Social cycles

An addendum to my comments on the posts on natalism. As I suggest below I think as a whole it is appropriate to model humans before 1800 as a conventional animal subject to Malthusian constraints. When a new crop (e.g., Champa rice, the potato) was introduced there would be a population increase, but that increase quickly reached a “natural” limit and growth would cease. On occasion disease (e.g., Black Death) or political disorder (e.g., the depopulation of Central Asia by the Mongol armies) would result in a population decrease. Interestingly, because of the Malthusian nature of the pre-modern world these societies in the wake of a population collapse would actually be more affluent per capita for several generations as the balance between labor and land would shift toward a surplus of the latter. It stands to reason then that I am highly skeptical of ideological pro or anti-natalist orientations within a culture. “Noble savage” populations regulated their population through birth spacing and infanticide not because they were ecologically conscious, but because their mode of production was such that the maximum number of humans supportable within their ecology was low. Large broods would be temporary as many children died of starvation.

On the other hand, I do suspect there may be elite driven cultural cycles which emerge from endogenous parameters within civilizations. I will here just refer you to Peter Turchin’s work. I do think usage of words like “vigor” may have some relevance to elite castes within pre-modern societies, though Turchin favors concepts which relate to social cohesion more precisely. But I doubt they are of particular relevance on a mass scale before the modern age. The average peasant was miserable, marginal and ignorant. The American farmer on the frontier was an exception, but that is because of the peculiar balance of the labor vs. land relationship in the New World until the “closing of the frontier.” By the time of American frontier had closed Western societies had to a great extent broken out of the Malthusian trap, so the history of the United States has never witnessed David Ricardo’s stationary state.

Posted in culture | Tagged | Comments Off on Social cycles

No Need for Natalism

John, your great-grandmother was a statistical outlier. By 1870 the average British woman was having around 5.5 children.

Britain did see a dramatic increase in population in the 19th century, but this was a consequence of technological innovation, improved agricultural productivity and the development of an international trading system that served Britain very well, not some expression of national ‘vigor’. The crowds were a symptom of Britain’s success, not a cause of it.

If we look at the period when Britain was at the peak of its self-confidence, the later Victorian and Edwardian eras, we see a rapid decline in the fertility rate. Between 1870 and 1920 the fertility level fell from that average of 5.5 to 2.4.

Mind you, if the Malthusian bullet had (for now) been dodged, it didn’t always feel like it. It is, I think, telling that the country lost more men to emigration in the decade before the outbreak of WWI than it did on the battlefields of 1914-18.

My guess is that rooting through the past to try to find civilizations that have flourished with low reproduction rates is fruitless. It ignores the changes that technology has brought (we can do more now with far fewer people), but it also doesn’t take account of the fact that those societies that did see sharp population decline normally did so as a result of devastating ‘external’ catastrophe, usually one or more of war, disease and famine. Their depopulation was the consequence, not the cause, of disaster.

Posted in politics | 16 Comments

Natalist Fundamentalism

I have just learned that my paternal granny was one of at least 11 children, born in England 1860-1880.  My mother was one of 13, born 1896-1917.  How they did breed!

Learning that fact a couple of hours after reading Richard Hoste’s VDARE piece on Gerhard Meisenberg’s book, I sank into some speculations of a natalist fundamentalist kind.  Perhaps it is only when ordinary people (i.e. as opposed to just the underclass) breed like oysters, that you have a vigorous civilization.  They don’t come much more vigorous than Victorian England.

Does anything else really matter much, I wonder?  I become daily more certain that Western Civ. is on the way out, probably faster than we can easily believe.  The fertility numbers are what Wall Streeters call “leading indicators.” 

Is there any vigor without demographic vigor?  Can anyone think of a civilization with TFR < 3 that lasted more than a couple of decades and accomplished anything of note?

I suppose we can always hope for the Singularity.

Posted in culture, history | 22 Comments

Re: Needing to Know History

Indeed, Mr Hume, the past is another country.  They do things differently there.

Brooke Allen wrote a good book about the Founders’ religion.  At any rate I recall thinking it was well researched & written.  Now, looking it up on Amazon, I see there is quite a genre of such books from different points of view.

On a more particular note, do you (or readers) know of any comments any of the founders may have made concerning your eponym?

