1

"Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, and never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage. Think about the level of anger and frustration that will be generated. Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million."

Sounds like they need some gay marriage over there!

2

'Tis sad indeed that abortion (oops, reproductive choice that is) should be denying so many women the "choice". Where is the pro-choice movement when you need 'em, eh?

/snark off

3

The Koreans actually centrifuge semen to spin out the female sperm before artificial insemination, insuring a male fetus.

4

abortion (oops, reproductive choice that is)...

Actually it seems the problem is basically contempt for woman. Joe didn't address this but birth ratios may only now be changing because technology has moved the ability to harm woman from the post-birth stage to the pre-birth and even pre-conception. Female infantacide was and remains very common in the developing world. I wonder if anyone has actually looked at the population gender ratios of these backward areas. Perhaps there has always been a 'male surplus' in those areas of some sort.

If you seriously want to fight it, though, the weapon is advocating women's rights. Only by making women as valuable as men in the everyone's eyes can this pattern be fully reversed.

Absent that there will be an equilibrium, as women become rarer they will become more valuable automatically. This happens in Muslim societies like Saudi Arabia where there is an artificial 'male surplus' caused by polygamy. Since the village's richest man can afford to marry 4 wives there are fewer women left for all the other men. In those societies the custom is for the man to pay the bride's family a dowery to marry their daughter. You may recall in old fashioned Western society the dowery is reversed...coming from the bride's family.

Sounds like they need some gay marriage over there!

For those who argue that there can be no evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. A population group that has a small percentage of homosexuals or bisexuals can afford to have a bit more males than females without as much of a 'surplus male' problem thereby giving it the ability to mount a larger army.

5

Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million

Several things work in the US's favor:

1. Population is a very poor determinate of military might. The only exception I can imagine is if two countries are just about equal economically. If population was that important it would have been China and India that would have been the two most aggressive countries in WWII rather than Japan & Germany. Instead China was whipped badly by Japan & India was being ruled by Great Britain which had barely a fraction of India's population.

2. Since population isn't the trick to military might a strong, growing and innovative economy probably is. The primary result of a 'surplus male problem' is unruley communities where young men have less reason to avoid trouble. China's economic growth is probably great enough to overcome this gender gap problem but it would act as a drag to its economy.

2. a. Gone are the days when raising an army meant going down to bars, crime districts and whatnot and simply grabbing every male dreg you see and putting a spear in his hand. Modern armies are high-skilled endeavors and need balanced, stable and well educated men and women. A hoard of male juvienille delinquients with attitude problems is not the ideal pool to draw an effective army anymore.

3. The 'hoard' of unmarried men would indeed be a problem if they all were in a single place but they almost certainly won't be. Markets will kick in and you'll probably find lots of men going abroad to get married or leaving the more backward provinces for urban areas where women would be more valued and therefore more available.

I'm not going to say this process is going to be smooth. I think Joe is right that China is in for some problems but I don't think they are going to spill out into the International stage because of this. I think they will be mostly internal and managable.

6

This is both sad and frightening. Wow.

7

'Tis sad indeed that abortion (oops, reproductive choice that is) should be denying so many women the "choice". Where is the pro-choice movement when you need 'em, eh?

One last thing, there is no reproductive choice in China. The gov't declares that it has the right to choose on women's behalf. Women are limited to how many children they can have so it isn't surprising that in agricultural communities they try for sons first.

In contrast it is pro-choicers in the US who argue that the gov't has no right to make reproductive decisions. For those who say their arguments are baseless China is a good object lesson. If the Constitution really says nothing about privacy or abortion as pro-lifers claim then why couldn't a gov't implement a 'population policy' ordering some people to have kids, others to have abortions and so on? It isn't just about the gov't ordering abortions and such. People often forget that Germany and Italy did both sides of the coin. 'Undesirables' were indeed killed but 'desirables' were put into camps where they were encouraged to have as many children as possible.

8

Fewer females = fewer babies = decline in worldwide population... which I'm just not seeing as a bad thing, actually.

Plus, sins of the fathers are visited on the sons, and all that.

9

Islam (i.e. Arab Tribal Culture) has long had the problem of surplus males; since their alpha males sew up most of the available females for their harems, they haven't had enough females to go around for a LONG time.

Their solution: JIHAD! Kill the Infidel men and take their women for your harem! God Wills It!

Thus the beta males can get their own harems of females, just like the alpha males. Plus the casualty rate of the resulting raid-and-pillage economy keeps the number of surplus males down to a manageable number.

10

Young women are being killed of in China?
"Your Planned Parenthood donations at work."

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

11

Fewer females = fewer babies = decline in worldwide population... which I'm just not seeing as a bad thing, actually.

Fewer females = fewer babies = fewer people to fund Social Security, Medicare, etc. Must be nice to be so wealthy or so old that you don't have to worry about things like that. But on the plus side, it puts a positive spin on things like the VT massacre, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the genocide in Darfur. They result in a "decline in the worldwide population" too, so I guess you don't view those as "bad thing(s)" either.

12

Fewer females = fewer babies = fewer people to fund Social Security, Medicare, etc. Must be nice to be so wealthy or so old that you don't have to worry about things like that.

Hmmm, well people in China don't fund social security no matter how many babies they have. Regardless, I tend to agree with you that scares about overpopulation are overblown and generally more people means more prosperity when individual freedom is respected.

13

Hmmm, well people in China don't fund social security no matter how many babies they have.

Well, I do keep hearing from folks on the left (and some on the right) that China is funding our national debt, so maybe they do;). But, it's not just in China where they are having fewer babies. Europe and the Far East are doing voluntarily (having fertility rates below replacement) what China imposes by law. US fertility rates are barely at replacement rate (2.1 live births per woman). Immigration accounts for most of our population growth.

Regardless, I tend to agree with you that scares about overpopulation are overblown and generally more people means more prosperity when individual freedom is respected.

I tend to agree with me too.

14

Some of the responsibility for the preference for sons over daughters lies with the patriarchal religions. You don't have read the Old Testament very long to figure out that sons were far more highly prized than daughters. One's lineage - the key to inheritance and position - was traced through one's male ancestors. We know that Jacob had at least one daughter, but there was no tribe of Dinah in Israel. Only sons could inherit the throne in Judah and Israel. Yes, there were a few female heroines here and there in the OT, but men are the stars.

When God supposedly decided to become human, it had to be of course as a male baby. Imagine if Mary had had a girl! No Messiah there! No females among the 12 apostles. Again, a few women play minor roles, but the heavy hitting is left to the boys. In the early church, one hears of church fathers - where are the church mothers?

Is it a coincidence that one doesn't find the male-female imbalance in the secular, liberal countries of Europe where females are equal to males in virtually all respects?

15

I've been reading and wondering about the use of sonograms and abortion to gender select in China for over 10 years now after reading a story about it in a newspaper. In fact it was one of the intial bits of information that made me re-evaluate my pro-choice beliefs and send me down the road to the anti-abortion stance I hold today. Part of it was that prior to that time it simply never occured to me that someone would use abortion for such a purpose.

As a side issue to the topic, it appears that even when girl babies are allowed to come to term, they are often given up for adoption to foreign parents.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/China/83/1.html

16

Is it a coincidence that one doesn't find the male-female imbalance in the secular, liberal countries of Europe where females are equal to males in virtually all respects?

So in "secular, liberal" Europe, females make up "virtually" 50% of the soldiers, engineers, scientists, and, politicians, while males make up "virtually" 50% of nurses, teachers, and secretaries (or is that administrative assistants?)? I suspect not, so in what respect are they "equal to males in virtually all respects"? In one respect I can think of male and female Europeans are equal; their desire not to reproduce. The European fertility rate is 1.5 children born/woman, well below replacement rate. I suspect if you excluded Muslim immigrants, the numbers would be even worse. So what good are "secular, liberal" values, such as equality among the sexes if you aren't having any children to pass them on to?

17

Patrick (gryph)

In fact it was one of the intial bits of information that made me re-evaluate my pro-choice beliefs and send me down the road to the anti-abortion stance I hold today. Part of it was that prior to that time it simply never occured to me that someone would use abortion for such a purpose.

You don't seem to have noticed, though, that your anti-abortion stance would accomplish little here. As I said the problem is that woman are not valued in these cultures as much as they should be.

As a side issue to the topic, it appears that even when girl babies are allowed to come to term, they are often given up for adoption to foreign parents.

This might be acceptable if it wasn't a small portion. I do not think China exports many baby girls for adoption. I suspect many unwanted baby girls end up killed in developing countries which challenges the assertion that technology is the problem here. It's undeniably better that 'female sperm' is filtered out before conception than baby girls are killed after birth. Yes you'll see gender birth ratios change but that would just be a statistical artifact. As we learned from the partial birth abortion debate pro-lifers seem to feel a stronger abhorance of late term abortion than earlier term abortion so even there technology doesn't seem to be the problem here.

ucfengr
The European fertility rate is 1.5 children born/woman, well below replacement rate. I suspect if you excluded Muslim immigrants, the numbers would be even worse. So what good are "secular, liberal" values, such as equality among the sexes if you aren't having any children to pass them on to?

What good these values are is that individuals are free. People are not breeding stock for some abstract thing called Europe or 'Western Society'. When you combine freedom from tyranny with freedom from poverty you have a good thing and you don't have to first check birth rates to know that is true. It's curious that Europe has seen two major types of regimes that tried to push its citizens to have lots of children for the good of 'the society'; the facist regimes of the 30's and 40's and the communist regimes that lasted about 70 years or so. Both were dismal failures for their people.

It is demographically interesting that fertility rates fell below the replacement rate but it is as silly to simply straightline that into infinity and predict the extinction of Europe as it was for demographers in the 70's to predict the destruction of the environment by overpopulation.

18

The accusation that the Bible is harmful to women because it's "patriarchal" is baseless. Jesus went far outside the cultural norms of his day in how he esteemed women.

On one hand, there is the idea that a woman has value because an infinite, loving Creator God says so... and the men in her life who have faith in that same God will follow suit. On the other hand, there is the idea that a woman has value because she can kill her baby and thus be more effective at PowerPoint presentations in the board room. Ladies, take your pick.

19

The accusation that the Bible is harmful to women because it's "patriarchal" is baseless. Jesus went far outside the cultural norms of his day in how he esteemed women.

hmmmm, and where did these cultural norms he went outside of come from? They had nothing to do wtih the Bible? They were all just 'cultural norms' that happened to have been mistaken?

On the other hand, there is the idea that a woman has value because she can kill her baby and thus be more effective at PowerPoint presentations in the board room

This is the sort of contempt that has caused so many failures for the pro-lifer movement. This image that women are either uncontrollable sluts or callous corporate climbers who care only for money and status (unless of course they are saved by following the ideal of 'pure womenhood').

It's ironic that the 'war on baby girls' in developing countries is happening because of people like this and not PlannedParenthood or Gloria Steinem or whoever JJ thinks he is complaining about.

20

What good these values are is that individuals are free. People are not breeding stock for some abstract thing called Europe or 'Western Society'. When you combine freedom from tyranny with freedom from poverty you have a good thing and you don't have to first check birth rates to know that is true. It's curious that Europe has seen two major types of regimes that tried to push its citizens to have lots of children for the good of 'the society'; the facist regimes of the 30's and 40's and the communist regimes that lasted about 70 years or so. Both were dismal failures for their people.

It's very hard for a bunch of septuagenarians to defend freedom from tyranny or poverty or anything else for that matter. The situation in Europe is rapidly approaching that point, where the only people who are having children come from cultures that don't value the freedoms that you do and don't appear to want to change. Who wins that battle? If you don't think "secular, liberal values" are worth preserving beyond your lifetime than you don't need to worry about having kids, if you think they are then you need somebody to pass them on to. I happen to think they are.

21

Boonton: "If the Constitution really says nothing about privacy or abortion as pro-lifers claim then why couldn't a gov't implement a 'population policy' ordering some people to have kids, others to have abortions and so on?"
1) Whether the Constitution actually addresses an issue or not has nothing to do with what good/bad might befall if it did/didn't. One needs to evaluate what the Constitution says based, not on what I think it ought to say, but on... what it says. Where, other than in "shadows and penumbras" not perceived before the mid-20th century, does the Constitution actually enumerate a right to abortion?
2) There's a huuuge difference between not having an inviolable right to terminate your unborn and not having the right NOT to terminate your unborn. Pro-lifers (the ones I know, anyway) aren't opposed in principle to personal choice - if (we) pro-lifers didn't believe that abortion meant killing a person, we wouldn't have a problem with it (a big IF, granted). But we believe that there's a balancing test, and that the right of the fetus to life is higher than the right of the mother not to host the fetus (issues of danger to the mother's life or rape/incest raise problems, and not all pro-lifers agree on the answers, but let's deal with the typical case). Choice is good and important, life is better and more important.
Now, in a case where the government tries to force people to abort, the issues are entirely different. There, the individual's choice is thwarted AND a life is taken; the only balancing test there could be would be against a presumed collective good mandated by the state. Seems to me both pro-life and pro-choice partisans could agree on that one. So, I don't really think interpreting the Constitution to lack sanction for abortion engenders a serious threat of coerced population control.

22

I don't think one measures the validity or worth of one's values by measuring the fertility rate. If so, then the countries with the best values must be Niger, Mali, Somalia and Uganda, each of which has a fertility rate in excess of 6.7 babies per woman.

You might surprised, ucfengr, that the US fertility rate of 2.09 is only slightly higher than France's 2.01. I wasn't able to find figures on how many of those births are in the immigrant communities, but I do know that immigrants account for 13% of the US population and 10% of France's population. I can also tell you that Muslims represent 4% of France's population.

To assume that countries with low birthrates are hostile to children is a common fallacy. In fact, I would argue that it may very well indicate the opposite. Families with one or two children often tend to value those children very highly, even to the point of spoiling them.

France has been able to turn around its demographic decline by adopting policies that encourage people to have children, including paid maternity leave, free preschool, and tax benefits that make our child tax credit look very stingy indeed. We could possibly learn a thing or two.

It is worth noting that some of the most Christian nations of Europe have some of the lowest fertility rates. For instance: Ireland - 1.86; Italy - 1.33; and Poland - 1.25.

I wasn't able to find figures either for the job breakdown for men and women in Europe, but I remember seeing that in at least some European countries (maybe Sweden) female politicians outnumber male politicians. I would be willing to bet that the women in secular, liberal Europe are more likely to hold traditionally male jobs than the women in traditionalist, patriarchal countries.

