June 28, 2005
"There aren't many examples of successful post-religious societies..."
I said in the comments in a recent post, that THE QUESTION, what may be THE big question that our world faces, is, 'Why is Europe dying?" It's much on my mind....
Mark Steyn, as always funny and serious at the same time, writes:
....It seemed faintly unbecoming for a Daily Telegraph columnist to protest about how much action he's getting, but, had I run into Mr Roberts in the Cheltenham singles bar, I would have endeavoured to explain that what's at issue is not which of us is getting more and better casual sex but whether it's an appropriate organising principle for society. Or at any rate whether a cult of non-procreative self-gratification is, as the eco-crazies like to say, "sustainable".Posted by John Weidner at June 28, 2005 07:54 AM | TrackBack
I was reminded of our Gloucestershire lad by some remarks Frank Field made at a Centre for Policy Studies seminar last week. The subject under debate was poverty and social disintegration, and pondering the collapse of civility in modern Britain Mr Field gave seven reasons. Number One, he said, was the decline of religion.
At that point, many Britons will simply have tuned out for the remaining six, and the more disapproving ones will be speculating darkly on whether, like yours truly and other uptight squares, he has "casual sex" issues. Religion is all but irrelevant to public discussion in the United Kingdom, and you'd have to search hard for an Anglican churchman prepared to argue in public, as Mr Field does, that material poverty derives from moral poverty.
But the point is: he's not wrong. There aren't many examples of successful post-religious societies. And, if one casts around the world today, one notices the two powers with the worst prospects are the ones most advanced in their post-religiosity. Russia will never recover from seven decades of Communism: its sickly menfolk have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis; its population shrinks by 100 every hour, and by 0.4 per cent every year, a rate certain to escalate as the smarter folks figure it's better to emigrate than get sucked down in the demographic death spiral.....
So if Russia is in a demographic death spiral, at what point does the society collapse so thoroughly that the land becomes a new land of opportunity?
I mean, either the country makes some fundamental changes or it dies out, right? So either it becomes more friendly to a growing population or it crashes and burns... and other countries move in to claim the land.
(As a note, I think something other than the above two scenarios will happen, something completely unthought of.)
Posted by: B. Durbin at June 29, 2005 03:48 PMI read somewhere recently that Siberia has lost 2 million people from emigration to European Russia or elesewhere. That's quite a vacuum when you are sitting next to China...
Posted by: John Weidner at June 30, 2005 08:54 AM
