Americans, frankly, are puzzled as to why Europeans hate the U.S. so much and so automatically. This video helps to explain why. And why the BBC's coming to America could be a bad thing.
(Hat tip and thanks to Bookworm, at www.bookwormroom.wordpress.com)
Like Rodney Dangerfield, Demography gets no respect. Yet Mark Steyn says, "Demography is 90% of everything." He has it about right. So why don't we pay more attention to population trends? We tend not to notice until very late, when things are already going very badly.
Well first, population trends aren't detected by just looking around. Second, they take a generation or two to have a big effect on us. Our attention span is not that long.
But largely because of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, populations are declining, or beginning to, in most of the nations of the world.
Populations are also aging fast. Medical science has given life expectancy two big boosts. One was by lowering death rates for infants and small children. Oddly, that makes more elders. The other was by taming more of the killer diseases of mature adults, so that they live longer still. So two things are happening in most of the world: births are shrinking and the elder population is growing.
That combination is explosive. A growing grey population. A declining worker population. And each new generation smaller than the one before.
The solution? The "What" is fairly clear - having more kids! But most people don't want to do that. How to change their minds? It will require a lot more evangelizing and discipling, since it is largely the more religious who would welcome more children. But more on that later.
The present worker generation - those young enough to reproduce - can't be blamed for reacting angrily to the idea of more kids. They will be taxed more than any previous generation, simply to support the huge grey population. And we want them to take on the cost of more children? Still, the simple fact is that if they do not - we are done.
Even for just themselves, having 3 or more children is the only way to insure their income when they grow old.
It is also the only way to prosper while paying all those taxes. We still think in "static" economic terms, as if we were still in a world where jobs are limited, so that more people means more unemployed. But now, the more developed the country, the more "dynamic" the economy. Now, the more workers, the more jobs, income and wealth. Population (of working age) has become a plus, not a minus.
But it is the worker population young enough to reproduce who is the key to the future. They are the only ones who can stop this crunch before it stops us all. The mere "replacement rate" is 2.1 children per woman. Since there is no such thing as 0.1 of a child, that means each woman should produce 3 children for replacement, and more than that for growth. And it is growth we need, not simply replacement. Because only with growth can there be more than 1 or 2 workers per retired person.
That is simply not to have a disaster.
But we want more than just avoiding disaster. What we have been crying out for is a better, more decent society. That will require children being much better raised than they have been since the 1960s. Badly raised, poorly parented, fatherless children have been at the root of the surge of social ills since the 1960s. To turn that around, children will need a lot more adult one-on-one time and attention, mentoring, role modeling, and a lot better parenting. From parents married to each other and living together with their children.
At the very minimum, then: at least one parent at home whenever any child is out of school. And both parents married to each other and living together.
That would take a new generation of young couples, married to each other, 3 or more kids each, less income (because at least one parent should not work more than part time), more expenses (for the kids), the heaviest taxes of any generation yet (for the oldsters) and heavier burdens. They would have to be more sacrificial than any generation since the Greatest Generation.
Yet theirs is the only generation with the possibility of turning things around, of giving us a future again. They would become the generation that saved a civilization from disappearing. They would have to be strong, determined, caring, giving, and willing to work hard for the good of all.
We've had the Greatest Generation. What we need now is a Hero Generation. That would not be a bad way to be remembered. Not bad at all.
Some people dismiss Europe's future peril by alleging that productivity growth in European economies can save Europe from the results of its shrinking population.
An article by the Tribune's Steve Chapman at realclearpolitics.com made this claim yesterday, as did a comment on my post "More on Europe's Future" below. Others may be making the same assumption.
Unfortunately that is rather like expecting a bandaid to staunch a hemorrhage. And also expecting the bandaid to be available.
Would such a "'bandaid" even be available to Europe? Can Europe raise its productivity rates on time? In fact, can Europe raise them significantly at all? Europe has worked strenuously to raise its productivity rates for years, without much success. Instead, their rates subbornly remain stuck at about half of those of the U.S. and Japan.
Why can't Europe raise its productivity rates? In brief, because of its culture. Its governments heavily regulate business, its unions are tremendously powerful, its taxation rates are too high to encourage economic growth, and they have large welfare states. Therefore unemployment is high, job creation is tiny and so is economic and productivity growth.
Why is that? Because voters will not allow these impediments to be changed! Only if voters had a huge, all-encompassing change in their beliefs - their culture, that is - would they permit their governments to make the changes needed to bring about greater growth in productivity.
In other words, the "bandaid" of growth in productivity is not very likely even to be available to Europe. For that to happen, Europe would have to undergo a huge level of change in its culture, of a size that would be needed anyhow just to start having a lot more children. And while the culture will no doubt change somewhat as the situation deteriorates, it is very difficult for cultures to make such big changes that fast.
Even if the needed cultural changes magically happened by tomorrow, however, it would take considerable time for structural change to result, and more time for the economy to respond. For Europe growth in productivity, time is not a friend.
All this supposes that productivity increases could stop European decline. But we can see that they are no such cure, simply by looking at the case of the U.S.
The U.S. is in a much better situation. First, it is replacing its population, barely, rather than losing population as Europe is. Therefore it does not face the size problem Europe faces with its retirement programs. Still, the U.S. is facing huge adjustments and possible decline, even with a non-declining population.
The fact is that even replacing the population is not enough to support a large elderly population. Only one or even two workers per retiree is still a recipe for disaster. It takes much more than that. And it will take a growing population, not one of mere replacement size, to ever get out of the U.S. demographic predicament.
Poor Europe does not even have the luxury of starting on the same level with the U.S. on population growth. Whatever problems the U.S. can expect, Europe can expect them in spades.
But could even the U.S. have productivity growth sufficient to avoid economic decline when the Boomers begin to retire in 8 years? It is hard to see how that alone could raise the national product enough to make much difference. Assuming rashly that it might be possible to raise productivity growth to unheard-of rates of double the current ones - probably not possible in a "mature" economy - would even double be enough? It seems very doubtful. Great increases in productivity certainly should be sought more urgently. They always help. But the idea that they would be the solution to our coming demographic crunch is a wishful one. "Bandaid" is, unfortunately, a better description than "cure."
Of course, if it would not work in the U.S. with its higher birth rates and productivity growth rates, how could it work in Europe? The hope that it would might encourage European delay when urgency is needed.
Our cultures simply have to change, here, and still more in Europe. Nothing else will increase birth rates enough to secure our futures. And nothing else will give us the self-discipline we need to deal with the hard choices, very soon now, that low birth rates have already set before us. There are no visible alternatives to very large cultural changes.
Even in the absence of the terrorist threat, the future of the West was already in doubt. The depopulation of the West, and most of the rest of the world, is a major factor. Yet depopulation itself is only a symptom of the real causes of the great basic decline itself.
From what causes did this decline come? Even more basically, what led to the rise of the high civilization of the West in the first place?
Out of Christian Europe grew more and more freedom, arising from the Christian teaching that all men are equal in the eyes of God, argues sociologist Rodney Stark. This freedom led to the rise of capitalism and of science. The freedom, capitalism and science together brought about the richest, most advanced, safest and most pleasant civilization yet known.
With the science and intellectualism spawned by freedom, however, came the secularism that turned to attack the Christianity which tolerated its growth. With the riches came more and more choices, and more and more leisure to pursue them. As always, this led to more and more debauchery and selfish focus on pleasure. Children were not wanted, and often neglected. Crime and fraud increased.
It also led to more softness, less ruggedness and less ability to defend ourselves, and more denial of the need for defense. Now, many would be willing to give in to the most terrible of demands just to try to make sure that not even one American city was ever destroyed or even seriously damaged. Or to make sure that not one American is ever killed in a war. As Victor Davis Hanson writes today,
"And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable."
Whether or not we ever had an outside enemy to threaten us, however, our end was already coming into view over the horizon. Of course there is never a shortage of opportunistic enemies when a wealthy giant weakens. But it is not so much the enemy that brings down the giant as it is the weakness of the giant. Just as it is the sick antelope that is caught by the lions. If it were not sick, it probably could have escaped.
In short, if there are any Westerners who are not depressed by the news of a nuclear Iran, and what that warns about bigger, hotter war sooner than any of us hoped, they are not paying attention! The situation is suddenly much more critical.
There are some important things we need to do to address the threat from our enemies. Yet, if we do not also address the basic causes of our weakness at the same time, nothing else we do to protect ourselves will do more than postpone the demise of the West for a little while. How do we do that?
