This week's column:
"Now civilizations, I believe, come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges. They break down and go to pieces if and when a challenge confronts them which they fail to meet." – Arnold J. Toynbee, Civilization on Trial
Thus speaks the master historian. The challenge which now faces the west is neither political nor economic: it is spiritual. This is not to say that there are no political or economic problems. But these are secondary; they are also inexorably tied to the west’s existential crisis. To put the matter bluntly, the West has lost faith in itself. Like the noble pagans Dante meets in limbo, "without hope we live on in desire."
Historians like Toynbee have read widely, seeking to find, if not laws, at least general principles by which civilization must abide if it wishes to preserve itself. But we need not be historians to realize that the bare minimum a people must do in order to survive is to birth another generation of children and raise them to adulthood. Whether or not these in turn will prove capable of whatever challenges that civilization faces is a matter of speculation. We need only concern ourselves with the fact that another generation is brought into existence. In this most essential mission, the nations of the west are failing spectacularly, as each nation in Europe, as well as Canada and the United States, has a birth rate below replacement level. The west is dying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't think it is a quantitative question ( replacement) as much as qualitative. There are LOTS of Westerners.
They are increasingly religious ( maybe not spiritual, ok) but increasingly unable to self-determine, self-govern, self-control.
This is no accident. Who would benefit from creating such a passive populous?
There are LOTS of Westerners.
This is true, but that's why it's important to look at birth rates. After a certain point, western population will decline precipitously. By the time this is noticed, the next generation of children will already have missed their chance to be born.
Who would benefit from creating such a passive populous?
The State and the corporations with which they are closely aligned, of course. But this should not distract us from the fact that the refusal to have children is an action taken willingly by westerners.
So because we have a lower population growth than the "East," we are "dying"...
Why is having a high birth rate necessary for preservation?
According to the CIA we still have a positive growth rate:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=121#us.
*side note* We also have a birth rate higher than the current death rate (I'm currently unaware of the projections of that relationship).
If our growth rate is still positive, how can our civilization be in jeopardy? Moreover, if it is in jeopardy, is that possibly just a natural shift to something better?
Why is having a high birth rate necessary for preservation?
The short answer is that it may not be. It's impossible to tell because it's such a rare occurrence in history, at least among civilizations that live to tell the tale.
There are ample reasons to be pessimistic. After all, a dwindling population will be forced to support its aging ancestors. Since this will be extraordinarily difficult, poor oldsters will be dependent on their children. If these cannot support them, they will be dependent on the vestiges of charity.
Pay attention to Japan. The problem is acute there, so if they find a way to survive a dwindling population, it will prove instructive to the West.
If our growth rate is still positive, how can our civilization be in jeopardy?
Look at the trends. The birth rate is plummeting and no nation has yet discovered a way to reverse this once demographic decline sets in.
The problem can be difficult to grok because when a people refuses to have children, the results aren't apparent until much later. By then, a generation has been lost, and there is exceedingly high pressure on the next generation.
If you're interested in this topic, I would check out Pat Buchanan's book: The Death of the West.
But what's not to say that we're at a natural peak of populace right now? It's possible that we are entering into a Malthusian trap, and that we have reached close to our maximum means of supporting the current population on the country.
If supporting the elderly is an issue (which I agree will be a very important issue in the years to come), current births will only help such a generation with a much lagged effect (about 2 decades). They will only help if they can create wealth to give to the elderly too, the effect of which might be dampened by increased technology and less need for a bigger workforce (a possible anti-industrial revolution effect).
So I imagine you are highly against the "death" of the "West?" What are the repercussions? Could it not simply be an evolution of sorts? Would we have been better off if the Holy Roman Empire still ruled as they had in the past? My guess is our lives would be very different, and it is hard to say what would have been better.
*Side note for ya Raider..it's Paul*
It's possible that we are entering into a Malthusian trap, and that we have reached close to our maximum means of supporting the current population on the country.
I don't think that's the case, certainly in the west. While there is certainly some maximum beyond which population cannot increase without leading to further impoverishment, I see no evidence we've reached that point.
Malthus is one of the great failures as a prophet. The food supply has out-paced population growth; the leading cause of famine is government idiotic interference, not a lack of crops.
What are the repercussions? Could it not simply be an evolution of sorts?
I envisage a return to the dark ages. It's possible that we're ushering in a fancy science led utopia. But while this argument was made a century ago, I don't think people take it seriously now. If they did, they'd be having children who could life in this wonderful place the future is supposed to be.
It should be noted that I am an eternal pessimist. As John Derbyshire likes to put it, "We are doomed."
Post a Comment