Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Are entitlements deadly?
Published on February 10, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

Europe is dying.

It will take awhile. But in the course of a few decades, the Europe that we know and love will be gone.  Even today, the world of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" is largely something that can only exist in fiction. Any Greeks reading this? How many brothers and sisters do you have? Any?

Below is a table of the birth-death rate for selected countries from the year that just ended:

  Birth rate Death rate
Country 2006 2006
Australia  12.1 7.5
Austria  8.7 9.8
Belgium  10.4 10.3
Czech Republic1  9 10.6
France  12 9.1
Germany2  8.2 10.6
Greece  9.7 10.2
Ireland  14.4 7.8
Israel  18 6.2
Italy  8.7 10.4
Japan  9.4 9.2
Mauritius  15.4 6.9
Netherlands  10.9 8.7
New Zealand  13.8 7.5
Norway  11.5 9.4
Panama  21.7 5.4
Poland  9.8 9.9
Portugal  10.7 10.5
Romania  10.7 11.8
Switzerland  9.7 8.5
Tunisia  15.5 5.1
United Kingdom  10.7 10.1
United States  14.1 8.3

If the deathrate is higher than the bith rate, you get the idea.

In fact, if the deathrate is even close to the birth rate, you have a problem because, obviously, not al births are healthy children. Some will die. Some will have disabilities that preclude them from reproducing.

These numbers are worse than they look for anyone who is a fan of western civilization.  The reason? Because the only reason western Europe's birthrat is even close to the death rate is due to first genration birth of immigrants who are ovewhelmingly Islamic (coming from North Africa or Asia Minor). 

A lot of people, mostly Europeans, don't like talking about the I-word (Islam). It's a touchy subject and so they try to pretend Islam is a race rather than a religio-ideology and treat those of us who are concerned with it as racists or bigots or what have you. But Islam is a different culture, whether you like it as a culture or not is subject for a different discussion.  But when a native culture isn't reproducing itself and a foreign culture is, then in a human-life span or two, the foreign culture is the native one for better or worse.

But what is the cause of this?  Why have Europeans in particular given up on having children?

My opinion is that it is entitlements. Consider this: Why have children? What is the incentive other than biological urge, to have children?

Or more to the point, what is the incentive to have more than one child? Maybe you have a girl and want a boy so you have 2?

In the time before cradle to grave entitlements, people had children for a very specific reason: Because they needed them.  They needed them to work the farms. They needed them to help out in the household. They needed them to take care of them when they became old and infirm.

But now? What do we need kids for? Mother government will provide for us. The more urbanized, the lower the population growth. All those government services are so convenient. It takes a village right?  And when you get old, you don't need children anymore. No, the government will pay for your medicine, house you if necessary, and provide money to allow you to live pretty well.

But who am I to judge? I'm an only child. And in fact, I'm not trying to judge. I really don't consider one path to be morally superior to the other. So don't shoot the messenger.

Unless the birth rate of European countries changes course, and there's no reason to think it will, the native population of Europe will be decimated and it will only be a matter of how much immigration they are able to bring in that determines how well their country fairs economically. Of course, thena gain, it won't be their country anymore will it?


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 10, 2007

I just thought I should add a couple other points before some denier of reality jumps in:

Population projects can be tricky when it's a matter of growth. Anything that is GROWING can be tough to project out whether it be population or green house gasses.

But when something is SHRINKING, it is very easy to predict if we know the precise number of units it takes for something to shrink to 0 as well as the average lifespan of that thing. Hence, in the case of people, if we know there are X number of people and they are disappearing at rate Y, and that the average person live Z years, we can make a pretty good guess of what the situation is going to look like in N years. 

So the only question on the table is whether there's some reason to think that Europe's birth rate will rebound and if so, why?

on Feb 10, 2007
Ever read the Foundation series? Looking at the numbers, I was struck by the Swiss ones. Seems they did read it.

But I am curious. This does not include immigration, right? Not that it will be a factor in not changing Europe, but then looking at the America numbers makes me go WOW.
on Feb 10, 2007
You're totally right Brad. The US is the only Western country with a birthrate that's not in decline.

To be honest I think there's something deeply wrong about western culture that cripples a country. We're so rich and hard-working few people are prepared to suffer the poverty and the career death of having a child. It was only when women were chained to the kitchen as baby factories that western culture was self-propagating. Now, when women don't have to have children, they choose not to. Why have a kid when it means you'll never have the time to be a good parent without abandoning the status of a career? Why have a kid when it'll drag you down into poverty?

By the time most westerners can afford and want a child it's too late and they need invitro, which slows the birthrate even more.

It's a real problem, but at least you're doing your bit Brad. You've got a couple of kids, right?

In Australia we've been hovering around the 2.0 mark for a while, with immigration the only thing keeping growth up at all. Admittedly our environment can't support too many more people without massive infrastructure improvements (we have barely enough water in drought decades as it is), but it's still a worry. The government has tried bribes (3 grand per baby) but it's not working. It may get to the point where parental leave will be paid with taxes.

I do wonder though whether it's a problem of socialism or a problem of education. Children are raised to think they can be anything, so when they leave school they work damn hard to achieve those goals. And that means they don't do what their parents did - they don't settle down until they've done everything they want to do. It's as much a problem of materialism as the wondrous (and soon to disappear) benefits of the socialist state.
on Feb 10, 2007
materialism

I agree, my opinion is that capitalism is OK, but materialism can lead to spiritual illness. If the needless things in our lives become more important than our children, then all is lost.
on Feb 10, 2007
Doesn't the US have the same problem? Our birth rates have been in decline for years. No, it isn't as bad as many European countries but it is headed in the same direction. I would guess that our birth rate would be even lower if we didn't have such a large number of immigrants coming to this country and having more babies than "native" (lol) Americans. Will our country no longer be our country?
on Feb 10, 2007

I do think the key question boils down to:

Why do we have children?

Seriously. What do we have children?

Historically, I think we can all agree that having children was in the best interests of the parent in the long-run.  And besides, without birth control, children would just happen.

But in an age of birth control, people have to want children. Consciously.

I have 3 children. I had them for selfish reasons that are probably unique to my own particular psychosi.

on Feb 11, 2007
Seriously?

I think the answer ALWAYS boils down to some selfish desire. If this is true does this mean that Europeans are more enlightenend than us because they are less selfish?
on Feb 11, 2007
What about passing along the love that was given us? Why do people adopt? What about just having children because it's the default choice?

It doesn't have to be a selfish choice. It doesn't have to be about building extensions of ourselves for our self-actualization and self-gratification. And if it is, that is just self-delusion. Teenagers teach us that. Conscious or unconscious there are few things as compellingly altruistic as being a loving parent. We grow into and with that vocation.
on Feb 11, 2007
Another problem is one of propaganda. I've mentioned this in terms of the abortion debate before, but western cultures have over the last 30 years been trying their best to end teen pregnancies. Nothing wrong with that, right?

BUT... it is how it is being done. Consider all the commercials you've seen that portrayed kids as a 'life ender'. The haggard looking 20 year old in a bathrobe with the drunk husband and the wailing baby, daydreaming about all that she could have been. In terms of having babies early, it is often dead-on. Young people aren't ready, normally.

BUT... those images stick. We've taught an entire generation that having kids is detrimental to our lives. That personal success and intellectual advancement REQUIRE the absence of kids. That's a load of crap, frankly, because the "non traditional" students I went to college with who came late after starting families were a hundred times more devoted and centered on learning than the kids who saw it just as an extension of high school.

I think our propaganda worked too well. We didn't focus on WHEN we had kids, we portrayed the bearing of children ITSELF as a problem. How we have to live with the social stigma that we've not become everything we could have because we opted to procreate. I expect it to take hold here in the US eventually.

Another problem I think is divorce. Western culture has made it so universal now that I think a lot of people get married with divorce in the back of their heads. We plan for it with prenuptial agreements. I saw an interview once with an actor who said unabashedly that marriage had evolved, and now like careers people didn't feel obligated to have only one in their lifetime.

