Here are a couple of articles from the same writer, both making the point that based on good old fashioned biology, that liberal dominance is ultimately doomed, although one suspects that there will always be a few residual moonbats just to keep things interesting & to remind us that it is human to err.
The liberal baby bust
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.
The point of this is then….
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.
In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont – the first to embrace gay unions – has the nation’s lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.
The other article develops these ideas more fully, and is well worth a look, if ofr nothing else than it’s totally anti-P.C. title:
The Return of Patriarchy
Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies destined to become extinct? Hardly. It’s more likely that conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born into families who believe that father knows best.
The Chief found it interesting that apparently the Romans were plagued by their version of feminazis that stimulated this observation:
“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. “Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”
The Chief, being married, would not go quite as far as old Quintus did, but then again…considering the current state of the feminist movement…it that was ALL the choice that had been available…maybe so.
The whole point of this is that based on reproductive rates, the liberals among us are inevitably destined to become a smaller, less influential part of society. A phrase from a sci-fi book (Oath of Fealty) by Larry Niven comes to mind: “Just think of it as evolution in action.”
The Chief also recalls conversation with persons of the feminazi persuasion while he was an undergrad biology major. When said acquaintances observed their determination to NOT ever have children, the Chief noted, “Oh. So you’ve decided that you are biologically unfit.” This ALWAYS got a reaction that was inevitably reduced to muttering and sputtering when it was pointed out that biological fitness is defined by successfully passing genes to succeeding generations. No reporoduction = no biological fitness! Q.E.D. (This was great fun, but was not a popularity builder with them. Oh well.)
