In today’s L.A. Times, they discuss the population problem in Germany – not OVERpopulation, but the loss of people. In Sex is Essential But Kids Aren’t, the LAT reports that 30% of German women are childless, mostly by choice. It rises to 40% in college educated women. Is this evolution selecting against people with liberal worldviews? (slight sarcasm ;).
Also today, the BBC reports that President Putin of Russia is also worried about the population of Russia (see video). It seems that their "critical" low birth rate problem (as opposed to mortality rates?) is leading to an annual population loss of 700,000 per year! He offered cash to women for having children – time to move to Russia.
But of course, Russia doesn’t have a problem only with birth rates, but with mortality.
President Putin didn’t mention another factor which threatens Russian population growth: HIV/Aids. Last year, 350,000 people in the country were registered as HIV positive. The true figure may be much higher, and continues to grow.
Heavy drinking, smoking, bad diet, and deaths in road accidents are all other causes of death which will need to be tackled if Russia’s population decline is to be halted.
But one question I have is, are these countries really overpopulated from an ecosystem point of view? If so, maybe they should be glad that their populations are returning to an eco-friendly size. The real worry of the Russians, however, is not world resources, but the fact that as a nation, they may become smaller and weaker. We have competing values here – eco-friendly depopulation v. nationalism.
Q: Are ecology advocates welcoming the lowering populations of these countries?
Q: Are the "anti-child, anti-family" ideologies adopted around the world, (except in Christian and Muslim circles) causing the population of liberals to decrease? If so, we see here that evolution may select against liberalism. But seriously, I wonder if this keeps liberals up at night.
Q: Are ecology advocates welcoming the lowering populations of these countries?
Malthus's Law
Are the "anti-child, anti-family" ideologies adopted around the world, (except in Christian and Muslim circles) causing the population of liberals to decrease? If so, we see here that evolution may select against liberalism.
Yes, liberals should be phased out by nature soon.
Malthus' law (I think) only applies to population flux with respect to resources. What is interesting about what we see in Europe is population decline, NOT due to resources, but to ideology.
Seriously, liberals should be worried about the fact that conservative families are producing a lot more kids.
I was being facetious about Robert Malthus.
Seriously, liberals should be worried about the fact that conservative families are producing a lot more kids.
Why?
Because, I assume that this means more people with conservative sentiments – true, many kids abandon their parents' values, but I'd say a majority do not.
Aren't liberals worried about more kids "indoctrinated" into their parents' values systems?
Aren't liberals worried about more kids "indoctrinated" into their parents' values systems?
I'm not and I don't see why I should.
This is a seperate issue but I think that depopulation is occuring in industrialized nations; even in the United States where it's immigration that accounts for much of the population growth.
I am sure it is, but how does industrialization reduce birth rates? There is an obvious and direct link between liberal ideology (pro-abortion, pro-birth control, valuing small families over large) and low birth rates. Just ask yourself – do you think liberals or conservatives have more children, on average?
(1) Seeker, there are bigger influences on birth rate than someone's political ideology. To suggest that the issue of population is being decided by Western liberalization is ridiculous.
(2) Even if it were an issue of liberal vs. conservative ideology, would you really be satisfied to think that your ideology was more prevalent because you bred faster? Would you be happy to know that your ideas couldn't dominate via their own merits, so instead you had to swamp competing ideas into oblivion by giving birth faster? I can't believe you're even remotely serious about this.
I can't either really, that's why I'm a bit confused.
would you really be satisfied to think that your ideology was more prevalent because you bred faster?
Not really. I just want to make the point that liberals ARE having less children, and this most certainly has an affect on the number of future conservatives and liberals. It is not the only factor, but it is one worth considering.
I mean, I come from a liberal family, so it was conservative ideas that converted me.
There will always be at least two sides to every story. It's not breeding Seeker :)
Seeker, conservatives are having less children, too. Westerners, in general, have less children than both their historical counterparts, and the larger part of the rest of the world. By your weird logic, evolution (or God? Is that what you're driving at? I can't even guess anymore.) is selecting in favor of the poor and under-educated.
What it really means is that we're fortunate enough to be in a position to take advantage of our choices in reproduction. And as far as the relatively minor difference in the birth-rates between Americans of different political bents, I really don't see it amounting to a signficant cultural division. As you said yourself, you were raised by liberals, and now you're a fundamentalist Christian. My fiance was raised by fundamentalist Christians, and now she's an atheist vegan. The lines are not quite so clearly drawn as a family tree.
And this all might be a factor worth thinking about, but only academically, and even then it's sort of perverse to consider children as points for your ideological team. It says a lot about you that you think it's actually worth considering.
If parents set a good example, stand on principle and provide opportunities to their offspring. I would think that the children would have respect for their parents, and their parent's idology.
Unfortunately this doesn't happen very often anymore. Most families are broken. Most parents compromise their principals. If the parents where miserable, why would the children follow suit?
Of course the children who are aborted don't really get a choice of ideology. They don't get to vote either.
I think that our politics are actually quite fickle. Evangelical Christians have switched back and forth between the democratic party and the GOP several times depending on what the issue of the day was. Once the life issues are settled legally and politically there will be nothing binding us to the GOP. There is a very good chance that the issue of tommorow will drive us to the Democratic party.