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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 15, 2007
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.


Sight, and you claim to be fairly good at statistics?! The not healthy children and the ones who won't reproduce are already in the birth versus death rate. So, basically a birthrate which equals the deathrate means just that you have a stable population. There are some other demographics which makes that you want a birthrate which is higher than your deathrate, and that is that people are getting older. So if the deathrate equals the birthrate and people are getting older, you'll have a smaller working population to support your whole population. And that of course is an issue.

You might think the above is a pit of nitpicking, but as you 'always' accuse the left of FUD in their arguments I would expect a better argumentation from you.

Basically you say the birthrate in Europe is too low, and that must be because of its social welfare program. Oh yeah, and the only reason the birthrate is not down the plump in some of those countries is because they are being overrun by Islamitic fundamentalists.

First off, the birthrate, yeah, certainly it is low and some countries do have a problem. But I see a wide variety and I would really be interested in a detailed analysis of their causes. Especially the low birth rates in the Eastern Europe countries, as their entitlement schemes are not that great at all. And it is a shame Sweden is not included, as according to your logic they should have a birthrate of about zero I don't believe for a moment it is the entitlements. I do believe that for the Western Europe countries it will have something to do with their wealth, with the wide availability and acceptance of birth control, with the fact that more people stay single. Also the families are smaller now. Two children seems to be the norm, which is too low to make up for those without children. But I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the low birth rates in some of the Eastern Europe countries.

Then the terror factor, the Islam overrunning Europe, changing it beyond recognition. Well, I've always been told that immigrants are in fact good for a country. That countries which are open to them fare better. In fact, the number of immigrants in the capital of my country, Amsterdam, is now lower than it was a few centuries ago (and Amsterdam has a lot of immigrants, around 50% I believe, but don't quote me on it). I don't deny that there are challenges, there are. Islamitic intollerance and fundamentalism are certainly among them. And yes, Europe will change, which is a good thing, as you need change to survive. The current Europe is not the same as the Europe of fifty years ago, and in another fifty years you will have again a different Europe. Whether it will be a better one or not is for the Europeans to decide. But I don't think we're doomed (yet;-) ).
on Feb 16, 2007

You might think the above is a pit of nitpicking, but as you 'always' accuse the left of FUD in their arguments I would expect a better argumentation from you.

Basically you say the birthrate in Europe is too low, and that must be because of its social welfare program. Oh yeah, and the only reason the birthrate is not down the plump in some of those countries is because they are being overrun by Islamitic fundamentalists.

First, yes, you are nitpicking and incidentally, you are wrong too in this case because we are using the statistics to project out.

There is a reason why 2.1 births per couple is considered "the replacement rate" rather than 2.0.

In a demographic where the average age is creeping up, then you can be certain that the birthrate needs to be higher than the death rate today in order for the population to remain stable or grow.

I also did not say "it must be because of its social welfare". I said:

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

I gave my opinion. I didn't by any means make it sound like I was insisting on it being true. I am hazarding a guess.

But I see a wide variety and I would really be interested in a detailed analysis of their causes. Especially the low birth rates in the Eastern Europe countries, as their entitlement schemes are not that great at all.

...Hmmm. former communist countries...i.e. where everything is provided by the government...has lower birth rates.. Hmm. Yea, very hard to see any pattern there...

Then the terror factor, the Islam overrunning Europe, changing it beyond recognition. Well, I've always been told that immigrants are in fact good for a country. That countries which are open to them fare better. In fact, the number of immigrants in the capital of my country, Amsterdam, is now lower than it was a few centuries ago (and Amsterdam has a lot of immigrants, around 50% I believe, but don't quote me on it). I don't deny that there are challenges, there are. Islamitic intollerance and fundamentalism are certainly among them. And yes, Europe will change, which is a good thing, as you need change to survive. The current Europe is not the same as the Europe of fifty years ago, and in another fifty years you will have again a different Europe. Whether it will be a better one or not is for the Europeans to decide. But I don't think we're doomed (yet;-) ).

This really isn't a political issue as you seem to make it out to be. It's a math issue.

If 2 people only have 1 child then in the lifespan of a human being, the population of a country that averages that kind of behavior will be halved minus immigration.

And an awful lot of European countries are looking at those kinds of numbers (or close to them).

The current European culture of today is actually quite similar to 50 years ago and it's quite similar to what it was 200 years before that.  I mean, could you be more disengenous in your argument? You really think that a spaniard from today going back 200 years would feel that alien (factoring technological changes)?  I think not.  But the "Spaniard" of 50 years from now, statistically, is going to have virtually no shared cultural heritage with that same spaniard from 200 years ago.

Unless Europeans start having babies, the Europeans of 50 years from now will be nothing recognizeable as the Europeans who have inhabited the continent for the past couple thousand years.

By your rationale, todays Americans are really no different from the Americans who were here 1000 years ago right? Surely, today's American is no different than the one that existed here before the mass migration of Europeans...

on Feb 17, 2007
...Hmmm. former communist countries...i.e. where everything is provided by the government...has lower birth rates.. Hmm. Yea, very hard to see any pattern there...


False comparison. You use the topic to promote some of your belief. Can't we have a serious discussion about a very serious problem?

No the problem is that people think that having a big screen TV, two cars, a big house, and 5 nights of eating out are a minimal standard of living.


that's a bad cliché. There are a lot of couple out there that really can't manage with only a lowly-paid job.

on Feb 17, 2007
that's a bad cliché. There are a lot of couple out there that really can't manage with only a lowly-paid job.


Then they are aiming to high for what they make. Like I said earlier "2" kids on "1" minimum wage job. So it's not a bad cliche. It's probably very true. You learn to like hotdogs & mac/cheese "real" quick.
on Feb 17, 2007

False comparison. You use the topic to promote some of your belief. Can't we have a serious discussion about a very serious problem?

Ah, leave it to our resident socialist to play arbiter of absolute truth.

Okay, why don't you tell us why former Communist countries, where the people have lived for 50 years with the government doing everything for them, that population decrease is most severe. What is your theory?

that's a bad cliché. There are a lot of couple out there that really can't manage with only a lowly-paid job.

Define manage. Mine isn't a cliche, it's based on looking at the US census data on what people in the lower 25 percentie of income and what they have.

If you're poo rin the United States, you're almost certainly not working full-time. it has nothing to do with the wages. This isn an opinion, this is statistical fact.

on Feb 17, 2007
Okay, why don't you tell us why former Communist countries, where the people have lived for 50 years with the government doing everything for them, that population decrease is most severe. What is your theory?


Ever since the fall of R.U.S.S., these country haven't been "that" much of a communist. Internal corruption, bad social services and heavy povrety (damn, what's the spelling..?) haven't helped.
on Feb 18, 2007
Ever since the fall of R.U.S.S., these country haven't been "that" much of a communist. Internal corruption, bad social services and heavy povrety (damn, what's the spelling..?) haven't helped.


They didn't have it when they "were" the USSR.
on Feb 18, 2007
We're not talking about people not having children in some theoretical sense. They are NOT having children now. The birthrate in Spain is 1.1. The question of whether people will have children whether they need them or not is already answered -- today. People aren't having them.


I came back to argue with this several times but I eventually realized you were right and that's why I was having so much trouble answering it. I was just overreacting to the statement "people had children for a very specific reason: Because they needed them," but as long as you don't imply that they were conscious of that, it's really true.

European culuture is certainly not spreading -- not fast or slow. It's not spreading at this point. What "European" culture do you imagine is being spread around these days? And pretty soon, there won't be enough native Europeans to make a marginal impact on the world.


"Culture spread" is kind of hard to define. The American culture that I grew up with (antiCommunist, Western history, classical music), is pretty different from the tolerant, diversity-oriented, Jay Leno culture we have today. Did someone spread that to us? Are we spreading it elsewhere? If European culture means internationalist, democratic socialism, stuff like that, maybe it is spreading.

The "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" kind of peasant culture is not going to spread. The culture that spreads is about how much money and military it has behind it. It's not necessarily about population. Little places like Portugal and Singapore can have more effect than huge populous nations. The population of New York probably has as much effect on American culture as all those fast-reproducing Christian Conservatives put together. Every one person who moves to New York cancels out the breeding efforts of a hundred Christians.
on Feb 18, 2007
Oh, btw, big kudos to you for going to dig in to the French reproduction statistics about "native born" Islamic parents. It's not that it necessarily was worthwhile but it shows that you're mentally still openminded enough to look up facts when you argue. I don't know if having a statistics page is worth it. I have a nice big one but #1 -- I have to look at the statistics all over again to find the right one and reinterpret them when I need them, and #2, I tend to get tired of having the same arguments over and over again and don't bother looking up the statistics at all.
on Feb 18, 2007

Oh, btw, big kudos to you for going to dig in to the French reproduction statistics about "native born" Islamic parents.

Well,  I am very interested to see theses statistics. As said in a link I have previously posted http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/29/opinion/edpfaff.php 

 This can't be proven by statistics since, in the name of French "égalité," French statistics do not take account of race or national origin. 

So I am wondering how thoses statistics about french births from "native born" Islamic parents have been gathered.

BTW, the situation about France could have been more ironic as Algeria is no longer french since 1962. Before that year, it was a part of France

on May 07, 2007
This was an eye opener for an article. A very interesting read. I would like to have seen the stats for Asia too. Going with your comment that we needed children to work the fields in the old days, parts of Asia are still like that, so comparative figures would have been interesting to see.
on May 10, 2007
i blame taxes

here in the usa it takes two jobs one to pay the taxes and the other to maintain the family

and with spending all of that time at work who wants to come home and take care of a smelly and crying baby


i also blame N.O.W. for telling women that being a mother and housewife isn't a job

i think that is the most important job around period
3 Pages1 2 3