23

If you don't think "secular, liberal values" are worth preserving beyond your lifetime than you don't need to worry about having kids, if you think they are then you need somebody to pass them on to. I happen to think they are.

If you're having kids because you think it is your duty to society you will not raise them with 'secular, liberal values'... AS for septuagenarians fighting wars...I refer you my post on population not winning wars & the folly of straight lining demographic trends into infinity.

24

One last thing, there is no reproductive choice in China. The gov't declares that it has the right to choose on women's behalf. Women are limited to how many children they can have so it isn't surprising that in agricultural communities they try for sons first.

You're trying to say that the government of China makes the women choose male over female children? I was aware that their policy was to limit the number of progeny a couple was allowed to have, but this is the first time I've heard anybody say that the politburo is telling women which type of child to have. Maybe it's just because I don't read Chinese as well as you do Boonton.

This is the sort of contempt that has caused so many failures for the pro-lifer movement.

You got that right, but the contempt isn't coming from the pro-life side of the aisle. It's the pro-choice side that wants women to be, ummm, how did you put it? oh, yeah...

either uncontrollable sluts or callous corporate climbers who care only for money and status

25

Oh, and BTW, "reproductive choice" is a euphemism for abortion, get it? It makes your claim of no reproductive choice in China kind of ironic, don't you think? You're saying that there is no abortion in China... that's rich!

26

If you're having kids because you think it is your duty to society you will not raise them with 'secular, liberal values'

That is probably a safe assumption since people who hold "secular, liberal values" have so few children.

AS for septuagenarians fighting wars...I refer you my post on population not winning wars

Maybe not population in general, but certainly winning a way requires a population of young people, specifically young men. Old people don't do a good job in the military. Cultures periodically need defending from external forces, to do that it needs large pool of young people.

the folly of straight lining demographic trends into infinity

Infinity isn't necessary, a couple of generations will do nicely. In Europe, they pride themselves on their generous welfare state. The problem is that funding this state requires a steady input of young people to pay into the system to compensate for the old people who are taking out. Increases in productivity can help to some extent, but numbers are important too. It is hard to imagine a European style welfare system being sustainable as the number of people taking out approaches the number of people putting in. As the number of people taking out increases, the burden on the folks putting in increases. This also has a negative impact on birth rates. It is hard to economically justify having children when half (or more) of your income goes to support your parents and grandparents. So what you get is a sort of death spiral that is increasingly difficult to pull out of, because as the burden on the young increase, the pressures on the most productive increase to leave for greener pastures, like the US and pressure on the least productive increases to not have children, because they are so expensive.

27

I don't think one measures the validity or worth of one's values by measuring the fertility rate.

No, but the likelihood of your values lasting beyond your generation or the next is dependent on having offspring to pass them on to.

You might surprised, ucfengr, that the US fertility rate of 2.09 is only slightly higher than France's 2.01. I wasn't able to find figures on how many of those births are in the immigrant communities, but I do know that immigrants account for 13% of the US population and 10% of France's population. I can also tell you that Muslims represent 4% of France's population.

According to the Omar Taspinar at the Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/
taspinar20030301.htm), the Muslim population of Europe has birth rates 3 times that of the non-Muslim population. He also cites French Muslim populations in the 5-7 million range, making them between 8-11% of the population.

France has been able to turn around its demographic decline by adopting policies that encourage people to have children, including paid maternity leave, free preschool, and tax benefits that make our child tax credit look very stingy indeed. We could possibly learn a thing or two.

According to my step-father (a German citizen), Germany has similar policies, yet their fertility rate is only 1.4 births/woman. What could explain the difference? Perhaps it is because France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. If you were to look at the European countries with the healthiest fertility rates, you would find that they correspond to the European countries with the largest Muslim populations. Mark Steyn, over at National Review did the research here (corner.nationalreview.com/post/
?q=ZDM4MDczYjMyMjVlMjZlZmM3ODcxMTI1NTJiNDAyOGQ=). I don't have time to actually verify the sources he cites, but they do match up pretty well with what I have been able to draw out of the CIA World Fact Book, so I have no reason to believe him wrong.

It is worth noting that some of the most Christian nations of Europe have some of the lowest fertility rates. For instance: Ireland - 1.86; Italy - 1.33; and Poland - 1.25.

What metric are you using to determine a nation's Christianity? Looking at the specific nations you cite, Ireland birth rate is pretty good when compared to the EU's 1.5 as a whole. They also have no listed Muslim population (source: CIA World Fact Book). Italy does have a very low birth rate and 90% of the population does identify as Roman Catholic, but only 30% report attending services regularly (source: CIA World Fact Book), so counting them as one of the "most Christian nations of Europe" is a bit problematic. Poland's low birth rate may be an artifact of its nation's Communist past, but this may highlight the difficulty of turning around a low fertility rate trend.

I would be willing to bet that the women in secular, liberal Europe are more likely to hold traditionally male jobs than the women in traditionalist, patriarchal countries.

Without knowing what you mean by "traditionalist, patriarchal countries", it is hard to evaluate this statement.

28

Several thousand Chinese girls are adopted out each year to Western countries. I don't know the exact figures, but I think the totals in the U.S. for Chinese born girls adopted in the last 15 years is over 15,000. China has now set stricter limits on who can adopt because...well, they are now seeing the slight value of orphaned girls within their borders.

I predict that as many Asian men as economically possible will seek brides from other countries and nationalities. Mail-order brides to China...start your match-making business now!

29

Anna said:

"Several thousand Chinese girls are adopted out each year to Western countries. I don't know the exact figures, but I think the totals in the U.S. for Chinese born girls adopted in the last 15 years is over 15,000."

The number of children, mostly girls, adopted out of China to the U.S. in the last five years is over 33,000. This represents a small percentage of the population of China and doesn't even come close to making a dent in the disparity between the number of boys and the number of girls there.

30

You're trying to say that the government of China makes the women choose male over female children? I was aware that their policy was to limit the number of progeny a couple was allowed to have, but this is the first time I've heard anybody say that the politburo is telling women which type of child to have.

Let's imagine an farming family would like to have two sons for heavy work and two daughters. If the gov't leaves them alone they will have 4 children (if all goes well). If, however, the gov't says they can only have 2 they may quite easily decide they need the heavy labor more than the domestic labor provided by daughters and then make sure they only have 2 boys (either thru abortion, infantacide, or 'sperm filtering' etc.).

I didn't say the gov't is ordering anyone to have boys. The gov't is creating an unintended incentive to do so through its policy....Much like rent control causes housing shortages. The gov't isn't telling builders not to build new apt. buildings.

It's the pro-choice side that wants women to be, ummm, how did you put it? oh, yeah...

Hmmm, how so? I think you are imagining things yet again.

Oh, and BTW, "reproductive choice" is a euphemism for abortion, get it? It makes your claim of no reproductive choice in China kind of ironic, don't you think?

Errr, wouldn't 'reproductive choice' be making choices about reproduction? That would include making choices to reproduce as well as not. A woman in China who has two kids but wants to have another is told by the gov't she may not. That would certainly seem to be a case where she has been denied reproductive choice. Do we need an English lesson?

31

That is probably a safe assumption since people who hold "secular, liberal values" have so few children.

well actually most people have children based on their individual circumstances. Few people I know have children because they 'owe it to society' or out of some type of nationalistic motivation. I am skeptical that it would be healthy to encourage human beigns to think this way. I could be wrong but we do have two historical examples where regimes attempted to cultivate such thinking and not only did it produce very bad results it did not even accomplish the goals you put forth of stability and security.

Maybe not population in general, but certainly winning a way requires a population of young people, specifically young men. Old people don't do a good job in the military. Cultures periodically need defending from external forces, to do that it needs large pool of young people.

You seem to be under the erronous impression that Europe is a nation of 70 year olds except for Muslim immigrants. There are lots of young people in Europe and it does appear that modern armies need only draw a small percentage of the population (the US military, for example, is heavy on high tech and light on manpower compared to previous wars). This has been a source of some worry in the US; that only a few military families are baring the burden of the Iraq war and military service while many families don't even know someone who has to serve.

Infinity isn't necessary, a couple of generations will do nicely. In Europe, they pride themselves on their generous welfare state. The problem is that funding this state requires a steady input of young people to pay into the system to compensate for the old people who are taking out. Increases in productivity can help to some extent, but numbers are important too. It is hard to imagine a European style welfare system being sustainable as the number of people taking out approaches the number of people putting in.

Whatever isn't sustainable won't be. What will probably happen is older people will be pushed into the labor force which shouldn't be that shocking considering that people are healthier and live longer. The question I would ask is what threats does Europe face from outside invasion? The Muslim countries you are hinting at do a good job of making babies but a very poor job of getting them to do anything but add to the poverty they experience. If countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc. got their acts together they might pose a threat to Europe but then could they get their acts together without becoming liberal, secular democracies?

32

well actually most people have children based on their individual circumstances.

So you don't think wanting to pass on your genes and values (same thing really, since everything is genetic) to the next generation plays a part? Sounds like heresy in the High Church of Evolution to me.

You seem to be under the erronous impression that Europe is a nation of 70 year olds except for Muslim immigrants.

Not yet, but in a generation or two...

There are lots of young people in Europe

Yes, but most of them are Muslim. The Muslim fertility rate in Europe is 3 times the non-Muslim. By 2025, the Muslim population in Europe will double while the non-Muslim population will decrease.

The question I would ask is what threats does Europe face from outside invasion?

Why invade when in a generation or three you can just take power from Old Europe's tired, feeble hands.

33

There are lots of young people in Europe and it does appear that modern armies need only draw a small percentage of the population (the US military, for example, is heavy on high tech and light on manpower compared to previous wars).

To an extent, this is true. The problem is that Europe is not making the investments in modern equipment that allows you to fight wars with fewer men. Looking at France and Germany, they spend 2.6% and 1.5% of GDP respectively on their armed forces (note: One third of France's military is their national police force, so even that 2.6% is deceptive). Contrast that with the US that spends over 4% of a much larger GDP on defense, exclusive of supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. You can trade men for equipment or you can trade equipment for men, but you can't do both, Europe is trying to.

34

So you don't think wanting to pass on your genes and values (same thing really, since everything is genetic) to the next generation plays a part? Sounds like heresy in the High Church of Evolution to me.

Errr, I guess although most people don't phrase it in terms of passing on genes. Some people do speak of wanting to have a legacy or heirs. I wouldn't be so eager to talk about heresy if I were you. We are still puzzling over what exactly you would have us create children for.

According to my step-father (a German citizen), Germany has similar policies, yet their fertility rate is only 1.4 births/woman. What could explain the difference?

Here's a shot. Tax credits and paid maternity leave aside, many European countries have poor labor policies that are good for someone old whose been working for years but bad for young people trying to break into the market. As a result kids tend to brew taking colleges, hanging out etc. while parents have the resources to indulge them. How many brooding kids do you want though?

However nothing remains static in a dynamic system. A lower youth ratio eventually increases the rewards for being young. Companies need to replace older workers even if you have rigid labor laws. The rewards for being young go up and so does the incentive for having slightly more kids (assuming parents get pleasure out of the prospect of making kids who will be happy). I say slightly because no developed nation is going to go back to the old days when families of 6 kids were common.

Not yet, but in a generation or two...

Roughly two generations ago would be my father-in-law, the son of an Italian immigrant. The difference between his father's generation and his children's is stark and dramatic. Culture changes dramatically, especially in the modern age. Straight lining culture even two generations out is even sillier than straight lining demographics.

Yes, but most of them are Muslim. The Muslim fertility rate in Europe is 3 times the non-Muslim. By 2025, the Muslim population in Europe will double while the non-Muslim population will decrease.

Hmmm, I don't have rates but my father-in-law's father was one of 12 kids. Yes he had 12 brothers and sisters. My father-in-law was one of four. He had three kids...although they were adopted but his brother's confirm a pattern of 2-3 kids. An observer in 1920-30 trying to straight line this out would have found Italians would have dominated and swamped America long before 2000 producing 12 kids per couple.

Why invade when in a generation or three you can just take power from Old Europe's tired, feeble hands.

You over-estimate the ability of humans to coordinate themselves through generations.

35

We are still puzzling over what exactly you would have us create children for.

Who's we, you got a friend with you? Well, I think the reason we have children is to be able to pass on our values and to some extent our genes to future generations. What other reasons are there, we don't need to them for economic reasons? In fact, they are an economic drain while growing up. I guess you could make the case that people are having kids to help pay for Social Security and Medicare, but I don't see it.

Here's a shot. Tax credits and paid maternity leave aside, many European countries have poor labor policies

You should probably of read the post I was responding to for a proper context of what I was saying. I don't disagree with this. Ex was making the assertion that France's policies are more child-friendly and that is why their birthrates are so relatively high. I was pointing out that Germany had similar policies, but yet had a much lower birth rate, so the explanation for the difference was probably something different than their "child friendly" policies.

Roughly two generations ago would be my father-in-law, the son of an Italian immigrant. The difference between his father's generation and his children's is stark and dramatic. Culture changes dramatically, especially in the modern age. Straight lining culture even two generations out is even sillier than straight lining demographics.

Not really, Western culture, especially US culture changes rapidly, non-Western cultures, not so much. If you were to take an Arab or a Chinese from 500 years ago and drop them into modern China or Saudi Arabia, I suspect they would be very comfortable with the culture, the technology might startle them, but the culture, not so much.

You are placing great faith in the ability of Muslim Europeans to assimilate to Western values, but I don't see a lot of evidence that they are. Muslims started large scale immigration after World War 2, nearly 60 years ago. You would expect after 6 decades that you would see European Muslim adopting Western values, but the opposite is happening. If anything they are becoming less European and more tribal/Muslim in their outlook. Muslims have children because they believe they have a duty to Allah (this also influences Christian's decision to have children), I see no evidence of this changing.

36

Errr, wouldn't 'reproductive choice' be making choices about reproduction? That would include making choices to reproduce as well as not. A woman in China who has two kids but wants to have another is told by the gov't she may not. That would certainly seem to be a case where she has been denied reproductive choice. Do we need an English lesson?

