fertility opportunity

St Kilda Road and Hoddle Street widening to accommodate larger volumes of road traffic in Melbourne means bulldozing hundreds of beautiful, mature trees, cultivated in a time when people appreciated the importance of natural shade and beauty. This vandalism is caused by willful promotion of overpopulation by the Victorian State government. Furtively supported by an equally venal Opposition, invited economic mass immigration-caused population growth marches on like an invasion preceded by bulldozers, jack hammers and all manner of violence towards our environment and display of might by state governments. Australia grew by over half a million people between July 2016 and July 2017, although natural increase actually declined, almost certainly due to rising costs affecting Australia's fertility opportunity.[1]

Swamped by the numbers

Excuse me, but it seems that Pauline Hanson was right, at least on the numbers: We are being 'swamped' - at a rate of Overseas immigrants 63.0 : Australian citizens and residents 36.8 - by the numbers - wherever they come from. These latest growth figures were due 63% to overseas immigration; only 36.8% from natural increase between July 2016 and July 2017. (See the latest ABS graph and details below.) It doesn't matter where they come from; the point is that accommodating these numbers is overwhelming our native animal habitat, our infrastructure, our social organisation, our legal and planning system (which is changing to remove public consultation over expansion and which simply does not enforce wildlife protection laws) and our democracy - because government is more interested in feathering the pockets of the growth lobby than serving the electorate, keeping housing prices down, providing education to young people and helping local business.

We are also being swamped by hype

The cause of the growth is Australian state governments' constant invitations to overseas immigrants to come and settle here, greatly magnified by internet reach since the late 1990s. Immigration marketing is typified by the illustration we have labelled "Immigration Hype", which depicts a young couple with a baby in a leafy suburb. The reality, of course, is that both young couples with babies and leafy suburbs are declining - due to incredibly high rates of immigration. Although population growth is the number one subject on radio, TV and print media, it is promoted slickly as 'vibrant', 'booming', 'bonanza', 'housing investment opportunity', and the constant citizen and resident protests [See /taxonomy/term/582 and /taxonomy/term/1193] are hardly ever even reported outside https://candobetter.net, thus many Australians feel alone in the midst of this onslaught.

Our governments don't listen to us, but they have even stopped talking normally to us. Instead they repetitively sloganize us about how 'livable' our cities are, like crass advertisers, backed solidly by the growth lobby mouthpiece of the mainstream press and the ABC. The latest boast that they are making is that Australia's population growth will move our economy up to 11th largest economy in the world. It's about as impressive as listening to teenagers boast about how much they can drink; we know it's going to end in a mess.

Plummeting standards of living and quality of life and environment

Our standards of living and quality of life are all plummeting, so we can only fear the future that our unrepresentative governments are socially engineering us towards. We have been a net-importer of petroleum for years. Our land is 30% hot desert and 40% non-arable rangeland. Our major inland river basin has been in ecological strife for more than a century and we are told that climate change will reduce rainfall. We face life-threatening increases in temperature and we are expanding into bigger and bigger heat-islands, called cities. Our non-consensual population increase policy will turn this land into a Mars. This land was wrested from a population that inhabited it sustainably for 60,000 years! And this is progress? Not!

Australians wary of having children in view of such poor economic outlook

Whilst immigration rates have gone up yet again, over the July 2016-2017 period, Australia's natural increase has actually declined. This decline can be explained by Virginia Abernethy's theory of the Fertility Opportunity,[1] where people see that the future looks dim, so they choose not to have children. This is surely the feeling young people must have as immigrants crowd in by the hundreds of thousands in an economic environment of ongoing deterioration in an already declining quality and standard of living for all but a tiny elite. See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/living-standards-in-decline-as-real-wage-growth-stagnates/news-story/a95f1b82064fd39e919deec3fd0a9a91

International comparison chart from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

For the 12 months ended 30 June 2017, Australia's population growth rate of 1.6% was above that of the world at 1.1%. Australia is growing at a faster rate than every selected country except for Papua New Guinea (2.1%). The Philippines and Singapore were the next fastest growing countries (both at 1.5%) followed by Malaysia (1.4%) and South Africa (1.3%).

