This spring, Entertainment Weekly named Battlestar Galactica number four out of the top ten programs on television. The re-invented science-fiction series features the desperate interstellar flight of the less than 50,000 thousand human survivors of a civilization-wide genocide by the robotic Cylons. Praised by the magazine for featuring “dialogue that works as ongoing political/religious debate rather than the usual sci-fi gobbledygook,” the article added that “in divisive times, here’s TV’s only drama that courts both the right and the left with equal conviction.”
This is high praise for a science fiction series, a genre often ignored by critics. Having finished its second season this spring, the series is set to return in October after a long break. As I wrote at BreakPoint last year, Galactica has quite deliberately shaped itself as a metaphoric exploration of America in the post-9/11 era, with the democratic Colonials as the US and the Cylons as radical Islamists determined to destroy the West and its values. But one episode from this spring, “The Captain’s Hand,” was particularly relevant for one of the big questions facing us: Can a civilization increasingly downsizing itself confront a growing Muslim population that is increasingly “over here” in Western nations?
Like most contemporary dramatic television episodes, “The Captain’s Hand” has at least two plots. In the episode’s main story, the Colonialists’ abortion policy is brought into question. The subplot involves a young woman who has smuggled herself aboard the Galactica seeking an abortion, which is legal, though she comes from a colony that frowns on the procedure — sort of like their version of the Bible Belt. When President Laura Roslin (Mary McDonnell), who has always supported abortion rights, expresses her support for the young woman’s decision, Admiral Adama (Edward James Olmos) urges her to reconsider. President Roslin is sitting under the whiteboard where she keeps a running count of the usually declining human population which now numbers 49,584.
Adama: I hate to say this. Because I know that this is a political issue. The fact is that that number doesn't go up very often.
Roslin: I fought for a woman's right to control her body my entire career. No. No.
Adama: I'm just remembering what you said. Right after the Cylon attack. That if we really want to save the human race, we'd better start having babies.
Adama’s words found real-world echoes in a column written by Mark Steyn that points out at length that the West — that is, Europe, England, and the United States, as well as other modern and developed nations — face their disappearance this century not because we will be outfought on the battlefield, but because of the crisis of childlessness. Western nations, as well as Japan, China and other countries, are, simply put, not replacing their current populations by having at least two children per couple. In the West, populations are dropping — at least white populations are — but in Europe, Muslim populations continue to grow. Steyn and others argue that it’s a simple mathematical progression that in two generations or more, Islam will have triumphed without a battle simply because the self-imposed depopulation of the West will cause it to lose cultural weight, creating a vacuum to be filled by Islam.
Steyn asserts that, in the real world, we are at war with radical Islam, which finds its foot soldiers from growing masses who are confident of an eternal reward for their deaths in the battle with the West and face an enemy with no clear reason to fight them.
That's what the war's about: Our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder” — as can be seen throughout much of “the Western world” right now. The progressive agenda — lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism — is collectively the real suicide bomb.
Modernity provides the conditions for diminishing procreation. Speaking in purely economic terms, when an agrarian society changes to an industrialized, urbanized society, the need for children to help with the family farm’s crops decreases and the outgo of family wealth in the cost of raising and educating them receives very little in return. That’s the case Glenn Harlan Reynolds makes in an article about declining birthrates. He also discusses how parenting has simply become more difficult as overprotectiveness and the need to cart kids to endless activities drains the joy out of raising children. And this increases the pressure to have fewer or no children.
Add to that the assumptions of autonomous individualism — the ease of birth control, consumerism, the rise of the welfare state and other factors, all contributing to rationales for abortion — and you have a formula for a birthrate under the replacement level. Thus as the modern world shrinks, the Islamic world grows, both in the Middle East and in Paris and London suburbs.
Did a government policy set out to cut back the population growth of these countries? Not explicitly, except for China’s one-child policy, perhaps, but when all of the factors above and others enter the everyday thinking of individuals and couples and millions of “personal” decisions are made over an amount of time, eventually you get a trend.
Faced with the catastrophically diminished human population, the president of the 12 Colonies on Battlestar Galactica issues a fiat that it is now against the law to have an abortion. In her mind, it has become an issue of rights and freedoms versus the survival of the human race. It is a bitter decision on her part and greeted with dismay by the Colonists. What was once legal is suddenly a criminal act. One can’t help but wonder whether the president really needed to immediately switch from permissiveness to prohibition. Wouldn’t it have been wiser to at least start with an appeal to her society’s self-interest, and sell survival through procreation?
And this brings us back to our own situation — how do nations reverse this trend? Russia is on the cutting edge of the Depopulation Bomb scenario. A Washington Times article reported, “U.N. statistics say that at this rate Russia's population will be 101.5 million by 2050, shrinking… from the over 143 million population of today.”
Other reports say that around half of Russian couples are childless. Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to subsidize families with children to encourage childbearing. Of course, the welfare state expanded to support procreation has its limits — what values should the government appeal to in order to encourage greater birth rates? Indeed, can government exert the kind of encouragement that changes such a fundamental part of human behavior when so many other forces work against it?
A recent column by Washington Post economist Robert Samuelson examines the “birth dearth” in Russia and other countries and questions the belief that the only factor keeping the United States, with a replacement rate of 2.1, from dipping below the replacement level is the Hispanic population. “The fertility rate is 1.9 for non-Hispanic whites.” writes Samuelson, “and about 2 for African Americans, reports demographer Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute.” The difference seems related to American values.
Eberstadt cites three differences with Europe and most other advanced countries: Greater optimism, greater patriotism and stronger religious values. There's some supporting evidence. A survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago asked respondents in 33 countries to react to this statement: “I would rather be a citizen of [my country] than of any other.” Among Americans, 75% “strongly” agreed; among Germans, French and Spanish, comparable responses were 21%, 34% and 21%, respectively.
If a population simply feels better about life in their nation because the values that shape their thinking, they seem more willing to make the investment of childrearing that reflects that confidence.
One of Battlestar Galactica’s recurring themes is the question of whether the human race deserves to survive and each week humanity, through the vivid characterizations and narratives, is tested and sometimes fails, but other times it shows itself worthy of the values it espouses. What do we have to believe about ourselves and live out that makes us worthy of continuing on from one generation to the next?
The core Biblical values that Christians embrace should start with what we learn about humanity in Genesis Chapter 1. I know of no greater basis for human worth than the acknowledgment that we are made in God’s image and likeness — this is the foundation for humanity’s core value.
And Genesis 1 also introduces the Creation Mandate at verse 28: “And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’“ Whatever attraction such arguments against human population growth as those found in Paul Ehrlich’s now widely discredited The Population Bomb, the emerging crisis of depopulation demonstrates the fragility of societies when extinction is one generation away. The values Scripture places upon human life and vitality add an even greater weight to the term “pro-life.” In a western culture that has lost its reason to thrive in any meaningful sense, whose preoccupations have led it to within two or three generations of self-elimination, this commission to invest in future generations must be heeded at all costs, even the loss of perceived “rights and freedoms.”
Of course, how strongly will self-described Christians continue to heed this basic Scriptural admonition? Being just at the replacement level, the United States appears to be on the knife’s edge, and capable of going either forward in continual replenishment of both human and cultural capital or follow the rest of the West into eventual decline into the logical destination of the culture of death. To prevent the latter alternative, we should ask, to what degree have we accommodated ourselves to the decadent values of modern western culture? And as the salt of the earth, with its preservative qualities, through what means should the church exhort society? With the right and righteous elected officials, i.e., through political methods? Or are people more influenced by example? And can those values be conveyed through art forms that speak to a people’s conscience?
One of the artist’s roles in society is to discern trends and use various media to speak symbolically about them. They are like the canary in the coal mine, the first to detect that something’s wrong and provide an early warning to those with ears to hear. Battlestar Galactica has never come closer to touching on a real-world issue than when it raised two questions: What must we do to insure our survival as a culture? And, do we have a culture that deserves to survive?
Alex Wainer teaches communication and mass media at Palm Beach Atlantic University. He is also a regular contributor to The Culture Beat. He can be reached at commdocalex@netscape.net.
(This update courtesy of the Breakpoint.)
