Unless we're willing to do something concrete about Europe's problems, we're better off not caring. Hand wringing isn't useful and neither is tut-tutting.

We'll just have sit this one out and see if there are any capable adults left in old Europe
willing to dig in and clean up the mess they've made.

Depopulation isn't jsut a European phenomena. The Islamic world isa lso experiencing a significant drop in birth rates. The total fertility rate (TFR) of Tunisia is lower than that of France.

So the Muslim hordes are not coming after all, not that the Europeans want them. Much of the anti EU constitution vote was aimed at Muslim immigrants in general and fear of Turkey joining the EU in particular.

But this still leaves the EU with a serious demographic problem brought on by a graying population and an extremely generous social welfare system. Soon there will be too fee workers and too many pensioners and Europe's economic system will collapse. It is probable, no matter how much automation increases productivity per worker, that no society can function with 20% or more of the population being retirees.

Something has got to give, and when it does it will be messy (even violent) given Europe's rigid labor markets and entrenched special interests. Much of the anti-Eu vote was also aimed at fears of becoming a more American-like open market. French and Dutch voters feared the loss of their cozy social system. The anti-EU vote was a victory for the Left. The vote was just a taste of what is to come.

So why is depopulation happening in Europe (and almost everywhere else)? Weigel is being a scold, and an inaccurate one at that, when he claims it is ther result of a spiritual crisis. The reason is far more prosaic, it comes down to basic pocket book issues. Europeans want to have more babies, they just can't afford them:

(see http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P92820.asp)

"One of the reasons is that human beings have created an environment that is negative for childbirth. There is a demand for human capital, but there is almost no reward for it. So people have fewer children," Longman said.

"On a farm you can have children and they will be useful from age 5. But in an urban environment, children are liabilities. And 50% of all the people in the world live in urban environments.

"People who are involved in raising the next generation are typically paid far less than they would make doing something else. You can earn more, for instance, teaching real estate than (teaching school).

"Why does this happen? Think about it like this. When you go to a casino, you keep all the winnings. But when you have a child, you have to share the benefits of your investment with the entire society.

"So we have a 'free rider' problem. You don't need to have children to provide for your old age -- but the pension systems need them." (He was referring to the coming Social Security crunch as the number of retired people rises faster than the number of workers.)...

"This isn't about selfishness. Surveys show women haven't had as many children as they wanted to have. The average woman in Europe, for instance, wanted to have 2.1 children -- but only had 1.3. In the United States, the average woman wanted 2.3 children (enough for population growth) but only had 2.02,

"People, particularly in Europe, aren't producing as many children as they would like to have. The economy is asking them to do more and more in their best reproductive years. They're expected to get educated, get a job, find a nice neighborhood, etc. By the time they do that, they've missed their best years for reproduction.

Moral decadence and lack of religious faith have little to do with it. If religiousity was a factor, then deeply religious Islamic societies would not be experiencing sudden drops in in birth rates. The real culprit is a new form of the "tragedy of the commons".

Knowing European history, and their current xenophobia, there's another (evil) possibility to the author's scenario: next time the Muslims go in the ovens.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Mr. Anonymous is Daniel Duffy...

"On a farm you can have children and they will be useful from age 5."

Granted, I've never been a subsistence farmer, but I find it very hard to believe that the marginal benefit from the 7th pair of hands is worth the extra effort to feed the associated 7th mouth.

Mr. Duffy is back!!
Keep dreaming, sir.

Emily, perhaps you'd care to logically or factually refute my arguments.

Assuming of course that you are capable of doing either.

b, whether it's seven or a dozen kids, they are a net economic aset on the farm. Howver, even one child is a comparitive economic liability in the city. That is why cities have always since the beginning of civiliztion been population sinks, filling more graves than cribs each year and needing a fresh influx of peasants from the countryside (or immigrants from abroad)in order to maintain their population.

Aggravating this historical reality is the new tragedy of the commons represented by social welfare systems: "So we have a 'free rider' problem. You don't need to have children to provide for your old age -- but the pension systems need them."

daniel: Posting an excerpt from an online story doesn't rise to the level of an argument. And you have a distressing tendency to resort to personal insults very quickly in your comments...

"whether it's seven or a dozen kids, they are a net economic aset on the farm."

Cite, please?

"even one child is a comparitive economic liability in the city"

I'm not in competition with my neighbors, so I don't see what the 'comparitive' point is. Children are a huge net asset in my life.

Europeans have the number of kids that they want to have. They value other things more than children.

Aren't we only getting a part of this story. As I understand it, though I could be misinformed, there are areas of Europe, especially in northern and eastern Europe, and even in parts of Germany that could be characterized as "bible belts" with higher birth rates and growing traditional values; though this population, like its counterpart in the US gets very little press. Is not population replacement from within a possible scenario for Europe as well?

Cites please

From a history of Hawaiian agriculture (http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/1998-05/kona.html):

"Large families meant many hands," Chase says. "Children started working as soon as they could walk. Everyone had responsibilities which changed over the years. The average size family was ten to fourteen people." In order for the children to help with the harvest, schools had a "coffee vacation" from August to November instead of a summer vacation.

