What does this have to do with Darwin?

misplaced faith in reason

1. What does the above article have to do with 'misplaced faith in reason'?

2. What does Darwin have to do with 'misplaced faith in reason'?

The Europeans are proving themselves unfit, and thus are going the way of all unfit flesh.

Yet they continue to believe in their 'superior' fitness. Against all 'reason'.

The Europeans are going under in historical time not because their genes have failed--such Nazi nonsense would take thousands and thousands of years--but because their institutions have failed. Failed cultures may be surpassed in a few short years.

The fools had imagined that they could throw out the bathwater of custom and religion and not throw out the baby. Surprise: no babies left.

The tax burden of the welfare state is unsustainable so married couples require two incomes. So, why should anyone be surprised when they don't have kids?

It's mother nature balancing the pool. Perhaps the Michael Moore Brigades will help them out by emigrating. One can always hope.

bart:

No one I know has much problem. You just sacrifice yourself... Oh, wait, I see why you think it's impossible...

The Europeans aren't praying yet.

Another 3 or 4 years, another summer of death (for the elderly), another series of (automatic) hikes in the unemployment rate, and another Republican US President, and they will be.

But Darwin's answer is much colder than Yahweh's.

"The fools had imagined that they could throw out the bathwater of custom and religion and not throw out the baby. Surprise: no babies left."

If you look at the countries involved, it doesn't seem to support this conclusion. Ireland's population will continue to grow, but so will Sweden's, while Spain and Italy - both very religious countries - will be among those worst hit.

"The Europeans are proving themselves unfit, and thus are going the way of all unfit flesh."

By that token, the white American is also "unfit flesh", declining in relation to the overall population, while African-Americans, Hispanics and even American Indians are on the increase.

How can we explain the white American being such an abject failure? Which institution or lacking religious sentiment to blame?

OJ,

That's easy for a house husband, whose wife is a highly-paid professional, like yourself to say. But for most people around the First World strangled by taxes and mortgages, it's a lot tougher.

creeper--

while Spain and Italy - both very religious countries - will be among those worst hit

You've never been to these countries, have you? I think your data is from the 1970s.

NoName from the preceding post,

I've been on visits to both, but didn't stop to quiz every person about their religious habits. As a result of your post, I've read up on it in more detail, and I think you're right: while there are many who identify themselves as Christians, their religious practice is nowhere near as enthusiastic, shall we say, as their counterparts in the US.

The reason that it is those countries who will be experiencing the worst problems, I suppose, is precisely that they were so prolific, reproduction-wise, in the past. Now that their religiosity is declining, the process of a generation providing for the old (the previous generation) becomes a problem.

I live in Ireland, and I can easily observe around me that while most people I know have about 4-8 siblings, they themselves are much slower about starting their own families (this being people in their 30s, for the most part, as well as some in their 40s). I imagine something similar is hitting Italy and Spain right about now.

Ireland's saving grace in the reproduction stakes? Could be its religiosity, certainly. Could be its recent economic boom, leading to optimism and people happily starting families etc. Then I look at Sweden and see that it too is doing well regarding reproduction, but not exactly high in religiosity. It makes it likely that there are other factors in play.

I know that Orrin et al. are fond of making fun of alarmists. If that includes alarmists of the population explosion, then I don't entirely see what the big deal is if Europe reaches some kind of equilibrium or even slight decline in its population. In the long run, I don't see this point as being such a bad stage at which to stop expanding our population.

After all, given current fertility rates, we're supposed to hit somewhere over 20 billion by 2050, and what was it, over 600 billion by 2150? The beauty of compound interest at work. What answer does Christianity have to that? Other than Judgement Day, I mean.

And hey, what if Judgement Day comes... and goes, and we're all still here?

To the contrary, what divides Ireland from the rest of Western Europe is its religiosity. Spain and Italy aren't religious anymore. The interesting case is Poland, where it remains to be seen whether its Catholicism can overcome two generations of Communism.

white Americans reproduce at replacement level or so near as to be a statistical glitch.

bart:

Yet here in America they have kids.

White Americans reproduce just below replacement level, and even if they managed to attain mere replacement levels, they still have African Americans, Hispanics and even American Indians outpacing them by factors that can not be put down to mere statistical glitches. Current trends indicate that white Americans, which currently account for about three-quarters of the US population, will in 2050 be reduced to just over half.

How will the white American avoid sliding into irrelevance and historical obscurity? How to account for this clear and colossal failure? Who to blame? Which institution? Why can't the white American be more religious to avoid such a dismal fate?

