I think you are right that there are racist undertones to the fear of not having enough children born in western Europe. There is a real problem though in countries with low birth rates suronding the question of how to support their ageing populations. No matter what the population in the world is, only Germans pay into the system to suport Germans and Italians pay into the system to support Italians and so on. If their are less people in those countries those countries will have a harder time supporting their population under the current system. Not to say increasing birth rates is the only or even the best solution to this problem but it is an obvious one. I think its interesting to compare western European countries with the United States. The U.S. birth rate is flat/barely increasing. An important reason why the U.S. is not facing the same problems or at least not to the same degree is the amount of immigration. Despite this, immigrants are often seen as leaching off of the U.S. economy when in fact they are a large part of what supports it. This defently has to do with racism. I think this is also a question of perspective. As a member of a particular country underpopulation might be a problem. As a member of the world it defently is not. Seeing how the Cathlic church is suposed to represent Cathlics every where and not just Europe I agree it does seem detached and racist. Many Cathlics live in countries where underpopulation is defently not a problem and whom have much more serious things to deal w/ then not having enough babies (so to Cathlics in European countries for that matter). I could swear it was only a few years ago people were afraid of overpopulation and now underpopulation is a fear too. I wonder exactly what the population is "suposed" to do?

There are definitely racist undertones to the "low birth rate" or "demographic winter" rhetoric, as outlined very nicely in this article. It's interesting that the "low birth rate" fear-mongering only concerns white, mostly European families, and often the same people who think western European birth rates are too low also think that the birth rates in developing countries are too high.

When it comes to birth rates, I don't care about the relative birth rates of people with different ethnic backgrounds.

I do care about the relative birth rates of people with different beliefs. In a democracy, there are two (legal) ways to increase your political power: change the minds of people who already exist, or add people to the population that agree with you. The latter takes more time, but it's a lot more reliable. If you want to turn someone into a religious fanatic willing to kill people in the name of Zeus, it's a lot easier to start with a child than with an adult that already has opinions of his own.

In Israel, ultra-Orthodox Jews have maintained a birth rate of more than eight children per family for explicitly political reasons.

In the long run, democracy amounts to rule by the fertile. If fanatics have far more children than sane people, and the children of fanatics are very likely to be fanatics themselves, eventually the fanatics become a majority and they vote themselves a de facto theocracy.

(Birth rates aren't the only relevant factor, though. One can also add people to a democracy through immigration. Just invite in a few million people from [insert region here] in the hope that they'll vote for the candidates that you want to win.)

Environmentally, it's better for developed nations to have lower birth rates than developing countries.

I've read that the most important factor responsible for decreasing birth rates is the educational advancement of women and not birth control.

The main benefit of birth control was that it allowed women to DELAY pregnancy. It's other factors such as economic conditions, perceived or real opportunities (or lack thereof), social climate, religious beliefs, access to resources, etc that have more to do with the NUMBER of babies women have.

Barring religion fanaticism, the places with the highest birth rates also have high infant mortality...and that makes sense. If you have to have 6 babies in order to have 2 or 3 to survive into adulthood to take care of you when you are elderly, that's what people will do.

Also despite common thinking, women tend to "assimilate" in just 1 generation in terms of birth rates, at least in the USA. That is, after just 1 generation, folks have roughly the same number of babies as everybody else, when you control for other social factors.

Western economies will have to change and become more agile and efficient. For example, no wonder Italy's birthrate is so low: when you can't afford to move out of your parent's house until you are 30, what do you expect? Italy is home to the oldest 1st time parents in Europe; it ranks lower than other countries too in terms of division of labor within the home---with Italian women still expected to do the lion's share of domestic work. That's a place to start right there, Catholic church!

Why is it "racist" for people in European or Western countries (and only European or Western countries, apparently) to be concerned about low birthrates? Why would it be "racist" even if it were explicitly predicated on race? Whites are only about 8% of the world's population. Generally, concern for the existence and survival of people like oneself or with whom one feels some sort of kinship or connection is pretty common. People can feel concern even for the existence and cultures of groups other than one's own that are threatened as well. If people were saying that there are too many of some other people, that someone else's birthrates are too high, then I might see racism there.

You're suggesting that it is racist for anyone to be concerned that there will be fewer white people in the world. That almost seems racist itself, as though you are suggesting that there ought to be fewer white people.

I totally noticed this issue when I read that article. I think that the quote betrayed a strange kind of nationistic fervour which *could* have racist ideas in it. It's worth pointing out, and deserves some more discussion with more information.

I would like to point out that it is incorrect to take the words of this man and ascribe them to "the Church", or "the Pope", which are already common mistakes people make.

The Austrian scientist,Karl Djerassi, is just some guy whose "regret" over the Pill is being exploited as an opportunity to make the case, yet again, against it. Also, "the Vatican" did not publish this, the newpaper of the Vatican City did. These are fine distinctions, and do not negate discussion, but they are important.

Also, when the original article was discussed on the main page of Feministing, it was pointed out that it is also unscientific to say that just because no studies have proved it conclusively, something can't possibly be true.

It is a distinct possibility that the hormones from many sources that have flooded our daily environment are having an impact on fertility. Unfortunately, this would be a phenomenon that is has so many complex factors -- and thus, many many potential controls-- that it is difficult to study, particularly as the effects seem to be manifesting only slowly over time, as fertility problems are on the rise.

So, you know, let's not let the overwhelming need to defend the Pill get in the way of reasonable thinking. As someone said on the other thread, the real issue is that none of the birth control options are all that great, and none are good for everyone.

I think European states have a concern about "who's paying retirement plan for the baby boomers"; the Pope just would clutch at any straw about birth control.
On the other hand, in Europe there is indeed a growing racism, both against different skin colors and different ethnies; I remember (an italian) describing someone else she had seen as "looking albanian" which is of course complete BS, as albanians and italians look precisely the same.

@saintcatherine: "none of the birth control options are all that great": they are still way better then no birth control.
The Djerassi quote and the argument about the fertility issues both come from the same declaration for a Cardinal, not just an article in a paper.
Finally, with all the hormones we are giving animals, it is indeed difficult to track the impact of the pill. Let me remind you that several kids around one year of age have developed breasts because of eating hormone-tainted beef; as far as I know, no one is eating slaughtered women. At least I hope so.

Hello all, I'm a long time lurker and this is my first time actually commenting.

Have you guys heard about birthrate problems in Ukraine/Russia? Those countries actually are losing population due to low birthrates, emigration and health problems. I saw an article where the Russian government actually has these creepy state-sponsored summer camps for kids that encourage them to have more children.

Check it out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471324/Sex-motherland-Russian-youths-encouraged-procreate-camp.html

It absolutely IS racism, tinged with an undertone of sexism. They're saying the exact same thing here in Japan. The birth rate is falling, and the government is panicked because they might just have to allow for more immigration, and SHOCK- more WOMEN in the workplace! The old farts (average age:70) in the diet are bemoaning that women will "have to" begin filling up the working ranks and will "neglect their familial duties". What they don't understand is that women WANT to work, and are sick and tired of being thought of as nothing more than baby making machines. Women in record numbers are delaying marriage, some even declaring they'll never get married at all. The government is in a panic, and doing everything from offering cash to couples who have a child to poster campaigns showing women with cute babies and urging men to help out more at home. I'm quite interested to see what will happen next.

If you're looking fo an explicitly racist article on this subject, it's right here: http://catholicexchange.com/2009/01/19/115154/

What I don't get is that it never really explains why we should have children; it just says that all our reasons for not having children are stupid. Sigh.

Pro-natalism has always been a tool of racism. Hitler did it. Mussolini did it. Yes, it is a question of "overwhelming" the opposition. And the solution to "who will take care of the elderly or pay for the services they need through taxes" is simple: more immigrants from countries with a population with a lower average age. That will take care of it. There are millions of immigrants desperate to come to the West. We get people who pay their own airfare, are educated, will not cost us a dime in education, have saved us 18 years of health care expenses, and bring their own kids. What's not to like? Only racists have a problem with this solution.

ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT IT IS RACIST FOR WHITE PEOPLE TO WANT TO PRESERVE THEIR CULTURE IS A RACIST PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EVERY CULTURE AND RACE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXIST AND WE ARE DECLINING SO RAPIDLY THAT LITERALLY WITHIN 200 YEARS WE WILL BE NO MORE. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONVINCED YOU THAT SOMEHOW NOT WANTING TO BECOME EXTINCT IS A RACIST POINT OF VIEW ARE THE REAL RACISTS AND THEY WANT US GONE!

You are such a sign of western degeneration.
I guess that should not be unexpected given the blog title.

I agree with Lisamet, being concerned with your ethnies self-destruction is a morally admirable. But then I am a conservationist and I try to prevent group extinctions.

Maybe you have never traveled much outside of the west. If you do and you actually live for a few years in the so -called third world, you will see that the comparative vitality of many of these people lies in there interest in their group wellbeing and immunity to hyper-liberalism. Try Any pacific Asia and Middle East Nation/ethny.

As for the church and racism. Unfortunately, the Catholic church is not interesting in European stock. It is only interesting in its group -- ie. Other catholics.

This is why when the pope visited the the US, he advocated for immigration reform. http://ncronline.org/node/11737 Ie. Hispanic Catholics.

Europe however is not being colonized by catholic latinos but by Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe Check the projections sections.

So, unless your ideology is only informed by reading of the Nytimes or other echo chambers, it is clear you are wrong here, and you clearly do not know much about world politics, social psychology ie inter group competition, history, sociobiology, and apparently have not lived abroad extensively -- outside of the West, or what use to be the West.

And please don't give the Catholics Church more credit then it deserves.