More Freeper Angst On Iran

Jonathan Last wrote about a new book by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins last Sunday in the Inquirer here in which Jenkins believes that Iran could turn into the “Denmark of tomorrow” (meaning that it could become less authoritarian and more liberal because the country is experiencing declining fertility rates and an aging population).

Putting aside this absurd notion (appealing though it is) if only because of cultural differences between the two populations (laid bare by the incident described here), I found myself wondering how some of the arguments proposed by Jenkins and Last would stack up when compared to this country (and after all, wouldn't that comparison be more instructive anyway?).

Here is some of Jenkins’ argument…

Population decline, he believes, could "usher in a new era of stability," creating "an Iran that is bourgeois [and] secular." To support this thesis, Jenkins notes that high-fertility nations include hot spots such as Iraq, Somalia and Sudan, while low-fertility nations include countries such as Italy, Germany and Japan.

…

…Jenkins (also) argues that the presence of fewer children in Iran will weaken communal, and hence religious, ties, promoting secularism and even helping to make Iranians "more accepting of people who seek options outside of traditional marriage" - by which he means same-sex marriage.

This is a familiar argument that gets revived from time to time in this country also; namely, that fewer kids means that the population is automatically going to descend into some kind of hippie hedonistic state or something (here). And it gives Jenkins a chance to tell us that…

…With Iran's fertility rate dropping, it currently has what is known as a "youth bulge." Its median age is 25.8, and 23 percent of its males are under the age of 15. The German demographer Gunnar Heinsohn makes a compelling case that such bulges of young men lead historically to military conflict.

Also noted by Jenkins and Last is this…

…By 2050, 30 percent of Iran's population will be composed of elderly dependents, and a dwindling number of younger workers will be forced to support them at their own expense. In wealthy First World countries such as Denmark, this situation leads to discussions about pension benefits and taxes. In poor, developing countries such as Iran, it could well lead to unrest and instability. It is one thing to be old and rich; being old and poor is quite another.

This Wikipedia article notes that, as of this moment, 60 percent of our population falls between the ages of 20-64 (that’s an awfully wide spread, but I don’t see that shrinking over time, meaning that the number of elderly dependents in this country is bound to rise also). And as far as the “old and rich” versus “old and poor” statement goes, well, once again, the Repugs just don’t get that whole “irony” thing, do they?

And this New York Times story from 1992 tells us that…

…whites will account for a declining share of the population (in the U.S.). Indeed, it says, the non-Hispanic segment of the white population will stop growing by 2029, when it is expected to reach a peak of 208 million.

And the Times story also tells us that Asians, African Americans and (in particular) Hispanics will become an even larger percentage of the population over time than now (yeah, just keep up with that confrontational rhetoric and denial of reality on immigration, Repugs; you’re doing fine there).

And getting back to Last, he tells us this…

Already, Iran's economy is fraying at the seams. In 2002, 40 percent of the population was below the poverty line. The Iranian government's own (rosy) projection puts unemployment at 15 percent (it is likely twice that, and even higher among the volatile youth cohort). Inflation was 12 percent in 2006 and has, by all accounts, risen since.

The Wikipedia article I linked to above about the U.S. population also notes that the unemployment rate in this country is officially listed at 4.5 percent, though I’ve never trusted that number anyway partly because it doesn’t take into account seasonal workers or anyone who’s given up on looking for a job. And this CAP article states that one in eight Americans (37 million) now live in poverty (yep, I busted on them and Osnos earlier, but they do a good job with “backgrounder” material like this).

And as far as our own economy goes, take a good, stiff drink to numb the pain and read this from Paul Craig Roberts (the headline is perfectly appropriate here).

Update 11/29/07: This is more current information on the economy in a similar vein, and Leonhardt's final paragraph here is a real "punch in the gut."

So let’s take a minute and summarize what Last and Jenkins are telling us here:

Iran’s population is declining and getting older (we’re in the latter category also).

It has a glut of young males due to a demographic glitch that isn’t expected to occur again.

Its economy is “fraying at the seams” with high unemployment (see bullet #1).

So what do Last and Jenkins suppose will happen next?

…Its only hope lies in the prospect of expansion: Southeast Iraq, Saudi Arabia (where Shiites dominate the oil-rich eastern region), and the United Arab Emirates all present attractive targets for Iran, with ample oil reserves and potentially sympathetic populations. Empire is Iran's most logical path to salvation.

Hmmm…I haven’t noticed Iran invading any countries lately, unlike us of course. But given what has happened in Iraq since March 19, 2003, there’s really no reason why they should have to, is there?