"What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?
Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans."
"This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by "a woman's right to choose," in any sense.
I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving "Keep your Bush off my bush" placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a "woman's right to choose," Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their "reproductive rights" still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting "Hands off my bush!"
Let the accusations of hysterical, racist, bigoted, Islamophobia fly, but the truth is this is the truth and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Get with it, self-indulgent, selfish, etitlement-addicted westerners. There's more at risk by not having children than just our precious social programs (anyone wonder who's going to pay for that universal health care that so many are clamoring for?) by not reproducing. Our, the West's very survival is at stake.
But I know, I'm just a bigoted, racist, Islamophobe, right? Right.
8 comments:
Well, Pete, you're doing your part. Just keep kicking out babies.
Of course, Paul's interracial escapades are countering your actions...
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/#30403
By Joshua Holland describes Steyn's piece as "A little racism dressed up as good ole' fashioned jingoism."
"We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally."
And for the last 600 years, if you replaced the word "Muslims" with "Christians" these same statements would have been true. In fact, this is still the case in much of the world. Steyn wants "The West" to understand that other people can use the same tactics that Christians have been using since before Columbus.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Those chickens may just come back to the crib after all.
Nadir: Pete is screwing up by making cracker babies. Mixed babies rule!
Nadir: We all agree that there have been times and places when these western countries were sources of backwardsness and evil. Does that make us "racist" against crackers? Do you also agree that over history there have been times and places where non-crackers have led the way in backwardsness and evil? I consider it "racist" to put a paternalistic blanket of protection around people assigned to certain "races" and place them off-limits to stern criticism.
You may "know" that "it's not really a 'war on terror' but rather a war against Islam." But I just as earnestly "know" different. I can find absolutely zero support for what it is here that you claim to "know", and an unending fountain of data falsifying this "knowledge" of yours. Please demonstrate to me that the Bushies have done anything to make it harder to practice Islam in the US, Afgahnistan, or Iraq.
Pat Buchannon makes a pretty good case in favor of Nadir's position:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48188
I don't claim to "know" that it is a war against Islam. That was a quote from Mark Steyn, author of the article slinger posted. So you disagree with this contention?
Nadir: Yes, I am certain that Bush is not waging a war against Islam. I am certain that he is waging a war against the various groups who want to impose religious dictatorships on vast expanses of the world, and who in the process have attacked Americans and American allies.
Post a Comment