A READER writes from Ireland:

 The Roman historian, Pliny the Younger in approximately 100 AD, uses the word ‘burden’ to describe the one-child “families” of the Roman élite. As you know, Augustus the first acknowledged Emperor of Rome, was never tired of urging the Roman élite to have children and to stop spending their time having fun with the girlfriends and boyfriends. Augustus even had his “Bachelor Tax” to encourage young men into procreation.

However his Bachelor Tax failed spectacularly. His Bachelor Tax was made unsuccessful by the following method. Tom would have his buddy’s sister Mary pretend to be his (Tom’s) wife. They would then gather up a group of local children. Tom would present Mary and the children as his “family” to the Roman Bachelor Tax office. Indeed there was a thriving ‘Hire a wife and children for the Bachelor Tax office’ black market to deceive the Roman Bachelor Tax officials.

Time has proven the leaders of Rome correct in their view of the danger of demographic decline.

— Comments —

Rick Darby writes:

Laura writes:

You have mischaracterized the reader’s words. He didn’t say anything like, “Breed, breed, breed.” People who favor population control always present this false dilemma. It is either controlled breeding through artificial means or sheer uncontrolled reproduction and chaos.

The point of the economic arguments presented in the video — and economics should not be the primary issue here — is that the quality of life will decline and is declining because of the failure of human beings to reproduce. You can’t have it all. The facts presented are quite persuasive.

Let’s face it. When childlessness is valorized, it is not the poor of the world who stop having children, unless they are sterilized by Communists or the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates; it is the civilization-builders who stop having children. And that’s exactly why the reader from Ireland brought up Ancient Rome.

As for Ireland becoming a paved-over hell if married couples accept all the children that come their way, there are other possibilities. It is possible it will be a place of great monasteries, where celibates (celibacy was always viewed as the higher way by Catholic Ireland) pursue scholarly studies and the sort of charitable works that obviate the need for the welfare state. Perhaps Ireland would be less ugly than it already is. Perhaps it would even exude sanctity, which has its own aesthetic charm.

Your approach to this issue, it appears, is entirely within a naturalistic framework. Be honest about it. You don’t believe God has any power or inclination to make his will known or to affect world demographics himself, do you? Ain’t that a bit presumptuous?

There is still a whole, whole, whole lot of empty space on earth. Gee, look at North Dakota. It’s almost empty. Increasing the sheer numbers does not seem frightening in light of this fact.

Mr. Darby writes:

You write:

When childlessness is valorized, it is not the poor of the world who stop having children, unless they are sterilized by Communists or the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates; it is the civilization-builders who stop having children.

I’ve never heard of Communists sterilizing anyone, except in China, where population stabilization was essential for a modernizing country to stop adding too many more people to feed. Anyway, the “one child” policy was not primarily based on sterilization. It was meant to work through what you apparently favor — “controlled breeding through artificial means” as opposed to uncontrolled breeding. The Gateses advocate sterilization? I thought they were part of the idiot brigade whose cure for Third World poverty is women’s rights and education along with medical aid so 10 children out of every family instead of five add to the population.

I don’t much like the idea of forced sterilization or forced birth control, but the situation is so out of hand in places like sub-Saharan Africa that nothing less will avert catastrophe. Or stop rescuing them from the consequences of their own irresponsible breeding, let nature take its course and see how that plays out.

As for Ireland becoming a paved-over hell if married couples accept all the children that come their way, there are other possibilities. It is possible it will be a place of great monasteries, where celibates (celibacy was always viewed as the higher way by Catholic Ireland) pursue scholarly studies and the sort of charitable works that obviate the need for the welfare state.

I guess it’s possible, but it seems highly unlikely. For better or worse, Ireland is now part of today’s Western world where cultural Marxism and secularism rule. How about Cairo and Nairobi? Will they become centers of monasteries and hotbeds of celibacy?

There is still a whole, whole, whole lot of empty space on earth. Gee, look at North Dakota. It’s almost empty. Increasing the sheer numbers does not seem frightening in light of this fact.

The issue isn’t empty space or its lack. Most of that “empty” space is uninhabitable or supports population centers through agriculture, mining, etc.

You can’t just stick people into the places you think they should go, as if you are setting cans of beans on the grocery shelf.

Who is going to force the additional population to move to North Dakota? Will you move to North Dakota to make room for them where you now live? Experience shows that as population swells, it mainly floods into large urban areas or invades more prosperous countries. Is the tribal wife is going to say to her husband, “Now that we have another child on the way, that will be number — sorry, I’ve lost count — but for sure things are getting tight around here. How about we pack up and settle in the steppes of Siberia?”

Laura writes:

One correction: I don’t favor “controlled breeding through artificial means.” I said population alarmists typically present the choice as if it is between controlled breeding by artificial means (usually encouraged by social engineers) and chaos.

Yes, when I mentioned Communists engaging in coercive sterilization, I was thinking of China. But you’re right, it wasn’t sterilization so much as coercive abortions and birth control, which are essentially the same thing. By the way, the population density of China has been significantly exceeded by other Asian and European countries. In 1997, according to figures provided by the World Bank, the population density of Singapore was 14,369 per square mile, the Netherlands 1195, United Kingdom 628 and China 339. High levels of population density are not uniformly correlated with low economic output. According to Jacqueline Kasun, in her book The War Against Population, “There is no evidence that more densely settled countries tend to have lower levels of per capita income and output, despite what antinatalists claim. Some of the most densely settled countries in the world — such as former West Germany, the Netherlands and Japan — have very high levels of out put per capita… (Troubled Bangladesh is an exception.) China and India, on the other hand, with much lower population densities (similar to those of Pennsylvania and the United Kingdom, respectively) also have much lower levels of per capita output.”

I have written briefly about the efforts of the Gates Foundation to chemically sterilize people in the Third World here, here and here. The sad thing is, “family planning” leads to family breakdown. It’s a proven fact. In this country, the more family planners have tried to limit teen births through “family planning,” the more the illegitimacy and martial breakdown rates have soared. That’s what the Gates Foundation is bringing to the Third World: spiritual devastation, the loss of organic cultural development and the fracturing of basic human bonds.

You write, regarding Ireland:

I guess it’s possible, but it seems highly unlikely. For better or worse, Ireland is now part of today’s Western world where cultural Marxism and secularism rule.

You speak as if metaphysical developments are irreversible physical events. Obviously, if Ireland could move from Catholicism to Marxist secularism, it can move from Marxist secularism to Catholicism. And yes, absolutely: Cairo and Nairobi can share in the sublime truths and supernatural order that God has revealed (Indians and Africans already have) and have lots of Catholic monasteries too, without losing any of their cultural distinctiveness (in fact, they would gain in cultural life). [In any event, the dire predictions of population catastrophe in these places is simply not coming about.]

The issue isn’t empty space, you’re right, because human ingenuity is remarkable and can help populations adapt to all kinds of changes (and cope with various forms of suffering). However, anti-natalists often bring up concerns about environmental degradation. My point wasn’t that much of the world should be shipped to North Dakota, but we, in America, have abundant space to grow. And many other countries have open space too. New urban centers can arise in less developed places.

Laura writes:

As far as I know, there are no serious famines in Africa now. But there’s going to be plenty of suffering in the world no matter how many people there are.

Paul writes:

The number of assumptions of fact without evidence abound in response to the short article written to entice the reader to view a video I have not viewed.  A response naturally must be limited because of the abundance of assumptions and the patience of the readers.  The video-man said or implied, “We have to get those of breeding age to crank up the birthing assembly line,” correct?  Where?  We have to?  We must get them?  All those of breeding age?  This includes those who “drop their drawers” (as per Dr. Laura on radio) even though they cannot afford to engage in sex because they cannot feed their existing gifts?  No view on a major point—taxing bachelors—correct?  “Poor bachelors,” correct?

This can seem obnoxious, but it is the kind of thing one must be prepared to undergo when testifying; and the judge isn’t going to stop it until it becomes overly repetitive.

The Roman Catholic Church has been encouraging family planning for thousands of years, following its Old Testament history.  The presumably Roman Catholic author from Catholic Ireland was somehow without any knowledge of family planning, correct?

Laura writes:

The Church has encouraged families, not family planning.

Natural Family Planning, at best, can only be seen as an option when grave reasons interfere. As Pope Pius XII wrote:

“On married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”

See more here.

Please follow and like us: