Advertisement
The Maltese Herald
APS : 0.57 AXR : 0.41 BMIT : 0.35 BOV : 1.74 CVS : 1.00 FIM : 0.16 GHM : 0.87 GO : 2.70 HLI : 0.23 HRV : 0.97 HSB : 1.36 IHI : 0.45 LOM : 0.80 LQS : 0.19 LSI : 0.49 LSR : 1.00 MDI : 0.25 MDS : 0.45 MIA : 5.95 MLT : 0.55 MMS : 1.32 MPC : 0.35 MSC : 0.33 MTP : 0.47 MZ : 0.58 PG : 1.89 PZC : 0.63 RS2 : 0.52 RS2P : 0.60 SFC : 6.70 STS : 1.25 TML : 1.00 TRI : 1.12 VBL : 0.20
Culture News Sports
The Maltese Herald

On birth rates and language

—

by

Mark Camilleri
in

It’s a bit confusing, yet not surprising, to see local academics make stupid and vile claims, such as that worrying about the Maltese birth rate is racist.

Apparently, it’s racist if we want to exist as a nation.

The Maltese are not a race but an ethno-linguist group. In order for an ethno-linguistic group to survive it needs to mainly conserve two very important things: a sustainable birth-rate and a living language. Supposedly, an academic who is a specialist in statistics, economics and whatnot, should know that the Maltese ethno-linguistic group faces serious risks by a heavily declining birth rate and the relative decrease of the use of its language. These are very basic things and are not controversial. For the crisis of existentialism there is (supposedly) the philosophy department. That’s where they discuss about being nothing.

Of course, these risks have to be acknowledged and it’s good that society is aware and it is discussing them. It is also the government’s responsibility to manage an economy that incentivises a sustainable birth-rate and the existence and use of its language. One of the things that a government could do to incentivise a sustainable birth-rate is to address the housing crisis: increasing the housing supply smartly especially with the use of high-rises is the obvious and logical solution. Property developers don’t like this idea because they prefer the more profitable option of exclusively building high-rise buildings for luxury properties.

As for the Maltese language, the government has failed to enforce the use of the Maltese language in most of society’s sectors. The government could make use of the incredible option of obliging Third-Country Nationals to obtain a basic Maltese language certification as a prerequisite for a working permit. This would be better than the ridiculous “Skills card” which was made in conjunction with the hotels lobby. Maltese language schools would sprout in India, Bangladesh and the Philippines effectively creating a totally new industry based on the Maltese language with thousands of foreigners studying the Maltese language in foreign schools. This would not only ensure that the Maltese language is actively used in Malta, but it would also ensure the effective growth of the ethno-linguistic group itself.

It’s incredible that no one talks about these issues, while academics continue to fuel the prevailing nihilism and amorality by the government afflicting our society.

Chart above shows births per 1000 people.

 

Comments

6 responses to “On birth rates and language”

  1. Banquo avatar
    Banquo

    In my opinion, any hope that economic or housing initiatives can help improve the birth rate is pure fantasy. When millenials’ grandparents had six children and their parents had three, it’s not because they were rich or life was easy (the grandparents lived through the second world war; the parents grew up in a newly independent country still trying to find its economic feet) but because they wanted to have children.

    Without denying modern hardships and economic difficulties, life today is arguably easier and more convenient than at any point in history. Food (ready-made, too) is abundant, children are guaranteed a decent and free education and appliances will do many of the house chores that women used to spend days labouring over in generations past.

    People do not make children because they don’t want them, or maybe they do want them but first they get side-tracked by other things and by the time they want children, it’s already too late to make more than one. Having children is just not the priority it once used to be. The root of the dearth of children is cultural, not economic.

    Previous generations wanted children because having them was a source of pride. It was how women and men measured their worth, and social and religious pressure started goading people into getting married and starting a family at a young age. Now, all that is gone. Young people face no pressure to get married and the feminist mantra is that women are not baby-making machines so there should be no preaching about the issue.

    Even on Women’s Day, there is no celebration of the most super-human feat that women (and only women) will ever perform: giving birth. Instead, it is all about celebrating women artists, athletes and astronauts. Women are more than just a womb, the slogan goes, although it is unclear whether your grandpa ever thought that the woman he loved was just a womb.

    Lest there be any misunderstanding, this comment is not criticising feminist ideals. On the contrary, watching girls and women achieve unprecedented heights in education, business, politics and other fields has been very satisfying. And as an eternal rebel at heart, I will always support women (and young people in general) breaking free from norms and expectations and living how they best see fit.

    But it has to be said that the old socio-religious order was very good at regenerating itself through a constant stream of new babies and the new liberal order sucks at it. That makes sense, of course. Individuality and uniqueness, not to mention a penchant for existentialism and the angst that comes with it, do not promote having children and spending a lifetime worrying about them. If anything, it promotes being single and a free spirit.

    My initial instinct as someone who wants to let people be is to tell society to get used to the low birth rate. No woman has an obligation towards society to create new members. However, if the low-birth rate is to be deemed a problem (and I do acknowledge that it is one from society’s perspective), then women are going to have to be told some things which are going to sound straight from the 1950s.

    First, understand that having children is a beautiful thing. It may seem like a great burden but, when you are old, you will be glad to be surrounded with children, grand-children and great-grandchildren. Current trends suggest that many people are going to be surrounded with no one in their old age, and it’s going to be very sad and lonely.

    Second, if you are going to have three children or more, start early. You should have your first child by your mid-20s. Waiting till your 30s to have your first child won’t do. Your biological clock will be nearer the end than the beginning. The more you age, the more of a big deal having a child will seem, and possibly other medical complications will creep in. Needing IVF to have your first child sometime in your mid-30s will guarantee that you won’t have another. If you start early, your children will be fully grown up by your 40s and you still have half a lifetime to look forward to instead of spending middle age changing nappies.

    Third, be prepared to make sacrifices. Spending three or more years of your life carrying new human life inside you, not to mention all the exhausting time and money feeding and raising, will probably impact your education, career and holiday plans. Politicians like to pretend that it won’t, and that their policies will ensure you achieve EVERYTHING in life, but children are exhausting and you should expect setbacks. Remember, though, that it’s all worth it, and you have the second half of your life to make up for things you missed out on in your child-rearing years.

    Fourth, accept that there is no right time to have a child, so you might as well get on with it. If you are going to wait till you finish your university education, kickstart your career, travel the world and buy a house before you settle down and have a child, you are going to be too old to have more than one. On the contrary, you should have children while navigating all these other things. Yes, something already messy and complicated will become even more so, but isn’t such madness part of the joy of life?

    Fifth, get married, and young. Children deserve stability and you do too. And ideally there should be two pair of hands fully on deck to raise the children. This will make having more children easier.

    I say all this with a twinkle in my eye but I think it is the reality that all those suddenly panicking about the low birth rate refuse to face. An ever more liberal society which only talks publicly about pregnancies to discuss the right to abortion has suddenly realised that it won’t have future generations. This is the society we have created and the problem is not money or housing. Of course, politicians and academics who have spent decades creating that very society cannot suddenly admit that they promoted the wrong sort of social progress, so they blame other things for the low birth rate.

    Priests can still give the advice I suggested but an increasingly non-religious society is not going to listen. That leaves only one cohort of society which can give young people crazy 1950s advice about family planning: social media influencers. Social media is where the new counter-culture takes place, so perhaps only it can make young marriage and parenthood seem cool again. Interestingly, the hashtag tradwife (traditional wife) has gone viral on TikTok, with women celebrating lifestyles which now seem obsolete.

    Who knows? Maybe having children will become something young people want to do again. If I had to bet some money, though, I would bet it on a low-birth future. People would rather spend an hour watching videos on social media than spend an hour trying to make a baby.

    Reply
  2. About last Sunday's Labour crowd - The Maltese Herald avatar
    About last Sunday's Labour crowd - The Maltese Herald

    […] which carry this role. What the institute should do is tackle the language issue from a structural and macro-perspective as government entities are supposed to. Otherwise, the Maltese Language Centre will become just […]

    Reply
  3. No Sex, please: We're Maltese - The Maltese Herald avatar
    No Sex, please: We're Maltese - The Maltese Herald

    […] the subject of birth-rates is currently topical, this may be a good time to publish this article. In 1994, a small local group […]

    Reply
  4. The weak may inherit heaven, but they surely won't be inheriting a country and a state - The Maltese Herald avatar
    The weak may inherit heaven, but they surely won't be inheriting a country and a state - The Maltese Herald

    […] turns Malta into an illiberal one-party state, it will leave behind a legacy of what is likely the lowest birth rate in Malta’s recorded history. This is the Labour Party’s greatest irony to its steadfast and orthodox upholding of […]

    Reply
  5. The birth-rate problem should not be confused with abortion and Marxist theories of feminism - The Maltese Herald avatar
    The birth-rate problem should not be confused with abortion and Marxist theories of feminism - The Maltese Herald

    […] issue of the Maltese birth-rate is a fundamental and existential problem relating to our language, one that any rational Maltese […]

    Reply
  6. Malta's Archbiship says the world is currently run by crazy people: lists the three main enemies of the Maltese of today - The Maltese Herald avatar
    Malta's Archbiship says the world is currently run by crazy people: lists the three main enemies of the Maltese of today - The Maltese Herald

    […] has a very low birth-rate, and it has the lowest birth-rate in the EU with just 1.06 births in 2023 – with many of […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *