
Why are Europeans so hesitant to have children, and what does it mean for their future and for ours? - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
======
ivankirigin
There are huge implications. Think about real estate - the demand to build new
homes. That could impact millions of people in their employment. Think about
systems like Social Security, where a large young working class pays for the
retired class.

There is a trend followed very closely in robotics about the number of elderly
people per worker. The larger that ratio gets, the more we'll need robots. And
not in 30 years -- in 15 years. We need to support the baby boomers. They'll
be 70+ in 7 years. It's even worse in Japan.

The cultural landscape will also change significantly. The Muslim minorities
might not be minorities for long. This is a change of epic proportions.

~~~
ajross
Relax. A slowdown in birth rates is a temporary disturbance (the opposite of
the baby boom, in fact). Over time, society returns to a steady state. Yes,
the finances get complicated, and we're looking at a generation or two that
may see substandard retirement income. But it's hardly a huge social problem;
three generations back we were looking at every generation having _no_
retirement income.

And the "muslim minority" stuff is just alarmist (and, frankly, semi-racist)
political spin. Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities.
They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society, with at
most a unique subculture. This is true of all cultures. They're malleable.

No one freaks out (here in the US) about the Polish Menace any more, nor about
what all those greasy catholics (!) are going to do to our society, nor about
all that lucre under the control of The Jew, nor about what will happen if we
allow those awful Blacks to wed (!) our pure, white daughters.

Do you see the point? In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going to
look equally dumb. If all that scary stuff didn't kill us, what are a few
muslims going to accomplish? :)

The saddest thing is how many of the people freaking out over things like
muslim immigration (or, here in the US, mexicans) are grandchildren of people
who saw exactly the same kind of discrimination.

~~~
thewatcher
> And the "muslim minority" stuff is just alarmist (and, frankly, semi-racist)
> political spin.

Islam is not a race.

> Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become
> culturally indistinguishable from the overall society

Where are you from? This has not been the case with Muslims in Europe at
large.

> Do you see the point? In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going
> to look equally dumb. If all that scary stuff didn't kill us, what are a few
> muslims going to accomplish?

How much do you know about Islam and its history? Islam and the Western
culture are fundamentally incompatible.

~~~
ajross
You miss the point. A few generations back there was no "western culture".
There were protestants (here in the US, the "good guys") and the Other People:
catholics and jews, who didn't share "our" values. They were fundamentally
incompatible with our culture, and didn't belong here.

The same is true now, it's just the faces that have changed. I know quite a
few muslims, actually, of varying levels of religious devotion and
professional development. You might be surprised to learn that none of them
are terrorists or militants. I dare say I know more about Islam than you do,
honestly.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> A few generations back there was no "western culture".

Huh? Try as far back as the Gallic Wars. There has been a concept of The West
for over 1500 years.

You are aware of the Crusades?

------
ComputerGuru
I'm a Muslim. How many people here are going to start suddenly hating me
because I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?"

Oh yeah, I'm also American. I'm a practicing Muslim, raised in a western
culture, contributing to western society, and fitting right in...

I'm really disappointed to see some of the hate and prejudice that plagues the
ignorant portion of the offliners here on HN - I thought hackers were supposed
to be more open minded and stuff!

~~~
smanek
Any religion that doesn't tolerate disobedience/non-believers deserves hatred
from all educated people.

In my opinion (as a theist, but not an adherent of any religion) anyone who
believes in the quran or old testament deserves to be shunned.

Those books (and yes, I've read english translations of both) are full of hate
mongering vitriol. They urge 'believers' to gruesomely kill anyone who
disagrees with their particular set of outlandish beliefs (even if the non-
believer doesn't do anything to harm you).

So yes, a priori I do discount Jews and Muslims. Frankly, if you choose to
associate yourself with the sort of racist, misogynistic, intolerant tripe
that permeates the torah and quran, I place you on about the same level as
neo-nazis and book burners. You should be allowed to spew whatever bullshit
you want, but you're a moron and will be treated accordingly.

Just so we're clear, I'm all in favor of religion (or atheism, or agnosticism)
in principle. I'm just _strongly_ against any world view and philosophy that
demands you _kill_ people who disagree with you, but aren't trying to harm
you.

~~~
rms
People pick and choose their beliefs to reconcile it with a reasonable world
view. Your equivalence of Judaism and Islam on this issue without considering
the vast spectrum of beliefs in both religions shows your ignorance, or
perhaps your desire to distort the issue to fit _your_ particular world view.
Religions are more than their holy books.

~~~
smanek
That's a fair point. I've met many people that are ostensibly muslim or jewish
and are perfectly reasonable and intelligent.

But, I've never really gotten a good answer on which parts of the said holy
books followers are free to disregard.

Can I ignore anything I disagree with and still be considered an X? If so,
what meaning does X really have and why should I consider myself an X? If not,
then who gets to decide which parts of the holy book I can ignore, and by what
authority?

The 'party line' that I usually receive is that every word of the holy books
is true, but we must interpret it properly. However, there are huge portions
of the the old testament and quaran that unambiguously advocate violence and
intolerance (I can dig up example if you like). They really don't leave much
room for interpretation.

To the best of my knowledge, religions/philosophies have a core set of beliefs
that define them. I understand that there is some latitude, but once you stray
a certain distance from a religion's core, I'd argue you are no longer a
member of that religion. And, based on my readings of the quaran and old
testament, I'd say that violence and intolerance are part of the core of islam
and judaism.

By way of analogy, libertarians hold a very wide spectrum of beliefs. For
example, two libertarians could disagree on whether or not elementary schools
should be publicly funded. But, when one of them contends that all private
profit should be taken and redistributed, I'd posit that he's no longer a
libertarian because he has strayed too far from the core principles.

~~~
rms
>I understand that there is some latitude, but once you stray a certain
distance from a religion's core, I'd argue you are no longer a member of that
religion

I agree. Once you sufficiently liberalize a religion, say, by being a
Christian that believes there are ways to paradise without ever having a
personal relationship with your Lord, Jesus Christ, I fail to see the point.
But, there are very many people that arbitrarily pick and choose beliefs. So
even if it seems improper to us to pick and choose beliefs, that is just how
it is.

>And, based on my readings of the quaran and old testament, I'd say that
violence and intolerance are the core of islam and judaism.

I won't speak for your interpretation of Islam, but your interpretation of
Judaism is wrong. You can't read a religion's book and claim to know
everything about that religion. The ancient Hebrews existed at a time when
tribal violence was a way of life. They genocided/smited their enemies with
the help of God and wrote about it. They have mellowed considerably since
then, depending on how you feel about Israel.

There are thousands of years of interpretation since the books were originally
written. In Judaism, interpretation of the Bible is sometimes considered as
valid as the Bible itself. So Judaism was reformed over time by people
interpreting the Bible and publishing their interpretations. The Talmud is
probably the most important of these Jewish Biblical interpretations, but
there have been many since. If you want to gain an understanding of Judaism,
you can't just read the Old Testament and call it a broken religion that
advocates violence and intolerance.

~~~
smanek
My point is that these various religious books are full of misogyny,
intolerance, and violence (which you have agreed with).

At that point any reasonable person would say something along the lines of:
"You know what, this book isn't very good. It may have been decent x years
ago, and it does have some good ideas, but on balance it isn't that good.
Let's keep the good stuff, throw out the bad, and come up with a new canon
based on the best thinking of today."

But that isn't what happened. Islam and Judaism have chosen to keep their
deeply flawed books at the center of their religions (and yes, they are the
center). And we still have wackos using the text in these books to justify
their violence and bigotry.

So, until Jews and Muslims openly disavow huge potions of the torah and
quaran, I have very little respect for them.

------
mynameishere
My god, I could barely stand to skim that. So, so much nothingness in so many
words. A few points:

1\. There is no crisis. Certain conditions produce certain effects. When
smallpox is introduced into a population, the population declines, but
subsequent generations resist it. The modern world has a perfectly consistent
effect on population size, roughly the same as smallpox. The fittest, as
always, will survive, and subsequent generations will not have the same
problem.

2\. The United States is not a "sparkling exception", if you correct your
samples. If you reduce Americans to their European subset, you see that _Birth
rate was 11.6 for Non-Hispanic Whites_
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)
... the lowest of all major groups.

3\. The subject of immigration should not come up. Europe will not "save
itself" by replacing itself with North Africans. This point warrants no
discussion. If you _hate Europe_ as much as the editors of the nytimes, that's
another matter, and it's a valid viewpoint to the degree that it is open. It's
not open, of course.

4\. Europe and Japan are both far too crowded. As long as the situation isn't
treated like a crisis, with hopeless policies (mass immigration, mass
boondoggles) the long-term effect will be positive.

5\. Three big groups who've reversed the trend: Mormons, Albanian muslims, and
Ultra-orthodox Jews. A portend of things to come, and it's no surprise that
the nytimes is troubled by the situation resolving itself.

~~~
davidw
> There is no crisis. Certain conditions produce certain effects. When
> smallpox is introduced ...

Perhaps - just perhaps - people facing a massive die off due to something like
smallpox might view it as a crisis.

What is viewed as the "crisis" in places like Italy, is that people do want to
have children, but feel they can't, because of the many reasons cited in the
article.

~~~
mynameishere
_people facing a massive die off due to something like smallpox might view it
as a crisis_

First, "There is no crisis" refers to birthrates, not smallpox. Second, by
"crisis" I mean existential crises, not personal. Even the black plague was
not an existential crisis. For comparison, the Ottoman and Mongol expansions
were.

 _because of the many reasons_

Every western country has had its birthrate drop as the economy and education
levels improved. It's a very solid correlation, and almost certainly the real
reason. But people still say, "I can't afford children" (or whatever), even if
the real reason is their large and distracting discretionary income. People
rationalize, and certainly don't understand their own motivations.

~~~
davidw
Obviously people aren't dying off or anything. What 'crisis' refers to is the
fact that many couples in certain countries feel they can't have kids.

Clearly it's a complex issue, but the whole point of the article is that the
birth rate varies quite a bit from country to country: Japan and Italy have
very low rates, places like France and Sweden do better.

------
davidw
Not entirely sure it's hacker news, but it's certainly a well written and in-
depth article. It sums up a lot of things I've kind of known for a while:
places with better social systems like the Nordic countries are better places
to have children than in somewhere like Italy (where I'm writing from, on
vacation) which is, very sadly, going nowhere fast. Having our daughter Helen
in Austria was far easier, despite the language barrier, than it would have
been in Italy.

------
gojomo
More evidence that like other animals, humans don't breed well in captivity?

(Offended europhiles -- I kid, I kid! Also, this quip is not original, but I
can't recall where I'd first read it.)

------
biohacker42
The future is bleak, but it's not what you think.

Birth control and education are like a virus that impacts fertility. Over time
we will adapt. It used to the sex drive was enough to reproduce, in the future
the specific desire to HAVE kids will replace that.

So the population will drop, then slowly turn around, but it will not end up
in a balance. What you'll have is wealthy educated citizens of liberal
democracies who absolutely have got have lots of kids.

We better have colonized space then.

------
peakok
Oh please. Take a look at the charts of the world human population of all time
: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg>

Where is the crisis now ?

(I'd started to write a long answer adressing this topic but it would have
been too long. If you want to digg into this matter I'll follow you).

~~~
vixen99
Reminder: we are talking here about Europe not the overall world population.
Moreover whatever some moderate Muslims say, Islam is fundamentally intolerant
of other religions and atheistic values. In case you doubt it take a look at
Islamic societies across the globe.

