Population Decline is Not The Problem

 

Population decline is not the terrible thing that people make it out to be. Western birthrates are on the decline, that is true. But western populations are so large, that such decline would not even have a chance of becoming catastrophic. What is more likely to happen, and has been observed to happen many times in the past, is that instead of undermining society, declining birth rates would have a refining and transforming effect.

Population decline would naturally achieve several things:

1) Property values would decrease. This is because there would be less demand on all existing properties. City centres would become more affordable for the young people who need to work in those centres, and who are currently locked out of being able to afford to live anywhere near them. This is a good thing and a necessary thing. Too much money in our country is locked up in unproductive land wealth, rather than in actual productivity. Anything which reversed this trend would be a long term positive for our nation. Also large farms and other land would also become more affordable, meaning more people could buy into such businesses and be productive and profitable.

2) It would change the wealth distribution. The rapid decline of wealth during the black plague in Europe broke the European feudal system, and made the wage labourer more valuable than ever. This created new wealth, new businesses, and new opportunities. It broke many institutionalized barriers to success and wealth and made Europe more equitable for generations. It was this, not capitalism as many people mistakenly think, which created the middle class and made Europe great. Capitalism was more a result of this than the cause. The shattering of long stagnant landed aristocracies made it easier for ordinary people to trade and build wealth. It also forced wealthy but stagnant families to have to compete and be productive to keep their wealth. The nature of who was rich changed rapidly, working men rapidly became business moguls and competed with the landed classes. The wealthy aristocrats could no longer just afford to sit on land to stay rich, as many people actually do today as well, because the supply of cheap labour declined.

3) It would change politics also. This is because the electorates across the country would be weighted to an on average wealthier citizenry, and there would be less opportunity for governments to buy off voters. More people would have an ownership stake in society, something which has been on the decline for decades now. Democracy is not an ideal system in any way, but it has been conclusively shown to be more successful in smaller populations, made up of productive people with a stake in their society. It has been shown to be a terrible system in societies with lots of poor people who can just vote for handouts.

4) Child bearers would become more valuable. As the population declined women with childbearing ability, and men who were able to support them, would become much more valuable in the eyes of society, and more young men and women would aspire to be among both groups. This change would happen both at the top level in government, and at the lower levels in the eyes of the people. We see this happening in modern countries like Hungary which reject growing their population through immigration, the family unit becomes more highly prized. Being able to import workers shortcuts this, and basically means that most young women squander their young childbearing years in frivolous pursuits, because everyone has lost perspective on the value of child birth for society. In a society that is forced to grow its population the natural way, people’s attitudes towards family roles would be markedly different. And, even if this took a few generations to change, it would be changed by those who had those pro-family beliefs, because the childless do not pass their values on very well.

5) Society would get stronger on average. Weak, unproductive parts of society that could not adapt would begin to die. Like businesses that have gotten too used to cheap labour from a large population and could not adjust quickly. Things like that. It is the weakest branches on a tree that die when the ground is drier, but the tree that survives the drought is tougher.

The overall point, though, is that declining population rates actually improve the value of each person in society both economically and practically in every way. Plus declining birth rates always reverse anyway, except in very tiny and backward societies that have no ability to replace themselves through healthy births, of course. Artificially propping up population by importing “workers” who are really de facto-slave, or low income, workers and built in socialist voters, actually has the effect of making everybody, including those new immigrants, more expendable, because we are all easily replaced. All the government has to do if they have any trouble filling roles in any particular sector of the economy, or they have trouble getting votes in any electorate, is turn on the immigration spigot and they can claim job well done without actually having to do anything that is truly productive. Native peoples who complain about this are just sidelined and called bad names, and the system continues on towards creating an entrenched elite with no loyalty to their actual people.  

Declining birth rates would not and could not end the west. It would refine it. Immigration, on the other hand, actually can end a culture and nation. It has happened many times. The problem is therefore not declining birth rates, the problem is that governments are using this as an excuse to rob their citizens of their birthright.