CBC Discussion On Overpopulation Has Ego-Socialists In A Fit

On December 7th, 2011 Evan Jones (not verified) wrote:

Re/Madeline Weld, “Feeding The Raging Monster...” Weld asserts that increased living standards are fertility stimulants. Without statistics to support this claim, it is no more than anecdotal and apocryphal.

SHEILA: Virginia Abernethy's fertility opportunity tested this in "Not Tonight, Sweetie; No Energy". She is a well-known population anthropologist with a profound knowledge of demographic rules.

Also, if higher living standards of international migrants can lead to increased fecundity, so too can regional migration. If migration from Nova Scotia to Quebec might lead to increased birth rates, why not proscribe such migration?

SHEILA: The answer here is to have locally imposed limits on building permits in line with democratic (rather than commercially speculative) views that seek to keep local populations within the bounds of local water catchments, soil arability etc. In reality this is what local communities have always done. Immigration that is beyond the control of local communities is always imposed undemocratically and generally by people in power who stand to benefit from that immigration, which costs the local community control and security over resources and rights. So, increase citizens rights and local self-government.

If the fecundity of international migrants is the raging monster, why is futile border control the favored response over the proven efficacy of education, family planning, reproductive health, and women's empowerment? If population growth is the concern, how can we be silent on the reckless and contributory birth practices of the many major indigenous religious and cultural groups which promote large families?

SHEILA: The "efficacity of education, family planning, reproductive health, and women's empowerment" is not 'proven'. These are conditions which co-exist with other conditions, which may be part of the story. For instance, as the Great Depression bit, birthrates dropped in Western countries - Australia, France, America. Why? Because people could see that they could not afford to have children. At the same time education for women and women's rights as well as public education, access to contraception, housing shortages and laws against child labour were also increasing. Probably laws against child labour, along with access to contraception and the perception that bad times are settling in, plus limited housing, are the major disincentives to productive unions/marriage/families. See Doepke's theory on how Korea managed to cut down its birth rate when it enforced laws against child labour compared to Brazil, which allowed child labour. Poor people only have their labour to sell and their children's. If they cannot make money out of children then it does not make sense for them to have many. If they have to educate those children before they can get work, those children will become too expensive. There are other very strong factors in population stability, in different systems of land-tenure and inheritance laws, but I will save these for some other day.

If lower migrant population is the goal, a specific plan should be proposed for migration control. How much will it cost to implement, what will be the source of funds, and where/when has this approach been used successfully and in a sustainable way in the past?

Migration control was part and parcel of every local community in the past. In countries with strong democracies, such as those in Europe, where citizens actually have real rights, their rights to housing and income take precedence over those of potential new citizens. In those countries private power is still less than the state and makes it difficult for moguls to increase their capital by increasing demand for assets and resources that they own through influencing high immigration policies.

Interdiction of migrants at national borders or by fiat has proven as successful as controlling migration of Canada geese and butterflies. Lacking a detailed plan to present to the authorities, Weld risks the accusation that she is doing little more than “preaching to the choir.” Hard facts, data, and realistic action proposals are needed here before Weld can begin to be taken seriously.

In Europe those with power are citizens. Legal immigrants have some rights but not the same ones as citizens. Local communities (through prefectures etc) control the granting of work permits, accommodation and public order and building permits. The communities and government have the power to enforce policing of illegal work. Although there is a lot of illegal immigration, it does not get the same permanent foothold as in the US and Canada because it is so difficult to compete with citizens to survive well. For instance, in Europe where all education, including university education, is free, illegal immigrants cannot obtain this - so it becomes very difficult for them to remain for generations. My feeling is that all peoples need to have systems that grant strong rights to citizens and lesser rights to capital. We all need to relocalise power and to focus on local feedback as the priority when considering having children and emigrating. Communities must have the right to self-government, including limiting building permits as they agree democratically.