Military Review

Low birth rate is one of the key problems of the national security of modern Russia

64
One of the most pressing problems for the national security of the Russian state is the demographic situation in the country. It is known that the birth rate in modern Russia, despite a certain improvement associated with a relative increase in the standard of living in the 2000-s (compared to the 1990-s) and some state measures in the direction of stimulating demographic growth, remains at a rather low level. At least, it is hardly possible to say that the Russian birth rate currently covers the need for replenishing the country's population. Russian citizens are rapidly aging, especially in the “Russian” regions of the country where the lowest birth rate is observed.


Causes of the demographic decline

A strong demographic decline was observed in Russia throughout almost the entire twentieth century and was associated not only with changes in the socio-economic and socio-cultural foundations of the Russian state, but also with the fact that during the years of wars, revolutions, collectivization and industrialization, political repression the Russian state lost 140 -150 million people. Accordingly, since a significant part of the dead and the dead were people of both sexes of childbearing age, as well as children and adolescents, the number of potential newborns who could have been born to victims of global cataclysms decreased by tens of millions of people. stories.

However, no less significant role in the demographic crisis in Russia was also played by the decrease in the number of children of the average Russian woman. According to A. Vishnevsky - one of the largest domestic specialists in demography, for the period from 1925 to 2000. the birth rate declined, on average, for a woman's 5,59 per woman (A. Vishnevsky, Demography of the Stalin era). Moreover, the most active decline in birth rates occurred in the period from 1925 to 1955. - that is, for periods of industrialization and collectivization, World War II, the post-war restoration of Soviet infrastructure. The population of modern Russia is annually decreasing by about 700 thousand people, which makes it possible to speak of the country as gradually dying out (yes, that’s not embarrassed by these words, President Vladimir Putin himself described it back in the 2000 year, and later 6 in the 2006 year - he said that the population of Russia by the end of the XXI century may be halved, if not taken drastic measures to improve the demographic situation in the country).

Very often in everyday judgments about the causes of declining birth rates there is an explanation of low birth rates by social conditions, first of all, insufficient material well-being of the population, lack of high-paying work for parents, separate and large housing, and infrastructure of kindergartens and schools. However, when compared with third world countries or the same pre-revolutionary Russia, such arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. We see the conditions in which the majority of the Central Asian population lives, not to mention the Africans or the inhabitants of South Asia. However, overcrowding, poverty (and sometimes outright poverty), the lack of social prospects do not prevent people from having children, and in quantities of “from five and above”.



In fact, the causes of declining birth rates in Russia in the twentieth century lie more in the ideological plane. Their main stimulus is the devaluation of traditional values ​​and the destruction of the way of life of the Russian and other peoples of the country during the revolution and, especially, the post-revolutionary Stalinist transformations. It is impossible not to pay tribute to the Stalin era as a period of maximum development of industry, defense, security of the Soviet state, the spread of universal literacy of the population, the availability of medical care (albeit not highly qualified, but still significant).

However, for a rapid breakthrough in the economy of the USSR, mobilization of the largest possible number of citizens, the involvement of virtually the entire working population of the country, including both men and women, was required. According to A. Vishnevsky, "the very methods by which the Stalinist leadership of the USSR achieved - and achieved - a" great breakthrough "in the life of the people were such that they recklessly destroyed the whole system of traditional values, including family values" (A. Vishnevsky in the Stalin era).

Despite the fact that Stalin and his entourage negatively assessed the activities of the “leftist” wing of the Bolshevik Party, insisting in the first post-revolutionary years of the complete destruction of the institution of the family, which promoted the sexual freedom of men and women, the freedom of abortions, in fact the “left communists” had a lot borrowed. And, first of all, a specific model of the organization of family relations. It can be called proletarian, since it was from the proletariat as a class of wage workers, mainly living in cities and employed in factory production, that such family organization became possible. In the farmer, the number of children did not matter much; moreover, having many children was in favor, since children are future hands, where you can feed two, always feed three, and so on. The peasants also had the possibility of placing numerous offspring in their hut, in the case of growing children - in the hut, built nearby, in the annex.

In contrast, the urban proletarians, huddled in the rooms and apartments of apartment buildings, could not afford numerous offspring. And because of the lack of places for accommodation, and because of the different nature of labor activity, the proletarian worked for wages and the child became just another feeder, reducing the well-being of the family without any return (when he grew up, he did not work in his father’s household, like a peasant son, but he went on his own "bread", that is, did not bring direct material returns to the parental family). Moreover, in urban proletarian families, women, as a rule, went to work. Women-workers, who found themselves in a situation of independent choice of labor activity, place of residence, had a completely different model of sexual behavior. First, they depended to a much lesser extent on the opinions of those around them than the peasant women. Secondly, being self-employed workers, they could afford the behavior that they considered necessary. Naturally, for them, having many children was an obvious obstacle - after all, it directly interfered with factory work.

The concept of "new woman" and fertility

The ideology of the family policy of Soviet Russia was shaped by the concepts of the “new woman”, which began to take shape in the 19th century in the works of both domestic and foreign writers and revolutionary-democratic philosophers. In Russia, the “new woman” was written primarily by N.G. Chernyshevsky. In the West, the idea of ​​women's emancipation was much more developed. The ideology of feminism has been formed, which currently includes many branches - liberal, socialist, radical, lesbian, and even “black” feminism. The consequences of the spread of feminism in the countries of Western Europe are not to be recalled, this situation is rather pitiable for European societies and is the cause of significant contradictions between various groups of the European population.

In Russia, feminist ideas, including the concept of creating a “new woman,” found grateful supporters among representatives of revolutionary parties and movements, first of all - the Social Democrats. The Socialist-Revolutionaries - the “populists” were, nevertheless, to a greater degree, they were soil scientists, although similar theoretical constructs were spread among them. In the revolutionary years, Alexandra Kollontai became the main theorist of the “new woman” concept. This amazing woman - a politician, a diplomat, a revolutionary - managed not only to form his own concept of family-sex relations in a socialist society, but also with his own biography to largely demonstrate what the image of the “new woman” represents.

According to Kollontai, the traditional image of women from time immemorial was associated with humility, a focus on a prosperous marriage, lack of initiative in building your own life and life independence. A traditional woman is such a specific addition to a man, his companion and comrade, deprived of, in fact, her own “I” and, often, self-esteem. In contrast to the traditional image of a woman, Kollontai put forward the concept of a “new woman” - self-sufficient, active politically and socially, treating a man as equal and really equal to him in building her own independent life.

The image of the “new woman” is, first of all, the image of a woman unmarried. Let's add - and, as follows from the disclosure of this image, childless - because having a child, especially two or three, not to mention five, deprives a woman of her independence in the understanding of Alexandra Kollontai. She calls the three main principles of building new love-marriage relations: equality in mutual relations, mutual recognition of the rights of the other without a claim to full control of the heart and soul of a partner, comradely sensitivity to her love partner (Kollontai A. Dear a winged erost. 1923. ).

Already in the middle of 1920's. Kollontai's works were officially criticized in the Soviet Union. Gradually, it was forgotten and its concept - they chose to keep silent about it. Moreover, with the strengthening of Soviet statehood, the country's leadership had no options other than a partial return to traditional values. In the official press, literature, and cinema of the Stalin era, a type of Soviet woman was promoted who managed to combine the features of Kollontai's “new woman” in terms of party and social activity, labor feats, and the traditional family behavior of the mother and wife. However, it is not difficult to guess that the ideology of the Soviet state differed from the actual practice of organizing family and demographic policy. Motherhood was formally promoted, divorce was assessed negatively, in 1936, the Soviet government banned abortion, but in fact the social policy of the Soviet state was not aimed at actually strengthening the demographic foundations of the country.

The decline in the birth rate in the Stalin era shows that the measures taken to ban abortions did not give the desired result. Firstly, in the Soviet Union, women in the bulk were employed. Those who received higher and secondary vocational education, after graduation, were sent to work on distributions - often to completely different regions of the country. Their chances of a quick marriage decreased. And the system of state propaganda itself, to a large extent, did not focus women (like men) on family values.

Although the Soviet state needed numerous workers' hands, soldiers and officers, new engineers and scientists, and really took tremendous steps in this direction (just look at the number of educational institutions of all levels that appeared in the Stalin era, the number of children "from the people", received high-quality professional education and achieved heights in various fields of scientific, military, industrial, cultural activities), something turned out to be irretrievably lost. And this “something” was the very meaning of childbearing and creating a strong full-fledged family. The family was deprived of its economic, economic, social content, although it was proclaimed a “cell of society”. It was possible to raise children in kindergarten, change their husbands or wives periodically (if they didn’t arrange any nuances of living together, or simply “tired”), there was practically no economic significance for a man and a woman living together in a city apartment.

Low birth rate is one of the key problems of the national security of modern Russia


After the departure of Stalin and the "de-Stalinization" of the Soviet Union, even those measures to preserve the birth rate that Stalin tried to introduce by banning abortions were canceled. Despite the fact that after the war there was even a certain increase in population, it was not possible to reach the birth rate that would allow to increase the population of the Soviet state many times over time. What happened in the post-Soviet period should not be reminded. In 1990, economic factors also played a role, and, to an even greater degree, the final destruction of traditional values ​​and their replacement by a westernized surrogate. Moreover, if in the Soviet model of family-sex policy, women at least oriented themselves, if not to family life, then to creative activity “for the good of the homeland and the party”, then in the post-Soviet period the values ​​of personal material well-being were finally eclipsed by all other life orientations.
As motherhood and marriage ceased to be regarded as real values ​​by the majority of Russian youth, a global “lack of children” was formed.

Although many sociological surveys of young Russians show that the family for Russian youth remains the most important life value (or, at least, second in importance), the discrepancy between what is desired (what Russians answer to sociologists) and real is obvious. The latter is not encouraging - the level of divorces is extremely high in the country - 50% of marriages are falling apart, which keeps Russia among the world leaders in the number of divorces. As for childbearing, only in the 2000-s, after the introduction of real material incentives, citizens began to give birth to more children (however, some skeptics explain the relative increase in the birth rate in the country in the 2000-ies by the fact that the generation of the “demographic boom” entered the child-bearing age "1980-ies, and the socio-economic conditions of life in the country relatively stabilized).

The introduction of so-called payments played an important role here. “Maternity capital”, which is paid at the birth of the second child and attaining the age of three years. The decision to start paying maternity capital was made in 2006, while, in order to prevent representatives of marginal groups from using it for mercenary purposes, it was decided not to issue it in cash, but to issue a special certificate allowing it to purchase housing for a certain amount. , close a mortgage loan, pay for the child’s education.

Currently, the maternity capital is about 430 thousand rubles. The sum is rather big - in some regions of Russia you can buy your own housing for it, or at least really improve your living conditions. Discusses the conditions and the emergence of other possibilities of spending the funds of the parent capital in the interests of the family and children. However, only material motivation can not increase fertility. Especially, if we take into account the fact that to obtain maternity capital, it is still required to have a first child. Therefore, some sociologists evaluate the very idea of ​​material incentives for fertility very skeptically, referring to the fact that only representatives of marginalized population groups or migrant diasporas will give birth in order to receive assistance from the state in the amount of 430 thousand rubles. That is, even in this case, the problem of the demographic security of the Russian state will not be solved.

Abortion threatens demographics

Another problem in Russia in the field of fertility is abortion. Officially, abortions were resolved in Soviet Russia immediately after the October Revolution. In the 1920 year, the RSFSR allowed termination of pregnancy not only for medical reasons, becoming the first country in the world to legalize abortion. In 1936, abortions were banned and re-legalized only in 1955, following the “de-Stalinization” policy. Between 1990 and 2008 in post-Soviet Russia, according to official data, 41 million 795 thousands of abortions were produced. This number covers the real needs of the Russian state in the workforce (about 20 million people in the specified period), which allows many public and political figures to consider abortion as a direct threat to the demographic security of the Russian state.

About half of the country's population today speaks against abortions in Russia. Opinion polls show a gradual reduction in the number of supporters of abortion - from 57% of respondents in 2007 to 48% in 2010 (Levada Center. On the reproductive behavior of Russians). The views of opponents of abortion are expressed, as a rule, by nationalist political movements and religious organizations. Among them are both absolute opponents of any abortions, including even medical abortions, and moderate opponents of abortions, recognizing the possibility of their performing in justified cases (medical indicators, rape, social disorder, etc.).

First of all, Russian public figures and traditionalist philosophers oppose the practice of abortion. For them, abortions are not only a threat to the national security of the Russian state, one of the reasons for reducing the potential population of the Russian Federation, but also a challenge to religious values, traditional ideological orientations, which are inherent in almost all nations of the world, but collapse in the process of de-traditionalization of modern society, learning individualistic and consumer values ​​of modern western capitalism. After all, the childe fries ideology - voluntary childlessness, erected in the valor of modern “creacles” and aimed at imitating by dim-minded consumers, is a purposeful imposition of anti-Russian fundamentally principles of not giving birth to children, creating a full-fledged family in the name of “own realization”, which often just a possibility of everyday and carefree "hanging out", shopping, and even just idleness, drunkenness and drug addiction.

The decline in fertility is one of the goals of the numerous associations of “family planning” that originally arose in Western European countries on the initiative of feminist movements and are sponsored by the international financial community interested in reducing the population — primarily in developed countries, since here a large population means growth of social responsibility and economic burdens on capitalists. Therefore, it is more expedient to “reduce” the number of indigenous people while simultaneously importing foreign migrants from backward third world countries who will be ready to do hard work without social guarantees and any requirements for improving their situation (now the experience of modern Europe shows that this is far from not so many migrants do not work at the new place of residence, but they even require social guarantees and all sorts of privileges, but it’s no longer possible to change the situation. possible for most western states).

Philosopher Oleg Fomin-Shakhov, one of the most convinced opponents of abortion in modern Russia, stresses that “the problem of abortion in today's Russia is primarily a problem of demographic security. At the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo 5 – 13 in September 1994, an action program was adopted, which essentially represented voluntary-compulsory sanctions for self-abridgement for Russia. The program stated that for sustainable regional and global socio-economic development it is necessary to take measures to reduce the birth rate, primarily through the development of family planning services (contraception, sterilization, abortion “in adequate conditions”) ”(O. Fomin-Shakhov. Russia without abortion. The newspaper “Tomorrow.” The electronic version of 5 June 2014 g.).

At the same time, Oleg Fomin-Shakhov proposes to take advantage of the American experience of the prolifer movement, that is, opponents of abortion and supporters of preserving human life in the womb. In the opinion of Oleg Fomin-Shakhov, the American proliferators for the first time transferred the subject of abortion to the plane of social problems, whereas before them abortion was regarded as a person’s personal sin or a crime against the laws of the state. The question was also raised about the essence of abortion as a tool of biopolitics for regulating the population of individual states. As for Russia, it is obvious that its vast territories and natural resources have long been the envy of a number of neighboring states. Throughout history, the Russian state has been faced with hordes of foreign conquerors, but today more far-sighted theorists and practitioners of the world financial oligarchy can afford to use such technologies as biopolitics, that is, regulation of childbearing in Russia, mortality rates, including propaganda mechanisms - propaganda of abortion, “free” lifestyle, all kinds of social deviations, criminal subculture, etc.

Another well-known philosopher Alexander Dugin in his article “Childbearing as a Philosophical Problem” links the lack of desire for childbearing to the destruction of traditional values ​​of Russian society, the rejection of religious values ​​and the assimilation of alien individualistic models aimed at the exclusive “self-worth” of man. Within the framework of this axiological model, childbearing becomes an obstacle to the “free”, but in reality - to the aimless and characterized only by consumerism - human life. “The system of dirty monstrous lies, undisguised Russophobia, aimed at the destruction of our cultural and physical code, leaves no desire to create an honest, cultural, Orthodox Russian family and raise a large number of wonderful Russian children. And it is far from obvious whether it will become an argument for young people that if it does not bear children, there will be no Russia, ”writes Dugin (A. Dugin. Childbearing as a philosophical problem).

