Posted on 06/30/2006 4:05:49 PM PDT by ChessExpert
Over the past years, a new demographic crisis has emerged as a subject of intense debate: the most affluent, most advanced, freest societies of the world are not having enough children to sustain themselves. Recent books—including Phillip Longman’s The Empty Cradle (2004) and Ben J. Wattenberg’s Fewer (2004)—have described the potentially tragic consequences of this decline. Lamenting the collapse of modern birthrates, world leaders as diverse as Vladimir Putin and Pope Benedict XVI have advocated pro-natalist state policies. Popular magazines and newspapers that once worried about the horrors of a “population explosion”—mass starvation in developing countries, environmental catastrophe, the subjugation of women trapped by the excessive burdens of serial motherhood—today ask whether free societies mean to perpetuate themselves at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
One possible solution to the thing..... I almost hate to mention such an obvious idea, but here goes. A country with 300 million people and fewer than a million in its armed forces clearly does not need for 150 of those 300 million to be males. In theory at least, you could artificially skew the sex ratio to something like six or eight to one instead of the natural one to one, i.e. see to it that there were something like six to eight females per male walking around, and at that point, a birth rate of 1.2 - 1.3 would be more than enough to maintain your population.
I'm not even married yet, but I see children as a way to grow closer to your wife while experiencing the wonders of life in again novel ways. A chance to laugh as well as knowing that your life will pass having left behind someone who can continue the good fight.
There will be effort involved, to be sure, but I think it can be more than worthwhile.
It would be nice to see the once little girl who became my wife become a mother--something for her body was explicitly created.
I'm a proponent of children, if for no other reason, because I once was a child.
You just want more women from which to choose...
Not a bad idea.
With a child going through puberty, I've asked myself this question at least a few times now ;)
The biggest real problem with it would be the question of whether the men in such a society would ever have time or energy to do anything (else) productive.....
Who cares?
Good. I hope you have many. You seem to know what it's all about. :0)
Yes, a generally intelligent article. But I think some of those whom he cites such as Weigel and Steyn have put the matter more clearly.
Also, I think he seriously underestimates the determination of most secular leftists to cut down on the population, and also underestimates the number of people who still imagine that there is a population explosion, because that's what the media have been constantly telling them.
Warren Buffet just gave billions to the Gates Foundation, which will be used to cut down on world population growth.
The economic problems that he mentions still are not being faced up to by any of our politicians. Most Democrats still support abortion fervently, and they would never in a million years admit that Social Security is in trouble largely because of Roe v. Wade.
People don't have children because they don't see any reason to have children. The economic penalties are obvious, the burdens of care are obvious, and they simply don't understand why there are important rewards that are more important than these burdens. You almost have to be religious to understand why big families are a blessing.
In these days, people put money into 401K's, or expect social security to support them.
The big problem is that all these options assume that there will be a productive younger generation when the current workers are old. If that's not the case, then all your investments will be bust
great answer. also, God told us to go forth and multiply. He gave us the opportunity to co-create an immortal soul with Him.
To piss-off the neighbors...
According to some Orthodox rabbis, there's no law (except for laws made by some governments) against promiscuity for Noachides (all who are not Jewish), and grounds for divorce are now many and easy in Judaism. As for Noachides, they are not commanded to have kids.
According to many Christian leaders, promsicuity, divorce and refusing to have kids are terrible sins. But the worship of romanticism/feminism supercedes all in their ranks, too.
And as for abortion, men are not the "root" of that problem. Feminism (all prongs of it) causes it. Oooooooooo, that smell. It leads our religious, business and government leaders and masters astray. They easily pay off their harems and hordes of children, while working men are imprisoned for the crime of trying to have only one wife each.
...hypocrites, all.
"But it's a valuable resource, if this topic interests you"
It does interest me very much, and in fact I was just thinking about it today. So thanks in advance for your post!
I have had a great live (age 58) and career (close to retirement), but having my two children has been the about the best part of my life.
There are benefits to being single and to being married, benefits to having children and to not having children. In my opinion, being married and having a family is much higher up the list of priorities than having money to have a good time. I'd rather have a loving child than a more expensive car.
You don't HAVE to be religious to value the idea of family, but it helps, because religious people tend to have a less self-centered order of priorities.
To put me a crappy nursing home?
I must be a Third-Worlder - I have six children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.