NationStates Jolt Archive


Conservatives "outbreeding" liberals...

Lt_Cody
15-03-2006, 05:39
... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm)
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.

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.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. 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 guess it makes sense; those with conservative values tending to stick to the same trends that cause large families, those with less traditional values "making due with less." What are your thoughts on the implications?
Ladamesansmerci
15-03-2006, 05:41
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! More conservative backlashes!

*flees in terror*
Grand Maritoll
15-03-2006, 05:41
I guess it makes sense; those with conservative values tending to stick to the same trends that cause large families, those with less traditional values "making due with less." What are your thoughts on the implications?

I've already had the theory that a sucessful religion is one that reproduces rapidly... which is why Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism are all quite powerful, and the Shakers are almost all gone.

This is just that theory in another context.
Novoga
15-03-2006, 05:42
... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm)


I guess it makes sense; those with conservative values tending to stick to the same trends that cause large families, those with less traditional values "making due with less." What are your thoughts on the implications?

You guys are so screwed if these are the hard core, pound jesus up your ass type of of Conservatives.
Iztatepopotla
15-03-2006, 05:45
Well, that was pretty much the situation 40 years ago (traditional families, values, etc) and then 1967 happened. So, you never know how the kids are going to turn out.
M3rcenaries
15-03-2006, 05:45
Abortions may be one of the reasons.
Grand Maritoll
15-03-2006, 05:48
Abortions may be one of the reasons.

Captain Obvious strikes again!

:p
M3rcenaries
15-03-2006, 05:55
Captain Obvious strikes again!

:p
If they stand so vehemently behind something, they should at least accept the consequences.
THE LOST PLANET
15-03-2006, 06:09
Well, I'm doing my part to even things up.

I'm more left and liberal than the Dali Llahma and Mahatma Ghandi and I've fathered five children ....









so far.:D
Hobovillia
15-03-2006, 06:38
Well, I'm doing my part to even things up.

I'm more left and liberal than the Dali Llahma and Mahatma Ghandi and I've fathered five children ....









so far.:D
My parents. 10 Children. They can't do it anymore... thank god... I am an Atheist. See the irony?! Oh and my parents are lefties
Sumamba Buwhan
15-03-2006, 06:40
But then we have the children rebelling against their parents ways as well as the vast majority of christian brand democrats of various ethnicities and all that jazz

you never know how badly our children will actually screw the world until the time arrives. we arent setting such a great example for them at present.
The Alma Mater
15-03-2006, 07:27
... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm)

I guess it makes sense; those with conservative values tending to stick to the same trends that cause large families, those with less traditional values "making due with less." What are your thoughts on the implications?

Assuming humanity will still be around in 500 years, it will most likely look at the "unrestricted breeders" as being inferior, despicable and anti-social creatures.
Maybe the conservatives should keep that in mind.
Gauthier
15-03-2006, 07:37
Duh.

When you pit religious zealots who think abstinence is the only form of sex education versus more open-minded folks who encourage the use of birth control, who do you think is going to reproduce more often?
Santa Barbara
15-03-2006, 07:43
"Conservatism" and "liberalism" are memes, not genes. As such, the population of "conservatives" increases if more people starting THINKING conservative. Memetic change happens much quicker than genetic change anyway, and is by far the most prevalent factor in whether a political viewpoint is prolific or not. Otherwise, how did conservatism or liberalism first come about? Mutated children that just bred like rabbits? No no no. The IDEAS were born, the ideas spread.

I wish people would stop treating like "conservatives" and "liberals" are not only well-defined (they aren't) but actual fucking ethnic groups.
Straughn
15-03-2006, 07:48
Captain Obvious strikes again!

:p
Didja mean "strikes" or "osmosizes the thread"? ;)

Guess what? My first and third thoughts were snarky and quite probably meritive of some extremely vitriolic responses, but i'll just say that i like yours, The Alma Mater's, and Gauthier's posts.


My actual contribution is that is a thankful irony that conservatives are technically (by the numbers) doing more to prove/promote evolution, in this sense. Or at the least, mutability of species. :D
Gauthier
15-03-2006, 07:53
Assuming humanity will still be around in 500 years, it will most likely look at the "unrestricted breeders" as being inferior, despicable and anti-social creatures.
Maybe the conservatives should keep that in mind.

Wretched Freebirths, only the Trueborn are the finest examples of humanity.
Myotisinia
15-03-2006, 07:55
Duh.

When you pit religious zealots who think abstinence is the only form of sex education versus more open-minded folks who encourage the use of birth control, who do you think is going to reproduce more often?

Nice. What a wonderful sweeping generalization. Unfortunately not at all true. Just merely inflammatory.

Being conservative doesn't make you a religious zealot any more than being a liberal makes you incapable of taking a moral stand on anything.
Waterkeep
15-03-2006, 08:27
..they're against gay marriage.

Deep down, they realize that gay marriage, and more specifically, gay adoption, is the left's evolutionary strategy. :)
An archy
15-03-2006, 08:33
Assuming humanity will still be around in 500 years, it will most likely look at the "unrestricted breeders" as being inferior, despicable and anti-social creatures.
Maybe the conservatives should keep that in mind.
I think society's understanding of inferiority, despicableness, and anti-sociality is definde by the majority. The thing is, even if most people in the future would be identified by modern humans as holding those negative traits, they would never identify themselves as such.
"Conservatism" and "liberalism" are memes, not genes. As such, the population of "conservatives" increases if more people starting THINKING conservative. Memetic change happens much quicker than genetic change anyway, and is by far the most prevalent factor in whether a political viewpoint is prolific or not. Otherwise, how did conservatism or liberalism first come about? Mutated children that just bred like rabbits? No no no. The IDEAS were born, the ideas spread.

I wish people would stop treating like "conservatives" and "liberals" are not only well-defined (they aren't) but actual fucking ethnic groups.
Very true. Remember though, political and moral philosophies tend to be handed down from generation to generation. So there actually is an evolution-like effect going on here.
Straughn
15-03-2006, 08:36
..they're against gay marriage.

Deep down, they realize that gay marriage, and more specifically, gay adoption, is the left's evolutionary strategy. :)Remember, the right doesn't believe in evolution! *tsk*
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid25764.asp
Santa Barbara
15-03-2006, 08:37
Very true. Remember though, political and moral philosophies tend to be handed down from generation to generation.

Not genetically. And jeez, how many children rebel against their parent's beliefs? Lots. The "breeding" theory is bunk.

So there actually is an evolution-like effect going on here.

The evolution-like effect is just memetics. Changes in a population over time. But really when people can't even identify clearly what a "conservative" or "liberal" is, how is any of this scientific? It's not, it's just Ann Coulterism.
Laerod
15-03-2006, 09:14
Very true. Remember though, political and moral philosophies tend to be handed down from generation to generation. So there actually is an evolution-like effect going on here.Yes, but unlike genetic heredity, children can and often do rebel against their parent's politics. Otherwise we'd still have the same moral codes as in 4000 BC.
An archy
15-03-2006, 09:24
Not genetically. And jeez, how many children rebel against their parent's beliefs? Lots. The "breeding" theory is bunk.



The evolution-like effect is just memetics. Changes in a population over time. But really when people can't even identify clearly what a "conservative" or "liberal" is, how is any of this scientific? It's not, it's just Ann Coulterism.
I didn't say that it is evolution. You're right. It isn't evolution. I said that it involves an evolution-like effect. On the second issue, that it is very difficult to define conservatism and liberalism, you're correct once again. However, it is possible to talk about how certain beliefs (rather than large nearly impossible to define sets of beliefs) are more likely to be handed down to the next generation because individuals who hold those beliefs are more likely to produce many children. As to children rebelling against their parents beliefs, the question is, how prevelent is that? I'd argue that it isn't so prevelent that it disproves this hypothesis. Why? Because we still talk about how some children "rebel" against their parents beliefs as if we expect that every child should adhere to her/his parent's beliefs. If this happened more often, I think we'd simply think of it as children growing up and deciding their own beliefs as part of the maturing process.
An archy
15-03-2006, 09:29
Yes, but unlike genetic heredity, children can and often do rebel against their parent's politics. Otherwise we'd still have the same moral codes as in 4000 BC.
One word. Mutation. Obviously, noticable mutations happen less often than children rebelling against their parents, but note that for many children this rebellion is only temporary.