Sunday, February 4, 2018

The Disappearing West

     The “birth dearth” in the First World nations isn’t exactly news. Virtually every industrialized nation has felt it to some degree. Europe’s insane policy of importing Middle Eastern Muslims is one of the responses to it. Mark Steyn wrote about it most tellingly in his book America Alone. He forecast a grim future from our demographic drought: a world in which freedom, capitalism, minority rights, and many other good things have been eliminated from every land but our own...assuming we can hold onto them here.

     But there’s no solution in prospect. The fertility rates of First World nations continue to languish below the nominal replacement rate of 2.1 live births per couple. Here are the rates, in live births per couple, for the two best studied years:

Nation
FR 1960
FR 2015
Australia
3.5
1.8
Austria
2.7
1.5
Belgium
2.5
1.7
Bulgaria
2.3
1.5
Canada
3.8
1.6
Czech Republic
2.1
1.5
Denmark
2.6
1.7
Finland
2.7
1.7
Germany
2.4
1.5
Greece
2.2
1.3
Hungary
2.0
1.4
Iceland
4.3
1.9
Ireland
3.8
1.9
Israel
3.9
3.1
Italy
2.4
1.4
Japan
2.0
1.5
Luxembourg
2.3
1.5
Netherlands
3.1
1.7
New Zealand
4.0
2.0
Norway
2.9
1.8
Poland
3.0
1.3
Portugal
3.2
1.2
Puerto Rico
4.7
1.4
Romania
2.3
1.5
Slovak Republic
3.0
1.4
Sweden
2.2
1.9
Switzerland
2.4
1.5
United Kingdom
2.7
1.8
United States
3.7
1.8

     The above figures were collected by the World Bank.

     Every First World nation has suffered a decline in birth rate. Only one – Israel – has maintained a birth rate above replacement level. Why?

     It’s actually fairly simple, if one looks at the balance of incentives and disincentives that applies to a married couple:

     Incentives to reproduce:

  • Love of children;
  • Desire for progeny;
  • Religious influences.

     Disincentives to reproduce:

  • Careerism;
  • Fear of childbirth;
  • Need for two incomes;
  • Fading of religious faith;
  • Difficulty of raising children;
  • Preference for unhindered mobility;
  • Fear of divorce and its consequences;
  • Delayed marriage / extended adolescence;
  • Extinction of the three-generation household.

     The incentives are few; the disincentives are many.

     A recent post from Western-preservationist group Occidental Revival exhorts the reader to press for political incentives to reproduce: essentially, subsidies for having children. But this is not in the cards, for a simple reason: Politicians weigh the votes and influence of the already-living more heavily than those of the not-yet-born. Add to that the pressures on lawmakers exerted by environmentalists, population-control groups, and other anti-natalist forces, and the prospects for public policies that encourage children look pretty bleak.

     Occidental Revival also mentions “promotion of homosexuality, abortion on demand, feminism, hedonism, materialism, etc.” as anti-natal influences, and these should not be dismissed. However, they are peripheral to the larger problem, which has its roots in the transformation of children from a religious and social obligation and an addition to the family workforce to a luxury good: one we seek for the enjoyment it promises us.

     Among the luxury goods of our time, children are one of the most burdensome and expensive to “own and maintain.” If you’d like a piercing comparison, consider the 2018 Mercedes S550. Acquisition cost: about $100,000. Maintenance cost over 20 years: on average, about $50,000. The current estimate of the cost of bearing and raising a child to age 18 in these United States is about $250,000 – and that’s before we factor in the cost of a “higher education.”

     By now it should be clear that the correlation of forces is against childbearing in the First World. Nor can we expect a dramatic change in any of those forces in the near term. What, then, must we do?

     Beats me, Gentle Reader! How do you encourage people to reproduce, against all the disincentives mentioned here, for the sake of their nation and culture? It’s almost self-contradictory to expect people to accept large burdens and costs for the sake of a future they don’t expect to share. You’d have to feel a love of children, country, and culture far greater than most contemporary First Worlders feel.

     Given the political contributions to our current situation, my first thought – isn’t it always? — is that those of us who cherish life and the values that made the West great could use a handy planetoid. But that’s much too large a subject to introduce at the end of an essay.

7 comments:

NITZAKHON said...

Dammit, you stole my thunder! I was going to write about this. :) Nevertheless, I'm glad it was written, and it needs to be discussed.

One of the disincentives that I think you missed is a lack of a future. Consider Japan, languishing economically for decades. People who are confident there is a better future, breed. Those that aren't, don't.

And I'll add in the easy access to porn, masturbation, hook-up sex, and other things. It makes satisfying "the need" so simple and easy that the harder work - courting, dating, and marriage - can be bypassed to satisfy the physical.

jabrwok said...

Abortion, Social Security, legal contraception, Title IX, the EEOC...lots of contributing factors. None of which are likely to be repealed.

Had I a biological investment in the future beyond my own lifetime I'd be more concerned. The only escape from a new Dark Age that I consider plausible (not probable, just plausible) is mass emigration to space. That would require a Lofstrom Launch Loop and mass production of large-scale space habitats (something like a Bishop Ring) so every identity group could have its own little worldlet.

Alas, I don't think anyone's seriously trying to build these things, and rockets aren't going to cut it. Too little cargo capacity at too great a cost per pound.

Hopefully civilization will at least outlive me.

Col. B. Bunny said...

It's bizarre. The "enlightened," "advanced" West created the perfect storm to drown itself. When millions of women became ferociously and hysterically protective of abortion where could the social bonds go but into oblivion.

And what has been the response of government? Nothing to encourage child bearing. Of that you can be sure. No. It's imported the worst kind of foreigner with the worst possible incentives to "solve" this problem, as though ditch water could mix with with wine and be palatable. Magic spells would have made more sense.





NITZAKHON said...

I definitely - still - need to write about this, but at the risk of self-serving self-promotion... this is definitely a factor:

http://redpilljew.blogspot.com/2018/01/civilizational-collapse-and-brain.html

Linda Fox said...

Well, my husband and I certainly did our part - we had 3 children, who have, in turn, produced 4 grandkids (one daughter is a Catholic sister, so didn't participate in that - although, as a special ed teacher, she is contributing in another way), and a great-grandchild to be delivered in the spring.

Probably the BEST way to get Americans who will be able to stand on their own feet is to provide financial incentives for STABLE, self-supporting 2-parent families (yes, I do realize that some SSM - Same Sex Marrieds might be able to take advantage of this).

Those financial incentives need to be tax-free, and ONLY given to those Americans with a Net Tax that is payable. Cannot be combined with Head of Household credit (those families are already being assisted), nor any government checks used to support that family, with the SOLE exception of those families getting money for current or past military service.

Disallowed for felons, illegal immigrants, and those with unpaid tax bills (sorry, Willie Nelson), as well as any minors in the family who are not in school, themselves pregnant or having a child, or with a juvenile conviction.

Joseph said...

There's only one explanation: Many nations now consist of Ouden worshippers.

jabrwok said...

"Ouden"?