Should abortion be banned in modern Russia? Of course, the total ban on abortion is hardly possible to go in modern conditions. And this step will not be really justified and understood by the population. However, strict control over the practice of abortion should be introduced - and this is one of the necessary measures in the direction of ensuring the demographic policy of the Russian state. First of all, all cases of abortion by Russian women should be strictly controlled, taking into account the reasons for their abortion. Thus, for medical reasons, in the interest of preserving the life of a woman, after rape (the criminal background of abortion) abortions should be allowed. Abortion should also be left to families who already have several children or have reasonable material difficulties.

However, the majority of abortions performed by young women, childless, middle-income or high-income, without visible health problems, should be prohibited. Note - there is no attempt on the personal freedom of women. It is enough to use contraception, not to have a promiscuous sex life, that is, to look after yourself and adhere to at least elementary moral and ethical principles - and the need to periodically run to an abortion will disappear by itself. After all, in most countries of the world - in almost all Latin American countries, countries in Africa, the Islamic East, in some Catholic countries of Europe, abortions are prohibited and these countries exist as it is, many are quite good.

Are there prospects?

The practice of material incentives for the birth rate, to which Russia passed during the years of V.V. Putin's represents a great significance for the development of fertility in the country. However, economic advances alone cannot inspire people to create families and give offspring - especially in modern society with its temptations and informational pressures of appropriate propaganda. A whole range of activities is needed - in the social, economic, cultural, educational and healthcare spheres, creating the prerequisites for the truly full-fledged education of young Russians and for their very birth. This includes paying decent childcare benefits, the possibility of introducing a “mother's salary” for women with many children who have decided to fully devote themselves to childcare, and help children's families to improve their living conditions (increase in living space depending on the growth in the number of children in the family) , and the provision of additional means of transport, household appliances for large families. All these activities should be carried out at the federal level and under the strict control of the relevant authorities.

In any case, without delving into specifics, it should be noted that the Russian state can find opportunities to organize such events in the direction of ensuring the country's demographic security. It will not be embarrassing to attract public organizations that have long been, at their own peril and risk, at their own expense, working among the country's population, promoting the values ​​of family and childbirth, preventing the spread of Western values ​​alien to Russian society. On the other hand, it is possible to use foreign experience, including inviting proven foreign experts for consultations in the direction of improving the demographic policy of the Russian state.

But the main focus of the state should be on outreach policies. While in the media, in cinema, consumer values ​​are advertised, the model of the behavior of a “socialite” - a prostitute who has no children — is depicted as desirable for a woman - Russian men are shown to be unsuccessful, who cannot bear children, even a threefold increase in maternity capital, the introduction of additional childbearing benefits will not correct the situation in the sphere of the demographic security of the Russian state.

In the information sphere, the Russian state should take as a basis the propaganda policy of a strong and large family, the spread of the cult of fatherhood and motherhood, and an increase in respect for child men and women. Special TV shows, Internet sites, print media affirming family values ​​should be created. Moreover, the activities of these projects should be adequate and in demand in modern conditions, which will require additional involvement of specialists in the field of psychology, television and radio broadcasting, journalists, cultural and art workers. Accordingly, the educational institutions should also implement a policy aimed at the approval of family values ​​and the correct models of sexual and marital behavior. Mechanisms can be developed to support young mothers in the field of vocational or supplementary education for them on favorable terms. The Russian state must understand that there will be no state without people, without children - there will be no future. It is the people who are the main value of Russia and the Russian authorities should take care of their decent existence and reproduction.
Author:
64 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 October 2014 09: 47
    +6
    Urgently increase the birth rate! This night laughing
    1. Candy wrapper
      Candy wrapper 17 October 2014 11: 18
      +1
      No jokes, but without a systematic restructuring of city life, the problem cannot be solved; appeals here will not help and it is useless to count on state propaganda. Propaganda does not solve any problems at all, it only confuses the situation. To rebuild city life under conditions favorable for a large family, the transition of society from capitalism to socialism is required. I want to say right away that in the USSR, socialism was never managed to build, already not talking about communism.
      1. fennekRUS
        fennekRUS 17 October 2014 13: 20
        +6
        Well, you shouldn't underestimate propaganda. If you get it right, the results will surprise you. In fact, the main reason is in the minds of the "population". I want to live without straining, "for myself", etc. In general, the "firmware" is not the same.
        About the "maternity capital" I will say this: the clever people from the Kremlin simply "adhered" to the expected increase in the birth rate and issued another "voucher" (IMHO) A survey of about 500 acquaintances and colleagues on this topic did not reveal a single (!) Who gave birth to a second child. this reason. “We just decided that we wanted a second and we’ll pull it off,” is the most frequent answer.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. cumastra1
          cumastra1 17 October 2014 20: 00
          +4
          Quite right, it's in the heads. If you put your propaganda correctly, change the emphasis from "for yourself" to "for children." It will be, as my youngest says, "cute".
          1. Candy wrapper
            Candy wrapper 17 October 2014 20: 47
            0
            If propaganda could make an altruist out of a selfish, we would have long lived in paradise. Propaganda, alas, does not have such power over human egoism.
            1. fennekRUS
              fennekRUS 17 October 2014 21: 29
              +2
              it is not about 100%, it is really impossible. The communists once managed to educate the whole country in their own interests, so the propaganda is not so helpless? The question is methodology and consistency. There gentlemen emigrants are still whining on the forums that the "scoop" is indestructible. hi
              Candy wrapper- I understand your skepticism, but I remain in my opinion.
              1. romanru4
                romanru4 7 November 2014 19: 12
                0
                In matriarchal cattle cemeteries, the free sex market is not only allowed, but also stimulated. A woman receives the right to prostitute, the right to marital infidelity, the right to give birth to whomever she wants, the right to alcoholism, the right to poison the fetus. As a result, families fall apart on the initiative of women. Cheating, flying in, divorces and single mothers are becoming the norm. Women lose their ability and desire to give birth, men lose their desire to marry whores and swindlers. The society is dying and replaced by another, balanced.
                It's that simple. Who are we going to bring up?
        3. tripletrunk
          tripletrunk 18 October 2014 19: 48
          0
          The French also introduced the type of "maternity capital", the Arabs were VERY happy.
          And the French weren’t born of this anymore.
          1. romanru4
            romanru4 7 November 2014 19: 07
            0
            Generally speaking, it would not hurt to teach history to begin with. No matter how much the Caesars urged the Romans to give birth, no matter how much they promised them for the birth, everything turned out to be useless ... Rome fell into a demographic hole from which it never got out. All these "parent capital" in one sauce or another have already been. All this is crap that has no effect on demographics.
    2. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 17 October 2014 21: 31
      0
      Mountain shooter fiercely, furiously plus))) I'll go do the third repeat
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Smol79
      Smol79 17 October 2014 10: 13
      -1
      I support, and there are a lot of young children and pregnant women. article minus.
      1. Denis 60 rus
        Denis 60 rus 17 October 2014 12: 57
        +1
        a lot of the concept of relative. in cities, maybe so. and the village? there is no village practically, one residence remained.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. alone
        alone 17 October 2014 21: 35
        0
        Quote: Smol79
        I support, and there are a lot of young children and pregnant women. article minus.

        Young children and pregnant women are of course one of the main factors. But one should not forget the high mortality rate. Just the same balance between these two factors is an indicator of demography. It is in plus or minus.


        PS to give birth to a child is only the letter "A". He still needs to be raised as expected, without any problems for him. And in our difficult time, not everyone succeeds hi
    2. alebor
      alebor 17 October 2014 10: 20
      +5
      Yes, I also see many small children, only almost half of them are of the Central Asian racial type. Is it because of them that "the birth rate is increasing" in our country? It seems that the authorities are solving the demographic problem in such a simple way.
      Only generalized data are presented, from which it is completely unclear due to which population groups the increase is occurring. Where are the specific birth statistics for the indigenous peoples of Russia?
      In general, so that people just do not die out, but remain at the same level (there is no question of an increase in speech), it is necessary that on average there are 2,3 children per family. That is, from 10 families, 6-7 families had 2 children, and 3-4 families had 3 children. What about us now? Families with 1-2 children prevail. Families with 3 children are probably not found more often than families without children at all. So there’s nothing to rejoice at the moment.
      1. Themi30
        Themi30 17 October 2014 10: 30
        +1
        All criticism of the article is systematically cut out, I see, everything is clear here, for righteousness you need to adhere to an opinion everything is bad no matter what?
        1. smile
          smile 17 October 2014 11: 58
          0
          Themi30
          Come on, only comments that violate the rules of the site are "cut out".
          But in the fact that many do believe that "for righteousness one must hold the opinion that everything is bad no matter what" you are right. Absolutely.
        2. Denis 60 rus
          Denis 60 rus 17 October 2014 13: 00
          +1
          comments are doubled, I delete the second myself.
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Evgeniy.
        Evgeniy. 17 October 2014 11: 15
        0
        Not, I’m in Russia, lately, I’ve been moving a lot and talking with many people.
        In the conversation, it turns out that two or three children are no longer many, although not yet the standard.
        And about the number of children on the planes ... 5-10 in each flight will be typed, per hundred passengers
        1. romanru4
          romanru4 7 November 2014 19: 09
          0
          The birth rate for a Russian woman is 1,606 with a demographic stagnation rate of 2,15. It’s too early to blow pipes, but the funeral march has already been heard.
      4. smile
        smile 17 October 2014 11: 55
        +5
        alebor
        I don’t know where you live, but your statement that bad authorities solve fertility problems at the expense of “Central Asian racial types” (This is who, by the way?) Are untenable. Ethnic Russians still multiply outnumber them, and it is the Russians who make the weather in the country's demography.
        Of course, the situation with demography is not simple. The author gives reasoned enough ideas .... but he carefully circumvents the latest statistics, according to which, nevertheless, we have ceased to die out.
        The author also only casually mentions the impact of urbanization on demography, and it is this that has a decisive influence on fertility. Regardless of the country and continent. If you look at what is happening in Europe, it is obvious that things are even worse there. Much. The only exception is the United States. But the United States is a country, the main population of which is still located in small towns, in fact, half-villages. "One-story America", adnaka. And our village was put under the knife in the nineties, and earlier there was a significant outflow of the population to the cities. You can draw conclusions ...
        And the last thing - I’m wondering what kind of recognized international specialists in increasing the birth rate the author calls to invite us? Is this just plain joke, or does the author not know that there are simply no such specialists in the world? Generally, nowhere. There are specialists in population reduction, we invited them a carriage and a small cart in the nineties, and they worked with us to the fullest. Until now, hiccups - remember, at least, valeology and other imposed on us programs of "sex education" of youth.
        In the end, my opinion: the article is relevant. The problem cries out. The author rightly draws attention to her. But he did not offer practically anything substantial. So, the water in the mortar pushes. Fse. :)))
        1. Steel loli
          Steel loli 17 October 2014 16: 51
          +1
          And the last - I’m wondering, what kind of recognized international specialists in increasing birth rates does the author urge us to invite?

          They can invite the Chinese, blacks, Indians, since the Russian peasants are not capable of anything.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The polar
      The polar 17 October 2014 11: 33
      +1
      When were you last in the village, and if there were how many children you saw there? About nine hundred hairy years, you can not say anything, people had a different lifestyle and values ​​were different. In urban conditions, no more than 10 kids rummage in the sandbox for the entire yard, and this is for three hundred apartments. The situation is certainly getting better, but so far the ratio between the dead and the born has only been reduced, so far there are more of the former.
  3. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 17 October 2014 10: 11
    +10
    This is a problem not only for Russia, but for the whole of Europe. In the past, the main goal of the family was to create and raise healthy and large offspring. In today's perverted understanding of the average man in the street, the main goal of the family is to jointly climb up the social ladder by at least half a step, and "children later." As a result, we have: long-term cohabitation without marriage and without children. Sexual selection is carried out according to the "wallet", and not according to the health (which manifests itself in the strength and beauty) of the partner, as a result of which bad heredity is not eliminated and the whole nation degenerates. Unprincipled men, who are richer, often change "official" partners, not thinking of having children. The partners are also in no hurry to burden, because if a person is a reptile, he will throw out both the pregnant and the child. So one unprincipled bastard deprives the state of at least four or five healthy women with offspring, and not two or three bastards. Those who have mistresses do the same. In Russia, even the propaganda of homosexuality was taken away. But there is still nowhere to go from emancipasia. There are many problems. Hope that the Slavic civilization will survive.
  4. Zomanus
    Zomanus 17 October 2014 10: 14
    +5
    Fertility is increasing. Now, think about raising the younger generation. For it is one thing to patch up a child and stupidly raise him, ensuring his vital functions. This is what is basically happening now. It’s another matter to form a person from him with certain attitudes necessary for the state. Now the personality is formed randomly. Well, of course, the housing issue should not be forgotten ...
  5. moryak tof
    moryak tof 17 October 2014 10: 25
    +2
    In Mordovia, the "young family" program was canceled, which gave a subsidy for the purchase of housing, with two children it was more than 800t.rub, together with a mat. capital is a good amount for buying a home, almost half of the amount for 2 rooms. in the new building ... And right now, everything !!! The state said "fuck yourself." And then there's the mat.capital until the age of 16)) and olga jelly says there is no reason to extend it)). I don't even know what to think ...
    1. smile
      smile 17 October 2014 12: 07
      +2
      moryak tof
      Extension of the "matcapital" program to a certain date is a completely correct tactic - it allows "persuading" some slow-moving people to hurry up so as not to fly over. Otherwise, they will wait, and the effect of the program will come to naught. You know, there is such a term - "rush demand" ..... :))) Here it is also quite appropriate.
      But most of all about the abolition of uterine capital rumors spread our creacles. With well-known goals. :))) In this case, their nonsense is in favor of demography. At least some benefit from them. :)))
      And nobody will cancel the program. Do not worry. The state has enough funds for this, we don’t live in the nineties.
      1. Warlock_r
        Warlock_r 17 October 2014 13: 42
        +2
        The mothercapital program itself is flawed: well, they gave birth to an even child, well, they received the full amount at once.
        At the same time: there are no kindergartens, and in the period from 1,5 to 3 years old mothers receive from the bounty of the state 50 (Fifty) rubles (not thousands, rubles !!!) per month. Think about this figure: 50 rubles. For the child and mother. It's good when there is a husband who earns decent money, but if not? If the total family salary is 15-20 thousand. What are the best ways to live and raise a child? And if there is also a mortgage, then it is generally "fun". You won't go to work - because usually there is no one to leave the child with. Nanny? It is expensive and the result is unpredictable. There are no creches (and if there are any, then in such an amount that they are considered not to be). A year and a half to turn over without money? Unrealistic. Bottom line: what kind of children?

        Even elementary, if these 300 thousand (or how much mother capital we have there now) are divided into 18 months and paid monthly - it’s already easier, there is already the opportunity to somehow live. Buy diapers, diapers, etc.
    2. Drunya
      Drunya 17 October 2014 20: 56
      0
      Quote: moryak TOF
      And then there's mat. Capital up to 16 years)) and olga aspic says there is no reason to extend)). I don’t even know what to think ...

      I think (I hope) - extended. the thing is useful.
  6. HUMANOID
    HUMANOID 17 October 2014 10: 34
    +6
    It is people who are the main value of Russia and their worthy existence and reproduction and should be taken care of by the Russian authorities.
    In fact, a large family teeters on the brink of poverty. I know from my own experience that I have four, and the handouts that the state gives are not only worthy of being, but it's even impossible to survive.
    1. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 17 October 2014 15: 12
      +2
      Dear Humanoid, and change the habitat Weakly? Closer to nature, for example. How many villages and villages that are half empty, or more! There are eco-settlements, finally. We’ll have to work hard, but after all, the children will support, if you do everything correctly in education. And there is nothing to blame the state. Material handouts are nothing compared to what is in the brain of you and your family.
      1. Silumin
        Silumin 17 October 2014 15: 25
        0
        How many villages and villages that are half empty, or more!


        Are you ready to quit your job in the city to relocate to even worse rural conditions?

        We’ll have to work hard, but after all, the children will support, if you do everything correctly in education. And there is nothing to blame the state.


        A man is working hard. But you propose changing the conditions to even worse ones. Do you think farming can earn enough money to provide children?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. Kulakov_Dmitry
    Kulakov_Dmitry 17 October 2014 10: 37
    +3
    The article was very controversial and controversial. In the first part, the author tries to understand the causes of the fall in the birth rate in Soviet times, and finds them. They, according to the author, lie in changing the structure of the family. There was a rural family, but became urban. And the conclusion suggests itself, in order to mark the situation, we need more rural families. But the author does not draw this conclusion, but leads us towards abortion and television and radio broadcasts. Question to the author: Do you do this on purpose or do you have problems with the construction of cause and effect relationships? But in rural areas and now give birth on average more than in cities. So maybe you just need to stop fanning Moscow and other analogues, and give people the opportunity to settle in the vast expanses of our homeland. Gasify and electrify villages and villages, restore order with the land, stimulate the opening of small industries in rural areas?
    1. ilyaros
      17 October 2014 11: 00
      +1
      The first part of the article focuses on the fact that ideology played the most important role - a conscious transition to making a woman first and foremost a worker, and only then a mother. But it should be the other way around. Normal material support for families and appropriate propaganda policy. As for the village, people will not move there. At best, the outflow of the rural population to the cities will stop. Alas, urbanization cannot be stopped - this is a global trend.
      1. Kulakov_Dmitry
        Kulakov_Dmitry 17 October 2014 13: 56
        -1
        It’s for you that people themselves said that they won’t?
        1. ilyaros
          17 October 2014 16: 25
          +2
          Do you notice a tendency towards mass migration to rural areas? I personally see emptying villages and farms, and the best are leaving there - those who receive education, have ambitions, and so on. "Vacancies" are populated by representatives of non-indigenous ethnic groups. Who will go from the city to the village? How do you imagine a lawyer, programmer, doctor, engineer who abandon their profession, the opportunity for professional growth in the city and go to the village to graze sheep or plant potatoes? Isolated cases are possible, but extremely rare.
    2. panfil
      panfil 17 October 2014 11: 03
      +3
      To resettle people across the expanses of our country, we need appropriate conditions. In our small towns of the Volgograd region it is very difficult to find work, and with a decent salary it is even more difficult to do. Most of the working-age population goes to Moscow to earn money. To develop regions and, accordingly, increase the population in other regions (not Mosca or St. Petersburg), it is necessary to create jobs. Then they will leave less to Moscow.
      1. ilyaros
        17 October 2014 11: 22
        +3
        But in the Volgograd region migrants from the South successfully settle in the countryside, as, indeed, in other areas with a more or less favorable climate for farming
      2. smile
        smile 17 October 2014 12: 15
        +1
        panfil
        That's right, jobs are needed. By the way, they are created. although not as fast as we would like. But do you really think that there are more jobs in Africa or Central Asia? Or do they have decent wages there?
        In my opinion, everything is somewhat more complicated than just creating jobs.
        And to revive the village is vital, it was the village that could fix the situation. But with this we have so far the trouble.
        By the way, let me doubt that "the majority of the able-bodied population of the Volgograd region" migrated to Moscow. Overkill, right?
  8. foma2028
    foma2028 17 October 2014 10: 46
    +5
    three or four years ago, my mother had an operation in the hospital.
    went to visit, food, medicine and was shocked.
    you arrive in the morning and you see, the turn is about 20 of young girls for an abortion.
    and so every day ...
  9. valentina-makanalina
    valentina-makanalina 17 October 2014 10: 51
    +1
    fertility in modern Russia, despite a certain improvement associated with relative improvement in living standards in the 2000s (compared to the 1990s) and some measures of the state in the direction of stimulating demographic growth, it remains at a rather low level.

    These are the only true words: Relative IMPROVING THE LIFE.
    There would be a stable and at least a good (I do not say high) standard of living, and there would be a high birth rate. And so, I'm sorry, not to children. God bless one or two to grow.
  10. My doctor
    My doctor 17 October 2014 10: 51
    +3
    Mother’s Day in Russia on November 30 and in Belarus on October 14, this is me by the way.
    I don’t know how in Russia, but in Belarus there is also a problem with the quality of the younger generation. In recent years, the percentage of serious crimes such as murders committed by people around the age of 20 has grown significantly (at times). An increase was also noted among drug addicts; he himself had an acquaintance with people who use mixtures. Perhaps here I am subjective, but for guys 92-94. there is no motivation to work, and it’s not about age, but in a new outlook on life in a cat there is no connection between labor activity, quality and standard of living, but it may still appear.
    Perhaps the law works - the transition of quantity into quality, when quality reaches a certain threshold of quantity. But still, the point of no return has been passed and there are no such conditions in society under which there would be interest in the family to have more than three children. Well, there are already no such prerequisites for this, which were in the pre-collective farm way of life (the boom of the late 40s did not count there were other circumstances), but new ones were invented. Stimulation of the state is not enough, although the article says so correctly.
  11. Silumin
    Silumin 17 October 2014 10: 51
    +1
    I’m wondering, will a young family live on the street?
    1. Evgeniy.
      Evgeniy. 17 October 2014 11: 16
      0
      Previously, they lived with their parents, in the first couple, and now they are kicked out on the street?
      You can rent a kraynyak (or a mortgage, the same for money)
      1. Silumin
        Silumin 17 October 2014 11: 54
        0
        Previously, they lived with their parents, in the first couple, and now they are kicked out on the street?


        How do you imagine 5 people living in a kopeck piece?
        What about intimate moments?

        You can rent a kraynyak (or a mortgage, the same for money)


        So people do, but young people first of all need their own housing. Our Russians have this historically, an example when they put a separate log cabin for the young.
  12. -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє-
    -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє- 17 October 2014 11: 21
    +4
    "In the information sphere, the Russian state should take as a basis the policy of promoting a strong and large family, spreading the cult of fatherhood and motherhood, and increasing respect for children of men and women."
    Brad! "Propaganda"? !! am
    Where salaries - corresponding to prices (or vice versa) in terms of Soviet liter-kilograms-rubles (Marx's "Capital" - rules !!! hi ), loans, mortgages and leasing for housing at 0% and not 8,75 - 20,5% for 15 years (how many apartment costs will you give the bank during this time at such interest rates?), etc. Continue the list yourself. Just do not talk about inflation and other things! (Who doesn’t know where that comes from - I recommend listening, reading, watching to start General Petrov’s lecture.) You can also, as an option, double the Salary (just that, with a capital letter!) For a man whose wife has children before their 18 Anniversary, (only for full families). Thus, to strengthen the role of the breadwinner in the family and the value of the family itself.
    Then you can talk about fertility! drinks
  13. Bubyr
    Bubyr 17 October 2014 11: 23
    +2
    I think this problem is complex. (Like everyone else) The main thing is Western "morality" and inaccessible housing.
  14. SVR
    SVR 17 October 2014 11: 30
    0
    A meager salary only for existence, exorbitant fees for a communal apartment and other requisitions. In this situation, you can give birth, but how to educate? Help from the state - 0! Only extortion. If these barriers are eliminated, there will be a positive demography! But the state is more likely to get off with fairy tales - but there are no cases!
  15. -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє-
    -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє- 17 October 2014 11: 39
    +3
    By the way, maybe it's time to remember those who raised their children in the "funny" 90s? After all, for us and our children in general NOTHING! And what it was like to raise them, only we ourselves know! And now it is this generation that has entered and is entering the optimal childbearing age, and, remembering their childhood, they do not want to "produce beggars" at all !!!
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Rijaz-ss
    Rijaz-ss 17 October 2014 11: 46
    +2
    Gentlemen, where is the birth rate increasing ?! What are you writing about? Maybe in Moscow courtyards, it’s because of visitors who have not created the conditions for a normal life in their region ... Anyone who writes that it has become good, where are you from? In Ulyanovsk, for example, not everything is so cloudless ... and you will not go anywhere with ideas alone nowadays ...
  18. Rijaz-ss
    Rijaz-ss 17 October 2014 11: 47
    0
    Gentlemen, where is the birth rate increasing ?! What are you writing about? Maybe in Moscow courtyards, it’s because of visitors who have not created the conditions for a normal life in their region ... Anyone who writes that it has become good, where are you from? In Ulyanovsk, for example, not everything is so cloudless ... and you will not go anywhere with ideas alone nowadays ...
  19. Begemot
    Begemot 17 October 2014 11: 48
    +5
    I have two sons, adults already, have dumped one in Moscow, the other in general over a hill to work. If my missus was able to health, would give birth to 4-5, and now alone. Children periodically appear on vacation to us and again for a goal, six months.
    Youth, give birth while you can, as much as possible, all the difficulties that scare - complete garbage. It is much worse and more difficult to remain alone in old age, and from this only one recipe is a big family.
  20. kreid2
    kreid2 17 October 2014 11: 53
    +2
    Specialists are utopians. How many years do we hear the mantra about the need to popularize and change the mentality of society.
    Become Realistic.
    The reasons for low fertility are two
    1. The increase in the age of marriage. By the way, this is being done at the state level - everything is being done to set up women to start family life at the request of international organizations no earlier than 25-28 years. Read about China’s experience in combating high birth rates. There, an increase in this age made it possible to immediately reduce the birth rate by half, even before politics, one family, one child.
    2. Independence of income in old age from the number of children. Do not build illusions. Communism failed for the same reason. People are mercantile and the experience of benefits for a second child confirms this.
    What should be done
    1. Pension should be paid from a personal fund formed not only by their incomes but also by children's incomes. Pension fund to disperse. There are benefits for disabled people without children.
    The mechanism is simple. Every person has an account in any bank where pension contributions are transferred. Pensioners have the right to withdraw from this fund and the fund of their children and their spouses 1/100 of the amount of savings per month. All. No add-ons and long money in the economy. not only that, after that, even from Ukraine and other republics they will begin to adopt ...
    2. Change the structure of education so that a girl can get higher education raising a child. Moreover, it should be stimulated.
    1. SPLV
      SPLV 17 October 2014 13: 48
      +3
      That's right, just remember, where did the birth rate increase in 80's come from? Mass housing construction! You can, of course, recall that the birth rate is also reduced by the introduction of the psychology of consumption (the value of Western civilization), the growing egoism of youth. But upbringing does not raise the birth rate, at least in the short term. Enough (in my opinion, of course) changes in legislation in which production would be profitable, and this is, above all, energy and intermediaries.
      As soon as energy begins to pursue the goals of the state, and not capital, production will immediately pay higher. The dollar is growing, yes, but the price of oil is falling, and fuel is adding in price not by the day, but by the hour. What is this if not compensation for the loss of capital income in the foreign market? How can agriculture, for example, become profitable in such conditions?
      VAT is good, but when each reseller adds interest, the product for the consumer in the end still grows at a price several times. So are building materials. What kind of mass construction can be discussed if the actual cost of construction is several times lower than the sale price of housing. That is, you just need to drop a bunch of parasites from the feeders and - here it is happiness! And to overthrow the god Na-Free from the pedestal.
    2. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 17 October 2014 15: 33
      0
      And what, mass higher education is a panacea for all ills. Why is it to a person who has no prerequisites for science or intellectual work ??? There is one very intelligible formulation: "Live forever, study forever, drinking tea with margarine, this is how your life will pass, and you will die with a cudgel."
      1. Silumin
        Silumin 17 October 2014 15: 46
        0
        And what, mass higher education - is a panacea for all ills. Why is it for a person who has no prerequisites for science or intellectual labor


        Then, do you want to educate uneducated migrant workers migrant workers or qualified specialists?
        Everyone is capable of intellectual work, and the increased complexity of technology and production has this to do with it.

        In addition to this, kindergartens, schools, and colleges are needed.
  21. ilya_oz
    ilya_oz 17 October 2014 11: 56
    +1
    The material incentive for fertility is bad. I’m not sure that people need the descendants of those who give birth for money. Emphasis should be placed on the ideology and propaganda of a large family.
    1. Silumin
      Silumin 17 October 2014 12: 05
      +1
      emphasize the ideology and propaganda of a large family.


      Or maybe stupidly provide conditions?

      For example, affordable housing, affordable kindergartens and schools, affordable and high-quality food, affordable quality medicine, affordable places for families and children.
    2. kreid2
      kreid2 17 October 2014 12: 35
      +1
      I am 40 years old and believe me the money is not the main thing for me, but there would be no allowance, I would not have decided in 39 for 2 children, and in 2 years more so ...
  22. Demon0n
    Demon0n 17 October 2014 12: 13
    +2
    "Abortions threaten demography" is sheer stupidity (another consequence is indicated as the reason: "he dined because he ate"). If a child is undesirable, then there will be other ways to get rid of him (and at the same time, given our eternal misfortune, we will breed the underground market of illegal and poor quality medical services, which is even more dangerous). Are there not enough orphanages? There will be several orders of magnitude more. Where to recruit teachers of spotters and psychologists for everyone? Or who are we going to raise in droves? Not to mention the well-known and not popular problems of such institutions. I will keep silent about the financial component, because it is not correct in this case to talk about money ... only I do not see the need to aggravate the problem.

    Further the disease progresses ...

    "It is enough to use contraception, not to have promiscuous sex, that is, to take care of yourself and adhere to at least elementary moral and ethical principles - and the need to periodically run for an abortion will disappear by itself."
    Those. it is no longer necessary to deal with abortions ... It turns out that the chest opens easier.
    Some kind of sequence should be? Okay - common sense, but at least compare two parts of your statement ...
  23. Diviz
    Diviz 17 October 2014 12: 22
    0
    From the period 1917 to 1961 we flew into space. technological progress is taking its toll. no one is going to be friends. who has a big gun is right. until the thunder strikes. whether a strong nation is needed in our country is already a question for the government and for its fears of interethnic wars.
  24. Prometey
    Prometey 17 October 2014 13: 05
    +3
    Compare European countries with one child per family and Asian ones with 5-7 and say that, look, here it is - the standard of living, it turns out, does not affect fertility. It turns out that just white women are lazy.
    Now let's think about what level of population our country needs — literate and educated, or numerous, but with 3-4 grades of education. Then we go along the Tajik path - we produce dirty beggars, in the future becoming guest workers. Therefore, the ideal family for our country is 2-3 children. More parents will not be able to educate and provide starting conditions for life.
    And now the only thing left is to convince our girls and women that children are not only joy, but also benefits. How? If desired, the state is very simple. Provide a woman to care for a child up to 2-3 years of state. allowance at the average salary level - even let it be 15.000 rubles. It’s enough to calmly pay for the mortgage while the woman is on maternity leave, even if her husband earns no more than 20.000. I am sure that most women will send their work and go on maternity leave if they pay for it. And there is no need for a fairy tale that the country has no money - let Martians feed with their bullshit. Found loot for all sorts of Sochi, they can also find birth rates. There would be only real Russian patriots in power.
  25. Cenij150814
    Cenij150814 17 October 2014 13: 21
    0
    "Problems of national security of modern Russia"maybe the author wanted to say," national security RUSSIAN"but for other nationalities I would not worry, by the way, I don’t worry!
  26. Sour
    Sour 17 October 2014 13: 32
    +1
    Fertility is falling in all countries where the percentage of urban population is growing. Somewhere more, somewhere less, but falls everywhere. In Russia, it has been falling since 1911 (this does not mean population growth, adjusted for war and epidemics, namely fertility) In the USSR, fertility also progressively declined with each decade.
    The fact that the birth rate does not increase with an increase in the standard of living (rather, vice versa) suggests that this problem cannot be completely solved only by economic methods. Financial stimulation of the birth rate can only slow down its decline, but is unlikely to lead to its growth.
  27. alicante11
    alicante11 17 October 2014 14: 55
    +3
    In general, a strategy to increase fertility should consist of several components.
    The first thing is the main thing. It is necessary to "withdraw" women from the labor market. This will solve two problems at once. Demographic and unemployment problem.
    The second is to provide women with substantial material support so that for most, work is not a critical necessity.
    For this, it is necessary to reform the retirement age for women, dividing it into two periods. The first one is from 20-22 to 30-32. That is, just the most childbearing age. And the second - from 60-65 years old. In such a situation, women have the opportunity to unlearn, "walk up", and at the same time, the overwhelming majority will still have parents alive and efficient. In general, a large family without grandmothers is a guard, I know from myself. At the same time, pension money will help a young family. But, at the same time, the small size of pensions will not serve as an incentive to break off relations with the husband-father of the children. It is also necessary to provide for the indexation of pensions when children appear, so that ideally, when a second child appears, the pension would reach 20 thousand rubles, and with 4-5 children - up to 30 thousand for the current price level. At the end of the first retirement age, a woman can choose. Or go to work, or continue raising children. In principle, in 10 years it is quite possible to bring three or four children to school age, when the parents have less worries about directly serving the child. Again, from my own experience, there is a difference in the amount of time taken by a three-year-old daughter and a ten-year-old son. Especially if part of the time they are engaged with each other, which happens quite often in a large family. If a woman, with at least 3 children, decides to continue to take care of children, then it makes sense to continue to provide the family with financial assistance, but in the form of a child benefit, tying its size, again, to the number of children, and include childcare time in a woman's retirement experience.
    The third. It is necessary to rigorously reform family law, prohibiting divorces until the last child comes of age. If you can’t live with each other, sleep in different beds, different rooms, but caring for children is the responsibility of both parents and no alimony (which many try not to pay in different ways) can solve this problem.
    Fourth. As correctly stated in the article, propaganda is extremely important. It is necessary to remove series like House-2 or programs like comedy-club, comedy-woman, and in general, channels like TNT should, frankly, be banned. But the main thing is to launch a campaign for family values. Find really creative ways to promote both fatherhood and motherhood. The main thing is that this propaganda does not turn into a dull Soviet hassle of the 80s model. It is necessary that being childless was not "cool", and they would not be measured by money and career, but by the number and quality of children. And it is necessary to start propaganda from early childhood. From cartoons, from school lessons. Instead of the "law of God", it is better to introduce a course for a young family with the basics of family and child psychology, homework training (cooking, sewing, haircuts for girls and housework for boys) and child care issues so that young mothers and fathers do not were afraid to touch the baby.
    1. ilyaros
      17 October 2014 16: 05
      +1
      Very reasonable suggestions. The only thing - with brute force divorce. It is very difficult to control, and it will be unknown what - strangers in different rooms are inevitable scandals, right up to the massacre. The problem of divorce is solved by educating young people so that people do not treat marriage as finding the next guy / girl - get married, tired, divorced - and children suffer
    2. Demon0n
      Demon0n 17 October 2014 16: 50
      0
      1) It is impossible to remove women from the labor market (forced) (incentive ... about him - below). This requires a thorough and lengthy explanation with justification and a solid evidence base, but I will go the other way: remember how feminism began and the maximalist form of what it is. The laws of social development do not provide for the possibility of artificial direct compulsory prohibition (more on this below).
      2) A ban on divorce can lead to the worst result: interpersonal social relations develop according to their own laws. The causes of the conflict will not go anywhere, and the forced continuation of the conflict will lead to its hypertrophy (and even radicalization of the mutual reaction). At a young age, the child adopts behavioral stereotypes (they are always not conscious). In short, this is an artificial and compulsory recreation of the phenomenon of "not a happy family". If parents can smooth out or get around the conflict, then they will do it on their own or with outside help without any coercion or prohibition.
      3) Changing the social scale of assessment - an occupation empty (leading to nothing). The individual and society, as a set of personalities, independently choose the criteria and rating scale based on existing reality and conditions (as an example, the decline of the church). Any attempt to impose a different scale and criteria will be regarded negatively (as a lie, which, in fact, is). Pairs are chosen according to the same principles. Therefore, we need to talk about changing the situation and conditions, and not propaganda.
      4) Now with regards to prohibitions. Prohibition, or forceful coercion (any coercion relies on force or the ability to use it) can be effective only for a certain amount of time. After that, a critical negative attitude accumulates and a "social explosion" occurs, usually with very destructive and long-term consequences. Moreover, the effect achieved in the end is maximum and completely opposite (only recently the USSR was buried, in my opinion, there are enough utopias).
      5) Regarding soap shows and operas - I completely agree. It is necessary to give it to psychologists and teachers for tearing (to reduce to the level of drug addiction, etc.) until the necessary ideology is developed (IMPORTANT! ..., ideology, as a result of changed conditions, is not vice versa ... the reason is very similar in principle to the perception of prohibitions: i.e. the order of cause and effect).
      6) With social security and time (in a broader sense) - I agree. Time is precisely the factor of the city (one of the main), or rather its absence (not only for demography, but also for self-development). However, all this will be possible with changes in the "technological-economic" system in all possible interpretations (it is long overdue and, almost all conditions are there, it is up to revision and comprehension).
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 17 October 2014 17: 42
        0
        1) It is impossible to remove women from the labor market (forced) (incentive ... about him - below).


        What do you dislike about the torn pension offer for women? Although I would personally generally forbid women from working. A woman is a hearth and children. And work takes her time from her basic duties. Still, nature is wise, and if it created a man as a getter, and a woman as a keeper, then from the next intervention in nature we just do not see anything good.

        remember how feminism began and the maximalist form of what it is.


        And feminism began with the fact that just the wives of British officials who did not work, of course, and who had nothing to do at home, because housework did the housework, out of boredom, began to get together and think what they should do. And they came up with the idea that they are all so directly oppressed and oppressed, and we need to fight for our rights. Eens Rkestyan or workers did not think about their rights.

        If parents can smooth over or circumvent the conflict, then they will do it on their own or with outside help without any coercion or prohibition.


        After all, who needs procreation? The state or us, the people? Well, maybe we can also do something in this regard, in addition to having fun in bed? Still, we will be responsible for our children, put their interests somewhat above our "I" and "interpersonal conflicts." Well, the ban on divorces is an additional incentive to "find how to smooth corners." Moreover, our system in divorce takes into account exclusively the interests of women. A woman receives children and alimony, regardless of the man's wishes and who is the initiator of the divorce. If we are so irresponsible that we cannot sacrifice our personal interests as a sacrifice to our own offspring, then such people and children have nothing, it is necessary to deprive both of the parental rights in divorcing couples, and let them pay money to support the children.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 17 October 2014 17: 42
        0
        3) Changing the social scale of assessment - an occupation empty (leading to nothing). The individual and society, as a set of personalities, independently choose the criteria and rating scale based on existing reality and conditions (as an example, the decline of the church).


        It is fundamentally wrong. The Church has compromised herself with love of money, money-grubbing and lies. That is why the people turned away from her. At the same time, the collapse of the USSR took place under the auspices of "democracy", jeans, gum and video recorders. And why? because it was "cool". And it was cool, because it was imposed by the propaganda of the Western way of life.
        You will forgive me for such an oversimplification, but "tell a man that he is a pig, he grunts" (c).

        4) Now with regards to prohibitions. Prohibition, or coercive coercion (any coercion is based on force or the ability to use it) can be effective only for a certain amount of time.


        And if you hold out for some more time, then they will get used to it. In the 90s they got used to poverty, the collapse of the economy, the rampant banditry, in the 2000s they very quickly got used to the normalization of life, and now many do not even remember that such "dashing 90s" were. And if at the same time it is also explained by propaganda that everything is good and correct, then they will get used to it faster than arrange an explosion. Do you really think that because of the ban on divorces and the introduction of a torn retirement age for women there will be a social explosion? !!!
  28. calocha
    calocha 17 October 2014 15: 36
    0
    To increase the social component of the State, to encourage in every possible way materially and benefits, and everything will be! ONLY seed grows in fertile soil! And this soil is CULTURE! And it is very LOW in us .... We need to work systematically !!!!
  29. Alekseev-av
    Alekseev-av 17 October 2014 15: 51
    0
    All fertility depends on the level of development of the population! If a young family has 2 children and a mortgage, + a large rent, + a rise in food prices and all sorts of taxes, then people no longer live, but survive. That’s the whole answer!
  30. arjiev
    arjiev 17 October 2014 16: 05
    0
    Need to give birth and all things !!!
  31. saag
    saag 17 October 2014 19: 07
    0
    The author nods that the USSR is to blame for breaking the demographics, they said they gave birth to a lot before, and the Bolsheviks came and broke everything, they created the damned at the places of production, the result of which was that the people did not go to Moscow to work in large numbers, because the work was not right far from home, the future was predictable and could multiply, to change the demographic situation, you need to change the system
  32. Wladimir71
    Wladimir71 17 October 2014 19: 24
    0
    The article is correct, but comparing us to China or Honduras is not correct. If without children, from paycheck to paycheck, there was barely enough money, then what kind of family. No sensible woman will marry such an idiot. we don’t lie under a palm tree and you can’t eat a banana of Moroz-Voevoda banana. But they found enough attention from the owners of the business. And they cheated, foreign cars, three apartments each. This is where this demographic pit is! Grabbing, "who studied what"! But their children in London smelly studied and took drugs quietly. Now learn the Churkov language, and scold our people. For your hill that Russia does not know how to do anything and it’s a rashka at all. Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky knots so that they would not forgive.
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. Amper
    Amper 17 October 2014 21: 03
    +3
    article - EP order.
    There is no place to work, no place to support children, no need to teach, no medical and social guarantees, nothing to contribute to the social future of the people, everything is loot, and above all ..
    Fornication.
    multiply yourself. But Mercader is available to everyone.
  35. Roman 11
    Roman 11 17 October 2014 22: 48
    +1
    Causes of the demographic decline Very simple, or rather, very simple - the correctness of the redistribution of financial flows (progressive taxation scale, hard labor to pay expensive, etc.)
  36. would
    would 18 October 2014 07: 43
    0
    The article is openly commissioned and directly hostile to Russian values.

    The author intentionally throws out the most important issue of EDUCATION of children from the article and speaks only about fertility. Purely for reference to the author: It is elementary to give birth to children, but for their full-fledged upbringing, the very conditions that, in the author's opinion, are not needed and a lot of patience and time are required. And we in Russia have always emphasized not how much he gave birth to, but on how he raised and how he raised.

    Those who violated traditional values ​​eventually flooded the streets and orphanages with their offspring who will never be full members of society, but will become parasites incapable of anything other than stealing, thumping and doing nichrome. Examples are right before my eyes in the form of poorly educated and criminalized Gaster and just local poverty. Do such people need Russia? Maybe the author needs a weak and colonial Russia filled with poorly educated poverty, but certainly not for me.


    At the same time, one of the most important reasons for the decline in the birth rate is the lack of housing, which translates into its prohibitive cost. There is a major lack of housing due to which a huge number of young families put their children "to the apartment". And instead of allocating land to young families for building a house (and we have a huge amount of land) and thus really stimulating the birth rate, "the country’s ilita" decides to fight windmills in the face of far-fetched ideologies, etc. Not well, but what? There is no need to do nichrome, the activity is imitated, the land should not be given to the people either. Saving her mother. And the cities of the Far East will remain small, overpopulated, civilized corners in the middle of an ocean of untreated terrain. And every year they become more and more overpopulated ...


    I’m already silent about the salary of a modern Russian and the REAL expenses for a child that arise, among other things, because our medicine is paid in fact and it is often necessary to turn to payers. And taking into account serfdom in the face of a mortgage, there is very little money left ...
    1. ilyaros
      18 October 2014 09: 33
      0
      An article on fertility. Parenting is a complex topic and requires separate detailed coverage. If you are capable of more than just criticism, you can write one. Further, if you read the material inattentively or not to the end, then: “A whole range of measures is needed - in the social, economic, cultural and educational spheres, healthcare, which creates the preconditions for a truly full-fledged upbringing of young Russians and for their very birth. This is the payment of decent childcare benefits, and the possibility of introducing a "maternal salary" for women with many children who have decided to devote themselves entirely to childcare, and assistance to child families in improving their living conditions (increasing the living space depending on the increase in the number of children in the family) , and the provision of additional means of transport, household appliances for large families. " Is it really incomprehensible that measures in the social, economic and other spheres also imply an increase in wages, and the allocation of land to those who wish, and so on, so on? Nobody calls for giving birth to 10 children each until the state moves to a policy of REALLY improving the lives of Russians.
      1. would
        would 18 October 2014 10: 38
        0
        The article is not about fertility, but about the demographic problem. There is a difference by the way. And in it, the very first lines deny the need for education and decent living conditions, with an example for the backward CIS countries. Maybe you inattentively read and did not notice it :)

        Nobody calls for 10 children


        Call in the text and political technologists in practice. Just carefully read the text, which is almost entirely devoted to the fight against windmills.
  37. Ivcaesar
    Ivcaesar 18 October 2014 11: 29
    +1
    I carefully read all the comments. Strange, but for some reason none of the commentators are concerned about procreation. Everyone cares about money, apartments, cars, consumption in one word. Many read the article, but did not understand the meaning of what was written. After all, it was a question of propaganda of life values, of the formation of life values ​​in people. For many, the main life value is consumerism, that is, the consumption of as many material goods as possible. But here there is a need to have children, and children, as you know, reduce the level of consumption of parents. Therefore, many refuse to have a baby in order to continue to consume as much as possible. Here is the author in the article and speaks of a change in the consciousness of people, says that the main life value should not be consumerism, but children, procreation. That is, that people consciously refuse maximum consumption in favor of having children in order to pass on their genetic code to future generations. That is what Russians have always been different from Western civilization. But, unfortunately, at present, the Russian world has managed to reflash the brain, change our moral and value orientations in life. And instead of the people of creator, the first people in the world to launch a satellite, the first in the world to launch a man into space, the first to build a nuclear power plant in the world, we got a consumer nation, a herd of stupid material-eaters who will eat until they burst. And the one who eats more has a higher status in society. It should not be, this is the path to the grave. Therefore, Russians must regain their traditional values, their cultural code. This is what the article is about. We must stop being a nation of consumers, and become a nation of creators.
  38. Aydin
    Aydin 19 October 2014 17: 19
    0
    Quote: Ivcaesar
    I carefully read all the comments. Strange, but for some reason none of the commentators are concerned about procreation. Everyone cares about money, apartments, cars, consumption in one word.

    I have a friend here, earns well, my wife works, my only adult son lives separately. He and his wife live alone, but he is satisfied, says that he has everything, a car, etc., came home from work, you are lying on your sofa, watching TV, in a word he lives for himself, he is Russian by nationality. I have five children, I am constantly building something, the oldest is already a student, the youngest are studying, but there is enough, the children are happy. But he takes a break somewhere every year, sometimes he takes it from me, and the offset is telling me all this, for the money that you are building, you could, for example, go to Turkey. Maybe he’s right?
    1. Was mammoth
      Was mammoth 19 October 2014 20: 21
      0
      Quote: Aydin
      Maybe he’s right?

      No.
      Quote: Aydin
      ... children are happy.

      Therefore, you have five, and he has one. Your friend does not have real joy. And you are, and there will be even more, when the grandchildren go. And your children have, have siblings. (Do you have both of these?)
      I envy the good. I have two children. Dreamed of three, did not work out.
      PS The demographic problem has two components:
      - upbringing, no law will force any children to love;
      - public policy. She is not. By the way, the program of maternity capital has a darkness of shortcomings and is already being phased out.
      So, I think that maybe in about 50 years Russians will be completely narrow-eyed and yellow-faced wink .
  39. Prager
    Prager 20 October 2014 16: 51
    0
    when the state creates normal conditions for creating a family, then the birth rate will go up.