More like this
The need to breed in Europe
Europe should follow Russia by encouraging women to have babies, says Daniel Hannan MEP
Russia is to revive the tradition of decorating mothers who have plenty of children. The news has been reported sneeringly as a return to Stalinist practice.
But look at it from the point of view of the Russkies. According to UN statistics, their population will decline from 142m to 114m by 2050. Over the next 15 years, 22m Russians will disappear: more than died in the Second World War. It's getting to the stage where the Kremlin might as well sell Siberia to China, Alaska-style, and cash in while it can.
Nor is it just Russia. Europe is heading for an unprecedented population void. Demographers say that the magic figure is 2.1 babies per woman. The only European country to reach that level is Albania; continent-wide, the average is 1.5. The problem is especially acute in the former Soviet countries and, paradoxically, in the Catholic countries of southern Europe, where illegitimacy carries the greatest stigma.
Fifty years from now, there will be 130m fewer Europeans. Their places, if we want to keep our economies working, will have to be filled by settlers. But migration on such an unprecedented scale will carry problems of its own.
What to do? Several governments, including Austria, France and Estonia, pay women to breed. But small handouts rarely compensate for lost income. So how about this: anyone with a child under three should pay no income tax whatever. The tax break should be transferable so that married women could pass it on to their husbands.
Yes, I realise that it would be colossally expensive - but no more than is proportionate to the gravity of Europe's predicament. The dearth of babies is every bit as serious a threat to our way of life as the Soviet Union was. We should accord it a similar priority. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Why do we need so many people? The large number of people is what is causing biodiversity and habitat loss, and shortages in food, water and fuel. There were "130m fewer Europeans" just a few decades ago. Actually, Europe was a more pleasant, less crowded place to live then. Our economies don't need ever more workers and consumers: this isn't actually sustainable. In this world of the internet and automated production, a smaller population could be perfectly prosperous. For information on sustainability, see optimumpopulation.org
I'm consistently amazed about how difficult it is for people to contemplate a world different than the one that we've come accustomed to over the past several hundred years where population has been continually increasing. Any rational person will agree that eventually population must stabilize at birth rates equaling death rates. Yet politicians (and economists) propose policies to counter this event which intuitively must occur. My conclusion is that they are acting out of fear. Fear that they will not know how to govern or how to manage a steady-state economy. There is no reason for this fear. Such an event does not portend a cataclysmic end to the world rather just a world which is different than the one we are in now.
Daniel Hannan is so right. What is truly remarkable is how little attention this threat gets from our political leaders, not to mention the "intellligentsia". The longer this problem is ignored, the more drastic will the solutions have to be. Not everyone can or should have children, but people who elect to remain childless voluntarily are freeriding on society and should be taxed to enable those who are willing to reproduce to actually do so. This may be illiberal but it is nothing compared to what could be down the road for us if we do not address this issue soon, and very comprehensively. Nothing about this will be easy.
Are you stark staring mad? The world is already grossly over-populated. We need less children, not more. Let the foreigners settle in Europe, and regulate this with a maximum population by country. The UK could, for example, set the threshold at 60.8m, and that's it. [currently: 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)] Each year the government takes all of the registered births and deaths and adjusts the census accordingly. If the adjusted total in 20xx is 60.7m then the immigrant quota is 100k for that year.
Simple, but not as radical, and dare I say this, dangerous, as your idea.
Global food shortages, environmental concerns, insufficient housing, over-crowded schools, a creaky health service, gridlocked roads, inadequate public transport, a looming financial apocalypse -- it seems to me we should be doing the exact opposite to your suggestion. Our infrastructure cannot cope; not to mention, in case you hadn't noticed, we don't have an infinite amount of land here in Britain. What are the fiscal justifications for your idea? Truly, what a bizarre article to write; my only guess on your motivation is that you are some end-of-days religious nutter. Or just a regular garden-variety nutter.
I have not read a more stupid article than this in a long time, and this person is an MEP????? With the Earth groaning under the weight of humanity, pollution making it uninhabitable for increasing numbers of other species, climate change meaning the future holds the promise of famine on a massive global scale, and Daniel thinks we need more humans.
I'm not just astonished, I find it extremely depressing that forty plus years after some of us started to realise what we had done to the planetary ecosystem, such ignorance can still exist.
'Europe is heading for an unprecedented population void' he writes, clearly not having heard about the millions of immigrants pouring into Europe annually from third world countries with runaway population explosions. He obviously hasn't heard either of the housing crisis or the food crisis - rice and wheat harvests at record lows this year.
I find it hard to believe that someone supposedly representing others in Europe can be so appallingly ignorant of what is happening in the world. He'll be complaining about fuel prices next.
Please employ writers with a brain.