Step away from the situation, step awaaaaay...
I think I need to stop reading about demographics in Europe for a while before I lose my temper completely. Why? Well, let's see, where to start...
For the first bit, there's the tone of articles talking in wonder and confusion about the downswing in birth rates in Europe through the second half of the twentieth century overall, and in particular, the befuddled, "What could ever be causing such a dramatic change?" tone about the sudden drop in the late nineties. "Is it society? Changing mores? Pollutants?"
Well. Probably all of those contribute to the general downward trend, but gee. What has Europe had a lot of in the twentieth century? Yes, indeed, massive warfare that frequently used civilians as targets! Along with genocide campaigns, politically motivated mass purges, several artificially engineered or exacerbated famines, major nuclear and biological industrial accidents, and in many places, consistent political instability. And let's not forget the massive gender imbalances caused by those wars, as well as the way they (WWII in particular) shattered civilian infrastructures across the continent.
What has happened has a direct effect on what happens now. That’s especially true in population demographics. Low birthrates a generation ago tend to contribute to low birthrates now, and although it’s been four generations (counting a generation as fifteen years) since WWII, the population loss was massive enough that it’s unsurprising it’s still having an effect.
If I read one more carefully worded comment that just barely skirts the edges of eugenic fascist and/or imperialist cultural bullshit about Europe and birthrates, I might have to hurt someone. Europe has no more had a peaceful century than any other continent on the planet! I'm not even sure you can call the warfare level "intermittent". If you look at the history of the continent as a whole, it starts to look a lot like it might be better described as "essentially constant". You can only say that the twenties and thirties were an interwar period for specific countries. Because while Britain wasn't fighting anybody in the twenties, Russia and then Finland were engaged in vicious civil wars, and then, in the thirties, there was Spain and basically, what I am saying is - There is nothing surprising about a depressed population after a century of mechanized warfare, much of which heavily targeted civilians.
There are so many creepy racist undertones to these discussions, and so much history!fail. Grrr. Argh.
For the first bit, there's the tone of articles talking in wonder and confusion about the downswing in birth rates in Europe through the second half of the twentieth century overall, and in particular, the befuddled, "What could ever be causing such a dramatic change?" tone about the sudden drop in the late nineties. "Is it society? Changing mores? Pollutants?"
Well. Probably all of those contribute to the general downward trend, but gee. What has Europe had a lot of in the twentieth century? Yes, indeed, massive warfare that frequently used civilians as targets! Along with genocide campaigns, politically motivated mass purges, several artificially engineered or exacerbated famines, major nuclear and biological industrial accidents, and in many places, consistent political instability. And let's not forget the massive gender imbalances caused by those wars, as well as the way they (WWII in particular) shattered civilian infrastructures across the continent.
What has happened has a direct effect on what happens now. That’s especially true in population demographics. Low birthrates a generation ago tend to contribute to low birthrates now, and although it’s been four generations (counting a generation as fifteen years) since WWII, the population loss was massive enough that it’s unsurprising it’s still having an effect.
If I read one more carefully worded comment that just barely skirts the edges of eugenic fascist and/or imperialist cultural bullshit about Europe and birthrates, I might have to hurt someone. Europe has no more had a peaceful century than any other continent on the planet! I'm not even sure you can call the warfare level "intermittent". If you look at the history of the continent as a whole, it starts to look a lot like it might be better described as "essentially constant". You can only say that the twenties and thirties were an interwar period for specific countries. Because while Britain wasn't fighting anybody in the twenties, Russia and then Finland were engaged in vicious civil wars, and then, in the thirties, there was Spain and basically, what I am saying is - There is nothing surprising about a depressed population after a century of mechanized warfare, much of which heavily targeted civilians.
There are so many creepy racist undertones to these discussions, and so much history!fail. Grrr. Argh.