Does Poverty Cause Abortion?

Surveys of women who have had abortions reveal that many of them felt they simply "couldn't afford" to have a child. Darwin responds to a Christian blogger who made this argument:

We live in the most wealthy country in the world, with one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Is our problem really that we're not wealthy enough?

Not only the average citizen of our country, but the poor of our country are far, far wealthier than they were 100 years ago. And yet, as we have become wealthier, the institution of the family has collapsed, illegitimacy has become a pandemic in the lower economic reaches of society, divorce has become commonplace, abortion is common -- used by some parts of society as a last resort, and by others almost as backup-birth control. (The stats I've seen on abortion repeat customers are pretty terrifying.)

And yet the problem, we are told, is that our country is still too poor to have a lower abortion rate? The claim is, quite frankly, so ludicrous that it's hard to believe the author even means it seriously. Sadly, though, I think he does. MORE

I agree - the idea is simply laughable. The fact that people take it seriously says a lot about the rampant materialism of Americans. When these women - and the men who impregnate them - say "I can't afford to have a child," what they really mean is "I can't afford to have a child without giving up my life of fun, frolic, and freedom."

Contrast this with of Third World countries where people who have far less than even the poorest Americans continue to view children as a blessing, and do whatever it takes to care for them. For that matter, right here in America we have parents who figure out ways to afford five, ten or more children on a typical middle-class income.

So the question is not really about money; it is a question of priorities. People whose highest priority is their own pleasure naturally regard children as a burden to be avoided. That's why we have DINKs and pampered pooches. Children are, quite literally, the future. If your focus is on the present, it's much easier to flush your future down the drain.

Rise of the Wiggers

Bill Cosby, who in recent years is making it his mission to preach self-responsibility to black Americans, has a new book called Come On, People. On Sunday he appeared on Meet The Press along with his co-author, Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School. They seem to have their work cut out for them.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things that you did in “Come On, People” were—was to compile statistics, very hard-headed numbers.

DR. POUSSAINT: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And they are numbing when you read through them. You mentioned one. One out of three of homeless people are black. Blacks make up 12 percent of our population. And here’s a some—a few more that you cite which I think really does help us dramatize how critical this discussion is. And let’s read them through here.

“Homicide is the number one cause of death for black men between 15 and 29 years of age and has been for decades.

“Of the roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men. A black man is seven times more likely to commit a murder than a white man, and six times more likely to be murdered.

“Ninety-four percent of all black people who are murdered are murdered by other black people.

“Although black people make up” “12 percent of the general population,” “make up nearly 44 percent of the prison population.

“At any given time, as many as one in four of all” black men, “young black men are in the criminal justice system—in prison or jail, on probation or on parole.”

Those are numbing numbers. They truly are. What can we do? [Full transcript]

What the transcript doesn't show is that when Russert said "What can we do?" there was a long, awkward pause before Cosby began to answer. My impression was that he knows full well that there are no good solutions. Two and maybe three generations are lost forever. It's very sad. Cosby has a few specific public policy ideas, which may help some, but what really needs to happen is a moral awakening in the black communities. There is only so much that outsiders can do to help.

The broader point I wish to make is that I fear the trends we see among young blacks are finding their way to white youth, through the conduit of rap music. More from the MTP interview:

In fact, the audience for gangsta rap is made up predominantly of white youth, who get a vicarious thrill from participating in a black thug fantasy, including the degradation of women. Black youth, as well as some misguided adults, have defended the use of the N-word, suggesting they are somehow making it a positive term...

If you’re going to use those words and the white male is buying the CD, then they’re buying into those words, and those words are being used on their women. Hint, hint. Domestic violence in the police department. Now they also share in the N-word. And it’s OK to say it, according to them, because it’s on the record...

Remember, too, that for a while that white kids who were into some of this rap and so on started calling themselves “wiggers”? ...

... the young, young girls will be dancing to words that degrade women and degrade them and they’re dancing to it. It shows you how much values have been corrupted, you know, by some of the media influences, and the young people can’t distinguish between what’s right and wrong. It’s like the, the bad stuff has become normal, and then they even see it as part of their culture instead of something that’s abhorrent and, and, and, and hurtful to their, to their lives and to their community.

Now, I know plenty of white parents who either don't mind or don't know that their kids listen to the vile lyrics of gangsta rap. I suppose it is possible, in a family situation that is otherwise healthy and stable, that this kind of music won't cause any harm. On the other hand, it's insane to suggest that music has no effect on us at all.

