The Western Baby Bust

Who Will the Leaders Lead?

By Eric Metaxas Published on August 10, 2017

A recurring topic here at BreakPoint is the demographic challenge — “crisis” isn’t too strong a word — facing the industrialized world. From Tokyo to London, people are having fewer and fewer children: In some cases, they’re having barely half as many kids as are needed to maintain a stable population without relying on mass immigration.

This “birth dearth,” as it’s called, poses economic and social challenges to much of Europe, as well as Japan, South Korea and even China.

The impact of this “birth dearth” is not lost on European leaders and their counterparts in Asia. They’ve gone to extreme, and even comical lengths, to reverse the trend. Last year, we told you about the Danish government’s “Do it for Denmark” ad campaign. Russia offered women who had a second child not only money but also “cars, refrigerators, and other prizes.”

Singapore even went so far as to establish a government-run dating service in a bid to increase one of the lowest fertility rates in the developed world.

Not surprisingly, few, if any, of these measures met with much success. It could scarcely be otherwise since, especially in Europe, the message from leaders seems to be, “do as we say, not as we do.”

As George Weigel noted in First Things magazine, the leaders of four of Europe’s five largest economies are childless: Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Theresa May, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni. The sole exception is Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who has an increasingly un-European two children.

This childlessness isn’t limited to Europe’s “Big 5.” The leaders of the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxemburg are also childless, as is the President of the European Union.

This spate of childlessness among European leaders brings to mind something Oscar Wilde’s character Lady Bracknell once said: “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

Similarly, while it’s not unheard of for a political leader to be childless — for instance, George Washington — when an entire generation of leaders is childless, something else is probably going on.

As Weigel tells us, the “childlessness in this elite cohort certainly has different causes, given the diverse personalities involved.” For some of them, their “their childlessness [is] a sorrow — although none seems to have taken the option of adopting children.”

But for the other leaders, their childlessness is a “stark illustration” of what Weigel calls “Europe’s demographic suicide.” According to the historian Niall Ferguson, Europe’s low birth rates have put it on track for “the greatest sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death in the fourteenth century.”

Yet not even Europe’s leaders seem concerned enough about the looming catastrophe to have children themselves.

Weigel, taking his cue from Pope John Paul II, draws a line between Europe’s “self-chosen sterility” and its “rapidly accelerating embrace of euthanasia.” Both manifestations of what John Paul II called the “culture of death” represent what Weigel calls a “a colossal evangelical failure.”

By “evangelical failure,” Weigel, a Catholic, means a failure to preach the Gospel and unapologetically proclaim what Christianity has to say about what human beings should aspire to: self-giving, not self-aggrandizement.

Only this proclamation stands any chance of inspiring Europeans “to reject demographic suicide and rediscover the joy of creating the future through having children.” Without it, all the future holds is leaders with no one to follow them.

 

 

Originally published on BreakPoint.org: BreakPoint Commentaries. Republished with permission of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Mensa Member

    This is actually a good argument for increasing immigration – especially young migrants who pay into Social Security and Medicare during the Baby Boom bump.

    The Baby Boomers paid in double — for themselves and and their grandparents who were literally grandfathered into the programs.

    Countries with older populations (like Japan) who restrict immigration have structural economic and lobor problems that aren’t fixable without new blood coming in.

    • BetterYet

      Pay in !!??? Maybe 40-50 years ago but not today. The majority are on welfare!!! The immigrants of today head straight for the “safety net” gravy train. This is the main reason that Brexit is happening. The Muslims migrants in France demand it as if it is a type of “Jizyah”. They have no intention of getting off government support. Youth unemployment in Italy where most of these “immigrants” arrive is at 42% (2016 stats). Exactly what are these young migrants going to do to “Pay in?”. Do your research first before you make another “Pollyanna” comment.

  • Mensa Member

    These kind of articles uncomfortably echo fertility cults of old.

  • Karen

    Apparently my comment from earlier was not approved. There is a perfect 1:1 correlation between the number of illiterate women in a country and its birth rate. That is, countries with the lowest number of women who can read have the highest birth rate. So, if you want to increase the birth rate you should not teach your daughters to read.

    • Andrew Mason

      There also appears to be a correlation between Atheism and birthrate. The more religious a country is the fewer children are born. Those with the highest rates are countries which don’t subscribe to Atheism. As for embracing migrants as a substitute for having children, the Left hates the West’s history of colonialism and the introduction of modernity to the rest of the globe. Paradoxically it supports the colonisation of the West and the introduction of barbarism. Double standard much? In short the Left hates the West and supports anything that will destroy it.

Inspiration
Covetous? Who, Me?
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us