The Demographic Myths of Our Self-Centered Age

The term 'demographic-economic paradox' refers to the inverse relationship between economic progress and birth rates. Education and wealth go up at the cost of birth rates. This has been observed in almost all developed and developing nations. Although countries like China and India have government sposnsored programs to restrict their populations, unbiased population metrics from the Western countries and industrialized Asian nations like Japan and South Korea confirm this.

In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.

After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.

The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.

India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.

Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.

Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.

As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.

This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.

If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.

Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.

It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.

International Dog and Pony Shows- Psywars

Here are some opportunities for an aspiring chest-thumper of a nation to proclaim its greatness and to use it as a lever to hopefully achieve greatness at some point in its future:

- Winning Olympic medals, having an Olympic program to create world class athletes even if sports at the individual level may not be as admirable.

- Economic Growth, celebrated at Davos and other such fora as a coming out party

- Large, widespread, successful, wealthy and local 'diaspora'

- Image of a 'knowledge economy', 'emerging market/giant', superpower

- Image of a future threat to take over economic leadership

- Political grandstanding over territory disputes

- Political psywar, mindgames, give and take in energy or other resource deals internationally

- Image of a grand history and heritage, preferably concerning a past empire, military might, martial techniques

- Image of a past civilization that was at some time the 'greatest', 'wealthiest', 'most powerful', etc.

- The ability to get mindshare from the incumbent grand daddy, viz. in our day and age, the United States.

If this brings to mind any country or countries it is not intentional on my part to draw such particular attention. Fill in the space with almost any medium sized or large country and it will still be true.

Intellectual Friends and Our Scandal of Faith

In CS Lewis' satirical book, 'The Screwtape Letters', the senior devil Screwtape writes to his stalwart nephew Wormwood, who is focusing his energies on a person, the "Patient", to keep him away from God, refereed to by Screwtape as the "Enemy". The tenth letter, reproduced here, is a gem:

MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

I was delighted to hear from Triptweeze that your patient has made some very desirable new acquaintances and that you seem to have used this event in a really promising manner. I gather that the middle-aged married couple who called at his office are just the sort of people we want him to know—rich, smart, superficially intellectual, and brightly sceptical about everything in the world. I gather they ore even vaguely pacifist, not on moral grounds but from an ingrained habit of belittling anything that concerns the great mass of their fellow men and from a dash of purely fashionable and literary communism. This is excellent. And you seem to have made good use of all his social, sexual, and intellectual vanity. Tell me more. Did he commit himself deeply? I don't mean in words. There is a subtle play of looks and tones and laughs by which a Mortal can imply that he is of the same party is those to whom he is speaking. That is the kind of betrayal you should specially encourage, because the man does not fully realise it himself; and by the time he does you will have made withdrawal difficult.

No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary. The real question is how to prepare for the Enemy's counter attack.

The first thing is to delay as long as possible the moment at which he realises this new pleasure as a temptation. Since the Enemy's servants have been preaching about "the World" as one of the great standard temptations for two thousand years, this might seem difficult to do. But fortunately they have said very little about it for the last few decades. In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as "Puritanism"—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life.

Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realise the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism. If this succeeds, he can be induced to live, as I have known many humans live, for quite long periods, two parallel lives; he will not only appear to be, but actually be, a different man in each of the circles he frequents. Failing this, there is a subtler and more entertaining method. He can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabited on Saturday evening; and contrariwise, to enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a "deeper", "spiritual" world within him which they cannot understand. You see the idea—the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complete, balanced, complex man who sees round them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction. Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people "good" by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be "priggish", "intolerant", and (of course) "Puritanical".

Meanwhile you will of course take the obvious precaution of seeing that this new development induces him to spend more than he can afford and to neglect his work and his mother. Her jealousy, and alarm, and his increasing evasiveness or rudeness, will be invaluable for the aggravation of the domestic tension,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

I wonder how many times I have fallen for this temptation. Friendship with the world is enmity with God in more ways than one. We may sin overtly by subscribing to the more visible sins, the sins of the flesh, world and self. But the ideas of the world- the temptation to take Scripture with a pinch of salt, the desire to distance oneself from 'ill-informed or simpleton Christians', from the noisy, happy-clappy people of faith who need no reason to believe- these appeal to one's vanity.

In my conversations with people, both of faith and others, the temptation to matter to them has been enormous. Especially concerning scientific opinions dressed up to look like theological objections, the desire to counter this with my own scientific or logical opinions (again dressed up similarly) is quite immense. Given that scientific objections are only a pretext to justify what people already believe to be true, this is not just a sin, but entirely uselss as a defense of our faith.

Dumbing Down of India

Here are some observations I have made about Indian Americans and Indian expats in the US.

• My expat Northern Indian friend doesn't think Delhi is the right place to raise kids or live because it is a far more liberal place (in terms of morality) than the US.

• Far more expats than Indian residents are conscious of their heritage, many take religion seriously even if they had never given it a thought in their past in India.

• Many are conscious of the good things in US culture as they are of the good things in Indian culture.

• The US smoking population has come down in large numbers, the tobacco industry never recovered from the body blow it received in the mid-Nineties. Litigation that won user reparations of $248 billion from the US tobacco industry meant that some of the largest producers went into bankruptcy, were acquired or simply diversified into other businesses. TV ads over the past decade have abounded with ways to kick the habit. The Indian expat community has not yet adapted to this good development as the rest of the US population has; but chain smokers are a rarity.

• The stereotypical image of the binge drinking college student may or may not be relevant any more, but people into their Thirties do not behave this way in general. The odd exceptions prove this rule.

• Raising kids is serious business. Most parents teach their kids some kind of sexual modesty, regardless of their wild youth. One may call this hypocrisy, I prefer to see it as living vicariously a life of purpose through their kids.

• Indians who believed that family was for life viewed the US lifestyle with disdain because of the incidence of divorce in the country. Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981. But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970. Most people are convinced that marriage problems are not reasons enough to divorce- they are interested in learning how to stay married.


You see, when I left India over 10 years ago, many people I knew talked about the US as a morally lax and directionless society. Several believed the stereotypes about US culture as being crude, unsophisticated, rude, brash, boorish, arrogant, too wealthy for anyone's good, lustful, ignorant of true faith, making a mockery of religion by selling it to crowds of the needy with loud music, manufactured excitement and fake miracles.

Several years ago many Americans believed that India was a land of snake charmers, snake oil salesmen, evil tantriks mouthing mumbo jumbo and half naked beggars.

If stereotypes defined us all, I wonder if we'd have any love lost for each other.

Here are some of my observations of people living in India that I know or know of:

• On my wife's Facebook page a friend and her husband are on vacation in Goa. A picture proudly displayed shows their 8 month old baby holding a bottle of whiskey. Another shows the dad and baby lying next to each other, dad with a bottle of beer in his mouth and the baby with a bottle of milk in hers.

• Smoking in India continued unabated; many friends are not just heavy drinkers but they talk about their sordid binge drinking weekends proudly on social networks. Smoking in public spaces has been banned- but as far as I have seen, among the thirty-to-forty-somethings this does not necessarily translate into reduction in smoking.

• Several of our friends are divorced. Many have no kids. Some have one child and do not want another child. Most marry late, though they can afford to marry at an earlier age. Many have kids closer to 40 years of age. Some support the notion of passing laws like China's one-child policy.

I don't need to make too many observations for a reader to understand where I'm going with this. You see, I see India dumbing down. I see adults who simply have not grown out of college. I see a bunch of pot-bellied, graying boozers and chain smokers cockily walking about in bermudas with a smirk on their faces, teaching kids to behave likewise and learning or teaching nothing of value to the youngsters, least of all anything of true moral or spiritual worth. Their politics leaves far more to be desired. From clueless but spirited 'citizens' who support Narendra Modi's proposal to make everyone "vote by force" to borderline fanatics who support the gunning down of lawyers who represent terrorists in India's judicial system, we have people utterly without perpsective.

Am I exaggerating? I may have taken all of this a bit more kindly. Why am I so rattled? When I talk to many friends I hardly raise these topics. But too many audaciously claim bizarre things about the US. Arrogance radiates from these self-assured know-it-alls on so many levels- arrogance of economic growth, social issues, US political failures, the so-called 'superiority' of India's educational system (which is a myth that is believed lock, stock and barrell by gullible Indians). One could be blind, but when the blind believe they can see, the blindness is serious indeed.

One must ask, what of the older generation, the parents and grandparents whose culture was far more praiseworthy, those who raised these young turks, this brat pack that has fallen pretty far from the trees? It seems to me they are scared stiff to contradict their kids. After all, this is the internet generation, the kids who are the seven figure income earners that their parents never were. The new technologies- the iPhones, the Kindles, the Youtubes, all scare the wits out of the older, gentler folks. They don't understand it. If they did, they would wonder why the brat pack was so cocky about it all. Technology doesn't make us better people. They usually entertain us or save labour. And as anyone who is wise could tell us, labour saving devices do not make us happy by themselves. Much less do they make us better people.

Do we want to really know where this is leading us? Where does unabated pleasure lead us? Social critic Neil Postman writes this in his book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' about two views of the future- one of a strictly controlled life, by George Orwell in his book 1984; and the other by Aldous Huxley in his book 'Brave New World', that of a world where irrelevance, pleasure and indifference to reality make up the future:

"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
— Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business