Today's posts - Quoteworthy - Obamanalysis - Michelle O - Mark Steyn - Women - Children - Parenting - Education - Culture - Culture of death - Music - Sinatra - Books - Best of P&P - Twitter

When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. Mark Steyn
.

March 3, 2011

Baby-boomers failed to plant their gardens

Stanley Kurtz on the coming baby-boomer demographic crisis (emphasis added):

In 2005, I reviewed some of the first books on the subject and concluded that a demographically induced economic crisis could spark a revival of religious traditionalism, a far more radical decomposition of the family, or both.

At the time, it looked as if a possible demographically-induced economic crisis was at least a couple of decades away. We seem to be running ahead of schedule. To a large extent, the economic troubles here and in Europe already factor in the unsustainable entitlements of the future.

Although an economic crisis is imminent, and the underlying cause demographic, I haven’t noticed many calls for increased child-bearing. That is in striking contrast to the world-wide movement in response to the less proximate and more theoretical global warming crisis. It’s a measure of how unthinkable changes in our post-sixties life-styles still are. Yet it doesn’t mean change won’t happen, if and when a demographic-economic crisis truly strikes.
I haven't noticed many calls for larger families, either (with one notable exception). It isn't just former hippies and progressives who aren't interested in having more than one or two babies (if any). Even those who fully understand which way the cold demographic wind is blowing aren't eager to fill their homes with new life. Even Christians don't embrace the call to be fruitful and multiply.

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes that Contraception is Not the Solution:
The spending fight over Planned Parenthood in Congress is about a number of things. It's primarily about good stewardship, as so much of the spending debate is. But beyond legislation, beyond anything Congress can or should do, it is a call to arms for a new sexual revolution. It's about wanting more for ourselves and for those whom we love. It's about ending the surrender to a contraceptive mentality that treats human sexuality as just another commercial transaction.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates that than a recent commercial for a contraceptive called Beyaz. Women walk into a store and literally shop for men. "It's good to have choices." A woman happily shakes her head at the stork and its offerings in a sassy "we girls can do anything" kind of way, promenading through an adult Barbie commercial complete with Ken, a dream house and a trip to Paris.

That commercial does not, needless to say, do justice to the pain and desperation many women suffer when they find themselves thinking about an abortion, or popping pills in pursuit of something that masks itself as satisfaction but is really just a bad substitute, oftentimes making true happiness all the more illusory.
Exactly right. Read the whole thing.

Stacy McCain, quoting JPII, writes:
A “society excessively concerned with efficiency” obviously can’t tolerate the unpredictable realities of natural, fertile human sexuality. The very name Planned Parenthood expresses the idea that they are offering something somehow superior to unplanned parenthood, that there is something wrong and inferior about letting nature take its course in matters of reproduction or — as Christians would say — recognizing God’s sovereignty as the Author of Life.
Bingo. Pregnancy, childbirth, babies, toddlers, teenagers -- they introduce uncontrollable variables into life. Having children is messy and risky, opening the door to kinds of suffering to which non-parents will be forever immune. The choice of sterility is infinitely neater and safer. Like a clean layer of asphalt instead of a garden, it makes no demands; but it doesn't give much back, either.

More from Stacy McCain:
What bothers me most about unthinking acceptance of the Contraceptive Culture is that it reflects a failure of imagination, and a death of hope. When I tell people that my wife and I have six children, the reaction is often disbelief: “How can you possibly cope? I can’t imagine it!” And yet we do, somehow.

We have never been rich and have often been quite poor, but we have hope, a hope informed by the knowledge that other people have overcome hardships far more difficult than our own, by a sense of duty to fulfill the obligations entrusted to us, and by the belief that God will give us no burden that we are incapable of carrying.

You may believe otherwise. But you ought to ask yourself why you believe what you believe.
 
Ideas have consequences, and the idea that families shouldn't have more than a couple of children is going to have some serious ones here in the US.

Related: Baby-boomers should have had more kids.

Most recent posts here.

5 comments:

  1. The writings of the neo-Malthusians of the 1960s and 1970s still dominate the thinking of many people. The demographic problems of the U.S. pale in comparison with the demographic problems in other developed countries. I doubt that even 25% of the population has any idea of what the fertility rates of Europe and the far East are, and what they imply for the future of Europe, Japan, and China. (At Japan's current fertility rate of 1.2, 100 parents today will produce a total of 22 great grandchildren. For them ZPG would require a massive increase in the number of babies.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recently re-read Paul Theroux's "Great Railway Bazaar". In his visit to India, he was struck by the plight of the hundreds or thousands of people he saw sleeping on the streets in every major city. Fully in the zeitgeist, he proclaims that the problem was that "India has too many people." Also in the same zeitgeist, I failed to be appalled at the racist callousness of that statement when I first read the book as a college student in the 1970s. But now it is easy to pull up population density numbers for all the countries in the world and see the shocking truth: India is something like #34! LESS densely populated than countries like Taiwan, or China, or the Netherlands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great article. great points.

    Problem is not only society but the governmental policies that force families to have both parents working. That tends to limit families on simple economic/time issues.

    The end game plan was drawn generations ago. We are like that chess player who knows he's done for in ten moves but is going through the motions anyway. All nations fail. Most from within. Welcome to our fate.

    I don't think we can turn it either. Too many greedy, spoiled, shallow and angry uneducated citizens. (See Wis)

    Hold your family close and hang on. This nation is going to act like the Posedidon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this post! It's incredible that so many government and tax policies are still anti-family. They should be offering huge incentives to working families who have lots of children.
    Mrs.P. (mom of 7)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love the thought of having more children (we just had baby number three), but it does seem like this day and age is designed to stack the deck against you financially. That probably won't stop us, but it's extremely disheartening when the price of living, gas, groceries, car payment on a needed van, and two student loan payments all pile up. That,and we've done a bang up job making sure contraception is free, but what about trying to ease the thousands of dollars worth of medical bills you get handed after you have a new baby? I can't tell you how many people my age (late twenties) have told me they'd love to have a baby or more babies but it's just too expensive. Makes my heart heavy for my generation.

    ReplyDelete

You can comment anonymously but please give yourself some kind of name. It makes discussion a lot easier. Thanks.