Is the West on the road to extinction? Mark Steyn...
says it is becoming quite obvious with headlines such as this: ""Mohammed Overtakes George In List Of Most Popular Names" (Daily Telegraph, London)."" Britain is "George"! But it is rapidly becoming Islamic due to the secularists lack of reproduction, as is a large portion of the world. Read his column. This is the heart of it:
- "I'm a big 24/7 demographics bore, as readers of my new doomsday book will know, but even I'm a little taken aback at the way its thesis is confirmed every day by some item from some part of the map. These stories are all one story, the biggest story of our time: the self-extinction of most of the developed world."
Will the West's attitude on reproduction and the availability of abortion mean an end to our society? Mr. Steyn thinks so, and I have a difficult time faulting his logic. How about you?
posted by Jim | 9:15 AM
17 Comments:
When John & I were in Italy there was a lot of talk (mostly between the other Europeans on the tour) of population decline. In Italy specifically, many thirty & forty-somethings were still living at home. Instead of having a family they have decided to have expensive clothes & vogue lifestyles. Having children was often likened to poverty or class level.
I see this as a cultural threat in the US with illegal immigration. With populations changing from minority to majority hispanic in a handful of years. Such a rapid influx denies the "Americanization" of immigrants, rather forces change on us. (This without mention of the economic impact.)
Erin,
Do those Italians realize they are committing cultural suicide? There will be no Italy - as now known - in a few generations! Don't they care? Or do they just not understand?
Re the U.S.: illegal immigration is a cultural threat to us because we do not "force" them into "Americanization"! Think about it: do you think any wave of immigrants to this country would not have kept their own culture if we had not been tough on them and forced them to become Americans to earn a decent income and live a full life? Now the Pols pander to the immigrants and illegals to get votes and stay in power - and the "feel-good society" we have cultivated panders to them with multi-cultural garbage like foreign language signs, voting ballots, ad nauseum!! Don't we realize we are committing cultural suicide?
Guess we are not much smarter than the Italians!
A very interesting topic!
I've heard that Italy is starting to use government subsidies to young couples who have children. We may end up in the same place before long in the U.S.
Most studies seem to indicate that as income rises and as male/female relations get more equal, the birth rate drops. So in some sense the reason that places like Pakistan have such high birth rates is due to relative poverty and inequality, and I don't think we'd choose to move in that direction to solve the problem.
The nature of our economies is part of it as well. 100 years ago when the U.S. was largely agrarian, people had big families to run their small business, which was a farm. But today it's awfully expensive to raise children. I personally know of very few families with more than 3 children.
So I think immigration will continue in the U.S., and likely increase, and in general I think this is a good thing. The issue of 'forcing' Americanization is a touchy subject; but no matter what the new people coming in always have an impact on shaping what America is in the future. America is not what it was 100 years ago, and I think we are mostly happy about that, but it's obviously hard to come to a consensus about where we should be heading.
Curt,
Your hypothesis: rising income and gender equality = societal suicide!
I don't believe in suicide, therefore I am more than open to less rising income and less gender equality (easy for a male who makes good money to say!! - thought I would beat you to it!).
Seems paying for babies won't work - causes rising income. Women don't want to go back to their historical positions in society j- should they?
What is your solution.
I'd state my hypothesis this way: rising income and gender equality = lower birth rates (not necessarily rates below replacement level)
The term societal suicide sounds very alarmist to me; has Steyn so little confidence in our society's strengths???
I don't think the answer is for all societies to attempt to raise birth rates, because I don't think we can just keep increasing the world's population indefinitely. I believe that the way out is trying to help all nations achieve enough economic status so that they will stabilize in population, not explode. (Call me an optimist!) And in some ways, at least if you buy the talk, that's what America is trying to do in the Middle East.
Now there is no question that there will be ongoing tensions and problems, but personally I believe that we can achieve a better solution than saying that women belong in the kitchen!
Charming banter gentlemen! Now if you will excuse me I think I will quit my job and head to the kitchen! If only that were a solution, I would surely comply!
To make matters worse I came into the office this morning to hear that yet another unmarried, under 25, female, entry level worker is pregnant! Has anyone asked these children if they want to come into this world to such circumstance? We are not the agrarian society that needs a large family. How can we reach a balance when those that defy our logic gain majority and eventually control? Will my children suffer as I am forced through taxation to finance the needs of others? Can our already dysfunctional social system handle the increasing burden?
Immigration at the current rate is likely suicide to all we hold dear. We have not had the courage to lay a hard and fast line on immigration. America is young and overwhelmed, and frankly to afraid to offend people. I am sorry, but it is time to stop this insanity. How is it that cities in Colorado have changed from 5% immigrant to 80% (most likely illegal) immigrant in less than a decade? I can hear the socialists cheering as we approach national healthcare!! This is already too much of a drain on the economy. (I finished my taxes last week, grrr…)
Hi Erin - good to get more opinions here!
You write: "Immigration at the current rate is likely suicide to all we hold dear."
I disagree, and let me say why. If we look back at U.S. history, there have been other times when there were heightened concerns about immigration. There's an interesting chart at this site:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/GlobalData/charts/final.fb.shtml
and it does in fact show that the percentage of foreign born Americans was quite high in the period 1860-1925 or so. We are approaching those levels now, so it makes sense that there is concern about the issue. So I think the U.S. can handle immigration without 'losing everything'. In many ways America IS what immigrants have built.
I don't mean to say there are no issues around immigration - I just think that there is a level of hysteria about it right now that is not justified.
Re: your response on societal suicide. We have a laboratory called the EU which disproves your hypothesis - and the US is in the process of reinforcing this conclusion! It is not alarmist - proven facts cannot be alarmist!Mark Steyn and I see this - why doesn't the left?
Re: your response to Erin. She is talking about ILLEGAL immigration, as are all people concerned about immigration. Why can't the left use the correct term and not make comparisons to the unrelated subject of immigration? It's not hard to do and keeps the discussion on track!
We are all for immigration, controlled as it has been very successfully for the past 200+ years, to continue the fantastic growth of our society and economy!
Erin, I really don't want you to return "to the kitchen" - although there could certainly be worse fates! Seems to me with a little creativity we may be able to figure out how to reproduce at a rate to avoid societal suicide and still allow women to remain "out of the kitchen."
The first action is to get people - women in particular - to understand that low rates of reproduction will end this society for your kids and grandkids.
Ok, I've taken a deep breath, and will try my best to be even-keeled here.
1. Steyn seems to be concentrating on the EU. I do believe that in certain countries the birth rate is below replacement, and so that is a serious issue in many ways. But Italy is a different situation from France in terms of immigration. Steyn is worried that some of these will be Muslim countries in 100 years. I'll just say it's very hard to predict the future - linear trends are seldom what actually happens.
2. From a quick glance on the web, I see figures of between 8-13 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. This is about 3-4% of the total population. Is this enough to destroy all that's good about this country? I'm doubtful (not to say that nothing should be done). U.S. birth rate is still above replacement level, so I find the situations quite different between the U.S. and the EU.
3. We each seem to find various issues that we find especially alarming. That's one reason that I've been doing a lot of reading and studying in the area of 'sustainability' lately. There are so many facets to the subject that it goes very deep. Some cultures do collapse, seemingly for many intertwined reasons. Are certain rise-and-fall patterns inevitable? Is human ingenuity enough to respond to all problems? How do religious beliefs and economic structures move societies? Good questions...
Jim: Thank you for the distinction. ILLEGAL Immigration has been blurred to lose the "illegal" title as well as the emphasis. (Largely because of our media.) As I said before, if only it was so easy as me running back to the kitchen. Even more, I can't see modern intellegent women running home to have more children anytime soon. This will soon lead to a desperate class divide. Could I go so far to say that the inbalance will spark civil war? At the very least we will have leans to communism & socialism.
Curt: It is so nice to chat with you and I look forward to meeting next fall. I must say that I am shocked by your casual optimism on this subject. When the high levels of immigration you mentioned (19th-early20th century) The US was certainly not catering to this group with multi-lingual ballots and tax forms. I find it outrageous that immigrants (mostly illegal) feel so entitled. By enabling these groups we encourage them to feed off the system and not "Americanize." I don't even want to start on the fact that US dollars is now supporting the Mexican welfare system with tax free US dollars sent to family members at alarming rates! No wonder Mexico is not supporting a wall.... there needs to be action no political dancing to retain votes.
A few more follow-ups:
Erin: I look forward to meeting you too! Going back to your original point, I agree that when there is a rapid influx in a particular area, it does not promote a good "Americanization"; and I also am not a big fan of the bilingual efforts.
But I do think this is a localized problem that is more acute in some areas than others, and in particular near the borders. So I don't see it as such a 'national threat'. Communism, in the sense of centralized operation of markets, is pretty low on my list of worries right now!
On Italy: What I found about their 'child incentive' was this: In 2005 any child who is born or is adopted in a family living in Italy with Italian or European parents receives a monthly subsidy of 1000 euros provided the family income in 2004 does not exceed an yearly amount of 50000 euros.
In 2006 any non first child who is born or adopted in a family living in Italy with Italian or European parents receives a monthly subsidy of 1000 euros provided the family income does not exceed in 2005 an yearly amount of 50000 euros.
The weird thing is that the program is only in place for one year. The analysis I saw was doubtful of much success. And Italy in fact has relatively low female employment, so it's an interesting question of why their birthrate is so low.
I think before saying that people (women) should have more children, we need to examine the current reasons and incentives for decision-making on children. There are many: cost of housing requires in many places two incomes; child care is expensive; education is expensive; women get plenty of satisfaction out of working as do men; I'm sure there are many more. Then one can look at policies that could have an impact.
One last thing: I saw an article today that claimed that Germany has immigration concerns now about people leaving the country (for many years they were worried about inflow). So the one constant is change!
With trepidation I am going to add a few comments.
Change definite is a constant and we are never going to go back to the way it was.
All civilizations seem to rise and fall, and I am not sure where the United States is at the moment but I don't think we are going to be on top forever.
You central-rightists may be concerned about WHO are having babies, but I don't think the answer is more babies. (The population of the Earth is still increasing.) It may be more a matter of trying to slow the birth rate of the less advantaged, and that is probably best done by raising their standard of living.
I am not a fan of abortion but I don't think it is really the problem. After all China not only approves of but has enforced abortion, and China seems to be rising as a world force.
As to illegal immigration, it would be nice if we were able to stop it, but I don't think building a fence is going to do it. As long as they can have a better life here, they will find some way to get in. I do feel that all immigrants should be Americanized as soon as possible and I have never agreed with bi-lingual education, etc. I do feel that those of you who live in Southern California are more directly having to deal with the illegal immigrants and therefore more concerned about it. I don't feel it is as big an issue here in Boston although I read in the paper just today that Boston's population is 51% minority (this includes many nationalities, not mainly hispanic).
Wow, there are truly a bunch of issues all tangled up here... just an attempt to sort things out:
1. Issues of birthrate and immigration policies in various countries, particularly in Europe and the U.S. Different countries face varying situations.
2. The illegal immigration issue in the U.S., and policies around that.
3. Reasons for birthrate changes, which can range from economic status, religious belief, technology (birth control pill since 1960 or so), abortion, gender equality, and more.
4. Projections into the future, which are frequently fraught with uncertainty. At one point global population projections that we'd hit 12 billion; more recently I've seen numbers around 9 billion, because circumstances change and behavior changes.
Going back to Jim's original post, presumably Steyn wrote his book to attempt to at least make people think about the issues, and potentially spur different behavior. All part of the ongoing experiment we are carrying out here on Earth!
One last thing: I'm off to Paris on Friday, so I'll see what I can see for myself over there!
Ahhh, clarity!! A wonderful thing, as Dennis Prager often teaches us!
The left leaners among us - and I think I am being generous with the term "leaners" - have a "one world" view.
The right leaners among us - and with my bias I believe this is an appropriate term - have a "United States" view.
I don't give a hoot about the world population, birth rate in Italy or France, China's policy or anything else that is brought up in the discussion!
I care about keeping the society of the United States in which I was very successfully raised intact for my children and grandchildren. Hard to understand? It's really not.
Re-read all entries with this clarifying thought in mind.
I only care that we are eliminating this society with abortion and lower birth rates, illegal immigration that we will not stop, political correctness that will not assimilate the illegal (or legal, for that matter) immigrants, a Congress that is like President Clinton watching the polls and can't even support our troops, ad nauseum.
Mark Steyn, who started this discussion, I am sure feels the same way in pointing out the West is on the road to extinction. This bothers us, not you.
Let's raise the discussion to: "Why is a 'One World' view an unacceptable approach if one wants to continue the good of the U.S.?"
If one wants to consider the good of the US, how can one not consider 'One World'. We all are sharing one planet and given today's communication and transportation, we are all much more aware of what is going on in the world. Not to mention the fact that what the rest of the world does affects us and vice versa.
Of course, we all want the society to be here for future generations, but I don't think that means there won't be some changes and I don't think all the changes are going to be for the worse. It seems to me that we have it pretty good--better than our parents--and your grandchildren seem to have it pretty good too.
In what way has abortion and illegal immigration affected you? I am sure you will tell me and I'm interested in hearing. Do you see anything positive happening? Just wondering.
I've responded at a later post on "One World".
Post a Comment
<< Home