"Yet here in America they have kids."

White Americans follow their Europeans in relatively low fertility rates - not quite as low as Europeans, but the general trend is there. The ones to credit for the continuing population growth in the US are African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians.

creeper:

Rates are falling for the others, not for whites.

"Rates are falling for the others, not for whites."

Link?

Nicholas Eberstadt

That's not a link, Orrin. Where does Eberstadt argue that the fertility rates of the white American are on the rise, while those of other demographic groups like the Hispanics are dropping?

"To the contrary, what divides Ireland from the rest of Western Europe is its religiosity."

As we have discussed on previous occasions, Ireland has benefited from other factors as well, not the least of which were massive subsidies from the more secular nations of Europe. Let's not forget that Ireland, long one of the most religious countries in Europe, was considered a third-world nation before the EU opened its subsidy coffers and started rebuilding Ireland's infrastructure.

Creeper is right on. Orrin doesn't realize yet that he lives in a glass house.

I couldn't find a link to Eberstadt that had anything optimistic to say about American demographic trends. There is this article which paints the global picture for demographic decline. And this from an article by Ben Wattenberg:

In the United States, birth rates have been below replacement level for 25 straight years. There was an uptick in the late 1980s, but rates have fallen for five of the past six years. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics reports solidly lower levels for early 1997, which will "continue the generally downward trend observed since early 1991" and will soon be reflected in U.S. Census Bureau projections.

OJ is more interested in pronouncing on the superiority of religious culture over secular culture than recognizing a problem for what it is. If he were on the Titanic he would brag that the religious passengers would sink more slowly than the secular passengers.

The white rate rose back up and has stabilized at roughly replacement.

The good thing though is the difference between America and Europe. Whites, blacks, and Latinos are all American. Only the French are French.

Thank you for retracting your previous claim, Orrin. The white rate is a little below replacement, and there is no link from Nicholas Eberstadt saying that the fertility rates of the white American are on the rise, while those of other demographic groups like the Hispanics are dropping.

So according to the present trend, the white American will drop in population relative to the Aftican-American, Hispanic and American Indian, which according to David Cohen makes the white American 'unfit flesh'.

creeper:

Robert points out one key difference, the stabilization here is quite uneven, with secular whites dying off much like the Europeans they resemble but religious whites reproducing at more healthy rates. Blue America is going the way of Europe.

www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html

Your obiter dicta would be OK if you said 'Germans' instead of 'French.' As I've explained before, everyone who has come to France in the past as an immigrant has 'become French' by any reasonable definition. One out of every 4 French citizens has at least one foreign born grandparent. The exception is the Muslim infestation which has steadfastly refused to Gallicize, destoying the traditional paradigm.

The nihilist left fed the French a line that 'the Muslim children will become French' so the Raspails who were complaining about the disease that is Islam three decades ago. Well, now we see that the Muslim children are every bit as savage, if not more so, then their savage parents. And now the French will be compelled to stop the madness.

"www.fpri.org could not be found" - link doesn't work

creeper:

secularism is unfit. We're essentially trading secular whites for Christian browns. That's why America, which seemed headed in the same direction as Europe as late as the 70s, is now so retrograde.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040905082243/http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html

American “Demographic Exceptionalism”

A final surprise involves what we might call America’s “demographic exceptionalism.” The U.S. is the singular and major exception to the demographic rhythms characterizing virtually all other affluent Western states.

In Western Europe, total populations are anticipated to decline between 2000 and 2025, with a substantial shrinkage in the under-55 population and pronounced population aging. In the U.S., overall population aging is much more moderate; the overall population is projected to increase, and a higher number of young people are expected in 2025 than today.

Part of this difference is attributable to a significant divergence in fertility patterns. As already noted, Europe’s overall TFR stands in the 1.4 to 1.5 range, with Italy and Spain on the low end, at about 1.2, and France and Ireland on the high end, at about 1.8. The U.S. fertility rate has been over 2.0 since 1990 and is just under replacement today—somewhere between 2.0 and the 2.1 replacement level, making it about 40 percent higher than Europe’s.

America’s fertility levels have diverged not just from Europe’s but from those of the rest of the developed world. The U.S. TFR is much higher than Japan’s 1.3-1.4, and the gap is even greater with some of the other high-income East Asian countries. Even much of North America doesn’t look so “American” these days: whereas the U.S. and Canada had nearly identical fertility levels back in the mid-1970s, Canada looks pretty European today, and the U.S. looks— well, pretty American. While the States is reporting a TFR of over 2, Canada’s is around 1.5.

Much of the developed world is caught up in what Ron Lesthaege and Dirk van de Kaa have dubbed “the second demographic transition” — a shift to smaller desired family sizes and less stable family unions. If this is the new demographic revolution, Americans look to be the developed world’s most prominent counterrevolutionaries.

America’s relatively high TFR does not seem to be explained by any particular region or ethnicity. There are big fertility differences between some states, but 42 states reported TFRs above 1.9 that year and 33 reported TFRs of 2.0 or higher. In all of Europe, by contrast, the only country with an estimated TFR above 2.0 is Albania.

America’s ethnic fertility differentials do not account for its demographic divergence from Europe. Hispanic Americans maintain relatively large family sizes in the U.S., with a TFR of around 2.7, but excluding them by no means eliminates the gap between the U.S. and the rest of the developed world. Nor can the differential be explained by factoring out African-American fertility (which is higher than the “Anglo” rate, but much closer to the Anglo rate than to the Latinos’). In 2000, America’s Anglo TFR was 1.84 — about 10 percent less than the U.S. national average, but still more than 30 percent above Europe’s.

No obvious materialist explanation for America’s demographic exceptionalism seems to exist. U.S.-Western Europe income differences are not tremendous. One might think that fertility would be higher in societies that devote more public resources to child support, but social welfare programs are far more generous in most of Western Europe than in the U.S.

So how can we explain this fertility discrepancy? Possibly it is a matter of attitudes and outlook. There are big revealed differences between Americans and Europeans regarding a number of important life values. Survey results highlighted in the Economist (Nov. 2003) point to some of these. Americans tend to identify the role of government as “providing freedom,” while Europeans are inclined to think of government in terms of “guaranteeing one’s needs.” Attitudes about individualism, patriotism, and religiosity seem to separate Americans from much of the rest of the developed world. Is it entirely coincidental that these divergences seem to track with the big cleavages between fertility levels in the U.S. and so much of the rest of the developed world?

The difference between a TFR of 2.0 and one of 1.5 or 1.4, other things being equal, is the difference between virtual long-term population stability and a population that shrinks by almost a third with each passing generation. A UN Population Division study of what levels of net immigration flows would be necessary for developed countries to maintain both their overall population and their working-age population (15-64 years of age) over a 55-year time horizon. For the pre-enlargement EU, a net inflow of about 2.5 million people a year would be needed to stabilize the population, and about 4.3 million to stabilize the workforce. But net immigration into the EU in the late 1990s averaged just 700,000 a year. For Japan, 300,000 net newcomers a year would be needed for population stability, and 600,000 for workforce stability. But Japan’s net immigration rate today is approximately zero. The U.S. could maintain its population with just 116,000 net immigrants a year, but net annual immigration has averaged nearly 1 million. If these exceptionalist trends continue, America will age much more slowly than Europe or Japan. And the U.S. share of world population will not diminish steadily and dramatically in the decades ahead, as Europe’s and Japan’s seem set to do.

Western European countries accounted for about 12 percent of global population in 1950; this was down to about 6 percent by 2000, and in the admittedly tentative Census Bureau projections for 2050, it is placed at barely 4 percent. Over this same span, Russia’s projected share of world population falls from over 4 percent to barely 1 percent; Japan’s from 3 percent to 1 percent. The U.S., on the other hand, only drops from about 6 percent in 1950 to about 4.5 percent in 2000 and then is projected at an almost constant 4.5 percent for the following half century.

While the rest of the developed areas gradually drop off the roster of the world’s major population centers, the U.S. actually rises, from fourth largest in 1950 to third largest in 2000, which it is projected to remain in 2050 as well. Drawing international implications from such crude comparisons is hazardous. But from a purely demographic standpoint, the U.S., virtually alone among developed nations, does not look set to be going off gently into the night.

"We're essentially trading secular whites for Christian browns."

What is Christianity's answer to the problem of overpopulation?

What problem? People are never a problem.

Thanks for the link, Orrin, but unfortunately it does not support this statement of yours:

"the stabilization here is quite uneven, with secular whites dying off much like the Europeans they resemble but religious whites reproducing at more healthy rates. Blue America is going the way of Europe."

Nothing in that article backs up your claim. Everything still points to the white American being on the decline in relation to the African-American, the Hispanic, and the American Indian.

Why won't the white American go to church more often?

Most do. It's secular America that is following Europe into oblivion, thus the shifts in the Electoral College. Fortunately we've a plentiful source of replacements.

"What problem? People are never a problem."

Maybe at some point they will be.

If the TFR remained constant in all countries at its present level, world population would rise from 5.7 billion today to 22 billion by 2050 and to 694 billion by 2150.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/population.html

Of course this will be well after Judgement Day.

The more the merrier. Note that the nations that have reversed that growth are dismal, despairing places in decline.

694 billion, ie. approximately 100 times the population we have today, may not be so merry.

"Note that the nations that have reversed that growth are dismal, despairing places in decline."

Note that the nations with extremely high population growth aren't exactly paradise either.

OJ, it seems would prefer Rwanda to Germany. An opinion shared by nobody in either Rwanda or Germany.

bart,

I was just about to say the same thing.

The fact that Europe faces net immigration, not emigration, shows that many feel that those 'dismal, despairing places in decline' are preferable to all those wonderful, vibrant, hopping places with a fertility rate of 7 or above.

creeper:

Europeans are emigrating. Americans don't.

Europe faces net immigration, not emigration. That means more people are trying to get in than out.

Europeans out, Muslims in.

Creeper: White is a completely irrelevant modifier for American.

"Why won't the white American go to church more often?"

"Most do."

Surely something must be to blame for their impending decline into irrelevance.

The article you cited doesn't seem to back up your claim that blue states are declining in fertility rates, btw.

"White is a completely irrelevant modifier for American"

Then why did OJ make a distinction between "Europeans out, Muslims in"

David,

By white, I mean white non-Hispanic (and of course non-African American, non Asian, non American Indian etc.). I'm pretty sure you'd be able to identify most of them when you run into them in the street.

If the European is 'unfit flesh' because of declining population numbers, then surely something's a little off or, shall we say, unfit about the white American if he declines from three quarters to half the population over the course of 50-odd years. That's a pretty significant decline.

Can the white American not find suitable mates? Does he or she lack interest in procreation? Does he or she work too hard? How much more church can they possibly attend? Are the TV shows just too good? Is it something in the water?

h:

Because in Europe it matters. we are an idea. They are ethnicities.

And there are no ethnicities in the US?

No.

Glad that's settled.

"we are an idea"

Fine and I presume that the "idea" is supposed to result in favorable behavior. Since African-Americans have abortion at 2.8 times the rate of whites, and Mexican-Americans at 2.0 times the rate of whites, are you saying that they are part of the secular death cult.

h:

No, its victims. Killing their kids is why we have abortion.

Not that it's relevant to this conversation, but creeper, the world population growth rate is currently 1.1% annually (source: CIA factbook), which corresponds to a doubling time of 70 years and a world population of about 25 billion in 2150. That 694 billion number would require a growth rate of 3.5% annually.

The world can support 25 billion people very comfortably in 2150, even if the next Ice Age has started. And the world population growth rate is slowing: the US Census Bureau projects the world population growth rate to decline to 0.5% annually by 2050 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm). At that pace, the world population won't reach 12 billion by 2150.

Judging by the experience of the advanced nations, the world population could easily be below current levels in 2150.

In the bickering above with creeper you managed not to answer the question of "Why is there net migration out of a Religious Culture into a Secular one?"

Presumably the migration from Muslim lands to more secular societies parallels the Mexican migration from a more religious Mexico into a more secular America.

"Judging by the experience of the advanced nations, the world population could easily be below current levels in 2150."

Then Europe's stabilizing and slightly declining population should be seen as a sign of progress and success, not decline and failure, no?

h:

No, the migration is economic, which is why Europeans are leaving Europe too.

creeper:

No. The world in general is in trouble. America is an exception. Islam, at least the Shi'a crescent, has a chance to be one too.

OJ

From your answer, one would conclude that Secular Societes are richer than Religious ones.

Nice the way you avoid, answering why African-Americans or Mexicans should not be held to moral standards that would lead to denunciation of Whites behaving in a similar manner. Perhaps the irrelevancy of Whiteness that David referred to doesn't apply when discussing behavior such as obtaining multiple abortions, illegitmacy etc.

I've got to go now.

No, the Europeans became rich as Christian societies. As post-Christian ones they're dying. Islam is feeding off the carcasses.

(The poor are always ridden with pathologies.)

It was hardly Christian ideals that made them rich. Something to do with colonies.

Colonies were a waste of money.

Ireland was the most religious for most of the last century, resulting in it being a third world nation until more secular nations started handing them money.

"Colonies were a waste of money."

Whose?

"As post-Christian ones they're dying."

I guess that would mean the US is in trouble as well - the fastest-growing religious affiliation is 'none'.

Or we can always just agree that other factors come into the mix - like Europe lagging behind some desperately needed economic reforms, stuff like that.

It's still the most religious. All that's changed is it's better governed.

creeper:

That's a function of their post-Christianity.

"That's a function of their post-Christianity."

What, the lagging reforms? How so?

"It's still the most religious. All that's changed is it's better governed."

Yes, thanks to those more secular nations helping them out rather generously.

They can't reform. They're too atomized not to depend on the state.

It's the free market reforms, not the cash.

You're partly right: Ireland's economic success comes as a result of low corporate taxes and various other tax incentives, an infrastructure built with mostly EU funds (you're not going to get much industry and/or foreign investment going if trucks have a hard time getting from A to B), and relatively low labor costs. The fact that it's an English-speaking country also contributed.

What was not a factor was religion. The Irish were highly religious during all the years when going on the dole was a national pastime and the country was essentially a third world nation. Other factors allowed its economy to boom. While it's still a pretty religious country, it has become marginally less so over the last decade or so, which hasn't hurt their economy one bit.

It's a good thing you couldn't find a link to back up your claim that blue states were declining in fertility rates - after all, if it were true, then who would subsidize the red states?

The Electoral College backs it up, but you can find a link if you look.

States with more money are less happy as their demographic implosion demonstrates.

The only thing that separates Ireland from Scotland is higher religiosity.

What does the Electoral College have to do with fertility rates?

"The only thing that separates Ireland from Scotland is higher religiosity."

Corporate tax in Scotland is about three times as high as in Ireland. I'd say that's something else that separates them, something that reasonable men would agree has an impact on foreign investment.

Not sure about infrastructure, but I can tell you that the EU has pumped a lot of money into Ireland's infrastructure, which was also a factor in attracting foreign investment.

Your argument that religiosity is to be credited with the success of the Irish economy holds absolutely no water. There are clear differences between Ireland when it was a third world nation and its Celtic Tiger economy.

Religiosity is definitely not one of them. They were highly religious when they were dirt poor, they are still very religious but a little less so now that the economy is booming. Based on that you can not argue any kind of causal relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic performance.

"States with more money are less happy as their demographic implosion demonstrates."

Is this demographic implosion you're talking about due to mass emigration to less industrious places?

And is it actually a demographic implosion, or are you just drawing conclusions from the behavior of swing voters?

Yes, the taxes follow from the religiosity.

All three.

This should remediate some of your ignorance:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/cover.html

"Yes, the taxes follow from the religiosity."

How do you figure that?

Where there's no society you need government. That's why statists hate the Church so much.

Perhaps you confuse Ireland with some libertarian paradise.

Libertarian paradise is an oxymoron.

You claim that taxes follow from religiosity, but your reasoning is hardly sound. Ireland is very religious, but has relatively high income tax rates and relatively low corporate tax rates.

A more reasonable interpretation of these facts would be that the Irish government was trying to attract foreign investments, resulting in more jobs and more revenue.

Another thing that doesn't make sense about you wanting to credit religiosity for all things good is that Ireland was a poverty-ridden country for a long, long time, with its high religiosity not impacting those tax rates one bit. In part one can even say that Ireland was having problems because of its religiosity, with Christians fighting Christians to this day.

That vwas just British domination. It would have been fine had it tossed them out like we did.

THe RC Church wanted Irish independence on its terms, so it undermined Wolfe Tone, O'Connell, and most famously Parnell. When a low IQ thuggish Fascist named Eamon DeValera became the leader of the movement for Irish independence, the Church supported it.

A fascist interlude would have done them wonders. The Marxism of the IRA wasn't useful.

How is or was the IRA Marxist?

Sorry, I meant fascist, re. bart's comment.

Creeper,

Put simply. They imposed a socialist/corporatist economic model and combined it with press and political restrictions, including religious discrimination against Protestants, especially in government employment, pretty much from day 1. DeValera was not shy about using the police power to squelch the opposition.

Was it as bad as Hitler? No. But it was no better than Mussolini prior to about 1935, and only marginally better than Salazar and was worse on economic liberty than Franco's Spain. It was decidedly more fascist than DeGaulle's France. Its endemic corruption and lack of economic freedom made it far worse than Pinochet's Chile.

Naturally, as in Salazar's Portugal, it created a backward, inward-looking hellhole of a state which hemorrhaged people until the politics and economic model finally changed in the mid 80s.

bart,

An Irish friend of mine a few days ago described Sinn Fein/IRA as fascist, and I was interested in what led you to that comment. Thank you for the lucid and informative response.