Dear members,
In March we were informed by Ray Thomas of a meeting at the Royal
Statisitical Society to be held 19th April with speakers from an
organisation called "The Optimum Population Trust" (OPT).
What I did not know, but found out later through correspondence with Ray
Thomas is that he is a new member of OPT and clearly from what he wrote, a
devotee of same.
Well what is OPT ?
OPT is the Optimum Population Trust, a UK registered charity and company
limited by guarantee. Most of its officials are probably little know to the
general public in the UK, although the present co-chairperson Professor John
Guillebaud may be, through his work on family planning. But some of its
patrons such as Jane Goodall, Professor Aubrey Manning, Professor Norman
Myers and Sir Crispin Tickell, may be well known.
If one reads the articles on their web site we see that the OPT believes
that the world and the UK populations are above carrying capacity (which OPT
has studied itself using the techniques of ecologiccal footprints); OPT
further believes population growth should be slowed, then population
reduction encouraged. Further, with the UK, immigration is a major driver of
population growth so needs controlling more effectively.
I agree.
But the devil is in the detail. In the summary box at the beginning of
their paper "UK: Environmentally unsustainable migration" we read:
"OPT believes the UK is overpopulated and that its population should be
allowed to stabilise and reduce to a sustainable level. The ecological issue
is one of population numbers, and of resource demand and environmental
impacts created by different sizes of population at given rates of affluence
and technology. Issues of race, ethnicity or religion, therefore, are not
relevant".
It's the last sentence that is the problem, because it is untrue, in fact it
is nonsense.
Bearing in mind that the majority of UK people live in England, note the
following six points:
1) The 2004- based Population projections have the UK population growing
from 59.8 million in 2004, to 67.0 million by 2031, and 70.5 million by
2071. A massive increase.
In terms of Optimum Population Trust (OPT) thinking, this increase carries
the population yet further above carrying capacity.
2) Consistently for the last two decades, dividing the UK population into
British and
non- British, there has been a massive net emigration of British, a massive
net immigration of non-British. And most British are White.
3) In terms of Census ethnic classification, the White groups have a
fertility rate well below replacement level. Several ethnic minority groups
have a fertility rate well above replacement level.
4) In terms of Census ethnic classification, the White: British group, in
contrast to all other groups (possible exception, the White: Irish group),
is greatly contributing to the OPT goal of slowing population growth and
eventually reducing the population, by being the only group having both
below replacement level fertility AND net emigration!
5) Consider now return migration - for some immigrants eventually return to
their home countries "Return migration is commonest with people who
originated in countries where White ethnic groups predominate, groups all of
which have their cultural roots in Europe. In contrast, migrants from the
Indian sub-continent have a greater tendency to stay in the UK, and they
belong to non-White ethnic groups. These results have clear implications for
the changing relative size in the UK of groups with a European heritage and
groups with a non-European heritage" (our web site).
6) David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford has made preliminary
projections of the ethnic minority populations of England and Wales.
As we report about these projections on our web site:
"With England and Wales the non-white ethnic minority populations increase
from 8.7 to 24.5 per cent in 2051, and the white non-British-origin
populations from 2.7 to 11.6 per cent. So the total 'foreign' population
rises to a massive 36.1 per cent. We note that the conclusions for England
and Wales receive support, for the period 2001 to 2020, by the research of
P. Rees (see Salt and Rees 2006, "Globalisation, population mobility and
impact of migration on population", The Economic and Social Research
Council)".
Coleman, D. Immigration and ethnic change in low-fertility countries: a
third demographic transition". Population and Development Review 32, 3:
401-446.
Just put these six bits of information together and it is absolutely clear
that the total increase in the UK population is not just a matter of total
numbers regardless of the ethnic components of the population, because
ethnic groups differ significantly in their contribution to population
increase.
But the statement in this summary box also says later:
"OPT supports immigration. We want to go on doing our share of protecting
persecuted refugees as well as welcoming additional skills and cultures to
our already rich mix of people. The problem is how many? Since we believe
that our population density is now too great for our resources, we think
that a just solution is to balance immigration with emigration. As around
350,000 people leave our shores each year, we suggest limiting immigration
to the same numbers, to produce a neutral effect on our population growth".
But this is a superficial view. To suggest this proposal would produce a
neutral effect on our population growth is demographic illiteracy.
The 'neutral effect' of the last sentence could only ever be the outcome if
the demographic characteristics of the immigrating and emigrating
populations were identical. In practice, this is virtually impossible. In
the real world, are the age compositions of the two populations likely to be
the same, and hence the propensity for procreation? Are the fertility rates
of the two populations likely to be the same? Are the sex ratios the same?
Lets return to the basic question of ethnicity, and add this time religion.
I take the following details from a recent document I gave out at the Royal
Statistical Society meeting.
ETHNICITY
OPT officials must have seen the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Press
Release: "Ethnicity. 4 in 5 Bangladeshi families have children" (July 2005).
This said that "among all families, those headed by a person of non-White
ethnic background are more likely than White families to have children" and
"Bangladeshi and Pakistani families were larger than families of any other
ethnic group; in Great Britain over 40 per cent of these families had three
or more dependent children in 2001. This compared with 28 per cent for
BlackAfrican families, 20 per cent for Indian families, and 17 per cent for
White families".
Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
Fertility (Total Fertility Rate or TFR) varies between ethnic groups. Mr.
Pete Large of ONS kindly provided us with 2004 estimated TFRs based on
methodology of August 2006. In terms of census ethnic classification,
'White: British' had a TFR of 1.73, which is way below replacement level.
In contrast, 'Asian or Asian British: Pakistani' had a TFR of 2.53, well
above replacement level, and the Pakistani group has the second largest
total population of the non-White ethnic groups. The 'Asian or Asian
British: Bangladeshi', and the 'Black or Black British: Black African' also
had TFRs greatly exceeding replacement level - 2.45 and 2.26 respectively.
Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
Population age structure varies between ethnic groups. Obviously groups
with a high proportion of young and working age persons have a greater
potential to produce children than populations with a lesser proportion of
these age groups.
Another ONS Press Release (January 2004) gives details. The document has
the title: "Age/Sex distribution. Non-White groups are younger" . This
stated that "White groups have an older age structure than other ethnic
groups, reflecting past immigration and fertility patterns". OPT officials
must have seen this press release.
Now we have more up to date information about ethnic age structure in
"Population estimates by ethnic group 2001-2004" Table "EE2: Estimated
resident population by ethnic group, age and sex, mid-2004 (experimental
statistics)". ONS . Considering the young groups (0-15), all the Asian
groups have a higher proportion of their populations in these age groups
compared with the White groups. Withe working age groups (16-64/59) all of
the non-White ethnic groups have a higher proportion than the White:
British, usually a much higher proportion. Considering the older age groups
(65/60+), the White: British has the largest percentage of its population in
these groups than any other group apart from the White: Irish group. We
provide a histogram that gives full details of ethnic groups age composition
in sub-section h of the UK section of our web site Population Trends page.
Finally, we note that "migrants have a younger age profile than the
resident population, around a half of international migrants are aged
between 25 and 44" so they fall within the working and breeding age groups
(ONS, 2005. "The UK population at the start of the 21st century)".
Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
RELIGION
OPT officials must have seen the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Press
Release:
"Religion. Muslim families more likely to have children" (July 2005). Here
we read: "Families headed by a Muslim are more likely than other families to
have children living with them. Nearly three quarters (73 per cent) had at
least one dependent child in the family in 2001, compared with two fifths of
Jewish (41 per cent) and Christian 40 per cent) families.
Muslim families also had the largest number of children. Over a quarter (27
per cent) of Muslim families had three or more dependent children, compared
with 14 per cent of Sikh, 8 per cent of Hindu, and 7 per cent of Christian
families".
Now Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck College, University of London has been
studying secularisation in Europe (see our website, sub-section h, UK
section,
Population Trends). He notes that religious people tend to have a higher
fertility than non-religious people. Also, he argues that immigrants into
Europe tend to be more religious than the host population. Bear in mind here
that the Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslim groups seem to take their religion
much more seriously than the White: British group. And Kaufman comments that
next to age and marital status, it was a woman's 'religiosity' (it would be
better we think to use the less judgemental term 'strength of religious
affiliation') that was the strongest predictor of the number of offspring
she produced, and he states that many other studies have reached the same
conclusion.
Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
GROWTH RATES OF ETHNIC GROUP POPULATIONS
Revised (August 2006) population estimates for England made by P. Large and
K Ghosh conclude that the average annual growth rate for the whole
2001-2004 period, was, for the White British group -0.2% (minus 0.2%). The
figure for the non-'White British' was 4.2%. And 3.7% was the value for the
'Asian or Asian British: Pakistani' group (ONS, 2006, Experiment Statistics,
Population estimates by ethnic group: 2001-2004: Commentary).
Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
We note that 73 per cent of the growth of the Great Britain population
1991-2001 was caused by the non-white (minority) populations (R. Lupton and
A. Power.Minority ethnic groups in Britain. Case-Brookings Census Briefs
No.2. London School of Economics). They concluded "The increase in the
numbers of people from different ethnic backgrounds and countries is one of
the most significant changes in Britain since the 1991 Census".
Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
That then is the evidence.
Now,
OPT HAS BEEN TOLD AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
In 2001 and since, I have repeatedly drawn the attention of OPT to its
neglect of the ethnic dimension of population change, without suggesting
that this should become a major concern for the organisation, and provided
evidence of the relevance of the ethnic dimension to OPT's main concerns.
Most recently, in September last year and since, the relevance of ethnic
variation in demographic variables and religion to UK population growth was
explained in e-mails and letters sent by special delivery post to various
OPT officials, advisers and patrons. No replies were received.
Finally, on 19th April this year, in the Royal Statistical Society, I
gave out a paper that included the evidence I gave above.
But the two OPT statements that I gave earlier remain unaltered to this day!
Well I have corresponded with Ray Thomas over this issue of the OPT and
ethnicity and religion.
While I answered his questions and request for comments, he has resolutely
refused to answer my simple question that I have put to him again and again,
does he dispute the facts on ethnicity I gave?
In his most recent e-mail to me he wrote:
"Sorry John, but you are trying to take me into areas that I don't want to
go in".
So much for the scholarly , scientifc approach where one pursues a
discussion irrrspective of whether or not it takes one into uncomfortable
grounds!
OPT and Ray Thomas refuse to defend their position, refuse to provide
contrary evidence to the evidence I supply.
This seems to me to be one characterisitc way that the politically correct
deal with any criticism . For the politically correct, their ideology is
paramount. If evidence does not fit in with their ideology, one way they
often use is to ignore it; another is to deny its value without bothering to
give any evidence.
**But to come back to two small items,
first, David Coleman's projection for England and Wales.**
What do Radstats members think of this, or indeed the other projections for
European countries he gives and his general conclusions?
Second, what do Radsts members think to the conclusions of Eric Kaufmann?
The details about ethnicity and religion I have presented in this e-mail
come from subsection h) of the UK section of the Popualtion Trends page of
our Gaia Watch web site:
www.population-growth-migration.info or www.gaiawatch.org.uk
The OPT document I discuss can be accessed at its web site by the route:
home page - too many people - in the UK (left side of the home page) - the
migration link nearly half way down the page on the right - in the UK- the
UK's population problem unsustainable population growth - some way down the
right side of the page click on 'migration' - UK: Environmentally
unsustainable immigration.
The OPT web site is:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
John Barker
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|
