Mark Adomanis at Forbes:
…While Douthat is right that the move towards lower fertility has occurred in essentially all wealthy and developed countries, the specifics vary greatly: Sweden‘s 1.98 TFR is pretty low by historical standards, but from the perspective of long-term viability it looks a heck of a lot better than Germany‘s 1.39. Even within supposedly decadent and corrupt Europe, there are very large variations both in fertility patterns and in economic dynamism.
Is it actually true that countries with lower fertility systematically chose “stagnation” over innovation? Are countries with a more robust focus on child-rearing actually more dynamic and innovative?
and Samuel Goldman at the American Conservative:
…These numbers suggest that changing incentives is insufficient to promote larger families. Fertility in France and Sweden might be even lower without generous subsidies. Yet those policies haven’t exactly created a baby boom. And Americans continue to reproduce at a relatively high rate even in the absence of generous social policy.
Although it may not be politically helpful to say so, Douthat is mostly right about the underlying reason for these trends. Quite apart from economic incentives, the sexual revolution fundamentally altered the normative order of Western societies.
But Douthat’s wrong to give present comfort such a dominant role in this structure. The master value of the modern West isn’t enjoyment, but personal autonomy. And it’s hard to pursue your own goals in your own way when encumbered by offspring, particularly in the numbers necessary to population growth.
If they are to have even limited success, then, policies intended to remedy declining birthrates must accept this change. In other words, they can and should aim to make it easier for people who want families to have and raise children.
But there’s not much government can do to encourage people who regard children as a burden to produce them. Only a major cultural change could do that. In this respect, the demographic future of Western societies may depend on the fate of their religious traditions much more than on their tax codes. I’m not holding my breath for neo-liberals to acknowledge that.
December 4th, 2012 | 6:41 am
David Goldman (“Spengler”) put it well, “We cannot make a future for ourselves without our past. All cultures worship at the shrine of their ancestors. They exist to ward off the presentiment of death. Breaking continuity with the past implies that our lives have no meaning past our own physical existence. If we do not continue the lives of those who preceded us, nor prepare the lives of those who will follow us, then we are defined by our physical existence and nothing more. In that case, we will seek to maximize our pleasure. It is perfectly possible for entire peoples to live only for their own pleasure and feel nothing for their prospective obliteration. How else should we explain fertility rates in Europe and Japan at barely half of replacement?”
He also cited the great Jewish theologian, Franz Rosenzweig, writing at the end of World War I, “”The peoples of the world foresee a time when their land with its rivers and mountains still lies under Heaven as it does today, but other people dwell there; when their language is entombed in books, and their laws and customers have lost their living power.”
The love of the peoples for their own nation was “sweet and pregnant with the presentiment of death”
December 4th, 2012 | 7:01 am
I do believe Goldman is right, that the biggest thing is cultural, and the attitude that children are burdens to be avoided rather than blessings to be embraced. The abortion culture, aka Culture of Death, certainly promotes the “burden” mentality.
It would probably be good to have passive policies which ease the financial stress on families with children. However, promoting the birth of children willy-nilly will not help. When 40+% of children are born out of wedlock, promoting more children without supporting the intact nuclear family will simply create more problems for the country. We have somehow become inured to the idea of single parenting. But studies are now showing that children of single-parent households don’t fare too well. It’s worse than even the studies show.
No, finding ways to strengthen the family unit is necessary. Again, consistent with Goldman’s observation, government can do little. But it can do something. Texas has a policy of support for marriage preparation which few if any other places have. Called Twogether in Texas, the program waives the state marriage license fee, currently $60, for any couple who have completed an approved marriage preparation course covering communication, conflict resolution, and a few other key skills.
It may be too much to ask that people attend to Catholic teaching on Responsible Parenthood. Couples are reminded of their responsibility to provide for the physical, spiritual, emotional, and educational needs of any children they plan to have, then act accordingly, in morally-acceptable ways. Large families are praised but not required. It goes without saying (though today it probably must be said!) that responsible parents are, as a minimum, married.
December 4th, 2012 | 9:42 am
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Below is a link to a photo essay of Europe’s disappearing villages. The photo essay concerning a village in Southern Italy is most startling. Save a few ancient pensioners, the entire village is a ghost town. The future of our society points to that dysopian future if our fertility rates contininue this trend. A thousand peer reviewed essays do not do justice to what is happening across much of Europe, Russia, and Japan.
http://www.dyingvillages.com/images.php
December 4th, 2012 | 9:54 am
Government may not be able to do much to promote childbearing and healthy families, but it sure can do a lot to thwart them. In many ways, then, the best family policy is to leave social engineering alone, let those who want families raise them, and in several generations the cultural shift happens thanks to demographics: those oriented to family life reproduce and pass on their way of life, while those who aren’t, don’t. What’s the line? Philosophies that frown on reproduction don’t survive?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact