Fertility Gap: 41 Percent

David Klinghoffer is making observations about fertility similiar to ones Touchstone editors and others have made. Who would have thought around the time of The Population Bomb and the rise of Zero Population fanaticism that in the first decade of the 21st century there would be serious discussion about fertility rates being too low? Well, one thing seems certain: the percentage of those favoring very small famlies may likely shrink:

The correlation between holding secular liberal views and preferring not to reproduce has been noted elsewhere, but not adequately explained.

The data come from a juxtaposition of the red-and-blue quilted electoral map of the 2004 election with information from the National Center for Health Statistics and the 2004 General Social Survey.

Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs, writes in The Wall Street Journal: “If you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a ‘fertility gap’ of 41 percent.”

David Brooks notes in The New York Times a “spiritual movement” of “natalists,” but offers no insight into why exactly a spiritual perspective much more than a secular one would encourage reproduction. After all, secularists and liberals love their children too.

Certainly, conservative culture is imbued with scriptural values more than liberalism is. And the Bible not only lends strong support to conservative beliefs, but takes an insistently strong pro-natalist stance. This could be part of the explanation. God likes babies.

Comments

[Ethan Cordray]

I hear a lot about the drop in fertiliity within the West, particularly among the liberal contingent and the elite, but what's the situation on a total global scale? Do the higher rates in the third world offset the drops in the first?

We talk about how the "Population Bomb" thesis has been disproven, but do third world demographics support this conclusion? I rather hope they do -- at least, I hope that the enemies of large families can't still use them for leverage.

I notice that both the U.S. and Europe are solving labor problems through immigration. Leaving aside the many debates about the wisdom of this policy concerning culture and stability, do source-country birthrates indicate that such immigration policies will be continuable in the long-run?

These questions are all posed out of curiosity, not any agenda. Does someone know where one might find such statistics?

[Judy Warner]

Birth rates in most third-world countries are plummeting. Here are a few random quotes; I don't have time to look up a one-stop source. Since some of these figures are from UN reports, you might try looking there.

In developing nations, the total fertility rate has dropped from six births per woman in 1960 to the current level of 2.9 births per woman. (Washington Times)

Thailand's fertility rate went from 5 in the 1970s to just under 2 today. In Iran the rate has gone from 6.5 children in the 1980s to 2.75 today. (A UN report)

Falling birthrates aren't just affecting the wealthiest nations. China, the world's most-populous country, India and Brazil are experiencing a drop in fertility levels. China's fertility rate is 1.86 children per woman, down from about six per woman in 1966, according to the UN. (Bloomberg News)

It may surprise some readers to learn that sub-replacement fertility already prevails in most of India's huge urban centers--New Delhi, Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta), Chennai (Madras) among them. Even more surprising, sub-replacement fertility prevails today throughout much of rural India, especially in the rural South. (Nicholas Eberstadt in the Wall Street Journal)

The global fertility rate now stands at 2.9 children for every woman of child-bearing age—a decrease of nearly 50 percent since 1972. According to the latest U.N. projections, the world’s fertility rate will fall below “replacement” levels by 2045, meaning that the human population will start shrinking. For a population to remain stable, the fertility rate must be 2.1 in nations with low infant mortality, and higher where more die in early childhood. Some 60 countries are now operating below replacement levels. “Never in the last 650 years, since the time of the Black Plague,” said sociologist Ben Wattenberg, “have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places.” (The Week)

[Michael]

Global fertility map and statistics. Data are less than ten years old.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm

[GL]

And this is yet another sign that we are entering into a new age of paganism. Ancient Greece and later ancient Rome faced the same problem. The fertility of the early Christians, a consequence of their rejection of contraception, abortion, infanticide and homosexuality, was definitely countercultural and is considered by many as one of the explanations for its rapid growth during the Church's first three centuries.

To Ethan's question, see The CIA World Factbook.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And this is yet another sign that we are entering into a new age of paganism. Ancient Greece and later ancient Rome faced the same problem.<<<

Yet the most drastic period of depopulation took place after the Christianization of Europe--in the period between the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 10th century. Cities were abandoned or greatly reduced in size; whole swaths of Europe were devoid of human inhabitants. Not all of it was due to plague, famine and war. . . In fact, a number of contemporaneous Christian writers attributed the problem (of which many were accutely aware) to large numbers of people abandoning the world for monastic life, or simply from refusing to marry.

I would say that this is neither a pagan nor a Christian phenomenon, but one govered by a sense of cultural optimism or pessimism. People who think the future is bright have children; people who see the world going to hell in a handbasket do not. Having children is something of an eschatological statement, and when people do not see an end which they find enticing, they do not commit the personal, material and spiritual resources needed to bring children into the world.

[Michael]

>>People who think the future is bright have children; people who see the world going to hell in a handbasket do not.<<

The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, yet I still want children. Go figure.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, yet I still want children. Go figure." - Michael

I only have 1 child, and I want more, Lord willing. I know the world is going to Hell in a handbasket on this current trajectory, but children are a gift from God.

Happy to raise my child as a good Protestant Christian. D'oh! ;-)

[GL]

I would say that this is neither a pagan nor a Christian phenomenon, but one govered by a sense of cultural optimism or pessimism. People who think the future is bright have children; people who see the world going to hell in a handbasket do not. Having children is something of an eschatological statement, and when people do not see an end which they find enticing, they do not commit the personal, material and spiritual resources needed to bring children into the world.

I would agree with that and, I believe, this same cause has also been noted about the current trend in Europe by Benedict XVI. Isn't it interesting that the wealthiest nations which supposedly have the best prospects for their own future and that of their descendants are the ones with the lowest rates of fertilities? For example, South Korea has a much lower fertility rate than North Korea.

There is something about the current situation in the developed world that, despite our apparent affluence, is leaving us very pessimistic about the future. I would venture to guess that it is secular materialism. If there is no god and if we just evolved by natural processes with our lives having no real purpose, then death is all that awaits us and then . . . nothing . . . absolutely nothing but annihilation as our bodies, all we really had, returns to dust. If that doesn't kill your love life (as opposed to your lust), nothing will.

[Michael]

>>For example, South Korea has a much lower fertility rate than North Korea. <<

I'm not sure how keen I am to trust statistics coming out of North Korea.

[GL]

Michael,

It's not that high, 2.05. They may be lying, but one would think that they would tell a bigger one than that if they were.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>I'm not sure how keen I am to trust statistics coming out of North Korea.<<

Yeah, I was going to say that too.

Stuart's made a similar point about the Iranian statistics in other threads. He figures they just make up numbers that prove that whatever their current policy is is succeeding. They're currently trying to reduce birthrates, so their numbers are lower.

I imagine countries with a heavier international aid presence would likely have more accurate figures, as would ones more integrated into the world economy.

[Ethan Cordray]

GL, I wonder if there's a decisive difference between metaphysical and political pessimism in this matter. I want kids, and care about them, because I have an optimistic metaphysical outlook despite my manifest political pessimism.

Or it could have more to do with an altruistic rather than selfish cultural orientation. Altruism usually correlates with religiosity, whereas selfishness usually correlates with wealth.

[GL]

Ethan and Michael,

You may ignore NK's numbers (perhaps you should), but the worldwide statistics make it clear that it is the more wealthy and best educated nations with the lowest fertility and, within nations (e.g., India), the more wealthy and better educated regions.

[Ethan Cordray]

I ccompletely agree, GL. I just wanted a more firm idea of where that trend fits into the overall picture, and it looks like I've got it. Thanks!

[GL]

GL, I wonder if there's a decisive difference between metaphysical and political pessimism in this matter. I want kids, and care about them, because I have an optimistic metaphysical outlook despite my manifest political pessimism.

I think that's spot on. The early Christians had no reason to be politically optimistic, but they had every reason to be optimistic in a metaphysical sense.

[Michael]

>> wonder if there's a decisive difference between metaphysical and political pessimism in this matter. I want kids, and care about them, because I have an optimistic metaphysical outlook despite my manifest political pessimism.<<

My pessimism isn't merely political, but I hear what you're saying in regards to our metaphysical outlook. I'm not sure about it though. Take Poland, for example, a country that is standing firm in the onslaught of the secular elites of Europe. Their fertility rate is less than 1.5 with a declining population. Now they have obvious reason to be politically pessimistic, but all indications are that their metaphysical optimism should be higher than, say, France.

[GL]

That's a good point.

The question about France is the extent to which Muslims are pulling up an otherwise low fertility rate. There is some indication that the "native" French have a TFR about the same as the rest of the EU. Muslims have (a false, but nonetheless real) metaphysical hope.

[GL]

By the way, there is some indication that "native" Americans of European descent have a TFR not much better than our cousins in the EU. Immigrants, Mormons and pockets of conservative Christians are responsible for pulling up an otherwise European-level fertility rate to nearly a replacement level.

