asset derailment untransplanted chaperonage bemangle amnion endoscopy unintelligence
Karbala and the Imam Husayn in Persian and Indo-Muslim literature
http://www.id.org.za/

Hi all!

I must say I agree with some of the comments to the effect that having more children is not the answer the the diminishing birth rate.

I believe that the problem of diminishing population of first world countries should be addressed through immigration and integration of those immigrants; not through more births. Our tiny planet's resources are already stretched thin and there is no way we can support 15-20B people.

Unfortunately, I believe that first world nations will have to come to terms with the fact that their standards of living might diminish while the standards of living of poorer nations gets higher. That is the price we have to pay for letting the gap in the distribution of wealth grow so huge.

We all live on this tiny rock, we all have to share it.

Very good observation by Mr. Ikuma. The demographic collapse of first world societies may be the single most important issue they face. France's achievement in keeping births up parallels its achievement in generating most of its electricity with nuclear reactors. France needs to find a way to continue these strengths while creating more jobs (which can only be done through open-market methods).

As some commenters have noticed, the birth rates aren't as good as they look because they are partly the result of large Muslim families that have no intention of becoming French, getting educated, working productively, or creating wealth through enterprise. I know this because I've visited France lately and talked to some of them. They don't riot because they are "excluded" -- they riot against the state's efforts to assert its authority on their turf.

I have to say that I am stunned at the number of comments that equate high birth rates with viability. Do you all think that if we allow the population to continue to grow as it has, we will survive? Clean water - never mind petroleum - is already a problem in some places; what happens when the Earth's' population hits 10 billion? I understand that the average age in many countries is rapidly increasing, and that as 'baby boomers' age we will need to find a way to support them, but having more children is most certainly *not* the answer; that's just exacerbating the problem.

Dear Mr. Ikuma,

Although I agree that France's success in encouraging fertility should not be overlooked, I hardly think it implies a weakness in the "Anglo-Saxon model" of capitalism.

First of all, the economies you mentioned - Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea - are hardly considered examples of "Anglo-Saxon" market economies. All four of those economies are heavily corporatist, with the government supporting large "national champion" firms. All four have significant structural barriers to women's employment.

Better examples of the "Anglo-Saxon" system would include the UK, Canada, and Australia, which have fertility rates of about 1.6 or 1.7. Of course, there is also the U.S., which has a fertility rate of 2.1, as high or higher than France's.

The single most effective way to raise fertility in rich countries is to give women full economic opportunities, coupled with day care assistance. Societies that refuse to do this will wither away.

Fleur de Lys,
I am sorry if you thought i was laughing/mocking at you. No, i am not.

First off let me tell you that i am not even American - i am from India and i am working here. I can tell you from my experience in both the US and India, that the Government does favor families, declining birth rates or otherwise. I am not contesting that. What i do want to ask is where does the money for Government plans come from ? I dont completely understand what you mean by social revenues or collectivity's assets.

Also WWI was 90 years back.Does it make sense to continue with policies that may have been useful then ? I am all for social programs, but at what cost do they come ? Why dont we have individuals provide for their families with minimal Government assistance or better still reserving it for poorer people who may need it the most ?

I do not know if there is any means testing performed in France when it comes to giving citizens social benefits. It does not look like it.

Here in the US, we have come close to bankrupting Social Security and Medicare, two of the biggest government programs, with the dreams of a Great Society. The population here is about 300 million which makes the problem more difficult to solve without cutting benefits or raising taxes.

My point is that for all the good intentions of the Government, i would rather have individuals have the responsibility and the means to look after themselves as much as they can , so that the Govt can really help poor people. If the Govt can provide good infrastructure, schools, roads, security and maintain the rule of law it can spur economic activity in a country allowing its citizens to depend more on their own selves.

As far as the riots go, there might be some truth to the fact that poor immigrants feel French and there fore want to be a part of society. The question is, how does the native population feel about it ? By refusing to classify immigrants for the purpose of studying their condition/involvement in French society, I think France is losing a big opportunity for self introspection. There is no shame or racism, here. How are your new citizens doing in your country ?

By the way that question has almost always had a postive answer here in the US.

Fleur de Lys, I wish there were more people like you in the blogosphere. Thoughtful and gentle at the same time. Thanks for that.
But... of course I disagree! At least with one small part: "they consider themselves as French as can be. That is important insofar as it goes against any ghetto mentality developing." I think that it is quite possible to consider oneself part of a nation and yet ghetto-ized. Wasn't that the case with inner city African-Americans? There is definitely a ghetto mentality in the French suburbs and I don't see either candidate offering realistic solutions. Royal speaks of creating subsidized jobs but that's been done before and the jobs went to educated young people who could have found jobs the ordinary way. Sarkozy speaks of "kärcher" (politely translated as pipehosing in the US press although the term is much more violent) and as a mayor refused to conform to social housing laws with the express intention of keeping the "racaille" outside his city. Whoever wins, the problem will continue to fester - until it is solved either by time or by the action of local governments.

It's refreshing that someone should finally elucidate such a grave threat to the majority of the first world, that of the frightening decline of our birth rates coupled high percentages of retirees and middle-aged adults. France and Ireland are the best with regards to birth rates in the EU, but France owes much of it to its large Muslim population, which cannot readily identify itself with French society/culture and is largely marginalized, impoverished, and unemployed. Judging from the repeated race riots over the past ten or twenty years, it is at best very unlikely that these young Muslims should come to be the salvation of the French Republic.
All of Europe faces the similar situation of low birth rates amongst native citizens coupled with the opposite case within their largely unassimilated and disproportionately young immigrant population, some percentage of which espouses views which are in essence incompatible with the West. Japan will have a similar problem with their Korean immigrant population, but due to their cultural and geographic proximity, these issues will be slighter than in Europe.
However, this development will affect Western Europe and Japan much to a much greater degree than it will the United States. Native born Americans still have a decent enough birth rate, but the present and ever-growing Hispanic population in the US will ensure that America's population will continue to rise, in contrast with the rest of the first world. And unlike Europe, which consistently fails to assimilate its Muslims, the American Hispanics do assimilate, reflected in their growing political power and high percentage in the military, esp. the Army and Marine Corps. Hispanic immigrants by and large are Christian, hard-working, family-oriented, patriotic, and can identify themselves with the US, which will at least prevent the US's decline, if not guarantee its continued position of power.

I cannot believe an article like this is written! It shows the author's own obsession with status. So should we start setting up baby-producing factories in our countries who see which country can produce best babies? This is racism and nationalism to the extreme!

The French policy of encouraging child births is not "the symbol of tax-and-spend European welfare states." Nor is the large subsidies the rural populace receives at the expense of those who live in urban areas. It a conservative, traditional idea of what it means to be French that is behind these policies. They were in their beginning and remain products of an 'anti-assimilationist' thinking. They are much related to the family planning policies of the Vichy government.

The agricultural subsidies have the benefit that they have allowed many French farmers to continue to practice relatively sustainable methods of farming long after America made it unfashionable. Very soon petroleum products are going to make 'alternative' methods of farming again become desirable, and so this conservative element has been very good for France, in some ways. France is blessed with a relatively low population, and will be better positioned to feed itself than, say, America or many other parts of the world. When oil prices sky rocket, this encouraging couples to have more children nonsense will go away, along with this childish wish to be more like Britain or America.

Most of those babies are Muslims. It just brings Sharia law that must closer.

French people are, on average, extremely hot. The more of them there are on this planet, the better.

NS: I am glad I make you smile or laugh, as the case may be. What follows is just so the record be straight.

1. Did I express myself so badly? It is quite possible. I reread what I wrote and cannot see where I would have said that "France had to lose its French identity if more immigrants join the country". Quite the contrary, I suggest France's identity is strong, maintained through a generous family policy and an adequate birth rate, so that immigrants generally integrate very well, as French citizens. There is a limit, however, on the number of immigrants any society can integrate harmoniously. People need jobs and those do not get created just by wishing they be.

2. As for the "rioters", my only point was that they consider themselves as French as can be. That is important insofar as it goes against any ghetto mentality developing. You are right, France has serious problems succeeding at integrating those young people. That has to do with 1. some racism, 2. some discrimination against French minorities, and 3. true lack of opportunities. I believe serious efforts are being made to better the situation, though. But there is still a long way to go.

3. As for the French family policy, it is not "paying people" to have children but using social revenues and riches (not "other people's money" -- your expression -- but the collectivity's assets), to help people who want children and thereby contribute to the country maintaining its identity and character. As Hans Bavinck points out above, it does not stem from a fear of immigration as such, but goes back all the way to the end of WWI (when so many people had died and France had to be regenerated). It has nothing to do with a "socialist pet project", contrary to what you seem to suggest: It is a social programme fulfilling sound social objectives. I personally believe that in any country, it is better to have a universal family policy than to let the birthrate fall below population replacement, to let families disintegrate, etc., all signs of what I consider nothing but social decadence.

I sincerely hope I do not make you laugh too much, writing this. I will not hold it against you, should you insist that you disagree.

Marshall Miller:

The french government does not collect statistics like that, it considers them racist. It might also be because the numbers would be bad for moral.

The French ghetto is just going to grow. Having babies is no way to make your nation succeed. Witness India, Bangladesh, and Palestine.

Question -- What percentage of France's increased birth rate is due to Islamic immigrants with traditionally higher rates? The answer might mean this category is not an unalloyed strength for France.

NS, France's family policies are not "pet projects of the socialists". Their origin lies in the First World War, when so many young men had been killed that women had to take their places in the factories. Subsidized day care and many other measures that make it easier to decide to have children have since become stock and staple of the French system, but they are hardly socialist in origin. Nor are the socialists more generous in this regard than the right (most generous of all, naturally, is Le Pen's extreme-right).
Nor does the system prove any "fear of immigrants" since the primary beneficiaries are precisely immigrants, with their typically larger families. As a non-French parent living in France I can affirm that there is not a single children-linked subsidy which is reserved for French citizens. All parents living in France receive them, equally.
The author of the article is right in one important aspect: while everyone wails about France's failure to reform its retirement system, France is also less deeply in trouble than countries like Germany or Japan, since it does not face population decline.

Fleur De Lys,
It is funny reading some of the comments you have posted.

Why does France have to lose its French identity if more immigrants join the country - especially when you claim that integrating immigrants into France means that there is no ambiguity

The rioters last year did demand equal rights, opportunities, all right. But why was the demand made in the first place ? May be France is not all that welcoming to some of its poorest immigrant citizens ?

And why exactly does the Government pay the French people to have larger families ? Does it fear immigrants ? Of course, it is always easy to spend other people's money is'nt it? With the high taxation rates in Europe, it is not a big achievement by the Govt to fund every pet project of the socialists.

France's family policy is one of its far-reaching social achievements: It helps France not only preserve its French identity and character in face of a large constant flow of immigrants, but also integrate those immigrants into French society. There is no ambiguity as to what it means to be a French citizen and of French culture.

That is precisely why French youth born to immigrants to France demands equal rights and opportunities, claiming loudly, publicly, and quite appropriately, to be as French as anyone can be!

The simple fact that France has such a family policy is, in itself, quite a feat. What better proof than hard dollars... (sorry, euros!) can there be, that a country such as France cares for family values?

It is comforting to read that credit is given where credit is due...

Respectfully, I disagree. What happens when the new French boomlet of children looks to break into protected jobs in an anti-competitive atmosphere? Will they be able to dislodge the reins of power from french civil retirees, or will there be a real generational struggle? I'm not sure a population boom is the answer for France.