Posted on 12/24/2006 4:11:13 AM PST by goldstategop
Suppose for a moment that the birth in Bethlehem that Christians celebrate this week never happened --that it is, as the secularists would have it, mere mumbo jumbo, superstition, a myth. In other words, consider it not as an event but as a narrative. You want to launch a big new global movement from scratch. So what do you use? The birth of a child.
If Christianity is just a myth, then it is, so to speak, an immaculately conceived one. On the one hand, what could be more powerless than a newborn babe? On the other, without a newborn babe, man is ultimately powerless. For, without new life, there can be no civilization, no society, no nothing.
"The world has collapsed," announces a BBC newsman in a new movie. "Only Britain soldiers on." Europe in 1940? No, 2027. Adapted from P.D. James' dystopian novel, Children Of Men is set on a planet in which humanity is barren. That's to say, it can no longer reproduce. And you'd be amazed at how much else collapses with the fertility rate.
You might have a hard time finding ''Children Of Men'' at your local multiplex. It's a more pertinent Christmas movie this holiday season than ''Bad Santa 3'' or ''The Santa Clause 8,'' but Universal seems to have got cold feet and all but killed the picture. In an enthusiastic review in Seattle Weekly, J. Hoberman observed: "Universal may have deemed 'Children' too grim for Christmas, but it is premised on a reverence for life that some might term religious." Granted, he's in the godless precincts of Seattle, that last bit of the sentence -- "some might" -- seems a tad qualified. Obviously, Christianity has a "reverence for life." So too does Judaism: all that begetting the eyes glaze over at in the Old Testament, going right back to God's injunction to be fruitful and multiply.
Christmas is a good time not just for Christians to ponder the central proposition of their faith -- the baby in the manger -- but for post-Christian secularists to ponder the central proposition of theirs: that religion is a lot of goofy voodoo nonsense and that any truly rational person will give it the bum's rush. The problem with this view is that "rationalism" is looking less and less rational with each passing year. Here are three headlines from the last couple of weeks:
"Mohammed Overtakes George In List Of Most Popular Names" (Daily Telegraph, London)
"Japan's Population 'Set To Plummet' " (BBC News)
"Islam Thrives As Russia's Population Falls" (Toronto Star)
By comparison with America, those three societies are very secular. Indeed, Russia spent three-quarters of a century under the most militantly secularist regime of all: Under Communism, the state was itself a religion, but, alas, only an ersatz one, a present-tense chimera. As a result, Russians more or less gave up begetting: Slavs are in steep population decline, and, on present trends, Russia will be majority Muslim by 2050. And the Russian army will be majority Muslim by 2015. In western Europe, societal suicide isn't quite so advanced, but the symbolism is still poignant: "George" isn't just the name of America's reviled cowboy president, but of England's patron saint; the national flag is the Cross of St. George, under which Englishmen sallied forth to smite the Mohammedans in those long-ago Crusades. Now the Mohammedans have managed to smite the Georgians big time, not by conquest but simply by outbreeding. Mohammed is also the most popular boy's name in Brussels, Amsterdam and other Continental cities.
But forget Islam: In Europe, they're inheriting by default. There are no Muslims or any other significant group of immigrants in Japan and yet the Japanese are engaging in a remorseless auto-genocide. Already in net population decline and the most geriatric society on earth, their descent down the death spiral is only going to accelerate. As the BBC reported, "The imbalance is threatening future economic growth and raising fears over whether the government will be able to fund pensions. But Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said: 'It's impossible for the pension system to collapse due to the declining birth rate because we will adjust the amount of money put into it.' "
Oh, OK then. But, just as a matter of interest, when you "adjust" the amount of money you put into the pension system, whose pockets are you going to "adjust" it out of? Japanese and European societies are trying to secure the future on upside-down family trees in which four grandparents have one grandchild. No matter how frantically you "adjust," that's unsustainable.
What's the answer? Cloning? Artificial intelligence? Well, here's another story you may have missed in recent days. Sir David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser, has turned in a bunch of reports on issues likely to arise in the next 50 years. Among them is a study on "robot rights." In a nutshell, if robots advance to some form of consciousness, they'd be entitled to welfare. The state would be obliged to provide "robo-healthcare," as the report puts it, plus no doubt robo-pensions and all the rest.
These are four stories you may not even have seen, what with all the really important stuff happening in the world, like Miss USA not being fired by Donald Trump, and Matt Damon dissing Dick Cheney. I'm a big 24/7 demographics bore, as readers of my new doomsday book will know, but even I'm a little taken aback at the way its thesis is confirmed every day by some item from some part of the map. These stories are all one story, the biggest story of our time: the self-extinction of most of the developed world.
The Virgin Mary's pregnancy is not the only one in the Gospels. There's another that prefigures it, in Luke 1:13:
"But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John."
Zacharias is surprised to discover his impending fatherhood -- "for I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years." If you read Luke, the virgin birth seems a logical extension of the earlier miracle -- the pregnancy of Mary's elderly cousin. For Matthew, Jesus' birth is the miracle. Luke, a physician, leaves you with the impression that all birth -- all life -- is to a degree miraculous and God-given, if only because without it there can be no world. The obligation to have children may be a lot of repressive theocratic hooey, but it's less irrational than the secular self-absorption of a barren Russia, Japan and Europe. And, if Christianity is a fairy tale, it's a perfectly constructed one, beginning with the decision to establish Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth: As the song says, "And man will live forevermore because of Christmas Day."
"So what if we face extinction because of our fantasist beliefs? At least we'll go extinct being what we are - Cowardly, self-indulgent sybarites with a fatuous faith in our own superiority. Merry Christmas all."
Interesting comment. Particularly the somewhat ironic Merry Christmas.
I don't think it's going to be an issue of outright extinction but more of a long term polarization. There are some very dedicated Christians who at more of an emotional and religious level have already gotten the message loud and clear. They're already having children like mad and home educating them to boot. And they're teaching their children the importance of doing the same thing. Just because you don't read about it in the lamestream media doesn't mean that these folks aren't out there.
The rest of our society who isn't interested in reproducing will not be relevant in another 50 years. They've already self-selected themselves out of the gene pool.
"Get with the plan, go forth and multiply!"
I don't really need encouragement in that respect. :-)
I pray for my 7 children.
Our only hope is that the muslim kids will all get fat and lazy living in the west, like most westerners do, and abandon their false religion as too burdensome.
It should have been:
"One of our BEST hopes..."
With all due respect, you misunderstood what I was saying. By "too many" is meant that the fact that the growth rate slowing and actually reversing in most of the world is de-facto evidence that the current global population is at or nearing it's maximum sustainable level
It is not de facto evidence of any such thing. The Muslim birth rate is exploding. Gaza has a birth rate into the fours or fives. Spain has a birth rate of 1.3. Are you saying that this is de facto evidence that Spain has hit its resource ceiling whereas Gaza has not? Ridiculous. You are ignoring the importance of ideology. The Shakers did not believe in sex -- even the procreative kind. That's why you don't find a lot of Shakers around. Not because North America ran out of resources for the Shakers.
Western Man has recently come to prize non-procreative sex: abortion, contraception, homosexuality, late marriage, etc. Whatever you may personally think of these activities does not alter the fact that they put one at a demographic disadvantage to a philoprogenic philosophy.
Marking
"About 15 to 20 years ago they introduced a government program to reward Quebec parents with a cash bonus of more than $1,000. for every child born in the Province. The incentive seems to have had no effect. Quebec's birthrate is still amongst the lowest in Canada - which is low enough as it is."
A $1,000 cash bonus is chump change compared to the costs of raising a child. And even if they were to multiply that bonus by a factor of 10, I doubt it would have the intended effect.
In this day of birth control and infanticide, the people who have children are those who want them for reasons that have little to do with economics. That may come from some immature sense of just wanting a baby, as we see with unwed pregnant teenagers, or it may come from a desire rooted in spirituality as we see amongst Christians.
The best thing that the state can do to increase birthrates is not to penalize those who are inclined to have them. And this is one area where I depart the conservative reservation, as I think our current tax structure is incredibly punitive towards those who do have children. And the "solutions" promoted by many conservatives would simply exacerbate that.
Nurp. Interesting scenarios vis-a-vis Russia's border with China suggestion themselves ...
The problem with Mark Steyn's columns on this subject, though, is that they're not funny.
See the graphs here, in particular the growth rate graphic. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html
Gay marriage is a means, not an end.
Five of the six billion inhabitants of the earth seem willing to live in harmony. Then there's the billion Muslims.
Interesting. It's okay to attack the changing demographics regarding Islam but not when the hispanic culture begins to take over. (I don't mean you)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Are they? ( the 5 billion ). Perhaps, for the time being.
bttt
Western Man has recently come to prize non-procreative sex: abortion, contraception, homosexuality, late marriage, etc. Whatever you may personally think of these activities does not alter the fact that they put one at a demographic disadvantage to a philoprogenic philosophy.
________________________________________________________
An obvious result of Intelligent Design.
A curious thesis given the demographics of third world countries, regions and continents - SA, Africa - where populations continue to increase as a function of poverty.
Only in the most economically independent cultures is population on the decline. The exception, of course, is China, where infanticide is government policy. 200 million young men without brides will soon bring that jaded experiment to a screeching halt; unless, of course, India cares to export its unwanted female population to the testosterone hordes of Mongols in the north.
Yes. The Apostle John, for one.
Revelation 13:18 (KJV) actually states:
The Apostle John was referring to a specific Man, "the Number a A Man", not "the Number of Man". The following is from Dr. Noam D. Elkies, Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University:
The Apostle John specifically said, in Revelation 1:1, that he was warning the Faithful of his day and time about a great Tribulation which must "SHORTLY" take place, not some imaginary "Left Behind" Apocalyptic balderdash 2,000 years hence.
And, indeed, the Bible is yet again proven to be the very Word of God in the near-term fulfillment of John's very Prophecies, in that very generation:
Revelation 16: 21 -- And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, [every stone] about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Most of Revelation concerns Prophecy which, in the Author's own words, must SHORTLY take place, in that day and age -- and were, indeed, 100% fulfilled, in that day and age.
The Book was certainly NEVER intended by Apostle Saint John as a justification for hyper-apocalyptic chicken-Christians living 2,000 years later to invent Malthusian faux-overpopulation excuses to let the Moslems inherit the Earth.
Good to see you 'round, L.
Best Regards, and Merry Christmas. OP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.