Thursday, June 14, 2007

Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part I)

Back to Steven's comment. He had written that Catholicism will be the "rallying cry against civilizational suicide". To motivate this he brought up the Catholic Church's firm position against birth control. He wrote:

Witness the stubborn "obtuse" orthodoxy when everyone, most other churches included, caved in concerning the issue of birth control.

[...]

Practically alone, the Church showed courage on the very issue that has become the number one cause of what now is called "civilizational suicide" vis-a-vis the Muslim invasion, which is hardly an invasion at all, but a necessary replacement of missing human beings, required to keep our economies (all that matters these days - let's be honest!) afloat.

Civilizational suicide would still be underway full force even without the Muslims...

Let's get some background for the issue. Europe's share of the world population was 21.7% in 1950, and is projected to be 6.8% in 2050 (in 1995 it was 12.7%). At the same time Africa's population is estimated to grow from 8.9% in 1950 to 21.8% in 2050.






Just to be clear: When I talk about saving us from civilizational suicide I talk about saving European civilization. This higher, well-organized civilization of beautiful art and respect for the individual is intimately tied to the survival of ethnic Europeans and their societies. I do not consider a massive baby boom in Latin America as saving our civilization. I do not consider a mass conversion of Africans to Catholicism as saving our civilization (no matter how welcome that would be in itself, by excluding Islam). It's all about Europe and people of European decent.

Breaking down the position of Steven regarding birth control and birth rate, we get the following:
  1. That low birth rate is the main cause of our civilizational suicide
  2. That the Catholic stance against birth control is the cure
  3. That this cure must work
I will show that all three premises above are false. I will start with addressing the first premise:

The Catholic and liberal position of open borders and multiculturalism leads to mass immigration of Muslims. It is easy to show that it's not the low birth rates, but the mass immigration of the Muslims combined with the demographic effect of exponential growth by breeding that is killing us.

To show this I made three tables in Excel. As a starting point we have a European country with 5% Muslims and 95% of the native population. In this model Muslims are getting 4 children per family and always import their spouse from abroad. This means they are quadrupling in each generation. 4 children per family makes for a doubling, and the importation of spouses makes for yet another doubling. This is a simplification. Spouse importation will be at 2/3 or 3/4, not 100%. But on the other hand the assumption in this model is that there will be no other Muslim immigration. The native population is assumed to have a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.0, which makes them stay the same size generation after generation. For simplicity each born individual is assumed to reach fertile age, otherwise a TFR 2.1 would have been needed for replacement. It's further assumed that a person dies after three generations. The Muslims are represented in the left column called Quadr, and the native population in the column called TFR=2. Each row represents a new generation.

Quadr
TFR=2
5 5,0% 95 95,0%
20 17,4% 95 82,6%
80 45,7% 95 54,3%

Read the table in the following way: We assume that the population of this country is 10 million people at the starting point. So 5% Muslims makes 500,000; native population 9,500,000. From now on read the figures as hundred thousand people. The 20 for the next Muslim generation thus represents 2,000,000 people. Which give a total population of (20+95)*100,000 = 11,500,000 people. For the sake of simplicity we drop the multiplication with 100,000 on both sides. 20+95 = 115. And 20 out of 115 makes 17.4%.

We see that with a Muslim minority of 5% we could expect close to half the population (45.7%) being Muslim in two generations. And a Muslim generation is short, less than 25 years, since the women give birth to children early. The model neither accounts for all the native Europeans who will escape their country during the process. If that had been taken in account the Muslims would have been in clear majority after 50 years, if they are 5% now, and current immigration, and "integration", policies are continued.

According to Steven the low birth rates is the "number one cause" of our civilizational suicide. The current European Union average of TFR is 1.5. Basing our calculation on that, using the same model we get:

Quadr
TFR=1.5
5 5,0% 95 95,0%
20 18,7% 87 81,3%
80 54,4% 67 45,6%

We see that if we compare the tables that the low birth rate is killing us very slowly, while Muslim immigration+demography is killing is very quickly. After one generation it will have marginal effect if we stay at the current low fertility rate of 1.5 in Europe or if we increase it to replacement level. In Steven's save-our-civilization scenario we would have pushed down the share of Muslims to 17.4% instead of 18.7% with the current trend of low birth rates. And after two generations of Muslim immigration, with ensuing demographic effects, we are doomed anyway, regardless of whether our own fertility rate is 1.5 or 2.0. Or 2.5 as in the table below, which I added to show that even if we increase our birth rates substantially so that we actually grow again in a healthy way.

Quadr
TFR=2.5
5 5,0% 95 95,0%
20 16,3% 103 83,7%
80 40,0% 120 60,0%

Wow, only 16.3% Muslims in the next generation if we start breeding like Mark Steyn, Steven and the Catholic Church urges us to do (together with their position of neglecting the effect of the open borders policies). And we are equally doomed in two generations...

Muslim mass immigration is the black death. Low birth rates is a flue in comparison. Which one would you consider urgent to cure? Which one will kill us?

Birth rates fluctuate quite a lot. We had another period of low birth rates e.g. in the 1920s. And even in the extreme case of ignoring the problem for another generation, we would be fully capable of reversing the effect of it. However, with the Muslim invasion, it has already caused us sever damage, and in one generation it would already be way beyond repair. And the way to repair it is not for us to have more children. People who think so are narrow-minded and completely clueless.

(to be continued)

6 comments:

Robin said...

Hello CS,

It's only part I, I know, but so far you're neglecting to consider that the reason Europe is pulling in so many immigrants in the first place to to bring in new blood to support the aging population.

I think it will be impossible to successfully block immigration as long as the West continues its trend to below replacement level fertility.

Conservative Swede said...

Robin,

There are so many erroneous assumptions in your comment that I could write several long articles about it too, quite as I decided to do when replying to Steven.

But I confine myself to the following comments:

1. The way to successfully stop immigration is to stop it. Why is that so hard to understand?

2. We import illiterate and hostile people from the third world and pay them to breed faster here than they would at home (see part 2), and tax ourselves so heavily that we breed less. How was this helping us when we get older, you said?

3. The whole argument you are using, about "new blood to support the aging population" etc., is pure bullshit. Look at the kind of immigrants we are getting. Are they going to pay our pensions? The elites feed us with this crap, along with the crap about cultural enrichment etc., since it helps them promoting their agenda of destruction of the West. So why are they doing this? Since it enhances their feeling of goodness according the inversion of values of Christian ethics. Haven't you heard them saying both how much we gain from this third world immigration (economically and culturally), while at the same time talking about it as a burden that has to be shared among Western countries. These two things are fully contradicting. These people do not speak sense at all. It is the mentality of Christian good works: we win from it morally speaking because it makes us feel like saints (based on inversion of values) while it is a burden that we want to be shared so that all Western countries act as good Christians and commit cultural suicide.

4. Protestant countries (as shown in part 2) need no import of people whatsoever. America and Scandinavia are doing all fine without importing people.

Linda said...

You may also visit at birth control pills and birth control to know more about birth control pills, patches, methods and options available.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Robin, your point is flawed because immigrants take more from the government than pay in taxes already according to some study I read. They're a net drain on the EU economies and here's something funny. The UK still has work permits for Romanians. They do take hundreds of thousands of Africans and Pakistani though. Most young ethnic Romanians are more or less fluent in English(especially the ones who want to emigrate) and we actually work. We are both European and Christian and we wouldn't get on the dole to have 6 children per woman. The EU 'elite' is fairly open about why they're doing it. Besides, the population is aging because it gets supported by the young. For example, if I stay in my country I will never afford more than one child if I'm going to be a middle class member because I'm getting taxed to death to support the old people(who outnumber the people who actually work and those working in the private sector are about 1/3 of the retired people).

And no, it's not impossible. You do away with immigration and retirement provisions and that's that. Who had kids will have their kids to take care of them, who didn't - tough luck. I hope you enjoyed your youth since you didn't reproduce. The whole low birth rate thing comes partly from public retirement since people are allowed to leech on the children of others.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I forgot to mention, do you calculate the costs that immigrants bring? Besides the welfare, healthcare and other stuff the government gives them, do you consider the crowded infrastructure, for example? The same is with the 'health and youthful' Mexicants in the US.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Ha, I forgot yet another thing. Here is a point I made over at Mangan's when Outland told me that Muslims are just 500,000 and there are 8 million ethnic Dutch people.

"The mean age of the ethnic Dutch is what? 40ish? This means that half of the Dutch won't have any more children. The mathematics go like this. The average European woman has 1.5 children at around age 30. The average Muslim woman has 3 in her early 20s(there are groups of non-Europeans who average numbers like 7 children per woman - obviously whose upbringing is paid by idiotic Europeans). If you take a group of ten European(five couples), they will have 7.5 children, 5.625 grandchildren and 4.218 great grandchildren in 60 years. 10 Muslim couples will have 30 children, 90 grandchildren, 270 great grandchildren and 810 great great grandchildren in the same time frame. Taking this into account, in 60 years, with the current fertility levels, there will be only 3,375,000 ethnic Dutch in the last generation. In the same time frame, there will be 3,796,875 Muslims in the last generation in the Netherlands. I did this considering 8 million Dutch being fertile and having the fertility rate that Europeans have(the Netherlands has 1.77, but you have to discount the increase by the minorities that have more kids) and 750,000 Muslims. This with immigration at zero and discounting other minority groups because there are less than 8 million ethnic Dutch that can still have children."
Most people have problems understanding the exponential function and the demographic lag...