By Selwyn Duke

While the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding was good
cinema, it was also a big fat Hollywood fiction.  With Greece’s fertility rate of 1.36 children
per woman — well below the replacement level of 2.1 — “big” is not a modifier
demographers would associate with today’s Greek families.  In fact, a more accurate film might be called
My Big Fat Muslim Wedding. 

Worse still, Greece is no
anomaly.  Long ago the cradle of Western
civilization and more recently one of its backwaters, it’s now part of a
phalanx of Western demographic failures. 
In fact, while it may seem counterintuitive to those weaned on the stuff
of Malthusian nightmares, the West is facing a population implosion of historic
proportions.  And the statistics are
staggering.  As I wrote when reviewing
the documentary Demographic Winter last year:

. . . the
number of children in the world is already declining . . . .  Birthrates are now below replacement level .
. . in approximately 70 countries; in Western Europe, the figure is 1.38, and
in northern Italy and parts of Spain it is below 1.  As a result, Europe's 65-year-olds now
outnumber her 14-year-olds, and one German province had to close 220 schools in
2006.  Children were present in 80
percent of U.S. households a century ago; that number is now 32 percent.

Although pondering demographic
malaise conjures up the image of sterile Western swingers, note that this
phenomenon is, in a measure, manifesting itself worldwide.  Take Eastern Europe, for example.  Russia, with its birthrate of 1.4 children per
woman, is experiencing a population decrease of 700,000 a year.  With an even lower birthrate of 1.22, some
Lithuanian officials are concerned about the eventual disappearance of their
population.  And this is mirrored in
other Eastern European nations; Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Czech Republic
and the rest are all turning in similar numbers.

The picture is no better in
developed Asian nations.  Although
they’re still stuffing people into Tokyo subway cars like sardines, Japan’s
rapidly graying population contracts with a birthrate of 1.22.  South Koreans may have far more reason to
bring children into the world than Kim Jong-il’s captives, but their 1.2 still
can’t match the latter’s 2.0.  And Hong
Kong, not to be outdone — but perhaps soon undone — comes in second to last in
the world with a birthrate of 1 even (only Macau ranks lower).

Even more surprisingly, the
developing world is now following our lead. 
For example, Uruguay, Kazakhstan and Algeria have birthrates of,
respectively, 1.94, 1.88 and 1.82.  And
while millions of illegal aliens still stream across our sieve-like southern border,
believe it or not, even Mexico’s birthrate is plummeting muy rapido.  As professional
demographers have been telling us since the 1970s, the whole world is poised to
experience a demographic winter. 

Yet, isn’t this good news?  Aren’t we dodging a real-life Soylent Green
scenario of cramped, elbow-to-elbow living, strained resources and wilderness
existing only in memory?  This certainly
has been the prevailing view for quite some time now, but there is another,
more ominous side to this story.  To
quote demographer Phillip Longman, “The ongoing global decline in human
birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and
the future of society in the 21st century.”

Let’s first discuss economic
implications.  Normally, a civilization
can be represented with a population pyramid standing right-side-up, with the
youngest people at the bottom and the age increasing as you move up (okay,
we’ll forget pharaoh buried underneath). 
So the aged would be at the very top, with lots of youngsters down below
to do civilization’s heavy lifting.

When birthrates collapse,
however, this pyramid is turned on its head, with the elderly outnumbering the
very young.  This usually means hardship,
as the young often have to care for their elders.  Specifically, though, in our nation it means
that the burden of paying an ever-increasing social security bill will fall on
ever-dwindling young shoulders.  Worse
still, it can create a vicious circle: as the young pay progressively higher
taxes, the financial strain makes it even less likely that they will have
children.  It’s a recipe for the winding
down of a civilization toward the nadir of non-existence. 

Yet there are problems even when
social programs are removed from the equation. 
The young and vibrant are the worker bees; they are the inventors,
innovators and creators of wealth.  They
drive the economy.  Of course, the
elderly may take jobs out of necessity or boredom, but they can match the
economic engine of a peak-working-years population little more than they could
match it on the athletic field.  This is
part of the reason why famed economist Adam Smith taught that decreasing
population correlates with economic depression.

Now we come to the death of the
West.  Many of you know that Libyan
strongman Muammar Gaddafi, the face of 1980’s terrorism, has been relatively
well-behaved for nigh on 25 years now. 
Of course, this may be because Ronald Reagan effected a bomb-induced
attitude adjustment in 1986.  Yet, such
punitive action, while sometimes necessary, seldom yields a permanent change in
behavior without a permanent change in vital signs.  It didn’t scare Saddam Hussein or the Taliban
sufficiently, that’s for sure.  (Of
course, they don’t wear
dresses, either.)  But is faint-heartedness
on the part of Gaddafi the reason?  Or is
there another factor?  Well, a clue can
possibly be found in something he once said:

“There are signs that Allah
will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without
conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50
million Muslims will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Is this Gaddafi wearing pragmatist’s
clothes?  Perhaps he realizes that the
West is voluntarily committing civilizational suicide, and all he need do is
stay out of its way.

If so, he simply notes what civilizations
from the good to the bad to the ugly always have understood, that their success
largely hinges upon their ability to replenish that invaluable resource:
people.  For example, the ancient Romans
at one point became obsessed with the idea that they weren’t creating enough
babies; Joseph Stalin, hardly a pro-lifer, outlawed abortion; and the Nazis had
their Lebensborn program.  And even today governments are taking note of
the problem.  To name a handful, Russia,
Poland, France and an Italian town are offering citizens substantial monetary
incentives (i.e., cash and sometimes tax breaks) to be fruitful and multiply.  Yet it isn’t working — and for good reason: a
cultural problem cannot be solved with a political solution.  Why, even demographically correct Augustus
Caesar, who wielded absolute power, could not remedy the birth dearth among
Roman nobility.      

This almost universal concern
is warranted because a people is like a species: a failure to reproduce leads
to extinction.  Now, this doesn’t mean
that neutron bomb-like cityscapes lie in the West’s future.  More likely is that its peoples will be dominated
— and supplanted — by other cultures.  Oh,
its new master may not be Islam; it may be China, India or, even more likely,
different groups in different parts of the West.  The point is that while the Third World and
Asia are following in our footsteps, they are far healthier demographically and
may be able to recover.  But we may soon
be at the point of no return.

Now the question is, does this
matter?  If you listen to the left, our
demographic demise is something to be ignored when possible and applauded when
not.  As Kathryn Joyce did in an
incredibly snide and stupid article titled “Missing:
The ‘Right’ Babies,” the concern about the West’s baby bust is often chalked up
to just “old-fashioned race panic.”  The left’s
implication is that cultural suicide is our civilization’s comeuppance. 

The irony of this is that the
people extinguishing themselves are
leftists, people who aren’t enlightened enough to understand that their
“enlightened” values will die with them. 
Whether tomorrow brings us a Chinese hegemon, a worldwide caliphate or,
more likely, a bipolar or multi-polar world, it may be a place ruled neither by
the virtues of Christendom nor the values of those crucifying her.  For when the people who birthed political
correctness disappear, they won’t be able to reproduce it any more than little baby
libertines.  Of course, also true is that
the West’s glorious triumphs, such as its unprecedented respect for human
rights, would also fade into history.

And this is something mature
people consider.  Would the world be a
better place with China as the dominant force? 
If you have trouble with that one, ponder how the Chinese are currently raping
Africa as they zealously exploit the continent’s resources.  They are making European colonialism look
beneficent.

Mature people also do something
else — they acknowledge facts.  And what
bothers me about the current debate over population is the steadfast refusal to
do so.  If you believe that man is a pox
upon the planet, be forthcoming.  If you
think he needs to cut his numbers by 90 percent, make your case.  If you want a “Planetary Regime” to control
world population — which Obama’s science czar John Holdren wrote about
— stand and be counted.  But, as liberal
icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions,
but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” 
Before debating where we should go, there must be an acknowledgement of
where we are.

And where is this?  It’s a phase civilizations have seen before,
eerily illuminated by setting suns of their own design.  For example, even 2000 years ago, Greek
weddings weren’t all that big and fat. 
As Greek historian Polybius wrote circa 140 B.C. when lamenting his civilization’s
decline,

“In our time, all Greece was
visited by a dearth of children and general decay of population . . . .  This evil grew upon us rapidly, and without
attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to the passion for show and
money and the pleasures of an idle life.”

When I ponder our materialism,
promiscuity, frivolity and selfishness, our abortion-mill archipelago that
churns with Nazi-like efficiency, it occurs to me that perhaps the leftists are
right — just not for the reasons they think. 
It’s not sins of our past that haunt us but those of our present, and maybe
the euthanizing of Western civilization is, after all, our comeuppance.

                          © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved