Excellent analysis of an issue that is rarely talked about yet is the biggest crisis facing the world.
This issue is not just facing the richest countries but also the middle rung countries. With very limited exceptions, only the poorest and least educated countries still have a total fertility rate (TFR) above the replacement level of 2.1. Even India has recently dropped below 2.1.
What this and most analyses of this issue lack is an examination of why the exceptions are exceptional and whether those factors which have led to higher TFR can be duplicated. In particular:
a) the only advanced economy to have been able to maintain a TFR well above replacement and what factors are at play there to allow at TFR of around 3.0;
b) the only example I am aware of a large country with a very low TFR (1.2) managing to substantially increase it to around 1.7.
I will send 5 Hive to the first person to answer the names of the countries in a) and b) above.
My guesses are Israel and Russia
a)Israel is the only advanced economy that has been able to maintain a TFR of about 3, but that's down from almost 4 in the 1960's
b) Russia had a very low TFR in the late '90s, but has increased much in recent years.
@apshamilton
Well done! You picked correctly. 5 Hive is on its way to you.
It is because both these countries are controversial, and the means they have used to promote high fertility (patriotism and religiosity) unpalatable to many that these important issues are rarely discussed.
Thank you for your interesting questions. I think firstly it may depend on what sources you are using, secondly on your definition of "advanced" and thirdly what time span you are talking about.
a) Possibly South Africa. This country does however have a legacy of apartheid in which not everyone lives a standard of living seen as "advanced". Israel has a lower fertility rate then SA but that is also a country with apartheid and the inclusion of Palestinians as second class citizens (those living within Israel itself) complicates matters.
b) I couldn't detect a country that had this type of increase. Yes, Russia following the collapse of Stalinism did see a decline followed by a rise, but this is on the decline again. One large country that seems to have been consistent for some time is Iran - but compared to say 1988 it has also collapsed.
Close, but no cigar!
See my comment to winner above.
South Africa is not an advanced economy. At best 2nd world.
Russia dropped to 1.2 and recovered to between 1.6 and 1.8 (depending on which figures you believe). Maybe there has been some drop again but not back to 1.2 levels.
Iran fertility has suffered massive collapse from 7 to 1.7.
With regard to your allegation that Israel is a country with apartheid I refer you to my Hive post from 5 years ago on the topic:
https://peakd.com/informationwar/@apshamilton/israel-the-un-apartheid-state-a-comparison-with-australia
My belief that Israel is an apartheid state is based on a wide variety of sources - see below:
In 2020 Yesh Din and in 2021 B'Tselem issued separate reports which concluded that the bar had been met for labeling Israel an apartheid state.
Yesh Din report 'The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid:
B'Tselem report 'A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid'
Then in April 2021 Human Rights Watch issued a report,' A Threshold Crossed
Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution'
This was followed in 2022 by Amnesty International's report,' Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel system of domination and crime against humanity'
During 2022 several senior UN officials declared Israel to be an apartheid state. A good example would be Canadian professor Michael Lynk who was appointed to the UN Human Rights Council and in March 2022 stated: "enshrined a system of domination by Israelis over Palestinians that could no longer be explained as the unintended consequence of a temporary occupation."
I would also refer you to the work of Jewish academics such as Dr. Norman Finkelstein and Professor Noam Chomsky who also take the same view.
Besides this, I have spoken to Palestinians living in Israel who have described first hand the daily discrimination they face.
Have you ever actually visited?
Everything above is debunked anti-semitic BS.
Come and see with you own eyes.
One day I would like to visit Israel and see the holy sites and just sample life for people on both sides of the divide.
I'm curious to know. Are saying that Jewish human rights organisations such as B'Tselem and Yesh Din have produced anti semitic reports?
Are you also saying that Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were Auschwitz survivors, is anti semitic due to his many books exposing the apartheid state of Israel?
Is Professor Noam Chomsky anti semitic?
Yes, and so is George Soros.