First, look at the basics. Our increase in selfishness led to having fewer children. So depopulation is now well under way. But it takes Christianity to overcome our selfishness enough to want to have children and invest the time it takes to raise them well. That is why the only group in the U.S. having more than enough children to replace themselves is evangelical Christians!
Our increase in selfishess also led to many welfare states. These are now in the process of losing their wealth as a result.
It takes Christianity to resist the temptations that are so easily fulfilled when prosperity comes. It takes Christianity to insist on non-corrupt living - working hard not to lie, cheat, defraud or steal. It takes Christianity to understand that human beings are not inherently good, but are prone to sin; and that therefore there will be criminals, liars, murderers, and enemies who are all of these and worse. That therefore societies must defend themselves against all these, protecting their freedom from enslavement by others at all costs.
Our weakness comes from so many of us abandoning Christianity, or at least its teachings. It also comes from having such a wealthy, protected society that we can indulge in all kinds of fantasies without immediate disaster. Fantasies that we can invent a god of our own design. Or that there is no God. Fantasies that we need never protect ourselves. Fantasies that almost everyone can be supported by the government. Fantasies that we "have no enemies, only friends that we have not yet done enough for." That we can get by without real education. Or without knowing real history. And fantasies that we can never lose what we have. And on and on.
The fact is, friends, that we can re-Christianize, or vanish. The fact is that the only cure for the terminal weakness of the West is Christ. The fact is that unless we quickly, urgently start doing whatever it takes to fulfull the Great Commission by making disciples of Christ, we are going to have plenty of time later to weep over what we could have done and did not.
We can do this. In Christ, we can do all things. But there will not always be time.
That was God's question in the first verses of Isaiah. As we begin preparing to evangelize Europe, we also want to know who should go.
There would seem to be some obvious choices. Someone who knows the language, for instance. Someone with some theological training would be nice, as would someone with experience as a pastor, evangelist or missionary. Entrepreneurial experience (in start-ups) would be good. Someone who has already lived in Europe or in Muslim countries and knows the culture would be excellent.
But these are not the first considerations. Why not? Because God has some of the same personnel problems a lot of us have. That is, the people who are best equipped may not be willing! So God often has to take someone who is less equipped, less able, but willing. Then he has to equip them and make them able. Just as many employers do, if you think about it.
In my own case, when God pushed and shoved me into starting that first homeless shelter in Bakersfield, I could look all around me and see people who could do it better. And I was right. They could. They had experience, training and skills in things I did not have. I was not not an entrepreneur, had no administrative or executive skills or training and loathed the very thought of fundraising! Why me? I puzzled and puzzled over that. Finally I realized it may have been because of one very simple thing. They weren't willing and I was. So God was stuck with me.
What did God do with me? On the job training! All I can say is, somehow it all worked out.
So how do we produce people who are willing? The kind of willingness we need is not the kind that comes because someone thinks they would just love it, or that it would be a good career move, or because it seems a way to have a good income, etc. No, that kind of willingness will not get the job done. They will not have the level of persistence and dedication it will take. They will go through the motions, and not do whatever it takes to get results.
Instead, the kind of willingness to look for is the kind that comes from such a high level of commitment to God that they would do anything for him! And where does that come from?
First, they must be converts. And to get converts, we must evangelize.
Second, they have to become disciples. Someone has to disciple them. And once they become strong, true disciples, they will be willing to go where God wants them to go, when God wants, and to do whatever he wants. That takes a lot of constant, habitual, fruitful evangelizing and a lot of teaching, exhorting and helping converts to grow from baby Christians into strong, mature disciples.
Then God will call some from among them to go to Europe. Some will not be obedient to his call, and some will. Those are the ones to send. Whatever else they lack can be taught and learned. More will be learned on the job. But without that willingness to do whatever God wants, there is no point in sending them, no matter how well suited for the job they appear to be.
So whether we are the ones to be sent to Europe or not, our work is crucial. It is planting the seeds, here in America, and tending the young plants.
That is, it is making more and more converts here - planting the seeds. Then it is discipling them here - tending the young plants - to the point to where they are willing to go wherever God may send them. And supporting them ever after that, as they go for us, actually in our place.
Then there will be more and more to do God's work in Europe and everywhere else.
