I have previously warned that unless something is done to reverse current demographic trends, economic necessity, together with the ‘culture of death’ ideology which is becoming more openly accepted, may well mean that the generation that killed its children will in turn be killed by its own children.
In other words legalised abortion will lead to legalised euthanasia as a cost-saving and population-control measure.
The Political blog ‘Turtle Bay and Beyond’ reported last week on an interview with CFAM’s Susan Yoshihara on the population crisis in China.
‘Demographic trends are poised to spoil Beijing’s plans for a Chinese century,’ said Yoshihara, co-editor (along with Douglas A. Sylvia) of the book, ‘Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics.’
‘The country is aging rapidly and it is facing a contraction in its workforce sooner than anticipated. More than a quarter of the Chinese population will be older than 65 by 2050, up from 8 percent today. And the very old — those over 80 — will increase more than five times. China will see absolute population decline by the end of the next decade.’
I have previously highlighted Sunday Times columnist Minette Marin’s proposed final solution(£) for Britain’s growing number of elderly people and another article in the same paper linking euthanasia with demographic trends.
Lois Rogers (£), reporting on a joint suicide of a British couple in Australia, wrote that ‘Assisted dying is becoming more commonplace with the rise in the number of elderly people. Projections by the government suggest 11m Britons alive today can expect to reach 100.’
In the West we have a growing elderly population supported by a smaller and smaller working population – fuelled by elderly people living longer and an epidemic of abortion, infertility and small families.
These demographic changes, together with economic pressure from growing public and personal debt, and increasing pressure for a change in the law to allow euthanasia, produce a toxic cocktail indeed.
Marin’s solution is euthanasia – ie. continue with our consumptive lifestyles and small families and kill off the elderly.
But there is an alternative.
Britain’s problem is debt. And we are in debt because as a nation and as individuals we have lived beyond our means. Our personal debt is £1,500 billion and our public debt will reach that figure by 2014 (yes its getting bigger in spite of the Coalition’s plan to ‘cut the deficit’. All we are doing is borrowing less each year than we did in the previous one)
So our total debt will be around £3,000 billion (£3 trillion) in just three years’ time.
Let’s put that figure in a global context.
The world’s poorest billion people earn less than £1 per day (£360 per year) and the next poorest two billion earn less than £2 (£720) so the total income for the poorest half of the world’s population is £1,800 billion per year – just over half our nation’s debt.
And yet ironically, it is rich people in the affluent West, rather than the poor in the Global South, who say they can’t afford to look after their dependents and are clamouring for euthanasia.
The real answer is not euthanasia. The real answer is in our grasp, but it requires a completely different mindset to that which has led us, in our reckless pursuit of affluence and personal peace to mortgage our present, bankrupt our futures, and see those who rely on us as a burden rather than a privileged responsibility.
We need instead, as a society, to stop killing our children, build up our families, live more simply, give more generously and focus our priorities on providing for our dependents, especially the older generation which fought for our freedom in two world wars, provided for our health, education and welfare, and left us the legacy of wealth, comfort, peace and security which we have squandered and taken for granted.
We are at a crossroads surveying two possible future societies.
In the first, the independence and autonomy of the individual rule absolute and the weak elderly take an ‘honorable exit’ so as not to burden the young and virile.
The other, by contrast, is an inter-dependent world, where each person, regardless of their level of infirmity or disability is loved, cherished, valued and given the very best level of care that money can buy; one where the strong make sacrifices for the weak, where resources are spent on those who most need them, where what I have is yours if you need it, and vice versa.
Which society would you prefer to live in?
The demographic time-bomb is a challenge but it does not lead me to despair.
Rather it makes me want to live more simply, give more, save more, serve more, love more, value those who are dependent, both old and young, more deeply and work harder to provide good care for all.
The solution is easily within our grasp, but we must have the will to embrace it.