Skip to comments.
Where Have All the Children Gone? Postmodern secular nations are committing suicide.
American Thinker ^
| 03/15/2011
| Jerome Koch
Posted on 03/15/2011 7:26:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Where have all the children gone? It's a problem that Mark Steyn first addressed in his book America Alone. Other than a piece Jonathan Last recently wrote for Weekly Standard, few if any reporters, pundits, politicians, or scholars seemed to take any interest. This is rather astonishing in so far as everything from our national security, economy, and future well-being depends on our ability to procreate. As Mark Steyn quipped, "...a people that won't multiply can't go forth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the age we live in."
If one is to glimpse at the TFR (Total Fertility Rates, measured in children per female. One can get them via the CIA Fact Book, Wiki, and various UN publications) he would see that from a TFR of 4.78 in 1970, the global fertility rate fell to 2.56 in 2010. If one is to glance at individual nations, he will notice that some of the lowest rates are in Europe and the former USSR. Poland has a TFR of 1.26, Romania's is 1.20, and the Ukraine's is under 1.3. In Italy, Greece, Spain, France, the UK, Germany and Portugal the TFRs are below 1.5. Scandinavia as a whole fares a little better with TFR's just under 1.9 children per female. But, before these north European nations put themselves on their backs, it should be noted that Scandinavia has very large and fertile Islamic minority population. It is the immigrant populations that are reproducing, and not the hosts.
One will also notice that various Asian nations also have very low TFRs. Japan's is near what demographers call the lowest of the low of 1.1, while China has a TFR of 1.5. But China and Japan are not alone for Thailand and Vietnam have TFRs below 2.0. If one goes to Central and South America the numbers are better, but the trends are not. Mexico had a TFR in 1970 of just below 6.9; today it is just over 2.2 children per female. As a matter of fact, this negative trend continues across Central and into much of South America. And while current TFRs in South America average above replacement rates, if the current trends continue they will soon fall below them.
Even in Muslim nations the TFRs are falling. From Tunisia to Egypt the birthrates have fallen from over 6 children per female in 1970 to below 2.5 in 2010. The TFR for Tunisia in 2010 was only 1.86 children per female. Yes, Yemen, Afghanistan, as well as Somalia enjoy some of the highest birthrates in the world (generally above 6.0), but the trend in many East Asian nations is downward. Indonesia, for instance, has a TFR of only 2.19 compared to 5.6 in 1970. It is only in Africa where TFRs generally well are above replacement levels.
The fertility trends in the United States mirror global trends. Jonathan Last pointed out that our fertility rates have been falling ever since our Founding. From an average of over 7 children per female in the late 18th Century to a nadir of less than 2.1 during the Great Depression, it was only the period 1945-1965 did our TFR's actually increase. During the Baby Boom years the TFR reached a peak in 1960 (3.6 children per female). But by 1980 our TFR sank to 1.8 . It currently stands at just over 2.0 (2.06) thanks in large part to immigration (both legal and illegal). Last also makes the point that recent immigrants to the US adapt to their American hosts very quickly as far as fertility is concerned. There is little to fear that immigrant minorities as a group will reproduce themselves into a majority someday (a nativist fear that goes back over 100 years). The just completed 2010 Census showed the slowest growth rates since the Great Depression. Yes, the US's growth rate will continue to be positive, but the rate of positive change in our population has lost steam. Only immigration allowed our population to increase. It isn't inconceivable that our population could in fact contract this century if current trends are not reversed.
There are significant problems these plummeting birthrates create. Economically the problems are obvious. Governments in Europe and North America built elaborate and generous entitlement states since World War II. But the inverted demographic pyramid of Europe and North America already are causing significant strains on the public purse. The US alone has $100 trillion worth of unfunded public liabilities. For Europe the problems are not just economic; growing Muslim populations in the UK, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France foretell both social and political unrest, as Muslims will certainly continue to clash with its aging, gentrified host society. As the number of native Europeans halves every 35 years, the proportion of Muslims will proportionally increase. A decade ago, European experts laughed at the predictions of a future Eurabia. They no longer laugh.
Another significant ramification of a rapidly aging society was brought to light with the earthquake/tsunami disaster that hit Japan on 11 March. Lost in the drama of the nuclear power plant meltdowns was the horrific story of Harumi Wanatabe. In an interview with reporters, Harumi described how her elderly parents were swept away by the tsunami as she desperately attempted to save them. The tsunami hit her village only 30 minutes after the earthquake stopped. Harumi's parents were too frail to move quickly. One wonders how many of the victims of this tragedy will be the elderly. Japan for decades has had some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. The elderly now make up the fastest growing segment of its population. Most of these elderly didn't have many children; and their children produced even fewer grandchildren. Like Europe during the tragic heat wave of 2003 (in which the majority of the 35,000 victims were elderly), Japan is beginning to experience its demographic decline in a most painful way.
The United States is at a crossroads. We are not yet in the position of Europe, China, and Japan. But we are not that far behind. As the statistics point out, we will not be able to rely on immigration much longer to grow our population. Procreation of course is a very private matter, but it does have very public ramifications. And history has shown that no amount of government largess encourages couples to procreate. European nations offered very generous inducements for decades, but their fertility rates continue to drop. Jonathon Last noted that fertility rates in many ways are determined by religious beliefs. From this perspective the US, is more secular than is advertised. And unless things change quickly, we will suffer the same fate of Europe and Japan. Postmodern secular nations are committing suicide.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; demographics; lifehate; moralabsolutes; population; populationcontrol; postmodern; prolife; secularism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
To: SumProVita
We are doing our part, 5 kids so far. I have drawn a simple chart to show my children how Christians can have a multi-generational impact on our culture. If we were to have 2 children, who then each had 2 children, we would have 6 votes (adding the two generations) to impact the direction of our nation’s policy.
If we were to have 10 children who then each had 10 children, we would have 110 votes to impact the direction of our nation’s policy.
It’s a greatly simplified example for my children, but I believe there is a reason that God consistently told his people to be fruitful and multiply...even when they were taken into captivity. If you want your culture to survive, you can’t allow your population to shrink.
The secular documentary “Demographic Winter” is a must watch movie on this topic. If there were any real journalists left in the USA, this coming crisis would be making headlines across the country.
21
posted on
03/15/2011 8:05:09 AM PDT
by
Spudx7
To: FourPeas
It's not just infant mortality rates that have been declining over time -- it's mortality rates in
all age groups.
We're living longer than ever before simply because a lot of the things that used to kill us in our teens, our twenties, our thirties, etc. either don't affect us anymore or are treated easily through modern medicine.
I heard some futurist on the radio a few years ago, and he said that one of the defining characteristics of this modern age is that something like 99% of the population will die as a result of whatever they were genetically predisposed to die of.
22
posted on
03/15/2011 8:05:58 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
To: napscoordinator
My circle has lots. 4 for me, 4 for my best friend, 3 for my doctor friend. We are rural southerners.
23
posted on
03/15/2011 8:06:06 AM PDT
by
smaug6
(We can't afford to be innocent!! Stand up and face the enemy.)
To: SeekAndFind; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
24
posted on
03/15/2011 8:08:46 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: SeekAndFind
Well, I’m doing my part with my third child on the way. What gets me are the yuppy career women that waited and waited to have kids until their late 30’s. They shunted their reproductive cycles with chemicals for years, and now they expect to get pregnant easily. Maybe they had an abortion in their late teens or early 20’s.
I’m not religous and never go to church. I could not be more pro-life. I know too many Catholic and Jewish girls who’ve had abortions. No sympathy for them as they try and have kids later in life. Too bad, the world needs more white people. Sounds bad, but it’s true.
To: napscoordinator
the kids born 2001-2011 have more children than the boomersIf people born between 2001 and 2011 have children already, there is something deeply, seriously, wrong going on.
26
posted on
03/15/2011 8:17:39 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Nadie me ama como Jesus.)
To: blueunicorn6
I agree that many men want to be/are children. Also, it is very costly now to have them.
27
posted on
03/15/2011 8:17:39 AM PDT
by
kabumpo
(Kabumpo)
To: Spudx7
;-)
We have had 5 children too! I often chuckle at the notion of “not being able to afford them.” With the help of God and hard work, all needs were amply provided for.
As an aside for non-believers: NO, we do not support *indiscriminate” procreation. We believe in cooperating with the Divine Will.
28
posted on
03/15/2011 8:18:19 AM PDT
by
SumProVita
(Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
To: kabumpo
Costly to have men? You’d better believe it! None of my kids bought a $35,000 pickup truck!
29
posted on
03/15/2011 8:19:07 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Nadie me ama como Jesus.)
To: wbarmy
The demographic predictions for China are truly staggering.If China put in a Social Security system, and quit brutalizing citizens - birth rates would go down. The best 'social security' in third world countries currently is still 'sons'...
30
posted on
03/15/2011 8:19:51 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
(http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - It's only uncivil when someone on the right does it.- Laz)
To: Spudx7
There’s also a book you might want to read: CHILDREN OF MEN by PD James. It’s fiction, but it demonstrates the natural outcome of foolish and/or evil thinking.
31
posted on
03/15/2011 8:25:06 AM PDT
by
SumProVita
(Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
To: wbarmy
My four are planning at least four each and after having old parents like me they want to start their families early and have many. I am helping out by providing them with land towards their houses.
32
posted on
03/15/2011 8:29:13 AM PDT
by
Chickensoup
(“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.” Orwell)
To: SeekAndFind
Well, the muzzies NEED a lot of kids. They use them up like .22 shorts.
33
posted on
03/15/2011 8:31:13 AM PDT
by
arrdon
(Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.)
To: Clump
Bless you! We also had 3 children (wish I had gone on to have at least one more). We now have 5 grandchildren and one on the way. It’s sad that government policies make it so expensive to have large families. We not only have to support our own families, but we pay taxes to support irresponsible people who have children they cannot support.
To: SeekAndFind
Its taxes. the Western socialist democracies tax their residents beyond the ability to raise children. It return for which , they “promise” to care for you in your old age.
A large family assures that at least one child will be there to provides for your care and comfort as you age.
follow the cash trail..always...when nothing else makes sense.
35
posted on
03/15/2011 8:34:19 AM PDT
by
mo
("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
To: Republic of Texas
“... higher taxes mean couples both have to work and can’t afford children”.
Not that long ago, Dad’s could work and Mom would stay at home with the kids. They were still able to afford a vacation and have a good life. With the tax situation, parents are forced to deal with childcare issues and other problems never really dealt with before. As a result, fewer children are born to parents who want to give their kid’s an average life. IMHO
To: wbarmy
Uh ... those results may have been true in 1977, but not today!
Their base of white liberals is shrinking due to demographic issues and them abandoning the Dem party. However, all of the assorted ethnic groups that are considered “diversity candidates” are breeding like rabbits on fertility drugs. In other words, the LaRaza contingent will take over the dem party, along with CAIR, NAACP, etc. and end up being the majority of the US population.
To: SumProVita
Sounds like a good read, I’ll look for it here.
I know that 5 children is considered a “large” family, but I don’t feel like we are, maybe if we have 6 ;-)? My parents worry that my husband and I have done the most foolish thing on the planet—inviting poverty into our lives, yet they love each one of our children. God continues to provide our daily bread, somehow we keep everyone fed and clothed.
38
posted on
03/15/2011 8:40:22 AM PDT
by
Spudx7
To: strider44
We have 5 girls. (Czech/Italian ancestry.)
To: Spudx7
I have never felt it was “large” either. However, when the children were smaller, I was always asked (with some sense of incredulity), “Are they ALL yours?.” Lol!
Everyone helps and supports each other. Are there difficulties? Of COURSE....but if we had no problems...we’d never grow and mature. Our children are all grown now and all contribute very positively to society...and we are a close family.
By the way, when the relatives give you the “poverty meme”, remind them that the Son of God chose to be born into what was considered “poverty.”
;-)
40
posted on
03/15/2011 8:51:30 AM PDT
by
SumProVita
(Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson