Thailand Facing Population Crisis

[george]

Thailand facing population crisis

BANGKOK: -- Thailand will soon be facing a population crisis due to the rising number of elderly citizens, the declining number of young and working populace and the total fertility rate dropping from 6.3 in 1964 to 1.61 in 2005, a scholar warned Thursday.

Kua Wongboonsin, a population studies expert from Chulalongkorn University, said the problem of dropping fertility rates needed immediate attention. because the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime had hugely dropped from 6.3 children during 1964 and 1965 to just 1.61 during 2005 and 2006 With each family now having less than two children, the Thai family structure had changed drastically - from the highest percentage of child population (0 to four years old) in 1970 to having the highest projected percentage of elderly in 2010, he said.

-- The Nation 2007-10-25

[astral]

1.63 children per family is low.

I understand 2.4 is the value needed to keep a stable population,

mind you that may have changed with people living longer.

This is an area of concern, not just for Thailand, but all nations.

On a personal level, my parents lived to be 80,

I can now see the possibility of medical advances allowing me to live until 100.

[Gary A]

It IS having a big affect on the Issan farmers right now. The families are simply not big enough to farm the traditional way. This will finally force them to use more modern methods and the days of doing everything by hand are going to end. This year is the first time I saw some rice planted with a grain drill and NOT planted and then replanted by hand.

[Mid]

stop killing the youth with motor cycles would help .....................

[LaoPo]

Thailand Population: 65,068,149

note: estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2007 est.)

Total fertility rate: 1.64 children born/woman (2007 est.)

HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:

1.5% (2003 est.)

HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:

570,000 (2003 est.)

HIV/AIDS - deaths:

58,000 (2003 est.)

From:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/th.html

LaoPo

[warriors]

Well both my parents are alive age 88 living in New Zealand.

But I live in Bangkok so my lenght of life shortens some what living here.

So maybe I will live to 99

[mrbojangles]

Although bad for the country, for the reasons mentioned. Is it good for the planet? If this happened in all countries, would it have a positive effect? I'm guessing so but i really don't know

[londonthai]

open the borders and lao, cambodians, burmese as well as hill tribes will come and work on the farms and in the factories.

earth can sustain 20 bln population - the matter how the wealth and resources are divided

[Lorin]

On my personal level I see no problems, with all the young gals having babies and leaving them upcountry with moms when they down to BKK, Pattaya and Phuket to work.

[ThaidleHands]

It's generally accepted that 2.1 live births per woman is the average required to maintain a stable population.

For what it's worth, having a demographic shift towards the old is probably not as big a problem as it is for Japan for example or for the West. Thailand simply doesn't have the massive social welfare state that you find in most other countries whose birth rates have fallen below replacement rate, so the public burden will be far less.

For another thing, a higher percentage of Thailand's new elderly will have grown up in profound poverty and even with parity in the level of care they simply won't live as long as their counterparts elsewhere owing to chronic disease and other factors. In other words, while there will be more new elderly, there won't be more new elderly for long.

There's no reason to think that a gradual worldwide population decline is in any way a bad thing. It means less competition for resources and less chance for war; less industry, less pollution, better health; better conservation of the remaining unspoiled places; the list of benefits is nearly inexhaustible. Also as a sub-replacement birth rate is a feature of modern economies and political systems, once all country's population levels are in slight decline you'd expect extreme poverty and disenfranchisement to have been almost completely eliminated.

Generally the only parties who beat the drum and worry loudly about population reduction are those that don't understand all the factors and benefits, or who think only in narrow terms of raw head-count to maintain economic hegemony or military advantage over their neighbors.

[Johpa]

It IS having a big affect on the Issan farmers right now. The families are simply not big enough to farm the traditional way. This will finally force them to use more modern methods and the days of doing everything by hand are going to end. This year is the first time I saw some rice planted with a grain drill and NOT planted and then replanted by hand.

The "traditional" method was to make a communal effort when it came to the planting (actually replanting), harvesting, and threshing. The labor intensive work was shared and it was hard but it was an enjoyable community bonding experiences the few times I destroyed my back planting rice with the in-laws. The non-shared work was more the plowing, the weeding, and the maintenance of the padi walls and the irrigation channels.

Modern "methods", AKA mechanized methods that are only profitable when large flat areas are under a single owner, force smaller farmers off the land, allow for the conglomerates like ADM to collect ALL the profits, and the displaced become urban poor living in a lumpenproletariat hel_l.

[chownah]

It's a good thing. Everyone will benefit. Agriculture will get more efficient and it will happen after those who would have a hard time coping with the changes have retired....and as has been pointed out already those elderly alive now are used to simple lives so they will not present a huge drain on their children. All in all it seems like Thailand is going to go through this much better than alot of other places probably because H.M. the King's sufficiency economy is how the existing elderly have lived their entire lives and H.M. the King's recent messages about this is to try to help young people who mostly have forgotten how good a simple life can be.

Chownah

[londonthai]

society being older means no workers to produce or to take care of elderlies - it's a big and still deepending problem in all industrialised countries.

worldwide population decline is neither good or bad - everybody should have a choice of having as many or as little kids as they want. Opening all borders will take care of the dying societies with a supply of workers from another region.

war, pollution of an environment by industry, poor health care, poverty can be only eradicated by the change of the socio-economic system which creates them - replacing this system is the only solution

having a demographic shift towards the old is probably not as big a problem as it is for Japan for example or for the West. Thailand simply doesn't have the massive social welfare state that you find in most other countries whose birth rates have fallen below replacement rate, so the public burden will be far less.

There's no reason to think that a gradual worldwide population decline is in any way a bad thing. It means less competition for resources and less chance for war; less industry, less pollution, better health; better conservation of the remaining unspoiled places; the list of benefits is nearly inexhaustible. Also as a sub-replacement birth rate is a feature of modern economies and political systems, once all country's population levels are in slight decline you'd expect extreme poverty and disenfranchisement to have been almost completely eliminated.

[Martin]

Oh, dear.

The way that this is reported, it sounds like we have a narrow-specialist Chula academic who can only see his/her little bit of the big picture, and has got it upside down.

But it may be that the reporter has just given one snippet from a much broader analysis.

I am inclined to guess that it is the latter (bad reporting) rather than the former (myopic view) that is occuring; "...facing population crisis..." and "...dropping fertility rates needed immediate attention..." doesn't sound like the measured words of an academic 'population studies expert'.

Thailand had little problem from its high birthrate half-a-century ago as villagers had a means of coping.

My wife has told me how it worked.

A village with a stable population cultivated the land surrounding it. If all the land within a convenient distance for the buffalo to walk to do the ploughing was taken and the village had a surge in population, some young adults would decide to form a group to 'migrate' a few kilometers into the 'forest' (which Westerners' would describe as 'scrubland' or 'bush').

They would clear land and establish a new village.

A few years ago, we met a very old lady in a village who could remember my wife's grandfather being the leader of just such a group from her village, who went and established the village in which my wife was born and grew up.

More recently, as 'Gary A' has pointed out, Thailand drew on the villages to staff its industrial surge and all the supporting activities, and the rural areas now have less than the population that they could support, using fertilisers and tractors.

Unfortunately, the feedstock for fertiliser is natural gas, its manufacture uses electricity derived from various fuels,and its distribution uses diesel. Also the tractors use diesel.

Now that fuels are much harder extract from the Earth, this rise in the price of fertiliser (and other effects that 'knock on' from rising fuel prices) means that the methods of producing food that have developed in the industrial era (and give rise to the saying: "America eats oil") are becoming unsustainable.

For Thailand, a population of 65 million, with 10 million in Bangkok not growing any food, presents a problem.

However, provided the older folk remain healthy and economically-active, the problem looks to be surmountable by a combination of a low birthrate bringing down the total population and a 'return migration' from the urban areas (particularly Bangkok) to intensive food-production around the villages.