Music is processed by our brains differently from spoken or written words. It makes us feel good, and we retain information better when we acquire it musically. Kids who would never read poetry in English class love to hear the same words set to music. Properly used, this can be a good thing. Use it to spread misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic thoughts, and it should surprise no one if we end up with misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic youth.

White Americans need to hope and pray that people like Cosby and Poussaint are successful in their mission - not only because blacks are fellow citizens and humans, but because whites are vulnerable to the same disorders. The trends you see in black youth today will overtake white youth. When white kids begin calling themselves "wiggers," you know it's already starting. The violence and chaos that prevail in inner cities are spreading to white suburbs.

Think I'm wrong? I hope I am. Let's talk again in twenty years.


UPDATE 10/16/07: Mark Gordon has a post about the Cosby book. Otherwise not much reaction in the blogs I read.

The Rape of Europe

An e-mail called "The Rape of Europe" is circulating around the net, apparently; I got it for the first time this weekend. Steve Ray helpfully linked back to what seems to be the original source. Here is how it starts.

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Read the rest, and then check out Steve's article on The Skyline of the Future for a similar outlook. I wrote about this subject last year. Here is a slightly more optimistic view. Demographic forecasts are based on a lot of assumptions, of course, but the short-term trend (i.e., the next 50 years) seems to be locked in.

The big question is how native Europeans will respond. I'm not so sure they will fade silently into the night. They will, however, probably avoid doing anything until the only remaining alternatives involve a lot of violence and brutality. It won't be pretty.

How Nations Die

NEW YORK - The percentage of Americans who consider children "very important" to a successful marriage has dropped sharply since 1990, and more now cite the sharing of household chores as pivotal, according to a sweeping new survey.

The Pew Research Center survey on marriage and parenting found that children had fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of factors that people associate with successful marriages — well behind "sharing household chores," "good housing," "adequate income," a "happy sexual relationship" and "faithfulness."

In a 1990 World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance among the same items, with 65 percent saying children were very important to a good marriage. Just 41 percent said so in the new Pew survey.

Chore-sharing was cited as very important by 62 percent of respondents, up from 47 percent in 1990.

The survey also found that, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1, Americans say the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children." MORE

Here we have an example of a divergence between what is desirable for individuals and what is desirable for the common good. The fact is that our future depends on the continuing production of children, and families are the primary means of doing this. On some level we all know this, but most of us are still selfish enough to assume someone else will do the heavy lifting. (See here for more on this trend.)

The stakes are high. While birth rates in the West are falling to well below replacement level, the Islamic world exhibits a fecundity that may, if it continues, result in the defeat of our civilization by sheer numbers. We will fade into history much as the Romans did centuries ago, and for similar reasons. The trend is already well along in Europe.

So, loyal Americans, it is critical that you have more children. You need at least three to make up for those who are unable to do their part. Turn off the TV and get busy. There is no time to waste.

Hat Tip: James Taranto

Reverse Racism

In South Carolina, a schoolteacher found herself the subject of constant racial insults from her middle school students. School administrators stood by and watched. Think we're past such things? Hardly. This case is a little different, though. The teacher was white and the students black.

The teacher, whose name is Elizabeth Kandrac, finally filed civil rights complaints and then sued the school district. A jury found in her favor and she settled with the school district for damages.

Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could be only be construed as hostile and threatening.

Back in the day, if a pupil had talked the way these did, he or she would have received a well-deserved thwack, been suspended and sent home to face the wrath of a parent. That process likely would have put a swift end to the tribal tyranny now often tolerated in the service of self-esteem.Here's a sample: white b----, white m----- f-----, white c---, white a------, white ho.

Other white teachers and pupils corroborated Kandrac's account, including a male war veteran who testified he would rather return to Vietnam than to Brentwood.

Kandrac's attorney, Larry Kobrovsky, argued that the repeated use of "white" made these slurs racist in nature. But school officials insisted that because black pupils were equally abusive to other blacks, the language wasn't inherently racist.

Here's what we know without question: If white pupils had used similar language toward black pupils and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of the New York Times until heads rolled.

A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media -- their faces all over the evening news -- while Revs. Al and Jesse organized protests.

But a white Kandrac -- who faced a daily barrage of insults, who had books and desks thrown at her and her bicycle tires punctured -- was treated like an incompetent wimp. She was just a lousy teacher out for money, the defense attorney said.

Though Kandrac lost her job, the real losers are the children deprived of an education by the actions of a tyrannical few. And the worst racists are those teachers and administrators who denied these empowered brats the expectation of civilized behavior. MORE (Hat tip: Mark Shea)

Meanwhile, Mark Gordon at Suicide of the West reports on disturbing statistics about crime and race. Among white women who were raped in 2005, 33.6% of the offenders were black. Extrapolating from this brings a disturbing conclusion:

African-Americans are 12% of the population of the United States. Roughly 50% of that population is male. This means that 6% of our population accounts for 50.1% of all rapes committed and 33.6% of rapes committed against white women. What do you suppose the connections might be between these statistics and a.) the prevalence of a multiculturalist ideology that excuses criminality by perpetuating a victim-mentality among African-Americans, and b.) the continued popularity of hip-hop as an expression of the violence and hyper-sexuality that pervades black urban culture? MORE

All good questions. Anyone out there have the answers?

RIP Boris

Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin died yesterday. I can vividly remember the photos of him in 1991, standing atop a tank rallying the people to resist an attempted coup by the ousted communists. His success in throwing out communism would soon be shadowed by his failure in building a free democracy. Nonetheless, he changed history for the better. RIP.

A story today on OpinionJournal looks back at Yeltsin's legacy and makes an interesting demographic point.

Communist ideology was based on a set of anti-values designed to facilitate state-sanctioned murder and justify totalitarian rule. At the same time, however, these values defined a worldview that gave each individual a sense that he was working for the good of mankind and that his life had meaning. The revelations of glasnost showed that the communist worldview was based on lies, but offered nothing to take its place. After the fall of the Soviet Union people hoped for democracy; instead they found themselves ruled by bribe-takers and gangsters. The result was widespread despair.

Between 1992 and 1994, the rise in the death rate in Russia was so dramatic that Western demographers did not believe the figures. The toll from murder, suicide, heart attacks and accidents gave Russia the death rate of a country at war; Western and Russian demographers now agree that between 1992 and 2000, the number of "surplus deaths" in Russia--deaths that cannot be explained on the basis of previous trends--was between five and six million persons.

Under these circumstances, Yeltsin became an unpopular and even hated figure in Russia. But even in light of the disastrous toll of reform, one could argue that, in his policy decisions, Yeltsin had good intentions. MORE

This is stunning. Six million people died of despair? The Russians I have known were dour, almost depressing people. They were like this long before Yeltsin came to power. Is there something about Russian culture itself that leaves people so hopeless?

Whatever the cause, Yeltsin's good intentions were not enough to rebuild Russia after so many years of communist dictatorship. Now compare this to U.S. efforts to create a democracy from scratch in Iraq. Is it possible? Maybe. But if so, it will take a long time and cost many lives, if the Russian experience means anything.

Muslim Europe?

Here is an excellent interview with Dr. Phillip Jenkins, a Penn State history professor who studies religious issue. He is quite a bit more optimistic than Mark Steyn regarding the demographic trends in Europe and elsewhere.

Are fears of a future "Muslim Europe" well-founded?

Jenkins: I don't think they are because the numbers at present are very small. And while they're going to grow, by American standards Muslim minorities in Europe are not going to be that huge. The other big issue is that when people talk about Muslim minorities, they automatically assume that everyone of Muslim background is going to continue to be a dyed-in-the-wool, hardcore Muslim in Europe.

There's a lot of evidence that they're not. If you look at Algerian people in France, they have a strong sense of ethnic identity, but there's quite a low level of religious observance. They look like Episcopalians more than anything. Now obviously, there's a small and potentially very dangerous hardcore of quite extreme Islamists, and you'd have to be a fool to ignore that. But the majority of people are very happy to assimilate to some kind of French or Dutch or German identity.

Population-minded pundits such as Mark Steyn argue that you don't need Muslims to be a majority in any European country for them to exert disproportionate influence, especially given that: (a) a good plurality that knows how to hold together can run a country with a Parliamentary form of government; and (b) being an immigrant minority in a country can reinforce a sense of group solidarity.

Jenkins: Both valid points, but having a solid and well-organized minority can also generate more of a sense of national identity among that majority community that thought it had lost it entirely. We've certainly seen something of that in England, where English national identity is just coming into existence in the last five or ten years after being vaguely British for many years. Cultural Christianity is a much stronger force probably than it has been for 50 years in Europe.

READ MORE

The problem I see with this last part is that when Europeans decide to assert their "national identity" against minority groups, it tends to get out of control. Unlike the Jews in the 1930s, Muslims will fight back. It could get very ugly before everyone assimilates into one big happy family.

