Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Liberals need to be gettin' busy

This is a remarkable article


The liberal baby bust
By Phillip Longman
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

A fascinating problem: The proportions in even an otherwise stable polymorphic population might be responsive to changes in institutions. If a society adopts majority rule, in particular, there can be a tipping point. And, if it is true that conservatives are reproducing (much) faster than liberals....Well, you know. You liberals need to get out there and get busy.

Otherwise? More conservative education, more emphasis on religion, perhaps teaching creation in some states with particularly high proportions of religious right voters.

What does this say about democracy? Does the will of the majority contain moral force? Or does it just reflect different rates of reproduction, rather than persuasion?

1 comment:

mike said...

This is an interesting topic but far from surprising.
The left are a dark bunch who seems to despise everything... except movies and music that complain more than they do. Not at all hard to imagine that they wouldn't want to bring a child in to this God forsaken planet...ooops....(sorry, I forgot, there is no God)

The right are the only people optimistic enough to think that a screaming, crapping baby (that anchors you to your house and only allows you friends that also have screaming, crapping babies) sounds like a wonderful idea. I would also guess that if one wasn't religious before the stork, there'd be a lot of praying going on after. Besides, where else ya gonna go socially with a baby other than church?

Question: Hasn't this always been the way? I'd like to see how these numbers compare with 1964.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Some things are ever constant...
1. There's nobody more wild or more liberal than a preachers daughter.
2. That super-crazy, radical, dope-smoking buddy of yours will turn in to a massive wuss after he/she accidentally has a baby.