[Michael]

>>The question about France is the extent to which Muslims are pulling up an otherwise low fertility rate. There is some indication that the "native" French have a TFR about the same as the rest of the EU. Muslims have (a false, but nonetheless real) metaphysical hope.<<

Very true, GL. But I just threw France out there. Even looking at the rest of the EU, the lowest fertility rate isn't significantly (statistically speaking) lower than Poland's. Why is Poland at about 1.47, when the thoroughly secularized welfare states like Denmark are at 1.74?

[Joe Long]

Boy, there are a terrible lot of optimistic Moslems out there - and don't the Third-World countries with the least reason to be optimistic, seem to have healthy birth rates?

Note: I'm not disagreeing that social optimism IS a big factor in birth rate - just remarking the irony of some old college friends of mine who rake in dough, live on a yacht and "wouldn't bring children into this terrible world", while folks in misery evince considerably more hope!

[ron chandonia]

Strikes me that it is optimism about the future, but only optimism of a certain sort, that leads people to have children. It's not just a sense that things are going well, but more like a sense that things make sense--that the future is not just bright but hopeful and meaningful. After all, the future in question is one that the parents really won't see, at least in this life. What they will see instead is a good bit of self-denial and gratification deferred.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>to large numbers of people abandoning the world for monastic life,
quote by Stuart Koehl
-------------------------
That is the most uninformed and puerile perspective I have ever heard from someone claiming to be a catholic Christian.

Sincerely, a celibate lay-brother.<<<

Dear Dominick,

Your argument, then, is not with me, but with a host of late antiquarian historical sources, in both the East and West, which were quite specific in their claims. You may disagree with those claims, but they were there and you were not, so the problem that seems puerile to you seemed highly accute to them--and they WERE Catholic Christians.

In fact, the problem was so accute that secular rulers had to legislate against people in certain classes taking monastic orders--and not so coincidentally, taking their wealth with them.

[GL]

It would be interesting to see a more detailed analysis of the policy positions held by those who are more fertile vs. those who are less fertile. The GOP might want to consider the implications of ignoring the policy concerns of those who are giving birth to and rearing the most children. I'm willing to bet that the more fertile Republicans are not as well represented in the GOP's libertarian wing as they are in its social conservative wing.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sincerely, a celibate lay-brother.<<<

By the way, the term "lay brother" is meaningless in monasticism. Originally, al monks were laymen, since they were not ordained. Later, a small percentage of monastics were ordained priests and deacons to serve the monastic community, but even to this day, the majority of monks are not ordained, hence are merely "laymen" in the broad sense of the word (though that term itself used to mean a member of the "Laos tou Theou, and thus encompassed even deacons and priests; only much later did laymen come to mean "unordained", or worse yet, "not credentialed").

With the creation of mendicant orders in the West whose members were largely ordained, the concept of loosely affiliated "third order" membership encompassing men and women who would not take full monastic vows developed in the West. But it isn't part of ancient monasticism, and in any case, the Christian East doesn't have any, so this is a Western Christian institution.

[Stuart Koehl]

Continuing to look at trends in fertily throughout history, one notices that European fertility rates first begin to decline in Northern Europe after the Reformation, particularly in England and the Netherlands, which both developed thriving commercial economies. As opposed to agricultural economies, in commercial economies, large numbers of children are not necessarily a boon. In agriculture, more children equalled more field hands, which in turn meant more productivity, which meant more wealth. But commercial economies are largely knowledge based, so children must receive a more thorough education, whetehr academic or vocational. Commercial enterprises also require the accumulation of capital to get started, so a person needs to save up a pot of money before heading out into the world. This tended to delay the age of marriage, as well as the number of children a couple would have after marrying, the basic criterion being the number who make it out of infancy.

The need to support children for a longer period in a commercial economy tended to limit the number that people had. Inheritance laws also tended to limit the number of children, since in those with primogeniture, the younger sons had to make their way in the world independently, while the daughters had to be provided with dowries. In countries like France, in which estates were divided equally, the need to build up an intergenerational business venture incentivized people to limit the size of their families, again, the criterion being the number of children who survive infancy.

Fertility rates, particularly in commercial areas, were already dropping significantly by the 18th century, if you measure by the number of children reachind adulthood. Infant mortality kept the total fertility rate high. With the emergence of the sanitation and medical revolutions of the mid-19th century, people stopped dying like flies, hence they stopped breeding like rabbits. It was no longer necessary to have eight or ten kids to ensure three or four reached adulthood. Now, one could have three or four.

But at the same time, the industrial revolution was placing a premium on education, and education is expensive both in absolute and in opportunity cost terms. You have to pay for schooling, and while a child is in school, he cannot be earning a living and helping the family business. So the tendency was to further delay marriage and then to limit family size, the correlation being based on income, class, and trade.

The bourgeoisie engaged in commerce led the way, together with the aristocracy, each for their own reasons, in the reduction of total fertility rates. Even in agriculture, the advent of mechanization made farming more capital intensive, the accumulation of capital required time, operating a modern farm required more formal education, and overall, modern farming came to resemble a commercial endeavor. Since machines could replace manual labor, children no longer represented a financial asset, and families had fewer of them.

Today, around the world, in the absence of coercive government policies, fertility rates fall in lockstep with prosperity, because people respond to their economic self-interest. As soon as a country moves out of a subsistence economy, its fertility rates begin to fall. Even within subsistence economies,families are tending smaller, because the sizing of families was always based on the sustainability of the family as an economic unit. Thanks to modern medicine, a peasant farmer and his wife no longer need to have six or eight children to ensure the presence of three or four living long enough to help out on the farm. To have more children, when they cannot be fed, is not in their interest.

So blame modern medicine and humanitarian relief organizations.

And economic development programs. In our desire to pull the poor of the world out of the mire of poverty, we encourage them to industrialize, or at least diversify their economies out of subsistence farming. Thus, gradually, manufacturing and other non-farm jobs grow, farming itself becomes more mechanized, and the need for education and capital investment increases, while the need for strong backs and willing hands decreases. As soon as that happens, fertility rates plummet.

And the only way to stop this from happening is to stop the advance of the people of the world out of poverty.

If I were a marxist, I would say this was the immutable logic of the dialectic at work.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>and I'm a Western Christian who is not ordained. <<<

So fine. Recogize that your total fertility rate is zero, the same as any hedonistic, neo-pagan secularist. It isn't the effect, it's the motivation. WHY do fertility rates drop? The answer is complex, but many Christians, operating from the principle that if you're only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail, take the reductionist approach that secularism is to blame. I merely point out that the matter predates secularism and has many causes. You gripe because CHRISTIAN historians and commentators, writing between 1500 and 1000 years ago, said monasticism was part of the problem, and that people were not getting married. Since the people not having babies WERE Christians, obviously something other than a lack of Christianity was to blame. Certainly by the 8th century, one could not blam "paganism", as someone here did.

>>>I don't know where one draws the line at "ancient".<<<

Somewhere around the sixth century, I think.

>>>I have never, ever heard of a monastic, living or otherwise who saw his life as "abandoning" anything (except sin, pride, lust, etc)); that phrase was what I take issue with. Does not every Baptised person renounce "the world" ( and the flesh and the devil)? <<<

Then you need to read about the reality of monastic life in the glorious age of the Fathers and of the Middle Ages, in both East and West. The worldly monk is a literary archetype because the caricature was so firmly grounded in truth. Not only religious orders themselves, but also secular rulers, are constantly inveighing against the wealth and worldliness of the monasteries, AND the fact that people are abandoning their farms, their crafts and their social responsibilities for the (much more secure) life of a monk. It's a fact. Temper your reading of hagiography with a reading of history. It keeps one from imbibing ones won bathwater.

>>> I would perhaps be more properly identified as a "Religious" if one wanted to nitpick over terminology, but thaat term usually only confuses Joe Public on the street.<<<

I do. One reason for the crisis in monastic life in the West is the confusion between the two.

>>>Monasticism has always had its critics, those who disdain the sacrifice made by those who answer the specific call. <<<

I'm not a critic of monasticism. In fact, I have been working for years to increase the Eastern Monastic presence in the United States, and am a benefactor of a small but dynamic Byzantine Catholic monastery in the California desert. I've tried (without success, due to the resistance of my bishop) to get a Byzantine Catholic monastery started in my neck of the woods.

Moreover, as an Eastern Christian, I firmly believe that monasticism is necessary for the life of the Church, that monastics are the exemplar for all Chrstians, who are called to the monastic life to the extent of the station and gifts, and that monastics are a bulwark against the dilution of the ancient faith.

That doesn't stop me from seeing the dichotomy between the ideal and the reality. It doesn't stop me from recognizing, as did many contemporary observers, that at various times in history, many people entered monastic orders not because they had the charism, but because in a chaotic world full of social pessimism and risk, monasteries offered securty and a reasonable degree of comfort. And that many monasteries went along with this because of the endowments it brought them is an incontrovertable fact.