According to figures from the United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Australia's population ranked 53rd highest in the world in 2017 and is projected to rank 56th by 2050. By 2050, India is projected to have displaced China as the most populous country with 1.7 billion people compared with 1.4 billion in China.

POPULATION, GROWTH RATE AND RANK (a)(b), Summary
	ESTIMATED RESIDENT POPULATION			PROJECTED POPULATION	RANK
	2016	2017	Growth Rate	2050	2017	2050
Selected Countries	million	million	%	million	no.	no.
Australia	24	25	1.6	38	53	56
Canada	36	37	0.9	45	38	46
China (excl. SARs and Taiwan)	1 404	1 410	0.4	1 364	1	2
France	65	65	0.4	71	22	28
Greece	11	11	-0.2	10	82	98
Hong Kong (SAR of China)	7	7	0.8	8	104	111
India	1 324	1 339	1.1	1 659	2	1
Indonesia	261	264	1.1	322	4	5
Italy	59	59	-0.1	55	23	36
Japan	128	127	-0.2	109	11	17
Korea (South)	51	51	0.4	50	27	41
Malaysia	32	32	1.4	42	45	50
New Zealand	5	5	1.0	6	125	126
Papua New Guinea	8	8	2.1	14	101	86
Philippines	103	105	1.5	151	13	13
Singapore	6	6	1.5	7	115	120
South Africa	56	57	1.3	73	25	27
Sweden	10	10	0.7	12	89	93
United Kingdom	66	66	0.6	75	21	26
United States of America	322	324	0.7	390	3	4
Viet Nam	95	96	1.0	115	15	16
World	7 467	7 550	1.1	9 772	. .	. .
. . not applicable
(a) Selected countries include major OECD countries, the world's most populous countries, Australia's closest neighbours and trading partners.
(b) Selected country and world estimates and projections for 2016/2017 and 2050 are from United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision (medium variant projections).
Source: Australian estimates - this issue of Australian Demographic Statistics (cat. no. 3101.0); Australian projections; Series B in Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101 (cat. no. 3222.0). Selected country and world estimates and projections - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects: the 2017 Revision, custom data acquired via website (medium variant projections).

Your reference for the graphs and quotations from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/3101.0Main%20Features2Jun%202017?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3101.0&issue=Jun%202017&num=&view=: Annual Population Change, Year ending 30 June 2017.

NOTES

The Fertility Opportunity Theory: "The causal relationship between perceived opportunity and desired family size is described as the fertility opportunity hypothesis. The fertility opportunity hypothesis accounts for either rising or falling fertility rates.

Absolute level of poverty or affluence is not the primary factor driving decisions and action. Motivation derives from perception. Perceptions arise relative to past experiences or by comparison with a reference group. Thus, the fertility opportunity hypothesis applies in hunter-gatherer societies, agrarian societies, and both developing and industrialized countries. The belief that resources are ample, or not, develops against a specific society’s baseline expectations.

Whereas some demographers still write as though modernization and prosperity are necessary preconditions for smaller family size, the fertility opportunity hypothesis documents a nearly opposite dynamic. People in all types of societies work to limit births when they perceive that resources are shrinking, margins are smaller, and competition has stiffened." Cited from Virginia Abernethy, "Fossil Fuel Energy and Fertility Rates," Vanderbilt University, 2004. https://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2004/2Abernethy-FossilFuel-Paper.doc

Outside the property development and population growth lobby, very few people who are worried about population growth and high immigration appreciate the effect of endogamy (marrying within your people) and exogamy (marrying outside your people) on population size and fertility. They also don’t recognize its effect on the private amassing of wealthy estates and political power. Anyone who wants to understand modern day problems with overpopulation, poverty, and loss of democracy would do well to study this article. This article is intended to stimulate debate about democracy, wealth distribution, and overpopulation. The author invites critical comments and argument.

Article based on S.M. Newman Demography, Territory and Law: Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014. and S.M. Newman Demography, Territory and Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013.

How to read the diagrams: White squares in the diagrams below indicate permitted marriages and black squares indicate forbidden marriages. White squares become black squares when someone is already married, although polygamy varies this factor. The symetrical rules for marriage to "in-laws" are indicated by mirror images, creating an overall pyramid form in the diagram of an extended family or clan.

"Endogamy" refers to marrying within one’s clan, tribe or similar social unit. "Exogamy" refers to marrying outside those units. The most extreme kinds of endogamy tend to be practiced by ancient royal clans, such as the Egyptians and the Incas, where there were sibling, father-daughter and grandfather-granddaughter marriages. Less extreme, but more common, are first and other cousin marriages, frequently practiced by nobility and other established clans and tribes. The wealthy, whether they are noble or not, tend to marry other wealthy people for similar reasons.

High Endogamy, Low Exogamy, Low Fertility

If you look at the white squares, you will see that the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt could marry their children and their grandchildren and other close relatives. The rigidity of this practice varied from pharaoh to pharaoh, and lesser relatives might also be married, however marriage within close blood relatives was encouraged.

The purpose of highly endogamous marriages is to preserve land and power within a small group of people (known as a caste). To this day, dynasties can only preserve themselves by intermarrying. Although sibling marriage and parent or grandparent marriage is widely prohibited, first cousin marriage practiced over several generations can bring about similarly close genetic inheritance.

Although this system promotes fertility, it only does so within a very limited pool of candidates. This means that dynasties are powerful but small populations, able to concentrate, conserve and control their material assets through numerous social, legal and genetic bonds.

Outside the easily recognized institutions of tribe and nobility, people in countries where tradition holds them close to the land and preserves their extended families, still tend to live near and to marry within their own class, region and culture. This is the case with most continental European countries. It has a moderating effect on fertility opportunities[1] and a strengthening effect on local self-government and democratic organization.[2]

Low Endogamy, High Exogamy, Low Fertility

There are very few white squares, so very few permitted marriages. With incest avoidance to the 8th degree fertility opportunities within a clan are very low. This is the opposite system to the Ancient Egyptian one.

In cultures, such as those of desert indigenous populations and South Korea, fertility is kept low by restricting marriage opportunities within the family and clan and relying on external opportunity where external opportunity is limited – for instance by distance. If you are a very small clan, with only your feet for transport and your activities take place many kilometers from the next clan’s location, your opportunities to meet suitable partners will be limited. Infertile environments - typically with low rainfall - make for low density populations and big spaces between clans. The difficulty of finding a mate in such circumstances is well shown in the film Ten Canoes. (Although admittedly there were canoes, their use in the film was local rather than inter-clan.)

High Endogamy, High Exogamy, High Fertility

High exogamy is well represented by the biblical laws of Leviticus 18, very influential on Western societies. See the diagram below.

Lots of white squares here mean that you can marry a lot of people in your clan. Brothers are encouraged to marry their deceased brother's wife and niece marriage is legal. The rules differ according to whether you are male or female. This was the system that accompanied the exhortation to "Go forth and multiply."

Western societies tend to follow the Leviticus pattern, although you do get legal restrictions on cousin marriage in some places (such as Illinois, in the United States) where first cousins are not allowed to marry until they are over 55 years old) and there are age restrictions and social restrictions on marriage between uncles/aunts and nieces and nephews.

Multiculturalism as high fertility exogamy and its effect on self-government and citizen capacity to organize

Extreme exogamy applies in the English speaking ‘settler states’ of the United States, Australia and Canada. The populations in these ‘settler states’ are in continual motion due to constant reorganization of suburbs and infrastructure to accommodate high rates of immigration. This people movement occurs at international, national, regional and inter-suburban and intercity level, rather reminiscent of the increased movement of molecules in a heated substance.

Because families and clans tend to be split and disorganized in these societies, the level of endogamy is reduced, despite lack of legal restrictions. Exogamy is strongly encouraged by policies of ‘multiculturalism’. People move far away from their parents and divorce, remarriage and serial families are frequent impoverishing factors. In continental Europe there just isn’t the same amount of structural turmoil. Although the first and second world wars in those areas did cause significant disturbance, the arrangement of clans and their geographic position in villages and towns persisted.

The most important thing to understand about endogamy and exogamy, however, is their role in promoting or limiting population growth. The diagrams in this article should help the reader to see what is meant by this.

Transport factors in creating the Post War Baby Boom

Another important factor already alluded to that affects these patterns in most cases is the introduction of new transport because it permits individuals to travel greater distances. Horses, camels and elephants will take people a lot further and afford them significantly more fertility opportunities than travel on foot will. Trains, cars, boats and planes multiply opportunity exponentially. Trains are associated with massive population growth, but they impose a geometrically restricted pattern. Those restrictions disappeared with the advent of cheap oil and the automobile. Without these there would not have been a post war baby boom without precedent in size.

More variations

In general high endogamy plus high incest prohibition means low fertility. It is difficult to find people who are not married already and who are not forbidden to you in marriage but who are also members of your tribe. A person in this situation might have to go quite a long way in search of a partner and it is likely that a fairly high proportion of the clans-people would die without marrying or having children.

High endogamy but low incest prohibition, where cousin marriage is frequent means high fertility. In these kinds of situations it is considered important to lock all the land up in the tribe but to have a large tribe with many workers and potential soldiers. Nonetheless there are strict boundaries. Marriage outside the tribe is rare, although usually some immigrants will be accepted into the tribe. Living examples of such tribes are the Karen, the Hutterites and some orthodox Jewish peoples.

High exogamy and high incest prohibition will tend to disperse a people so that they ultimately become unidentifiable as clan or tribe, so you won’t find many intact tribes like this. It is a major factor in the dispersal and disintegration of many previously discrete peoples after they become affected by colonization and lose their contact with their land. Examples include Australian aborigines and possibly the Dutch of the 16th and 17th century during the minor industrial revolution that occurred in the Netherlands and which entailed major population drift from country to city. The capturing of African slaves and their transport to the Americas and Pacific Islands like Haiti is another example where the transported survivors of peoples who probably had low fertility in their original tribes encountered significantly increased fertility opportunities.

Low incest prohibition and low endogamy mean that where a clan is not isolated, it has more fertility opportunities than one with stricter rules. Such patterns characterize the settler states of Canada, Australia, the United States and Britain. Usually even first cousin marriage is permitted, but families and clans are so dispersed and fragmented that marriage to members of unidentified and equally dispersed descendants of clans are common. With the very high immigration in these countries, this potentially results in huge population growth. These are synthetically structured societies. Such countries lack the capacity to organize from the bottom up that is possible in countries where several generations are embodied in clans and historically settled and networked in a particular locality within a larger polity. An example of this strong capacity to organize based on relatively natural distribution would be France or Japan. Some examples of this capacity to organize are the French Revolution, which was able to persist over several generations until a lasting republic was formed, and the German and Japanese manufacturing sectors.

There is good reason to think that variations in endogamy and exogamy are instinctive social responses to environmental fertility signals because these rules also occur in most other animals and plants, as The Rules of Animal and Human Populations explains in chapters 3 and 4 which are also published by themselves as The Urge to Disperse. In a globalized society these signals are diffuse, remote and confusing. Media and government interpretation of signals can influence false perceptions of real environments.

NOTES

Polygamy helps to make such populations larger. An exceptional case was King Abdul Aziz, who began the current Saudi kingdom in 1932 and had 44 legitimate sons by 17 wives. The Saudi royal family had more than 4000 princes and 30,000 noble relatives in 2002 and is considered the largest royal dynasty. Without the commercial industrialization of petroleum the kingdom and dynasty could never have been so powerful. Without this kind of intermarriage the Saudi clans would not have been able to maintain control over Saudi assets. Corporations and international interference would have eroded their power, as they do among ‘common people’ by keeping them disorganised.

“Ibn Saud fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the "royal family," and each member, male and female, was accorded the title amir or amira ("prince" or "princess"), respectively.

Ibn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the "Founder," and only his direct descendents may take on the title of "his or her Royal Highness." The date of his recapture of Riyadh in 1902 was chosen to mark Saudi Arabia's centennial in 1999 (according to the Islamic lunar calendar).” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud (Accessed 26 February 2013.)

[1] "Fertility Opportunity" is a phrase borrowed from anthropologist Virginia Abernethy's theory of that name.

[2] Without intergenerational organization in the form of locally organized clans, the French Revolution probably would not have occurred. It had to persist over several generations.