Let’s start with a very simple truism: you can’t have prosperity without people.
Human beings are the most valuable resource, because it is human ingenuity that creates and cultivates all other earthly resources. We as human beings are the custodians and protectors of the planet, not its destroyers, as the radical environmentalists would have you believe.
The richer and more technologically advanced we become, the more likely we are to avert a catastrophic event like a giant meteor crashing into the planet and destroying all life.
Which brings us to a potentially ruinous trend: many countries are literally running out of people.
This alarming chart on births and deaths in Europe is a terrifying glimpse into the future of a new dark age of the western world, if birth rates don’t start rising — and quickly. Europeans are becoming extinct.
Negative population growth is a sure killer of prosperity and human flourishing. It’s also contrary to Christianity and most other religions, which instruct us to “be fruitful and multiply.”
It’s not just Europe. Japan and Korea will cut their populations in half over the next 80 years if they don’t start moving away from one child per couple rates of propagating.
Why are rich countries depopulating the planet?
For 60 years, prophets of doom like Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb”) and governments around the world — including our own — warned that we all had a moral obligation to save the planet by having fewer babies. There were periods of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, forced birth control, and — in advanced nations like in Europe and the U.S. — a cultural sneering at families with four or five or six kids.
That mendacious propaganda campaign worked all too well. Look what it has wrought.
There are other explanations. As we have gotten richer — and especially as women’s earnings have risen — the “cost” of having a child in terms of lost income, has risen. Women are less likely to have more than one or two children. To be clear: I’m NOT suggesting that women should be paid less!
Marriage rates have declined, and vows are coming later in life, so the median year for a woman to have a child keeps rising — leaving fewer fertility years left for multiple children.
Religiosity has declined somewhat in our more secular “me first” society. That’s sad because childless couples tend to be less happy. And why have kids if you don’t believe there is a divine reason we were put on this planet?
The solutions to this problem aren’t obvious. Pro-natalist government policies, like paying people to have kids and offering free childcare have had spotty levels of success.
The U.S. has delayed the demographic crisis happening in Europe and much of Asia through immigration of young workers. Not only do immigrants increase the population, but they tend to have more kids than native-born Americans.
But even with immigration, we in America have an obvious aging problem.
One simple step is to start celebrating as a society the virtues and the self-sacrifice of motherhood. Our schools and our teachers and our clergy and our political leaders need to keep pushing the message that the greatest contribution men and women can give to saving our species is to have more kids — as soon as possible.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.
In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a landmark report in which he contended that the rising number of black families headed by unmarried mothers would reduce the prospects for Blacks to rise out of poverty, in spite of that era’s landmark civil rights legislation.
Moynihan was furiously denounced for his efforts. But he was proven right, and he would be even more correct making the same observations today.
It’s been a tough half century for families. Although Moynihan focused his concerns on Blacks, family breakdown correlates as much with income level as it does with race.
Because there are more low-income Blacks, more black children are raised by single mothers, but the overall percentage of births to unmarried women has gone from 5% in 1960 to 40% today. In 1970, 84% of U.S. children spent their entire childhood with both biological parents. Today, about half do.
Partly because of the withering criticisms directed at Moynihan, the chattering classes have mostly avoided the issue of family deterioration, at least until recently. But the consequences have been enormous.
Harvard economist Raj Chetty analyzed the causes of income disparity and concluded that “the strongest and most robust predictor is the fraction of children with single parents.”
In fact, there is scant evidence that race or racial discrimination causes the multiple economic and societal problems associated with family breakdown. Government spending doesn’t seem to have any effect, nor even does education explain the income gap. It’s family status itself.
So, what caused families, long our core civic institution and the means for passing on our values, to falter? There’s no easy answer, of course, but scholars note a sea change in our views of almost everything that began about the middle of the last century.
Especially in developed countries, people became more anti-authoritarian and more critical of traditional rules and roles. Views about sex outside of marriage, divorce, cohabitation, and single parenthood significantly changed.
It wasn’t all bad. Many of the changes extended civil rights and created a fairer society. But some of the “progress” has been tough on the kids.
For example, it’s not judgmental, just descriptive, to note that the increase in cohabitation has resulted in more unstable family structures.
Even with children, cohabiting couples break up faster and more often than married couples. Unmarried fathers are even less likely than divorced dads to form lasting bonds with their children. What may appear to be simply a matter of documentation can have a profound impact on the well-being of children.
Changing mores regarding sex before marriage has resulted in millions of young women bearing children for which they have made no financial or other preparations.
It’s not judging. It is the essence of caring for each of us to do a better job of informing these potential mothers of the catastrophic lifelong consequences of their casual decisions, both on themselves and the new life they are bringing into the world. We should also do a better job of making unwed fathers, many of whom openly boast about the children they are not raising, accountable for the consequences of their actions.
As Ronald Reagan might say, government is not the solution to this problem. It is the problem. There’s no question that the Great Society welfare rules, requiring recipients to be unmarried and unemployed to qualify for benefits, led to countless women making the sensible decision to “marry the government” rather than the uneducated, undependable father.
Government has also mortally harmed families by taking over many of their traditional functions, especially care of the young and the aged. Families traditionally stayed together to assure that those unable to provide for themselves would be sustained.
Today, it is assumed that the elderly are entitled to be cared for by the government. Some adults are known to simply walk away from their families because they don’t see the need.
We need sound strong families for all Americans, not only the wealthy and privileged. It would help if government did less harm. But we need to do a better job of protecting and prioritizing our families, respecting the outsized role they play in making our country strong and our lives worthwhile.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
On Thursday, Attorney General Mark Brnovich co-led a 20-state coalition in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case deciding the speech rights of business owners. The coalition filed their amicus brief the day after Pride Month began.
At the heart of the case — 303 Creative v. Elenis — is Colorado businesswoman Lorie Smith, a graphic artist and website designer who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples per her religious beliefs. Colorado law C.R.S. 24-34-601 prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, even due to religion. The state considers any business that sells to the public or offers services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public as a “place of public accommodation” and therefore beholden to their anti-discrimination law.
The amicus brief pointed out that Smith provided other services to LGBTQ+ customers, but that her Christian religion prevented her from providing wedding-related services to those customers. It also pointed out that Smith’s hesitation concerned the message she would convey in being forced to do so; in other words, her speech and not the status of a customer.
The Christian Bible dictates that marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and that homosexuality is a sin.
“Colorado interprets its public-accommodation law to forbid Smith from expressing her desired messages about marriage. In its view, graphic artists who create websites celebrating opposite-sex marriages must do the same for same-sex marriages, and refusing to do so subjects those artists to punishment,” read the amicus brief. “By adopting this position, Colorado violates the constitutional rights of its citizens, because the First amendment prohibits States from forcing individuals, including people who create custom speech for a living, to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.”
In a press release, Brnovich asserted that business owners like Smith have a constitutional right to discern speech as part of their business.
“Owners of small companies do not give up their constitutional rights as a cost of doing business,” said Brnovich. “Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them.”
“As a Christian artist, I was really excited to step into the wedding industry and use my artistic talents. Except, there’s a Colorado law that prevents me from continuing my work and forces me to violate my beliefs and speak messages I don’t agree with,” stated Smith. “Every American should have the right to control the content of their own speech.”
Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined Arizona in the amicus brief.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
