April 04, 2006
Sullivan, desperate arguments...
Andrew Sullivan has a strange bit of madness I just had to address. He writes:
One of the emerging memes on the social right is that you judge a society by its fertility rate.
Misleading. But that is indeed one of the factors we use in "judging" societies, because it seems to be very meaningful
...It's argued that Western Europe is a failure because its population is aging and will soon begin falling; ditto Russia and Japan. The implication is that modern secularism, with its encouragement of individual freedom, ignores the injunction to go forth and multiply, and is thereby doomed to the dustbin of history.
This is the OBVIOUS implication of what we are seeing. Let's see if Sullivan comes up with some actual arguments against this, rather than just waving it away with his hand...
...But check out this interesting graphic of reproduction rates. Look where the highest birth-rates are: Niger, Yemen, Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, Afghanistan, to name a few. A quick hands up: who wants to move there?
The argument is NOT about where one might want to live. And nobody denies that the highest birth-rates are found in poor and backward countries. But think for a moment about living somewhere where you don't see many children, and where most of those you do see have no idea what it's like to have siblings, cousins, uncles or aunts. That's what Italy and Spain are becoming like. Think of lonely old people, think of no youth movements of renewal and new beginnings and crazy optimism...I'm not sure that war-torn Afghanistan, full of poor but bright-eyed children, doesn't look better to me...I think I might rather chose to live there.
...At one end, high birth rates are an indication of social collapse and desperation:
High birth rates are associated with backwards societies, but that's not "social collapse."
...people are having kids in order to maximize their survival chances. Maybe there is some spiritual benefit to living in such dire need, but I fail to see a simple connection between high birth rates and social health.
The claim is NOT that living in dire need is spiritually beneficial, but that there may be spiritual pathologies associated with societies with birth rates below replacement. Pathologies associated with prosperity.
...In fact, declining birth-rates are almost always a sign of economic and social success, not failure, as we're seeing in China and India.
It's true that "declining birth-rates are almost always a sign of economic and social success," but that doesn't address the question of whether too much such success can ultimately destroy some societies. Or maybe all societies. And China has HORRIBLE demographic problems looming on its horizon.
... As long as the infrastructure exists for maintaining economic growth, the number of people in a given society is not that important an issue. Fewer may well be better.
Infrastructure? Huh? What? Infrastructure does not create economic growth, people do. Sullivan is writing economic nonsense. Germany, France and their neighbors currently have almost no economic growth. And this at a time when the world's economy as a whole is growing strongly. Their percentage of the world's GDP is shrinking. And no NEW products or industries are being created in Western Europe. (Can Sullivan POSSIBLY be this ignorant of economics? Not only does nfrastructure not bring growth, it doesn't bring stability--your state-of-the-art floppy disc factory turns into an economic negative in no time at all.
...I'd rather live in Germany than Kazakhstan, wouldn't you?
The comparison of Germany and Kazakhstan means nothing; Germany is coasting on the momentum of a past in which people worked hard, invested, had lots of children, and went to church. But arguably it is also now entering a death spiral, and has no future at all. I myself would rather live in India than Germany. India has a future, and is becoming more and more alive and exciting!
...Yes, there comes a point at which demographic imbalance with too many old people can strain a system.
Strain? You fool, all Western European countries are BANKRUPT! There is no possibility they can meet their un-funded pension and old-age liabilities, and even minor reform is now politically impossible.
...But this is a transitional problem, not a permanent predicament.
Transitional!! What madness. Transition to WHAT? What, PRECISELY, Mr Sullivan, is going to slow the downward trend?
....Wealthier societies with fewer people and continued growth are - or should be - a goal for most of us, not a threat.
Growth? What growth? Where is it going to come from? Your magical "infrastructure?"
...They help spread wealth more widely, will eventually ease environmental strain, and make for more comfortable living in a less crowded Western Europe or Japan.
No, they are already a drag on the world's economy, and there's nothing comfortable about a world of lonely old people growing ever poorer. And words cannot convey my contempt for that environmental argument. Maybe Sullivan should join with Pianka in hoping for airborn Ebola to kill billions!
...Numbers don't equal wealth or military power, given technology and the new brain-driven engines of economic growth.
No numbers don't equal it. But youth and growth and entrepreneurial energy and a focus on the future DO. And that's what Sullivan's "comfortable" societies don't have.
...Instead of bemoaning population decline, why not celebrate it?
Sullivan's predicament is patent. His only issue is Gay Marriage. However sincere and well-meaning he may be, in pursuit of it he has allied himself with people who seek to destroy traditional institutions, such as families, churches and community groups, because they wish to ATOMIZE people, in order to make them dependent on government, to further the advance of socialism. (Ironically, they have mostly forgotten what goal it is they pursue. They are no longer socialist revolutionaries, but the destructive meme lives on and on,)
Sullivan can neither ignore this issue (which condemns his crew starkly) nor does he dare try to make a rational case against it. He is waving it away with a flip of his hand. But the problem is not going to go away.
Sullivan, as usual, is grinding his own tiny ax (or whatever). He's not likely to "go forth and multiply" anytime soon so he gets defensive whenever anyone suggests such a practice should be lauded as socially useful. He's such a transparent prisoner of his own sexual preferences I've long sense given up taking his views seriously-–on anything?
