It’s a well known fact that the population-growth in the west (North-America, Europe and Australia) have been very low for decades, and some countries in Europe even had negative growth. Even with high immigration rate the growth are small
the population growth rate in EU is 0,15% (in Europe as total 0,20%)
North-America: 0,90%
Australia: 0,85%
The growth outside the west:
Latino-America: 1,1%
Asia: 1,7%
Middle-East: 2,3%
Africa: 2,5%
The population in The Middle-East have increased from about 60 millions in 1950 to about 270 mill today * (350 % increase). *
Africa have increased from about 225 mill in 1950 to about 905 mill today (300 %).
Asia have increased from about 1400 mill in 1950 to about 3905 mill today* (180 %)*
Latino-America have increased from about 167 mill in 1950 to about 560 mill today (235 %)
…while the west (Europe, North-America & Australia) have increased from about 731 millions in 1950 - to about 1088 millions today (50 %)
the fact is that the population in the west is a far less significant part of the world population today than in 1950. In 1950 about 30% of the world population lived in the west, while the figure today have dropped to 17%.
This figure will probably drop to 12-13% by 2040
The non-western population have increased from 30 % to over 80 % today and will probably be close to 90 % in 30-40 years or so
How can we deal with this, and can we deal with it - or should we ?
Will this decrease in population finally be the end of the western civilization?
Well, western civilization will “end” in the sense that it’ll gradually morph into a form that a current resident would find uncomfortable. Heck, old people complain that this has happened even within their own lifetimes.
I think the best solution remains enshrining basic rights in a simple manner and making it difficult as hell to make amendments. Also, maintain a secular public education system to rapidly assimilate the children of immigrants coupled with artistic freedom allowing those children to become too jaded and stupefied by a corporation-driven 24-hour bombardment of music videos, computer games and internet porn so they’ll be too fucked up to stage a revolution.
What constitutes western civilization though? Many of the traits associated with western civilization like womens rights, minority rights, representative government, free markets, technological innovation, individual freedom, etc. are catching on all over the world. Japan is far more western now than it was 80 years ago, and so are China & India. Most people prefer to live in a society of rights, representative government and technology given the opportunity.
Plus the reality is once medicine reaches a point where childhood mortality becomes low (under 5% or so) people stop having more than 2-3 kids per couple. So the growth in Africa or Asia you see today will not apply 50 years from now because in 50 years Africa will have low childhood mortality ratings and a lower total fertility rate. When a nation industrializes it is going to stop growing in population so rapidly.
To answer the OP: A knife that has had three new blades and two new handles is still substantially the same knife. Only a minority of Americans, I’m sure, now descend from what used to be called “Old American” stock – white Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic families whose ancestors were resident here at the time of the Revolution. Yet this is still the same nation as it was at the time of or even long before the Revolution. Immigrants gradually assimilated to our culture – in the process, changing it in many ways. The process will continue, here and in Europe. Western civilization will change but it will survive and it will still be something you can call Western civilization.
BTW, I’ve read Pat Buchanan’s Death of the West – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_West – written from substantially the same POV as the OP, and “bullshit” is too kind a word for it. In the 1850s, nativists of the “Know-Nothing” Party – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-Nothings – were raising the same alarms about the influx of Irish Catholics – like Buchanan. If we survived the Irish, we can survive the Mexicans.
“Past performance is no guarantee of future returns”
Seriously, I don’t think the issue is about the US surviving the incoming immigrants.
I think the issue is that in several years, the number of people in non-Western countries will far eclipse the number of people in Western countries.
Even today, most of the people on Earth live in Asia and the gap is increasing.
Think about it: One out of every 3 humans is Chinese or Indian.
To be honest, I don’t really care if in a couple hundred years not one white guy was left, but it is interesting to see how the global population dynamics and cultures will evolve.
As I recall, this question was being asked 100 years ago in response to the increasing number of Eastern Europeans and Catholics emigrating to the US. I’ll leave the readers to draw their own conclusions, although I suspect, as usual, I’ll disagree with Minotaurus’s. By the way, where did your ancestors come from, sir?
He means Pat Buchanan. He’s saying that Pat Buchanan’s nativism is similar to the old nativism of the 1840s-50s, in spite of the fact that Buchanan is (partly) a member of one of the ethnic groups that the old nativists warned about.
Will give you an idea of The US’s demographic breakdown.
Of course this is Demographic information, which may or may not be what you’re looking for.
The Census.gov site also states that the foreign-born population is about 11%. Maybe that’s what you’re looking for.
I’m worried less about the immigrants coming in than the xenophobia, fundamentalism, etc. that we’re currently experiencing with our “native” population.
