PDA

View Full Version : Europeans too selfish to have children



Ankoù
11-07-2009, 02:32 PM
Europeans too selfish to have children, says Chief Rabbi

The leader of Britain’s Jewish community claimed the continent’s population is in decline because people care more about shopping than the sacrifice involved in parenthood.

He blamed atheist “neo-Darwinians” for Europe’s low birth rate and said religious people of all denominations are more likely to have large families.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
The Chief Rabbi, who entered the House of Lords last week, made his comments in a lecture on religion in the 21st century hosted by Theos, the public theology think-tank, on Wednesday night.

Lord Sacks said that faith had survived so far because it could provide answers to mankind’s eternal search for meaning in life - unlike the market, the state, science or philosophy, which underpin modern liberal democracies.

He claimed religion could continue to play an important role worldwide in the future, by engaging in debate with scientists, by campaigning on issues such as global poverty or the environment, and by discussing the nature of the common good with humanists.

The Chief Rabbi warned that secular Europe is at risk, however, because its moral relativism can easily be defeated by fundamentalists.

And he claimed that its population is also in decline, compared with every other part of the world, because non-believers lack shared values of family and community that religions have.

Lord Sacks said: “Parenthood involves massive sacrifice of money, attention, time and emotional energy.

“Where today in European culture with its consumerism and instant gratification – because you’re worth it – where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born?
“Europe, at least the indigenous population of Europe, is dying.”

“That is one of the unsayable truths of our time. We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it.

“Albert Camus once said, 'The only serious philosophical question is why should I not commit suicide?’.

“I think he was wrong. The only serious philosophical question is, why should I have a child? Our culture is not giving an easy answer to that question.”

He added: “Wherever you turn today - Jewish, Christian or Muslim - the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.
“The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians.’’

Discussing the popular secular idea that there are no absolute moral values, he said: “You cannot defend a civilisation on the basis of moral relativism.

“In a head-to-head contest between a moral relativist and a fundamentalist, who wins? The fundamentalist must win because he is sure he’s right, and you are not sure he’s wrong.”

He said that although the war on terror had been portrayed by Western politicians as a “battle of ideas”, there is little hope that Islamists who believe they owe allegiance to God would be swayed by talk of freedom or democracy.

“The place for religion is in civil society, where it achieves many things essential to liberal democratic freedom. It sanctifies marriage and the family and the obligations of parenthood, and it safeguards the non-relativist moral principles on which Western freedom is based.

“It may not be religion that is dying, it may be liberal democratic Europe that is in danger, demographically and in its ability to defend its own values.”

Lord Sacks, who has been Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth since 1991, described the modern phenomenon of “angry atheists” as the “intellectual equivalent of road rage”.

He said that more respectful dialogue is needed between religious groups and the secular world.

“All peace depends on compromise and that is why peace comes to seem to some religious groups to be a form of betrayal, and that is why peacemakers get assassinated.”


Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6507782/Europeans-too-selfish-to-have-children-says-Chief-Rabbi.html)

Poltergeist
11-07-2009, 02:41 PM
I find it a bit superficial to call people who don't want to have children, "selfish" (and it is quite often heard). Better word would be (self)-destructive.

Fred
11-07-2009, 02:44 PM
White guilt has self-sterilisation, transsexual operations, gay marriage, contraception, abortion and the suicidal election of Baraka Hussein Osama. How long before Asimov's nightmare of I, Robot (made in China), comes true?

Absinthe
11-07-2009, 02:54 PM
I wouldn't say selfish.

It's just that the Western European lifestyle is by definition too self-absorbed in the pursue of individual success, money and material possessions.

In South and/or Eastern Europe, they don't have children because they're too self-absorbed in trying to catch up with the Western lifestyle. ;)

Groenewolf
11-07-2009, 03:32 PM
Part of it could be blamed on selfishness, namely not taking children because other things are more important, like three vacations a year to far away countries. Or lack of will to commit the time and resources involved in bringing up children.

Part of it on misguided idealism. Namely giving birth to children is bad for the environment. Paradoxically most of them do not care about the high birth rates among other groups of people. So this could be a form of the earlier mentioned white guilt :coffee: .

If this rabbi is right, the neo-darwians are themselves unfit for struggle for survival. Since they follow an evolutionary bad strategy.

anonymaus
11-07-2009, 03:47 PM
Another linguistically criminal misuse of the word selfish. Retarded.

Ulf
11-07-2009, 03:48 PM
They're fighting over-population.

MeorgeGichaels
11-07-2009, 03:55 PM
I disagree-European populations have sensible birth rates

It's the rest of the fucking world that's selfish. They are the problem-not Europeans, but third worlders with more children than brains.

Fred
11-07-2009, 03:55 PM
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Poltergeist
11-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Part of it on misguided idealism. Namely giving birth to children is bad for the environment.

LOL. I think very few people are seriously into this mentally retarded "idealism". Probably just some petty bourgeois pseudo-moralizing wankers. Or am I mistaken?


If this rabbi is right, the neo-darwians are themselves unfit for struggle for survival. Since they follow an evolutionary bad strategy.

(Pseudo)-Darwinian explanations for human behaviour (ethology, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology etc) are nonsense anyway. Too many exceptions for their schemes to be considered "natural", "self-understood" etc. That is just one among many impulses a human being has. But humans can also reject those impulses, no matter how "natural" they may seem, because humans have free will. Who says everyone wants to survive, to pass on his genes? Some don't. Some want to perish, want everything to go to hell, themselves included, not for any "altruistic" reasons, but simply because they want to, out of a whim, or because they are, for some (pseudo)-mystical reasons attracted by the non-being.

When I say "Darwinian", it is not biological evolution that I am referring to, but all those explanations of human behaviour (or of behaviour of societies), which reductionistically make use of some Darwinian concept to construe some supposed "reality" of human relations.

Bard
11-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Honestly I agree on having few children (1 or 2 max) because earth is over populated (really) but most people like africans/chinese/indians tend to spread and riproduce a lot, so we will end up to be a minority (or are we already?).

Btw having few children is ok, the most important thing is to love them and to give them all they need to grow, I think this is better than the poor situations with the moms who don't have even the money to afford food and keep having sex and generating offspring.

When I was at primary school I had a situation like that, there was a girl in my class, she had like 4 brothers, her mother was always pregnant, both parents were unemployed and heavy drinkers and smokers and they never had the money to dress her properly or give food to their children, this kind of situations suck balls, so is better to think twice before having children, imho it's not about "selfish".

Poltergeist
11-07-2009, 04:21 PM
I disagree-European populations have sensible birth rates

It's the rest of the fucking world that's selfish. They are the problem-not Europeans, but third worlders with more children than brains.

Not selfish, just normal. Not self-destructive. It is not about birth rates only, but also about societal health. Many childless people is bad for the overall psychological state of the nation/society. It breeds nihilism and anti-communal attitudes. But it is a free choice, of one's free will. Together with the choice, once taken, one has to be aware of its consequences, both individually and collectively.

MeorgeGichaels
11-07-2009, 04:24 PM
Not selfish, just normal. Not self-destructive. It is not about birth rates only, but also about societal health. Many childless people is bad for the overall psychological state of the nation/society. It breeds nihilism and anti-communal attitudes. But it is a free choice, of one's free will. Together with the choice, once taken, one has to be aware of its conseuqnces, both individually and collectively.

I meant selfish in the context of the article-of course it's normal to want to create a better life.

Absinthe
11-07-2009, 04:24 PM
Hbut most people like africans/chinese/indians tend to spread and riproduce a lot

Chinese reproduce a lot? :p Each couple is allowed only one child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy), as part of a government strategy to fight overpopulation :p

Poltergeist
11-07-2009, 04:26 PM
Chinese reproduce a lot? :p Each couple is allowed only one child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy), as part of a government strategy to fight overpopulation :p

Yes, since 1978, when Mao died. Prior to that they had the opposite official policy.

anonymaus
11-07-2009, 04:28 PM
Yes, since 1978, when Mao died. Prior to that they had the opposite official policy.

Don't blame it on poor old Mao! He couldn't trust his advisors and his little abacus couldn't count the population boom he caused.

http://www2.hsp.org/exhibits/Balch%20exhibits/chinatown/abacus.jpg

Bard
11-07-2009, 04:38 PM
Chinese reproduce a lot? :p Each couple is allowed only one child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy), as part of a government strategy to fight overpopulation :p

and guess why the government decided to stop them :p
and by the way, another big problem of china and india is that there is a lack of women (a lack of 80 milions), so many indian and chinese males are looking for a european or american wife

SwordoftheVistula
11-08-2009, 08:33 AM
Pretty funny to hear a Rabbi complaining about this! Guess breaking down white societies wasn't such a smart idea after all, since the rest of the world doesn't seem to offer them any better deal.


If this rabbi is right, the neo-darwians are themselves unfit for struggle for survival. Since they follow an evolutionary bad strategy.

Ever since this happened:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=126679&postcount=533

Something like this has been needed as a counter, as far as society as a whole is concerned:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64513




and guess why the government decided to stop them :p
and by the way, another big problem of china and india is that there is a lack of women (a lack of 80 milions), so many indian and chinese males are looking for a european or american wife

No, the just become Chinese Farmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_farmers)

Treffie
11-08-2009, 08:41 AM
and guess why the government decided to stop them :p
and by the way, another big problem of china and india is that there is a lack of women (a lack of 80 milions), so many indian and chinese males are looking for a european or american wife

Eh?

Do you mean the male/female ratio?

Sex ratio for India

at birth: 1.12 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.098 male(s)/female
15–64 years: 1.061 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.908 male(s)/female
total population: 1.064 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

Do you think that this equates to a difference of 80 million? I doubt it.

Lutiferre
11-08-2009, 08:55 AM
The Rabbi is absolutely right.

But so what? European "civilization" is bound to change and absorb new ideas, peoples and values, given the instabillity and unsatisfaction with the superficial utillitarian values, and given the impossibility of returning to Christianity.

SwordoftheVistula
11-08-2009, 09:01 AM
The Rabbi is absolutely right.

But so what? European "civilization" is bound to change and absorb new ideas, peoples and values, given the instabillity and unsatisfaction with the superficial utillitarian values, and given the impossibility of returning to Christianity.

What 'bout that country to your south 70 years ago? They seemed to figure out a solution without requiring the importation of any new peoples etc. Perhaps some ways they went about trying to achieve it were off the mark, but it seems to point more in the right direction than total surrendur to Islam or whatever.

Lutiferre
11-08-2009, 09:08 AM
What 'bout that country to your south 70 years ago? They seemed to figure out a solution without requiring the importation of any new peoples etc. Perhaps some ways they went about trying to achieve it were off the mark, but it seems to point more in the right direction than total surrendur to Islam or whatever.
I never spoke of a "total surrender" to Islam, nor did I put any special emphasis on the importation of foreign peoples. That's simply one part of it, one symptom of the decline.

Bard
11-08-2009, 01:06 PM
Eh?

Do you mean the male/female ratio?

Sex ratio for India

at birth: 1.12 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.098 male(s)/female
15–64 years: 1.061 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.908 male(s)/female
total population: 1.064 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

Do you think that this equates to a difference of 80 million? I doubt it.

I've found that info on the italian version of "scientific american" I can link that if you want but it's in italian :p