Posted by: Frank at April 4, 2006 01:31 PMJohn,
I think you're a bit harsh on ol' Andrew. I agree that he kinda went off the deep end a few years ago, when he put gay marriage ahead of the War on Terror, impelling him to endorse Kerry for President. (Yuck.) I haven't read his site for at least a year-- I hope he hasn't gone utterly bonkers. At one time he was a font of good sense on many issues. Maybe one day he will be so again.
I think right now he's under the spell of the meme pushed by some homosexuals that heterosexuals are "breeders", and because heterosexuality is (to them) "yucky" therefore children are also "yucky" and are devoutly to be avoided as drains on one's finances, time, and "psychic wealth".
So, I don't think Andrew's latest ramblings are due to him being uninformed as being (again) unable to think beyond his genitalia.
What a shame.
Posted by: Hale Adams at April 4, 2006 04:10 PMI dunno Hale, your take sounds worse than mine. That "breeders" stuff is SICK. Twisted. The guy has a mother after all, and two grandmothers...
Posted by: John Weidner at April 4, 2006 06:09 PMThe "breeders" thing is only as sick as you want to make it. Our best friends are a gay couple, and we'll frequently play cards, "fags vs. breeders"...doesn't have to have any meaning unless someone gives it meaning.
There are certainly militant anti-straight gays out there, no doubt, but in my experience, it's not really that common. Probably more militant folk per capita than in the general population - but most gay folks I run across want to be left the hell alone, to live their lives like anyone else would want. And when trouble comes, to have some sort of recognition for their relationships so they can visit one another in the hospital and maybe get default rights in probate court and such. Most aren't asking for much - no more than most "breeders" want...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at April 5, 2006 05:48 AMYou are right of course. We live in San Francisco, and have lots of gay friends and aquaintances.
An odd thing happened recently. Charlene was doing some estate-planning for a couple we are friends with. They were worried about a tax problem in passing their house if one of them died. After a good bit of research, it turns out that California has a Domestic Partners Law...and none of us had ever heard of it!
Posted by: John Weidner at April 5, 2006 06:58 AM"It's argued that Western Europe is a failure because its population is aging . . . "
No, Sullivan. You have the causation backward. You don't have a cold because you are hacking, sneezing, and coughing. You are hacking, sneezing and coughing because you have a cold. And Europe's population is ageing because its economic and social policies are failing. The ailment appears to be much more serious than a cold.
If Europe were failing because its population is ageing, then logically Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, and Afghanistan must be succeeding because their populations are growing. Anybody who argued in favor of the initial premise of that sentence would logically have to explain why it leads to such a ridiculous conclusion. But no sensible person is arguing in favor of that premise. The ridiculous conclusion is just another indication that the initial premise is backwards.
I read science fiction. I can imagine a healthy society with a falling population. For example, imagine a society in which:
-- average lifespan is about 200 years.
-- retirement is mandatory at age 50. But retirement benefits are minimal and last only until age 60.
-- savings over ages 0 - 50 can be used only for education or as capital for new ventures, not for normal living expenses or any form of conspicuous consumption.
-- people in their 50s are expected to be at school, earning a degree in some entirely different area from their previous work.
-- people start new careers at age 60.
-- retirement is mandatory at age 100. But retirement benefits are minimal and last only until age 110. At age 100, you go back to school again.
-- retirement is not mandatory at age 150. And retirement benefits are minimal. People are expected to live on the accumulated savings from their three careers.
Science fiction stories have been set in wierder societies than that one. I'm not arguing in favor of any such set-up; I'm just pointing out from yet another angle that Sullivan starts his discussion by getting the causation backward. GIGO.
Posted by: Prof. Willard at April 5, 2006 11:40 AMAs it is, if you can save 20% of your gross income, invest it at just 6%, in 30 years you'll never have to work again. Adjust that time down for better returns, up for inflation, and the thought of having to work from 60 to 100 and from 110 to 150 is crazy...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at April 5, 2006 02:12 PMSo perhaps your first job will be in the merchant marine, working up to be the captain of a billionaire's yacht, something along the lines of the British royals' HMS Britannia. And when you retire from your last job, you buy the Britannia and hire somebody else as captain to do the worrying. I doubt that the accumulated savings from 30 years' 20% of income would cover that for very many people.
Or perhaps your second job will be in the Peace Corps, and your third job in the Starship Troopers. And all the while the money from your first job keeps compounding at 6% until you buy something more modest than the Britannia: a Miami Beach mansion to retire in and a 50-foot cabin cruiser to go fishing.
I can think of lots more ways to spend three careers worth of money, if I try. But none of this discussion affects my original point: Arthur Sullivan's blog piece is garbage in, garbage out because he got the causation backward.
Posted by: Prof.Willard at April 6, 2006 10:32 AMAgreed on Sullivan.
But my ambition isn't to own a shipping line - I want lots of money so I can see the world, spend time with my wife, and learn stuff. If 30 years of work could provide me with that, I'd definitely spend the other 150 years reading, traveling and spending time with my family. But God love you, enjoy your ships!
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at April 6, 2006 11:00 AM
