The liberal baby bust

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/...liberalbabybust

[Sister Fracas 5]

I like dogs better.... *runs*

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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...

[Jenn! 918]

"The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children."

I could see many people arguing that this is for the better....

Let's not pass on those genes! Heavens forbid a bunch of little feminists in the making!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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...

Good point. Plenty of young conservatives have lib parents and plenty of young libs have conservative parents.

[Sister Fracas 5]

My question is though why is it that people (and I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals) still see that large families are a good thing with the way the world population is increasing and resources decreasing??? Why do they think they don't affect that? Afterall, if everyone felt that way...well.........

Edited March 14, 2006 by Frances

[Jenn! 918]

My question is though why is it that people (and I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals) still see that large families are a good thing with the way the world population is increasing and resources decreasing??? Why do they think they don't affect that? Afterall, if everyone felt that way...well.........

Not all countries are experiencing overpopulation however.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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...

Good point. Plenty of young conservatives have lib parents and plenty of young libs have conservative parents.

Exactly.

My question is though why is it that people (and I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals) still see that large families are a good thing with the way the world population is increasing and resources decreasing??? Why do they think they don't affect that? Afterall, if everyone felt that way...well.........

Not all countries are experiencing overpopulation however.

We all share the same planet, however.

Edited March 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Sister Fracas 5]

My question is though why is it that people (and I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals) still see that large families are a good thing with the way the world population is increasing and resources decreasing??? Why do they think they don't affect that? Afterall, if everyone felt that way...well.........

Not all countries are experiencing overpopulation however.

We all share the same planet, however.

[chri'stina 190]

I think there has been a large decrease though in the US, since our grandparents' generation, in family size. I don't think it's for the reason of thinking about the world's resources, but more because it's too expensive to have a lot of kids (for those who want kids). So I think there has been a trend in smaller families, but the point is not to decrease a population so much that it eventually gets lost. Many European countries' populations are shrinking, and US family size has decreased over the last 50 years. I don't think wanting children is a bad thing, family is part of life and has been part of life since the beginning. And 3 kids is not a lot compared to my grandmother's family of 8 kids.

The average these days in the US is 2 kids (or 1.5 last I heard ), and with so many couples now not wanting kids, the average amount will further decrease, and even families who will have a lot of kids will not affect the average "2 kids per family(or so)" statistic. So I don't really think Americans have to stop having kids because of world resources, when the average is now 2 kids or just under that. It is also the world's responsibilty in how many kids they end up having, not just the US's responsibility. Yes people should be responsible in how many kids they can afford to raise, and if everyone had 10 kids it would be a problem for the future. But I don't see that happening in the US atleast.

Edited March 14, 2006 by stina&suj

[Mirorgate 0]

My question is though why is it that people (and I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals) still see that large families are a good thing with the way the world population is increasing and resources decreasing??? Why do they think they don't affect that? Afterall, if everyone felt that way...well.........

Not all countries are experiencing overpopulation however.

We all share the same planet, however.

True enough, but I stil think some ppl should get out of the gene-pool.

[almaty 19]

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...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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...

couldn't have said it better myself!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

And using Salt Lake City, with its rather high Mormon population (to whom traditions are all-important) really gave the study skewed results.

[Fuzzness 2]

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