Who is we? Have you got a mouse in your pocket? Okay, if you insist, here is your English lesson. The definition of Euphemism is - the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. It describes what the pro-choice side has done to disguise the term abortion, which is considered offensive when it is used with respect to a perfectly normal and healthy mother and child. That is the context of my statements first in comment number 2 and then in comment number 25. Comment number 26 was me making a note of how you have swallowed the pro-choice propaganda - hook, line and sinker - to the apparent point that you cannot recognize the euphemism for what it is. And finally, in comment number 2, I am making reference to the number of female children being aborted and not "allowed" the "reproductive choice".

There... lesson complete. The test will begin... now. It's open book, so no need for cheating.

37

smm,

Second English lesson, you do not get to define words anyway you want just to suit your political arguments.

Again: A woman in China wants to reproduce. She is told by the gov't she may not because she has already had two kids. This woman does not have reproductive choice.

Please feel free to instruct us as to how she really does have reproductive choice because 'reproductive choice'?

You might have an argument if this debate was always just about abortion but it wasn't. This debate includes historical arguments about access to birth control, even access to information about birth control.

Third English lesson will be your homework. You are to look up the meaning of a noun and the meaning of an adjective. This will help you in your understanding of what people are talking about here.

38

was pointing out that Germany had similar policies, but yet had a much lower birth rate, so the explanation for the difference was probably something different than their "child friendly" policies.

I'd be careful here. I think there's so many incentives going in every which way it is really hard to see which country has a more 'child friendly' policy. If a country makes it really hard for a kid to break into the labor market, for example, people may focus on having one kid. In that case tax credits and maternity leave are simply too minor to alter the net incentives.

Not really, Western culture, especially US culture changes rapidly, non-Western cultures, not so much. If you were to take an Arab or a Chinese from 500 years ago and drop them into modern China or Saudi Arabia, I suspect they would be very comfortable with the culture, the technology might startle them, but the culture, not so much.

I serously doubt culture shock wouldn't be dramatic for any person removed 500 years from any of these cultures. Chinese people who end up in other countries (like the US) show now less cultural change than others. A second generation Chinese-American teenager is probably more 'hip' than your typical white teen! Even Saudi Arabia has altered dramatically, its culture is not immune to the immense oil wealth it has even though the dress codes have been more resiliant.

You are placing great faith in the ability of Muslim Europeans to assimilate to Western values, but I don't see a lot of evidence that they are. Muslims started large scale immigration after World War 2, nearly 60 years ago.

To be perfectly honest I don't think you know much about Muslim Europeans beyond what you've read in some English publications (based probably in America).

Historically culture has always changed except during periods of intense stagnation. Christian cultures remained static during periods of stagnation in European history while intellecutal life in Islamic cultures reached a high. Since the only way you can prevent a culture from changing is to make it experience stagnation you have a catch-22 here. Population doesn't give you the edge you need to conquer anything. For decades China & India has ruled on the population front but have accomplished nothing but poverty and being #1 only in terms of places that charities work on.

You need a population of creative, hard working and intelligent people. However you can't pull that off if at the same time you have to stagnate your society in order to prevent it's values from changing. Look at it this way, the Amish almost certainly have more children than the typical American family yet I wouldn't expect technology stocks to go bankrupt in 50 years as the Amish hoard forces us to return to the field and plow.

39

you do not get to define words anyway you want just to suit your political arguments.

What word was that?

Please feel free to instruct us as to how she really does have reproductive choice because 'reproductive choice'?

Please feel free to rephrase this so that any moron can understand what you are saying. You do believe you are dealing with morons here, don't you?

40

Historically culture has always changed except during periods of intense stagnation. Christian cultures remained static during periods of stagnation in European history while intellecutal life in Islamic cultures reached a high. Since the only way you can prevent a culture from changing is to make it experience stagnation you have a catch-22 here.

Taken literally, you are simply saying that culture changes, except when it does not. I'm not sure but I think you are trying to say that Europe was culturally stagnant during the "dark ages". In so, it's not true.

41

Please feel free to rephrase this so that any moron can understand what you are saying. You do believe you are dealing with morons here, don't you?

Errr no, actually you seem to have just enough knowledge to be wrong. But the passage you cited was an error on my part, I got distracted and didn't complete the thought although I think you got the point.

Here's what I should have written (new stuff in bold):

Again: A woman in China wants to reproduce. She is told by the gov't she may not because she has already had two kids. This woman does not have reproductive choice.

Please feel free to instruct us as to how she really does have reproductive choice because 'reproductive choice' really just means abortion.

To put it more simply 'reproductive' is an adjective and 'choice' is a noun. AS you should know adjectives describe and refine their nouns. So 'reproductive choice' must mean the individual is able to make choices about reproduction. The opposite, therefore, must mean someone or something else (such as the gov't) makes those choices.

While it is hard to imagine it happening in the US, the example of China shows how a government can infringe on reproductive choice in a host of ways. This includes not only forcing birth control or abortion on unwilling women but can also include the opposite. That would be trying to force or pressure unwilling women to get pregnant and have babies. Nazi Germany flirted with such policies when they established 'youth camps' for 'Aryan women' whose goal was to indoctrinate them into pumping out as many babies as possible.

Pat
Taken literally, you are simply saying that culture changes, except when it does not. I'm not sure but I think you are trying to say that Europe was culturally stagnant during the "dark ages". In so, it's not true.

It's probably best not to always take me literally ;) It's probably not possible to find an example of a culture that doesn't change. What I mean by stagnate is something like 'unable to advance', or 'stuck in the mud' where mud would be poverty, ignorance, social dysfunction and also unable to attain a leadership position in the larger society. Cultures like the turn of the century Italian immigrants were indeed seen as backward, impoverished etc. They were able to advance in terms of income and their ability to take on leadership positions. This advancement, though, came with the price of cultural change. Italian Americans of today are nothing like those that once were just off the boat. But what I'm suggesting is that if, for whatever reason, those Italians insisted on preserving the 'just off the boat culture' they would have failed to obtain the positions they have today.

I use the Amish because they are the only example that comes to mind of a culture that seems able to maintain and preserve its distinctiveness for a long period of time. They do this, though, by being so different that integration and change is almost impossible. You either have to take Amish culture in full or leave it in full...an Amish person who, say, wants to live in NYC cannot easily adapt his culture to make it fit. This is not the case I believe with European Muslims.

First of all I do not accept that European Muslims have not seen cultural change. I think second generation Turks living in Germany have a culture that is quite different from Turks who never left Turkey. I do not believe they have so perfectly preserved themselves that if 100,000 German Turks suddenly were beamed into Turkey they wouldn't know the difference nor do I think their new Turkish neighbors wouldn't be able to notice anything different.

(Of course once you give up the fact that cultural change is a fact accross all cultures...not just western ones you have to end trying to predict future culture by straight lining present culture. Assuming German Turks two generations from now will be the same as German Turks today is as silly as someone in 1920 assuming Italian Americans would be the same in two generations.)

Second I do not accept that European Muslims have not adapted and changed their culture since living in Europe. On the contrary, if they were like the Amish just seeking to live their way there would probably be little written about the culture clash. I think what you see is a culture that is struggling to figure out how to integrate. What should be kept of their own culture, what should be adopted outright and what should be adopted with modification.

42

What should be kept of their own culture, what should be adopted outright and what should be adopted with modification.

And, of course, what should be changed in the host culture. You leave out the fact that the Italian immigrants changed American culture in all sorts of ways. Some were good, some were not so good, like the mafia and organised crime. The results of Muslim immigration to Europe are difficult to predict. But its not difficult to predict that they will change the Europeans as well as being changed themselves. There is no one-way valve working here. And some of those changes will be for the worse, unless you are so committed to progressivism that you think all that happens is for the better.

43

No but changes to the larger culture require some buy in from the majority. Not necessarily today's majority but the children and children's children of today's majority.

Take a hypothetical change for the worse. To me I see such a change having several marks against it. It would be opposed by the existing majority, it would be opposed by the children of them and it would be opposed by those in the minority who are seeking to adopt the majority culture. The fundamentalists in the minority culture would seem to have quite a few hurdles of people to convince to get this bad thing adopted.

What I suspect would be more likely to happen is the 'bad thing' would be modified by the majority creating something else entirely.

I agree we don't know if we would like the resulting culture years later. We also know we cannot really predict it. This would mean any attempt to engineer it would be like someone who knows nothing about cars trying to fix one blindfolded.

44

Please feel free to instruct us as to how she really does have reproductive choice because 'reproductive choice' really just means abortion.

It doesn't ALWAYS mean just abortion boo. It just means abortion when the abortion pimps are peddling the goodness of murdering unborn children. You totally missed the point of the snark anyway. Maybe you take yourself too seriously.

45

Err, ok, so women in China don't have reproductive choice. Thanks for agreeing with me after a half dozen posts.

46

I've discovered that it's a complicated thing to find solid data on the fertility rate of Muslims compared to non-Muslims in Europe, largely because some countries, such as France, refuse to collect data on religion and ethnicity as a matter of principle.

The best thing I've found so far is: http://paa2007.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=70869

Bottom line: the fertility rate of Muslims in Europe is only slightly higher (15% higher to be exact) than that of non-Muslims. The study completely debunks the claim that the Muslim fertility rate is "three times higher."

It should be noted that even the op/ed article referenced by ucfengr is very optimistic that Europe's Muslims are assimilating into European society.

Research confirming that optimism comes from the Pew Forum: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/50/the-french-muslim-connection

Another helpful report from the Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/books/chapter_1/integratingislam.pdf

47

Err, ok, so women in China don't have reproductive choice. Thanks for agreeing with me after a half dozen posts.

Neither do all of those unborn female children that are slaughtered because male children are preferred, but you don't hear the leading pro-choicers screaming about them not having the opportunity to get an abortion. Nope, they're just happy that somebody somewhere is murdering unborn children.