Russia (bbabo.net), - Three "Madonnas and Child" of the 20th century. Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin "Petrogradskaya" - shielding a baby in a stone metropolis from the troubles of the revolution. Mikhail Savitsky - the tragic "Madonna of Birkenau", already raised by a heavenly cross from the chimney of a Nazi crematorium. The scandalous "Nuclear Madonna" by Salvador Dali, which was blessed even by the Pope, accepting the surrealism of the "test-tube baby" as a symbol of "demographic winter" and a warning to a person who loses the desire to procreate.

And where is the place of the Madonna of Sistine, the Mother of God today?

Does the cult of the woman who creates humanity still exist? How many children do you need to have in each family so that we not only build new cities, but even simply do not disappear from the face of the earth?

The question is so disturbing that it haunts the experts of Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

What keeps the president awake at night

"A family of three children should become the norm in Russia" is President Vladimir Putin's formula for the Demography national project. However, in our country, a two-child family is being replaced by a small family: back in 2015, the birth rate was 1.7 children per woman, now it “floats” between 1.5 and even 1.3. What's going on?

Olga Vorobieva, Chief Researcher, Institute for Demographic Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Department of Demography and Migration, MGIMO and Department of Demography, Moscow State University:

We noticed how President Putin at one of the press conferences answered the insidious question: "What keeps President Putin up at night?" He said, as he warned: "Demography".

In our country, the natural population decline is up to two million people a year, and the birth rate is less than 1.5 million. The already difficult picture is complicated by the consequences of COVID-19: in 2019 - 317,233 deaths, in 2020 - 702,072. Dangerous trends. Especially in the wake of two demographic recessions - 1943-1944 and the 1990s. In the first recession, very few children were born, today they and their children most often die. In the 90s, the birth rate dropped sharply again, and now the backbone of childbearings are those children of the 90s.

Yuri Krupnov, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development:

Here's another ambush. What the president proposes - the restoration of population growth when the birth rate is falling - is a revolution. But demography is a conservative system. How's the family. It's great to proclaim a three-child family as the norm, but the new Russian norm is a family with one or two children. And in the best years of 2013-2015, when there was a relative increase in the birth rate, its coefficient barely reached 1.7. Although the level required for simple reproduction of the population is 2.15 births. Even in Islamic families in Moscow and in the cities of the Caucasus, the birth rate does not rise above 1.9. Above 2.3-2.4 = in villages. But the reasons for this are not in the prospects that have opened up in the countryside, but in the lagging behind of rural life.

For comparison: in Moscow, they stopped giving birth, while maintaining population growth, in 1965. In the Russian Caucasus, "1965" will come in 2025. And here we need to be ready to confront two myths. They say that the birth rate cannot fall below self-production and "nature will take its course." Will not take. Even in Hong Kong, China, there are only 0.8 children per woman.

The second myth is about the irreversibility of depopulation, which cannot be stopped. Like, "demographic winter" - unwillingness to give birth to children and the desire to entrust the conception of life to a test tube - "the law of evolution." Commercial nonsense of those who desire to make a fortune on these myths.

Reluctance to give birth to children and entrust the conception of life to a test tube is not a "law of evolution", but commercial nonsense

Can a three-child family at least in the conditional middle class break the depopulation?

Yuri Krupnov: This is not enough. The problem is that the country has been living in opposite trends for the last 10-15 years. There are four of them. The main one dominates - having few children.

The second gives hope: the number of large families has increased by 25 percent. Three or four children are raised not only in religious and rural families, but also in business and creative environments. The business has funds. The inertia of traditionalism is understandable, but the fact that scientists, artists, IT engineers, doctors have large families is both a chance and a challenge to the consumer society with its unspoken rejection of a large family.

The third trend is one-children. Another trend is "childfree", or unwillingness to have children. And "childhaiting", or the principled rejection of children. "Childfree" at least say that they are not yet ready for children. "Childhaters" stand on the fact that "children destroy the life and creativity of the individual."Any trend can become the main one, as there is a demand for courage and originality in society. Let's not group together - families with one child will become "marginals", and families with no children will become "normal". In order not to go to extremes, an offensive is needed on all fronts. It implies the union of the rich, the not so rich, the poor, all families - one-child, three-child, large and even childless through adoption. To do this, at the state level, it is necessary to set a new social norm - having many children.

Back to news Madonna at the "homeless living wage"Olga Vorobyova: I wouldn't bet on the middle class either. It is small, yet unstable, it has the longest abandonment of children - up to 30-34 years. In his environment, the average age of marriage has increased - from 22-25 to 28-29. And the fertile or age of the birth of a woman's children is short - 16-18 and up to 39 years. So it turns out that successful people often have time to give birth to one child.

But throwing stones at the garden of the conditional middle class is like shooting yourself in the foot in the hope of running faster. It's simple: people who know how to earn are afraid to give birth. Existence determines consciousness: since the times of the USSR and until now, the subsistence level of the middle class does not include the cost of acquiring housing. But in the USSR, housing was donated by the state, in Russia it is bought, often at the cost of mortgage bondage for half a lifetime. Demographer Vladimir Litvinov called this "fork" of survival of the Russian middle class "a living wage for a homeless person."

To what extent does maternity capital solve this problem?

Olga Vorobyeva: As a resource, it is good for a short distance - by the way, there is a roof over your head, often a one-room apartment, less often a two-room apartment, but they are not even conducive to a two-child family. A family is not at all the acquisition of housing, it is only a step towards its formation. Therefore, the middle class, like all groups of society, has developed and still maintains three peaks in the birth rate. The first - at the age of 18-25, sorry, Romeo and Juliet "on the fly", when the family is still "naked like a falcon", but gives birth "because". Then, if the family has overcome the crisis of lack of money and the "living wage of the homeless", consciously gives birth at the age of 30-34. And finally, after 35 years, "Madonna" - also consciously! - gives birth to a baby, but whether she is already married or not is another question. More often such a Madonna is divorced or not married.

So in Russia "across the knee" the formula of late marriages is formed, when the first, sometimes even the second peak of the family's birth rate is bypassed. There remains the third peak. To support it, reanimate the first one and root the second peak in the birth rate, systemic injections from the state are needed. And this is not only maternity capital, which is immediately spent on the purchase of housing and ceases to work for long-term goals - children's circles, education, health, recreation - everything that forms a developed personality. Everyone gets out of this circle on their own, as best they can.

I believe we will come to the conclusion that the allowance for each child, at least in the amount of 3-5 thousand rubles a month, will become the norm. And this money will be paid by the Pension Fund, and in this way we will raise our future payers. Or, which is wiser, it is necessary to raise the standard of living of the conditional middle class to the real middle class. By the way, in Russia, an increase in the standard of living always entails an increase in the birth rate. So it was after the Great Patriotic War, so it was in the 80s, so it was in 2013-2015. In this we salutarily differ from the West, where the growth of living standards leads to a reduction in the birth rate.

Romeo and Juliet's ark-estate

Is the interdependence of the growth of living standards and birth rate a feature of the Russian mentality, the very lagging behind the village from the city, or different goal-setting, for example, in Russia and the EU?

Yuri Krupnov: Rather, the general risks of searching for the transformation of the family and its values ​​in a changing world. Just as we need to look for points of contact for the union of one-child, three-child, large and childless families, we also need to systematically grope for ways to improve the standard of living that works for the family.

The demand for vapes, fast food, energy drinks and other food waste - all this together undermines the reproductive opportunities of young peopleA "blind" increase in the standard of living is like a "blind" increase in the birth rate. It will not lead to anything good, but will exacerbate the problems: only 27-30% of healthy children are born in the country anyway. Therefore, whatever one may say, the development vector strictly dictates the prioritization. They creak, but add up - national revenues are invested in high technology and science, education, free medicine, which is not always available. Such a strategy gives the country a chance to turn not into a raw material appendage of the "golden billion", but into a country with a science-intensive industry. After all, the prospects of a child born today are determined by the quality and quantity of jobs expected in 25 years. True, for now, one-sided industrial-type urbanization remains one of the reasons for the ongoing depopulation. Indeed, in megacities and even villages, which are washed off on shifts to earn money in megacities, they do not give birth to a second or third baby, they give birth mainly in small towns. Therefore, the country should move to the estate-manor low-rise urbanization.

Olga Vorobyeva: So far, the choice of housing is small: a mortgage, a land allotment or a socially rented apartment. And local authorities, even through maternity capital, manage to allocate land in an open field. To avoid this, we need an alternative - a free apartment. But the institution of social hiring is not developed; it, together with private estate construction, must be recreated.

Here there is a danger that officials who decide land issues will continue to play by "their own rules", as is the case with housing for orphans. Or the "game" can lead to the fact that the families will receive land de jure, but will not be able to live in settlements. Again, as it happens with compatriot migrants, often with many children.

In my opinion, speaking numbers: from 2006 to 2019 - the years of the state program "Compatriots" - a little more than 1.1 million people moved to Russia, and fled from the allocated plots of land or apartments "in the middle of nowhere", according to various sources, from 250 thousand to 350 thousand people. It's a paradox: bypassing the program, more than 3 million have resettled themselves! Here it is - a resource in spite of everything. This is also why we need a new national project, a new idea for the Demography national project - housing for families.

"Test tube baby" and rentier

"Test tube baby" or IVF - a way to solve the problem of fertility?

Yuri Krupnov: An exaggerated problem. From 1.5 to 3% of families suffer from organic infertility or inability to give birth. The IVF program can make up 1.5-2% of the national project, and 1% can remain commercial. But the way the reproductive problem is solved is a national disgrace. It is no longer that doctors for the first, free IVF procedures under the state program send people to state centers, where newcomers in 99 percent of cases will not get pregnant. This "chip" the people saw through and go to private clinics. Their families "go around" expensive services, where both private doctors and public sector doctors, who, as a rule, earn extra money in private centers, receive a bribe. There are cases when in a private clinic it is possible to get pregnant from the fifth or seventh time. Banditry? Nothing personal - the state is playing for private interests, lowering state centers and budgetary funds to the level of useless consultation, but in fact - a "gateway".

This game is beyond common sense. The point is to return it to the field of interests of the family and the state, whose spending from the budget is often wasted. It is enough to prioritize: IVF is only 1.5%, maybe 3% of the problem of infertility. Another problem has grown ominously - functional childlessness. Its growth is up to 10%. Functional childlessness is not organic damage, but acquired. Young people take them up. They want to have children, but do not understand why pregnancy does not occur. The fashion for bare navels in girls, for "sports" steroid nutrition in boys, prostatitis at the age of 23-25, weakened spermatozoa, demand for vapes, fast food, energy drinks and other food waste - all this together undermines the reproductive opportunities of young people. This is where advanced medical technology should be directed, and not at the expense of catering to the interests of private firms. Why not yet another point of application of forces for the national project "Demography"?

There are cases when in a private clinic under the IVF program it is possible to get pregnant from the fifth or seventh time. Banditry?Olga Vorobyova: And migration, because not only compatriots, but also some migrants can be adapted to the realities of Russia, and IVF programs and adoption programs can both be a resource for strengthening the family, and play against it. In this sense, the large number of children in the business environment is indicative. It seems like a promising trend, but there is a family, and there is a craze for three or four children in two or three marriages of one businessman, but each time with a younger wife. As a result, often their children grow up without a father, and mothers sue him. And for the country, these children are often strangers. Over time, and even from birth, they replenish schools and universities, and in fact - the gene pool of other countries, and if they return to us after 25 years, then in the role of a rentier. Here, too, we need to think about how to interest the "golden youth" in working at home.

How to overcome the "demographic winter"

What kind of family will allow Russia not only to get out of the demographic hole, but to live with dignity?

Yuri Krupnov: Only a three-, and preferably a four-child family. Defending their right to one child, even two children, people must understand that they are defending the right to the extinction of the nation. The institution of the family is undermined not so much by the difficult socio-economic situation as by the ideology of consumption, when young people do not want to have children.

For the family to take root and the country to rise, it is necessary to declare a three-four-child family a national priority, which will make it a vital value. Starting from the birth of the third child, the family should be singled out in a special category - "persons of strategic national importance." Each family member is assigned the optimal housing (purchased or rented) and an allowance in the amount of the average wage. For this, along with the national project "Demography" it is necessary to adopt as a federal law, like "Our Father", the national project "Family of Three Children".

Otherwise, we will not save the family. Its instability - according to Rosstat, 700 divorces are officially registered per thousand marriages - is associated with a drop in the standard of living and the value of the family, which forces young people to refuse to register marriage and cohabit from youth. And, more than once.

Olga Vorobyeva: Rivers do not turn back on their own. And we need to reverse the process of depopulation: first, in order to survive, then - in order to live. On this path, a three-child family, taking into account all the well-thought-out strategies and tactics for its development, is an achievable goal. A four-child family is perhaps an ideal to strive for.

Large family - five children or more? I would not idealize it, both as a structure and as a goal. Both our and world practice know little about not only happy - prosperous families with many children. And it's not just that the younger ones don't want to wear cast-offs for the older ones - objectively they have to! - and parents will have to share a piece of bread, which will always be missed. It's surmountable. It is here that difficulties unite when the family is strong. It's the nature of having many children. Objectively, everything is like in the animal world: some are stronger, others are weaker, which means that the weak will give way to the resource of self-expression and self-realization, inherent in man by nature, to the strong.

bbabo.Net