People who have suffered their parents nasty divorce as a child would no doubt be hesitant to have kids, especially with the custody battles and child support woes. It is most certainly so much about the self now that we just don't seem to have as much room for procreation.
on Feb 11, 2007
Consider all the commercials you've seen that portrayed kids as a 'life ender'. The haggard looking 20 year old in a bathrobe with the drunk husband and the wailing baby, daydreaming about all that she could have been. In terms of having babies early, it is often dead-on. Young people aren't ready, normally.


I agree they should do something to deter teens since they are normally not ready physically or mentally to have them, but they definitely should find a better way of saying why they shouldn't! This picture definitely leaves a bad taste in the mouth and one not soon forgotten!lol!

The rest of your comments were dead on Baker, views I agree with!


It doesn't have to be about building extensions of ourselves for our self-actualization and self-gratification. And if it is, that is just self-delusion


Dr. D, I don't agree that it is self-delusional here at all. As a parent myself, before becoming one I've always wanted to have children, a little one who would be like me, in some aspects, who I can teach things and have fun with. It is self-gratifying to know that hey, "I gave birth to three kids!" That thought amazes me sometimes especially when I see how much they've grown and since I have friends who cannot have children naturally.


I would guess that our birth rate would be even lower if we didn't have such a large number of immigrants coming to this country and having more babies than "native" (lol) Americans. Will our country no longer be our country?


This is an interesting point!


Good article Brad, and an interesting one!
on Feb 11, 2007
Dr. D, I don't agree that it is self-delusional here at all.

Just to clarify FS, I said that seeing parenting as selfish is delusion.
on Feb 11, 2007
I said that seeing parenting as selfish is delusion.


Ahaa...I stand corrected! I hadn't had my coffee yet!!

I wholly agree with you!
on Feb 11, 2007
Actually, there is 2 roots to the problem:

First is the society's desire of children. It's not always easy, as it have been said before. Children are often depicted as "life-ender", when you loose freedom, nights of fun and other things.

This problem can subtly be countered with governement promoting family. This take the form of financial aid to artists who promote family in their work (such as folk singers who include a few songs about how it's great to be a father), and taxations on negative publicities about it. It's a rather harsh mesure (and I know that in the USA, people would get outraged about it) but if it's not too bluntly implimented, it kinda work.

The 2nd problem is symptomatical to all western society: the need to work. The drive to work, and you end up screwing your career if you have kids. Off course, more often than not, it's the woman who will screw it up (getting 2-3 "pregnancy break" 1-2 years long often ends your fired in some places). The same is said about fathers, who will then need to work overtime in order to financialy manage to keep the same rate of life the couple had when they were DINK (Double Income No Kids). This end to a less satisfying life, and resentment against your children on the long term.

This problem can be fought with governement regulations to forbid employers to fire women on "nursing leave" for less than 2 years (and even then, I think it's not ennough) and heavy financial aid based on the number of child you have, and the loss of income they make you suffer. that way, you are less afraid to have children if you have a good earning, 'cause you'll get something proportional to what you lost. And people who are too lazy to find a decent job won't end up making thousand kids just for the fun of having the money, 'cause they won'T get the most benefits out of it.

In Quebec, over here, those 2 measures have been somewhat been taken (more or less) and we are experiencing a small babyboom ever since a good financial aid was allowed to family with small children. The birth rate jumped from 1.4 to 1.6 in 1 year.
on Feb 11, 2007
I hadn't had my coffee yet!
  I'll join you - as you can see, I can be very vague without it!

on Feb 11, 2007
I do think the key question boils down to:

Why do we have children?


I don't mind looking at having children as an incentive problem, but I feel like you should factor in that people would have children whether they "needed them" or not. Because we're animals. You can't fix everything about an animal with economics. Like, you can't bribe a panda to mate with any amount of bamboo.

Just be careful, because if entitlements aren't the cause of low birth rates, and you cut them, those childless people will really be screwed.

I'm sanguine about Europe dying off. I figure, either everyone else might get rich and stop having kids too, like China, or the economy might change so having a low population is an advantage (fewer food riots), or European culture might could spread faster than the change in population and leave more "Europeans" than we had before, or any number of future histories.
3 Pages1 2 3