Last evening I watched Children of Men. It’s a bit depressing, in the way that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a bit bloody. (It’s a “bit bloody” as well.)
At the time, I was not aware that one in six couples in Britain are infertile.
According to America Alone, Mark Steyn’s self-described and penetrating rant on “demography, Islam and civilizational exhaustion,” the developed world has gone from 30 per cent to 20 per cent of global population. Greece has 1.3 births per couple — the “lowest low” from which no society has ever recovered; Russia, where 60 per cent of pregnancies are terminated, has the fastest-growing rate of HIV in the world and, by 2050, 60 per cent of Italians will have no brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts or uncles. In the developed world, only the United States, with a 2.1 birth rate, is replacing itself.
The rest is here.
If they can’t have kids, they shouldn’t be getting married.
…now I got proof of what just what I always wanted to hear:
Baby making time!!!
It’s uneconomical to have kids. The tax burden is inversely proportional to the birth rate.
Was this speaker wrong. Several years ago, I attended a seminar on management. One line of his speech got a huge laugh. There is a better way to do everything, except to conceive a child, and that will never change. Wonder if he is still alive, and what he thinks of that stmt today.
Beli…you hit the nail on the head! 50 years ago,people could afford to have one parent work and the other stay home with the kiddies.Mind you,if you are not into the me,me,me and I want it all, that is still possible, but then how do your kids explain to the others at school that they are “trailer trash” and quite happy and healthy that way???
Immigration and domestic birth rates are an interesting discussion. If you looked at things from a high high level, like you were running society in on of those games like sim city etc. you could view birth rate versus mmigration as an in house or out source issue.
Knowing that you need to replace the members of society at a certain rate to maintain the growth, weakth and support for the future.
If you assume a person is a person is a person and that culture or values do not matter, and at a certain level or through certain ideological filters they don’t, then you should be indifferent where your replacements come from.
However, if there are differences that are germaine then you, as leader of that society, have a strategic choice to make (one we don’t want to ever talk about). You have to make a choice of domestic prodiction versus off shore outsourcing.
The only way you can mitigate that is if your culture is strong enough to be transmitted and assimilate all newcomers to your existing political and cultural values (or of course if you are idifferent to those values and do not care if they change).
Kate I watched Children of Men last week and was left equally depressed and drained. My brother has 4 kids, I have 2, my other brother has none. But of my friends many are spouseless, and those with spuses many are childless, some by choice some by necessity.
It IS expensive and it IS difficult to raise children in this environment. Our society does not structure itself appropriately for this. You are significantly better off if you are childless, economically speaking.
What is going to be interesting is in 20 years or so when many boomers, where this trend started, find themselves infirm without family nearby. Not sure what the cultural and sociological impact will be….will there be adoptions by elderly people of younger people to implicitly take care of them….promise of the inheritance….where will all the money go?
Anyway, it is a difficult question on which to have a discussion without it descending into something ugly. But at some point we have to decide whether we buy into the heritage of our society or not. Unfortuantely the left wing of our society doesnt think there is much worth preserving…..that means it will be lost.
But yes I think there is a correlation between tax rates and children…there is also a correlatin between societal faith in the future and children.
It was a thought provoking movie.
At the time, I was not aware that one in six couples in Britain are infertile.
Do not have children, but not necessarily infertile. There is a difference.
So the mini kate’s or kevin’s are coming ? :->
Want to know where and when to send the congrats basket…
All is working according to the great manifesto…depleat the sexual capacity of the family unit in a nation and homogenize its culture then substitute the state for the natural family.
I see the Russians, Italians and Chinese are way ahead here in formenting the brave new world.
“50 years ago,people could afford to have one parent work and the other stay home …”
50 years ago, people under 30 didn’t expect to live in a 2000 sq ft home and vacation in the Dominican every winter, either.
Stephen, have you visited a longterm care facility lately, or a seniors lodge. It is sad to see how many have no children or grandchildren to visit them. How they light up when those that do have grandchildren and great grandkids visit, and they take the time to say hello, or bring a small gift-shampoo, smelly soap, etc. When talking to some of them, if they could do it all over, they would have had children and forgone the vacations, high paying jobs etc. You are right, in 20 years the problem will be worse.
I wonder what the result of all the ssm will be then. The one advantage those couples will have is they can be in the same facility.
“Do not have children, but not necessarily infertile. There is a difference.”
The article is clear; the one in six figure refers to infertility.
Obtuse, not but necessarily illiterate. There is a difference.
The enemy knows, even if WASP’s do not, that there a finite number of children to be borne into the flesh to make their choice between good and evil. Therefore the emphasis on abortion and a system designed to forestall the inevitable.
Interesting story about wasps (WASPs). It so happens a small wasp fertilizes the Smyrna fig (good fig) with pollen picked up from the Capri fig (bad fig). Exactly as WASPs in our society do. Albeit, unknowingly. Exactly as you do here, raging as the heathen rage. Out of ignorance of God’s Plan.
Read up on the good and bad figs in Jeremiah 24.
And what about feminism – that ideology that essentially denies that women bear children; that insists that women and men are essentially identical and that women must have identical careers to men; that ignores that the children of our species require a long nurturing period; that rejects that this nurturing requires close and stable emotional bonds – something only provided by a close and stable family.
Feminism, which rejects all of the above, has as a result, developed the ideology of woman as someone who ignores her biological reality and leaves child-bearing until it is too late, resulting in infertility, miscarriages, etc. It has insisted that women reject nurturance and almost immediately, put the baby in daycare.
And, as noted, we have raised our ‘accepted lifestyle standards’ and insist on a consumerism that requires two salaries – and even more than two salaries. How many parents are assisting their children to purchase those homes, those cars, those vacations?
We have rejected the family – our taxes don’t support a family structure. And, ideologically, we have rejected the family, within SSM, within the insistence on ‘universal daycare provided by the gov’t’, within our contempt for women who raise their children rather than focus on a career.
And, our welfare system encourages single mothers.
So – where are we?
It’s definitely a lifestyle choice to not have more kids (in many, dare I say most, cases). I work with lots of people with 1 or 2 kids, only one comes to mind with more than 2 – he has 5 (but says he’s done). I guess my wife and I will just have to keep at it (it’s quite the burden 😉 ) to make up for the rest of these slouches. We’re expecting our 6th and although we’re rednecks and all, we have moved beyond the ‘trailer trash’ stage (yes, my wife is a stay at home mom). The only explanation I can come up with for it all is that our affluence has made us selfish – we have far more resources at our disposal than previous generations, but previous generations were far more generous with their fertility (please, don’t trot out the lame, “they used to have more kids in case some died young” line – we value each of our kids as much, or more, than if we only had 1 or 2).
I have two parents, each of them had two parents. and each of them had two parents. It obvious that the population is going down.
ET, we are in a brave new world of alphas and gammas.
I’ve had this discussion with many baby boomer friends and I believe we will end our lives as the ‘lonely generation’.
At the very time we need friends and families most, when we have nothing left but our fears, our pain and our memories – most of us will be alone. Will the memories (if we’re not senile)of that Dominican vacation sustain us? I think not.
Those 1.7 kids we may or may not have had will be scattered to the winds of global opportunity. They may be in another city, another province or even another country, while we lay in our gov’t supplied deathbed.
The Malaysian or Korean health care worker may have empathy. They might even hold your hand and wipe your brow, but how can they speak with you about the precious moments and memories that was the tapestry of your life?
Loneliness is one of life’s greatest burdens and a sorry way to make one’s exit. But for many… it’s now too late.
I was in the Philippines in 1997 and witnessed mountains of rotting garbage, nauseating thick fumes from broken down vehicles and gas-powered electrical generators (used by business owners to fill the gaps during the frequent brown-outs) with no emission controls, and rivers so thick with filth it was a wonder they still flowed. But their were also lots of apparently happy families and plenty of children.
I am mystified as to what has gone so wrong with our first-world fertility rate, but I can not believe it has been harmed by environmental pollution or lack of money.
But in Canada, La Nouvelle France was founded on sex in log cabins.
Don’t we remember Louis XIV’s ‘le fils de roi’!!
1666 census of New France was conducted by France’s intendant, Jean Talon, in the winter of 1665-1666. It showed a population of 3215 habitants in New France, many more than there had been only a few decades earlier. But the census showed a great difference in the number of men (2034) and women (1181). As a result, and hoping to make the colony the centre of France’s colonial empire, Louis XIV decided to dispatch more than 700 single women, aged between 15 and 30 (known as les filles du roi) to New France.
Forget global warming, falling birth rates are cured by long winters in front of log fires with French red wine.
The problem is no ‘joi de vivre’
I recall reading an article in the Post a while ago that most children in North America are being born to parents who vote Conservative, especially those who are also religious.
Given the abheration otherwise known as Jack Layton, this doesn’t necessarily mean that all these children will hold the same political beliefs as their parents. But certainly many of them will.
Who knows, the cup might be half full.
Bring in a taxation system which allows for pure income splitting for married couples and I guarantee a baby boom.
The article is clear; the one in six figure refers to infertility. Obtuse, not but necessarily illiterate. There is a difference.
M Kopala is not a reporter. She is a columnist. Relying on columns for factual information is a dangerous sport.
There is no statistical information available anywhere that is an accurate measure of the “infertility” of couples mainly because nobody is required to disclose why they have no children, and fertility doctors and clinics are prohibited from divulging it.
People will often guess at ratios based on patients at fertility clinics etc, but they are extremely unreliable.
How does anyone have time for kids – there are way too many blogs to read.
Fritz, it doesn’t take all that long to get them started on their way 😉
The blogs cause much neglect of the already-born, but they don’t prevent them from being created.
So you’re saying “Children of Men” isn’t all that depressing, eh? After all, contrary to popular belief, there is very little blood/gore in “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”.
/fanboy
the world is basicaly over populated as it is, so a declining birth rate in some parts of the world is a good thing
and
ol hoss
this is a discussion on demographic shifting, not a bible session
The book Children of Men by P.D. James quite a bit better than the movie. They remained true the main idea of complete human infertility, but changed the characters and the governmental response.
I liked Mark Steyn’s take on mother’s day in the corner:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmMzODIzNWQ3ZjkyYjgyNmFiZjljZDdiN2M2YjhmODk=
Ain’t feminism great!
Keep up the empowerment bullsh*t grrls!
Keep attempting to imitate men by spending your life working rather than choosing to do the most important job in the world: being a mother.
ol hoss
this is a discussion on demographic shifting, not a bible session
Keep on being a good little WASP. I’m sure you know as much now as when you began.
it seems the more wealth we have the fewer children we have, could it be we are just selfish
“”50 years ago,people could afford to have one parent work and the other stay home …”
50 years ago, people under 30 didn’t expect to live in a 2000 sq ft home and vacation in the Dominican every winter, either.
Posted by: Kate at May 12, 2007 3:36 PM ”
My point exactly. We are a selfish culture. Before anybody gets wierd, I have 2 daughters and 5 grandkids. My betterhalf was a stay-at-home mom. Did we suffer as a one-wage family? Only if you think not having a computer,cable TV, and Gap for Kids clothes was a bad thing. I served my country and have been working my butt off in civie life to know ensure that my wife and I can enjoy ourselves, with our kids/grandkids, in all they do. THAT is what is important. We are shaping the future by enjoying the present.
I finally got my library copy of “America Alone” last week after waiting 5 months for my turn, and I think it was well worth the wait. I think, what Mark Steyn is writing about is very true, and makes me very uneasy. My wife and I had 3 daughters and a son, so we made our contribution to Canadian Demography. However, our kids are not so keen to making the effort to get married and rear a family. Mark’s observation of indefinite postponement of adulthood of today’s generation who are of child rearing age coincides with what we are seeing all around us. Not until we effectively deliver the message, that child rearing and motherhood are probably the most important contributions that women can make to Canadian society, we will be facing a bleak and desolate future society the way we know it.
In the light of the above, as I am writing this note, this mother’s day has a special meaning for all of us.
The infertility rate given in the column appears to come from estimates by Sheffield Professor Bill Ledger. Here’s a BBC article with some numbers.
Although estimates of inferility are necessarily imprecise, there is no reason to distrust them completely. It is not difficult to do a survey of couples and ask them whether they have children, and, if not, why not. I haven’t looked at Ledger’s work on the subject — and don’t plan to — but I see no reason to distrust his numbers (though I would like error estimates, too).
My only child, a son, is 24 and travelling in New Zealand. Of all his friends and children of my friends not one is married. One friend’s daughter at 31 is now engaged, many others are now in their mid 30’s. The only marriage I have been to in years was a 55 year old cousin’s second marriage. Very few even are dating. The girls I have talked to about this stated the boys are not interested or afraid to commit to marriage. We all would be considered as upper middle class, some quite wealthy but the pattern is the same. Very few of our relatives married children have more than 2 children, many have none.
We, as a group, often discuss this but have no real definitive answer but it is a scary future. Last weekend 22 of us got together for a 60th birthday party, only 12 children came from this gathering.
The birth rate in the West is only low for certain segments of the population. There will be cousins, brothers and sisters in 50 years. Thye’ll just all be conservative Christians or Muslims.