Dispense with God, then dispense with children
There is an interesting article by Tom Bethell in the American Spectator about the demographic suicide the wealthy nations are currently committing. An excerpt:
I believe that two interacting factors shape population growth or decline: economic prosperity and belief in God. As to the first, there is no doubt that rising material prosperity discourages additional children. Fewer infants die; large families are no longer needed to support older parents. The welfare state—which only rich countries can afford—has greatly compounded this effect. When people believe that the government will take care of them, pay their pensions and treat their maladies, children do seem less essential.
A rise in prosperity also encourages people to think that they can dispense with God. Religion diminishes when wealth increases—that’s my theory. But with a twist that I shall come to. Wealth generates independence, including independence from God, or (if you will) Providence. God is gradually forgotten, then assumed not to exist. This will tend to drive childbearing down even further. Hedonism will become predominant. Remember, Jesus warned that it’s the rich, not the poor, who are at spiritual hazard.
The Bible consistently warns about the dangers of money, and we can see a primary reason for these warnings in the actions of modern man. Those who are best able to provide for children – the wealthy – are the least likely to want to actually have children. Money breeds selfishness, and the more money one has, the more likely he is to put his own comfort and desires above all else, thus killing the desire to care for others. In the end, this leads to cultural suicide.
I don’t know where this wealth is that you talk about. The couples in our extended family who are only having one child are doing so because they cannot afford day care and they cannot afford to have only one parent working. These people do not live lavish lifestyles.
We have 4 children and I stayed at home almost full time until they were all in school. We were able to do that because we lived on a farm and we could raise most of our own food. The children and I wore mostly hand-me downs and we made do for almost everything else. I am now paying for that time outside of the work force, people don’t like to hire old ladies. My husband had a negative income last year (welcome to farming) and it is harder and harder for me to find work. If you asked me my favourite memory of the years my children were young, I can easily tell you. It is all of us gathered around the table for a noon meal, but I think my husband and I will be paying for that memory soon if I can’t find a permanent job and we end up with nothing.
We would have had many more children if we could have afforded to raise them. As well, you couldn’t find a more religious man than my husband. However, we had to face facts after four, that we couldn’t afford to raise any more.
A high GDP means nothing when the cost of everything is increasing. I don’t know how people who don’t raise their own food feed their families these days or keep their houses warm.
It is easy for highly paid ideologues to sat back and make pronouncements which would see women forced to produce child after child for lack of birth control, or see parents dependent on their children in their old age because they haven’t been able to prepare for their retirement. As a parent who is potentially in that situation let me tell you that is not acceptable.
It would be much better if governments would start to see families and child care as important and valuable. They would then put in the financial and social supports which are needed to bring up the birth rates.
Kathryn,
I recognize the fact that there are individual families that have true economic hardships. Also, I greatly respect the sacrifices you have endured in order to raise your children – our society does little to recognize such sacrifices, but I am sure the Lord will reward you greatly for them.
However, the reality is that our country has wealth in a manner unimaginable in previous generations. In my own county (Montgomery County, Maryland) I see constant reminders of this wealth – expensive cars, large houses, and nice clothes. Yet I also see few families with more than 2 children.
Two examples will make my point.
Over a decade ago, I was working an entry-level job for a computer company and my wife was due with our first child. I mentioned to my boss that my wife would be leaving the workforce when the baby was born. My boss immediately remarked how he wished he could afford to have his wife stop working. Yet this same man had a much higher salary than me (he was my boss, after all), he drove a nice car and had a large house (and only two children). I, on the other hand, lived in a small apartment and drove an old beater of a car. It wasn’t that my boss couldn’t afford to have a one-income family to feed and clothe his children – he couldn’t afford to have a one-income family to maintain his current lifestyle (which would not be called “lavish” by most people, but I consider it such).
Another example. A friend of mine was once helping a father who had a hard time keeping a job and couldn’t support his family very well. When my friend suggested to him that he cancel his cable TV, he was aghast and wouldn’t even consider it. He had a hard time feeding his kids but he wouldn’t cancel his cable television!
Whereas I know there are real hardships out there, the statistics and my own experiences make clear that we are the richest nation in history yet we pretend we can’t have more than 1-2 children. The problem isn’t that the costs of necessities have risen faster than our income; the problem is that our definition of “necessities” has grown.