Euro-English

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English."

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

War of the Worlds

Last weekend I read what may be the most thought-provoking blog post of the year, which came from The Catholic Knight. Here's how it starts.

Let's suppose you're God. Now let's suppose you (as God) are trying to deal with the present world. There are two undeniable and unchangeable characteristics about your personality. On the one side, you're all holy and you exercise absolute justice. On the other side, you are all love and you exercise total mercy. You, being the God of nature, have decreed homosexuality to be an abomination because it completely thwarts the procreative processes you designed. You, being the God of life, have decreed abortion an absolute crime against humanity, because once again it thwarts procreation, but worse it does it through murder.

Now, after considering all of this, I have just one question for you. What do you (as God) do with Western civilization?

For two-thousand years, the gospel of your Son (Jesus Christ) has echoed through Europe. For over five-hundred years, the same Gospel has spread throughout the Americas and into the South Pacific. Yet it would appear that the governments of nearly all these regions are enacting policies that fund abortion and encourage homosexuality, even punishing those who object to them.

Now consider this. On the other side of the world, you have a large group of people (about a billion of them) who essentially reject the Gospel of your Son (Jesus Christ) but at least acknowledge his existence as a holy prophet. I'm talking about Muslims. They abhor abortion, homosexuality, and all the other immoralities the Western world currently promotes.

So I ask you again. If you are the all holy, and all merciful God; What do you do?

READ ON

He concludes that Islam may be to Christianity what the Philistines were to ancient Israel. The comparison is apt. The entire Old Testament can be summarized like this: 1) God gives Israel, His people, great gifts; 2) The people are initially grateful; 3) They become jaded and apathetic; 4) Prophets call Israel to repentance; 5) The prophets are ignored; 6) God uses pagans to punish Israel until it repents; 7) Go to step 1 and repeat.

The implication of this is that, contrary to what we in the West like to think, God is not on our side against Islam. He is using Islam to get our attention. Until we get the message, we will continue to be challenged and attacked. We will not win the Global War On Terror with military force. We will not win until we change our culture. How?

Individual Christians can help by simply obeying the precepts of the Christian religion -- one of which is to "be fruitful and multiply." Such obedience flies in the face of modern Secularism and Western sensibilities. Christians face an uphill battle, with Islam nipping at their heels all the way. To defy Secular Western culture is to obey God and thus save the very culture we defy. To surrender to the status quo is to eventually submit to Islam. It may not happen tomorrow, but it will happen someday, and when it does, we'll only have ourselves to blame. It's an interesting time we find ourselves in.

Read the whole post. It's worth your time.

How Many of Me?

HowManyOfMe.com

There are: 606 people with my name in the U.S.A. How many have your name?

Sometimes on busy days I wish I could clone myself, but now it appears I don't need to. There are plenty of other Patricks out there. Maybe we can have a convention.

Here's something fun: try entering names of people you know and see how low you can get the number. I actually got it down to zero, which I guess means the person I was thinking of doesn't exist.

Children of Men

A new movie called Children of Men sounds very interesting. I have not actually seen it but the premise is fascinating.

Imagine this: it is the year 2027 and humans have lost the ability to reproduce. No one can get pregnant. There are no more kids. The youngest people alive are now in their 20s. School buildings sit empty while society descends into a chaotic hopelessness. There is no future for mankind.

This whole idea gives me the chills, frankly but it's not too far off from what Western civilization is in the process of doing to itself. Apparently in the film there is a glimmer of hope for humanity. There is no such hope for societies like Russia and most of Europe, where low birth rates are inexorably leading these societies toward extinction. The U.S. isn't far behind.

Of course, in the real world some humans are reproducing, and rapidly. Among this group the most popular name for newborn boys is "Mohammed." That particular society has a bright long-term future. Hopefully this film will help people wake up to where we are headed. It is almost too late.

Here is a particularly interesting review of Children of Men.

Burying Children

I began reading the works of Gary North over twenty years ago. His analysis of the relationships of scripture, theology and economics is second to none. Some of his conclusions are more than a little controversial, but they are interesting nonetheless.

So it was sad to learn this week that Dr. North had just lost his youngest child, Caleb, age 24, to a mysterious disorder. The day after his son's body was discovered, he wrote a very touching article on his website:

If anyone ever asks you "What's so good about capitalism," tell him this: Capitalism has made it possible for most of our children to survive the killer diseases and accidents that two centuries ago killed 30% or more of all children before they reached adulthood.

Our children bury us. Most of us do not bury our children. I know of no greater blessing in the modern world. It is a blessing not known throughout most of man's history. Be grateful for it. We take it for granted.

Think about this for a minute. Not so long ago, 30% of all children died before reaching adulthood. If you had three or four children, chances are you would see one of them die. It was normal.

In the developed world, we have turned the tables by wiping out most of the childhood diseases that took so many lives. Yet even today, there are places where infant and child mortality rates are still very high. The rates would be much higher in the U.S. if we counted abortions as deaths. We don't, perhaps because the parents usually approve of those deaths.

Burying your child must be one of the most agonizing experiences a human can face. As Dr. North points out, our generation is normally spared from this pain. We should all thank God for this incredible gift, then do what we can to help those who do lose a child. Peace be with them.

Dutch Treats

I have never had the pleasure of visiting Holland. I haven't been to The Netherlands either. This is always strange to me because these are actually two names for the same place. To add to the confusion, the language and people of this place are both called "Dutch." Why are they not Hollanders? Anyway, in the last week three stories about Dutch things caught my eyes, and I thought I would share them with you.

In recent years Holland acquired a reputation as a sort of morality-free zone due to their penchant for legalizing activities that are forbidden most elsewhere. Prostitution, pornography, marijuana, you name it - it's all available on every corner, if we are to believe the stories.

For example, news emerged recently that a Dutch gym in Amsterdam plans to introduce a "Naked Sunday" policy so that people can sweat off the pounds while nude. Lycra is bad enough but this would be even worse. Thankfully, the gym will require nude patrons to place a towel on the machines and disinfect them afterwards.

Prior to the nude gym news, the Wall Street Journal last week sent one of its reporters to Amsterdam's red light district to evaluate the moral scene. Strangely enough, he found that almost all the patrons of the various establishments were non-Dutch. Holland seems, at least according to this report, to be a place where libertarian morality actually has the opposite effect:

So, what accounts for the strange existence of rather mainstream moral codes amid centers of lust and psychoactive substances? Paradoxically, while Dutch policies might be liberal or libertarian in effect, they derive from a fairly paternalistic, conservative instinct, mixed with a good dose of pragmatism. That pragmatism goes back at least to the 17th century, Holland's Golden Era as a great seafaring power. In those days, the country was a Puritan stronghold. But even the pious Dutch, who offered the Mayflower Pilgrims a temporary home, acquiesced to Amsterdam's emerging Red Light district. Early on, this nation of world traders concluded that it couldn't stop the world's oldest commerce. Yet then, as now, many of the prostitutes' clients were foreigners; mostly sailors in the old days, mainly tourists today.

The modern Dutch consensus is that making outlaws of prostitutes and soft-drug users only pushes them underground and into the hands of real criminals. Better to control and regulate such behaviors by legalizing--or in the case of cannabis, tolerating--the otherwise objectionable. The Dutch word for this is gedogen, which has no equivalent in English yet roughly means permitting what is officially illegal.

The Dutch hope that this approach will let authorities focus on fighting serious crimes, such as the forced prostitution of human trafficking, and allow soft-drug users to hang out in places where they aren't so likely to bump into dealers of more dangerous narcotics, like heroin. The added bonus--this is still a nation of traders after all--is that once brothels and marijuana cafes are legal, you can tax their profits. MORE

So, the Dutch believe the best way to control immorality is to keep it legal and out in the open. Sounds strange but it seems to be working in Holland, which is apparently an orderly place in most other respects.

That having been said, is it ethical to run a den of iniquity even when all your customers are foreigners? I think not. Ethical is not the same as political, however. It is possible to be ethically opposed to certain behavior while recognizing that it is not something the civil authorities should regulate. Government should pay attention to the big things: life, liberty and property rights.

This brings us to the third article from the Weekly Standard, reporting on an apparent revival of Christian belief among the Dutch:

God is back in Europe's most notoriously liberal country. Or rather: The Dutch are moving back to God. It seems an implausible hypothesis. After all, Europe was supposed to have entered the realm of post-Christianity, to use C.S. Lewis's term--a state of eternal unbelief from which there is no return. And yet, Bakas and Buwalda claim, the Dutch are turning back. Take the almost unnoticed reintroduction of crucifixes and other religious artifacts into the classrooms of Catholic schools throughout the country. Years of gradual but seemingly unstoppable secularization have given way to a reaffirmation of old religious identities. The change is also starting to affect the attitudes of pupils at these schools. In a recent newspaper interview, a head teacher at a Catholic secondary school in Rotterdam observed, "For years, pupils were embarrassed about attending Mass. Now, they volunteer to read poems or prayers, and the auditorium is packed." MORE

This is excellent news. We need Europe to rediscover its Christian roots, and if it can happen in Holland there is hope for the rest of the Continent. They need to ramp up the birth rate quickly or it will soon be known as Netherlandistan.

Help Wanted in Europe

New statistics show an even more alarming de-population trend in Europe. Germany, whose population is now 80 million, will have only 25 million people by the end of the century. Experts believe 2006 was probably the first year in which European deaths outnumbered births. (Hat tip to Paul Kedrosky.)

The resulting labor shortages will have to be met by increased immigration. Europeans, generally speaking, have never exactly rolled out the red carpet for immigrants as was done in the U.S. Now their decades of easy abortion and low birth rates leave them no other choice.

I have to wonder what will happen to all these aging Germans in their tax-funded nursing homes, where they will be cared for by young workers who are predominantly Muslim. Will the new generations be eager to keep paying high taxes just to keep the elderly infidels alive? Euthanasia - which Europeans pioneered - may be their Final Solution.

On the bright side, there are hints that in France the birth rate is increasing, even among native-born citizens. This is a hopeful sign but they need to get even busier if they want to catch up. The government seems to recognize their problem:

A factor in the increasing number of children is undoubtedly France's generous social legislation, giving long maternity leaves, with assured return to work with posts and seniority intact. Governments with negative birthrates have investigated the French system, and Germany has just introduced new allowances for parents. "New Labour" introduced such measures in 2001 and Britain had its highest birthrate in 13 years last year.

Another possible birth incentive in France, which may not be copied elsewhere, is its 35-hour workweek. It has been suggested that the French have so much leisure now that they have found nothing more interesting to do with it than have babies, combining fun with demographic patriotism. (Hat tip: Crunchy Con)

Rise of the DINKs

There is in our culture today a growing number of married couples who have made a decision to not have children. These families of two are known as DINKs: Double Income, No Kids. These are not newlyweds who are simply waiting to have children while they get established. Nor are they physically, financially, or otherwise prevented from reproducing. DINKs have made a permanent decision not to have children, now or ever, because they like being childless.

The existence of such a class is a new phenomenon. For most of history it was simply not possible since children are the inevitable result of marital union. This was God's intent in creating us: be fruitful and multiply. Disobedience of that command became practical only with the widespread availability of artificial contraception and abortion, beginning in the 1960s. (Update: there have been some civilizations, like ancient Rome, that simply wiped out their offspring. These civilizations disappeared. More here.)

The reasons someone would choose this status vary, of course. No doubt some DINKs grew up amid divorce and broken families, and fear the same will happen to them if they have children. Others just feel unqualified to be parents. I would bet for most, however, the reasons are less altruistic. They enjoy living the good life without the burden of midnight feedings and teen angst.

Indeed, life without children can be very enjoyable. Consider the two married professionals who each earn $75,000 or more a year. No need to feed or clothe little ones. They don't have to save for college. No expensive family health insurance. DINKs get to spend their double income on themselves, often inhabiting fine homes and driving luxury vehicles. Their copious free time allows DINKs to take frequent vacations and otherwise enjoy themselves in ways that those with children seldom do.

This is all fine, I guess. If you don't want children we are probably all better off if you don't have any. Or are we? Consider this story from a blogger family traveling on a holiday vacation:

The Darwin family is something of a sight when enjoying the free hot breakfast at our motel of a morning. At least one major spill may be expected. The older two scuffle occasionally, stealing food from one another, and the baby slowly shreds food into her lap and shrieks when she runs out of food that's not yet on the floor or in her tummy.

Darwin was over at the waffle maker waiting on his waffle and sipping coffee when the middle-aged, preppy-looking couple (last seen the night before wrestling a german shepard in from their SUV in a 6ft x 6ft cage) came in set themselves down at a table behind him with an air of disapproval and (before settling down to provide loud, socially conscious commentary on the morning news on TV) observed, "I shouldn't have felt bad bringing a dog into the hotel."

Let me know, folks, when that dog starts paying your social security... It may be a little crazy around here, but our offspring are of the same species, and someone's got to do the work of rearing the next generation. MORE

Like it or not, each generation needs the next. If we don't create another generation to follow us we will end up paying a terrible price. At the macro level, Social Security is going bankrupt because there are not enough younger workers paying into the system. Even if you are wealthy enough not to need a pension, you still need an economy where the rest of us are reasonably prosperous.

