Evidently the document was written as a “report”, but really it was poised to enter the cybernetic head-space, to allow conversations occur for imprinting on the impressionable western (skinner) minds to believe a replacement outcome is not just inevitable but the only hope. The relentless reinforcement of population decline and population ageing also being the unquestionably inevitable destiny for western nations, is done by presenting this desired outcome as a fete accompli wrapped in a because affluence (strawman) to school you in the wonderful matter, that aren’t you better off because of the because, while very cleverly underplaying the final solution as maybe not being enough or totally effective, and you’re still OK becasue affluent, making sure to framed without correct contextual and critical analysis as to why people started to forget how to have babies, the solution is not the thing that always worked before, the forever solution and so the absence of normal because the numbers is rather telling.
Major findings of this study include:
During the first half of the 21st century, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of below-replacement fertility and increased longevity.
In the absence of migration, the declines in population size will be even greater than those projected and population ageing will be more rapid.
… but really, in the absence of the natives or natives having babies.
- Although fertility may rebound in the coming decades, few believe that fertility in most developed countries will recover sufficiently to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future, thus, making population decline inevitable in the absence of replacement migration.
Oh yea rebound where and from whom, you surely don’t mean the natives!?
- The projected population decline and population ageing will have profound and far-reaching consequences, forcing Governments to reassess many established economic, social and political policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
- For France, United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, the numbers of migrants needed to offset population decline are less than or comparable to recent past experience. While this is also the case for Germany and the Russian Federation, the migration flows in the 1990s were relatively large due to reunification and dissolution, respectively.
Down playing the real agenda of far greater numbers planned.
- For Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Europe, a level of immigration much higher than experience in the recent past would be needed to offset population decline.
We really need to plant the most fierce and homogeneous cohesive societies to break them, isn’t that right?
- The numbers of migrants needed to offset declines in the working-age population are significantly larger than those needed to offset total population decline. Whether those larger numbers of migrants are within the realm of options open to Governments depends to a great extent on the social, economic and political circumstances of the particular country or region.
We need Workers (after under birthing or sending our young off somewhere else to not birth or under-birth elsewhere)
- If retirement ages remain essentially where they are today, increasing the size of the working-age population through international migration is the only option in the short to medium term to reduce declines in the potential support ratio.
Right so we’re gonna rely on foreigner workers to becoming a majority and prop up our pensions, and be very happy about it all, sounds a lot like when people relied on investment gaffs and the young to pay the rent to prop up that bricks and mortar pension, what could go wrong!
- The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past.
Words, betray the truth, but we don’t do truth with numbers, like billions, and most people don’t visualise or conceptualise the consequences when it the words not the numbers.
- Maintaining potential support ratios at current levels through replacement migration alone seems out of reach, because of the extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required.
If only we had some other global humanitarian crisis we could use to justify incredible levels of mass people movements, some kind of new-type refugee status, where borders dissolve because of the global component of the crisis… something change…
- In most cases, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
Inject! Inject! Inject!
- The new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) the labour-force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health-care benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
Or, the challenges really being the opportunities of ~
killing~ depopulation by what ever means, will hollow out the structure and we can slip in slow at first but then very quickly, the “new-normals” until the ratio flip in key demographic economic segment we don’t even need to have a majority to dominate the former nation, social demographic demographic balkanisation of nicely indebted new-normals.