From a study on Amish society (http://www.windycreek.com/Brian/amish-cultural-dynamics.html):

The Amish family is comprised of a large extended family. Families usually are composed of two parents (divorce is unthinkable), seven children (since no birth control is used), and often grandparents and close relationships with cousins, brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles. Since the Amish don't have cars and remain largely in agriculture, families tend to stay together and keep in close contact, unlike in urban societies. This has allowed for extremely large extended families with much interaction. These large families provide the foundation of Amish society and for the welfare of other family members.

From a commentary on Social Security (http://begalke.blogspot.com/2004/09/begalke-blog-social-security.html):

Before industrialization, most people worked on farms. Large families provided the labor necessary to run a farm, and most people lived in extended families, which encompassed several generations of relatives. In extended families, healthy working-age members could support their young, elderly, and infirm relatives. However, with the rise of factory, office, and service jobs located outside of the home, people no longer needed to live in large families to make a living.

From a University of Toronto study on agrarian reform (http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/ecipa/archive/UT-ECIPA-BERRY-98-03.pdf):

In Asia and Africa as a whole, one-third to onehalf of small-holders have to subsist on small holdings of less than one hectare. Many are in marginal areas and have to support relatively large families (average family size tends to be markedly bigger in rural than in urban areas).

And to show the historicty of the farm/large family, urban/small family dichotomy here is a study of 19th century American birth rates (http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no3ART8.pdf)

The massive migration to urban areas was accompanied by a dramatic decline in family size. Figure 3 depicts the number of siblings in typical families from 1865 to the present. Among children born in 1865, 82% lived in families with five or more children, but only 30% of those born in 1930 had such large families. The median number of siblings in a typical family dropped from more than seven siblings to only two or three.

Please note the atached chart that shows a dramitc drop in average American familiy sizes from the 1860s to the 1930s as a result of increased urbanization. The number of families with 8 or more children dropped from 50% to 10% during this period. Needless to say these were deeply religious Americans who had not been poisoned by the decadent counter culture of the 1960s or the selfish use of the birth control pill.

I do hope these illustrative examples from a wide variety of societies show why farm families have always tended to be larger than city families. Always. And if historical fact does not persuade then you there is little I can talk to you about.

Bottom line: all parents in every society in history have more children when they are economic assets and fewer children when they are economic liabilities. As my kids would say, "Well, duh!" And if common sense does not persuade you then there is little I can talk to you about.

As for "comparitive" the comparison I made was between urban and rural situations. That should have been obvious.

Europeans have the number of kids that they want to have.

The poll results I cited show that is simply not true. They would like more kids if they could afford them.

They value other things more than children.

Am I to understand that you believe that the desire for a modern, decent middle class standard of living is an example of irresponsible greed, selfishness and decadence?

Shelton, you'll find these Bible Belts (like their American counterparts) are rural regions. Urbanization reduces not only family size but levels of religious devotion as city inhabitants are exposed to a more cosmoplitan world of differing faiths and ethnic groups.

>I do hope these illustrative examples from a wide variety of societies show why farm families have always tended to be larger than city families.

This was not the issue, daniel. My question was for evidence that the 7th child of a farming family is a net economic asset. You have provided none. You have, in fact, provided no quantitative evidence at all, only statements of the conventional wisdom. I accept that this is the conventional wisdom, I just wish to see evidence that it is correct.

Furthermore, daniel, the only two specific examples you give (Hawaii and the Amish) are communal societies, so any argument about personal economic benefit to a single family is utterly irrelevant.

>As my kids would say, "Well, duh!"

Gee, daniel, there's a convincing argument.

>And if common sense does not persuade you then there is little I can talk to you about.

Common sense tells me that the Earth is further from the Sun in the wintertime, daniel. Common sense only goes so far...

>The poll results I cited show that is simply not true. They would like more kids if they could afford them.

daniel, your poll results show that Europeans told a pollster they would like to have 2.1 children. Reality shows that they only have 1.3. I interpret the 1.3 to be the most reliable estimator of how many kids they wish to have, in the same way I accept an election as a more reliable indicator of a politician's support than an opinion poll.

I also find it interesting that Europeans and Americans both say that they want to have approximately the same number of children (~10% difference), but Americans have so many more (~50% more). I suppose there's some echo of our common culture there, that Europeans somehow feel that they're supposed to want to have kids, though their actions reveal that they really no longer do.

>Am I to understand that you believe that the desire for a modern, decent middle class standard of living is an example of irresponsible greed, selfishness and decadence?

Only if you have serious reading comprehension problems, daniel.

Well b, there is the conventional wisdom and the blatantly obvious. So please explain why you disagree with the following statement: All parents in every society in history have more children when they are economic assets and fewer children when they are economic liabilities.

Your arguments to the contrary so far have been little more than the equivalent of puting your hand over your ears and chanting "La, la, la, I can't hear you." I'm not quite sure what evidence I can provide that you would accept. The studies I cited would have been considered sufficient by most people.

And the Amish are communal only on specific occassions, such as barn raisings. Property is not held in common, nor is it inherited by anyone other than the Amish parent's children. Each Amish is responsible for his own work and his own prosperity. The term "communal" does not apply to the Amish. And if you had bothered to read the link, you would have noticed that the article did not describe the experience of native Hawaiians, but Japanese immigrants to Hawaii. So both examples are suitable for explaining the large size of traditional farm families.

But as I noted, if you are impervious to both historical fact and common sense, there is little you and I can talk about. What you are experiencing is denial. Facts have been used to overturn your world view. Rather than go through the emotionally painful process of revising your world view, you prefer to claim that the facts presented are somehow invalid. A classic case of cognitive dissonance.

Reality shows that they only have 1.3. I interpret the 1.3 to be the most reliable estimator of how many kids they wish to have, in the same way I accept an election as a more reliable indicator of a politician's support than an opinion poll.

This statement is both illiogical and nonsensical. I may wish to own a dozen classic automobiles, but can only afford my old Ford. The fact that I can only afford one car is not an indication of my true desires anymore than the fact that Euros can only afford to raise 1.3 kids in an indication of their true desires.

Only if you have serious reading comprehension problems, daniel.

Well then, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what these "other things" are that Europeans value more than children.

Perhaps they're the same things that God-fearing, deeply religious Americans of the 19th century prefered to having children as their family sizes dwindled with increased urbanization?

You see b, whether its decreasing birth rates in current Islamic societies or those of 19th century America, there is no causation between religion and birth rates. Both are negatively affected by increased levels of urbanization.

And it is urbanization that is the true culprit behind both the spiritual death and physical death of Europe.

Yes, economic liabilities so they can't keep up w/the Jones'.

Self-centered, narcissistic boomers. It is all about them, after all. Don't want to sacrifice.

Look at SF, OJ posted that story earlier this month(?).

--

How about 9 weeks off and free health care?

>So please explain why you disagree with the following statement: All parents in every society in history have more children when they are economic assets and fewer children when they are economic liabilities.

My children. They are each a massive economic liability. And yet, each one exists.

>This statement is both illiogical and nonsensical. I may wish to own a dozen classic automobiles, but can only afford my old Ford. The fact that I can only afford one car is not an indication of my true desires anymore than the fact that Euros can only afford to raise 1.3 kids in an indication of their true desires.

This statement is both illogical and nonsensical. Any couple may choose to have as many kids as they wish, which is simply not the case with material possessions.

>whether its decreasing birth rates in current Islamic societies or those of 19th century America, there is no causation between religion and birth rates. Both are negatively affected by increased levels of urbanization.

Please explain Saudi Arabia, with their extremely high levels of urbanization, religiosity, and birth rates.

Sandy,

You've just described the modern, industrial, Middle Class lifestyle of the West as selfish, degenerate and decadent. As for 9 weeks vacation, I would think that would be an inducement to child rearing as it allows for more family time.

If Euros are selfish, Americans with their much higher standard of living must be positively decadent. In case you hadn't noticed, Europeans have a lower standard of living than most Americans (except maybe Arkansas and Mississippi). They are also urbanized to a degree that fee Americans outside of the Northeast corridor can appreciate. Living in a city is always more expensive than living inthe country. Put all of the above together and you have a situation where couples can't afford as many children as they would like.

BTW, how many kids do you have? Are you doing your share in the fight against materialistic decadence by having as many children as biologicaly possible?

My children. They are each a massive economic liability. And yet, each one exists.

So how many kids do you have b? And do you live in an expensive urban area or a cheaper rural area?

Any couple may choose to have as many kids as they wish, which is simply not the case with material possessions.

Non seqeutor. Couples may have as many children as they wish, they just might not want to raise a dozen or so if it means living in poverty. Have you and your spouse decided to live in a noble and holy state of poverty so as to have as many children as possible? (yeah, that was sarcasm)

Please explain Saudi Arabia, with their extremely high levels of urbanization, religiosity, and birth rates.

Gee I don't know, maybe its because SA is an oppresive theocracy that treats women little better than domestic animals. Seems a high price to pay for somewhat higher birth rates. This may be your ideal society, but it wouldn't be for most people (and ALL women) who have experienced life in a free society.

And BTW, SA birth rates have also been declining (see http://www.csis.org/burke/saudi21/saudimilenters21_IV_econdemo.pdf)

Sorry, daniel, but you've well exceeded your interesting half-life on this thread. Your last few posts consist of little more than building up strawmen and feebly attempting to use them to question the integrity and intelligence of anyone who doesn't fully bask in your unquestionable brilliance (yeah, that was sarcasm). I shouldn't have fed the duffy-troll so much...

anyone who doesn't fully bask in your unquestionable brilliance

I'd happily settle for a factual and logical counter argument.

So, just how many kids do you have b?

The article is the first use I've seen of what is a great word— "Christophobia."

But I would give the numbers coming out of Saudi-occupied Arabia the same level of trust as those that came from their ideological cousins, the late and unlamented Soviet Union.