The depopulation of Europe and mass migration

Great Debates
1

On current demographic trends, most of Europe is going to suffer significant population decreases over the next century. It is projected, for example, that Germany’s population will decrease from its current level of approx. 80 million all the way down to 25 million by 2100. It is not expected that these trends will reverse - it would require a drastic increase in fertility rates and/or immigration at 4-5 times its current level. Given the opposition to immigration in Europe at its current level, such an increase appears to be politically impossible.
Most of what I’ve read about this issue addresses issues like the funding of pensions and the affect on European economics. But I’m wondering it there may be a more fundamental result - mass forced immigration.

After all, as Europe’s population is decreasing, Asia’s and Africa’s population will be increasing, on current trends. The ability of those countries to support it populace will be increasingly strained, and there will be old Europe, able to support considerably larger numbers than will be present, and with significantly reduced military potential.

What do you think is the likelihood that we will see a modern version of the invasions of the Aryans, Goths, Huns, etc. into Europe in the next hundred or so years?

Sua

2

I believe that population decline is inevitable. It can be argued that human populations are akin to bacterial cultures in that population has a ceiling of sorts and I guess I’m arguing that to some degree. Europe has been populated to a much higher degree for a lot longer than the US and enjoys a standard of living that is higher than most of the Asian and African countries where birthrates are still high. I postulate that there may be a relationship between crowding, standards of living, and population decline, i.e. high standard of living in crowded conditions over an indefinite period of time leads to population decline. Japan comes to mind as one example of this. Anyone have an idea what type of statistics we might need to show/disprove this?

Full on invasions by groups of displaced persons would not, in all likelihood occur. However, I can see waves of refugees similar to the Cuban boat people and the steady stream of Mexican immigrants coming to the US changing the character of industrialized nations where populations are otherwise declining.

cj

3

Several months ago, I read a piece on this subject, plus the fact that unlike Europe the United States would double its population in a short period of time.***** The conclusion was that the United States would continue to prosper, while Europe would suffer economically.

I cannot cite since I’d love to find this article again myself. Such forecasts should always be viewed with caution. I remember forecasts of the “paperless office” and that by 2000 we would not be eating food, just taking some pills, during the day. :dubious:

*****[sup]Caused by immigration of ethnic groups whose cultures promote large families.[/sup]

4

Not likely, I don’t think. At least not an invasion in the military sense. Increased immigration is probably the only likely route, but as with most things, it will probably take a crisis to turn things around, and by crisis, I mean something immediately visible and relevant to the people involved.

Europeans will probably continue on this path until they eventually notice the population dropping, the smaller number of children, and maybe a significant increase in the number of immigrants in comparison to native populations. Then governments will likely introduce incentives to influence the people to have more children, like bigger tax breaks, or even financial payouts. In Canada, the province of Quebec went through a similar situation, where it’s birth rate was sinking, and only immigration was adding to the total population. Becasue of this, the government started paying people to have babies, giving benefit cheques for each child, the more the better. I can’t remember of they still do it, but to be fair, the population increase in Quebec doesn’t compare to that in Ontario, Alberta or BC (although separatism didn’t help much either). But it was one type of measure that Europe may look at in the future.

5

Is lower population necessarily a huge problem? Switzerland does quite well with less than half of Germany’s population. They mightt be smaller, percentage-wise, on the global economic scale, but they needn’t necessarily suffer a lowering of living standards. Assuming, of course, the tax policy is changed to aleviate the negative effects of a shrinking population.

6

That isn’t the point I’m trying to make. I’m talking about the likely situation of an underpopulated Europe in the context of a heavily overpopulated rest of the world - IIRC, it is expected that in 2100 the world population will be around 9 billion.
I am also assuming that Europe continues in its opposition to increased immigration.

In sum, I see a situation where Europe is holding on to more territory than it needs to support its population, while the rest of the world will need more land. What happens then?

Sua

7

I thought a mass “invasion” of Europe was already taking place.

I just read this article in Wired

It’s funny that Europe is growing in so many ways:

A Eurpean president and politburo?!

15 nation EU becomes 25 nation EU.

But it lacks in the most important. If your population shrinks down to nothing, then everything else becomes moot.

8

Scule

Europe has definitely noticed and is trying to promote more babies.

From a NY times article:

"There is no longer a single country in Europe where people are having enough children to replace themselves when they die. Italy recently became the first nation in history where there are more people over the age of 60 than there are under the age of 20. This year Germany, Greece and Spain will probably all cross the same eerie divide. "

"Even in the developing world, where overcrowding remains a major cause of desperation and disease, the pace of growth has slowed almost everywhere. Since 1965, according to United Nations population data, the birth rate in the Third World has been cut in half – from 6 children per woman to 3. In the last decade alone, for example, the figure in Bangladesh has fallen from 6.2 children per woman to 3.4. That’s a bigger drop than in the previous two centuries. "

Then the article talks about how birth incentives no longer work.

"Perhaps no country has tried harder to change the future than Sweden.

Decades ago, with its birth rate dwindling, Sweden decided to support family life with a public generosity found nowhere else. Couples who both work and have small children enjoy cash payments, tax incentives and job leaves combined with incredible flexibility to work part time for as many as eight years after a child’s birth… So there should be no surprise that Sweden had the highest birth rate in Europe by 1991.

With 10 million mostly middle-class people, Sweden may have little in common with any other. But its experience clearly suggested that if countries wanted more babies they would have to pay for them, through tax incentives, parental leave programs and family support. At least that’s what nearly all the experts thought it showed.

“We were a model for the world. They all came to examine us. People thought we had some secret. Unfortunately, it seems that we do not.”

Sometime after 1990, the bottom dropped out of Sweden’s baby boom. Between then and 1995, the birth rate fell sharply, from 2.12 to 1.6. Most people blamed the economy, which had turned sour and forced politicians to trim – ever so slightly – the country’s benefit program. It is normal for people to put off having children when the future looks doubtful, so the change made sense.

But then, the economy got better and the birth rate fell faster and farther than ever. By March of this year the figure for Sweden was the almost same as that in Japan – 1.42. And though it’s too soon to say, officials here think it might be falling still. "
It’s a fascinating atticle. Give it a read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gray.htm

9

Sua:

Yeah, I did kind of miss the main point of the OP. If you’re talking about am overt war waged by a coalition of 3rd World countries, I don’t think so. The 1st World has too strong a military to make it anywhere near a fair fight. If you’re talking about surge in illegal aliens, then maybe that’ll happen.

10

Oh, and as far as the OP, the article has this to say.

11

This issue is not limited to Europe. Japan has similar problems.

From the IMF website:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/03/muhleise.htm

The increased cost of ‘living well’ has escalated so rapidly that people cannot afford large families. This results in a lower population and a smaller tax base – which could lead to economic disaster if Europe and Japan’s aging population fails to produce a next generation large enough to support their social welfare and pension programs.

While Japan does not have as much land as Europe, it does have the same potential for economic collapse. It is not a major leap to guess that most industrialized nations will have similar problems and will adopt the (unfortunate) policy solution of borrowing huge sums to cover any shortfall.

This is not an ideal situation, and struggling legislatures may further tighten immigration policies to reduce spending on social programs to cut overall costs. But then what’s left? Higher taxes for the middle and upper classes? Heck, then even the ‘white collar’ jobs will start to move to developing nations (like India) and completely wreck the entire Western world’s economic model. The only solution may be to accept a new wave of immigrants and re-establish the industrial workforce.

12

Those invasions were consequences of the collapse of Roman empire and demise of ancient Greece civilization. Similar large movements of peoples happened earlier after the fall of Minoan civilization. Modern Western civilization still appears quite vigorous and has overwhelming military superiority: Roman legions were far more vulnerable against barbarian hordes even in the best of times. I can’t see any threat of invasion during the next hundred years and even far beyond.

Immigration from developing countries is another matter, of course. Uncontrolled immigration can potentially break the civic institutions and sweep away the host culture. However, that’s precisely why it will be always controlled. The bigger danger might lie in which methods of control are chosen by Western countries. If any country will find it necessary in future to resort to systematic internment and mass deportations of new-comers, that might have a profoundly adverse effect and lead to corruption and disintegration of the modern democratic polities.

13

I think there are a few things that need to be realized.

  1. Europe was the first part of the world to experience a population explosion based on an increase of the birth rate over the death rate. The process that we are now seeing in much of the “Third World” started and finished in Europe from around 1700 to 1900. This doesn’t even consider the tens of millions of Europeans who fueled North American, South American, and Australian growth.

  2. Europe is very densly populated by global standards - apart from Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Even if Europe’s population declined by a third in the next century, it would still be a very populous area.

  3. It is difficult to predict population growth. In the 1960’s, many people were predicting Brazil and Mexico would have much larger populations than they actually do today. It was assumed that the current cultural patterns would hold. Sometimes catastrophes occurr. AIDS has cut the once rapid growth rates of several African nations. In the near future this may impact India and other areas as well.

14

This should not surprise anyone - it’s the law of unintended consequences at work.

In most western nations, and especially in Europe, there has been a huge financial bias placed on society, which punishes people who have children and rewards the aged. Government budgets are increasingly dominated by Social Security and Medicare payments, financed by FICA taxes which are regressive and paid for by young working people.

Force both people in a marriage to have to work to cover their taxes, and you make it extremely costly to have children. My wife and I wanted to have two children, but we only have one because we both work, and day care for two children is over $1,000/mo around here. For many people having children just isn’t an option.

Another unintended consequence of heavy subsidy for the aged is that it breaks down the extended family. Back in the days before Social Security, it was common for elderly parents to move back in with their children, and partially pay for their way by helping to raise the grandchildren. This not only gave kids a stronger sense of family, but it spread the burden of child-rearing around and reduced the social cost of having children. Around here, if you look at houses more than 30-40 years old, you’ll find a LOT of them are described as having “mother-in-law suites”. Now, you never find those any more.

Now that Seniors can live on their own, supported by the government, it’s much less likely that they will move back in with their children. So young parents have to raise their children unassisted.

Given the powerful economic costs associated with having kids, it’s no wonder people are choosing to have fewer of them.

15

Of course this is from the perspective of a developed nation which requires enormous investment in educational opportunity for a future citizen to be able to participate. Today’s better paid workers in an advanced society are screened not only for education and skills, but for character, demeanor and accomplishments that require much additional outlay in time and money for parents to give their children a half assed chance to compete effectively. Today the spectre of having elderly children still sponging off mom and dad long after formal education is completed is all too real.

16

autz thanks for the article, very interesting.

I agree with what has been posted elsewhere here. I recall a psychology professor in university going over this issue, and it basically came down to financial factors. Here, in western democracies like Europe and North America, children are an economic burden that put a strain on family resources. Add to that the fact that for most middle class couples, both spouses need to work in order to be able to afford what is considered a normal standard of living (though much of that may be considered unimportant) and you can see why having children becomes so difficult. Then, as stated already, you add pensions and old age security to the mix, as well as universal health care in many countries (which is mostly used by the elderly), and you can see how birth rates are on the decline.

In third world areas, on the other hand, children tend to be a net asset, one because of increased child mortality rates which mean you need to have more children in order to ensure at least some survive, and two because children can contribute more to the family in terms of work (on the family farmland, or even child labour factories or whatever) than in the West. There are fewer costs involved because there is less available, so women who are not required to work full time can have more children. Thus higher birth rates.

I would submit that there will likely be a point at which things will turn around in the third world. HIV is probably the biggest problem right now for Africa, and is increasing exponentially in India, China and Eastern Europe. Already Africa is feeling the strain, and whole masses of prime-production aged adults (20-45) are dying, devastating economies. People will be forced to accept safe sex messages, and birth rates will decline as people attempt to avoid dying. India and China scare me the most, as an AIDS researcher, because there seems to be so little being done in an area of such immense population density.:frowning:

17

There is a bit of dishonesty in this debate by making it look as if the older people are “supported by the state”.
Reminder: those who are pensioned now, worked and contributed with their taxes to the social security system, from which the pensioned of their time could profit after having worked themselves when they were young.

The problem is thus not related to the elderly people now harvesting what they worked and payed for.

The problem is that there are less younger people who work and thus pay taxes and with that also secure the survival of the social security system. This causes shortages and those who work now are with every reason worried that there wont be much left by the time they themselves get the right to receive a pension (to keep it by this one single issue).

There are many propositions made by governments and also on European level to counter this and there are some initiatives who try to give a solution for the problem. It is my impression that these are still in a sort of “try-out” stage. Yet this doesn’t mean that solutions are simply impossible.

About migration: I don’t think this would solve the problem right now, but maybe it could contribute to a solution it in the long term. It all depends of how immigrants look at their situation and how much they themselves are prepared to invest in their second homeland. Sending your savings “back home” isn’t much of a contribution to the system of the country where you live and work. It can be a contribution though to the country you come from.
On the other hand: Migration is a problem for every country when highly educated young people leave to contribute with their knowledge to the prosperity of the receiving nations.
Braindrain is a loss for every country. Also for Europe.
Salaam. A

18

Aldebaran: something you may not realize is that in America, when senior citizens don’t live with their children and are no longer able to care for themselves, they frequently end up in nursing homes. Nursing home care is extremely expensive, and even if a person has saved tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for retirement, that money can be gone in a few years. Once a person’s assets are depleted, the person’s nursing home care (if they haven’t bought a long-term care insurance policy, which are very expensive and few people can afford if they haven’t planned extremely well) is frequently paid for by the state (in the form of Medicaid).

When the U.S. retirement age for Social Security purposes was set at 65, nobody anticipated that so many people would live so long, and would require such expensive skilled care. It’s the down side of improved medicine and greater longevity; you may live longer, but you will need more help toward the end, and that help will be more expensive. A few hundred dollars in monthly government pension over a few years for someone who has contributed to the system to decades is one thing, but several thousand dollars a month per retiree over 20 years or more is something entirely different in budgetary terms. The system is already stretched, and is going to be stretched further.

19

EvaLuna,

I wasn’t commenting on the US system, my reply was refering to a post describing the system in European countries.

There the social security system is bvased on the principle of solidarity and the principle of contributing with your taxmoney to it as long as you work in order to maintain it. It is a

20

sorry, post was gone too quickly:

Imeant to add:

It is a very different situation then it is in the USA.