The World's Largest Museum

     The Catholic news service, Zenit, has recently reported on the measures that a few European countries have taken to increase their birth rates -- in effect, to reverse a not-so-slow cultural suicide.  You can read the article at http://www.catholic.net/global_catholic_news/template_news.phtml?news_id=89456.

     The measures have had only modest success, probably because they prescind from the same assumptions that are killing Europe in the first place.  It is a good thing to give people generous time off from work when their children are born; but it is not a good thing to assume that all people will be earning salaries, nor is it a good thing to tax people so heavily as to punish mothers who stay home with their children.  Yet I suspect that even if Europe were to ease back from its confiscatory taxes, it wouldn't be enough.

     One reason is that we in the west no longer conceive of work as what we do to put food on the table.  Work is central to our identity, our self-esteem; we don't have jobs anymore, but careers.  And the worth of our career in the first instance refers to ourselves, not to our families, certainly not to our neighborhoods, nor to our country or church.  There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but I don't meet many young people, even among the so-called conservatives, who consider their family not simply the most important earthly thing in their lives, but the central thing, that which all the rest that they do must subserve.  I hate to sound like a broken record, but Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism nailed it here, too.  The corporate men who were lanced in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit were joined by women: the last hope of sanity and rootedness in the natural world gave themselves up to the establishment.  Why, even the Girl Scouts nowadays will not let a child earn a patch unless she investigates how the activity she loves can be parlayed into a career.  Radicals indeed.  "Go into plastics, Michelle, plastics are the wave of the future."

     The governments of Europe are assuming that people are too poor to have larger families; but the truth is, they are too rich, and do not want to give up the toys of egoism.  Children themselves are a part of the egoism, being such cute accessories, and later on, after an expensive education in madness, such impressive trophies.  Why, even a perfectly manicured sod lawn of Zoysia grass is not so grand a thing as a kid accepted to Oxford.  There may be no reversal in the offing, either.  Because if people can no longer submit their egos to the good of that most natural of social units, the family (and I note that in Europe nobody is bothering to marry anymore, either), they will surely not be able to submit to the good of a city or a nation or a church.  If people do not learn in the family the complex habits of sacrifice and virtue, they are not going to learn them in rotten schools, not by the millions, anyway.  We are not here talking about a civilization in decline; we are past that. 

     So, Europe, do not send for whom the bell tolls.  But I'll join Pope Benedict in his hope that God will work a miracle for her.  A miracle it will have to be, because it has been more than a few days already, and she stinketh.

Comments

[dilys]

They're still occasionally getting married in Texas, but I'm surprised by how many perfectly nice people I talk to whose "new nephew" was born to to "my brother and his girlfriend."

Is marriage now a social "work of supererogation"?

[Jennifer K]

I find it disturbing that people don't want to have children. Many people want children and can't have them. However, I am reluctant to endorse government interference in these types of decisions. It is better to argue that people should want children than merely that people should have children they don't want. People should both have and want children.

The tax problem is onerous. Improvements in medicine have dramatically increased medical care costs for older people and these costs are borne by a same-size-or-smaller younger generation. It is interesting that Christians argue most vehemently against utilitarianism in medical ethics. I often hear that "all life is infinitely precious to God." Well, yes, but death is a part of life, and in the absence of infinite resources, choices will be made in one form or another, whether it is to have high taxes to pay for medical care for the elderly, or lower taxes which may encourage people to have more children. There is no free lunch.

[Stuart Koehl]

Last year I held a symposium with the Dutch finance minister, who laid out the many challenges facing Europe with regard to defense, employment, economic growth, etc. The biggest challenge, however, was retirement and pensions: in the Netherlands, people can retire at 59 at 75% of their highest working salary. They don't get any more money for working longer, so most people retire as soon as they can. Because of the low fertility rate, by 2010, more than half of all Dutchmen will be at or beyond the retirement age, so the pension pyramid gets stood on its head. He talked about all the potential remedies for the problem, including changing the level of benefits, or the age of retirement, but that all of these were considered politically "impractical" (cheerful fellow, wasn't he?). I suggested the Dutch might try having more babies. He looked at me like I was crosseyed.

[Randy Estes]

I agree with Mr. Esolen that Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism has done a fine analysis of the problem. He focuses on the effects that economics has on the family structure. We conservatives seem to ignore economic effects and instead focus only on social conditions. It is a weakness that prevents addressing the social problems in our society and Europe as well.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I agree with Mr. Esolen that Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism has done a fine analysis of the problem. He focuses on the effects that economics has on the family structure. We conservatives seem to ignore economic effects and instead focus only on social conditions. It is a weakness that prevents addressing the social problems in our society and Europe as well.<<<

One ought to consider, however, that there seems to be an inverse correlation between "child friendly" social policies (i.e., paid family leave, subsidized or free day care, free pre-K education, free student meals, free pre-natal care, etc.) and fertility rates. The United States ranks low on "family friendliness" as ranked by the UN and various advocacy groups, yet its fertility rate is relatively high, while countries that rank high in "family friendliness" such as France, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Italy all have fertility rates well below replacement. It would seem that in trying to remove the pain from having and raising children, these countries have inadvertantly devalued childbearing. Just what the overall psychology might be, I have not determined, but the correlation seems clear--the more you spend on making childbearing cost free to the individual, the fewer individuals have children. Could it be that the societal costs of such policies are so high as to undermine their intended purpose?

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I just wanted to point out in response to Jennifer's comment that the traditional Christian view of end-of-life issues is not supportive of spending every last cent possible to support people on fancy machines in intensive care units. Extraordinary care can always be refused legitimately, either in person or by advance directive. Food and water, on the other hand, are not extraordinary and are comparatively inexpensive. Other things are driving end-of-life care costs than Christian compassion. Indeed, one may see much of it as a desperate attempt at holding off inevitable death because one has no faith in an afterlife.

[luthien]

Dr. Esolen, I know it wasn't really the main point of the post, but thank you for the reminder that work really can be just a means to put food on the table rather than the be all and end all of identity and earthly existence. It helps to be reminded of such things, especially for all of us who still have to figure out what to do with ourselves after graduation. (11.5 months and counting...)

[Josh]

Stuart,
I think the problem is that the UN does not properly value family values. Yes, Europe does have more extensive paid leave, day care, etc., but what needs to happen is a family wage - something I think the U.S. comes closer to providing than Europe. The family wage is a sufficient wage that a single income family can be supported. Certainly the culture of narcissism is an important aspect of the problem, but I do not think there will be a significant change in the demographics for the better until more mothers can raise their children without needing to work.

This is a point that has been brought out by various writers, including Brian Robertson in _Forced Labor_ (Spence), Allan Carlson in _From Cottage to Work Station_ (Ignatius). Mary Ann Glendon makes a similar point in various places.

[Randy Estes]

Mr. Koehl,

While I do not disagree with your most recent comments, I think Christohper Lasch was speaking more toward the actual economic conditons that prevail in an industrial capitalist society, than whether the government favors family friendly policies. He points out that the industrial revolution has been extremely destructive of local communities and that the resulting economic conditions do not favor families of any type.

[Tony Esolen]

Stuart and Randy et al,

We're all in agreement here, basically; but what makes Lasch's book really powerful is his analysis of the psychological makeup of late-stage capitalist man. In this regard he not only predicted that apparently family-friendly policies would fail, but why they would fail. On the other hand, I think Allan Carlson's formulae for helping out the family would really work, but they are based upon a very different set of cultural assumptions about what the good life looks like. For example, Carlson would limit social security benefits to one married earner per household -- as originally was the case, I think. That would provide more money per household, and would certainly call down upon us the wrath of liberals everywhere.

A tangential issue: other than for our families, what do we work FOR? Before we look toward florid daydreams of "helping mankind" and such, it's well to remember the common sense of Aristotle, who said, flatly, "We work, that we may have leisure." Luthien, I highly recommend Joseph Pieper's book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture. It changed my thinking on a lot of things.

