

As moehoward pointed out, Poland already has had a collapse of the birthrate for 25 years or so. An influx of a few million Ukraines may help them out some, though what they really need is young people up to about age 30.

There may or may not be ways to reverse the declining birthrates, but draconian anti-abortion rules are not it.

The next step might be to forbid birth control. I know there are people here already trying to do that. Scary.

It's not just women who are taking precautions. I read that more men are opting for vasectomies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326707/

"Vasectomy in Poland has been performed for over 18 years, however, accessibility has been limited. Recently, the procedure has been gaining in popularity. Now the age structure and partnership status correspond with the data from other centres in the world. Our study showed positive trends of co-responsibility of both partners for procreation and family planning."

It seems that in an effort to protect the fetus the government is almost forcing birth control on women and men.

Yet more corporate propaganda.

?

Corporate propaganda will always state that low birthrates are a bad thing when they are actually a good thing.

Ah. Ok. Declining population does have its downside, but continual exponential growth has an even bigger downside. Better that the growth stop via contraception than the old standbys, starvation and war.

In a rare rebuttal to you Dave. It depends on what we are talking about. Low birth rates are just fine as long the younger population is greater than the older (for a country). Look at China and Japan who are extreme examples of this.

I have no basis for the following opinion other than a self-serving opinion: If a reasonable man is told that abortion as a means of birth control is no longer available, he might be more likely to wear a condom, and that might be contributing to a lower birth rate.

Reasonable man…more likely…condoms.

You so cute.

But if men carried purses on the regular, they’d have a place to stash said condoms, and I can get behind that 100%.

One wallet, one condom!  I think it's the law...

:)

The irony is delicious!

I get what you're saying, but that's based on the assumption that population growth was the goal of anti-abortionists.

Not being one myself, I can't say for sure that that's the case, but I figured it was just the pure delight to be found in spitefully controlling others that was the big draw.

If I were a right wing fundamentalist I would celebrate the fact that my liberal enemies don’t have enough children to sustain themselves. You lose the demographic war right there. You simply outbreed your foe.

Islamic extremists fully understand this.

The air in Europe will be filled with the call to prayer. The great churches will become mosques.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I were a right wing fundamentalist I would
> celebrate the fact that my liberal enemies don’t
> have enough children to sustain themselves. You
> lose the demographic war right there. You simply
> outbreed your foe.

That would just show that those fundamentalists do not understand genetics.

"Religious fundamentalists in America fear changing demographics and think banning abortion will slow down the declining (white) birth rate -- but the opposite may happen."

are you suggesting that banning abortion might or could (?) increase the (white or non-white ?) birth rate?

What is 'the opposite' U mentioned - suggested might happen ?

Until - unless some credible <long-term> research results are in & validated, like LW, I don't sense a relationship.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2023 03:26PM by GNPE.

So-called "White Extinction Fear" is one of the supposed possible unstated reasons -- covered by the fig leaf of extremist evangelicalism -- behind abortion bans, enforced cisgendered heterosexuality, etc.

In other words, banning abortion won't get more young white women pregnant, won't get the birthrate up, won't make white Christians the majority again in America, and abortion has nothing to do with declining birth rates in industrialized nations.


The birth rate goes down as the standard of living goes up, and women's literacy and education level go up.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2023 05:25AM by anybody.