mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Demographic Decline
The Blighting of Europe Proceeds Apace
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Isaiah601

    It’s OK. Just replace native populations with Muslims. What can possibly go wrong?

    • Beauceron

      I was literally about to type that first sentence.

      • D4x

        Ditto! Good climate for Muslims, instead of Sweden.

    • Pete

      Right. Europe imports arabs and blacks and thinks their demographic problems are solved.

      Fools!

  • Dale Fayda

    “A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.

    Political and intellectual functionaries exhibit this depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in their self-serving rationales as to how realistic, reasonable, and intellectually and even morally justified it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And the decline in courage, at times attaining what could be termed a lack of manhood, is ironically emphasized by occasional outbursts and inflexibility on the part of those same functionaries when dealing with weak governments and with countries that lack support, or with doomed currents which clearly cannot offer resistance.

    But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists. Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    • ——————————

      Perfect.

      Exactly….

    • Gary Hemminger

      The ones that lack the courage aren’t the progressives. It is the conservatives. they talk about political correctness and identity politics and open borders like they are foregone conclusions. They hide in the corner and cry about it. Then try to engage progressives and get them to rationally see why they are wrong. Then they come up with equally stupid things that appeal to xenophobes. this is pure cowardice. No the answer isn’t to fight them. It isn’t to cry about them. The answer is to call them idiots and explain to the people that actually might change their mind that their policies are idiotic and do not actually achieve good outcomes.

      Be the rational one in the room, not just another irrational idiotic policy. The answer to Open borders and sanctuary cities isn’t building walls and deporting all illegals. The answer is rational border controls and policies. Going far right against the far left loons is not just cowardice, it is stupid.

  • Andrew Allison

    The divergent economic performance between Northern and Southern Europe became structural with the introduction of the euro.

  • FriendlyGoat

    On a global scale, we had better concentrate on civilizing and prospering the people we have as opposed to living in dreams of killing or excluding THAT bunch while breeding THIS bunch. Not to overstate the obvious, but here at 2017, we are looking to 2027, 2037 and 2047——not 1957, 1967 and 1977. The future is not “back to the past”. We may wish it was. But it isn’t.

    • ——————————

      FG, now I know that it makes you and others (Liberals) feel all rosey and good inside to think we are all the same and can all get along.
      However, it is not possible to civilize and prosper the entire world…now that is “living in dreams”.

      “killing or excluding THAT bunch while breeding THIS bunch.”

      Now that’s called Darwinism and it has worked for all organisms since the beginning…and no, we don’t suddenly have a better idea than Mother Nature.

      “The future is not “back to the past”. We may wish it was. But it isn’t.”

      Actually it’s called ‘history repeats itself’…we may wish it doesn’t, but it does…fact……and no, things are not ‘different this time’….

      • FriendlyGoat

        History only repeats itself when people allow it to. The more we know of history, the less that is necessary.

        • Jim__L

          Hmmmm, so the vast improvement in human existence that is Western Civilization will only repeat itself if we allow it to?

          Then we’d better remove the Leftists who don’t want to allow it to repeat, from any positions of power and influence.

        • ——————————

          Even if it is a function of ‘allow’, humanity will still continue on it’s previous path. Always has and always will.
          Humans have not changed…only their technologies have.

          “The more we know of history”??
          Most of our electorate can’t even name a current vice president!

          • FriendlyGoat

            Worse, most do not know that high-end tax cuts do not create living-wage jobs. Most do not know that the worship of nationalism as a “default religion” is the invitation to tyranny. Most do not know that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are not similar and not a good subject for a coin flip. Most do not know that the more snark they celebrate from anyone, the more their lives will be nasty. Most do not know A LOT of things.

          • Anthony

            May I add: what can be done for a public who insist upon bringing irrelevant criteria to bear in voting for officials and who decline to participate in the basic task of seeking out and supporting suitable candidates?

            “People realize that, somehow, they are short-changed. But it is defective understanding in most of the people themselves in attempting to utilize the popular franchise that is considerably to blame, although plenty of teachers have offered to instruct them. …will not heed, however. They think it’s great to be a Ruritanian and a communicant of the Hocus-Pocus Church.”

        • Boritz

          An example of the first sentence would be the Democrats deciding, Hey, why don’t we run a Clinton for president! eternal recurrence

    • Jim__L

      By the way, if we cross-reference to one of FG’s other posts, we’ll see that he’s recommended not having kids “if you can’t afford them”.

      This TAI post is evidence that his approach leads to bad outcomes.

      A better approach is for the government to pursue family-friendly policies — not direct financial assistance (that fails to do the trick, as we’ve seen in Europe) but instead pursue policies that indirectly yet profoundly benefit families.

      Suburbanization; one- or one-and-a-half-income households; intact families (both ending policies that incentivize single motherhood, and those that make divorce easy); normative childbearing to spread the burden around, make raising kids a shared experience, especially to assure that decision-makers have an understanding through experience of what it’s like to raise a family — all of these can be done without any monetary redistribution at all.

      But, they would have to heavily revise some cherished Leftist dogmas (like Feminism), as well as nipping in the bud new fringe ideas like “ending the idea that women have any implicit duty to propagate the species.”

      Things could always get worse, and will, if Leftists aren’t stopped.

    • Jeff77450

      I’m all for civilizing & prospering people, in the abstract anyway, but didn’t the colonial powers try to do that with frequently disastrous results that impact us to this day?

  • Fat_Man

    If you go to the NYTimes story, it is largely novelistic, like most of their swill. You can click on the link to a page on a website called Eurostat. Here it is. That takes you to a table labeled “Mean age of women at childbirth”, which is not relevant. Just another reason to ignore the NYTimes.

    If you mess around with the buttons on the page, you can create a table of the total fertility rate, which is relevant. Because I am nice I will share the information I retrieved so that you don’t have to try to do it yourself:

    2015
    1.58 EU
    1.70 Belgium
    1.50 Germany
    1.92 Ireland
    1.33 Greece
    1.33 Spain
    1.96 France
    1.35 Italy
    1.45 Hungary
    1.66 Netherlands
    1.49 Austria
    1.32 Poland
    1.31 Portugal
    1.85 Sweden
    1.80 UK
    1.54 Switzerland
    2.14 Turkey

    To save myself trouble I did not copy the data for the micro-countries like Malta and Luxembourg.

    So, is there a problem amongst the PIIGS? Yes, although Ireland is closer to stability than most of the other countries in Europe.

    OTOH, Germany is not cruising along fat and happy. Its 1.5 is not materially better than Italy’s 1.35 and is under the EU average.

    Further consideration is that there are many prosperous countries in East Asia that are also in demographic decline Japan (1.5), China (1.6), and So. Korea (1.2!). The same is true in the Americas. World Bank Data

    Low fertility is a worldwide phenomenon. It cannot tell us much about Southern Europe.

    How, do you like that, Facts instead of hysteria, and I am not a “professional journalist”.

    • ——————————

      I’m sure glad you are “nice”…it saved me a lot of cipherin’….

      • Fat_Man

        Da nada.

      • Eurydice

        If I were sensitive about these things, I might read in this hysteria a kind of racism – like it’s only the disparities in the EU that keep the southern countries from breeding like rabbits, and if these “fertile” people move to a more congenial country, they’d start going at it again. But in general, I think it’s been found that factors like increased prosperity, lower infant mortality and education of women have led to lower birth rates – and this includes southern Europe. I can see how an inlux of “bright, young things” might bump up the total population of their new country, but I don’t see how they will become more “fertile” for future generations, if these immigrants come already disposed toward not having large families.

        • Eurydice

          Ooops, this was a reply to Fat Man

        • AaronL

          1. You write: “But in general, I think it’s been found that factors like increased prosperity, lower infant mortality and education of women have led to lower birth rates”
          2. My question: How does that explain Israel with a birth rate of 3.1 per woman ? See Fat Man’s link to World Bank data , copied below-
          http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
          3. Perhaps David Goldman’s article explains this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME24Ak01.html

          • D4x

            Israel is ranked as one of the ‘happiest’ nations on Earth, and that is certainly a key factor, despite the housing shortage. Yet, Spengler rarely if ever mentions Israel’s historical imperative to ‘replace’ the six million, and he certainly never specifies how Talmudic Law impacts fertility. And, neither will I, especially since I never actually studied Talmudic Law, but respect those who do.

          • Eurydice

            Maybe. but if it’s happiness that explains Israel’s birthrate, then that doesn’t explain Norway’s. Norway was 1st in the 2017 World happiness index and Israel was 11th. I wonder if the reference to “land army” in your linked article might show an answer. Historically, in Greece’s “land of vendetta” from where my father’s family came, the birth rate was high because they were creating the next generation’s soldiers. Or, it just might be a cultural imperative to keep the country alive in perpetuity.

        • LarryD

          Goldman has been interested in this area for a while, he found two things that correlate with fertility, religion and literacy. Literacy is inversely correlated with fertility, and religion positively.

    • WigWag

      The case of Turkey is particularly interesting. While Turkey’s fertility rate is above replacement, it is Turkey’s minority Kurdish population which is growing rapidly. Kurdish women have between 2 and 3 children on average; ethnic Turkish women have significantly fewer than 2. By mid century there will be more Kurdish young people in Turkey than young people who are ethnically Turkish.

      In all likelihood Erdogan’s dreams will come crashing down because of Kurdish fecundity.

      David Goldman wrote a fascinating essay on this topic a few years ago. It is worth a look. See,

      http://www.atimes.com/turkeys-demographic-winter-and-erdogans-duplicity/

  • ARMSTROB

    Probably the stupidest thing I have seen in my years is the idea that we could allow unescorted children to come here as illegal immigrants. Now we have a booming population of violent gang members whose families include the likes of MS 13. The terrorists have nothing on these gangsters and there are thousands already here. And yet we keep looking to the federal govt. for leadership. Amazing how stupid a country can become in one generation. We owe the progressives so much for their guidance they really are as smart as they think they are. One generation.

  • Gary Hemminger

    You have incompetence and corruption in the south and then a German culture which is completely self-centered and since WWII has actually done nothing with respect to global obligations. A Germany that values green no matter what the cost or how stupid. Massively over-confident Germany that has exported its way to trade deficits with everyone. The self-centered Germans will do nothing to solve any regional problems because, well, they are too self-centered. but it likely doesn’t matter, because the south is beyond help. Their cultures are dying. The best answer for the south is to be colonized by Africans and Middle Easterners and be done with it. Problem is that it will just take a long time as the European cultures slowly die.

  • D4x

    Perhaps industrialized nations need a different way, other than relying on working-age tax receipts, to pay for the retirement bulge that causes so much hand-wringing. When 14th century bubonic plague de-populated so much of the Med and Europe, there was one benefit. Those who survived became far more prosperous, either through inheritance, or higher wages due to the labor shortage. Short version: That prosperity launched the European Renaissance, after the dogs and vultures cleaned up the dead bodies.

    • Eurydice

      The problem is that Nature doesn’t care about demographics – it’ll get rid of all sorts of bulges, not just the one of retirement age in a specific industrialized nation. If we really want to eliminate the elderly we’ll have to do it ourselves, but I’ll leave it you to make that proposal. 🙂

      • D4x

        The demographic target depends on the pathogen, but will it matter if 1/3 to 1/2 the population succumbs? My point was to change the way the hand-wringers on fertility view the age brackets, to stop seeing working age people as the tax-payers for retirement benefits.
        As for the elderly? I forget the title of the dystopia where you get to die peacefully when your savings run out – reduces a lot of stress. If that sounds cold, so be it.

        • Eurydice

          Well, you brought up “industrialized nations”, and tax-payers supporting retirement benefits is pretty much a first world problem, so that’s why I brought up demographics. I’m not a student of the history of plagues, but I imagine the 14th century plague was a bit more democratic than what Nature has thrown us recently – Aids, Ebola, Zika, etc., which have not hit the industrialized world as heavily.

          In any case, I think one way to change the way we look at age brackets is to widen them by acknowledging that people are living longer and staying healthier longer. To me, there is no reason why a person should retire at 65 and then stay idle for the next 25 years. Basically, it removes that person from society – it’s bad for the individual and bad for the whole. The issue has seemed to be that there aren’t enough jobs and the old should make way for the young – but how to do that? One way is to offer an incentive, like retirement. Another way is to kill them, but that would’t help the job situation, especially in areas like health care. A third way would be to get more creative about jobs and work. You can’t always count on a plague coming along when you need it.

          • D4x

            Ageism is still rampant in USA, unless you have tenure, or a safe Congressional District.
            Apologies for not caring more about this topic to continue.

          • Jim__L

            The fact that working-age people support retired people is not a “1st-world problem”. It is a basic fact of the human condition. In the 3rd world, younger generations support generations who are too old to work.

            If anything, the 1st world is rediscovering this truth via the tax code. The fact that it has come through this rarefied technical metric goes a long way to explaining why technocrats have the truly weird idea that it can be solved through anything other than restoring Motherhood to its proper place in a culture’s value system.

          • Eurydice

            I didn’t say “working-age people supporting retired people”, I said “tax-payers supporting retirement benefits” – that seems to fit in with what you’re saying about the tax code in the 1st world.

  • Observe&Report

    The continued existence of the EU is a moral outrage.

  • Jim__L

    So… *poverty* and fewer children go hand in hand? I thought it was *prosperity* and fewer children that went together. Maybe, just maybe, we need to look elsewhere for explanations.

    TAI has caught the same mindworm that the New York Times has. NYT is absolutely unwilling to admit that these problems are cultural, based primarily on the fact that most “higher education” in this country (and others) is in fact Leftist indoctrination, which deprecates motherhood and family in favor of inculcating careerism and promiscuity in women.

    To trick young women who actually hear the call of nature to have families, the Left promises, “Oh, you’ll be able to have all the kids you want after you’re 35 and well-established in your career!” What we’re finding with this generation is this is a total lie for the vast majority of the female population… at 35 their careers aren’t come together like they wish, so they figure “Maybe at 36! Maybe at 38!”, at which point the Left comes in with the baldfaced lie, “You can have kids when you’re 60!”

    Then, they discover that the love-life they’ve constructed for themselves over the 20 years since high school, isn’t compatible with the sort of committed relationship that’s good for having kids. They don’t know any nice guys, both because they didn’t bother looking for them, and because guys that would otherwise have been nice guys have realized they can get however much sex they want without commitment. Alternatively, these women have contracted syphilis, or worse.

    The final stage is sour grapes… “It’s not good to have children! I never wanted children anyway!” Which is sad, except that they try to indoctrinate young women into their blunders because they don’t want to be alone and wrong… and that’s toxic.

    Leftist mores are the reason that birthrates have been collapsing. NYT can’t bear to acknowledge this, so they come up with just about anything else to explain it. I’m surprised TAI is buying their nonsense.

    • Diws

      Or, those nice, productive guys who actually are out there are taken up, or want nothing to do with the baggage that the leftist promiscuous lifestyle necessarily creates.

      • ——————————

        Yeah, and that’s why I went to a conservative 3rd- world country to get mine….

    • ——————————

      “Mindworm”
      I gotta remember that one!

      Very insightful and factual description of Western society…and also my sentiments exactly….

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service