Article

2007-12-16 Home Front: Culture Wars

Mark Steyn: Children? Not if you love the planet

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-12-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 "Joseph was obliged to schlep halfway across the country to register in the town of his birth"

Salmonlike

Posted by Skidmark 2007-12-16 04:17|| 2007-12-16 04:17|| Front Page Top

#2 The demographics problem (reluctance to reproduce in replacement numbers or greater) is really two problems, as Steyn seems to be saying. One is that there is a growing number of people who consciously choose to not reproduce at all. The other is that those who do are having only one or two children.

The former category isn't all that strange in historical context. Throughout history there have been people like this - soldiers, sailors, herders/drovers/cowboys, professional hunters, religious monks/nuns, etc., who never intended to settle down and raise a family. The problem now is that people who are settled down are opting not to have families either, in a way unprecedented in history.

The other issue, people having one or two kids to "actualize their need to breed" but never any more, is less talked about but just as much a factor, at least in my experience. I think there's a lot of given reasons why this happens - economics, late age that folks start families today vs fifty years ago, etc. - but I also think that the pervasive memes of Ehrlich et al have deeply permeated the consciouness of the West, and in particular the educated West (despite there being no truth to them), and people feel that they are doing something wrong having larger families.

It's a small sample size, I know, but I know of half a dozen women who stopped at one child because that child was a daughter. They all said that if the first was a boy, they would have kept trying to have a daughter and so had more children. All of these women were college educated in the social sciences. It may mean nothing, and I'm sure there are a few women out there who've had 3 or more children who got a psychology or women's studies or education degree in the last thirty years, but I suspect that having a single kid who is a daughter and no male children is a very desired result for dealing with the "clock tick" aspect of biology plus giving homage to the politics and "struggle" of the sisterhood.

What a difference from China, or even our own past, when boys were esteemed. It seems that now (no pun intended) boys are considered by a lot of educated women to be little more than defective girls. How much of the overall demographic problem this might be will be up to the historians to decide, if there are any left to make the decision.

One of the great quandaries of the West going forward is how to continue giving women the respect and freedom they deserve going forward and at the same time creating a milieu in which they breed in sufficient numbers to maintain and grow our population. Government handouts aren't the answer; neither is takeover of health care or other aspects of the family. The proof of this is todays's Europe, a petri dish for this sort of thing. As both (socialism and takeover of the health care/safety net by government) of these have increased in the modern socialist welfare state, fecundity has consistently dropped. Throw in a conscious attempt to obliterate the spiritual thread of the West by the cultural/education elite, and you get demographic collapse.

I've said it here before, the Dems want America to be a society indistinguishable from Europe, and Europe is going to be functionally extinct in three generations and literally extinct in four or five. The Repubs could make this into a killer campaign meme, if only they had the brains to do so.

Posted by no mo uro 2007-12-16 06:48|| 2007-12-16 06:48|| Front Page Top

#3 What a difference from China, or even our own past, when boys were esteemed.

Less than a hundred years ago in this county, most people live in small towns, villages, and in the rural stretches of this nation. It was an agrarian society and culture. Child bearing was still deadly resulting in females having a lower life expectancy than males. Infant mortality was high. There was no social security to help in any way when you body finally gave out. There was only family. Being largely a christian nation that meant that honoring one's father and mother took the form of sustaining them in their old age. Yes, males in most agrarian societies are valued because someone has to do the extended hard labor. You don't see the feminist fighting to get those jobs doing roofing, working the steel furnaces, or blasting at the quarry even today. And thanks to all the ladies who do serve, but the vast number of those shouldering the fight in the front lines are men, carrying around a hundred pounds of armor and equipment, in 120 degree heat, day after day. Today those 'boys' are still esteemed, it just a smaller population that does it. It certainly isn't one reflected in the Euro metroplexes and 'institutions of higher learning' that dot the coast and country. It's Mr. Edwards' two Americas, the Host and the Parasite. When crap happens to a major metro area, like Katrina on New Orleans, the order of things suddenly gets sorted out. No one is depending upon the Womens Studies Department to get their asses out of trouble.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-12-16 08:18|| 2007-12-16 08:18|| Front Page Top

#4 The demographics problem (reluctance to reproduce in replacement numbers or greater) is really two problems, as Steyn seems to be saying. One is that there is a growing number of people who consciously choose to not reproduce at all. The other is that those who do are having only one or two children.

There is another problem: The people who are having lots of children are Muslims. This leads me to believe that in the long run Mormonism may be all that stands between us and the horde.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-12-16 09:38|| 2007-12-16 09:38|| Front Page Top

#5 What seems to be needed in the West is a socially acceptable role for people who are not "up" for the difficult task of reproduction, complimentary to greater support for those who do have children.

In truth, there are people who are designed to have children, but there are many people who are not, as well. But since society encourages both groups to have children, without giving parents the support they need, and condemns those who do not have children, problems arise.

Children are essential to society. But the people who make them need lots of money, time, and especially energy to both make and raise these children well. It is not unreasonable that for the first 16 years of a child's life, their parents should have their income taxes reduced by as much as 50%. They should be remunerated for providing an essential function to society.

But people who for many reasons should not, or are unable to have children, as long as they do not inhibit the "breeders" from reproducing, their not having children should be respected.

In China there has long been the tradition of the "Amah", old maids who would live with a family not their own, in the role of housekeeper, nanny, and treated like a beloved maiden aunt. In exchange for room, board, a stipend, they do not date or marry. This was a societal opportunity for women who didn't get married, but did not wish to become prostitutes.

The acceptance of a "bachelor culture" in America, thus serves a double purpose. Supporting the people who do have children and integrating those who do not.

Importantly, there needs to be a separation in our culture between individuals who want to reproduce, and those that just want to "practice" reproduction. Breeders should not have their time and energy wasted by those who do not wish to breed, using the same logic as the sterile screw-worm fly.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-12-16 11:17|| 2007-12-16 11:17|| Front Page Top

#6 Nothing pleases me more than supporting other peoples youths. A massive tax break is needed for just this reason. I'll also vote to triple my school taxes and promise to look the other way when they mug me.

Posted by Thomas Woof 2007-12-16 11:49|| 2007-12-16 11:49|| Front Page Top

#7 boys are considered by a lot of educated women to be little more than defective girls.

Oh really, (Dripping with sarcastic venom)
let's see you do without men, hard to breed that way.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-12-16 17:07|| 2007-12-16 17:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Two short steps to extinction,
1. Breed all females
2. Females then die of old age-starvation, childless.
(3) Non insane, then prosper, two by two.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-12-16 17:10|| 2007-12-16 17:10|| Front Page Top

#9 This is one of those Darwinian problems that, given time, will just take care of itself.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2007-12-16 17:19|| 2007-12-16 17:19|| Front Page Top

#10 Lest we fergit. the VOLUNTARY SELF/HUMAN EXTINCTION MOVEMENT, or org name to that effect, as described on the Net. GOOD, DECENT, PATRIOTIC AMERIKANS DEMAND TO BE DESTROYED FOR THE SAKE OF THE WORLD = DITTO FOR DECENT HUMAN BEINGS FOR THE PLANET, THE UNIVERSE, AND .... ROSWELLIAN ALIENS = LOST TIME TOURISTS???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-12-16 19:06|| 2007-12-16 19:06|| Front Page Top

23:29 RD
23:13 RD
23:07 djh_usmc
22:50 mhw
22:46 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
22:45 swksvolFF
22:39 Frank G
22:28 Frank G
22:23 swksvolFF
22:19 Frank G
22:17 DepotGuy
22:17 Phinater Thraviger
22:15 trailing wife
22:14 Barbara Skolaut
22:09 trailing wife
22:04 trailing wife
21:58 Mike N.
21:44 Mike N.
21:44 Frank G
21:40 JosephMendiola
21:30 JosephMendiola
21:19 DepotGuy
21:17 JosephMendiola
21:08 Super Hose