Pope Francis has raised the alarm about the demographic crisis and told millennials in Italy to stop being “selfish and egotistical” and to start families instead of substituting pets for children. Philip Pilkington has looked at the issue in the Telegraph and concluded the Pope is right. What’s more, immigration won’t solve the problem, he says, because it is a Ponzi scheme that fails to make a country younger. Here’s an excerpt.
It looks like the West is finally snapping out of its Malthusian trance and realising that it is in the process of falling off a demographic cliff. Conservative MP Miriam Cates has suggested that falling birth rates are the biggest threat to Western civilisation. She has called on the state to step in and encourage young people to start families by rewarding stay-at-home mums with tax breaks.
This sort of rhetoric is not popular on either the small government Right or the culturally radical Left. Small government conservatives simply do not want more state intervention in people’s lives, while the culturally radical hark back to 1960s era rhetoric against the stifling impact of the nuclear family.
Yet both would have a hard time arguing against the deleterious effects of an ageing population on society and the economy. If there are too many old people relative to young, then there will not be as many resources to go around.
The shrinking number of young people will have to work longer hours to maintain the same level of output and, as the number of older mouths to feed increases, they will be compensated less and less for their effort.
Already, the state pension is looking like it will soon be a thing of the past.
The solution floated by both the small government Right and the culturally radical Left is simple: immigration.
As the domestic population ages, they tell us, we can simply import workers from abroad. Any objection risks being branded xenophobic and sparking a row.
Yet the very terms of the debate are misaligned because most people making these arguments believe immigration can solve the problem of an aging population.
But the data are clear on this: it cannot. It may be able to address the decline in labour force growth, but that is a separate issue.
For evidence, look at the land of ‘fur babies’ decried by the Pope: Italy. The country has seen such a severe decline in its birth rate and over such a long period that it provides a perfect object of study.
Italy is a nation that has tried to immigrate its way out of its demographic problems, meaning we can fruitfully compare it with Japan, a country with similarly dire demographic problems but which is more averse to immigration.
The period that is worth looking at is between 2000 and 2013. Within this timeframe, Italy experienced a significant wave of migration. Over 3.72 million more immigrants arrived in Italy than emigrants left.
Over the same period, Japan’s net migration levels were half that, at 1.88 million. Consider also that Japan has over double the population of Italy, meaning that between 2000 and 2013, on a per capita basis, Italy saw almost four times as much net migration as Japan.
At the same time, Italy and Japan had roughly identical fertility rates. Italy’s total fertility rate stood at around 1.37 on average, while Japan’s was around 1.35.
The difference between the two is basically a rounding error, making the comparison extremely precise.
Now, if immigrants can indeed offset falling birth rates, we should see the median age of Italians rise much slower than the median age of Japanese in this period. After all, Italy had four times the number of net migrants on a per capita basis.
Do we see this? No. The Italian and Japanese median age move in lockstep. Italy’s larger number of migrants made no difference.
Philip suggests two reasons for this unexpected result: that migrants typically arrive in their 20s rather than at age zero like a baby, and second that migrants tend to assimilate to domestic birth rates.
A third reason may be chain migration, whereby migrants bring over older relatives, cancelling out any impact on average age.
“The reality is that there is simply no easy way out,” Philip concludes.
These issues were major talking points at the National Conservatism conference yesterday, with many speakers – including Suella Braverman, Louise Perry and Mary Harrington – talking on themes of lowering immigration and raising birth rates.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Ross Clark has noted in the Telegraph that the Conservatives are on track for a thumping election defeat in no small part due to upsetting everyone by constantly talking tough on immigration but never delivering:
There are votes to be won in reducing migration; there are some votes to be won (though almost certainly far fewer) in extolling the virtues of a liberal migration policy. What certainly won’t earn you votes is barking at migrants every five minutes, threatening deportation, establishing a ‘hostile environment’ – while simultaneously practising a policy of mass migration. That just makes a Government look silly and ineffectual.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well the Pope can piss off for a start. Covid fanatic.
Certainly don’t want mass immigration to “solve” any “crisis”.
I’m not sure I really want the government to try and “solve” this “crisis” either. I think we’ve had enough “crises” for a while – most/all of them have been CREATED by governments.
As a small government conservative I would not be totally opposed to some tax incentives and other support for people to start families, though I would prefer if an increase in birth rates could be achieved by increased economic prosperity which would enable us to pay people enough money to afford childcare or more stay at home parenting.
Quite agree. And what an unhelpful and idiotic thing to come out with. How is it remotely ”selfish” or ”egotistical” to make a choice not to reproduce? Prat! I can well imagine he used the very same derogatory insults for people who declined the toxic jib jabs. And has anybody actually done a survey and asked young Italians why they’re deciding not to breed? And where do ”fur babies” come into it FGS? I can certainly hazard a guess that ever-growing costs of living and extortionate childcare rates have a lot to do with it but selfishness? Nope. The Pope can bugger off. We’ve had the measure of him for quite some time now.
The problem begins with allowing women into the workforce
Make that forcing. Freed from the horrors of childcare and tending a home so that they could become office drones with even less control over how they spend their time. That’s one of the great lies of the 20th century.
You don’t think women should be allowed to do paid work?
Are you a member of the Taliban?
You don’t think women should be allowed to do paid work?
I suggest you have a look at the second part of this:
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/i2l/par-tar.html
which describes the nice universe prior to the so-called liberation of women. Poor women have always been allowed (should again be forced, BTW) to do all kinds of highly exploitative, miserably paid and seriously unhealthy crap jobs (same as poor men, BTW^2). It’s just that the social ideal was that women from sufficiently well-to-do families should not have to do this. This also included that it was considered commes ils faut for children to grow up in families instead of being handed over to emotionally distant professional child herders (armed with PCR test kits, FWIW) at the earliest possible opportunity.
The real issue which LM is probably referring to was the originally Roman notion of the pater familias being the head of a family, ie, all other members being legally subject to him, eg, married women not being allowed to take up paid work unless their husbands agreed with that.
I do not think anybody should be allowed to decide for me, as an adult human being, whether I do paid work or not.
It’s a matter for me and my husband to decide what’s best for me and my family. Not you, or the state, or the church, or anyone else.
I can’t believe I am actually having this argument.
Well said.
Did you read the text you claim to be replying to? Or did you just press ‘play’ to let the pre-recorded tape handed to you at some point in time in the past run once again?
Here’s a Wikiedia article about the inventor of the concept of modern programming languages, BTW. For some strange reason, she gets never celebrated for that. Wrong kind of woman, I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
What kind of a man finds women working problematic? Not a real one, that’s for damned certain! lol
I really have no idea! It’s rather bizarre.
“The problem begins with allowing women into the workforce”
The problem begins with allowing women to be teachers, doctors, nurses, care workers, dentists, dental assistants, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, pharmacists, shopkeepers, shop assistants, receptionists, secretaries, office workers, IT workers, technical support workers, sales persons, engineers, hairdressers, social workers, solicitors, caterers, cooks, waitresses, bar staff, managers, supervisors, cleaners, architects, veterinarians, occupational therapists, factory workers, librarians, opticians, actors, directors, producers, artists, designers, musicians, creatives, entertainers, MPs, councillors…
You think it would be better if women stayed at home and men did all these jobs instead? Seriously!
How is it remotely ”selfish” or ”egotistical” to make a choice not to reproduce?
Assuming you ever want to stop working on some sort of pension, you’ll either have done your bit to ensure stable population levels and thus, incoming money for your pension, or you will be relying on somebody else to have done that. No matter what their theoretical kind is, all pension systems rely on the working age population generating enough wealth to feed themselves, raise children and feed pensioners.
Trying to shame people into getting children is obviously unhelpful, as they’re usually rather victims than masters of their circumstance, but factually, the statement is correct.
No, calling people selfish and egotistical for not having kids is not factually correct. You are inferring that people should procreate for the ”greater good” of society, as opposed to making a very grown-up, well-considered decision to bring another human into the world which will be life-changing and you will need to commit to this responsibility for many years to come, which just so happens to involve various sacrifices along the way. And the Pope doesn’t even have any flaming kids so he’s a fine one to talk!
Are you a parent?
No, calling people selfish and egotistical for not having kids is not factually correct. You are inferring that people should procreate for the ”greater good” of society
I wrote that people without children drawing pensions rely on the work of other people’s children to finance that. No greater good of society here, sorry.
As to the Are you a parent?, no, I’m not. This means – technically – I called myself selfish. My exuse, however, is that this human – human relationship stuff is way too mysterious for me to have a strong desire to have more disaster partnerships with forever alien people and I think that’s a tolerably good one.
I suppose the taxes that childless people have paid throughout their lifetime to support and educate other people’s children count for nothing.
In theory, that’s a good point. In practice, this matters only morally. By the time said childless people actually draw a pension, the taxes they did pay are all gone and their needs must be financed with taxes of other people.
“And the Pope doesn’t even have any flaming kids…”
None that we know of.
I’m not sure it needs subsidy. Just stop the penalties snd stop the propaganda against parents staying at home for their kids.
I’m certainly not overly keen on “subsidies”
Is it a Ponzi scheme? Don’t those require all new participants to pay in to the scheme? Studies in Norway and The Netherlands have shown that only immigrants from other developed countries make a net contribution to the public finances.
After 26 years of by far the highest immigration in our history we’ve got the highest tax rates for decades, massive public debt and a rapidly crumbling infrastructure.
Tax incentives for mothers?
Anyone who thinks bureaucratic gymnastics is going to solve people’s lack of desire to have children knows nothing about humanity or nature at large.
“Civilised” humans have fewer babies for the same reason that certain animals struggle to procreate in zoos and in captivity.
Modern, over regulated, over controlled, society creates unfree, slavish beings who lose natural faculties and instincts.
Want to create a population boom? Create a freer society in which people actually have to fend for themselves.
Removing the state pension will certainly result in people having more children.
Immigration isn’t the Ponzi Scheme. Immigrant labourers contributing to our tax base to lay the foundations of our State Pension is the Ponzi Scheme.
For the state pension system to work effectively and to not bankrupt the nation, the working population contributing tax needs to be greater than the population drawing the state pension.
All pension ‘contributions’ are paid immediately to the current generation of pensioners.
The state saves NOTHING for your pension and relies entirely on the next generation of workers paying taxes to support the retired population.
Immigration isn’t the solution if a state wants future workers in 20 to 30 years to support its increasing numbers of dependent old people. The solution would seem to be to decrease the numbers of old people. Was covid a means to that end? Are the excess deaths in younger working people an unintended consequence? Are immigration and covid two separate issues?
A low birth rate is not a problem for the culture itself in the short term. I’m sure that even Japan’s and Italy’s populations will stabilise at a lower level within a few generations, with birth rates returning to replacement rate. But by that time Japan will still very much look like Japan; Italy will not. Maybe it is Japan that is taking the long term view.
Before politicians reach either for pro-immigration or for pro-natal policies maybe they should ask themselves whether they are pursuing policies that would give would-be parents the confidence that:
o they can afford a house within which they can raise a family comfortably. And not only be able to afford a flat, due to money printing pushing up house prices and depressing real salaries, and immigration reducing the supply of housing per capita.
o they can afford a diet for their family rich in meat and healthy foods. And not have to live on seed oils and crickets.
o they can afford a car that runs reliably on cheap fossil fuels.
o that their children will not be subject to trans, gay, or pro promiscuity propaganda in school, and generally that the wishes of parents will be respected.
o that there will be a countryside left for the children to romp around in, and not filled with area consuming wind turbines and solar panels.
o that their children can enjoy and take pride in themselves as Brits and in British culture.
o that their children will not be encouraged to take medical products they do not need.
o that they will be safe, and not victims of crime, which is disproportionately committed by immigrants to this country.
Maybe if people felt that they had some control over their lives, and, collectively, their national destiny, they would feel more confident about the future.
All that aside, smart immigration that focussed on very highly skilled labour – and I mean 140+ IQ engineering Phds – not specialist kebab chefs or even nurses – can be highly beneficial in raising overall productivity. These things are easy to test for (just an 11+ type test online will do, with verification at a later stage), which must mean that it’s impossible for the civil service to implement.
The problem with pro-natal policies is two-fold; that families also require lots of resources, and secondly that the wrong people will have more children, brutally put. The problem with immigration policies as is, is that there is insufficient quality selection.
Excellent post, Jon. I concur. It would be interesting to know just what kind of effect these last few crazy years, and all that individuals have had to endure as a result, has impacted their decision making in starting a family. It would not surprise me at all if this has put many people off, probably from a practical perspective more than anything, such as financial hardships and future uncertainty, negative impact on health etc. Then there’s the ever-increasing amount of switched on people that can actually see the state of the world now and what is happening, just as we sceptics can on here regarding all the things we constantly talk about.
People need to have a certain confidence in the society they live in and the security they have to offer a child before deciding to have a baby and I think the rug has been pulled from under so many young people’s feet now, as well as scales falling from their eyes, e.g the growing threat of the woke and trans ideologies, the lack of trust in government and even health authorities etc going forward, financial uncertainty, constant threat of another plandemic always near, free speech under threat, 15min cities…the list goes on. You can’t remove kids from their surroundings and bring them up in a bubble so I’ll bet the general sense of unrest and growing lack of distrust in authority has a lot to do with it. Let’s face it, societies in the West are nothing like they were even 5 years ago and there’s nothing to show me that things are going to improve anytime soon. Quite the opposite in fact.
Thanks. My children were born about 10 years ago. Whilst I was reasonably based then I didn’t know how bad things would get. Who did? Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing.
A friend of mine and his wife are trying to have a baby. Although not as black pilled as I am he admits that he has had doubts about it. We both agree that the gears of history are turning and not in a good direction.
They are mid forties and not had any success yet. (Both jabbed, for travel, and in his case also work, you see; I kept my mouth shut. Of course, at that age it was never going to be easy.)
But hey ho, each generation have their own problems, and whilst it is hard to have perspective whilst one is in the middle of it, we mustn’t think that we have it uniquely badly.
No one should have children because they ought to. That’s a recipe for unloved children that are liable to be just as much a burden as the retired. The only good reason for having a child is that you really want one.
In 1950s, the German pension scheme was changed from being a form of basic poor relief for old people with little or no other means of sustaining themselves to a much more generous one supposed to enable pensioners to have some decent years of live in retirement after a lifetime spent with working. This was specifically based on the notion that people will always have sex with each other and thus, will always have children as well, Kinder kriegen die Leute immer, to use the famous Adenauer quote in support of this change (People will always have children).
Unfortunately, such schemes are entirely unworkable when people usually don’t get children and a statement like the above needs to be honest about it: Retirement is for rich people. Other’s will have to work until they’re physcially unable to and then become beggars. But thankfully, nobody was forced to raise any …. disgusting children … perish the thought! They’re terribly bad for the climate, anyway.
Are you proposing that people should be pressured into having children they don’t want so they can support old age pensioners?
I’m just pointing out the inevitable consequences of your anti-life stance: Bluntly put, it means pension for you at my expense, no pension for me. Times a few hundered millions for all the other mes who are presently paying into the system but have no realistic hope of ever getting anything out of it. And that’s just an almost short-term practical consideration.
More generally, regarding your stance that it would be somehow ok to hate one’s own children by default, that’s just sick.
How did you get from “you should only have children because you want them” to “somehow ok to hate one’s own children by default”. That is bizarre reasoning.
And no I don’t agree that you need to make people have children to support a decent state pension.
How did you get from “you should only have children because you want them” to “somehow ok to hate one’s own children by default”. That is bizarre reasoning.
I got there from Not taking contraceptive poison pills is a recipe for unloved children, which was your claim that letting nature run its course wrt human reproduction must result in children their parents hate, hate being the opposite of love. Hating one’s own offspring is a pathoglogical reaction.
Gosh – your mind moves unlike any other I know.
I claim that avoid contraception and don’t want children there is a risk you may end up children you do not love (that is not the same as hating them). I certainly don’t think this is “ok”.
Spot on.
The promoters clearly want chain immigration and a lower domestic birth rate, the faster to replace the population do much hated by the political class.
even the premise is wrong. Longer living people are often capable of working longer and more would do so if tax and benefit systems were neutral on the matter.
having spent so much on the NHS over the years the surprise is so many are considered incapable of work.
having spent so much on the NHS over the years the surprise is so many are still alive
Fixed it for you.
Our children have to pay the Robber Baron’s rent
stuck in a doom loop
The only people who would want to have children in a third world cesspit are third worlders or
the sight of Britain’s institutions being deconstructed, violent crime rocketing and public services collapsing and the government not following its own laws is hardly conducive for faith in the future which is required when deciding to have children.
Ross Clark is wrong: when it comes to immigration (and a great deal else) the Government doesn’t look silly and ineffectual …… it looks untrustworthy and duplicitous. Which is exactly what it is.
This country doesn’t value children. It never really has, but the attitude towards children has got far worse in recent decades. They are seen as a problem to be managed, rather than a blessing to be valued.
And who on earth would want to bring a child into the world when the State has assumed almost complete control over their upbringing – indoctrinating them with State propaganda almost from birth.