1. Comment #429725 by Szymanowski on November 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Like the people of ancient Greece, Europeans were unwilling to marry or to bring up children.

“That is where Europe is today. 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.”

Why does he consider marriage and childbirth to be such good things? Or even matters of morality at all?

Someone cynical might say it's just another religious leader getting his knickers in a twist about the empowerment of women.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

2. Comment #429727 by Cartomancer on November 5, 2009 at 5:52 pm

The decline of Greece in the third century BC? Due to reductions in birth rate? Well that's a new one on me.

Obviously my tutors at Oxford failed me completely, and that Alexander of Macedon fellow had nothing to do with it...

Oh. Polybius of Megalopolis. I see. I hate to pull rank or anything, but one of my undergraduate tutors, the late, great Peter Derow, was perhaps the world's leading expert on Polybius of Megalopolis. In his esteemed opinion Polybius was so witheringly pro-Roman and anti-Greek that he'd say just about anything to raise the esteem of his Roman hosts at the expense of his Hellenic homeland. He might have helped to streamline Aristotle's model of constitutional change, but his abilities as a demographer and predictor of cultural change were sorely lacking. He was also writing in the second century BC (his dates are c. 203 - 120 BC) and, surprise surprise, mostly just coming up with bizarre theories from his imperfect knowledge of Greek history to back up his conviction that the future was bright, the future was Roman. The fact he was, for the majority of his life, a political prisoner of the Romans (the pro-masculinity, anti-effeminacy, highly conservative Romans) has nothing to do with it I suppose.

And in the current climate of massive world overpopulation, it seems that having children is the very selfish act now. How dare this bearded, homophobic, misogynistic lunatic try to pass off the wasting of the world's already overstretched resources as the moral thing to do?

No, what we need is to export secularism to the rest of the world. And we will only have succeeded when intellectual nobodies like the chief rabbi are no longer given the slightest credence when they spout their vile anti-human rubbish.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

3. Comment #429729 by George Lennan on November 5, 2009 at 6:02 pm

Check out the comments following the article in the Times. Sacks has shot himself in the foot here - even Times readers are under no illusion that population decline is a bad thing.

On a related note, I was just thinking that the Abrahamic practise of chopping a bit of a lad's cock off should be encouraged, right to the far end of the John Thomas if possible, thus contributing further to both population decline in general and population decline in those religions in particular.

Other Comments by George Lennan

4. Comment #429731 by Jos Gibbons on November 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm

the rise of secularism had made people too selfish to have children.

The biology of selfishness mandates the exact opposite. You're decades behind science. The reason we don't have 14 kids each, like African families, is because our women aren't slaves to reproduction. Unless you get your way.

Comparing its decline to that of ancient Greece in the third century of the pre-Christian era, he said the answer lay in the rediscovery of the continent's Judeo-Christian religious roots.

Judaism and Christianity began in the Middle East, and from a European perspective are imports. If people needed religion to not go extinct, we wouldn't have existed long enough to invent it. Greece didn't go extinct, either before or after Christianity destroyed all its intellectual achievements.

Either we win or the fundamentalists win ... [If the latter] I wouldn't hang around too long.

What about the non-religious winning? Or a stable equilibrium? Besides, if anyone will make us have more kids than necessary it'll be fundamentalists.

think-tank Theos

Lol.

Sacks said Europe was the world's most secular region and the only one experiencing population decline.

Good. There are too many people in the world. Europe is hardly going to go extinct.

neo-Darwinian attacks on religion - typified by Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion - were leading to a population crisis

So after 5 years of book sales people don't want kids any more? He seems to think these books' secondary effects exceed their observable effect in reducing religiosity. For one thing, only people convinced of atheism by the books would in turn be convinced by them of anything else allegedly connected to it, like women's reproductive rights for example.

The only serious philosophical question is, why should I have a child? Our culture is not giving an easy answer

Maybe we should have fewer kids then. There are plenty of other important questions too, like how we should treat others. If Sacks thinks otherwise, then he could not condemn genocides. If he's anything like rabbis I know, he'll manage to make at least one exception to that.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

5. Comment #429732 by j.mills on November 5, 2009 at 6:08 pm

Population reduction = death of civilisation? If he really believes all that double-talk hogwash, he's an idiot. If he doesn't, he must think the rest of us are.

Fucktard. Because sometimes, only ad hominem will do...

Other Comments by j.mills

6. Comment #429735 by bertie wooster on November 5, 2009 at 6:15 pm

The only problem with a lower birth-rate, one of the few ways to achieve sustainability is that mass immigration is not only replacing Europeans but adding to them by their high birth rates.

Other Comments by bertie wooster

7. Comment #429736 by hungarianelephant on November 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm

What a horrible, confused mess of a piece. One hardly knows where to begin.

How about some things Sacks doesn't appear to have considered at all:

(1) The availability of contraception. In earlier generations, children weren't really much of a choice if you were to have any kind of normal relationship. They were just a fact of life. The advent of effective contraception has led to a steep decline in the number of children per family. And of course it is more easily available in a Europe which happens to be largely secular - any causal link remains to be shown.

(2) Economics. In an agrarian society, it's essential to have lots of children to help work the farm. The additional cost is marginal. In urbanied societies, there is little economic gain from having children, but plenty of additional expense where space and food are premium resources.

(3) Welfare states. Plot birth rates against the extent of welfare states - guess what you see? Put bluntly, in a non welfare state, you have to rely on your children to provide for your old age. In a welfare state, you can rely on other people's children instead.

(4) The relative decline of misogyny. No need to keep popping out sprogs until you get an heir and a spare any more.

(5) Redefining selflessness. For much of its history, Europe was dominated by the Catholic church. Which demanded that its priests not have children because ... that was the selfless thing to do. Some inconsistency here, perhaps?

Oh, screw this. It's not worth the trouble.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

8. Comment #429737 by Logicel on November 5, 2009 at 6:25 pm

This guy is so scary and insane that I might now be frightened of men with beards!

All I can say is Hans Gosling. He showed with his perky graphic stats that because of better education/declining birth rates, poverty/hunger is getting smashed all over the globe. Suck on that, you pathetic, selfish piece of fear-mongering, guilt-pushing merde.

In addition, Europeans are still having children, they are just having LESS. What a maroon.

Other Comments by Logicel

9. Comment #429739 by Corylus on November 5, 2009 at 6:28 pm

He argued that neo-Darwinian attacks on religion – typified by Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion – were leading to a population crisis in Europe.

Blimy, look what RD's gone and done now!

A risible article generally, but saved from complete inanity by an original accusation. It's not the feminists and teh gays messing up traditional breeding practices after all - it's Richard Dawkins.

OK.

Other Comments by Corylus

10. Comment #429740 by Stafford Gordon on November 5, 2009 at 6:29 pm

The worst thing we could do is go on increasing world population; that's the most selfish, irresponsible and dangerous thing to do.

There's no logic in what he says; it's simply regurgitation of received dogmas.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

11. Comment #429741 by sdando on November 5, 2009 at 6:32 pm

It is simply offensive and quite wrong to equate (as so many religious leaders do) not having children with selfishness and having children with selflessness.

People have children because they WANT a little replica of their own DNA. They WANT a little replica of their own DNA because that's what natural selection has favored for so many years. It's selfish behavior not selfless behavior (not meant to be a value judgement on the rightness or wrongness of procreation).

This is just another case of the religious not understanding the evolutionary basis of cultural and religious traditions. It also smacks a bit of racism and "in group" favoritism since the world population, as a whole, continues to expand (but don't use condoms Africa cause they make you get more HIV...) but he is worried that the Judeo-Christian Europeans will lose market share and influence if they don't breed enough to keep pace with the developing world.

Other Comments by sdando

12. Comment #429742 by Mr Blue Sky on November 5, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Apparently that strident fellow's outpourings and publications are having a bigger effect than we thought!! Go RD !

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

13. Comment #429743 by hungarianelephant on November 5, 2009 at 6:41 pm

11. Comment #429741 by sdando

but he is worried that the Judeo-Christian Europeans will lose market share and influence if they don't breed enough to keep pace with the developing world.

This actually happened to the Episcopalian church in the US. It preached a rather more ecological approach instead of "go forth and multiply", and was rewarded with its decline.

Though the biggest threat to Judaism is probably people marrying out.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

14. Comment #429747 by Gobby on November 5, 2009 at 6:51 pm

My head hurts...

What does he mean by "dying"? Can he provide some objective measurements? And what the hell does he mean by "winning"? Who is keeping scores? The lingo reminds me of Bush.

He argued that neo-Darwinian attacks on religion – typified by Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion – were leading to a population crisis in Europe.

Damn. So Europe had a positive birth rate before Prof. Dawkins released his book? Is he suggesting that The God Delusion is the most effective contraception?

If Europe is in crisis, in some sense it is in my personal view, it is because nutjobs like Sacks somehow rise to "respectable" positions and earning "titles", and as such they are exempted from questions and forums are automatically given to them. If I were the editor of the Times, I'd publish this piece only if there is a following rebuttal by any sane academics.

Other Comments by Gobby

15. Comment #429749 by carbonman on November 5, 2009 at 7:01 pm

He's been called on to give a keynote speech, couldn't think of bugger all to say and thrown this stuff together. Start from the popular assumptions that religion = nice warm fuzzies, and secularism = selfish and nasty, put in a few kids for added big-blue-eyes appeal, shove it all in a sentence or two and open fire. Fred Bloggs on his soapbox in the park would be ignored. The Chief Rabbi is published, because he's the Chief Rabbi.

Other Comments by carbonman

16. Comment #429751 by mlgatheist on November 5, 2009 at 7:03 pm

There is the problem with the more intelligent people having few to no children. It is the less intelligent people that will have decendants in the future to rule the world.

That is why I think that here in America the religious nuts are taking over congress and the courts. They have out bred those of us who are not religious. They have the votes to do what they want. Even the Democratic party is being filled with religious people, more so than any time in the past.

Other Comments by mlgatheist

17. Comment #429752 by mlgatheist on November 5, 2009 at 7:06 pm

sdando,

"People have children because they WANT a little replica of their own DNA. They WANT a little replica of their own DNA because that's what natural selection has favored for so many years. "

Unfortunately the very religious have children to obey their "god" and to have more children to do the will of their "god". The more children that they have the more they believe that they are pleasing their "god" and so expect to have a better "after-life". Now that is selfish as well.

Other Comments by mlgatheist

18. Comment #429753 by ukantic on November 5, 2009 at 7:10 pm

To paraphrase Mencken - People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need more kids.

Other Comments by ukantic

19. Comment #429756 by Stafford Gordon on November 5, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Comment 11 sdando:

Your argument is fine, except that wanting children without taking into account the environment is dangerous.

It was reading Thomas Malthus's On Population that provided Darwin with a vital clue about about natural selection; I think I'm right in saying that it was the correlation between population and envoronment which brought about the dawning of the idea for his theory.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

20. Comment #429758 by TIKI AL on November 5, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Remember, remember, the 5th of November,
Go forth and multiply with your 3rd member.

Happy GF day to my friends across the pond.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

21. Comment #429759 by Rikitiki13 on November 5, 2009 at 7:35 pm

The article says the Chief Rabbi expressed (about Europe) "Its loss of a tolerant religious culture made it vulnerable to the advance of fundamentalism, he argued."

Uh - 'tolerant religious culture'£ Not if you read their books they're not...

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

22. Comment #429761 by the great teapot on November 5, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Yeah if you don't want to be governed by the religious you better drop all this secular nonsense.

Other Comments by the great teapot

23. Comment #429762 by noelbroadhead on November 5, 2009 at 7:44 pm

The underlying message I get from this piece (of sludge) is "OK, so there is no god, but we still need religion because it's good for us".

The bit that I take from that (and agree with) is "there is no god".

Other Comments by noelbroadhead

24. Comment #429766 by Sally Luxmoore on November 5, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Another religious beardy in the House of Lords...

I think it's a backhanded compliment that secularism is seen as a threat to religion. They're on the back foot.

Still, being "selfish" is preferable to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor's view of us as not really fully human. (I'm not going to forget that one in a hurry).

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

25. Comment #429768 by David Blackwell on November 5, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Now, how come people like this have "Lord" in front of their name? I'm becoming increasingly wary of the mere fact of someone being a British lord or knight.

Other Comments by David Blackwell

26. Comment #429770 by the great teapot on November 5, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Quite frankly I am suprised we let Jews become Lords, it is against the christian tradition of the country.
Hell, if he can be a bigot then why can't I.

Other Comments by the great teapot

27. Comment #429776 by jaytee_555 on November 5, 2009 at 8:06 pm

Some of the greatest thinkers the world has produced have been jews. How on earth have British jews ended up with this cretin as leader and spokesperson?

Other Comments by jaytee_555

28. Comment #429778 by the great teapot on November 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm

He is not a spokesman for British Jews, he is a spokesman for the jewish religious community.
(and probably not all of them)

Other Comments by the great teapot

29. Comment #429779 by Stonyground on November 5, 2009 at 8:17 pm

The Rabbi JS has a long track record of lies and distortions thanks to Radio Four's daily 7:50am God slot. As for this article, it is basically just stuff that he made up of the top of his head.

An interesting point is that the non religious don't need to breed like rabbits to stay around because religious people are giving birth to atheists nowadays. I myself am living proof of this.

Other Comments by Stonyground

30. Comment #429783 by Dave Crossley on November 5, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Only a madman or economist thinks that unrestrained population growth is a good thing.

Other Comments by Dave Crossley

31. Comment #429796 by boagie on November 5, 2009 at 8:42 pm

I think you have to read between the lines here, with Europe becoming more secular and the secular having less children Europe is going to become Islamic, those are the fundamentalists of the fundamentalists. Remember startrek, "The Borg", "It is useless to resist, you shall be assimilated." They are out breeding Europeans as we speak.

Other Comments by boagie

32. Comment #429800 by Cartomancer on November 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm

Only a madman or economist thinks that unrestrained population growth is a good thing.

Hey, no fair! I'm a madman and my beloved is an economist, and neither of us thinks that!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

33. Comment #429805 by DeusExNihilum on November 5, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Well this man is clearly an idiot. I would of thought it obvious to even the most pig-ignorant (No pun intended, Mr Rabbi) individual knew that the planet was over-populated, and this guy is worried that we're not all Screwing like rabbits?

I think, because of the nature of religion, he's just worried that the number of impressionable children is in decline. Less minds to warp is bad for membership.

Other Comments by DeusExNihilum

34. Comment #429807 by aquilacane on November 5, 2009 at 9:03 pm

He has three children but only four grandchildren. Someone in his own family isn't pumping enough seed me thinks. Must have some secular children. That's gotta sting.

Other Comments by aquilacane

35. Comment #429808 by Jos Gibbons on November 5, 2009 at 9:05 pm

I would of thought it obvious to even the most pig-ignorant (No pun intended, Mr Rabbi)

Good one.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

36. Comment #429814 by the great teapot on November 5, 2009 at 9:12 pm

"I think you have to read between the lines here"

I don't think he could have said it clearer without being accused of being a religious bigot.
Well actually J'accuse.

Other Comments by the great teapot

37. Comment #429819 by JSB2024 on November 5, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Erm, I'm no scientist, but isn't one of the root causes of climate change the massive overpopulation crisis that has been caused in no small part due to religious instructions to "be fruitful and multiply"? Religions using breeding as a means of assimilating one another have brought humanity to the point of endangering the planet itself. How would breeding more rapidly help Europe's population?

Other Comments by JSB2024

38. Comment #429821 by Glaurung40 on November 5, 2009 at 9:37 pm

It's the same old song and dance: Without religion no civilization, though it's the other way around.

Other Comments by Glaurung40

39. Comment #429825 by lastgreekstanding on November 5, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Cartomancer,

The decline of Greece in the third century BC? Due to reductions in birth rate? Well that's a new one on me.

Obviously my tutors at Oxford failed me completely, and that Alexander of Macedon fellow had nothing to do with it...

I think your Oxford tutors may have also mentioned the Peloponnesian War. ;)


P.S. Does anyone recall what the historian Arnold Toynbee (an atheist, btw) had to say about religion and civilizations?

Other Comments by lastgreekstanding

40. Comment #429832 by Ned Flanders on November 5, 2009 at 10:06 pm

"Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks"

This guy goes by that name? Seriously?

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

41. Comment #429833 by Bonzai on November 5, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Lord Sacks' first name is Ball. That would explain the preoccupation with procreation.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #429834 by j.mills on November 5, 2009 at 10:12 pm

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks: Europe is dying from secularism

Tut. It's "Chief Rabbi Lord Sucks". Does no one proof-read anymore?

Other Comments by j.mills

43. Comment #429845 by quisquose on November 5, 2009 at 10:33 pm

This man appears quite regularly on BBC radio. He's got quite a nice friendly voice, so that's in his favour. But every single time I have heard him speak in the last couple of years, no matter what the subject, he has had a dig at secularism.

Quite frankly the man is obviously obsessed with the word. So you would think he would actually understand what it means. Sadly not.

Other Comments by quisquose

44. Comment #429846 by Dax on November 5, 2009 at 10:39 pm

So many people, so few resources... and population decline is a bad thing? Why?

Peaceful, free choice population decline is the ethical objective we should strive for, for the sake of our future generations and all the other organisms we share this planet with.

Other Comments by Dax

45. Comment #429854 by troyreynolds86 on November 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Wow, then the enigma of the United States must make the good rabbi's head near implode. A highly religious nation that worships consumerism with every ounce of feverous reverance as they have ever praised Jesus, as well as watching birthrate be slashed to a mere fraction of what they were a century ago.

Would he honestly have us breed with unchecked vigor until we stand shoulder to shoulder, shore to shore, reducing our available food sources to the point that our neighbors become the other white meat for lack of a different option? Would he honestly want us to reduce our economic workforce by half so that there is an elegable person to watch over the expanding brood?

Could he possibly hate the fact that women now have career and reproductive choices any more than what he displayed here?

Troy

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

46. Comment #429858 by Mark Jones on November 5, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Blimey, what with this and the loony Archbishop of Cologne, Richard's going to have to change his avatar to read "Is this the most dangerous man in the world today?"

Other Comments by Mark Jones

47. Comment #429867 by Cartomancer on November 5, 2009 at 11:22 pm

This man appears quite regularly on BBC radio. He's got quite a nice friendly voice, so that's in his favour. But every single time I have heard him speak in the last couple of years, no matter what the subject, he has had a dig at secularism.

I have recently begun to have significant doubts about the BBC's ethical position with regard to the ridiculous notion that morality and religion are natural bedfellows. Observe the following synopses, taken from the BBC Iplayer website, of their new rubbish reality documentary thing "The World's Strictest Parents":

Two wayward British teenagers experience strict parenting on the other side of the world.

Party-mad 17-year-old Bex Keene from Walton-on-Thames and lazy, 16-year-old image-obsessed Chezden Dundee from Bolton travel Stateside to get new parents in Atlanta, Georgia.

They must spend a week living under the strict rules of the God-fearing Kimbroughs, a southern Baptist family dedicated to the success of their children. Dad David is a Baptist preacher while mum Wanda is a primary-school administrator.

In Obama's new America, the Kimbroughs prepare a rules contract for the teens' stay that prohibits smoking and taking the Lord's name and demands a B average in all schoolwork. Above all the else, the Kimbroughs emphasise respect and self-discipline and work hard to instil these values into Bex and Chezden.

Over the week, the Brits are strictly supervised as they go to church and school, and do homework and daily chores. Can the Kimbroughs' strictly moral lifestyle effect any change in the ill-disciplined teens? (R)

Two wayward British teenagers experience strict parenting on the other side of the world, as 17-year-old single mum Hannah Thorpe from Liverpool and 17-year-old image-obsessed James Gowing from Leicester travel to Utah, USA.

For a week they must live under the strict rules of the God-fearing Peck family. Dad Spencer is a plumber, while his wife Nicholeen is a stay-at-home mum who home schools their four children. As devoted Mormons, the Pecks believe that rigid boundaries are key to raising a happy family and have prepared a set of rules for the British teens that include wearing modest clothing, no smoking and no drinking any stimulants like tea, coffee or cola.

Over the week the teens are strictly supervised as they do daily chores, attend home school lessons and help out on a local ranch. Can the Pecks' strict Mormon parenting and rigid moral code reach the wayward teens and help them alter their self-destructive ways?

Note that it is simply assumed, and never questioned, that "strict" and "religious" therefore equals "moral". And, moreover, that the wayward antics of the chosen teenagers in question are somehow immoral. Now, as I say, the programmes themselves are sensationalist voyeuristic tosh, but the message behind them is all to nauseatingly clear. In fact there is no attempt even made in the first one to take the father of the southern baptist family to task for his rampant and uncritical homophobia towards the openly gay teenager in his temporary charge. If even the BBC, among the most liberal and respected broadcasters in the world, simply repeats the old lie without reflection, we have a very long way to go indeed.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

48. Comment #429880 by Kmita on November 6, 2009 at 12:13 am

"Its loss of a tolerant religious culture"

Because, as everyone knows, there was A WHOLE HEAP of TOLERANT religious culture in Europe before secularism...

right??

no???

Didn't think so. /facepalm

Other Comments by Kmita

49. Comment #429885 by Jack Rawlinson on November 6, 2009 at 12:43 am

He says that as if population decline were a bad thing. For pity's sake, the world needs a hell of a lot more of it!

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

50. Comment #429890 by SilentMike on November 6, 2009 at 1:20 am

He argued that neo-Darwinian attacks on religion — typified by Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion — were leading to a population crisis in Europe.

Oh come on now!

As a (cultural) Jew I am deeply offended. There's a stereotype floating around that we're supposed to be smart, and that ass is ruining it.

Other Comments by SilentMike