Any reason against raising the fertility rate in a country like Hungary ultimately boils down to anti-humanism and anti-white racism. Therefore, there are no good arguments against the fact that the Hungarian government wants to reverse the country's population decline, writes Sven Larson on the European Conservative.
According to data from the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), the fertility rate in Hungary was 1.52 in 2020. Although it is still too low, it is certainly impressive compared to the figure of 2010, when women had only 1.26 children.
By 2020, no European country had a fertility rate above 2.1, which is the generally accepted statistical threshold for population replacement. Some countries, however, show a promising trend: among the 52 countries tracked by the OECD, Hungary has the second largest increase in fertility between 2010 and 2020. The 21% improvement was surpassed only by Latvia (28%), so Hungary surpassed Russia (17%), the Czech Republic (14%) and Lithuania (13%).
Fertility rates are rising in most countries of Eastern Europe. In addition to Latvia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Lithuania, we also find Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria on the list. However, the fertility rate increased in only two of the Western European countries: Germany and Malta. It decreased in all other European countries, most notably in Finland (-27%), Ireland (-22%) and Sweden (-16%).
The peculiar statistical pattern of the East-West divide raises important questions about the role of family-friendly culture and politics as a factor shaping the optimism of a nation's population. And this mood determines the willingness to maintain its own existence.
It is difficult to find a government in Europe - indeed, in the world - that has done more to stimulate population growth than Hungary.
However, before we examine what the Hungarians did for the future of their country, a more complex question arises: why does it matter whether the population of a nation increases?
This is a delicate matter that few dare to disturb, but there is a connection that simply cannot be ignored, and at the center of it is the doctrine of overpopulation.
This item is not new; the idea that there are too many people on Earth dates back at least half a century. It swept through global politics in the 1970s and had rather serious consequences. The overpopulation doctrines of the time did not yet connect the number of people living on Earth with the climate, the problem was related to nutrition, that we would not be able to feed four billion people. And according to logic, even more people would only lead to mass starvation.
Authoritarian China and India have implemented extreme fertility-restriction policies: the Chinese government notoriously banned families from having more than one child, and the Indian government subjected 6 million of its citizens to forced sterilization.
Today, with twice as many people on Earth as then, we know that population growth has not caused mass starvation. On the contrary: humanity can feed, clothe, house, heal and teach more of its kind than ever before in history,
the overpopulation alarms of the 70s were therefore unfounded.
That is why we could have rightfully expected that the overpopulation argument would die down by now, but it did not, its propagandists just changed to a different tune, this time in line with the environmental movements. The current "overpopulation project" says that we cannot "fairly share the Earth" with other species if our population continues to grow.
If there are more of us, we will destroy the environment.
The "solidarity of species" doctrine is nothing more than an anti-humanist program based on unscientific nonsense, best demonstrated by comparing it to the theory of evolution. If the supporters of overpopulation believe in evolution, then they must also believe in Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest".
Looking at the successes of our species, we have proven that humans are the best suited to populate the planet, therefore it is our moral duty; Darwinian theory says nothing about living in "solidarity" with other species.
Of course, the question is admittedly provocative, and it is not intended to argue in favor of the reckless expansion of human society. It is only meant to illustrate how illogical the overpopulation argument itself is: nature, as explained by the followers of Darwinism, does not shed tears for inferior species.
And why is all this important when we talk about European population policy?
Because despite its illogicality, the overpopulation argument is sometimes used to justify why Europeans should have fewer children. The British newspaper Guardian suggested in 2017 that every aspect of life in the Western world contributes to the destruction of the planet.
The inevitable conclusion, of course, is that the West must stop reproducing itself.
Even proponents of overpopulation see the problem: they need a doctor to take care of them when they get old, they need a policeman to keep their neighborhood safe, they need someone to produce and deliver the food, and so on. The overpopulation movement responded by joining the blatant anti-white racism that
"white supremacy" if native Europeans have children. According to their argument, only mass immigration will solve the problem.
The correct moral response would be to leave this toxic rhetorical wrecking ball alone, but given that it serves as the ultimate "intellectual" basis for attacks on the family-friendly policies of countries like Hungary, it deserves a brief comment.
The idea behind the "white supremacy" agenda is to collectively accuse a certain, easily identifiable group of our fellow human beings. Unfortunately, there have been similar examples in history, the Nazis did this in Germany in the 1930s, and the Maoists in China in the 1950s. In the former case, the Jews were the culprits, and in the latter case, everyone who was considered "privileged": entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors.
Any reason against raising the fertility rate in a country like Hungary ultimately boils down to anti-humanism and anti-white racism. Therefore, there are no good arguments against the fact that the Hungarian government wants to reverse the country's population decline.
Let's see what family-friendly measures have been taken!
An essential element of Fidesz's policy was the ideological transformation of the state benefits provided to families, a 2010 reform emphasized this again. In 2016, the Hungarian government created an innovative housing program for young families. Married couples are entitled to a low-interest loan (3% when the program was created) for up to 25 years. Eligibility criteria are conservative, with the focus again on family formation, sustainability and growth – rather than economic redistribution. This led to an expansion of family-oriented spending and tax refunds; contrary to what some critics would like to claim, the welfare expenditure of the Hungarian state remained high, and even increased in some respects.
The goal of the conservative restructuring of the Hungarian welfare state is precisely to let families manage their economic affairs themselves. It's really quite simple. If we give proportionally the same child tax credit to high-income families as to low-income families, then there will be more families having more children.
But if we do what the left wants, which is to support poverty, then we get more poverty.
The family-friendly welfare state has many other features, including a total of 160 weeks of paid leave for mothers. The social security system replaces 100% of the mother's income during the 24 weeks considered maternity leave; there is no other European country where a 100% replacement rate ensures coverage for such a period of time. But families can also enjoy other tax benefits, for example from 2020 all mothers who raise at least 4 children or who have given birth to 4 or more children will not have to pay personal income tax. In addition, the government has launched various other financial supports for families, such as a car purchase subsidy.
And the tax exemption has now become even more generous: a woman who has her first child before the age of 25 will never have to pay income tax in her life. This also means that the fertility rate will probably continue to rise in Hungary, and the age of first-time mothers will also decrease. Currently, according to OECD family statistics, the 30-34 age group has the highest fertility rate. By 2020, the average age of women having their first child was 28.4 years, compared to 27.7 years in 2010.
In other words, Hungarian women have more children, but a little later than before. At the same time, the upward trend in the age of birth mothers has flattened out recently. Given the Budapest government's commitment to continue building the most family-friendly nation on Earth, it is expected that Hungarian mothers will have more children in the future, and moreover at a younger age.
How could anyone object to this?
Featured Image: News