"Honor killings" of Muslim women in Europe is on the rise as European Muslims become more conservative. Tom Bevan at RCP has a short article on this today, with good links to more data.
"These cases usually involve an attack on a Muslim woman by a close relative -- typically a brother or father -- angered by her refusal to accept a forced marriage or her insistence on leading a Western-style life."
Bevan adds:
"There were at least eight such slayings in Berlin alone in 2005...tens of thousands of European-born Muslim women are annually forced into unwanted marriages, often to much older men, in their family's home countries. Refusal to submit to such marriages can bring a death sentence."
He links to a Boston Globe article describing how, when news of an honor killing of a young Muslim woman on a street corner by 3 of her brothers reached a local Muslim school, cheering broke out among the students. The brothers were regarded as local heroes.
Right now Europeans are living alongside Muslim-populated enclaves where Sharia Law rules to varying degrees. While Europeans tolerate this violation of their own laws to some extent, they themselves, of course, do not have to submit to Sharia law. After all, as the majority they still rule.
But if Muslims become the majority in 15-25 years, as current demographic trends indicate, then Muslims will rule. So here is a timely reminder of what living under Sharia law can mean (HT Jeffrey Foxmore), from the AP, via foxnews.com:
"KANDAHAR, Afganistan - Taliban militants beheaded a teacher in a central Afgan town while his wife and 8 children watched...the latest in a string of attacks targeting educators at schools where girls study...
"Habib resumed a more than 20-year teaching career two years ago after the Taliban threatened him while he was working for an aid group helping the disabled. Since then, the Taliban had warned him twice to stop teaching...
"in the past year, Taliban insurgents have occasionally put up posters around Qalat demanding girls' schools be closed and threatening to kill teachers...100 of the province's 170 schools have been closed in the past two or three years because of poor security...
"Taliban spokesmen and commanders in the region, one of the most volatile in Afghanistan, could not immediately be reached for comment."
While the strictest Taliban-Saudi Arabian-Wahabi Sharia Law might not be enforced in a future Muslim-run Europe, some kind of Sharia Law observance could be expected. Even in present-day Europe and Canada, Muslim enclaves produce many "honor killings" of Muslim women, which are rarely prosecuted in court.
Even in Europe and Canada, Muslims are allowed to limit the rights of Muslim women in ways that would be never be tolerated by most Westerners. But that is when Westerners have had majority rule. When they no longer have that majority, they will live under rules made by the new majority.
Europeans absolutely would not like living under any presently-known level of Sharia. We would hate to see that happen to them. That would also likely put us under increased threat ourselves. So it is in the urgent interests of both to do what it takes to maintain the European majority.
Without a serious, early start, there is not enough time to change European demography enough to make a difference. The early years of this 15-25 year window are the crucial ones. They should not be lost!
The Brits, right after the bombings of 7/7 and 7/21, like the Americans right after 9/11, are in the beginnings of a widespread national self re-examination. Their news is full of it.
Today comes an article by the famous Niall Ferguson, Brit and Harvard Professor, author of best-selling histories Empire (2003) and Colossus (2004), who declares himself a materialist. Nevertheless, in a stunning article on 7-31-05 in the Daily Telegraph (www.telegraph.uk.co) he deplores the deChristianization of Europe and Britain. The self-proclaimed materialist now calls for the UK to be reChristianized.
He writes of "the moral vacuum our dechristianization has created." He also commends weekly church attendance, saying "a weekly dose of Christian doctrine will help to provide an ethical framework for your life." He is alarmed that only 10% of Brits say they would be willing to die for their beliefs, compared to 71% of Americans.
Professor Ferguson admits he does not know how deChristianization happened in the UK, but says "Before you blame it on the sixties - the Beatles, the Pill and the mini-skirt - remember that the United States had all these earthly delights too, without ceasing to be a Christian country." (True, but he little realizes how the sixties decimated the church in America and how much it has declined since then.) Then he adds, poignantly, "To be frank, I have no idea what the answer is. But I do know that it matters."
At the end he expresses what others in the UK are coming to fear now: "Over the past few weeks we have all read a great deal about the threat posed to our 'way of life' by Muslim extremists...But how far has our own loss of religious faith turned this country...into a soft target...for the fanaticism of others?"
Brits, join the club. We are getting more worried by the day about our lack of Christianity too.
Bernard Lewis: What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response