The much enhanced birthrate of Muslims in Europe does therefore present us
with a serious question as to how Europe will change as a result of this once
Muslims are democratically able to alter national goals and cultural norms.
This is nothing to do with racism or bigotry.

~~~
peakok
Let's see.

Since (all ?) europeans countries birthrates are agnostics, they include the
recently immigrated people as well. Therefore, they include the muslims
people. If everything above is true, and the birthrates are still low, then
the article contradicts itself when it says : "[...] — mostly Muslim — who
have yet to be infected by the modern malady called family planning [...]".

It appears on the contrary, according to our low birthrates, that they don't
have as much childs as we fear. Whatever the reality is, there is a logical
fallacy somewhere.

Since the science of demography knowns only 2 factors : (1) birthrates (2)
migration flows (wich are continuous), we are left with the only other
explaination.

Maybe you understand now why you are deluding yourself if you study
demographics without considering the whole world population, because this is
what is feeding the migration flows. Whatever the laws you pass, you won't be
able to stop people from all over the world to try to escape their life of
misery, people who have such hopes for a better life that they take insane
risks to make it and more than often die in the journey. The first waves of US
immigrants were people fleeding oppression too.

But the true problem isn't even here. The demographic doxa wich states that we
should have everlasting high birthrates is closely tied the Economic Growth
paradigm, and it is the true responsible for the great post-war immigration
policies that european countries engaged in. This doxa (more people = more
consumers = more taxpayers = more economic growth) is the true responsible for
the situation you describe. If you're looking for an ennemy, then fight this
doxa.

Maybe we can live in a world where "less is more". Malthus would have been
probably right if he lived today : our earth has limited ressources and our
problems are just starting as a lot of emerging countries are catching up with
the Occidental lifestyle. A lot of our current problems could be solved by
having less people around (from education to transportation and ravaged
landscapes).

Even if our technology allows us to make it, there is no philosophical nor
practical reason to be 20 billions on earth instead of 6 or 3 or even 1.
Especially if the conditions of life are greater, common sense would suggest
less quantity for more quality. Less misery in black Africa, less hopeless
immigrants, and why not, less malls in Occident.

The more people reproduces in poor countries, the more they'll take their shot
at trying to reach richer countries. That's just, well, human. In trying to
produce too much wealth, the process just becomes destructive for the cultures
at some point and benefits to nobody.

~~~
smanek
the parent isn't really coherent.

for example, could someone clarify/explain the following:

"Since (all ?) europeans countries birthrates are agnostics, they include the
recently immigrated people as well."

"It appears on the contrary, according to our low birthrates, that they don't
have as much childs as we fear."

"This doxa (more people = more consumers = more taxpayers = more economic
growth) is the true responsible for the situation you describe. If you're
looking for an ennemy, then fight this doxa."

I'm going to assume english isn't your native language. Please try to express
whatever it is you were trying to express again. It reads like it was (poorly)
translated by a machine.

~~~
peakok
Sometimes my english is really poor indeed, it is unfortunate because when you
want to explain reality you also have to deal with complexity, this is where
you need a very sharp usage of words.

I'll only explain the birthrates part, after a good night of sleep :)

The article states that muslims "have yet to be infected by the modern malady
called family planning", wich roughly translates to : they make a lot of
babies and will outnumber us in a few generations. This is a recurring
argument.

But the article warns about the low birthrates in Europe. This is a
contradiction, because europeans birthrates include the babies of everybody,
including the recently immigrated people, wich means that if the muslims were
making as much babies as they say, then our birthrates would not be so low.

There is a logical fallacy in this argument. Wich is confirmed by the fact
that nearly all muslims societies are experiencing a decline in their
birthrate, and some have even "catastrophic" (it's their word, not mine) low
birthrates (Iran for example).

I hope it was clear.

------
sealedidentity
Hugely informative article.

A sarcastic thought just popped into my head. To make a snide remark: at least
we Europeans don't do "Procreation for recreation."

------
jsmcgd
_“It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis,”_

I could not agree more.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Care to explain yourself? Would you be happy if people stopped reproducing?

~~~
jsmcgd
Not entirely no.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Ok -- thought I'd ask before I downmodded you.

~~~
jsmcgd
Haha. Sorry my answer is very ambiguous. I would like to explain myself: I
would not like it if everyone stopped reproducing. I would however like it
very much if the human race stopped reproducing as much. To be more specific I
would ideally like the human race to reproduce just enough so that the total
human population began to gently decrease until we return to a sustainable
population. And if it was up to me I would make me very happy if the
population then remained constant indefinitely.