[Stuart Koehl]

Tony wrote: >>>For example, Carlson would limit social security benefits to one married earner per household -- as originally was the case, I think. That would provide more money per household, and would certainly call down upon us the wrath of liberals everywhere.<<<

I'm thinking that Charles Murray's recent plan to give $10,000 per annum to each adult U.S. citizen, with no strings attached other than requiring the purchase of some de minimus health insurance policy would be even better. Ten grand is not so much as to discourage work, while each person would be free to use the balance of the money as he sees fit. The prudent would invest some for retirement, use some for education, or even to subsidize having one parent (preferrably the mother) stay home to raise the kids. The profligate can blow it on fast cars and faster women--it's their choice, but at the end of the day, they have to take responsibility for that choice. It would also be cheaper in the long run and would result in the extinction of America's burgeoning class of bureaucrats and apparachiks--the very people who create the social policies that so harm the family. By returning responsibility for social welfare back to the families themselves, the old habits will gradually return. And with it, one hopes, more babies.

By the way, a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine put some statistics behind what I had intuitively sensed: that many of the demographic and moral problems we face today will be transient. It seems that people who hold to traditional morality and virtues have significantly more children than those who are more "progressive" in orientation. When you sort the people out, the total fertility rate for people who attend religious services regularly, and who consider themselved to be either religious or followers of traditional moral values, have between 3-4 children, while those who are progressives barely have one.

Studies done of fertility rates among Jews by people as different as Elliot Abrams and Alan Derschwitz show the same general pattern: Reform Jews have a fertility rate of less than 1.5, while Orthodox Jews have a fertility rate of almost 4 (and ultra-orthodox Jews have more than four).

Demography is destiny. If liberals weren't victims of their own "new math", they would see the handwriting is on the walls. Perhaps they do, which is why their diatribes against conventional families have become increasingly shrill.

[Randy Estes]

Stuart,

I wish I had your confidence in the idea that demography is destiny, which in a certain sense it is. Still, based on the idea that the orthodox have more children and the progressives far less, which I except as true, the question then is why aren't there more orthodox in Europe and America at this point. I think the reason is that control of the public schools allows the progressives to inculcate there values in a substantial percentage of the young offspring of the orthodox. Until, and unless, the progressive hold over the formation of the young of this country is broken I do not see any hope that a better future awaits us.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I wish I had your confidence in the idea that demography is destiny, which in a certain sense it is. Still, based on the idea that the orthodox have more children and the progressives far less, which I except as true, the question then is why aren't there more orthodox in Europe and America at this point.<<<

Because the re-awakening of the Orthodox only really began in the late 1980s. Like the frog who is boiled to death by inches, the orthodox (Christian and Jewish alike) didn't notice how hot the water was getting, until it was almost too late. But if you look at the emerging support networks for people of orthodox bent, you begin to see the beginnings of a real revival of religious orthodoxy. Two reasons:

1. The children of the boomers are now adults having children themselves. They know first-hand the results of the libertinism sparked by the sexual revolution and ethical relativism.

2. Secularism in any of its guises is not spiritually satisfying, and while a number of people go off in false directions seeking spiritual fulfillment, most quickly come back to the spring of living water that quenches their spiritual thirst.

Demographic renewal takes time. It takes eighteen years to produce an independent adult human being. Today is 2006. Eighteen years ago was 1988. We are barely one generation into the process. So be patient, and look to the yeast curve.

[GL]

The governments of Europe are assuming that people are too poor to have larger families; but the truth is, they are too rich, and do not want to give up the toys of egoism. Children themselves are a part of the egoism, being such cute accessories, and later on, after an expensive education in madness, such impressive trophies. Why, even a perfectly manicured sod lawn of Zoysia grass is not so grand a thing as a kid accepted to Oxford. There may be no reversal in the offing, either. Because if people can no longer submit their egos to the good of that most natural of social units, the family (and I note that in Europe nobody is bothering to marry anymore, either), they will surely not be able to submit to the good of a city or a nation or a church.

I recall as a teenager being drawn to Ayn Rand. Tony's quote above is the world which her philosophy gives us. It's all about me. We have all become enamoured of our "things" and even our children have become "things" to possess, not fellow humans to serve. Their value is limited to what good they are to me. Thus, we limit ourselves to one or two (or none -- they are, afterall, just optional accessories which are really going out of style -- flat panel TVs are all the rage today) so that we can afford other things to go along with them.

If our contraception fails, we can always abort them because, they are just things that can be returned within 9 months of purchase. Peter Singer is really just advocating a longer return policy. And Jack Kevorkian is just advocating that we need not keep the old models until they totally wear out.

I too am one who pins my hope on demographics, but demographics will work only if we practice the Shema -- both in words and in deeds so that our children may learn that we really believe it.

[Christopher]

"I'm thinking that Charles Murray's recent plan to give $10,000 per annum to each adult U.S. citizen"

Is this a serious proposal? If so, is this a tax funded/Government distributed proposal?

[Juli]

Their value is limited to what good they are to me. Thus, we limit ourselves to one or two (or none ... so that we can afford other things to go along with them.

Of course, some people, rightly or wrongly, limit their family size so that they can afford certain things for their children. They might be making a mistake but their motives might not be self-centered. Otoh, in an economy where the family's economic well-being depends on having enough hands to help on the family farm, or in the family business, parents might consider children an economic bonus - that is, one might choose to have a large family for selfish reasons.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Is this a serious proposal? If so, is this a tax funded/Government distributed proposal? <<<

Basically, yes. Murray proposes abolishing all existing welfare/transfer payments (SS/SSI, Medicare, Medicaide, welfare, family assistance, etc.) with a single lump sum distribution of $10,000 to every man and woman over the age of 18. This could be used for any purpose, but each recipient would have to buy a health insurance policy (the shape of which would be up to him, within certain parameters). Murray believes that in fact there would be sufficient government revenues to do this once the bureaucracy that administers existing social welfare programs was abolished. He also believes that $10,000 is enough to allow significant purchases of goods and services without being so much as to discourage work (did I mention that the payments would be totally tax free?).

There's a lot to be said for this approach, and Murray being Murray, it's worth giving it some thought. After all, Murray was the source for what eventually became the welfare reform program of 1996--an idea he first floated in the early 1980s, when nobody thought it either practical or politically possible.

[Christopher]

Mr. Koehl,

Thanks for the info. I would point out that the payments would not really be "tax free" because they will have to tax my family and my neighbors to get the $cash$ in the first place. Taxpayers produce wealth, thus they produce the $10,000 that the government would then redistribute.

Still, an interesting idea. I do think it will be the Republicans who bring about the full socialization of medicine (we are part way there with Medicare/Medicaid/VA now). The Democrats don't have the credibility, but the Republicans led by the business interests (who would love to redistribute this cost back to their employees through taxes/socialization) will accomplish it eventually. Conservatives will once again be duped into supporting the Republicans through this. Mr. Murray’s idea is a possible route...

[GL]

     I have been giving some thought to the discussion of demographics being on the side of orthodox Christians.  I have begun to wonder if such thinking runs to risk of becoming eugenics repackaged.

     I have been reading the Architects of the Culture of Death in which eugenics is given some consideration.  As I read the chapters of Galton and Haeckel, I couldn't help but see the parallels between Galton's belief that Anglo-Saxons and Haeckel's belief that Germans were superior races which should reproduce while others should not and the position that orthodox Christians should reproduce while others do not.  The difference, of course, is between the words should and do.  That difference is significant.  No one is advocating that Christians should actively promote contraception, sterilization and abortion among non-Christians.  We agree, I hope, that we want all to abandon such practices.

     Nonetheless, in promoting demographics as a force in our favor, we must be careful to remember that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" applies not only to biological reproduction but to spiritual reproduction as well (i.e., we are to evangelize the world).  Our goal should not be to increase our nation's and the world's proportion of Christians merely by out breeding non-Christians.  We must fulfill the Great Commission also.  Otherwise, we become nothing more than "Christian Darwinists" with the same us-versus-them mentality that gave birth to eugenics in the first place and, in fact, not Christian at all.  Our failure to make this clear to the world will leave the impression that we are indeed advocates of a repackaged eugenics.

[Gene Godbold]

Good point GL,
Remember that one of the reasons that God says he chose Abraham was because Abraham would teach his children to follow/fear God. Followers of Jesus must be raised and discipled, not born (except again).

[Gene Godbold]

Umm, they do have to be born first. My point was that they don't become Christians by merely having parents with allegiance to Jesus Christ.

[Joe Long]

GL - There's an enormous difference between that "should" and "do", and I daresay it should be clear to anyone who's actually paying attention in the first place. Christians are one group concerned about and somewhat successfully resisting the declining birth rate - as, for instance, the government of Japan is. True, a few noises of concern have been made already, but I don't think accusations of "malicious reproduction" can really gain any traction, particularly not when it's the orthodox who've been trying so hard to keep others from aborting their own children. (I do avoid the "argument ad hitlerium", but the problem in Germany back "when" was not the production of more Germans, but the forcible reduction of others...)

And there's self-interest for the non-reproducing...that kicks in about when our kids start paying their old-age benefits. (Or, to a lesser extent, filling the classrooms that give the ponderous academic establishment its excuse for existence.)

Still we must refrain from gloating and from seeming to gloat. I think future historians may, however, note the irony of the whole Darwinian theme....

[GL]

Gene and Joe,

As usual, I agree with your remarks. I know what we all mean, my concern is how we say it so that it is not subject of misinterpretation. I was thinking more of my own earlier comments than anything anyone else has said. I think I can trust you two and a few others here to keep me in line. ;-)

[Douglas]

There are two trends at work. In a modern economy with a high degree of division of labor, birth rates will naturally stabilize just at the replacement level. However, with the addition of the welfare state, net tax consumption increases and the welfare state must print money and increase taxes to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

In such an economy, children are no longer a hedge against poverty for the net tax producers; rather, they become a prohibitive expense. Birth rates decline accordingly and the welfare state turns to its old bag of tricks and whips out immigration to try and expand the tax base.

The endgame is when all the foreign-born and first-generation nurses start yanking the feeding tubes out of their geriatric, economically-ignorant hosts to free up resources for pediatric care.

And frankly, everybody will have gotten exactly what they deserve.

[Gene Godbold]

Increasingly, I think that there are some people who will willfully mis-understand or mis-interpret any godly admonition. Intelligent folks who worship the creature (including themselves or sex or something else) more than the creator seem to have a grudge against, well, life and pursue the demonic project of a return to chaos with a strange and frightening gusto--sacrificing children via contraception, sterilization, or abortion, and advocating that their neighbors do the same. These are the types that St. Paul rails against "...God gave them up (i.e. didn't protect them from themselves) unto vile affections...and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..."

One can only strive against these people with prayer and rational argument. But the argument isn't principally for the sakes of these folks, but rather for those who can be negatively influenced by them. These biddable hearers in the middle are those for whom strategic rhetorical decisions need to be made.

[GL]

Douglas,

Indeed.  The great irony will be when the few children the contracepting, sterilizing and aborting generation (i.e., my generation) has had decide to euthanize their parents (i.e., us) for the same reasons that their parents (i.e., we) contracepted, sterilized and aborted their would-be siblings: inconvenience and money.  We will have no argument against our children as they will be doing what we taught them to do and will be acting on the priorties we taught them to have.  We will then have reaped what we sowed.

Gene,

Exactly.

[Gene Godbold]

Eeeew GL, that's an ugly trajectory. But you're right that it follows. Only Jesus can break that (fallen) natural cycle (that sounds Rene Girard-ish, doesn't it?)