The Report, February 3, 2003, p. 51
The unfolding extinction of western Europeans shows the fallibility of the infallible
By TED & VIRGINIA BYFIELD
All through our lives, from our
distant youth onward, people of our generation were repeatedly warned of a dire
circumstance threatening the world. It was called "the population explosion,"
and the warnings came from unimpeachable sourcesearth scientists, demographers, and
economists, men whose authority one dared not challenge. Their message was always the
By the 1980s, or at the latest some time in the 21st century, they predicted, vital
resources would run out, massive starvation beset the world and people perish by the
millions. The cause of this doom was that the human race was having far too many children.
Organizations such as Planned Parenthood, therefore, deployed their forces about the
globe, wildly wielding contraceptives and frantically opening abortion mills in a
desperate effort to save humanity.
Many took their message to heart. Single men in North America voluntarily opted to be
vasectomized, ostensibly to escape personal responsibility for the coming disaster.
Parents would announce the advent of unplanned children with undisguised shame. "We
may have one, possibly two, but certainly no more," newlyweds would typically vow,
convinced that any more hungry young mouths would constitute wanton excess.
But now, it turns out, all this was balderdash. The experts, we are told, were dead
wrong, and the problem is the precise reverse. There's a critical threat all right, but it
stems from too few babies, not too many, and the process is rapidly reaching a point of no
In Europe, where birth rates are far below replacement levels, the Caucasian race may
soon become a beleaguered minority or vanish entirely. Already, workforces cannot be
maintained, economies are imperiled, and the most massive migration since the fall of the
Roman Empire is replacing the missing Caucasians with Middle-Eastern workers. Since these
continue having numerous children, Europe's democracies in the not-very-distant future
will yield to Muslim autocracies and her great cathedrals become mosques. Europeans prefer
not to talk about this. A French teacher was actually prosecuted for asking her students
to calculate the date when France would have a Muslim majority. The newspapers covered the
storybut did not reveal their conclusions.
Canada, with a birth rate 15% to 20% below replacement level,
also must maintain heavy immigration. U.S. figures are much the same, although complicated
by an avalanche of Latino "illegals." Illegal or no, however, they are necessary
to the U.S. economy.
Four recent books on the subject are reviewed in the current issue of Touchstone
magazine by Leon ]. Podles, one of the magazine's senior editors.* The
figures he quotes are more startling than ever. To maintain zero-population growth, women
of childbearing age must have an average of 2.1 children, but Spain and Italylowest
in Europeare now down to 1.2. In Canada, the province of Quebec is a prime contender
for the world's lowest birth rate, but the city of Bologna in Italy, at 0.8, probably
still retains that title. And there are other ominous trends. In Vienna, Austria, for
example, half the population is single.
The inevitable effects are indeed striking. As our population ages,
the proportion of
seniors expands while the proportion of people who must support them diminishes. Newcomers
brought in to do this jobreplacing, in effect, our own non-existent
childrenwill soon constitute a majority. But these replacements may not remain all
that keen about providing massive tax subsidies for elderly Caucasians.
Meanwhile, our social planners are beginning to ask themselves why people, especially
women, do not want to have children. Here are a few possible explanations:
- Because for 50 years we have employed every possible instrument of social propaganda to
persuade women to embrace careers, which usually limit them to one child or none.
- Because our entire social apparatus emphasizes material well being as
"success," and raising children erodes material well being.
- Because hare-brained "anti-spanking zealots work to prohibit effective discipline
of children, which makes raising them extraordinarily difficult.
- Because teachers are encouraged to undermine parental authority in sex-education
- Because divorce has been de-stigmatized and made into a common occurrence easily
acquired, thereby depriving the family of the social support it has received in every
- Because wage levels and job opportunities no longer favour heads of families.
- Because State funding continues to support anti-birth lobby groups, although their
efforts are socially detrimental and destructive.
Most serious of all is the pervasive anti-Christian bias of most of the media and at
every government level. The greatest incentive for having children comes from the belief
that they constitute a precious gift from God. No God means no children, which is why
birth rates follow church-attendance rates downward. But failure to recognize God also
entails divine judgment, as surely as effect follows cause. In this century, we may
discover to our sorrow just what that means.
*A Question of Numbers, by Michael
S. Teitelbaum and Jay Winter; Hill & Wang, New York.
Death of the West, by Patrick J. Buchanan; St. Martin's Press, New York. World
Population Prospects, United Nations Publications, New York. The New Christendom:
the Coming Global Christianity, by Philip Jenkins; Oxford University Press, New York.
- The latest figures for Canada show a much more serious extent of the
shortfall of the Canadian 'birth rate'. StatCan reported that, with an average of 1.49
children born to each Canadian woman during her fertile years (age 15 - 49), the fertility
rate of Canadian women had in the year 2000 fallen to an all-time low. With a fertility
rate of 2.1 children per woman being required to maintain population levels, that puts the
shortfall in the fertility rate at 29% for Canada. (The Daily,
2002 09 26, StatCan).
In 1999 the Canadian fertility rate was at 1.52.
Is the world overpopulated?
If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a
touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal
share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have
98.6m2 of land to live on.
Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three
would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and
a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.
- Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
- World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source:
CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)
It is obvious that the world's population density will be
the controlling factor. Is that a problem? Will people any time soon
be standing on each other's shoulders?
How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world
population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state
the size of Texas, even if we divide the whole population into families of
three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?
The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population
Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?
||February 3, 2003
Copyright © 2003
United Western Communications Ltd.
All Rights Reserved.
Index to more article from The Report
Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth,
by Angry Harry (Off-Site)
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free