Thailand is lucky to have a climate that, with manually-intensive farming/growing/gardening methods and strains of rice that don't need artificial fertiliser, it looks likely to be able to grow enough food for all in its (lower population) future to be fed, and have a bit of surplus to export for cash for other purchases.

As Chula is Bangkok's most-prestigious university, I would guess that a 'population studies expert' there is well-seized of the fact that the size of a populatio is limited to what can be supported by the amount of food that it can get and that a reduced birthrate helps to avoid a future 'population crisis'.

I wouldn't be surprised that a Bangkokian reporter doesn't see the bigger picture.

However, I may be wrong, as I note that some eminent academics are now drawing attention to the fact that excessively-narrow academic specialisation is producing university teachers who can no longer help the students to gain a broad-enough view to be successful in their working lives outside academia.

I have to go to a conference at Chula in a couple of weeks time, so I will see if I can get a copy of the original Research Report upon which this 'Nation' reporter has based her/his story. I will tell what I find on this thread.

[ThaidleHands]

society being older means no workers to produce or to take care of elderlies - it's a big and still deepending problem in all industrialised countries.

worldwide population decline is neither good or bad - everybody should have a choice of having as many or as little kids as they want. Opening all borders will take care of the dying societies with a supply of workers from another region.

war, pollution of an environment by industry, poor health care, poverty can be only eradicated by the change of the socio-economic system which creates them - replacing this system is the only solution

There will be no lack of workers, they will simply have to individually share a marginally higher cost of elder-care. This will be offset in large measure by the fact that they will be in or just past their peak earnings years and will have fewer children themselves meaning more ready cash to support their parents.

You describe societies with negative population growth as "dying" so you seem to have already made up your mind whether population is good or bad. A society with fewer members can be as vibrant as any other depending on the will of its people.

Taking on another society's unwanted only serves to perpetuate the evils in their culture as well as retard the inevitable and desirable population fallback in the country they move to. This is the point that those who embrace open borders as a social palliative always seem to miss: those with the gumption to migrate are also those who are most likely to rebel and demand change in their home country if you force them to stay put.

[siam-i-am]

stop killing the youth with motor cycles would help .....................

You are 100% correct. Until you get a minister who makes crash helmets (plastic or otherwise) The status quo will remain.

[ozzydom]

Quote]

More recently, as 'Gary A' has pointed out, Thailand drew on the villages to staff its industrial surge and all the supporting activities, and the rural areas now have less than the population that they could support, using fertilisers and tractors.

Or is it that villagers flock to Bangkok because their family landholding can no longer support the extended family ??In the villages in my immediate area this is certainly the case..

The average land holding of a typical villager used to be 3-5 rai. The village was usually founded by a small group of families with an able bodied man as head of the household. As Martin stated ,sometimes hacked out of the surrounding forest which also provided the building materials.

Those times are long gone , the forests are locked into Reserves and there is no more land unless you are able to afford to buy.

Over time many of the original males died,now, a point to take into account is that the festivities and celebrations to send a body to its ultimate end and the spirit on its journey can cost up to 300k, that is 3 rai of good rice paddy.

Usually the bulk of the money is borrowed against their land,which ends up being forfeited to the gold shop ,as the family has little hope of paying the debt off.

I admit that I dont understand the Studies and Reports mentioned ,but I do know that 4 into 1 does not go,I will give an example from my own family as way of explanation.

My wife was one of five children with a widowed mother,they used to have a living ,subsistence farming 18 rai, When I came on the scene ,there was a 400k debt on the land, I paid this off and the land was eventually divided into equal 3 rai blocks.

The family that was originally seven is now extended to thirty one with more weddings and births imminent in the near future.

A family this size can almost consume the sticky rice crop from the whole 18 rai , so what sort of future awaits the poorly educated villagers who have no access to funds for expansion in order to feed themselves.

This is not a phenomenum of poorer countries,,Australia has virtual ghost towns , where the the land holding would not support a family as it grew.

[ChaiRorn]

Population crisis or not, until Thailand understands the value of investing in it's young generation, the problem stands.

[disgruntled]

I can't agree with most of you about population. Less is more to me. How can you set a goal of 20 billion? If that's possible then maybe we should do the science; we might find out that we are already over our limit. I see the whole idea of having children to support the current economic system as silly. We don't need to have children to support old people we need to adjust the way we live and the economic - social support systems to work with the reality we face.

Millions of people die worldwide due to poverty yet we want more people? Sounds selfish to me. I believe Singapore, Japan, Germany, and Russia pay incentives to people who create babies. They want their own babies not some 'culturally inferior' babies in my view. Sad truth. The US and some other countries don't seek births to solve their social issues they do it by allowing migration.

The world has so many environmental issues right now. If you want more people you would probably believe that nature's equillibrium is not important anymore as we can manage it. If this is the case then it a dog eat dog world. War will be used as a solution if man's new environment management and economic system fails.

As for Thailand, all the talk about lots of land and no one to farm it is just garbage from what I see. If you want to see overpopulation there are plenty of places where there are too many people and no work. You can make money from farming in Thailand if you have a 100 rai. The people I know and Thaksin knows don't have enough land to let any of their kids farm. The workers coming to Bangkok are coming because there is no work upcountry. Fifty years ago when a farmer divided his 100 rai with his 7 kids they all got 10 - 15 rai. they had 4 kids and they got what? Nothing they came to Bangkok. Bangkok isn't growing due to people upcountry getting bored with their lives. People come to the city out of necessity. When they come businesses grow and they need more people to sustain them. Ask farmer if they would like to get more land to farm they'll say hel_l yeah.

The 'need' for population is due to the economic system we are currently using. I also believe real estate has a lot to do with it too. As they say they are not making any more land. They are making more people. Let populations go down and the whole real estate based system will have a heart attack. Just look at the loan crisis in the US.

It's just my opinion. Everyone has the right to decide what kind of world we live in or sustain. Religious leaders want more people of their beliefs. Nationalistic people want babies and possibly outsiders who will sustain their culture (both visually and philosphically) and way of living. We all have a right to seek the world we want. For as long as I can remember, for some starnge reason the issue of reducing population has never been considered.

If you look at the Philipines a wonderfully population-stabile country, you will see the benefits of a thriving population.

Babies for a stronger future. Have three or four or ten! Yeah!

[disgruntled]

I guess there are some people who believe in population control...

This is from some religious website against Warren Buffet but you can find other links to info like this...

http://www.cirtl.org/buffett.htm

[tijnebijn]

To create a larger workforce , why not just give us farangs

who never want to leave just an automatic work permit

stated all work allowed ?

Maybe not a very educated post from me , sorry for that ,

but it can help does'nt it .

[a2396]

open the borders and lao, cambodians, burmese as well as hill tribes will come and work on the farms and in the factories.

earth can sustain 20 bln population - the matter how the wealth and resources are divided

Is that right? The earth can sustain 20 billion - no problem, and at what standard of living? I hope ther are enough garbage dumps for the majority of the "have nots" to get lunch & dinner. This sounds like propaganda from the "holy mother" church.

[visionary]

I believe that declining birth rates are in essence a non confidence decision. People enslaved in the nightmare of industrialised urban society are concluding that it is not a way of life that should be imposed upon future denerations.

[Prakanong]

"owever, provided the older folk remain healthy and economically-active, the problem looks to be surmountable by a combination of a low birthrate bringing down the total population and a 'return migration' from the urban areas (particularly Bangkok) to intensive food-production around the villages.

Thailand is lucky to have a climate that, with manually-intensive farming/growing/gardening methods and strains of rice that don't need artificial fertiliser, it looks likely to be able to grow enough food for all in its (lower population) future to be fed, and have a bit of surplus to export for cash for other purchases."

Martin I respect your research interests et al but do you really beleive there is going to be a reverse migration back to the fields and agricultural working?

Where has this happened before except for the forced returns of China during the cultural revolution and Cambodia under the KR and we saw what they were!

Its just not going to happen.

The suffiency economy is a myth - an opium for the poor while the rich wallow in it right from the top down.

[JimsKnight]

The OP who pulled the figure of 20 billion people being sustainable is pushing it big time! The earths resources are stretched as it is!

Many believe that as it is the earth is reaching critical mass when it comes to sustaining the numbers we have as it is.

6.6 billion people now inhabit the planet and thats a lot. Overcrowding and overpopulated areas are already a problem. Less is needed, not more say some of the experts. Having less children is one way of cutting down the population to managable levels.

20 billion would mean a very crowded and very hungry world, unless we suddenly start building cities underground, in the sea or just in the middle of deserted parts of asia.

Thailand, not having a welfare state should do alright.

[absolutelyBangkok]

Thailand should allow a healthier immigration.

What would trickle down with investments, jobs and opportunities upon the population.

It would not only rejuvenate society.

More open rights, a more open hearted welcoming of foreigners and foreign approaches/thinking would also rejuvenate Thailand's own stale approaches and "ways".

I am not saying Thailand is steering into a dead end road.

But her isolationalism is clearly not healthy.

A growing population and no means to balance are signs of an unhealthy isolation.

It's as simple as that: Just give people more opportunities.

And many problems get solved by themselves.

Edited October 26, 2007 by absolutelyBangkok

[Prakanong]

Thailand should allow a healthier immigration.

What would trickle down with investments, jobs and opportunities upon the population.

It would not only rejuvenate society.

More open rights, a more open hearted welcoming of foreigners and foreign approaches/thinking would also rejuvenate Thailand's own stale approaches and "ways".

I am not saying Thailand is steering into a dead end road.

But her isolationalism is clearly not healthy.

A growing population and no means to balance are signs of an unhealthy isolation.

It's as simple as that: Just give people more opportunities.

And many problems get solved by themselves.

Many economists and others say exactly the same about the UK, the USA and Europe - then we have a lot of people on here saying they left those places due to increased immigration - seems they only like it when its them.

As for Thailand - well if you have the right money for investment you can go there - its just the potless losers with money to buy a beer bar that are out of luck.

As for attracting workers - well even Singapore pay their migrant workers more than they can get in Thailand - in fact there are plenty of migrant Thai workers down here where 20k THB a month is a lot better than they can earn back home.

[brahmburgers]

open the borders and lao, cambodians, burmese as well as hill tribes will come and work on the farms and in the factories.

earth can sustain 20 bln population - the matter how the wealth and resources are divided

Earth is already beyond its carrying capacity with people populations

The OP who pulled the figure of 20 billion people being sustainable is pushing it big time! The earths resources are stretched as it is!

Many believe that as it is the earth is reaching critical mass when it comes to sustaining the numbers we have as it is.

6.6 billion people now inhabit the planet and thats a lot. Overcrowding and overpopulated areas are already a problem. Less is needed, not more say some of the experts. Having less children is one way of cutting down the population to managable levels.

20 billion would mean a very crowded and very hungry world, unless we suddenly start building cities underground, in the sea or just in the middle of deserted parts of asia.

Thailand, not having a welfare state should do alright.

I agree with the Knight. I'll add that the OP's population article has only one 'downside' from my view, and that's less security for the average elder person, because less young people contributing to their retirement well-being.

The more Thailand gets away from village form of cooperative/family welfare for elderly - and closer it gets to Bkk power broker mentality, the less financial security there will be for elder common folk.

[brahmburgers]

If you take the title of this thread, and replace the middle two letters in 'Facing' with the letters 'ra', you get a different meaning.

[LaoPo]

If you take a look at the following, one can see that Europe & The Far East are the areas in the world having the highest population density...

Thailand is #61 with 125 people/sq/km

Around 1900, when our grandparents lived, the world had just a mere 1.6 Billion people. Some hundred years later we're facing a population of 6,6 to 6,7 Billion people.

The forecast for 2050 is 9,4 Billion people.

And, in the meantime, Mother Earth didn't grow...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density

World Population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populat...have_ever_lived

Scary !

LaoPo