Posted on 08/21/2010 7:02:54 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Europe is dying. The Washington Post, among others, reports that, within a hundred years, there will be the rare German in Germany or Italian in Italy. Some demographers believe it is too late to correct Europe's plunge into extinction. "The fall in the population can no longer be stopped," reported Walter Rademacher of the German Federal Statistics Office.
Replacement fertility rates are 2.1 children per woman in developed nations. No nation in Europe can claim that rate, and most fall under 1.6. At those levels, each generation is barely half the number of the preceding one. The working-age population is reduced by 30 percent in just 20 years, having a devastating impact on economies. Today, European Union and United Nations experts are sufficiently alarmed to call councils to address the population crisis. The irony is that this is a crisis of their making.
In the 1960s, futurists painted a dire picture of population explosion and its concomitant depletion of resources. As recently as ten years ago, the UN's own Millennium Summit Declaration insisted, "We must spare no effort to free all of humanity, and above all our children and grandchildren from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no longer be sufficient for their needs" (22).
Global policy planners set about crafting a means to curb world fertility. Contraception and abortion as social policy necessarily pitted planners against Christian teaching and traditional families. Predictably, these policies led to tacit devaluation of marriage and the acceptance of divorce, cohabitation, and single parenthood in the developed nations. Worse, a militant secularization of Western culture deprived two generations of the foundational reasons for family formation. Sociological tinkering as part of the Human Potential Movement sought to detach people from "religious superstitions" and apply scientific methods to the management of human beings. Their mistake was a crucial misunderstanding of the nature of family: Is there an inherent, ontological basis for families, or can the nature of a "family" be recast at the whim of international governing bodies?
In March, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) released the "Policy Brief on Ageing #5," which stated, "Populations in the UNECE region are ageing rapidly. To maintain economic growth and standard of living, people would need to work longer before they can retire." Left unsaid is the root cause: "Because we have aborted or contracepted a large percentage of our future generation, the current aging generation can expect less support in old age from the children they did not have who cannot now contribute to the GDP, thereby threatening our standard of living."
Yet another effort to address the European crisis is the cheery sounding formal paper "The Happiness Commonality: Fertility decisions in a low fertility setting." The paper gushes with false hope and a bald assertion that children are a valuable consumer commodity:
The main idea of this article is that the quest for happiness, and the compatibility between happiness and childbearing, is the "commonality" that may bring an understanding of fertility differences in contemporary advanced societies in Europe and North America. . . . In this framework, the decision to marry, to divorce or to have a (nother) child is taken when we expect to be in a better position (in other words, happier) when comparing the status after this decision (to have a child) has been taken with the current status. If children are considered as "consumption goods", we have children because we derive utility from having them. Despite semi-hysterical attempts to reassure the remaining European population that having children could lead to greater happiness, there are very powerful social and political forces that cannot be turned around quickly enough.
First is the addiction to the oft-stated "standard of living." Child credits or family-friendly economic policies are insufficient -- around 4 percent of GDP in the best case, Denmark. Tax or direct credits are less in other nations, and in any case the incentives have not proven effective: It has become a strong cultural norm to have fewer children, and monetary assistance is simply not enticing. Italy's "Bambini bonus" did not result in a measureable uptick in birth rates. Simply stated, even where the nation is willing to make the social and economic investment in the next generation, its individual citizens often are not. Why is this?
Economic analysis reveals that a disproportionate percentage of the retired population leans on its ever-fewer young citizens. Their tax burden is too great (spread over too few taxpayers), couples end up postponing or foregoing children altogether, and the depopulation spiral gains speed. Further analysis shows that a woman who interrupts her productive working years for an aggregate of ten years in order to raise a family loses 20 percent to 25 percent of her lifetime earnings. Government birth credit policies are no match for this monetary and professional loss.
Additionally, quality commercial care for young children can cost 10,000 Euros per year. Southern Europeans are faced with the choice to sacrifice children to career or career to children. (In the Nordic nations, government subsidy is far higher and is partially borne through a compulsory daycare attendance from 13 months.)
Studies show that American men are more likely to assist their wives with domestic tasks; European men, meanwhile, especially in Mediterranean countries, are less likely to tackle child care and domestic chores. For dual-income couples in Europe, one predictor of a second birth is the degree to which the father has assisted with the first child. Added responsibilities, such as care for elderly parents, means a second child is a rarity.
Conversely, for Europe's intentionally childless couples, freed of child-care obligations, the standard of living can be quite high. And, as they age, they will draw on the productivity of younger citizens, though they produced none themselves -- a free ride of sorts.
In the final calculation, couples, especially women, feel no obligation to contribute to the nation's demographic health. Her free choice and personal fulfillment are devoid of concern that her nation's future is in peril because, quite simply, she will not be around to endure the consequences. An egotistic, nihilistic message underpins this lifestyle: "This is all there is. Get what you can, because soon it will be over." Commitment beyond my immediate need is of no consequence to me. Even the very concept of national community is reduced to an exchange between citizens and their state where tax revenue is pooled; and education, health care, and infrastructure maintenance are consumed by citizens in the pool.
As secularization systematically erases all reference to cultural tradition, religion, and transcendence, it removes the anchoring identity of the people. What does "nation" mean to postmodern men raised in a history-erasing state school? High-worth citizens (educated and possessing specialized skill sets) may shop for the "nation" that offers the best exchange of services for joining its tax pool.
Secularized elite Westerners who imagine they will have the luxury to exchange skills for a life lived within the political arrangement of their choice have gravely miscalculated. The United Nations Security Council's permanent seats are on course to be dominated by Muslim-controlled nations. The European seats of Britain and France, as well as Russia's seat, are already compromised: As their percentage of immigrant Muslim citizens rise, they dare not risk a Security Council vote against another Muslim state, lest their own citizens riot. If Islam ascendant inherits the reins of the EU, toleration of postmodern lifestyles will not be its distinguishing feature.
In Habermaus's term, "post-metaphysical" secular Europe intentionally and legally eliminated Christianity as a recognized foundation of European culture -- all in the name of freedom. When the European Union drew up its new constitution, Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger futilely urged leaders to acknowledge the Christian contribution to the making of Europe (see "The Dark Side of the European Union," from the June 2003 issue of crisis). The Christian worldview is the genesis of the very idea of human rights, yet this foundation was casually swept aside. Many reasoned voices echoed Hillaire Belloc, warning that a people without the intimate knowledge of their common origins cannot perdure as a cohesive society.
Secularists realize, but do not publicly admit, that that loss of Christian moral foundations has plunged Europe into a depopulating death spiral. What secular moderns omitted from their war-gaming gambit for population control was that the huge physical and spiritual vacuum of a post-Christian, depopulated Europe would leave them prostrate before an intolerant Islam. In the halls of international institutions where "global governance" has been methodically planned for more than 50 years, the assumption has been that those who lived to see this dream come true would be other "post-metaphysical" elite. Instead, the global system they planned may be delivered by population default to the nations of Islam, China, and India.
I have faced death, and my hope and peace comes from imagining Jesus ruling this world along with His angels and those who were killed during the tribulation. It will be a wonderful time. This period of time will be considered the darkest of ages compared to the future.
4 world order is from Daniel and Revelation. Kings from the 4 corners of the Earth. Jesus will have the only 1 world order.
Will he let it go on that long? Why not? He let worse happen in China and the Middle East.
We will be destroyed, but God is LONG Suffering. I also think sooner, much sooner.
We are buying our own dept. No nation goes 20 years doing THAT. We are already gone. Catch 22.
Lose now or lose bigger tomorrow. And we keep picking tomorrow.
There’s a beautiful Youtube with someone who sounds like Johnny Cash but isn’t doing a song about Job. I’ll see if I can find it.
I admire your Jesus-centered perspective, which has been the consolation of all the saints in times of dire trouble.
Here it is. Maybe not everyone’s cup of tea, but I reallllly like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTIiXtW9ctU
http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/song_details/2953611
Neat, and I do love Wm Blake's art!
The amazing thing to me, as I study history, isn't that Rome fell, but that the Germanic barbarians were the only ones who seemed to care by the end. The Romans of Roman stock were more worried about taxes and money, while the German nobles wanted to preserve, and ultimately be, Romans. That is why Christianity survived, because by the late 5th century the barbarians were Christian an viewed it as something to preserve. Even though many where some flavor of Arians, they were very sympathetic to the Church, and ended up converting because that is what the Roman's are.
Such will not be the case this time. The muslim hordes who are spreading across Europe have little desire to preserve the culture or religion. The fall of the West will be more like the East this time. With minarets in St Peter's square. In such "Catholic" countries as Spain and Italy, the next generation will not be Christian. In the North, the old bastions of Calvinism and Lutherans are already fading away. Even here, the State bends over backwards to accommodate islam while snubbing Christianity. A remnant will be saved, but they may not survive the coming night in the West.
But Africa and Asia are having the Word spread like wild fire. There are majority Lutheran countries in Africa, and more Christians in China than in Europe or the US. The Church will survive, though we may not recognize it in a generation.
The story in a nutshell.
No I don't realize that at all. The question isn't "is politically incorrect science widely criticized", it's is the criticism valid. Those people who have been picking holes in the global warming orthodoxy have been widely criticized too, they are still right. IQ tests exist in every language, with culturally relevant signifiers in them. IQ tests do not require writing. There are even IQ tests done totally with blocks that have been shown to correlate pretty closely to more traditional IQ tests. I'm a little surprised that a conservative here on FR is signing up with the IQ-deniers, a group who tend to be far left and dedicated to pushing their multicultural agenda over reality. Have you read "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" or "The Bell Curve"??
Many of Europe’s women are beyond the years where they could have 8 children... many are past the point where they could have more than one. Demographics bite.
As you point out the West predates Christianity by many centuries. I do look back on both Rome and Greece as part of my heritage and inheritence, despite being neither Greek or Roman. And the Western Slavs, from whom I am descended, did not convert to Christianity until forced to by the Tuetonic Order as part of the Norhtern Crusades.
I desire the West to survive. Christianity was central to the west for about 1400 years, and many of our greatest achievements were inspired by it.
None the less it now seems to have not only lost it's force here, but in many cases be an active agent of our destruction. One need only look at the many Christian organizations that are pro-homosexuality, pro-amnesty, anti-American, anti-Israeli, etc.
Perhaps that is needed in China and Africa (both notoriously repressive and prejudiced cultures)? Maybe we need something different now, just as Hellenistic Paganism was no longer relevant at the start of the Dark Ages, perhaps Christianity as we understand it today isn't relevant for the new Dark Age of the West that it has helped usher in.
Read “Fire in the Minds of Men” for a start.
Remeber that not all the races on Africa fit that mold.
My disagreement with your racialist theory does not make me a leftist. There is a very wide gulf between your extreme view and mine, which believes that the children of [legal] immigrants who can quickly absorb better nutrition and living conditions can also raise their group’s median intelligence within one or two generations.
Hispanics are good, Liberals and Welfare Queens are bad.
I certainly agree with that. What I was saying is not that Christianity is the evil ideology that is destroying the West, rather that it is so weakened, reformed and defanged that it appears to have no role in saving and reconstituting the West. Using two examples from history: At some point in the past the pagan gods motivated their cultures, great deeds were accomplished, wars fought, temples errected, the gods blessings sought and assured. In that period the Hellenistic World and Rome were in their ascendency.
By the time Rome fell clasical paganism was a quaint remnant of the past without any power in mens minds to motivate them to restore the greatness of Rome. Emperor Julian was the last to even make an attempt, and it was short lived. In 363 A.D. Julian died. In 387 A.D. Rome is sacked for the first time in 1000 years.
Or consider the Crusaders, who fought in the name of Christianity to protect pilgrims, rebuff Islam, spread the Gospel. Many of the Crusaders took vows of chastity and poverty as part of their preparation. Christianity was central to the defense of the West for 1000 years, and helped repulse Islam, the Moors, the Ottamans and other threats.
Christianity no longer seems to have the power over us, the power to motivate and encourage. It reminds me of late paganism, mostly a curiosity for many people, the leading institutions are bloated and corrupt, not capable of mustering us to do what is needed.
Why hasn't it worked for American blacks then? Surely you are not claiming there is widespread mal-nutrition among blacks in America? In fact the average IQ of American blacks is just what you would expect given that on average they are about 20% white. In other words 150 years after the end of slavery and 50 years after Jim Crow your theory still has born no fruit.
I consdier people who cling to theories of egalitarianism in the face of reality "liberals" regardless of what other views they hold.
I think the problem of answering your posts is the inherent conflict in your own position. You appear to believe in your own race’s superiority, but seem to take no comfort in it. You can’t have it both ways.
Some people knew this before science told us since God had already told us that Eve was the mother of all the living...we all share the same family tree.
Hispanics are good?
What is good are human beings with morals, responsibility, good character, and be willing to provide for any offspring they produce, in a marriage. And determination and courage.
Whatever their color or race. And if they’re illegal, they should be shown the door, fast.
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.