Applying double standards to Israel is anti-semitism.
It doesn't matter the identity of the person saying it.
It matters the content of the statement.
Israel has a way better record on human rights, non-discrimination, % of civilians killed in warfare etc etc than the US, UK, Russia, Ukraine and pretty much every other country involved in a conflict.
It is not perfect, but its defence forces hold themselves to a far higher moral standard than anyone else's.
It is fine to criticise Israel (for example I have been highly critical of its COVID-19 policies) but not to apply double standards.
With respect what you are saying is not supported by respected Israeli newspapers such as Haaretz. On May 3 it carried an editorial 'Israel's Biometric Apartheid'. I quote below from the artilce:
"The fact that the occupation corrupts and distorts the most basic moral values is self-evident. But we are not always exposed to the depth of the distortion due to the way its poison is disguised. The report released Tuesday by Amnesty International regarding how Israel surveils Palestinians is important because it lays bare another aspect of the poison.
There is no other way to describe this system except as “biometric apartheid.” That is because inside Israel, the law regarding biometric identification is very clear. Section 9 of the law states: “The collection of biometric identification, the creation of biometric identification data and comparing it to the biometric data in an identity document or in the biometric database ... will be done in a way and in a place that respects human dignity and privacy, and avoids harm to an extent that it does not exceed what is required.”
In the case of Palestinians, not only are they not asked for their consent, the data collection is done without their knowledge. It is beyond any doubt that their dignity and privacy are not being respected, while the harm to them exceeds what is required. The fact that these operations are carried out by an automated system and not by soldiers does not reduce the injustice but increases it, because the discriminatory treatment of Palestinians is hard-wired into a machine.''
You go on to claim that the IDF operates to higher moral standards than anyone else's military. This is just not true.
Hundreds of IDF veterans in Breaking The Silence , who have served in the Occupied Territories, would strongly disagree with this statement. In its mission statement Breaking The Silence notes:
"Soldiers who serve in the territories witness and participate in military actions that change them immensely. Cases of abuse toward Palestinians, looting and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but these incidents are still described officially as “extreme” and “unique” cases. Our testimonies portray a different – and much grimmer – picture, in which the deterioration of moral standards finds expression in the character of the military orders and rules of engagement that the state considers justified in the name of Israel’s security.
While this reality is well-known to Israeli soldiers and commanders, Israeli society in general continues to turn a blind eye and deny what is being done in its name. Discharged soldiers returning to civilian life discover the gap between the reality they encountered in the territories, and the silence about this reality they find at home. In order to resume civilian life, soldiers have to ignore what they have seen and done. We strive to make heard the voices of these soldiers, pushing Israeli society to face the reality it has created.
We collect and publish testimonies from soldiers who, like us, have served in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem since September 2000. To boost public awareness, we hold lectures, house meetings and other public events that bring to light the reality in the territories through the voices of former soldiers. We also conduct tours in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills in the West Bank, with the aim of giving the public access to the reality that exists only minutes away from their own homes, yet is rarely portrayed in the media.
Founded in March 2004 by a group of soldiers who served in Hebron, Breaking the Silence has since acquired a special standing in the eyes of the Israeli public and in the media because of its unique role in giving voice to the experience of soldiers. To date, the organization has collected testimonies from more than 1,000 soldiers who represent all strata of Israeli society and cover nearly all units that operate in the territories.
All the testimonies we publish are meticulously researched, and all facts are cross-checked with additional eyewitnesses and/or the archives of other human rights organizations that are active in the field. Every soldier who gives a testimony to Breaking the Silence is well-aware of the aims of the organization and the interview. Most soldiers choose to remain anonymous, due to various pressures from military officials and society at large. Our first priority is to safeguard the soldiers who choose to testify to the public about their military service.''
Your view of Israel is detached from the daily reality of the racist abuse and discrimination which Palestinians face on a daily basis. The only way this conflict can be resolved is by supporters of both sides recognizing that they have far more in common than what divides them.