The age of the “fertility panic” arrives

posted at 12:31 pm on February 17, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

When we think of governments getting involved directly in the business of modulating population growth, one of the first – and most horrible – examples that comes to mind is China. But they’re looking to reduce the population. What about government programs which seek to invest in creating more people? Apparently it’s not a new idea, as explained in an essay by Doug Sanders, dealing with the “fertility panic.”

We have entered the age of the fertility panic. Country after country is discovering that smaller families are causing the population to shrink, which means more old people, and therefore higher government expenses and lower tax revenues. And many of those countries are then jumping to the wrong conclusion: that they should persuade people to have more kids.

The latest victim is the United States, which until recently was proud of its big, corn-fed families, but discovered last year that the economic crisis and constricted immigration have pushed its average family size down to 1.9 children, below the 2.1 needed for population stability.

This has led a number of American voices to propose what European countries have been doing for more than a decade and what Quebec has tried since the 1980s: attempting to create larger families through policy.

Apparently, Canada has an even lower birth rate, at 1.59. (A fact they currently offset by bringing in an average of 300,000 immigrants per year.) Germany spends 200 billion euros a year trying to get more people to have babies, but are still looking at an average of 1.39 children per family. It seems that France has been the only one to pull it off, getting to 2.1 children per family by giving $1,000 a month for a year to any mother willing to have a third child. That works out to a pretty hefty price tag.

But is this really the government’s job, and is it a sustainable solution going forward? It seems rather counter-intuitive that governments would be working to expand the population of a planet already hosting more than seven billion of us. Further, if the only purpose of creating succeeding generations which are larger than the last is to pay more money into the entitlement system to support them as they age, there’s got to be a point of diminishing returns down the line in that formula. (Not the least of which is the point where you begin running out of food to feed them all.)

If this is a new fad in government policy, I think I’ll pass. Simply producing larger raw numbers of people is no substitute for a society where families produce the children they can love and afford to raise. And the quality, talents and ambition of each generation seems far more important than their sheer tonnage. A fertility panic is probably like most “panic” events, and people who respond in panic mode rarely make good decisions.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…I’ll help!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Solution: import and breed more illiterate Mexicans. Right?

Archivarix on February 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM

…are we going to get another Executive Order?

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM

55 Million…

BigGator5 on February 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM

The latest victim is the United States, which until recently was proud of its big, corn-fed families, but discovered last year that the economic crisis, and constricted immigration, and the intended consequence of abortion, have pushed its average family size down to 1.9 children, below the 2.1 needed for population stability.

Fixed that for you Mr. Sanders.

rukiddingme on February 17, 2013 at 12:37 PM

The primary reason governments are concerned is that they’re paying (or, more accurately, getting taxpayers to pay) for the health care of the seniors. In other words, the need for such government intervention is….prior government intervention.

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Mohonri on February 17, 2013 at 12:37 PM

When we think of governments getting involved directly in the business of modulating population growth…

Illegal aliens and abortion.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Europe imports and breeds illiterate muslims.

TX-eye on February 17, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Come to California….Plenty of babies here…. I’m biting my tongue here to keep from being racist but I think you all know what I mean…

sandee on February 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I work on a lot of genealogy and I don’t think the decline in population growth will change.

My Momma was born in 1918, next to last of a family of 9 children. She had 1 child and her sister had 4. I couldn’t have children and more 4 cousins produced 10.

My husband had 4 sisters – 5 kids total. One sister has 4 children. No one else had any.

At best, we are just breaking even . . .

Greyledge Gal on February 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Prosperity and high rates of taxation are the reasons for dwindling populations. There is little need in the modern era for me, or anyone, yo have children for my own purposes other than the joy of having a family. I don’t need children to help around the farm. Few do. It’s the government that needs us to have children to maintain the welfare state.

Ironically it’s we conservatives who will bear the cost of raising the next generations to support the childless Left.

Current tax policy and the need to have two working parents also makes it difficult to have more than one or two kids. Unless you’re rich or poor, you’re going to be limited in how many kids you can afford.

Charlemagne on February 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Fear not.

In the course of human [natural] events – America’s embrace of homosexual marriage will spawn millions of tots.

Homosexual + Homosexual = Offspring.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Hey. I have an idea. There seem to be a lot of surplus Muslims. They make terrific parasites.

pat on February 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM

There is a perfect solution for the demographic crisis: create a new type of visa, and give it to everyone who 1) has no criminal convictions in the country of origin, and 2) is willing to forfeit all social services for themselves and their families for at least 10 years, including free ER visits, funemployment, etc. Any felony conviction automatically leads to severe penalty, visa nullification, and immediate deportation after conclusion of the prison term.

Archivarix on February 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM

We could let the Roman Catholics use the hammer.

Listen to Ted Kennedy and not Eric Cantor.

Western Europe isn’t nirvana.

But it beats Brazil or Argentina.

IlikedAUH2O on February 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

There was a time (before big government) when couples made the decision about family size. They often chose more than less since they had a workforce to help on the farm or to fish etc. Further, the parents could reasonably expect to be cared for in their old age by their progeny.

Now gubmint is there to do it. What could go wrong?

FOWG1 on February 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

…amnesty!/

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Hey. I have an idea. There seem to be a lot of surplus Muslims. They make terrific parasites fertilizer.

pat on February 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM

FIFY.

Archivarix on February 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM

C’mon.

Kids used to be an economic asset. Now you either can’t do math or you really want to spend money on other people to have a big family.

Some ethnic groups have higher math scores.

IlikedAUH2O on February 17, 2013 at 12:49 PM

It’s not the low reproduction rate of those of Western Civilization that’s the problem, it’s the much higher reproduction rate of Muslims and other third worlders, especially those infesting Western Civilization countries,

VorDaj on February 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Kids used to be an economic asset. Now you either can’t do math or you really want to spend money on other people to have a big family.

Some ethnic groups have higher math scores.

IlikedAUH2O on February 17, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Gotta give it again to whoever filmed Idiocracy – they aced this theme.

Archivarix on February 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM

See, this is an issue the Republicans could talk about instead of, say, more Hannity-esque platitudes.

Punchenko on February 17, 2013 at 12:56 PM

It seems rather counter-intuitive that governments would be working to expand the population of a planet already hosting more than seven billion of us

What seems counterintuitive is that Hot Air continues to publish the brain dead ramblings of Jazz Shaw.

As for why Jazz thinks it is counterintuitive for governments, who rely on new workers to prop up an already teetering welfare state, would want more workers, Jazz doesn’t say.

besser tot als rot on February 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Come to California….Plenty of babies here…. I’m biting my tongue here to keep from being racist but I think you all know what I mean…

sandee on February 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Saying there are lots of Mexicans having children is not even remotely racist. It isn’t racist to even say illegal Mexicans having children is racist. Some people would say that saying Mexican would be racists. But they are wrong. Mexican isn’t a race. It is a nationality.

There are no races genetically speaking. More people are being accused of being racist based off their political ideology or whatever. Black man doesn’t vote “black” then he is an Uncle Tom for example.

Relax and take a breath because telling the truth is and should never be racists. If it offends someone and they accuse you of being racist for being truthful, that is there problem.

PEOPLE. GET OVER YOUR FEAR OF BEING CALLED A RACIST WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING TRUTHS. And for you jerks that accuse people of being racist at a whim. Who is more obsessed with race?

Gatekeeper on February 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

When will Obamuh roll-out his Minister of Fertility on this issue?

Sandra Fluke

OhEssYouCowboys on February 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

When will Obamuh roll-out his Minister of Fertility on this issue?

Sandra Fluke

OhEssYouCowboys on February 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Fertility Tzarina, you mean? Those don’t spend $3,000 on rubber – and not of drag-racing kind.

Archivarix on February 17, 2013 at 1:01 PM

we are livestock…

equanimous on February 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Not really worried about more people. We’re going to have to populate the space colonies somehow.

trigon on February 17, 2013 at 1:09 PM

get rid of socialism, and you don’t need more babies to prop up the system. It’s a ponzi scheme anyway. No matter how many babies you have, all ponzi schemes have to collapse. And when the scheme does collapse, the last thing we will need then is more mouths to feed.

keep the change on February 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM

And when the scheme does collapse, the last thing we will need then is more mouths to feed.

keep the change on February 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Don’t look at them as mouths, but rather as the other white meat.

Archivarix on February 17, 2013 at 1:12 PM

There are more maternity leaves at Fox than all the other cable news outlets combined. Thank You Megan.

meci on February 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Read “American Alone” by Mark Steyn. Europe will eventually be majority Muslim because of there demographics. Non-Muslim Europeans aren’t having nearly as many children as are Muslims. So yeah, in this instance I think it is good to encourage responsible reproduction.

Donald Draper on February 17, 2013 at 1:15 PM

It seems rather counter-intuitive that governments would be working to expand the population of a planet already hosting more than seven billion of us

What seems counterintuitive is that Hot Air continues to publish the brain dead ramblings of Jazz Shaw.

As for why Jazz thinks it is counterintuitive for governments, who rely on new workers to prop up an already teetering welfare state, would want more workers, Jazz doesn’t say.

besser tot als rot on February 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Hmmm, agreed.

Some of us who are planning on having children certainly don’t want them growing up in a Third World country that was, sadly, once safe, great, wealthy, and functional.

I’m all for subsidizing smart, educated Americans — with steady work — to have more children than importing foreigners to pick up the slack.

Speaking of the treasonous Left, I recall on French TV — after the election of Hollande — a fat, twisted socialist cow mocking the rightist on the show’s panel by informing them, while devilishly smiling, at how the new government will import more Third Worlders.

The socialist cow was quite pleased with herself and the policy as she rubbed it in that such policies will completely destroy traditional France.

Punchenko on February 17, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Man makes such a lousy God….

Don L on February 17, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Furthermore, populations will dwindle and eventually die out if the birthrate isn’t 2.1. Not sure how that was left out of the post by Jazz.

Donald Draper on February 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Yeah, sorry cant afford to have many kids now a days. Majority of Americans do not live on a farm where you can be somewhat self efficent. How can you pay for another kid with the way it costs anyways? You really need to have a two parent household along with both parents working.

On that point of both working… this also degraded the family structure. If you ever see kids misbehaving, I can almost bet either:
1) mom is a single parent and has to work 2 jobs to feed them,
Or 2) both parents have to work, leaving little time to be a parent.

watertown on February 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Man makes such a lousy God….

Don L on February 17, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Let alone a decent apple.

But, rest assured, Man will continue efforting both.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 17, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Boy, this Doug Sanders sure sounds a lot like Paul Erlich, author of “The Population Bomb”.

Why do I get the impression he read the book first before he wrote his essay?

pilamaye on February 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Wait a minute…

For 40+ years all these smart scientists have been beating the western world over the head with over population…man made global warming…sexual liberation & birth control…

For 30+ years we have been bludgeoned by libertine relativism which re-defines morals…history…and religion to conform to contemporary minority grievance groups utopian ideals of a warped non-judgmental culture where everyone is equally gifted but not equally responsible for their actions…

Now because Global Warming has been proven to be a machiavellian international scientific fraud…Porn being preferable for many to actual relations with actual people, so I guess, Libertinism isn’t what it’s cracked up to be…and moral relativism often leads to increasing crime and indifference due to grievance fatigue and increasing cultural cynicism.

Now we come to another social panic based on the irony that people live longer than they used to but don’t provide adequate care takers to care for them in their old age and must import from often hostile countries a labor force to prop up their slumping economies.

How timely are the death panels…How timely are the rent a womb technologies…How timely is the denigration of traditional marriage and families…How timely that secular psychiatrists and celebrity politicians replace the moralizing rabbis & evangelists & theologians…

workingclass artist on February 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM

7 Billion is much > than 300 million. either reproduce or die off.

unseen on February 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM

constricted immigration

Are you kidding me?

America has allowed more legal immigration per year, than the rest of the world COMBINED, and has for nearly 40 years – and that’s not even including the tens of millions of illegals. Into a country that has for the most of the decade suffered under 20%+ real unemployment, mind you.

One wonders exactly how much more immigration it will take before folks like Jazz Shaw learn that importing hordes of socialist indoctrinated illiterate 3rd world peasants, is a bad idea.

Rebar on February 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

They committed genocide on an entire generation and now they scream wolf…..the blood is on our hands……

crosshugger on February 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

There are no races genetically speaking.

Gatekeeper on February 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

I don’t agree with you on that at all.
Races are specific gene pools. There ARE races, genetically speaking.
This is an interesting place to read the newest research on the genetics of human beings.

There is also nothing racist in pointing this stuff out.
Gene pools & human ethnic groups: fascinating stuff.

Badger40 on February 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Kids are now a tremendous cost. Before child labor laws they were an economic benefit. Having more would be good but it would depend on who is having them. We are getting plenty in which the parent(s) can’t support them, we need less of that.

echosyst on February 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

If this is a new fad in government policy, I think I’ll pass. Simply producing larger raw numbers of people is no substitute for a society where families produce the children they can love and afford to raise. And the quality, talents and ambition of each generation seems far more important than their sheer tonnage. A fertility panic is probably like most “panic” events, and people who respond in panic mode rarely make good decisions.

you know that statement reminds me of what liberals where saying back in 1960′s 1970′s as they set out to destroy the tradional family.

What people tend to forget is that it is the “large raw numbers” that produce societies able to defend itself against the world so that familes can produce the children they can love.

And does Jazz think that you only have a certain amount of love to give and if you have 4 kids instead of 2 you love the last 2 less?

unseen on February 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM

They committed genocide on an entire generation and now they scream wolf…..the blood is on our hands……

crosshugger on February 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

yes this has been the goal of the liberals for more than a generation. Kill the bad “populations” off by use of abortion, import the “good” generations (I.e. those that will vote for them) via immigration.

unseen on February 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Too late.

We’re looking at Demographic decline in the West at the same time as resurgent agressive Islam at the same time as a 9yet to properly unfold) economic crash.

Every year we get more vulnerable to it. In a few years it’ll break over our heads.

Liam1304 on February 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Actually, governments have been involved in promoting fertility for a long time. The Roman Empire, towards its end, recognized the low birth rates among Roman citizens (one of the reasons that they kept expanding citizenship to other geographic regions other than Italy. In fact, the emperors had several policies offering free land to young men who would get married, settle down, work the land and raise a family. Like today, they struggled to get takers.

The parallels of today’s United States to the later centuries of the Roman Empire are sometimes astounding. Low birth rates, high unemployment, a very privileged class and a removed political elite, massive spending on military defense and constant issues surrounding their immigration policies. I’m not predicting anything, but I’m just fascinated by the similarities.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I’m not predicting anything, but I’m just fascinated by the similarities.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I’ll be happy to do some predicting.

America will collapse into just another European-style, Socialist shithole.

Americans are destined to stand in the fields, “mooing,” while they wait for the farmer to drop off some more hay.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

the $500 tax credit per child is set at a believe 2 so the US government’s is already trying to control the population. Tax policy has always been used to shape population trends much more than immigration. If you want to create more babies give tax breaks to large families.

unseen on February 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Yup.

Badger40 on February 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Country after country is discovering that smaller families are causing the population to shrink…

The mind boggles that it is a “discovery” that smaller families cause the population to shrink.

When you tell women that being a mother is demeaning, that a career is the only path to fulfillment, that pregnancy is a disease and abortion the cure… What exactly do you expect to happen to the population rate?

Shump on February 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM

for a society where families produce the children they can love and afford to raise.

Except society is the ones who have made having large families unacceptable.
They have created rules making it nearly impossible to have large families. They have increasingly made it more and more expensive to raise children and far more difficult to keep a family together by spouting all kinds of crazy propaganda disguised by having a PHD say it. Like children do better without a father or with two fathers or mothers. They encourage divorce and selfishness.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Want bigger families. Get out of the business of making young people pay for the multiple decades long vacations that older people are “entitled” to. Making younger people slaves to older people makes them less capable of supporting their own families.

A person 20 to 40 years old thinking of having a child that is not just simply enamored of having kids is going to think about the positives and the negatives of having a kid. The long hours of parenting, the lost work hours, the extra mouth to feed and bodies to clothe, the extra rooms needed in the house, the fact that you need to settle down and not travel and enjoy much that the world offers. Then the positives, the love you gain, the joy of teaching, and eventually you get to the point of having lots of children, will they care for me in my old infirm part of life?

Well, today, looking at if your children will support you in old age you have to look at your own situation. I am losing probably close to 25% of every dollar of earnings to supporting other people outside my household through forced confiscation of those funds. That amount increases every couple years. It makes it hard to afford a child and several particularly. I am having a hard time helping my parents and inlaws. With the path the nation is going and taxes are headed, with 17 trillion in debt now and hundreds of trillions in unfunded future debt those taxes for supporting other people and the debt are only going to increase. So, how much money will they have left over to help me or have their own children?

It looks like a sucker’s effort to raise children more and more.

Want more kids, scrap Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and pretty much every federal payment to individuals.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 2:25 PM

If we teach people that children are a blessing instead of giving the progressive left message that children are a curse on the earth and destroy the planet, it might help alot.

KW64 on February 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM

(Not the least of which is the point where you begin running out of food to feed them all.)

WOW!

Just freaking WOW!

Our very own Hot Air Malthusian moron. I am starting to no longer wonder why the Republican party is too far gone to recover… Then things like this come out!

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The parallels of today’s United States to the later centuries of the Roman Empire are sometimes astounding. Low birth rates, high unemployment, a very privileged class and a removed political elite, massive spending on military defense and constant issues surrounding their immigration policies. I’m not predicting anything, but I’m just fascinated by the similarities.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

That one statement alone pretty much destroyed your argument. 4% of GDP on military spending is no where near MASSIVE.

If I were you, I would get back into the book and actually discover what a massive military spending level is.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 2:33 PM

It’s actually far worse than those fertility rates imply.

First off, all those European numbers already include their immigrant populations, who have far more children than do the native Europeans.

Second, I have NEVER seen anyone report, along with the fertility rates, the average age of childbearing. Any group that can squeeze 6 generations into everyone else’s four will soon own the continent.

After world war 2 when the government saw women leave the house and get into the workforce in large numbers, they were all aglee with the amount of wealth they would have to work their progressive dreams. They gradually drew more and more from two income families, until it became necessary to have two incomes just to afford what one could get previously. They knew these wage slaves would have fewer children. None of this is new information to them. They ALWAYS planned on immigration to pick up the slack. Let’s face it, BOTH political parties have always relied upon never ending growth to get out of our fiscal mess.

This country was sold out from under us a long time ago.

Jazz, the government IS the reason people have fewer children. So , yeah, they should try to promote a higher fertility rate. The problem is, that since they can’t see that they are the cause, they’ll just make the situation worse.

This country, and western civ, are screwed. Pick your poison.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Actually, I misspoke. They can see that they are the problem. But they will never willingly give up the spoils.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM

That one statement alone pretty much destroyed your argument. 4% of GDP on military spending is no where near MASSIVE.

If I were you, I would get back into the book and actually discover what a massive military spending level is.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Isn’t it amazing liberals (in this case the author of the text book he was reading, or perhaps his professor) always assume military spending is a drain on a country?

While I am never for young people dying, there are huge benefits to having a strong military. The biggest being PEACE. It makes doing business and creating wealth far easier for the whole world. Raising a family becomes easier too. Seems to me I saw a book about this just recently claiming far FEWER people die in wars now than ever before.

But, we should gut our military, end the Pax Americana, and save ourselves a few bucks. That uneducated rural enlistee contributes FAR more to western civ than a whole graduating class of ivory tower gender studies majors.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The child tax credit may not be sold as an incentive to have more children, but its a pretty decent chunk if you have a bunch.

TexasDan on February 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM

On the cultural side of the equation, we don’t need the government to do Shiite.

Eating out the other week I noticed my server was showing. I said congratulations. she smiled. I asked her how many. She said this would be her fifth. I said that was wonderful and thanked her. She damn near collapsed. She is a college educated women, working as a server, married. She admitted that most people actually frown at her and tell her she is crazy. She told me I had made her day. I told her she made my week. I tipped her well.

If everyone would do this…..

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I know that this is not the point of this thread…but it seems to me that girls are starting their periods earlier and earlier these days. My friend’s daughter is only 10 and I guess that’s the norm now. I wish fertility was not age 10-40 but more like 20-40. But God has other ideas.

Jackalope on February 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Charlemagne on February 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM

.
Tyrannical government elites need a decreasing population to give them more control. Tyrants don’t give a damn about providing for a ‘welfare state’. But they will (temporarily) use the ‘welfare state’ to weaken the population they wish to gain control over.
The ‘welfare state’ converts normal people into “mind-numbed sheeple”. Once a sufficient number of citizens are reduced to “mind-numbed sheeple”, it’s easy to begin reducing the number of “elderly and disabled” (in other words, the “unproductive” people) by imposing a Nationally run health care system, complete with DEATH PANELS.
Once the “death panels” are functionally in place, they’ll begin whittling down the population to a more “manageable” number, and VOILA ! … You have an eternal dictatorship.

I believe that’s exactly what China is doing. They’ve beat the rest of the World to the implementation of Agenda 21.

But it doesn’t end, once an individual country has gotten it’s own population under “control”.
It ends when the highest of the “Elites” assume full control of the whole World … (yeah, THAT link again).

But they can’t get the control they want over the U.S., as long as there is a vigilant population of ARMED CITIZENS.
The First and Second Amendments stand in their way.

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Endless population expansion is only desired by an expanding government.

A reasonable number, when reached, need not be exceeded.

Except to feed the dreams of welfare Ponzie schemes.

profitsbeard on February 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Governments need more TAXPAYERS to support the system, not more consumers of Government largess. Having said that thank God Mexico’s, Central and S. America’s population are Catholic and not Muslim.

notalemon on February 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM

notalemon on February 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Too bad they are the socialism version of Catholics… it does not much matter, they will destroy our way of life and usher in a far inferior one. If their culture was beneficial, they would have thriving nations.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 4:17 PM

profitsbeard on February 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Can you proclaim what that reasonable number is? Does it have anything at all to do with the age, or more to the point, the productivity of the people that make up that number? Do you think our population fertility is based purely on natural circumstance or artificially depressed due to government interference? What does that say about your statement?

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Too bad they are the socialism version of Catholics… it does not much matter, they will destroy our way of life and usher in a far inferior one. If their culture was beneficial, they would have thriving nations.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 4:17 PM

pick your poison.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Simple solution outlaw abortion. Cut off the hands and feet of every Abortion doctor in America, then have Obama’s Drones target them around the world.

Kjeil on February 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM

That one statement alone pretty much destroyed your argument. 4% of GDP on military spending is no where near MASSIVE.

If I were you, I would get back into the book and actually discover what a massive military spending level is.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Isn’t it amazing liberals (in this case the author of the text book he was reading, or perhaps his professor) always assume military spending is a drain on a country?

While I am never for young people dying, there are huge benefits to having a strong military. The biggest being PEACE. It makes doing business and creating wealth far easier for the whole world. Raising a family becomes easier too. Seems to me I saw a book about this just recently claiming far FEWER people die in wars now than ever before.

But, we should gut our military, end the Pax Americana, and save ourselves a few bucks. That uneducated rural enlistee contributes FAR more to western civ than a whole graduating class of ivory tower gender studies majors.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I think you both are assuming too much from my comment. We do spend massive amounts on the military (although increasingly less so). Part of it is due to our wealth and what we stand for – freedom, capitalism, and at one point, high moral standards – but we have been paying more than our fair share to protect Europe and Asia. Their economic demise would have come much faster if it were not for our military spending that protected their nations from threats (and still does). This is in our interest, but when the world essentially becomes a parasite off one nation, that nation better remain viable from a population standpoint.

Now, I’m willing to be that Rome spent more as a portion of GDP, but my point still stands. What will bankrupt us, though, are the entitlements – the bread and circuses, as they knew it in the Roman Empire. These programs encourage dependency and they require a large youthful population and an intelligent government to administer (both of which we don’t have).

Call me a liberal if you want, but you would be presuming too much.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I don’t see anything good coming from this. The government will push this, but they will push it in the form of single motherhood. And they will set it us so that these chilren come out of the womb dependent on the government essentially making government daddy. It will be just another nail in the coffin.

I am increasingly pessimistic. I recently read an article on co-parenting, and that did it for me. Older women finding a man(usually a gay male) and having a baby and then co-parenting with him. Ugh.. what kind of model is this for children. I fear for my children growing up with these children.

melle1228 on February 17, 2013 at 4:49 PM

When you tell women that being a mother is demeaning, that a career is the only path to fulfillment, that pregnancy is a disease and abortion the cure… What exactly do you expect to happen to the population rate?

Shump on February 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Agreed. It also doesn’t help to inculcate in the minds of succeeding generations that they’re merely the products of random variations and nothing more.

Cleombrotus on February 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

On the cultural side of the equation, we don’t need the government to do Shiite.

Eating out the other week I noticed my server was showing. I said congratulations. she smiled. I asked her how many. She said this would be her fifth. I said that was wonderful and thanked her. She damn near collapsed. She is a college educated women, working as a server, married. She admitted that most people actually frown at her and tell her she is crazy. She told me I had made her day. I told her she made my week. I tipped her well.

If everyone would do this…..

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Actually, a liberal would say that she was being socially irresponsible and look down upon her as morally inferior. They look at anyone with more than one or two children as placing a burden on society. I actually had a liberal friend who made such an argument when she found out a colleague was having her fourth child. Even though this colleague could clearly afford to have the fourth child, she was viewed as morally repugnant for increasing to our supposed pollution, overpopulation and resource problems. I was actually quite disappointed with my friend on that day, but resigned myself to calmly keep on persuading her of the illogical basis of her judgments of our colleagues.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

go forth and multiply.

Seems once again God got it right…

unseen on February 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I don’t see anything good coming from this. The government will push this, but they will push it in the form of single motherhood. And they will set it us so that these chilren come out of the womb dependent on the government essentially making government daddy. It will be just another nail in the coffin.

I am increasingly pessimistic. I recently read an article on co-parenting, and that did it for me. Older women finding a man(usually a gay male) and having a baby and then co-parenting with him. Ugh.. what kind of model is this for children. I fear for my children growing up with these children.

melle1228 on February 17, 2013 at 4:49 PM

You’re right to be skeptical. Government intervention won’t work. The cultural norm of less kids, independence and self-centered living that started in the ’60s (and no, I’m not just talking about with women – find the young man who wants to get married today – he is a rarity). There is a very good article on “sexual economics” that gives an excellent explanation for what is going on in our culture with regards to marriage and having kids.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Sorry, for some reason the link didn’t post. Going to have to cut and paste.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/why-wont-guys-grow-up-sexual-economics/article5172942/

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

(Not the least of which is the point where you begin running out of food to feed them all.)

Our very own Hot Air Malthusian moron.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM

You beat me to it. I was shocked to have read that on this site.

By the way, Jazz, the 2.1 per reproduction rate does not increase population; it maintains it.

ss396 on February 17, 2013 at 5:21 PM

No worries. The Duggars and the Quiverfulls got us covered….right?

Grace_is_sufficient on February 17, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Call me a liberal if you want, but you would be presuming too much.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I am sorry if you thought I called you liberal. I did not. It crossed my mind, but most of what you wrote was correct and fit in conservative circles. But then you slid into the argument about our military. Budgets for military throughout history have been far higher than 10% of the GDP of most nations, particularly those that thrived.

I agree with you that we are going the way of the Roman’s, and for many of the same reasons. I just do not agree that it is our military spending causing the decline. That is why I requested that you hit the books again to overview what previous generation’s of the world’s populations carried for military costs. I said so mostly because of your name, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean your name as a badge of honor and not one of self aggrandizement. It is good to be a student of history and to learn the lessons our predecessors have lived through so we might not have to.

astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM

we are livestock…

equanimous on February 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Exactly.

98ZJUSMC on February 17, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Note to self: Pack up husband, three kids, and move to France! ;-)

Nicole Coulter on February 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM

But is this really the government’s job, and is it a sustainable solution going forward? It seems rather counter-intuitive that governments would be working to expand the population of a planet already hosting more than seven billion of us. Further, if the only purpose of creating succeeding generations which are larger than the last is to pay more money into the entitlement system to support them as they age, there’s got to be a point of diminishing returns down the line in that formula. (Not the least of which is the point where you begin running out of food to feed them all.)

excerpt: Jazz Shaw

.
The “government” took upon itself the responsibility for reducing the American population (Roe vs Wade).

We don’t need our government to subsidize an increase in population. We just need them to GET OUT OF THE (expletive) WAY !

We need our government to allow PUBLIC RECOGNITION of God, AGAIN.
But the government doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need to subsidize “public recognition of God.” Private citizens acting on their own initiative, can do a better job of it.

We’re in NO danger of “running out of food”, unless we allow the government to regulate agriculture . . . . . . . . . oh … wait

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Any country facing this might try the unthinkable — reduce or eliminate abortions.

Old Country Boy on February 17, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Note to self: Pack up husband, three kids, and move to France! ;-)

Nicole Coulter on February 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM

.
If that’s sarcasm, I understand. But if not . . . . . . . .
. .

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Badger40 on February 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

We all share a common ancestor. That was my point.

Gatekeeper on February 17, 2013 at 7:02 PM

White Genocide, straight up.

Import millions of Mexicans

Import thousands of Somalians

Import thousands of Middle Eastern Semitics

Import thousands of Haitians

Stir and gleefully predict White minority status in 2047.

Pure Evil

Bulletchaser on February 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM

White Genocide, straight up.

Import millions of Mexicans

Import thousands of Somalians

Import thousands of Middle Eastern Semitics

Import thousands of Haitians

Stir and gleefully predict White minority status in 2047.

Pure Evil

Never could understand this. If white people are so worried about becoming minorities in the US, then they should have been working on churning out more babies. No offense, but in a way white people have only themselves to blame.

As it stands, it’s probably inevitable anyways. Better that we liberalize immigration laws to replacement levels and work as a country to culturally integrate these new arrivals. Dump all the multiculty nonsense and put more efforts into nation-building.

NorthernCross on February 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Call me a liberal if you want, but you would be presuming too much.

studentofhistory on February 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Read it again, and you will see I never called you a liberal. Merely the authors of your textbooks and your professors. Kudos to you on escaping the indoctrination.

Also, while yes, it would be excellent to see our “allies” shoulder a larger percentage of the burden of preserving the peace, I would still does us no good to se them fail.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Note to self: Pack up husband, three kids, and move to France! ;-)

Nicole Coulter on February 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM

And buy the farm 30 years earlier.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Any country facing this might try the unthinkable — reduce or eliminate abortions.

Old Country Boy on February 17, 2013 at 6:39 PM

The pope did that in the 1400′s due to plague. Worked fine. Now they are pariahs.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 8:59 PM

NorthernCross on February 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I think it has to do with being forced to pay for your own extinction.

If it was of free will, then it would have been no biggie.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Current tax policy and the need to have two working parents also makes it difficult to have more than one or two kids. Unless you’re rich or poor, you’re going to be limited in how many kids you can afford.

Charlemagne on February 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM

This is the real cause of the problem. Subsidies, like those in France, do not produce growth. Take the heel of government off, and the breeders will breed. The rest will keep partying.

entagor on February 17, 2013 at 9:03 PM

President Revenge , the dear leader of the sycophantic leftist “progressives”- views unplanned pregnancy as a punishment. He has set he price…………..

You will conform …………….

FlaMurph on February 17, 2013 at 9:53 PM

White Genocide, straight up.

Import millions of Mexicans

Import thousands of Somalians

Import thousands of Middle Eastern Semitics

Import thousands of Haitians

Stir and gleefully predict White minority status in 2047.

Pure Evil

Bulletchaser on February 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM

.
Never could understand this. If white people are so worried about becoming minorities in the US, then they should have been working on churning out more babies. No offense, but in a way white people have only themselves to blame.

As it stands, it’s probably inevitable anyways. Better that we liberalize immigration laws to replacement levels and work as a country to culturally integrate these new arrivals. Dump all the multiculty nonsense and put more efforts into nation-building.

NorthernCross on February 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM

.
This is NOT about “white genocide”. It IS about solidifying the control of the Progressives over our country.
.
“White” people absolutely have only themselves to blame for the increases in population percentages of other ethnic groups.
The American Baby Boomer generation became the largest totally SPOILED BRAT group of individuals on the face of this Earth. Those that “procreated” gave birth to a generation even more spoiled, and so on.
Too many of today’s white “cracker” American citizens don’t feel like bearing the burden of parenthood. But they sure like “having sex”.
That’s why the abortion industry has the support it does.

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 10:02 PM

100 years ago the Marxists confidently predicted that the white European masses would unite across national boundaries and rise up against their capitalist, industrialist “masters.” WWI came along and, instead of uniting against against the capitalists, the people defended their nations and bound together along strictly nationalistic lines which greatly disappointed and enraged the Marxists.

98% of the world’s history ever since is the direct result of the Marxists’ reaction to that.

The Marxists have continually worked to decrease and marginalize Western white industrialized populations and the white nationalism that failed to fulfill their communitarian dreams. The non-white third world – less educated, less developed, less cohesive, supposedly victimized by Western imperialism and more easily directed – is the left’s great hope for implementing their totalitarian schemes on a worldwide basis.

They convinced the white populations of Europe and America that world overpopulation was a great crisis and that it needed to be addressed in the West, not so much in the third world. Hence the supposed great desirability of abortion, contraception, and contempt for traditional family lives and relationships. Industrial growth is bad because it pollutes; religion is bad because it’s anti-science; nationalism is bad because it’s essentially the same as Nazism and is imperialistic.

What’s good? “Diversity.” The kind that brings much needed “social justice” to the oh-so-oppressed non-whites swarming into what were once overwhelmingly white nations. Thriving capitalistic white nationalism that has successfully resisted Marxist authoritarianism is recast as arrogant racism and undue “privilege.” Whiteness itself becomes evidence of a great evil that must be wiped out.

White ethnicity and nationalism are dorky, gross, evil. Non-white ethnicity and nationalism are lauded and given government promotion (La Raza, the Brown Berets, the NAACP – the list is endless), gigantic amounts of funding, special courses of worshipful, openly racist study in universities, and non-white populations are left free from browbeating and social stigma about having loads of children.

And the real genius of it? They’ve gotten white nations to participate in, advocate for, and fully believe in their own destruction.

Django on February 17, 2013 at 10:40 PM

PETA must have cracked open the champaigne after reading this. They have about the same regard for humans as they do for dogs and cats.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Mohonri on February 17, 2013 at 12:37 PM

And could be used to advantage.

Right now, we have abortion on demand, and the premise of that “right” is that the babies aren’t human until they are born, and that therefore elimination of them is not morally illicit.

OK, let’s take the liberals at their word about Choice. Let’s allow a mother to Choose at the moment she is determined to be pregnant that the child is indeed a human being — or not. For those certified by their mothers as a child, allow that child to immediately become eligible to all sorts of Government aid which might be given to a child. Allow the family to claim the child as a tax dependent before birth. Allow the mother to collect welfare for the child. Allow that child to have all the rights of Citizenship. Time their life for benefits purposes from the moment they are declared to be human.

There are some down sides to this, but the chance to tweak the noses of liberals is an itch that almost begs to be scratched. If we are going to have a welfare state and abortion on demand, let’s use the situation to our advantage.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2013 at 11:33 PM

When people start becoming uncertain of how they’re going to survive when they’re old (and other people’s kids don’t want to wipe their behinds), then they’re more likely to invest in children. So the solution I prefer is to remove the safety-net for the elderly. Grandma will be fine if you care enough. People who didn’t make the investment, well maybe their chihuahuas can help.

VerbumSap on February 18, 2013 at 12:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 2