Her point is that having children increases one’s carbon footprint, and that not having children is a better energy-saving strategy than riding a bicycle to the Sierra Club meeting or growing your own organic ginseng in a window-box.
But a logical extension of her reasoning is that the reduction of the homo sapiens population, by whatever means, is good for the planet. If we could get the numbers down to, say, a few hundred thousand, we’d all be better off.
Those of us who remain, that is. All the survivors, like the author, would presumably be well-educated eco-conscious Harvard graduates, a group of fitting caretakers for a nearly human-free Planet Earth.
Like those who visualize industrial collapse, people who self-righteously abstain from reproduction probably don’t imagine that the heirs of the Earth will not be their sort of people. The denim-and-granola crowd, having bred themselves out of existence, will no longer be running the place. While their numbers dwindle, certain other less fastidious groups will have been having eight or ten kids per wife and firing Kalashnikovs into the air after the birth of each child.
Needless to say, when they’re running things, sustainable development will not be high on their list of priorities…
Anyway, here’s the anti-parturition argument from Kate Galbraith, the NYT’s green blogger (and also, if I’m not mistaken, the granddaughter of John Kenneth Galbraith):
Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact- - - - - - - - -
By Kate Galbraith
Having children is the surest way to send your carbon footprint soaring, according to a new study from statisticians at Oregon State University.
The study found that having a child has an impact that far outweighs that of other energy-saving behaviors.
Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.
“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” the report states.
The impact of children varies dramatically depending on geography: An American woman who has a baby will generate nearly seven times the carbon footprint of that of a Chinese woman who has a child, the study found.
The calculations take account of the fact that each child is, in turn, likely to have more children. And because the calculations derive from the fertility rate — the expected number of children per woman in various countries — the findings focus on women, although clearly men participate in the decision to have children.
“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said Paul Murtaugh, a professor of statistics at O.S.U., in a statement accompanying the study’s release. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”
The full report is published in the February 2009 edition of the journal Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions.
47 comments:
Isn't it rather curious how these anti-human types always refuse to lead by example? If they are so hell bent on clearing the planet of human life, let their revolution begin at their home. They are no better or worse than those terrorist imams who cheerfully recruit the neighbors' young sons as vest bombers but refuse to induct their own children for the fatal task.
It is a consistent hallmark of these dystopic swine that their oh-so-sacred rules never actually apply to themselves.
There's no doubt that some people should breed less - but it's unbelievably Politically Incorrect to say which ones.
So let say it WAKE UP, Asia, Africa and Europe should breed less than the necessary. But there's no need for 1.1 children. By the way breeding children should be a duty, do not want to? so please commit suicide. And lets talk again of eugenics. EVERY population in the world would benefit from positive eugenics ( nazi germany proposed negative eugenics).
Speaking of which, Zombie has updated her site with a new post regarding John Holdren (the Obama science czar).
This "population control" thing is a smoke screen for unimaginable oppression of mankind. They are threatening to mal-adapt the human species, to cause a downward spiral of depression. We must realize that these Leftists MUST BE STOPPED.
These people are only cedeing the World to Yemen, Afghanistan, Mali, Niger, and Somalia.
If the Leftists are not stopped, what if future generations considered the Eurabian Caliphate a mercy??
Stop thinking you can live your life and things will be okay. You must take action against Leftists, by pounding a pick axe against the pillars of their beliefs and trying to make them paniced and shell shocked. Failure to attempt to do so, is a crime against humanity. If we do fight back well, Leftism will collapse like Communism.
The point is that Leftist ideas are extremely dangerous. I expect many countries to refuse to participate in self-extinction, but this is just a plot to cause the West's extinction. Fortunately, in another decade or so, Western Leftists will suddenly find that they don't control the world. Let's work on a plan to throw them out of power before you know who starts to control the West, "our world".
P.S. -- This instance of insanity is exactly what Zenster wrote about on "threats to the Nordic model".
The simplest way to stop the Leftists is to have more babies. Lots of 'em. The daddies have to hang in and help raise 'em though. Which means we have to change the child-custody laws to *really* protect the best interests of the children and not the best interests of the attorneys.
Take divorce out of the courts and put it in family mediation where it belongs. Lock out the lawyers. Not an easy task since most of our legislatures are packed with them.
