Article

2006-02-19 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2006-02-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present, as though they were taking something away from our lives. Children are seen - at least by some people - as a liability rather than as a source of hope. Here it is obligatory to compare today's situation with the decline of the Roman Empire.

This sums up the bulk of Euroland in a nutshell. It also sums up much of the left in the U.S.

Yes, one's future is artistic/philosophical/architectural heritage, to some extent. But without humans beings, it's all for nought.

It may seem new that people are seeing this behavioral tendency and describing it, but it isn't. Decades ago, in his book The Silmarillion, Tolkien wrote about something very much like this situation in a short story named "Akallabeth". The Silmarillion is a good but lengthy and difficult book, but it might be worth it for 'burgers to pick up a copy, read this particular short story contained within, and then look at the frontispiece and check the year of first publication.

One of the great challenges of the West is the need to craft a society where there is freedom of choice for people in their pursuit of careers and avocations yet there is sufficient social norming pressure to induce them to breed in sustainable numbers. The current state of our culture, particularly with regard to feminism in its current guise and the expectation set it tries to prmulgate, will not be up to the task.

Some very lofty notions and high ideals may, unfortunately, have to be modified, even jettisoned in order to maintain a sufficient birthrate. I don't necessarily like this, but we may be forced to accept the fact in the face of the alternative - extinction of the West.

Posted by no mo uro 2006-02-19 06:47|| 2006-02-19 06:47|| Front Page Top

#2 I disagree about what motivates people to breed.

Economics shows that in a poor society, no matter what other variables, people have a lot of children, when children are seen as both a money-making venture for the family and possibly support in later years for the old.

However, at a certain economic threshold, which varies by country, people stop having large families, as children move from the "credit" column to the "debit" column for their parents and the rest of their families. They are seen as hard work, expensive, and destined to leave their family as soon as they can.

Government has in past proven that it cannot significantly increase the number of children a couple wish to have, but they can further inhibit their desire, so that they have even fewer than two children per couple.

The reason for this is straightforward: the government is trying to help, instead of just getting out of the way. This interference, which invariably emphasises "child welfare", makes parenting an even more onerous task. They keep trying to raise the "responsibility" bar for people naturally overwhelmed with responsibility already.

So the way to get more children is to purposefully set up the conditions in which people *want* to breed, where children aren't a burden, and are again desireable.

Areas, regions, or parts of cities subtly set aside for breeding parents and children--nobody over the age of 40 or so. These places need employment, but for the male only, and otherwise need to be boring. Entertainment and materialism need to be carefully controlled, so that savings rates are high.

The area needs to be very child-oriented, with no contraception or abortion available, and housing built to cluster 5-7 families together with a "common yard" between them. These type cluster-houses have been shown to be very conducive to young parents.

Some degree of coercion needs to be introduced, such as encouraging single parents to marry, and an emphasis on conformity as far as having large families. Adults who medically cannot have children need to be ushered out. Conversely, there should be no sanction against adultery. At some point, even a small amount of fertility drugs might be introduced, to bring about increased multiple births for parents not breeding properly.

Only at this point, when you have couples busily making children, do you start to need the schools, clinics, and other up-front government services. But these have to be as stress free as possible.

Even what little entertainment is offered should emphasize having children.

This is a comprehensive scheme, an ideal unlikely to happen; but the more elements that do happen, the more likely a birthrate will go up.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-19 09:36|| 2006-02-19 09:36|| Front Page Top

#3 It appears to me, 'moose, that you have just declared that "the government is trying to help, instead of just getting out of the way" and then you have issued a prescription that cannot be filled except through governmental interference: "Areas, regions, or parts of cities subtly set aside ", "Entertainment and materialism need to be carefully controlled", etc. Put it on eastern-European soil and it almost sounds like an old Nazi breeding plan.

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-19 11:48|| 2006-02-19 11:48|| Front Page Top

#4 Remember "Hero Mothers of the USSR"?

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-02-19 12:02|| 2006-02-19 12:02|| Front Page Top

#5 Anonymoose don't look for solutions in economic rationality. A hint "an organism is not adapted to its environment, it is adapted to the environment of its ancestors."

Posted by gromgoru 2006-02-19 12:33|| 2006-02-19 12:33|| Front Page Top

#6 Darrell: Not Soviet, but Levittown and similar communities in post-WWII America. Much of what I am describing has already been done, resulting in the "baby boom generation".

Back then, much of what happened was unintentional, coincidental, and circumstantial, but the results were spectacular. That is why America in the 1950s was full of young children.

Today, to replicate the situation, the government would have to be deeply involved, but indirectly, not like today when they are in your face, in your wallet, and far more interested in productivity than procreation.

Who else but the government could prepare an area for new young families to occupy? Who else could provide the right kind of jobs and all the other incentives?

But until the children were born, the government has to leave the reproduction part alone. It can't brow-beat the parents and constantly remind them of their 20-year-long upcoming responsibilities. You don't want parents that are afraid of having children, scared at all the work, frightened of government intervention at the slightest lapse, etc.

Instead, the government actually has to let potential parents be somewhat irresponsible. To put it bluntly, most pregnancies are unintentional; and were it not for alcohol, the human species would be a fraction of its size.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-19 13:28|| 2006-02-19 13:28|| Front Page Top

#7 A personal response here:

'moose, while I applaud your goals you will make contraception illegal over my dead female body.

And fair warning - I won't die easily, as I own guns and know how to use them.

Just thought I'd contribute a friendly difference of opinion here .... ;-)

There are serious issues in a society that is so self-indulgent it does not value children. But let's leave 20th century authoritarian mass-state solutions to the graveyard, whether of the Nazi or the Stalinist kind.

With rapidly increasing life spans, we will be able to both pursue careers and have children. Increasingly even my generation, the baby boomers, have had more than one career in succession and that will be much more true for the younger generations.

What is needed is a sense that the future holds exciting possibilities. For that, people will work AND have kids -- and raise them well, too.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-19 13:33|| 2006-02-19 13:33|| Front Page Top

#8 Who else but the government could prepare an area for new young families to occupy? Who else could provide the right kind of jobs and all the other incentives?

The marketplace, as soon as people really want them.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-19 13:35|| 2006-02-19 13:35|| Front Page Top

#9 moose - you don't EVEN wanna get into trying to reconnect my vasectomy. We're not that friendly :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-19 14:23|| 2006-02-19 14:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Wrt reform: While the Koran is supposed to be eternal, most of sharia is based on the hadith. The debate over sharia law was closed off over a thousand years ago, but people try from time to time to reopen ijtihad. So for all the respect Muslims pay sharia, it isn't "eternal" in the same way the Koran is supposed to be. So at least in theory it is possible to go back and rework sharia, perhaps adding a new principle and getting rid of a lot of the bogus hadith. (If I recall correctly, Khadafi tried something like that.)
Problem is that we infidels have no standing in such an enterprise. We can coax, but if the Muslims don't want to do it, it won't happen.
Me? I think Benedict isn't quite right: Islam _can_ reform, but won't. Not soon, anyway.

Posted by James">James 2006-02-19 15:39|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2006-02-19 15:39|| Front Page Top

#11 and were it not for alcohol, the human species would be a fraction of its size.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there's a billion screaming Mohammedans on the planet and hardly a one of them was conceived through the divine intervention of St. Bud or St. Jack or St. Jim or St. Chivas.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-02-19 15:57|| 2006-02-19 15:57|| Front Page Top

#12 What Anonymoose is suggesting sounds remarkably like a Muslim community.

Posted by KBK 2006-02-19 17:07|| 2006-02-19 17:07|| Front Page Top

#13 It has its similarities, yes.

That said, I understand where 'moose is coming from. I just vehemently oppose trying to enforce it through laws or other means.

Also, having grown up in a 3 generation household, I'm not at all sure it is good policy to keep grandparents away from their grandkids on a daily basis. The 50s suburbs were an anomaly in history and had their pathologies. Older generations are an important part of a kid's upbringing IMO.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-19 17:09|| 2006-02-19 17:09|| Front Page Top

#14 were it not for alcohol, the human species would be a fraction of its size.

I don't need to be riminded of this fact.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-19 17:18|| 2006-02-19 17:18|| Front Page Top

#15 The Soviet way would be to force people into such communities. The American way is to incentivize them in, while trying to exclude those who aren't interested in reproducing.

In other words, creating a good environment for reproduction for people who, when in such a good environment, want to reproduce.

And though people like to copulate just for the sake of copulating; and women's desire to have careers are also valid desires; neither are conducive to having five or six children. Which is what you need to have, at least at first.

So these incentives are not for them. Sorry you can't have it all. Either five kids or a career is an exclusive or.

People who cannot be allowed into the community are those who do not want to reproduce, but who do want to copulate. One such individual can prevent two other people from reproducing by their interference. Like sterile screwworm flies.

While grandparents can have a good influence, such a community would have to be a 'Sun City' in reverse: that is, in Sun City, the young under 60 people can visit, but they are not allowed to stay there overnight, regularly.

In this case, the grandparents could visit all they wanted, but could not live in the community proper. The adults you want to have children have to interact with a lot, and mutually support their peers. When couples are surrounded by other couples with young children and pregnancies, they are far more inclined towards children themselves.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-19 19:50|| 2006-02-19 19:50|| Front Page Top

#16 LOL Nimble... i immagine you're not alone here.

Posted by RD 2006-02-19 19:58|| 2006-02-19 19:58|| Front Page Top

23:50 Sherry
23:49 3dc
23:31 trailing wife
23:27 2b
23:20 Old Patriot
23:03 Barbara Skolaut
22:40 Chuck Simmins
22:25 Frank G
22:22 Robert Crawford
22:20 Robert Crawford
22:20 Bomb-a-rama
22:03 Iblis
22:03 SR-71
22:00 Robert Crawford
21:59 Robert Crawford
21:56 Monsieur Moonbat
21:56 Robert Crawford
21:56 Robert Crawford
21:54 SR-71
21:52 phil_b
21:45 Besoeker
21:43 Besoeker
21:37 JosephMendiola
21:32 JosephMendiola