“The liberal baby bust” is an article by Phillip Longman that was published June 2006 in USA Today. I comment on it here and today because the article relates to concerns that are quite similar to those addressed by other authors that fell victim to comparable fallacies that I had commented on recently. (E. G.: Dwindling Populations)
A footnote to the article explains that Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It and states that “this essay is adapted from his cover story in … Foreign Policy magazine.”
In short, Phillip Longman explains that the birth dearth is nothing much to worry about. He stated:
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….
In the conclusion of his article he stated:
Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born….(Full Story)
Phillip Longman is quite correct in stressing by various means in his article that the correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility is an evolutionary dead end, that it will therefore spell the end of the growth of liberalism and mean a return of conservatism, but he ignores very important aspects of that tidal change in cultural trends.
Firstly, do we have enough time to wait for the change to conservatism to happen and, secondly, what sort of conservatism is it that we can expect to emerge?
There seems to be little doubt that within about at the most four generations the indigenous populations of the developed nations will have shrunk so much in size that they will no longer matter demographically or even culturally. The differences in the demographic trends between Seattle and Salt Lake City are neither representative nor controlling in the USA. It is important in the USA and elsewhere to recognize the cultural changes that are happening where the birth rates of so-called “conservative” families exceed by far the birth rates of liberal and progressive Whites and Blacks.
It is curious that Phillip Longman did not address the ethnic, racial and cultural origins of the populations that will replace the rapidly shrinking sector of the liberal and progressive Whites and Blacks in the USA (and in Canada), and of the comparable populations that will replace the corresponding and rapidly shrinking indigenous population sector in other developed nations.
In the USA it will be primarily Hispanics who will direct and dominate the tidal cultural change, at least in those states that were formerly part of the Spanish Colonies. In Europe the replacing will be done by Muslims. In the eastern parts of Russia it will be done by Chinese and Muslims. It seems doubtful that Japan will remain empty. Nature abhors a vacuum, even a demographic one. Something will always rush in to fill a vacuum. Japan will have to import increasing numbers of guest workers. Just as that was done in Europe and ultimately resulted in the cultural and demographic upheavals that European nations are currently trying to cope with.
The liberal interest groups that eradicated the western cultural heritage will not be around to see that they quite literally eradicated the traditional western population. Unless a change in the means by which that is made to happen occurs soon, it seems that the West will not go out with a whimper but quite possibly in a steadily increasing number of blasts caused by suicide bombings and urban warfare.
Update June 7, 2008:
Current total fertility rates (TFRs) for countries in the world – Rank Order. The web page accessible through the preceding link lists the rank order from highest to lowest, with a TFR of about 2.2 indicating a stable population. The TFR required to maintain a given country’s population varies a little from country to country, depending on the life expectancy for the average resident in that country. (Source: CIA World Factbook)
As of June 2008, the CIA World Factbook showed 104 countries (generally the richest and most developed) to have TFRs of less than 2.2. In other words, in those countries the [indigenous] population is in the process of shrinking. (Related Articles at Fathers for Life)