The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The great Muslim TFR mystery > Comments

The great Muslim TFR mystery : Comments

By Steven Meyer, published 3/8/2012

In the 60s people thought world population would increase faster than it has. What did they get wrong?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Game, set and match to jos.
How do these 'opinion' pieces see the light of day?
Posted by PopulationParty, Friday, 3 August 2012 10:03:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Stevenlmeyer,

As my Mighty Catters have just beaten the Hawks by kicking the winning goal after the siren in an absolute thriller I am certainly of no mind to to do anything but thank you for your answer.

And while I'm not a believing sort of guy God is definitely in her heaven, all is right with the world and the Kennett Curse is alive and well.

Dear jos,

In the spirit of looking before I leap can I ask you why you think that Syria's population of 22 million is 'way beyond its carrying capacity'?

For the dozen years before the run of bad seasons starting in 2008 it had a healthy and growing wheat export sector.

It has a third of the population density of its near neighbour Israel. Would you label Israel in the same fashion? If not why not?
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jos

I am not setting out to ridicule anybody. I'm merely pointing out the facts such as they are.

You wrote:

>>Who would have predicted such declines in 1960? Silly us. Could be that we didn't have the pill then.>>

In western countries declines in TFR predate the pill by many decades. The "post war baby boom" was noted precisely because it was an unexpected upturn in birth rates that had been in long term decline.

I do not know to what extent the availability of the pill affected declines in TFR in poorer countries. I'm sure it played a role. However I am equally sure that so did urbanisation. The gap in TFR between urban and rural Black women in South Africa to which I alluded in my post above opened up before the pill was available.

The most powerful contraceptive of all seems to be electrification.

The Fascist regime in Italy was very keen on electrification. They brought electricity to certain regions of rural Italy which promptly experienced a plunge in birth rates much to Mussolini's disgust. He wanted them to produce babies who would be the future soldiers of his reborn Roman Empire.

All this happened prior to the pill.

For a more recent example of this phenomenon see:

Do birth rates go down when the lights are on?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12337010

I am sure the advent of the pill played a role. Perhaps even more so the advent of cheap, safe, legal abortion. But there are many factors at work here.

BTW abortion is an interesting one. It was illegal in South Africa when I was growing up. However many midwives were skilled abortionists and reasonably priced abortions were available to anyone who wanted one. As we have seen with drugs, making something illegal does not mean it is unavailable.

PopulationParty wrote:

>>How do these 'opinion' pieces see the light of day?>>

LOL

You'll have to ask Graham. I just write the stuff

Csteele

Glad I was able to set your mind at rest.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 4 August 2012 8:44:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
William, you should know how articles like this get published, you've had two published yourself. This article is better than most that we publish. It is interesting and provides facts that I was not aware of. It contradicts the claims of some that immigrants from Islamic countries will have a disproportionate impact because of higher fertility rates. That on its own is enough to justify it.

I think we all also have an interest in knowing how fertility is playing out and what impact that has on forecasts of future growth. This site is about discussion and debate, and Steven has provided a welcome addition to that.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, thank you for your kind words.

A few extra points.

The TFR of immigrant groups is not the same as TFR in the groups' home country. Sometimes it's a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower.

Unfortunately I do not have any Australian data. However a British study shows TFR convergence between immigrant groups and indigenous groups.

Here are some sample findings.

TFR: 1987 - 1994 VERSUS 2000 - 2006

White British: 1.90 --> 1.85

Pakistani: 3.3 --> 2.9

Banglasdeshi: 4.3 --> 3.1

(Fertility by ethnic and religious groups in the UK, trends in a multi-cultural context, Sylvie Dubuc 2009)

The first number shows TFR for women during the period 1987 to 1994, the second over the period 2000 to 2006. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are the two largest immigrant groups in Britain from identifiably Muslim countries. As you can see TFR for both these groups, though well above that for white British women, is declining.

The decline in TFR in poor countries is likely to have profound effects on migration to Western countries. Many pundits have commented on the decline in the number of illegal immigrants attempting to cross from Mexico into the US. This is partly due to enhanced border patrols. But the decline in Mexican TFR from 6.78 in 1960 to the current level of 2.27 probably plays a role. It is young desperate men who formed the bulk of the illegal immigrants.

A word of caution. We have been discussing average TFRs. Within each country and, indeed, within each ethnicity there are subgroups with unusually high and unusually low TFRs. For all groups and subgroups there seems to be little doubt that the very religious tend to have more babies than the average.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 4 August 2012 1:16:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that it mainly comes down to education of women and opportunities for them in the work place. When women have other options, they stop having children. Religion has little to do with it.
Contrary to popular belief, Iranian women are well educated and have valuable roles in the work place. Therefore low birth rates. Afghanistan women on the other hand have little or no education and few opportunities for careers and have extremely high birth rates.
Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the world despite them being Roman catholic and supposedly rejecting birth control.
I read today that Iran is about to try to increase its birth rate. I think they will fail. Women with opportunities and careers are unlikely to decide to stay home and have loads of children.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Saturday, 4 August 2012 2:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy