Re: Sweating the Birth Rate


"Jill" <asker_w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ppqsa35k844tp3m1t5l2ifdu2c5n0d85be@xxxxxxxxxx

patrick.barnes barked on cue...

Ben wrote:

catbrier69 whined...

Meldon_F reported...

"....European birthrates of the 1980's, already at
record-breaking lows, fell another 20 percent
in the 90's, to about 1.4 children per woman.
The demographer Antonio Golini says such rates
are 'unsustainable'....."

"....Never before have birthrates fallen so far, so fast,
so low, for so long all around the world....."

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/361/wattenberg.html

Naturally someone at The American Enterprise Institute
is going to be on the verge of panic at the thought of
declining PROFITS due to a stabilizing world population.

I don't think this is the primary concern. A stabilized
population can still spend in increasing amounts.

Yeah, colloquially it's called "eating the seed corn"

However, catbrier69's whine is -- as usual -- MSplaced.
Ben Wattenberg isn't a guy prone to "panic" (catbrier69 is
only trying to project some of her many shortcomings onto
one of her betters again). Nor does he fret about "declining
profits" personally because he can move his investments
around to other countries in search of higher returns. (Ironically,
catbrier69 is much less likely to be able to do that. Sweet, huh?)

The world population isn't "stabilizing" as catbrier69 wrongly
supposes. Before she whines about what Dr. Wattenberg has
to say, she should really read his work (if she can read, sheesh!)
Dr. Wattenberg's recent book is titled _Fewer_, not "Stabilizing".
(Duh.)

Yet another confusion on catbrier69's account is her supposition
that Dr. Wattenberg and his colleagues at the AEI are solely
concerned about "profits". Unlike catbrier69, I've read the works
of Dr. Wattenberg and his colleagues and they are much more
interested in preserving Western liberal culture, technological
progress, and the comfortable lifestyle people in the West enjoy.
Even the lifestyle catbrier69 has in her litterbox is more
comfortable than what most people in the world can expect.
Feminists and their fellow-travelling idiots like catbrier69
take it for granted that there will always be a _man_ around to
sponge off of in order to keep her in a life of ease. Perhaps
she supposes that if America crumbles and Europe turns into
a ward of the Mohammedans there will be a nice Chinese man
eager to support her in the style to which she wishes to become
accustomed. Sheesh. So many females are soooo stupid and
catbrier69 does her utmost to lower my opinion of the median
level of female intelligence.

That's just too damned bad. The environmental pay-off
outweighs Wattenburg's narrow concerns over an
ever-expanding market.

It's not _men_ who, as a class, crave "an ever-expanding
market". Both the Home Shopping Network nor Wal-Mart
sell most of their cr*p to females:

Why does every single living animal and tree
have to be sacrificed so women can have big
bathrooms and an unlimited supply of feminine
hygiene products?

Rich Zubaty, _Surviving the Feminization
of America_

(A stupid notion anyway on a planet with finite resources.)

I concede to catbrier69 the stipulation that she has a special
talent for "a stupid notion". However, before she lowers my
opinion of her intelligence further, she really should pay attention
to what are "resources". I suggest that she read the late Julian
Simon's _The Ultimate Resource II_. Maybe she can learn
something, tho' perhaps catbrier69 lacks the resources to do so, eh?

The primary concern with birth rates is that while they
are falling among citizens in Western-style civilizations,
the reverse is true with immigrants, especially illegal ones,
and especially Islamic ones. In effect, you're ending up
replacing a voting population that believes in democracy
and individual rights with a voting population that doesn't.

Is there any way to handle that situation, to keep the system
the way it is, that isn't itself a violation of democratic principles
to begin with? If our society leads towards an end result of
self destruction, how do we change that without changing the
society?

I simply see no solution to this issue that doesn't seek to
preserve democracy by sacrificing it.

Patrick Barnes, you will find that your betters are willing to
stipulate to any degree of ignorance on your part that you wish.

I see one way. Western women could *voluntarily* decide
to get married, stay home, and have babies again. Unlikely,
yes but not completely impossible either.

To aid their decision to do the right thing, I say that taxpayer
(read: "men") extorted old-age pension schemes (e.g., "Social
Security" in the USA) be shut down immediately. IMO, what
is doing the most to drive down birth rates is the government-
sponsored fantasy that we can all retire comfortably on the
taxes that will be paid by OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS. The fly
in that ointment is that those other people also have a birthrate
that is, on average, crashing so there won't be enough kids to
shoulder the burden the bill-clinton-boomer-generation is
loading onto them.

--
The biggest crisis in global culture is NOT
the economy, or the warmongers, or corporate
welfare; it is the dissolution of the family -
so distressingly ubiquitous that we ignore it.
It's not news and they don't even talk about it
on _60 Minutes_. No society in all of history
has tolerated half of their children growing up
without their fathers. What kind of idiots
are we? We can't let this go on.

Rich Zubaty


.