At the individual level, those who grow old without children will not be able to replace, for any amount of money, the love that adult children should show toward their aging parents. We all reach a point where we need someone we trust to take care of us and make important decisions for us. If you have no children, who will it be?

So if you are a DINK I wish you well and I certainly don't want to force you into having children. I strongly suggest you re-consider your decision. Parenting is more rewarding than you think, and there are many long-term benefits. Think about it.

Putin's Nemesis

OpinionJournal has an interesting interview today with Russian chess player Garry Kasparov, whom I have quoted before. This time the subject is Kasparov's efforts to restore some semblance of democracy to Russia. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia is almost as authoritarian as it was under the communists. Kasparov wants to change that.

"The Other Russia" is the name of the unlikely left-right coalition conceived by Mr. Kasparov in 2005 and founded last year. It is composed of groups that would normally be at political odds--democrats like Mr. Kasparov, nationalists, socialists, even Bolsheviks. Mr. Kasparov predicts that the Communist Party will join up before the end of the year. "There's still a lot of distrust," he says, with more than a modicum of understatement. "It's a problem, but I don't think it's insurmountable. The big advantage of the Other Russia, and I think it's our biggest accomplishment, is that we've established the principle of compromise, which was not yet seen in Russian politics. It was always confrontation. It was a mentality of a civil war. We eliminated it."

A declaration at the time of the Other Russia's organizing conference last summer reads, "We are gathering together because we are united in our disagreement with the current political course of the Kremlin and united in our alarm for the present and future of our country." The group's sole objective is to find a candidate to run--and win--in the March 2008 presidential elections. Or as Mr. Kasparov puts it with characteristic bluntness: "When a liberal democracy is re-established, everybody goes his or her way."

The Russian Constitution forbids Mr. Putin from running for a third term--though that doesn't quell widespread speculation that the president will ignore the rule of law and do so anyway. He "has the administrative resources" to do so, Mr. Kasparov agrees, but it would be at the price of his legitimacy--both in the West and at home. "I don't think Putin wants to take such a chance."

Mr. Kasparov believes Mr. Putin's "mentality is just to run away--with all the Russian billionaires. This is the richest ruling elite in the world. They are way ahead of the Saudi princes. They are mega-rich. When you're so rich, you have to make sure that your funds are safe." But "if Putin goes, then who will be in charge? That's a big problem. Then it's instability. An authoritarian regime cannot have a successor while the big name [Mr. Putin] is still alive, much less well, young and strong." MORE

What happens in Russia is critical to our future. With a large nuclear arsenal, it is still the closest thing to another Superpower that could challenge the U.S. Russia also holds the key to much of the world's energy supplies. It is a culture whose population is literally shrinking by 700,000 people every year. Unless trends change, this vacuum will be filled by someone; the most likely candidates are Muslim.

Kasparov's efforts need to bear fruit if the West is to avoid disaster. The Pope knows this, too; he is working hard to bring the Orthodox churches, most of whom are in Russia, back into communion with Rome. If they succeed the world could change in amazing ways.

Mapping Faiths

This page may take a few minutes to load but it has some very interesting maps that graphically illustrate the impact and variety of faith in the U.S. (Hat tip to The Curt Jester). I found some of it very surprising.

The first map shows you, by county, what percentage of the population claims membership in any kind of church. West Texas, the northern Plains, and Utah appear to be the most deeply religious areas of the country. The Pacific Northwest is the least religious area.

The second map kind of shocked me. I had no idea the U.S. was still so regionalized into various denominations. Baptists dominate the South. Lutherans are found in the northern Plains. Mormons prevail in Utah and areas of surrounding states. Methodists lead in scattered areas of the Midwest, Kansas and Nebraska. Catholics are predominant in South Florida, along the Mexican border, and most of the West, Midwest and Northeast.

The rest of the maps break the country down further by individual denominations. This can show some interesting anomalies - for example, the Episcopalians appear to have established a stronghold in South Dakota. The Amish and Mennonites are more widespread than I would have thought. The map of Unitarians is almost a perfect match for the "blue" areas we see after election time that typically vote Democratic.

Bottom line: most religious denominations are segregated in certain areas. The only ones with a serious nationwide presence are Baptists, Catholics, Pentecostals and Presbyterians. Even so, the U.S. is probably more diverse in this regard than most nations.

Europe Disappearing II

A follow-up to this post:

“The salient feature of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia is that they’re running out of babies. What’s happening in the developed world is one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history.

Most of us have seen a gazillion heartwarming ethnic comedies—’My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ and its ilk—in which some uptight WASPy type starts dating a gal from a vast, loving, fecund Mediterranean family, so abundantly endowed with sisters and cousins and uncles that you can barely get in the room. It is, in fact, the inversion of the truth. Greece has a fertility rate hovering just below 1.3 births per couple, which is what demographers call the point of ‘lowest-low’ fertility from which no human society has ever recovered.

And Greece’s fertility is the healthiest in Mediterranean Europe: Italy has a fertility rate of 1.2, Spain 1.1. Insofar as any citizens of the developed world have ‘big’ families these days, it’s the Anglo democracies: America’s fertility rate is 2.1, New Zealand’s a little below. Hollywood should be making ‘My Big Fat Uptight Protestant Wedding’, in which some sad Greek only child marries into a big heartwarming New Zealand family where the spouse actually has a sibling... This isn’t a projection—it’s happening now.” —Mark Steyn via Gazizza

Ancient Abortion

Last month I wrote here about the apparent prevalence of abortion in ancient Rome, but I didn't have sources to verify it. Now Mike Aquilina at Way of the Fathers has some answers.

A couple of days ago, Kathimerini, Greece’s “international English-language newspaper, posted The Wines and Herbs in the Land of Pan, a feature story that touches upon the medicinal potions of antiquity. Included in the discussion are contraceptives and abortifacients, which the Fathers consistently condemn (as do their heirs in the Catholic Church today). Rodney Stark studies the documentary and archaeological record in chapter 5 of his book The Rise of Christianity, and even includes a photograph of an abortionist’s surgical tools, unearthed at Pompeii. The Christian notion of chastity — which included opposition to contraception — immediately set the Church’s doctrine apart from all its pagan rivals. Moreover, Christian fertility contributed to the Church’s growth over those early centuries, while pagan sexual practices surely helped to carry out Rome’s slow cultural suicide.

Christians did not waver in this matter until the twentieth century. The Protestant Reformers — Luther, Calvin, and Wesley — univocally opposed birth control and abortion.

There are many good web resources on the subject. See here, here, here, and here.

For a fascinating book-length treatment of the subject, see my friend Pat Riley’s book Civilizing Sex: On Chastity and the Common Good.

I find this fascinating because it so closely parallels the decline of our modern-day empires. Look what happened to Rome. A mighty nation came to rule or strongly influence most of the known world. All this power and wealth created a culture devoted to pagan rituals, material things and sexual pleasure. There was also a general failure to procreate; abortion and contraception were widespread. Then a movement emerged that was organized around strong religious beliefs and had a very high birth rate. Over time, this powerful civilization simply died out and was replaced. Sound familiar?

The same thing is now happening to Western Civilization. We are not replacing ourselves because we find children inconvenient and expensive. Meanwhile the Islamic population is growing rapidly. It is also moving out of the Middle East and into formerly Christian nations. Project this forward another hundred years, as Mark Steyn does in America Alone, and it's not a pretty picture.

Mystery of the Missing Girls

From Paul Kedrosky, I learned today of some new population data from the government of Canada. There is a lot of detailed info but this little stat jumped out at me:

"At birth, boys still outnumber girls by a ratio of about 106 to 100 in Canada."

It has been a long time since I took biology, but I seem to recall that gender is determined by chromosomes that operate randomly. Therefore, over a large population the number of male and female children born should be exactly equal. In Canada it appears that 51.4% of babies are male. This is too big a difference to be random.

So what is going on? Maybe a virus or genetic mutation is causing Canadian women to produce more boys? This seems unlikely. Something about the cold weather? Hard to believe. What could it be?

I have another theory. The key words in the quote above are "At birth." So it's not the case that more boys are conceived. Instead, more boys are born. What happens to the girls? Well, thanks to modern technology parents can now know the gender of their child long before it is born. And thanks to modern ethics if that child is not the desired gender, the parents are allowed to destroy it and try again.

What it looks like is that Canadian mothers are more likely to have an abortion if the child is a girl. Why? I have no idea. I think all children are a blessing. There are other examples of this tendency, though. China's one-child policy causes the death of many infant girls whose parents wanted a boy. The same thing happens in India. Apparently Western parents are not immune from this evil.

The full report from Statistics Canada is here. Warning: 86-page PDF download.

Jen and her readers have some sage comments here.