Posted in history | 14 Comments

You need to know history to talk about history

The New York Times Magazine has a long piece, How Christian Were the Founders?, which outlines the efforts of school board members of fundamentalist inclinations to shift the narrative about the founding of the American republic. In short, these activists would like children to understand that the United States was founded as a Christian nation by Christian men. From this generality follows specific points, such as the rejection of the legal validity of the concept of church-state separation. In any case, I tend to endorse this position:

In fact, the founders were rooted in Christianity — they were inheritors of the entire European Christian tradition — and at the same time they were steeped in an Enlightenment rationalism that was, if not opposed to religion, determined to establish separate spheres for faith and reason. “I don’t think the founders would have said they were applying Christian principles to government,” says Richard Brookhiser, the conservative columnist and author of books on Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington. “What they said was ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God.’ They didn’t say, ‘We put our faith in Jesus Christ.’ ” Martin Marty says: “They had to invent a new, broad way. Washington, in his writings, makes scores of different references to God, but not one is biblical. He talks instead about a ‘Grand Architect,’ deliberately avoiding the Christian terms, because it had to be a religious language that was accessible to all people.”

Or, as Brookhiser rather succinctly summarizes the point: “The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.”

I suspect that a knowledge of historical context really makes this much more comprehensible But most people are either too ignorant or plain stupid to really attain any level of knowledge which would allow for context. And we do not live in a culture which cedes to men such as Richard Brookheiser, a biographer of the founders, any special credibility.

We do have personal and public pronouncements of men such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The issue with moderns interpreting their words and associations is that these men must be understood in the context of their times, not our times. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson seem to have been proponents of Unitariantism. Today when we talk about Unitarianism in the United States we are talking about a predominantly non-Christian religion (i.e., the Unitarian-Universalist association does not affirm a Christian creed, or, for that matter any creed, though a minority of Unitarian-Univesalists are part of a Christian faction within the denomination). Adams was a public Unitarian, not atypical in New England where the sect was a liberal movement within Congregationalism (his son, John Quincy Adams, was also a Unitarianism, though he admitted to personally being attracted to Trinitarianism in his correspondence). Jefferson was in private a proponent of Unitarianism, but his religious associations in public were with the traditional Episcopal (formerly Anglican) church of his class and region. Both of these men rejected Trinitarianism, while for most of his life Jefferson seems to have strongly leaned toward a spare Deism. To modern Christians and non-Christians living in the United States these men would not be considered Christians. But, it seems that both would consider themselves Christian (Jefferson may have sworn off the term earlier in his life when his hostility toward religion was strongest).
Continue reading

Posted in culture, history | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

“Vatican Economist: Recession Caused By Low Birthrate”

Well, that’s the (remarkable) headline and here’s the story:

ROME, FEB. 8, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Bankers are not the cause of the global economic crisis, according to the president of the Institute for the Works of Religion. Rather, the cause is ordinary people who do not “believe in the future” and have few or no children. “The true cause of the crisis is the decline in the birth rate,” Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, said in an interview on Vatican Television’s “Octava Dies.” He noted the Western world’s population growth rate is at 0% — that is, two children per couple — and this, he said, has led to a profound change in the structure of society. “Instead of stimulating families and society to again believe in the future and have children […] we have stopped having children and have created a situation, a negative economic context decrease,” Gotti Tedeschi observed. “And decrease means greater austerity.”

Who knew? Read the whole thing if you feel up to it.

The idea, incidentally, that the birthrate is falling because people have somehow given up on the future is a meme that pops up from time to time in certain parts of the conservative world. While the turn of the economic cycle can indeed affect the birthrate, that’s a lagging, not a leading indicator (thus you saw lower birthrates in quite a few countries during the Great Depression). The broader decline, however (a near-universal phenomenon these days) is largely a by-product of modernity, of female emancipation, of urbanization and, yes, optimism. Thanks to modern medicine, people feel more confident than in the past that their children will survive to adulthood and so they have fewer. That’s a good thing.

H/t: Instapundit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 12 Comments

Guilt by Association?

TPMMuckraker sinks into the well, muck, with this story headlined “Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan”:

The Massachusetts man charged this week with stockpiling weapons after saying he feared an imminent “Armageddon” appears to have been active in the Tea Party movement, and saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a “righteous ‘Mission from God,'” as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society….Girard’s wife said her husband had recently told her: “Don’t talk to people, shoot them instead,” and “it’s fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it.” But it appears that Girard had lately found a community with which to share some of his growing fears. A “Greg Girard,” listing his location as Manchester, Mass., has a personal page on the “Patriots of America” online network, a popular site affiliated with the Tea Party movement.

Mr. Girard is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and we’ll have to see what emerges at any trial, but a commonsense interpretation of this story would suggest that the real issues are likely more psychiatric than political.

On a not entirely unconnected topic, Jesse Walker’s 2009 Reason piece on the “paranoid center” is well worth reading. Here’s an extract:

We’ve heard ample warnings about extremist paranoia in the months since Barack Obama became president, and we’re sure to hear many more throughout his term. But we’ve heard almost nothing about the paranoia of the political center. When mainstream commentators treat a small group of unconnected crimes as a grand, malevolent movement, they unwittingly echo the very conspiracy theories they denounce. Both brands of connect-the-dots fantasy reflect the tellers’ anxieties much more than any order actually emerging in the world.

When such a story is directed at those who oppose the politicians in power, it has an additional effect. The list of dangerous forces that need to be marginalized inevitably expands to include peaceful, legitimate critics.

Posted in politics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

2012: One “Frontrunner”, Lame

Here’s the new Esquire interview with Creationist Tim Pawlenty, one of the GOP frontrunners (allegedly) for 2012. Nothing on where he stands on evolution, but the governor’s views (such as one can make them out amid the waffle) on the bank bail-out also seem to be the product of something very akin to magical thinking:

ESQ: You’ve been very critical of the bank-bailout bill, a number of times, a bill that was passed at the urging of a Republican president. Let’s role-play. I’m Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. I come to you on a Wednesday in mid-September 2008 and I say, “Mr. President, we’ve got to pass this bill, because if we don’t, we won’t have an economy by Monday.” What do you do?

TP: Well, they did say that at one point, and the bill failed.

ESQ: Yes, it failed once but did then pass.

TP: And that Monday the economy didn’t collapse.

ESQ: Well, that depends on your definition of collapse. The Dow went into free fall and the American economy went into the toilet, where it remained for the next year.

To claim that the bank bail-out was a thing of beauty is nonsense, and it is easy to find fault with the way it was put together, but I remain convinced that something had to be done.  The wheels were coming off, and to leave the answer to “the market” would have been to make a very big bet on a very pure view of economic theory.  Reasonably enough, therefore,  the reporter from Esquire presses Pawlenty some more on what he would have done. The answer? Yet more waffle and a conspiracy theory.

ESQ: I have a lot more I want to get to. But I really want to know what you would have done. That critical week, mid-September 2008, with President Bush’s men describing the credit crisis as an oncoming freight train for the global economy, there was a cohort of Republican congressmen, led by Jeb Hensarling of Texas, whose position was rather dogmatic. They said, “We must let this economy find its bottom.” If you had been president of the United States, would that have been your position?

TP: Well, I read an account recently of the Sunday night before one version or another of Hank Paulson’s TARP bill passed. In this story, Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, was meeting with other Goldman Sachs executives, trying to figure out what to do, and surprise, surprise, they came up with the conclusion that the federal government should bail out Goldman Sachs. So I don’t take as an article of faith that the financial world would have come to an end if we had let more of these institutions fail.

This guy is a frontrunner?

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Rand Paul

A moderately sympathetic story about Rand Paul, who is running as the anti-establishment candidate in Kentucky. My bias, such that I have, is to look positively upon Paul’s run for Senate, mostly because I know that when I agree with a Paul they’ll actually stick to the stance they’re taking because they actually believe deeply in the position as a matter of principle. That being said, unlike Ron Paul his son has to cater to the needs of a whole state, so he’s trimming his sails appropriately in regards to his libertarianism. I don’t know if Rand Paul will be able to manage the trick of balancing the pragmatism needed to be a bearer of a major party nomination with the ideological purity of libertarianism. Last I checked Kentucky was one of those states which was on the socially conservative side, but fiscally moderate (like West Virginia). This might explain the persistence of high Democratic registration despite the state’s bias toward Republicans nationally; local politics is a matter of disbursement of monies, something Democrats have no philosophical issues with.

Note: Last week Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul. Of course, she also endorsed John McCain, who is not much of a libertarian as far as his Republicanism goes. Though I think the second endorsement was a matter of personal courtesy due to their shared history.

Posted in politics | Tagged | 36 Comments

Still Not Getting It

You would think that at times like these, a senior Republican would have the political savvy (not to speak of the decency) not to have done something like this:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold. “While holds are frequent,” CongressDaily’s Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), “Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal.” The magazine reported aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the source of the news about Shelby’s blanket hold.

The Mobile Press-Register picked up the story early this afternoon. The paper confirmed Reid’s account of the hold, and reported that a Shelby spokesperson “did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages seeking confirmation of the senator’s action or his reason for doing so.”

Shelby has been tight-lipped about the holds, offering only an unnamed spokesperson to reporters today to explain them. Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the news of the blanket hold this afternoon. Reid aides told CongressDaily the hold extends to “all executive nominations on the Senate calendar.”

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama’s nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track…

You would think.

Don’t get me wrong: bipartisanship is a much overrated virtue. Generally I think oppositions should oppose – and if that means by the use of procedural arcana, so be it. 

However to do all this for pork, well, ugh…

Senator Shelby is up for reelection in 2010. It strikes me that someone should start brewing up a tea party in Alabama.

Posted in politics | Tagged , | 7 Comments