UN World Demographics and the costs of disregarding the
value of men's lives
As you saw at the page commenting on world demographics, it is quite apparent that births of male
children are more frequent than those of female children. Maybe that is God's way to
make sure that there'll be still enough males around when they leave boyhood and face the
dangers they must then face, often involuntarily, throughout their lives. Boys and men
are at a considerably higher risk to die than girls are. That becomes even more
pronounced once they come to be of working age and enter the work force.
Without fail, dangerous, dirty, and unhealthy work is being done by
men, not by women. About 92 percent of all U.S. job fatalities are male.
(See also:
The 1989 Montreal Massacre in the context of men’s sacrifices, 2008 12
07, by Professor Jeffrey Asher.)
In general, although for a number of reasons boys are more likely do die than girls and
do so in large numbers, they keep their numerical advantage until the end of early
adulthood, at age 34, at which time their numbers fall below those of women their
age. From then on men begin to die in ever increasing numbers, due to the various
reasons mention in the page on world demographics.
The next graph shows in greater detail the numbers at which boys and men die off.
Notice in the preceding graph that men are far more likely to die while of working age,
while women, leading far more sheltered and far less risky lives, die primarily of old
age. For men old age comes much sooner than for women. By age 85 and over,
there are quite simply not that many men around anymore to die.
A good portion of the male population dies when working or –
burned out and generally neglected by the health care system and health research
throughout their working lives – shortly after they retire to enjoy, if they can, the
few years of life during which they may still be able to live off their pension income, if
they make it that far.
However, the preceding graph doesn't tell the whole story. The costs to
society of the premature deaths of boys and men are enormous. With the demise of the
large numbers of boys and men who die each year, millions of productive life years are
removed from the economy forever.
The men in the age range 20 to 54 will hardly have had enough
opportunity to accumulate equity to secure their orphaned familys' welfare. They are
removed as income earners from the cashflow of their families as effectively as if by any
divorce court. All of that doesn't even begin to describe the enormous emotional
costs to their families, in which their widows must now struggle to raise their children
by themselves, unless, of course, they feel inclined to chose another life companion and
provider from the leavings.
Most ironic of all, the early deaths of millions of men virtually
ensures that there are millions of single or widowed women who'll have to try during their
ripe old age that they very likely attain to survive on the meager pension income
resulting from their often secure and comfortable working lives that earned them far less
than the higher risk jobs that their deceased husbands held with the intention to make
life comfortable for their families.
Common sense tells any farmer who uses animals or machinery to till his fields, or any
wagoner or trucker who does so, to treat with great respect and care his machinery and
his animals that do the work for him. Our society, in its new-found wisdom, treats
its own men – beasts of burden since time immemorial – with a lack of respect
and care that would bring any farmer, any carrier, any wagoner, anyone who must rely on
hired power, to the point of bankruptcy.
That is not a wise way by which to run a society.
We may learn to live without sufficient numbers of men – beasts of burden
– or we may pretend that we may do so without having to face any consequences, if
only the demands on men were not to change as time goes by. However, we are
approaching times that will require all of the work output our society can produce, and
there better be enough men around to carry, as for many thousands of years before, the
major share of the hard and dangerous work that needs to be done by them.
Consider the population projections produced by the US Bureau of the Census that are
reflected in the following set of graphs showing the distribution of the US population for
the year 1997, and projections for what the distributions will be in the years 2025 and
2050.
The preceding graphs were derived from data made available at
The International
Database of the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
See also the corresponding graphs for the two most populous
nations on Earth, China and India.
Our society presently has problems looking after our elderly. Increasingly,
single and lonely, without children to care for many of them, they must rely on whatever
assets they managed to scrounge together for a rainy day – to hire someone to look
after them in their old age. The vast majority are elderly women, weak and fragile,
who will very likely not be able to fend for themselves. They are for the reasons
mentioned above very likely to have insufficient funds to ensure their comfort.
The population sector containing the elderly
grows at an unprecedented rate in absolute terms and especially in relative terms with
respect to the size of the younger productive population sector that has to bear the
increasingly unbearably large responsibility to care and provide for those who can't
produce anything any longer for themselves. One of the consequences of that is an
enormous increase (150% in the US from 1986 to 1996) in elderly abuse, predominantly cases
of neglect of the elderly. (Trends in Elder Abuse in Domestic Settings,
NATIONAL CENTER ON ELDER ABUSE,
Elder
Abuse Information Series No. 2 (PDF 42kB). The
St. Louis Post-Dispatch produced an excellent series of articles on the topic of
fatal elder abuse and neglect in US nursing homes (it is estimated that tens of tousands
of cases happen each year), Neglected
to Death (Oct. 12 - 19, 2002). See abstract
and commentary relating to the articles and to the problem of elder abuse and neglect
in nursing home and hospitals.)
How much greater will those problems be when the proportion of the
elderly – largely women – grows to the enormous size shown in the second and
third of the preceding graphs.
Certainly, the last of the three graphs shows that the younger sector of the
population will grow miraculously to a size far larger than the size possible according
the size of the age groups that were born 25 years earlier. How is such a miracle
possible?
Take the age group 0 - 4 in 1997. It is comprised of about 19 million
children. According to the graph for 2025, that age group will have grown to about
24 million in 2025, when it will be part of the age groups 25 - 29 and 30 - 34, and in
2050, when it will be in the range of the age group 50 - 54, it will be a little bit
larger yet.
That is miraculous, isn't it? Well, not quite. The
additional bodies are born already – although not in the US. Those additional
bodies will be comprised of immigrants.
Whether the US culture can assimilate such a massive influx of
immigrants is another story. It should be an interesting one. Never in US
history was there immigration on such a massive scale.
All of the developed nations are in a similar position. Some are in a quandary
that is far, far worse than that facing the US. Japan, Germany and Italy are losing
population at the rate of 30 percent with every successive generation. Those
countries are not very likely to be capable or willing to accept immigrants on the massive
scale required to ensure their continuance and to prevent their collapse. Yet, their
own citizens are due to the punitive taxation on families increasingly unwilling to
produce children of their own.
The solution is simple for all of the countries that are rapidly approaching a serious
population crisis due to their declining populations. All it would take is to have
one generation of family-friendly policies and a slight bit of a tax advantage for
families who make the enormous sacrifices required to raise children.
Alas, those decisions are not being made any longer within any given
nation. The UN is fully aware of the looming population calamity and that many
countries are approaching a population crisis – a population calamity that the UN
created and still pursues with all its might.
However, the solution promoted by the UN and that it imposes on its
member nations is still to promote abortions and to redistribute the world
population. The UN's population planning solution, issued just recently, announces
even the immigration quotas that will be required annually for specific countries.
The plan goes so far as to prescribe specific volumes of immigrants to ensure varying
levels of comfort for the citizens of a given nation.
I guess, if we don't want to produce our own children in sufficient
numbers any longer, then there are only two alternatives: either a country dies out, or it
purchases ready-made children and people from elsewhere. Well, purchase may
be too harsh a word, but many countries must provide incentives to cajole prospective
immigrants to enter their xenophobic and often hostile domains.
Let's hope that all can find the heart to do what is necessary.
It will be the immigrants who'll bear the larger burden. They will most certainly
not be welcomed by all of their new compatriots. However, those problems will
eventually resolve themselves as the hostile resident populations will ultimately fade
into oblivion due to their extremely low
birth rates that are now far below the level required to maintain their numbers.
Is the world overpopulated?
If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a
touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal
share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have
98.6m2 of land to live on.
Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three
would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and
a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.
- Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
- World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source:
CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)
It is obvious that the world's population density will be
the controlling factor. Is that a problem? Will people any time soon
be standing on each other's shoulders?
How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world
population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state
the size of Texas, even if we divide the whole population into families of
three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?
The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population
densities.
Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?
If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of
seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:
SUN — Seniors United Now
The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization
for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta
There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and
over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most
powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed
of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to
gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take
from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.
If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the
planned,
systematic destruction of our families and society, a search
at google.com (for elderly OR seniors OR grandparent OR grandfather OR
grandmother site:http://fathersforlife.org) will provide you with the links
to about 80 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.
| 
|
Share
