The liberal baby bust

[Mirorgate 0]

The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! run for the hills!

I'm already in the Mountains damnit! can't get much higher than that!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! run for the hills!

I'm already in the Mountains damnit! can't get much higher than that!

You're close to God then. Should be safe there...

[chocolaterie 0]

The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! run for the hills!

I'm already in the Mountains damnit! can't get much higher than that!

You're close to God then. Should be safe there...

We have known this for many years now, our planet can not replenish the amount of resources we are using and abusing. My hubby and I have debated this topic over and over again. But we're fairly certain that we don't want to have children, only because we fear for the future ahead of them.

[Mirorgate 0]

The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! run for the hills!

I'm already in the Mountains damnit! can't get much higher than that!

You're close to God then. Should be safe there...

I thought it was just close to the job. You know what street God is on?

[Sister Fracas 5]

we share the Planet, but never equally share...and it is never seen as a global community but a world of countries all out for their best interests...

Too true and resource hogging Americans aren't going to be the ones to give over and share their piece of the pie. It would be nice to think that oh it all evens out in the end across the globe, but that's just not the case.

We have known this for many years now, our planet can not replenish the amount of resources we are using and abusing.

[Miranda&James 8]

What this assumes is that those born into and raised within conservative households will grow up to be predominantly conservatives. I'd seriously question that assumption...

Of course you couldn't say that all children follow their parents, but I think that you would find that as a statistical majority children tend to take on beliefs very similar to those of their parents. So, while a few "rebel" and go a different way, most would not.

[almaty 19]

my father was a conservative, his father a gop mayor and representative..my mother did not give a damn about politics.....and all of us..his 3 kids were more liberal in voting pattern,,now, after retirement, he is more liberal in his voting pattern too...so, it depends on individual evaluation i think....

[Satisfaction 1]

We have known this for many years now, our planet can not replenish the amount of resources we are using and abusing.

The subject of "overpopulation" is an interesting subject, however too long to discuss in this forum. The rhetoric that population will overgrow ressources is a reminiscent of Mathusianism or the Malthusian depopulation campaign. Malthus apocalyptic predictions have never quite materialized, but his theory still has quite a few supporters today.

"In An Essay on the Principle of Population, first published in 1798, Malthus made the famous prediction that population would outrun food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person (...) One famous recent example of this is Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb. "

"Engels called Malthus' theory "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship."

Such ideas are extremely dangerous, when one knows that both communists and fascists have murdered millions applying such ideas of a Malthus and the likes, or what is also called Socialist Darwinism... Maybe you have heard of Hitler's "genocidal Final Solution"?

"In the twentieth century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws, then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic "purity".

Sources: wilkipedia

[kc456 0]

The other trend, on the progressives' side, is that more and more population is migrating towards the coasts, which tend to be more liberal. So maybe the two trends will cancel each other out.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The other trend, on the progressives' side, is that more and more population is migrating towards the coasts, which tend to be more liberal. So maybe the two trends will cancel each other out.

Apparently, you missed some news about CA. Many people have now grown fed-up with that state, and U-haul is charging thrice as much to move from L.A. to Pocatello (ID) as for the reverse. (since some of those in CA have figured out that there's somewhere else than an overpricey, overtaxed, overregulated state--and many of those outside, such as myself, don't want to go there for just those reasons).

Also, the economically (as well as population) growing states of the east coast (GA, SC, NC) are NOT traditionally liberal; NY, which is (due mainly to NYC which makes up half the state's population) has been DECLINING both ways for the last three decades (in 1970, NY was the second most populous state; now it's fourth and TX is second).

[kc456 0]

Apparently, you missed some news about CA. Many people have now grown fed-up with that state, and U-haul is charging thrice as much to move from L.A. to Pocatello (ID) as for the reverse. (since some of those in CA have figured out that there's somewhere else than an overpricey, overtaxed, overregulated state--and many of those outside, such as myself, don't want to go there for just those reasons).

Also, the economically (as well as population) growing states of the east coast (GA, SC, NC) are NOT traditionally liberal; NY, which is (due mainly to NYC which makes up half the state's population) has been DECLINING both ways for the last three decades (in 1970, NY was the second most populous state; now it's fourth and TX is second).

Let me rephrase -- people are moving from rural to urban areas, which often mean the coasts. Sometimes not. But all urban areas tend to be more liberal/progressive.

Edited March 16, 2006 by kc456

[Satisfaction 1]

His observations note an interesting correlation between pet-ownership and fecundity (or rather lack of it), which has yet to be sustained with some irrefutable evidence, and has not been a subject introduced in my sophomore years. I guess it could be an important part of my next thesis on "sustainable development in the United States" .

So here we are with a bizarre yet interesting equation: dog ownership = low fecundity = "progressive secularism". The author raises an interesting point, I think, by drawing a parallel between dog ownership and childlessness. I suppose his logical fallacy* is based on a 2 hours of dog watching, sitting on a bench in the great San Francisco Bay on a nice Sunday afternoon. This great unemployed seems to have quite a bit of time on his hands, which I wish I also had, but not a great amount of knowledge in social sciences. Or perhaps I haven't been keeping up with current events.

Inversely, I suppose that conservatism = high fecundity. How this is possible, one must explain to me, while there seem to be quite a number of families with pets (not just dogs) and quite a few childless neo-cons running the country right now? In his last paragraph, he now goeson to show how some religious group (he doesn't name which one but it seems quite obvious that it is the catholic faith) bears a large number of children and perhaps weights too much on sustainable development in the United States???

God bless war against Ignorance.

* Locigal fallacy, for example:

Teenage girls eat lots of chocolate.

Teenage girls are most likely to have acne.

Therefore, chocolate causes acne.