Negative population growth: how to go about it? (Letter to the editor).

It proves an interesting exercise to try to determine the effects of a national policy of government control developed on the basis of the need to conserve scarce resources, lessen environmental pollution, and to reduce the U.S. population to 1/2 of the 1970 figures within 100 years without increasing the risks of death. Let it additionally be assumed that in order to minimize the required reduction of fertility that there be no net migration. At the end of the reduction process, the stationary state in stable equilibrium might hopefully be achieved. If these are the goals, the process would include 1) reduction of the annual stream of births immediately to the number that would ultimately be required to sustain a population 1/2 as large as the present number and 2) smooth decline of the totals but with constituent age groups shifting drastically as the sharply reduced stream of births spreads upward through the span of life, with those 65 years and older making up 12% of the population. To obtain a fixed annual stream of births from sharply changing numbers of women of childbearing age would require rapid and drastic changes in the rates of childbearing. The same reduced population could be obtained from a system involving less drastic changes in the age composition, but these means would not be positive ones for older individuals. Both fertility and age distribution could move more smoothly if the mortality risks increased or with considerable emigration of the aged. Other means of reducing the population to 1/2 the present size within 100 years would create even more turbulence in the age distribution and rates of childbearing than those just discussed.