Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:45:51 -0500 (EST)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: M-I: Surplus populations




>But, who is to be believed, the UN of 1992, or that of 1997?


Both, perhaps.  The UN population report of '92 forecasts a world population
of 10 billion by the year 2050, and between 10 to 15 billion by 2100.  Of
course, that kind of population explosion will result in the
collapse of the biophysical support systems of our planet.

The new "revised" report, issued last September under pressure from the US,
have a "medium variant" estimate of 9.4 billion by 2050 and a "low variant"
of 7.7 billion by 2040 -- the former estimate regarded by the US as too high
and the latter as "reasonable and plausible".  Further, these new figures
supposedly represent the *peak* of population growth, the point of zero
growth, after which there will be negative growth.  A loss of population of
about 25 per cent in each successive generation will produce not 10-15
billion in 2100 but perhaps less than half that number. And that decline,
according to the revised UN (US) forecast, far from producing the familiar
Malthusian scenario of wars, pestilence, and famine, will occur under
"conditions of orderly progress".

Now, of course, it is in the interests of capital to posit such scenarios as
an anodyne to calls for increasly big government to control populations and
to delve out fairly society's increasingly finite resources, from jobs to
social security benefits.  

Yet, even if the new "revised" figures are closer to reality, how does this
vitiate the need for a socialist future?  In a world of falling birth rates,
higher life expectancies (and thus a rapidly ageing population), government
as an ameliorative agent seems more, rather than less, expedient, does it
not?  In 2050, the ratio of old people to young children is likely to be 8
to 1 in the more developed countries and 3 to 1 in the less developed; in
Italy, which is already below the replacement level, it will be a phenomenal
20 to 1.  

Big capital likes to talk about "The Family" as a desirable alternative to
the State in providing benefits and a stable, cohesive community.  Yet, if
the revised UN report (issued largely with their blessing) is to be
believed, a fertility rate of 1.2, over two generations will result in
almost three fifths of our children having no siblings, cousins, aunts or
uncles; they will have only parents, grandparents, and perhaps
great-grandparents.  Hardly a scenario for preserving a healthy and
supportive family-oriented community.

So, in either case, the pressure for State intervention is going to be
virtually irresistable.  On the other hand, can capital and its servant
legislatures fashion a non-State alternative that can insure the requisite
class control commensurate with its own prosperity and survival?

Louis Godena



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---