It played out in the West time and again--an order founded on hard work, prayer and asceticism thrives because these virtues bring more than their own reward. The monastery attracts novices and benefactors, grows in wealth, becomes powerful, becomes slothful, decadent and worldly. A small group of disaffected members decides to reform things, goes off and founds a new order, premised on hard work, prayer and asceticism. Monastery thrives. . . [Repeat ad infinitum]

It was pretty much the same thing in the Christian East as well--at various points in time, monasteries were richer than the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and even of the Byzantine emperors themselves. They were powerful landlords, engaged in commerce, and defended their rights zealously (with clubs and rocks, on occasion).

And yet, through all that, in both East and West, true holiness persisted in the monastic ranks, proving that there is in fact real charism to the solitary life which even the sinful world cannot totally corrupt. There is a need for men and women (the word for monk and nun is the same in Greek and Slavonic) who pray constantly for the salvation of the world, and who by their personal example are "white martyrs" to the faith, to inspire the rest of us, and through their tireless efforts, to acheive a degree of spiritual perfection that might enable them to see the Uncreated Light.

Dominick, grow up. Just because someone loves something does not mean he cannot criticisize it. Love itself spurs the criticism--the desire to see something good become better, to see shortcomings and failures addressed. Love of monasticism should not make monasticism immune from an objective assessment. Without it, there can be no reform, and like the Church as a whole, monasticism is constanly in a state of reform. "We fall and get up again, fall and get up", is the way one Eastern monk explained what is done in a monastery. That's hoonest and objective. You need to be honest and objective, too.

Far too many Catholics feel that any airing of dirty linen only encourages enemies of the Church. On the contrary, it is only when the dirty linen is hidden away until the stench becomes unbearable and can no longer be covered up with perfume that scandal erupts. The Church is founded on Christ. Christ is Truth. The Church has nothing to fear from truth, but every thing to fear from lies and evasions.

And, by the way, there are in fact Protestant monastics. Some of them hew closer to the monastic ideal than a lot of Catholic religious do these days. You owe them an apology.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Who are "them" to whom I owe an apology? for what? <<<

The Protestants whom you claimed have disdain for monasticism, especially those who ARE truly monastics.

>>>I should have known that some long condescending and patronising reply would be forthcoming from you. <<<

You should work on your reading comprehension and be a little less defensive about the Catholic Church, which has been around a long time and can defend itself quite well without your assistance.

>>>Any commenter who dares to point out anything with which they disagree in your posts is ripped to shreds, called names, regarded as illiterate and told to grow up. <<<

Stop whining and grow up. I mean it. Now go straight to your room and read some Church history. You got bent because I DARED to point out that in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th centuries, there were Christian historians, churchmen, governors and commentators who wrote about monasticism as contributing to a decline in the number of people having children. I did this because someone claimed that declining fertility was a PAGAN problem. I illustrated it as a more complex problem, one that best Christian Europe long after the last pagan had gone to his barrow. You get bent because you see this as an attack on monasticism, and moreover, you personalize it by directing your ire at ME, for having the audacity merely to show that OTHERS were saying this 1500-1000 years ago--a fact of which you appear to be ignorant.

>>>Your mediaeval stereotypes of wealthy decadent monasteries and slothful inmates is typically what most fundmanetalists trot out to condemn all things catholic.<<<

You're a jackass, Dominic. I for one am sick of your silly RC convert belief that you are the standard bearer of Catholicism, and that those who don't toe your line are NOT Catholics. Well, I am. And until the Pope or my bishop tells me I'm not, stick it.

You're the second Roman Catholic in a week who told me that Byzantine Catholics aren't REAL Catholics (so, that's what RC means?). The other was Francsesca, so it would seem that Roman Catholics on both the liberal and traditionalist wings have no time for us at all. Unless we suit their own agendas, of course. And the Orthodox seem to have no time for us, either. There is nothing like being loved.

By the way, the stereotype is true.

[David Gray]

>To even bring them into the discussion of dropping birth rates today is pointless.

I don't think Stuart was blaming monastics for the present dip but rather pointing out that historically there are more potential reasons for a drop in birth rates than merely secularism.

[Stuart Koehl]

Dominick:

>>>If one were to tally up the total number of present-day celibate Religious worldwide, it would be so very miniscule.<<<

In the 10th century, it was estimated that almost 10% of the population were monastics. Add to that the secular (celibate) clergy in the West, and the number of non-affiliated people who did not marry or have children, and you have one reason for a big dip in total fertility in the Dark Ages.

David:

>>>I don't think Stuart was blaming monastics for the present dip but rather pointing out that historically there are more potential reasons for a drop in birth rates than merely secularism.<<<

Thank you.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Huh? You have absolutely no idea who or what I am then.
I think I shall "abandon" this website just to avoid an occasion of sin.<<<

Great idea.

[Juli]

>>>I don't think Stuart was blaming monastics for the present dip but rather pointing out that historically there are more potential reasons for a drop in birth rates than merely secularism.<<<

Which I agree is important to say, much as it may impede the riding of favorite hobby horses. Certainly chaginging economic interests affect changes in fertility rates, as Stuart said, as do declining infant mortality rates.

On a more subjective level, I'm unsettled by the whole notion of fussing over how many children other people are choosing to have - my visceral sense is that those decisions are none of my business. (I do believe it *is* our business to work for a world where children and others in need are welcome and cared for, so that decisions about child-bearing aren't driven by desperation, but that's something different from tut-tutting over every small family - or fawning over every large one. And yes, there are many ways to be fruitful and many ways to help raise the next generation.)

[DGP]

I think I shall "abandon" this website just to avoid an occasion of sin.

Mr. Glisinski,

Avoiding occasion for sin is good, but that sounds more like a snit than a reasoned decision. You may not like Mr. Koehl, but you did start it all by misreading him and implying he was puerile.

You're the second Roman Catholic in a week who told me that Byzantine Catholics aren't REAL Catholics (so, that's what RC means?). The other was Francsesca, so it would seem that Roman Catholics on both the liberal and traditionalist wings have no time for us at all. Unless we suit their own agendas, of course. And the Orthodox seem to have no time for us, either. There is nothing like being loved.

Mr. Koehl,

I'm RC, and I know BCs are Catholic. One might as well put it the other way: BCs graciously acknowledge us Romans as fellow Catholics. :-)

Mr. Glisinski has elsewhere identified himself as one of that class of MC participants who profess Catholic sympathies while abhorring something essentially Catholic. (In his case, it appears to be the breathtaking squalor of the Catholic Church.) Such a split profession is often the mark of troubled souls, and one does well to tread carefully about them. Remember -- meat, vegetables? Just because you have the wit to discern some aspect of a man's constitution from his MC remarks, doesn't mean it's prudent to confront him with it in public.

Where's Mr. Altena's MC policing when you need it? :-)

[GL]

Juli,

I think I understand you, but to be sure: Do you agree that there is something wrong when the entire developed world, including much of what use to be called Christendom, has fertility rates well below replacement levels? I would agree that the causes are multi-factorial, including, but not necessarily limited to, economic, social, spiritual and moral. For the sake of our progeny, do you agree that we have an obligation to address those causes and to encourage couples who chose not to live celibate lives or who do not have exigent circumstances to be open to life, leaving to God to determine whether that openness leads to none, one, a few or more children?

[Mike The Lectern]

I am amazed in observation of "Mere Comments" how each independent thread(whatever the actual topic)inevitably descends to Catholic vs Protestant.

May I say I have unconditional love for both groups and perhaps it is the stress caused by these constant rehashings that may contribute to lower fertility rates.

just a thought. nothing more.

I'd love to read from the Lutheran side, Presybterian, Church of God, even the Methodists.

[David Gray]

>I am amazed in observation of "Mere Comments" how each independent thread(whatever the actual topic)inevitably descends to Catholic vs Protestant.

Hadn't noticed that on this thread. Here we had almost/kind-of Catholic vs Byzantine Catholic. Go figure...

[GL]

I am amazed in observation of "Mere Comments" how each independent thread (whatever the actual topic) inevitably descends to Catholic vs Protestant.

It is getting tiresome (at best), isn't it?

I'd love to read from the Lutheran side, Presbyterian, Church of God, even the Methodists.

I am Presbyterian (though I spend most of my life in either non-denominational evangelical or SBC churches), with a strong affinity for orthodox Lutheranism and classical Anglicanism.

[DGP]

I am amazed in observation of "Mere Comments" how each independent thread(whatever the actual topic)inevitably descends to Catholic vs Protestant.

It is getting tiresome (at best), isn't it?

Whatever the argument here was, it wasn't that.

I'd love to read from the Lutheran side, Presybterian, Church of God, even the Methodists.

No one is stopping them from contributing, but keep in mind that it's a bit unrealistic to expect them to be equally well represented.

[Windmilltilter]

That was a lot of heat guys. Connecting this with the Teddy Roosevelt post, it seems like what you two need is a good brawl, Quiet Man style, after which you can drink together. A few punches in, and suddenly a lot of perspective is gained. And certainly a good hay-maker to the jaw carries with it, if not always charity, at least a magnanimity that is absent in this nyah-nyah name calling. Besides beer tastes better when mixed with a bit of blood.

Also, see Quiet Man for what good Protestant/ RC relations should be. Not, as has already been mentioned, that that was what this thread was about.

[labrialumn]

Ethan, the "labor problem" in the US was the lack of a proletariat. The Jeffersonian-Puritan ideal being that all men be middle-class with the rights of the nobility under the Great Charter.

But some people want to be upper class. They need a proletariat to mow their golf courses and take care of their children, and they need to depress wages as a whole so that the middle class won't be as capable of being 'uppity'.

Ann Coulter of all people has a good column on this out, right now.

As to the 6-10th centuries, the Dark Ages really were dark. There appears to have been a massive volcanic explosion (possibly Toba or Yellowstone (which is possible if you reject the e-chronology) or a cometary impact. There are in tree rings in Europe, a lack of summers for around a quarter of a century. This is the 'wasteland' of the Aurthurian Cycle. Then came the Yellow Plague. The massive immigration by the Germanic and Alanic tribes contributed to this period by destablizing the civil services. Then came the Muslim conquest of the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, and their 'ownership' of the Middle Sea by their pirates, cutting off trade.

It took a long time to recover from this century of darkness.

Stuart and Dominic, please choose your seconds.

[James A. Altena]

"I have an optimistic metaphysical outlook despite my manifest political pessimism."

Ethan, with this statement you just conceded the crown of "reigning MC pesismist" hands down! :-)

[James A. Altena]

"Mr. Glisinski has elsewhere identified himself as one of that class of MC participants who profess Catholic sympathies while abhorring something essentially Catholic."

"Where's Mr. Altena's MC policing when you need it? :-)"

Dear Fr. DGP,

To the second point, I'm still recovering from surgery (unfortunately unsuccessful). Between health problems and a major shift in job responsibilities, I now have very little time even to read MC, let alone post on it (I haven't been back to the last several threads on which I posted something), and I expect that to continue for the foreseeable future.

As to the first point -- Dominic has indeed previously identified himself as an Anglo-Catholic, and so Stuart was incorrect in assuming him to be an RC. (I infer from previous posts, however, that Dominic has fewer substantial doctrinal disagreements with the RCC than I do.)

However, presuming (perhaps rashly) that your phrase also applies to me as another Anglo-Catholic, I think it unfair of you to say that there is a "class of MC participants who profess Catholic sympathies while abhorring something essentially Catholic." The use of the term "abhorring" is what is particularly objectionable here.

I disagree with the claims of the RCC Magisterium to have the unique authority and powers that it asserts itself to possess by divine provision. But I do not therefore "abhor" either it or even the claim. My disagreement is principled and conscientious; and it is made respectfully, with regret for the sad division that necessarily results from the obligation to act according to truth as I (being a fallible and sinful man of, I trust, Christ's redeeming) can discern and follow it, and with tremendous admiration for JPII, Benedict XVI, Mother Teresa, and all their brethren within the Roman fold. I am well aware that, even though I strive to act according to what I pray is properly informed conscience, that nonetheless at least some of the guilt for this separation also falls upon me even if I am in principle correct. And many people on his site can bear witness to several occasions where on this site I have come to the defense of the RCC on some point. And I do not have my mind forever made up on the matter, but regularly return to it and ask God to show me if I am indeed in error and should submit myself to Rome (and I do the same with Orthodoxy as well).

It therefore would be nice not to be mischaracterized as an antagonist of Rome who "abhors" some aspect of it, but rather, as Rome herself has termed it, one of her "separated brethren."

In a recent post on another thread (which unfortunately I cannot find at the moment -- can anyone else turn up the link for me?), Protestant Touchstone editor Dr. Hutchens briefly but eloquently stated his own desire to be a Roman Catholic -- albeit (this was implied "between the lines", so to speak) in the proper sense, i.e. once Rome itself resumes its proper bounds as primus inter pares rather than primus supra pares. He expressed my own position to a T.

Back to overtime work!

[Art Deco]

Yet the most drastic period of depopulation took place after the Christianization of Europe--in the period between the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 10th century. Cities were abandoned or greatly reduced in size; whole swaths of Europe were devoid of human inhabitants.

I would like a citation to the source of this assertion. I have a set of lectures on tape given by Prof. Philip Daileader of which the most salient portion is a discussion of alternative theories of the economic decline that beset late antiquity and the early middle ages. I am working from memory, but I think he identified the beginnings of the demographic implosion in Europe as being in the mid-third century; and that by the best estimates that medieval historians have been able to muster, mean living standards in Europe were at their lowest in the 7th century.

Aslo, if I recall correctly, the mid-6th century plagues are thought by some historians to have been more severe in their effects than the Black Death eight centuries later.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> but I think he identified the beginnings of the demographic implosion in Europe as being in the mid-third century<<<

I would have dated it even earlier, to the plague in the last years of Marcus Aurelius. But in fact, the Empire came back from that. There was some depopulation within the borders of the Empire in the third and fourth centuries, but the influx of Germanic refugees made up for it, for a while. What is critical is the population implosion that occured throughout Europe between the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 10th century. This was general, ranging from Byzantium to Britain (it also affected North Africa, Anatolia, Egypt and Syria), and is only partially attributable to disease (the bubonic plague of Justinian's reign) or warfare (the Muslim incursions).

There are many good books now being written about late antiquity, and especially the transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages, a more gradual process than previously believed. One of the factors all the authors point out is the massive decline in population, both rural and urban, which in turn led to the decline of cities, the end of monetary economies, a gross decline in standard of living, literacy and culture, and a general atmosphere of insecurity accentuated by the number and size of hoards from that period.

[DGP]

To the second point, I'm still recovering from surgery (unfortunately unsuccessful).

I'm very sorry to hear that. "Unsuccessful" is often an especially bad thing with back surgery. May your recovery from surgery be speedy.

As to the first point -- Dominic has indeed previously identified himself as an Anglo-Catholic, and so Stuart was incorrect in assuming him to be an RC.

Yes, the two were both reading past each other.

However, presuming (perhaps rashly) that your phrase also applies to me as another Anglo-Catholic, I think it unfair of you to say that there is a "class of MC participants who profess Catholic sympathies while abhorring something essentially Catholic."

The man who looks to be offended will always find what he seeks.

In my own defense: A couple of weeks ago I told you my participation here has been "spotty." You seemed to construe that as "new." I am not new here; I have been reading threads for years. Consequently, I believe I have enough experience to identify classes of participants.

The use of the term "abhorring" is what is particularly objectionable here.

I judge the term a fair summary of Mr. Glisinski's denunciations of the moral depravity of Catholics.

[Art Deco]

I do not think that answers my inquiry, Stuart.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Steadfastly neutral. But...

"I think I shall "abandon" this website just to avoid an occasion of sin."

by Dominic Glisinski is humble and honorable.

I hope you don't "fast" for too long.

Pax in Christ alone.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I do not think that answers my inquiry, Stuart.<<<

Considering that I had just returned from a very long weekend at the National Scholastic Rowing Association National Championships, had driven three hours down from Philadelphia, and wanted to go to bed, that was the best answer you were going to get at that moment. Considering that it is 6:00 on Sunday morning right now, and that I am going back to bed until I have to go the Liturgy, it's going to have to do for the time being. I will provide more details later.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I believe it was GL who brought up the idea that Christians were overall more fruitful childwise than pagans - which Stuart Koehl promptly vetoed with his view that monks and nuns were to blame for the low birth rates as much as pagans, if not more. <<<

I thought you were leaving, Dominic. In any case, the asinine statement you made above shows that your reading comprehension scores are even lower than I believed. I did not say that. I said that declining fertility is NOT an exclusively pagan or secularist phenomenon, and I cited a number of causes. In passing, I noted that a significant number of CHRISTIAN sources from the period between the 7th and 10th centuries AD attached SOME of the blame for this on the explosive growth of monasticism, and on people seeking security against the chaos of the era within the walls of monasteries. I said nothing one way or the other, I merely NOTED what OTHERS had said.

YOU on the other hand, accused me of being anti-monastic, and of quoting PROTESTANT propaganda against monasticism. Worse, you accused me of being anti-Catholic (I'm sorry I thought you were Roman Catholic. I can see how that would be very unfair to THEM). You then studiously ignored all my explanations and clarifications, to say nothing of all my previous posts in which I spoke at length about the critical importance of monasticism to the Church. You even ignored the post I wrote in response to your broadside in which I pointed out that I am in fact a contributer to a monastery and have been working to establish MORE MONASTERIES.

By saying you are dim-witted and lack the reading skills to understand what I wrote, I am being most charitable to you. A more suspicious person would think you were deliberately prevaricating and distorting my statements for your own benefit and/or amusement.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

"By saying you are dim-witted and lack the reading skills to understand what I wrote, I am being most charitable to you."

All in favor of saying that this is most charitable, please post in and say "Aye!". ;-)

Stuart, I'm probably not on your "Most Favored Nations" trading status, but can I make a polite request to honor Memorial Day weekend by recognizing those who served faithfully for the United States? Sadly, some died in "friendly fire."

Let's not have folks get wounded in "friendly fire" either on MC.

Pax in Christ bro'.

[David Gray]

>Stuart, I'm probably not on your "Most Favored Nations" trading status, but can I make a polite request to honor Memorial Day weekend by recognizing those who served faithfully for the United States? Sadly, some died in "friendly fire."

>Let's not have folks get wounded in "friendly fire" either on MC.

Arguing for papering over differences by invoking the service of those in uniform is a unique and rather odd notion.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

There's a wide difference between "papering over differences" and uncomplimentary remarks.

I'll take the unique and odd notion as a compliment.

[David Gray]

>There's a wide difference between "papering over differences" and uncomplimentary remarks.

True but in this society people often confuse the two.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Let's strive not to be those confused people, shall we, says this oftentimes confused Christian. ;-)

[James A. Altena]

Fr. DGP,

I am not looking to be offended. But you did not refer to just Mr. Glisinski, but to a "class of MC participants who profess Catholic sympathies while abhorring something essentially Catholic." A class normally includes more than one member. Please specify, then, who else here on MC besides Mr. Glisinski, in your estimation, belongs to that class. I think they are, as a basic courtesy, entitled to confirm or deny the application of your statement to themselves.

By "new" I naturally refer to postings on this site as the only available evidence. Obviously, unless you stated it (which you haven't heretofore), no-one else here could know that you have been reading MC for years.

[ron chandonia]

This certainly turned into an argument remote from the point originally presented for discussion. I'm sorry about that, especially since it's a point Pope Benedict has raised many times.

As far as the argument actually underway here is concerned, I too would like to see some specific sources cited about the impact of monasticism on European demographics. It's a subject of interest to me, but one that I don't know how to begin investigating.

[Art Deco]

Prof. Daileader has provided outlines of his lectures on tape. The following are the salient bullet points for the lecture in question, titled "Long Shadows and the Dark Ages Revisited"

II. Differentiating between west and east in crucial to understanding the fall of the Roman Empire, but it fails to explain why the west disintegrated at all. There is no single explanation on which all historians agree. However, there is evidence to suggest that the Roman world experienced severe depopulation between the 2nd and 7th centuries and that depopulation undermined the Roman economy and the Roman military.

-A. [A discussion of evidence]

-B. The origins of depopulation are still somewhat mysterious. Climatic changes and the barbarian invasions probably played a role. However, the most important factor would appear to be epidemiological, given that new diseases entered the Roman disease pool from the 2nd century onward. Bubonic plague, the worst of them all, first struct Byzantium and Europe in the 6th century.

-C. [Discussion of the consequences of depopulation].

III. Gibbon and Pirenne both held the Carolingian period in low esteem, Gibbon, because it was part of the cultural ruin following the fall of Rome, and Pirenne, because it was the period when Europe was most isolated from the rest of the world. Both would have agreed that the Carolintian period was the darkest of the Dark Ages.

-A. Most historians steer clear of the concept of a cultural Dark Ages. ...

-B. At first glance, there would appear to be great disagreement among historians as to the nature of the Carolingian economy.

--1. Historians who compare the Carolingian economy to the high medieval economy tend to emphasize Carolingian underdevelopment.

--2.Historians who compare the Carolingian economy to the preceding period (the 6th and 7th centuries) tend to emphasize Carolingian growth.

-C. Both camps have a point. However, recent research is demonstrating that the Carolingian period does not represent medieval Europe's economic nadir. Rather, during the late 8th and 9th centuries, the Carolingian Empire came into greater commercial contact with the Islamic East.

--1. [On the Vikings]

--2. The Mediterranean was not as closed to European traffic as Pirenne imagines. Between 700 and 900, the number of major routes connecting Europe to the East increased sixfold.

--3. Indeed, Michael McCormick's Origins of the European Economy has recently argued that the origins of the takeoff of the European economy should be dated to the 8th century, not to the High Middle Ages.

[Judy Warner]

>>>However, there is evidence to suggest that the Roman world experienced severe depopulation between the 2nd and 7th centuries and that depopulation undermined the Roman economy and the Roman military.<<<

Ludwig Von Mises thought it was price controls that undermined the Roman economy and Roman civilization.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Ludwig Von Mises thought it was price controls that undermined the Roman economy and Roman civilization.<<<

That's simplistic--a contributory factor, but not, I thnk, a major one.

[luthien]

>>>Ludwig Von Mises thought it was price controls that undermined the Roman economy and Roman civilization.<<<
Somehow, that just doesn't seem quite adequate to explain the fall of the Roman Empire; as a sole or even chief cause, I think it ranks right down there with lead poisoning and the de-silverification of Roman currency (you know, when they go from making coins of silver to using increasingly cheaper alloys), both of which I've heard seriously suggested. Depopulation combined with overexpansion of the empire and general degeneracy seems like a somewhat more likely theory; the borders were too huge, there were too few men to defend them, the quality of Roman rulers had been declining (it was one of those eras when Lucius Brutus would have made a major difference), so it fell makes a lot more sense to me. If only they would have kept the early Republic, with its larger families and strict moral codes, we might still have the Empire with us today...maybe.

On a totally unrelated note, does anyone know if Touchstone is available in any bookstores or newsstands? I'm trying to get a couple to send in a care package to my cousin's husband who's serving in Iraq. If anyone can think of something besides books and magazines that they'd like to get in a package if they were in Iraq, would you please e-mail me your ideas? I'm pretty uncreative at this. Thanks:)

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"If anyone can think of something besides books and magazines that they'd like to get in a package if they were in Iraq, would you please e-mail me your ideas?"

My church is sending the troops either a videorecorder or an audio recorder. With tapes, cd's, or dvd's. The idea is that the troops can send video or audio recordings to loved ones back home to show how they're doing and to record how much the military soldier misses and loves his/her spouse and children. A really cool idea.

[Judy Warner]

Luthien -- Prepaid phone cards, packets of wipes, sunblock, lip balm, little notebooks and pens, energy bars, disposable cameras, powdered gatorade and tea, pocket-sized board games. See here for a long list of ideas.

[David Gray]

And don't worry, even if you don't get precisely what they want just the fact of receiving things from home when one is deployed has a great deal of comfort and meaning in it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Somehow, that just doesn't seem quite adequate to explain the fall of the Roman Empire; as a sole or even chief cause, I think it ranks right down there with lead poisoning and the de-silverification of Roman currency (you know, when they go from making coins of silver to using increasingly cheaper alloys), both of which I've heard seriously suggested. <<<

Well, Mises was a libertarian economist, and they and political philosophers tend to be just like medical specialists. If you go to the hsopital with a headache, the neurologist will say its a brain disorder, the oncologist will tell you it's a tumor, the internist an infection, the trauma specialist a concussion, and so on. A variation of the "Only tool is a hammer" syndrome.

>>>Depopulation combined with overexpansion of the empire and general degeneracy seems like a somewhat more likely theory; the borders were too huge, there were too few men to defend them, the quality of Roman rulers had been declining (it was one of those eras when Lucius Brutus would have made a major difference), so it fell makes a lot more sense to me. If only they would have kept the early Republic, with its larger families and strict moral codes, we might still have the Empire with us today...maybe.<<<

The Empire wasn't over-expanded. In fact, it had pulled back from Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia and Antoninus Pius' northern wall in Scotland. The "limes" were pretty rational and proved to be eminently defensible until the middle of the third century. Even then, the crisis of the Empire, which was largely caused by a combination of unusually heavy barbarian incursions combined with rampant political instability, was over in less than half a century. In the 4th century, under Diocletian, Constantine, Constantius, Valentinian and Theodosius, the Empire maintained its territorial integrity and contemporary observers did not detect much in the way of "decline". The collapse in the West came very quickly, but even then, there was a lot of continuity as the elites aligned themselves with the new Gothic andVandal overlords who needed the elites to run the show. A couple of hundred years' exposure to Romanitas had taken a lot of the rought edges off the barbarian rulers, so for most people the change was not that evident.

In Britain, recent genetic studies show that the Saxons (and later the Normans) did not displace or destroy the indigenous population; Gildas' highly colored account of death and destruction, the bulk of the population (even to this day) continued to be of British (Celtic) descent.

The case can be made, then, that the Roman Empire in the West did not so much fall as just slowly transition into a series of sub-Roman, proto-European kiingdoms, just as in the East, the Empire did not overnight become "Byantine", but remained recognizably Roman in its institutions, laws, titles and customs until the Persian wars and the advent of the Muslims overturned everything in the 7th-8th centuries (the Byzantine Dark Ages).

