No Babies? Declining Population in Europe

No Babies? Declining Population in Europe

A Dying Breed? As the birthrate in European countries drops well below the “replacement rate” – that is, an average of 2.1 children born to every woman - the declining population will first be felt in the playgrounds.

It has been going on for a long while, since the '60s. Guenter Glass, the novelist, wrote a book about the shrinking German population, predicting that by 2050, relatively few would be left.
The eneration after the war had children, but the next did not, preferring to enjoy their creature comforts. Many houses were built as three-generation houses, but, at least in the area near an American air base, they were more and more rented to Americans for the money. For the children had no children. Houses were built, but for one’s own amusement, to be left, perhaps to a nephew or niece. There is, I think, a deep pessimism in the country, based on an unexpressed atheism and the feeling that they have nothing to pass on, nothing worth passing on.

Can’t help wondering if, in the case of Germany, this is some sort of spiritual backlash for the genocide committed by the Nazis…

Wow. That’s an interesting take.Good food for thought & for the future of our own society in the States.

Might someone know where the “unexpressed atheism and the feeling that they have nothing to pass on, nothing worth passing on” come from?

First off, the idea that replacement levels are going down all over Europe are just lies said so often that everyone believes them. France is now raising up in population:

Also with more people living longer and moving into cities, it is natural to have less children. That is a sign your society is advanced and has good medical technology. Nigeria has one of the highest birthrates in the world, but since over half of the children die before they reach 10 and more still die before 25, their population numbers in the end pretty much even out with western nations. Also one has to consider that population growth numbers were also very low in Europe in the early 20th century and went up again over time (population growths have always been cycles worldwide, you have periods of large increases and periods of low growth) Plus one must also factor in the large amount of taxes that people are burdened with, and also keep in mind that nations like Morocco and Turkey and Algeria have even lower birthrates today than any nation in Europe.

On the contrary, declining European birthrates have been well documented. The article linked above talks up France’s national policies which are aimed at encouraging births. And that’s a good thing. But the article also notes that France’s birthrate is 1.9, the second highest in Europe, and still below the replacement level of 2.1.

Still, I won’t argue with progress. If Europeans won’t have babies, immigrants will.

Who says immigrants will? The birthrate of 2nd generation immigrants in both America and Europe adjusts to that of the host nation, no matter what country they are imported from. Karl Keating even made note of this a few years back in his newsletter.

Well, I think it is a cyclic demographic trend, population increases to the current rate, than expect a dramatic drop, then by next century expect another rise. In the end though, the traditionalists and those who believe in the family will outproduce everyone and they shall inherit this earth.

From the referenced article . . .

In Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages
Ireland: 1.99
France: 1.90
Norway: 1.81
Sweden 1.75
UK: 1.74
Netherlands: 1.73
Germany: 1.37
Italy: 1.33
Spain: 1.32
Greece: 1.29

That doesn’t look good.

So then, with immigrants dropping to below replacement level fertility after they are there, they will just have to keep bringing in immigrants continuously to avoid national suicide. Such a strategy will not, however, preserve national identity.

Agreed.Plus, the true replacement level is supposed to be higher than 2.1, per some experts.

Your assuming that replacement levels continue to drop. As I said earlier, birth rates are cycles that go up and down every few generations, Trends in the 1950’s assumed that this planet would be overpopulated and have something 25 billion people by the year 2000, and so just as they were wrong about that back then, people today panicking about the population doing the opposite effect are also wrong now.

So if we were wrong before we can never be right again? There are cycles, but sometimes the cycle is so profound it causes permanent changes in society. With declining birth rates and increasing immigration, some countries will be permanently changed.

I suggest everyone watch The Demographic Winter if they can.

Read this and understand there is not going to be any radical demographic change

Through communications comes understanding.

Are you saying an Islamic majority in “. . . Europe by the end of the century at the latest”, is not a radical change?

I’m not being sarcastic, I’m just asking a question in an attempt to understand your position. :slight_smile:

Here’s a full version of Kuper’s article for those who can’t be bothered with signing up with the FT.

The CIA have a website showing the fertility rate in every country (I’ve mentioned and linked to it many times here) - showing, amongst other things, that even the Islamic Republic of Iran is in a similar situation to Western Europe.

The really serious population flow problem affecting Europe is the massive movement westwards. Since Poland joined the EU in 2004, for example, around about a million Poles have moved to the UK alone.

It has to be said, though, that the Muslim preoccupation with calling virtually every boy Muhammad does lead to many people getting all sorts of weird ideas about Europe.

showing the fertility rate in every country (I’ve mentioned and linked to it many times here) - showing, amongst other things, that even the Islamic Republic of Iran is in a similar situation to Western Europe.

Thanks for the CIA website. I scanned the countries and the only European country I saw above the “replacement rate” was Greenland. The US is even, Canada is way down the list. I think “my people” are committing cultural suicide. :frowning:

The thing is that I think that the topic is of real importance and needs real consideration. It’s also not all a one-way argument - the US would have a population of about 1.5 billion if it had the population density of, say, the UK or Italy and the strain on resources (Italy and water, for example, or the eventual paving over of southern England) couldn’t just continue to increase as it once had. On the other hand, the age structure of the population is a serious problem.

Unfortunately, most conversations here, rather than looking at the social and economic forces behind the phenomenon tend to veer towards an obsession with a (supposed) Eurabia and never get much further.

There is no Islamic majority in anything other than Islamic nations and there won’t be either. At best, by century’s end, we will have the same percentages. To give you guys a perspective on this Islamic takeover paranoia, about 20 years a book published in France concluded there would be a takeover of France by the year 1999. And in 1999, not only did that takeover not happen, but the percentage actually decreased of immigrants in the total population.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit