How to Turn Around the Demographics Toboggan

Okay, so surely everyone by now knows that the entire developed world faces a crisis: depopulation. If nothing is done, entire nations will not just enter terminal decline, but actually disappear as nations, within the foreseeable future.

Remember "No dogs or Chinese?" "No Irish allowed"? No children allowed--real sign. 

Massive immigration has been broadly proposed as a solution. But, as we are beginning to see, massive immigration presents its own problems. It can change the fundamental character of the nation—it's Italy, Jim, but not Italy as we know it. Since immigrants too seem to stop breeding pretty quickly once they immigrate, the levels of immigration needed to keep the thing going economically become massive. And we are seeing the tendency not to have children spreading to less developed countries as well—we might even face a prospect, not too far down the road, of running out of possible immigrants.

Some argue that it is too late to stop this. Historically, such declines have never been reversed. Europe, Japan, and perhaps North America are simply doomed.

But there are a few things we could try. Draconian measures, to be sure, but it does look as though draconian measures are called for.

Great sums of money are not available for this project. As a nation begins to shrink in the numbers of employed labourers, necessarily, government revenues also decline. Proposals must therefore be more or less cost-free.

Here's another.

A program:

1. Immigrant labour could be of one sex only. This ensures that the economy has the benefit of their labour and taxes to feed the system, but they and their culture do not take over. Many will no doubt eventually return home as a result, saving social security costs. Those who stay will need to fully integrate through marriage.
   
   
   And need I point out that, if this is our plan, the preferable sex to allow entry is women? Women are the sex most needed for breeding, the breeding bottleneck. The number of children each man can have is virtually unlimited, but each woman can only have a set number of children.

Limiting immigration to only one sex used to be standard practice for many countries; and for exactly the situation the developed world is now facing, the danger of being culturally overwhelmed. Limiting it to females makes much more sense today than it did in the days when women were not as significant a part of the out-of-home workforce.

Let's also take the next logical step and limit immigration to women of childbearing age.

2. We could legalize polygamy (but not polyandry). This makes sense in itself, but even more sense in combination with point 1, above. This way men can, if they choose, and are financially able, have more children than one woman can provide. Women, no matter how many husbands they have, are limited to about the same number of children. One man with ten wives can easily account for as many children as ten men with ten wives.

Underpopulated areas—desert areas—have commonly used just this solution in the past.

Feminists will object to the apparent sex bias here—and perhaps also in point 1 above. Let's assume they are right. Nevertheless, such measures can be justified by the overriding need for a nation's survival, “such limits as can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.” In any case, it would be a form of justice, since our public policies have heavily and openly favoured females for the past fifty years or so; they can stand fifty years of the opposite. The more so since it looks very much as though it was precisely the policies demanded by feminism that got us into this fix in the first place.

3. Ban abortion and birth control. A no-brainer, surely. If this is arguably beyond the legitimate rights of the state, on some presumed “right to privacy,” banning abortion, at least, certainly isn't. And the state surely should not be in the business of promoting birth control, through sex ed classes or otherwise.

4. Make all education free but not mandatory, including tertiary education (that is, college, university, and grad school). This will eliminate one significant financial disincentives to having children: the costs of sending them to college. At the same time, the greater costs of subsidizing post-secondary education could be balanced out by the reduced costs for less than universal primary and secondary education, making the proposal more or less cost-neutral.

The obvious problem with this proposal is that it allows some families not to send their kids to school.

Will some families short-change their kids? For sure. But, as a general principle, it is presumably better to be born and be poor than to never be born. And parents can be most often counted on to treat their children better than the state will, because a lot of instincts are in play—the principle of subsidiarity.

The availability of free adult ed later will allow talented and motivated folks, if necessary, to make up by themselves in adulthood some of the deficiencies in their upbringing. The increasing availability of online education should also help with all this—lowering the cost of education for the government, and making it more readily available to those who also work.

Apart from its value in encouraging people to have kids, this approach is necessary for the sake of human dignity and freedom. So long as school is mandatory, it becomes a tool for social indoctrination. It infringes on the rights of the parents to follow their own consciences, and it infringes on the right of the children to freedom of thought and of association. When we require the same of adults—compulsory attendance at an institution—we first have to prove them guilty of some crime.

Allowing this freedom may in turn, for many prospective parents, be a deciding factor in having children.

5. If we make all sex outside marriage punishable, this not only protects marriage, by discouraging adultery, but encourages people to get married.
   
   
   Many will argue that allowing the state to regulate sexual behaviour is an invasion of privacy. It is not, so long as sex has to do with procreation. For so long as sex involves procreation, there are more people involved in the act than the two in the room.

6. End all “affirmative action” programs on grounds of sex. Studies suggest that, without affirmative action, men are not paid more than women, proportionate to their education and experience. Rather, married men are paid more for the same work than are unmarried men or women, helping them support a family. Nor is this a deliberate subsidy for families: married men are more stable in their jobs, will commit more time to them, and so are of more value to an employer. Affirmative action therefore works not to equalize pay between men and women, but to discourage marriage and childbearing and to keep kids poor. Besides being against the economy's, hence everyone's, best interests.

7. Make homosexual sex illegal. While this may not be a significant factor, it may be; the science is out. If homosexuality is at least partly voluntary, prohibiting homosexual sex will drive at least some people instead into heterosexual relationships that can produce children. And so long as there are some who are, self-admittedly, “bi-sexual,” making homosexual sex illegal will push them in the right direction.

Note that homosexual sex, in this case, would be in no better and no worse position than heterosexual sex outside marriage. The matter must be specified separately, however, because of the new option of “homosexual marriage.” Simply repeal it, and there is no need for a separate statute against homosexual sex.

8. Abolish child labour laws.
   
   
   If children can work and earn money, even if their life is arguably not ideal, they have economic value. Is it better to have to work for a living, or not to live at all? And if work is so terrible, why are feminists demanding it?

Facing a lower overall cost, parents are more likely to have kids. Will the kids be abused and worked to death? This is intrinsically unlikely, since humans are born with paternal and maternal instincts. But even if they lack this, have no shame, and are driven only by narrow self-interest, their self-interest dictates that parents take good care of the health of a family breadwinner.

There is also the issue of a right to work: children may want to work, and have the dignity of earning and spending their own money. Lots find it a gas to have a paper route or to try their hand at a lemonade stand. If so, it is unjust to deny them this.

9. De-regulate parenthood and childhood. Each new law or regulation requiring something of a parent—car seats, bicycle helmets, seat belts, and so on-- is a disincentive to have kids. Yet these restrictions and regulations have been rapidly multiplying. One suspects they have become a popular way for society to punish “breeders.” As before, parents should be trusted before the state or an inflexible law to decide what's best. They won't, of course, always.

9. If there is to be immigration, immigrants should be selected on the basis of compatibility with the majority culture. This is not racism; this is just common sense, and necessary in order to preserve that culture. We accept and understand this when it comes to language. But just as those who already speak English well are most likely to assimilate to an English-speaking culture, so too, those who are already Christian are most likely to assimilate to a majority-Christian culture. Those from functioning democracies ought also to have preference in immigrating to a democracy, those familiar with common law in their home countries to a country that follows English common law, those familiar with a cold climate to countries like Canada with a cold climate, and so on. No consideration should be given to DNA or skin colour, but we have thrown out a lot of babies with that bath water.

Forgive me for being politically incorrect. You noticed, didn't you?