As to root causes of Roman decline in the West, depopulation can be seen as one cause--and yet also an effect. The main causes seem to have been military and political: the system found it difficult to deal with more highly organized barbarians (whose military sophistication grew from their exposure to Roman warfare). The military establishment grew exponentially (from about 285,000 men under Augustus to more than 625,000 men under Diocletian), even as the population base shrank. Wars and conscription reduced output of the economy, while the need to respond to threats at either end of the Empire simutaneously led to political fragmentation, usurpation and civil war that caused further damage.

Under Diocletian, the damage was repaired, but at great social and political cost. The Empire essentially became the logistic base of the army, whch in turn defended its logistic base. Diocletian's strategy was preclusive--through the establishment of a heavily fortified frontier zone backed by smaller, regionally based local field armies, his aim was to keep the enemy on the outside. This approach was burdensome, and required a diffusion of authority (which Diocletian's tetrarchy was supposed to provide). It had within it the key to the long term survival of the Western Empire, but from a socio-political standpoint it proved unworkable, and so it was superseded by Constantine's strategy of a large territorial army and a small central field army. But that lacked the resilience to deal with renewed barbarian migrations in the 4th-5th centuries.

On this subject, I still recommend Edward N. Luttwak's magnificent dissertation, "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire", not the least because of its final conclusion: the Empire "fell" because the people in it could no longer discern the advantages of Roman over barbarian rule.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And don't worry, even if you don't get precisely what they want just the fact of receiving things from home when one is deployed has a great deal of comfort and meaning in it.<<<

You cannot, however, send alcohol, pork products, or chocolate--though Girl Scout cookies seem to have gotten through for us.

[Judy Warner]

>>>Well, Mises was a libertarian economist, and they and political philosophers tend to be just like medical specialists. If you go to the hsopital with a headache, the neurologist will say its a brain disorder, the oncologist will tell you it's a tumor, the internist an infection, the trauma specialist a concussion, and so on.<<<

Very true, but sometimes a neurologist will notice a brain disorder where a non-specialist won't, and a libertarian economist can notice a factor that has not had sufficient attention paid to it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Very true, but sometimes a neurologist will notice a brain disorder where a non-specialist won't, and a libertarian economist can notice a factor that has not had sufficient attention paid to it.<<<

True. Except, of course, that Rome never really had a free market economy, especially considering that grain, the fundamental food staple, was controlled by the Emperors and distributed free of charge to most Roman citizens (who brought it to bakers to turn into bread). There were also a whole range of controls on both prices and on business activities. Most historians would argue it is not possible to speak of "capitalism", "socialism" or any other modern economic philsophy when dealing with ancient civilizations. They hadn't reached that point of development.

Yet the Roman Empire's economy continued to expand from the fall of Carthage in the second century BC through the end of the second century AD--a 400 year run of continual expansion, which is not too shoddy. Of course, most of it came from imperial expansion. This was not, of course, continuous, but rather sporadic and driven by domestic political and economic considerations. For instance, Trajan needed to conquer Dacia not only to provide his rule with a mantle of legitimacy, but also to refil imperial coffers (Dacia was filthy rich with gold). Trajan used the loot to rebuild Rome, which in turn kept the economy humming and the vulgarii happy.

Not coincidentally, it's during the period between Trajan and Marcus that the Empire reached its peak popuoation. Rome had, at the time, about 2-2.5 million people (estimates vary from a low of one million, but I tend towards the high end because of the number of insulae that drove up population density). The total population of the Empire at more than 60 million people.

At the time of Constantine, based again on the number of insulae, the number of people in Rome was still somewhere around a million or more. A large number of people were resettled in Constantinople, whose population never neared that of Rome, but did come up to about 500-750 thousand early in the reign of Justinian.

But by the end of Justinian's reign, the population of Rome had fallen to less than 100,000 (repeated seiges, sacks, and especially the breaking of the aquaducts). By the end of the seventh century, Rome was a village of fewer than 25,000 people living amidsts the ruins of grandeur, and cows grazed in the Forum Romanum.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart, are you a professional historian by any chance? You just whip out this stuff like it's ingrained nature.

I don't always agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I do recognize prolific output that's remarkably prodigious!

[GL]

Of course, population concerns in the empire did not begin in the second century. Augustus enacted legislation to deal with the problem of low fertility during his reign. The ancient Greeks had such problems centuries earlier. There is a tendency in affluent and highly educated societies to reduce their fertility as they grow wealthier and more "sophisticated."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>f course, population concerns in the empire did not begin in the second century. Augustus enacted legislation to deal with the problem of low fertility during his reign.<<<

Augustine was concerned not so much about fertility overall, but with fertility among Roman citizens, a group that constituted perhaps ten percent of the total population of the Empire. And, even more specifically, Augustus was concerned about fertility among the Senatorial and Equestrian classes which comprised the ruling elite of the Empire. Remember that Rome was just emerging from a period of extended civil war that took its heaviest toll among Roman citizens (who comprised the soldiers of the legions), and especially among the aristocracy (who led the legions, and who had all the money with which to pay the legions). Having extinguished many of Rome's most ancient families, Augustus was anxious to rebuild the aristocracy so he could have the people he needed to rule his new dominion. On this subject, see Ronald Syme's classic "The Roman Revolution". In fact, during Augustus' reign, the population of the Empire mushroomed, due to the establishment of peace and prosperity.

The instability of the decades of civil war was probably the single largest factor contributing to a decline in fertility among Roman citizens. Augustus' decrees on the subject, which included legal disabilities for the infertile and subsidies for those who produced many children, do not seem to have had much of an effect. Rather, it was only when social optimism returned to Rome that fertility among the citizen classes rebounded. Even then, among the aristocracy, fertility remained relatively low, the reasons for which are also complex. On the one hand, there is a genetic reason: being a very small slice of the population (about 2%) the aristocracy had little choice but to inbreed. The Roman revolution temporarily opened up the ranks to new blood, but once the new order was established, its membership expanded only slightly, so the problem returned. Extensive inbreeding results in infertility, as well as high infant mortality from congenital defects. On the other hand, Roman inheritance laws that required estates to be divided equally among offspring inhibited large families among the aristocracy, since that would tend to fragment and alienate estates. This is an important consideration, when one remembers that membership in the aristocracy was determined not only by blood but by wealth. Membership in the Senate required a certain level of property (it varied, but at one point it was 120,000 sesterces per year), and periodic review by the Censors could result in being booted out of the Senate. So, when one considers this, two sons is enough, unless one intends to adopt out a few to make allianes with influential families deficient in the heir department. It's complex, as I said before.

[Bobby Winters]

I am beginning to understand how important optimism is in this area. The contractor that is doing the renovation on my house believes we've got a depression coming. His wife wants another child, but he's not sure. They've got five already. I told him if they had another kid, they might not have as much material wealth as they might, but there was nothing as precious as another human life.

[GL]

Bobby,

I don't think it is a coincidence that it was during the 1930s that many Protestant denominations abandoned the teaching against contraception. Fertility had been in decline for at least 130 years in America before then (I don't have the numbers readily at hand for European nations, but the same trend was in place, particularly in the north), but the Depression almost certainly was a contributing factor to Protestants finally abandoning the teaching. In 1931, when a committee of the Federal Council of Churches proposes a resolution permitting contraception, conservative Protestant denominations protested vigorously, with several threaten to severe their ties to the FCC. Yet, within 10 years many Protestant denominations had abandoned the teaching and within 30 years nearly all had. As Stuart correctly notes, the causes of decreases (and increases) in fertility are complex and multi-factorial, but pessimism and optimism (economic, social and spiritual) are without doubt factors.

[Stuart Koehl]

Someone asked for a bibliography on late antiquity, and particularly the demographic aspects. Here is a partial listing:

John Moorhead, "The Roman Empire Divided: 400-700", (Pearson Education, Ltd., 2001)

Pat Southern, "The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine", (Routledge, 2003)

Thomas S. Burns, "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375-425 AD" (Indiana University, 1994)

Hugh Elton, "Frontiers of the Roman Empire", (Indiana University, 1996)

Noel Lenski, ed. "The Age of Constantine" (Cambridge University, 2006). See especially Sections III and IV.

Stephen Williams, "Diocletian and the Roman Recovery" (Routledge, 1985)

John Haldon, "Byzantium, A History" (Tempus Publishing, 2000)

Cyril Mango, "Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome" (Scribners, 1980). See especially pp.32-88 on population and society, pp.105-125 on monasticism and its effects.

Cyril Mango, ed., "The Oxford History of Byzantium" (Oxford University, 2002), esp. Chapters 1, 2, 5 and 7

Philippe Aries and George Dubry, eds., "A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium" (Belknap Harvard, 1987), esp. Chapter 2

Mark Whittow, "The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025" (University of California, 1996)

and of course,

William McNeill, "Plagues and Peoples" (Anchor, 1977)

[GL]

As to Stuart's observation about the fertility concerns of Augustus' time being largely limited to the elites, I would agree. I would note that this again correlates well to our own time. The social and economic elites of Europe and America have seen lower fertility than the masses for a long time. Indeed, 100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt was blasting his fellow members of the upper class for committing race suicide because their family sizes were in such decline. The titular leader of the TEC has noted that low fertility accounts for at least some of the decline of the sect she purports to lead, and proudly proclaimed that this lower fertility was a reflection of the sophistication of the more affluent and better education of its members as compared to the membership of other more fecund denominations.

[GL]

Stuart,

Mucho gracias for the bibiography.

[labrialumn]

The situation in the Western Empire grows more complex the more I read of it.

The western empire seems to have been in a near-continual state of civil war for the third and fourth centuries. That can't have helped.

In addition to British and Gaulic armies marching across Gaul, you add in the plagues, and people fleeing the cities for those reasons and others, to form the communes of the baucadae on abandoned Roman estates.

Things were so disrupted, and had been for many lives of men, that when it looked almost possible to restore Romanitas by yet another British-born emperor invading Gaul with Roman allies in the north of Gaul, having discovered techniques effective in breaking the Germanic shield-wall, to fight against the Franks and Burgundians (who had sufficiently Romanized, particularly the latter, to be ok with the plebes) on the way to claiming Rome herself and the Empire, was actually fought against and defeated by those he thought to have been his natural allies,

This state of affairs having gone on for several generations,took the ecological disaster of The Wasteland and the Yellow Plague for Nennius to realize that something had changed.

The change was probably more noticeable in the five provinces of Britain, because the invaders weren't Christianized in the least. In Gaul, they had been Christianized and Romanized to an extent (albeit probably Arian heretics).

People tend not to have been taught just how feudal the Roman West was, or how Roman the early medieval period was.

[labrialumn]

such that it was really the cut-off of grain from Egypt that ended the continual succession of Roman restorations in the West. The Merovingians and Carologinians can be seen as late, and feeble, continuations of the same thing.

[Art Deco]

Stuart,

The import of Prof. Daileader's remarks is that the population implosion occurred during the period running from 200 A.D. though 600 A.D. Which of the entries on your bibliography places it between 600 A.D. and 950 A.D. (your initial assertion)?

Judy Warner:

I do not imagine the two explanations are mutually exclusive.

[Art Deco]

Excuse me,

From 200 A.D. through 700 A.D.

[Judy Warner]

Yes, I was just throwing in another factor.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mucho gracias for the bibiography.<<<

There is a new book out called "Justinian's Flea: Plague, Empire and the Birth of Europe", by William Rosen, but I haven't had the chance to read it, yet.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The import of Prof. Daileader's remarks is that the population implosion occurred during the period running from 200 A.D. though 600 A.D. <<<

I do not deny that population began to decline in the reign of Marcus, due in part to the plague. However, that decline was gradual, and largely offset by immigration. As I noted, even as late as Constantine, Rome was a city of more than a million people, while Constantinople was growing rapidly as the new capital. By the end of Justinian's reign, though, Rome was down below 100,000, and Constantinople had lost a third of its people. By the end of the 8th century, Rome was a town of 25,000 or so, while Constantinople had so much open space within its walls that whole districts were turned over to pasturage. City life in the West continued, albeit in decline, from the fourth through the seventh centuries, but largely ends thereafter. In the East, de-urbanization continued from the 7th through the 9th centuries, before beginning to recover in the Macedonian dynasty.

Within the bibliography I provided, see Moorhead, Lenski, Mango, Whittow and Aries & Dubry.

Mango is also a trove of good citations on the perceived impact (and abuse) of monasticism.

[Art Deco]

Stuart,

Again, Prof. Daileader's comments are that historians' single best guess at this time is that an economic recovery was underway during a period of time when you said a general demographic implosion was taking place. Is Prof. Daileader mistaken?

In the East, de-urbanization continued from the 7th through the 9th centuries, before beginning to recover in the Macedonian dynasty.

Now, previously, you had said,

"This was general, ranging from Byzantium to Britain (it also affected North Africa, Anatolia, Egypt and Syria), and is only partially attributable to disease (the bubonic plague of Justinian's reign) or warfare (the Muslim incursions)."

If I am not mistaken, the Byzantine territories in Europe were at that time limited to what is now Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Thrace, a rather more constricted region than "Byzantium to Britain".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Again, Prof. Daileader's comments are that historians' single best guess at this time is that an economic recovery was underway during a period of time when you said a general demographic implosion was taking place. Is Prof. Daileader mistaken?<<<

I have no idea, having only your outline of his lecture. The fact is, theories about the period change constantly as new evidence emerges and is evaluated and older evidence reevaluated. The consensus I see emerging now shows both continuity and discontinuity between late antiquity and the early medieval period, in which serious decline between the 7th century and the 10th century served as the incubator for a new culture and recovery thereafter. Remember that in both Frankia and England, both Charlemagne and Alfred were harbingers of the new dawn, and that after their time came the Vikings and Magyars, political fragmentation and a new recovery in the 11th century.

>>>If I am not mistaken, the Byzantine territories in Europe were at that time limited to what is now Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Thrace, a rather more constricted region than "Byzantium to Britain".<<<

At the beginning of the 7th century, the territory of the Eastern Empire included the Balkans (inclouding Greece), Thrace, Macedonia, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, and Africa, as well as the Exarchate of Ravenna and enclaves in Sicily and Spain. By the end of that century, all had been lost to the Muslims except for Thrace, the Balkans and Anatolia. Ravenna held out until the advent of the Franks in the 9th century. Parts of Sicily and Syria were recovered in the 10th and 11th centuries.

I did not mean to imply that all the territory mentioned was under Byzantine control (actually, "Roman" is more accurate) at that time, but rather that the depopulation was general. Justinian's empire, at its height, incorporated almost all Roman territories with the exception of Gaul and Britannia.

So, what's your dog in this rather arcane fight, that you should take so tendentious a tone with me?

[GL]

Moving back to one of Stuart's earlier posts to this thread, does anyone know what happened to fertility rates in the wake of the Reformation? One of Luther's important points was that celibacy was not normative and he decried monasticism, having, of course, been a former monk himself. He married a former nun, had a large family and encouraged both marriage and children in general, specifically condemning contraception (using the same even tone with which he is generally identified ;-)). Calvin likewise condemned contraception in the harshest terms. Did this result in increased fertility in Protestant areas? What happened to monasticism in Catholic area? I have no idea about either, but would welcome any information anyone has, including if available, citations to sources. Again, Stuart, thanks for your earlier cites.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Moving back to one of Stuart's earlier posts to this thread, does anyone know what happened to fertility rates in the wake of the Reformation?<<<

One of the early effects were the wars of religion,and particularly the Thirty Years War, which caused massive depopulation in central Europe. Moreover, it caused so many deaths among young men that there were serious proposals to allow polygamy to reconstitute the population--but the problem wasn't so accute as to ape the Mohammedans. What is seen in many Protestant countries, particularly those like England and the The Netherlands which developed commercial economies, was a postponement of marriage into the late 20s, with a concomitant reduction in the number of children. But this trend doesn't really bear fruit until the reduction in infant mortality from the second half of the 19th century. The centuries between 1600 and 1900 saw the population of Great Britain increase at least five-fold, before slowing down in the 20th century. And that, despite repeated visits of the plague in the 17th century.

[Art Deco]

Tendentious???

Stuart, you made a confident assertion about demographic trends in early medieval Europe (600 AD - 950 AD) that is contradicted by a historian at the College of William and Mary who is a specialist in late antiquity and the early middle ages. He is studiously cautious in his remarks. Not everyone is.

I asked you for a citation to a source which asserts there was a general demographic implosion in Europe (not in Greater Rome, not in Bulgaria, not the Byzantine Emperor's bedchamber) during the 350 year period to which you referred. I'm still waiting.

Oh, and in the words of SI Hayakawa,

"I don't give a good goddamn about dog racing!"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, you made a confident assertion about demographic trends in early medieval Europe (600 AD - 950 AD) that is contradicted by a historian at the College of William and Mary who is a specialist in late antiquity and the early middle ages. He is studiously cautious in his remarks. Not everyone is.<<<

So, I'll reiterate: what's your dog in this fight, and why take such a tone, when a more polite inquiry would have yielded the same results?

>>>I asked you for a citation to a source which asserts there was a general demographic implosion in Europe (not in Greater Rome, not in Bulgaria, not the Byzantine Emperor's bedchamber) during the 350 year period to which you referred. I'm still waiting.<<<

Have you bothered to look at any of the archaelogical surveys made of European cities during that period? Or looked at any of the documentary evidence about the levels of population? In any case, your use of the term "Byzantium" to refer to the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries fails to acknowledge that "Byzantium" per se had not yet emerged, and that the empire of Constantine and his successors down to Justinian was in fact still understood--and in substance, still was--the Roman Empire. So sources for the period from the mid-4th to the end of the 6th centuries that deal with the Empire are in fact still dealing with both East and West. The sources I recommended to you cover trends in both halves of the Empire.

I also find it hard to believe that within the space of two hours you accessed all of those sources, read them and were able to discuss them in detail.

[coco]

I scanned down through the comments and couldn't see any reference to climate variations as a possible factor (poor harvests, famine, etc) in fertility decline. I read somewhere that this may have been chiefly responsible for the Germanic irruption. Was this discussed?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I scanned down through the comments and couldn't see any reference to climate variations as a possible factor (poor harvests, famine, etc) in fertility decline. I read somewhere that this may have been chiefly responsible for the Germanic irruption. Was this discussed?<<<

There were some bad harvest years during that period, but within the Roman Empire, most of the grain supply came from Egypt, which had more than adequate surpluses. The threat wasn't so much climate-induced famine as the threat of interdiction of the sea lanes cutting off Rome from Egypt (and, secondarily, North Africa, specifically around Carthage). This happened in the late 5th century, when the Vandals took Sicily and North Africa, thereby isolating the West from one of its major sources of grain. Egyptian grain supplies to the East remained unaffacted.

The period we are describing is one of fairly stable climate, somewhat warmer than our own. It got warmer still, during the early Middle Ages, peaking in the 14th century, just before the rapid onset of the Little Ice Age. The warm temperatures of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages could in theory have sustained a higher population density than in the Little Ice Age, and in antiquity it did--but only because the transportation infrastructure existed to ensure the efficient distribution of food to avoid local shortages. When the infrastructure broke down due to war, social distruption and financial collapse, this empire-wide food network also collapsed. At the same time, war caused people to flee much of the fertile land for more secure areas, further reducing supplies. But, as Moorhead notes, the records are not sufficient to quantify the decline with any precision.

[coco]

I would've imagined Gaul and (to a lesser extent) Spain were significant grain contributors. But Egypt could account for the relatively greater stability of the East, at least until the Islamic invasion.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I would've imagined Gaul and (to a lesser extent) Spain were significant grain contributors. But Egypt could account for the relatively greater stability of the East, at least until the Islamic invasion.<<<

Gaul produced other commodities for export, including wine, fish, oil and cheese. What grain was produced in Gaul was consumed in Gaul, whose population grew significantly under Roman rule (peace will do that for you). Spain was also a producer of wine and oil, but mostly the Romans viewed it as a producer of minerals, including gold, silver, copper and tin. Again, food staples were largely consumed in province. North Africa and Egypt had two advantages over the northern provinces as grain producers. First, they had two growing seasons per year. Second, they were situated right on the Mediterranean, and thus grain could be loaded easily into ships and sent across the sea to Rome or up the coasts to Antioch (and later, Constantinople).

You are right about the impact of the Islamic invasion. The loss of Egypt was a huge blow to Constantinople, leading to a massive economic collapse that was not arrested (according to Mango--see, I can source when I want) until the middle of the 8th century. Byzantium then shifted its importations of grain to what is now southern Ukraine by way of the Crimea.

[coco]

Thanks, Stuart, always enlightening. Could you comment on one last thing: the impact of millennial expectations on the monastic population in the period approaching 1000AD? I assume that Dionysius' calculation had become widely known by then.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thanks, Stuart, always enlightening. Could you comment on one last thing: the impact of millennial expectations on the monastic population in the period approaching 1000AD? I assume that Dionysius' calculation had become widely known by then.<<<

Frankly, I haven't looked into it closely. The millenarian frenzy did not hit Constantinople, which was in the midst of a major renaissance--under Basil II Byzantium would reach heights of wealth, power and territory it had not seen since Justinian's day. So millennarianism was mainly a Western phenomenon, to the best of my knowledge. There have been several books on the subject, but I don't know how accurate they are. Monasteries in general were growing in power and wealth in the late 10th-early 11th century due to the monastic reforms in the Western Church. And it was quite common in the West for the wealthy to cede their estates to a monastery in return for a lifetime of room and board (Ellis Peters wrote a "Brother Cadfael" mystery on that theme. How widespread this was, and how it affected the peasantry, I don't really know.

[Art Deco]

Stuart,

I have no occult agenda, and have made not the slightest breach of civility. You made a confident assertion, and I asked you where you read that (in that it conflicts with comments by an authority with which I am familiar).

You have supplied a bibliography with ten monographs and a half-dozen book chapters on it. If that was meant to be a reply to my question, it was rather non-specific (and most of the sources you cited were historical surveys). I am quite capable of making use of a library OPAC, so there is not much value-added in that exercise from my perspective.

I must say I am puzzled as to why, in your mind, I am obligated to do many man-hours of library reasearch to substantiate your assertions.

You appear to take no interest in Dr. Daileader's opinions. In case you change your mind, I will offer that his lecture series on the Early Middle Ages is available from the Teaching Company, and that which I quoted above is an excerpt from the printed outline which accompanies Lecture number 24.

Now,
A much more concise answer to my question than that you have so far given would take one of two forms:

[Author],[Article Title], [Serial Title], [volume], [issue], [pages].

or

"I don't remember".

Happy trails.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I must say I am puzzled as to why, in your mind, I am obligated to do many man-hours of library reasearch to substantiate your assertions.<<<

Because you're the only one who seems interested. But I'm wondering why you give a rat's ass--unless, of course, I just stole your dissertation out from under you. But that's the way of academia--the fights are so nasty because the stakes are so small. I tell you what, though--I will cede all rights to my thesis and you can sing the Lobachevski song.

>>>You appear to take no interest in Dr. Daileader's opinions<<<

You're right on that, at least. I'm not getting paid for that, and my speculations are my own speculations. I can synthesize as well as the next guy--and better than most.

>>>You appear to take no interest in Dr. Daileader's opinions. In case you change your mind, I will offer that his lecture series on the Early Middle Ages is available from the Teaching Company, and that which I quoted above is an excerpt from the printed outline which accompanies Lecture number 24.<<<

Cool. I like reading or sitting in on real lectures, as opposed to listening to canned lectures on CD. It's Memorial Day, and I am enjoying time with my family, so you're really just lucky I replied to you at all, especially since you seem intent on making unreasonable demands on my time.

>>>A much more concise answer to my question than that you have so far given would take one of two forms:

[Author],[Article Title], [Serial Title], [volume], [issue], [pages].<<<

Did it every occur to you that most of the time the real answers to historical conundra are not found in a single article, but have to be put together from a wide variety of sources read, collated and analyzed over a long period of time. I suppose, since this is not a new hyposthesis, that if I were to look hard enough, I could find one, but so what? You don't even read closely enough to see that there is no real conflict between what I wrote and what Dr. Daileader said (or, rather, what you said you said, since I am not familiar with his work). We both agree there was a demographic collapse. We simply disagree on how long it lasted, since (if you look again) you will see that I said it began towards the end of Marcus Aurelius. However, all evidence points to this collapse accelerating rapidly and becoming catastrophic in the fourth and fifth centuries, and lasting into the ninth and tenth. As with all metaphenomena, you can certainly pull out individual places where it began sooner and ended sooner, but looking at the overall effect, I will stick with my original theory, thanks.

[Art Deco]

Sigh.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sigh.<<<

Shrug.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Does anyone here doubt that the current demographic decline in wealthy, Western nations has any cause other than a ubiquitous acceptance of the Absolute Right to Consequence-Free Sex (tm)? Does anyone here doubt that fertility levels falling well below 2.0 signal an almost certain economic collapse if sustained?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Does anyone here doubt that the current demographic decline in wealthy, Western nations has any cause other than a ubiquitous acceptance of the Absolute Right to Consequence-Free Sex (tm)?<<<

Me, teacher! Again, if all you've got is a hammer. . .

But why bother with complex, multidimensional causality, when reductionism will turn the trick every time.

>>>Does anyone here doubt that fertility levels falling well below 2.0 signal an almost certain economic collapse if sustained?<<<

Probably in the short term. On the other hand, the Black Death resulted in something of a commercial revolution, once the surviving peasants realized that they had something the nobility needed.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Oh... forgot to add the widespread realization in the West that children are an Expensive Lifestyle Accessory(tm). There's your 'nuther dimension. C'mon Stuart, you don't seriously think that the vast throngs of the faithful heading off to the religious life are playing a big role today? People don't have kids simply because they can avoid them... whilst still getting as much sexual gratification as they want. We're a nation of sodomites... broadly construed... as Europe is a continent of the same. People don't have kids because heavy lifting is required, and narcissistic adolescents (today often graying retirees) simply don't do heavy lifting. We have witnessed the triumph of therapy over morality, and of private actualization over community. How could this not be the principal contributing factor? Sure there are nuances, but how nuanced do we really need to be to point out that sin destroys a society?