The best example I know of "raise the children" is Papa Ray.
He is an American hero.
@Dymphna
In the short term yes having more babies is the solution. But things are not that simple in the long run. Our society today is not just anti-natality it is disgenic. The best elements in our society are being almost coerced in not having kids. Beauty, inteligence and even health (in a minor degree) have become factors to NOT having kids. And this hurts the quality of the western populations as the worse have a larger share of the natality. Increasing the natality of the best elements of the west should be paramount to all countries involved. I abhror forcing someone to reproduce but if you don't want to pay to someone have the kid to you (of similar IQ) or faces taxes of 75% income per example. What i'm saying may turn my guts but it's a must if we are to survive and improve our populations.
Who's to judge which are the "best elements" of our society. Benjamin Franklin came of humble parentage; Thomas Edison's first teacher thought he was ineducable. Nobody knows enough to tell others whether they should have children. What presumption!
But it's perfectly okay with me if Kate Galbraith doesn't have any.
Miriam,
Simple answer: intelligence and produtivity.
Wealth SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT IT. And please note that nobody if forcing anyone, do not want to have kids pay your taxes or help someone have more kids.
What's unworkable is the present situation, be sure we ARE breeding out our best elements.
The monsters our societies are becoming enfatize all that it's destructive in us. For one side there's self destructions ideologies for the other side since our societies are sick and unnatal finding a parther willing to have kids is sometimes so difficult that things like that are popping in India and Africa:
http://www.modernghana.com/news/188498/1/the-female-wombs-for-rent-only-females-with-high-i.html
today there's a whole industry bent on selling eggs and sperm, baby tunning! And with outsourced pregnancies! Look for it and you will find it.
Thinking about it with the american and europeans laws i heard of it seens like a good idea to many.
"Needless to say, when they’re running things, sustainable development will not be high on their list of priorities…"
Hahaha... nope! Waving their bums is numero uno on their list.
"Isn't it rather curious how these anti-human types always refuse to lead by example? If they are so hell bent on clearing the planet of human life, let their revolution begin at their home."
In the last hundred years or so, none of the utopian builders so far has had any intention of sacrificing themselves or their kin. It's always someone else who has to step down and fade out of existence for the greater good. Of course they are typical psychopaths.
The real point is that this discusion is only possible (and is only taking place) in modern, advanced sophisticated societies. In the primitive, fecund, superstitious, ignorant larger remainder of the world they are breeding without thought or care, while we "debate" Darwin-ng oursleves out of existence - and if we don't do that, they'll take care of it for us.
Rocha: The best elements in our society are being almost coerced into not having kids. Beauty, intelligence and even health (in a minor degree) have become factors towards NOT having kids.
This is an interesting and exceptionally cogent observation.
An example of this being that there is a sharp increase of cesarean deliveries among Western women because it allows them to schedule childbirth into their busy social calendar.
An even more disturbing trend is that of avoiding breastfeeding due to the swelling and stretch marks that can result from human lactation.
Lack of post-natal exposure to mother's milk can exacerbate the early onset of conditions like asthma and allergies. That an infant's immune system is heavily reliant upon consumption of mother's milk seems to be of secondary consideration.
So, Rocha's statement that beauty is becoming a factor in not having children takes on even greater weight. Especially so in light of how parents are now willing to compromise the health of those children that they do have solely for the sake of cosmetic issues.
None of this addresses the much more urgent predicament of how birth rates seem inversely proportional to parental intelligence.
My own personal feeling is that, more than anyone, intelligent people should be having the largest families of all. More often than not it is the offspring of such unions that enjoy the richest and most stimulating childhood environments.
This in turn increases the odds that such individuals will go on to become more productive, more innovative, more creative and more industrious citizens.
While this does not discount the chances of a crack-baby going on to unveil the Grand Unified Field Theory, I'm not betting the farm on that.
WAKE UP: The real point is that this discusion is only possible (and is only taking place) in modern, advanced sophisticated societies. In the primitive, fecund, superstitious, ignorant larger remainder of the world they are breeding without thought or care, while we "debate" Darwin-ing oursleves out of existence - and if we don't do that, they'll take care of it for us.
This is the bottom line. Are we willing to cede the destiny of mankind over to the dregs of human civilization? That these dregs are so lowly is no fault of their own but that in no way changes the fact that our collective fate must not be consigned into the hands of illiterate savages solely because a misplaced sense of guilt or, even worse, an infection of self-loathing says otherwise.
Mahatma Ghandi once said:
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
If this is so, then intelligent people must begin populating our planet with those individuals who are best equipped to alter its political, economic, industrial and agricultural landscapes in the best ways possible. Muslim camel jockeys and Somalian goat herders need not apply until they prove themselves worthy of the task.
Nihilism? Suicidalism? Darwinian failurism?
Who are these people and how did they get so stupid?
Its likely that what we are seeing in the West (espeically Europe but also elsewhere) is similar to what happened to the Roman Empire, a societal, cultural and systemic collapse. And we all know what followed that in Europe. At least we have Constantinople? Is that the rallying cry? LOL!
Ah, the babies discussion again....
While I agree that having babies is wonderful (I have a beautiful girl), having another one and another one is impossible. That is reality.
Example: Our family income may look high, a reality check tells us that the useable income is rather low thanks to high taxation and other bills that need to be paid. Low enough, for instance, that our current apartment, while way too small, is the place we will have to stay for the forseeable future. A larger apartment or even - God forbid - a house is financially undoable unless my husband lives to the ripe age of 100, while still at the operating table.
So the bottom line is: Unless we win the lottery, or work even more hours than we already do, it's an unfortunate NO to another child. I refuse to have more children for the sake of saving our civilization. Those children deserve better. And if it can't be, then that's the way it is.
A smart mind (Henrik??) told me once that no civilization has ever disppeared because fewer babies were born; I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear. It might change, but the natives will and must one day wake up and realize that without beer and bratwurst, without music and dance, without playboy magazine and glamour magazine, without democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech, life is not worth living. Perhaps then they will wake from their bilssful, I-poding stupor and fight back by whatever means.
When the fight is over, it's time to have babies again. There will be a different ruling class, surely paving the way for families to raise more children in peace, without the specter of sharia and endless taxation.
Until then, I am sorry to say I cannot add children to this world just for the sake of adding children. That is unfair to me and, most of all, to the unborn child.
I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear. It might change, but the natives will and must one day wake up and realize that without beer and bratwurst, without music and dance, without playboy magazine and glamour magazine, without democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech, life is not worth living.
On the other hand, our Western societies are rapidly becoming Islamicized, so, it is not improbable that some people will decide not to have children at all, seeing as these children might have to grow up to become secondary-class citizens in backward Islamic societies if they are actually born.
Elisabeth - sorry to hear that you won't have more children, hope your financial situation improves. Which country do you live in if I may ask?
We've just had our second baby and there will surely be more to come. While kids can be expensive I'm finding that I've got about the same bank balance as I had before we had any babies. Whereas we now spend money on food, the home, the kids, etc., previously we would have spent just about the same on eating out, holidays, activities and what not.
Kids don't ruin you - they just force you to change lifestyle!
Australianmedia,
Our financial situation isn't bad. It just doesn't allow for any additions. There are many factors to consider (that I do not want to get into), and it would not work out.
We don't eat out, but we do have a fairly comfortable life. It's balanced and I don't want to tip the scale. As long as the day has only 24 hours, there is just no way to add the time I'd need for another child. Someone in the fragile situation would suffer. Who to choose? My daugher, my future child, my 2 jobs, my husband, or - God forbid - I myself?
The child itself is not that expensive, as Austria is a classical Socialist welfare state, it's the number of hours in the day, and other factors, as I have already said.
My kid has not ruined me at all. She is the reason I am in the Counterjihad!! She keeps me going.
Elizabeth,
Sorry to read that from you! While i do not know you personaly nor can i know your real situation i have heard your argument and others against natality several times, too many times indeed!
Have you heard of Peter Schiff? Sometimes it's better to rent instead of morgage a house, the USA case now is crazy! Houses do not have the value they are trying to put on them.
That's why i think the only option is to "force" people to have kids, like income taxes on childless or one child families, etc. Because when good times do arrive people do not have the kids, they just spend the money.
The problem people frequently understimate is infertility, while my wife is not totally infertile we had to try 4 years for our first child and are trying 1.5 years now for the second one. And she is young! 28 years. That's why i believe the 2.1 kids per woman to be a fraud, are people killed in accidents counted? the infertile? incapacitant and physical disabilities? diesises? the various Retardments? I doubt it.
"A smart mind (Henrik??) told me once that no civilization has ever disppeared because fewer babies were born; I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear."
You know why is that? Untill the 60's there was no way a civilization could do that! And the civiziliation that came the closest was the french that being one of the reasons France was on the brink of losing WW1 and lost WW2!
The world was always dangerous, from the dawn of history to today! Imagine the world today if in the years preceding WW2 couples did not have kids per example! I know i would not be here, my mother was born in 1938. If we do not have kids there will be only defeat and i fear for the destiny of your baby and mine.
Zenster,
Read the link i posted you would surprized by the new trends...
"An example of this being that there is a sharp increase of cesarean deliveries among Western women because it allows them to schedule childbirth into their busy social calendar."
Brazil is a exemple of that 32% of births now are cesarian in general. The number is hiding because in the public sector where most births are done the number is about 10% but in the private sector the number is as high as 85%! I had to SEARCH doctors when my wife got pregnant because 3 gynoscoloists refused to do the normal way!
Zenster, is worse than that people are being almost coerced in not having kids in some professions, specially where people are intelligent or beautiful, like models or engineers. Even health plays a part on it because healtier people on the fitness area have less kids than usual.
A trait is eugenic when it increases the proballity of reproduction and disgenic when it decreases so at least since the 1900's in an increasing rate intelligence, beauty and health are dysgenic now.
Rocha,
no need to be sorry!
Everything is OK. I am not complaining. Would never do that. It's fine the way it is.
The only reason I even brought this up is the fact that politicians and others bring it up all the time: "If only [indigenous] women would have more children!", as if more children would magically solve our problems.
Well, my situation is similar to that of many families in my daughter's kindergarten group. And both parents hold jobs!
Again, a reality check helps. It certainly killed our dreams of a larger apartment fast.
As much as our Western civilization is under attack by Islam and a lack of children, we will still win.
Western culture and civilization also has hidden threads in it that come to the fore when we need them, to defend both us and itself. Culture and ideas may exist is some kind of a spiritual meme or dimension, requiring an appropriate co-consciousness in order to spring to life. There will always be someone to save and sustain Western civilization, even if that person doesn't have children.
Culture is passed on to those who live, not necessarily to one's own biological children, although this is the best way. I have hope, and as long as I am alive, I affect those around me to accept the higher values of Western civilization.
The global warming alarmism is complete humbug. However, as I have previously pointed out we have an alarming population explosion and an impending resource collapse.
There are two conclusions from this:
(1) The people living on this planet must be able to locally support the size of their population. Nature will self-correct this once the economic and political collapse of the current Western world order happens. The vast amount of Third World people, whose lives are held under the arms by the Western civilization, and who are unable to support themselves in these numbers, will start disappearing.
(2) The strategy for any ethnic group (without a suicidal instinct) in this situation of resource and land grabbing, is to increase their numbers. The more we are the more powerful. The better we can compete with the others, and thus the better we can live. I can promise you all that China, once they are no longer held back within their borders by the planetary dominance of America, will do a 180 degree turn and start producing as many children as they can, to fill the lands that they will be conquering.
(1) and (2) support each other, and gives us the same conclusion: we should have as many children as possible.
"I can promise you all that China, once they are no longer held back within their borders by the planetary dominance of America, will do a 180 degree turn and start producing as many children as they can, to fill the lands that they will be conquering."
Yes, yes and yes.
As to the woman who wrote this article? Could this just be the sour grapes of a barren womb and nothing but cats and ideology to keep her warm? As far as I know Ice and cold temperatures is a fairly recent phenomenon in geologic terms. The absence of humans wont change that in the least.
I wrote:
(1) and (2) support each other, and gives us the same conclusion: we should have as many children as possible.
In spite of this I partly agree with Elisabeth when she says:
I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear [because of our low birth rates today].
...
When the fight is over, it's time to have babies again.
That is, while I encourage everyone to have more children today, this is not our main "weapon" in this stage of the fight. This is no way near to be our most urgent threat. So my main focus would not be in campaigning for more children at this point, and definitely not forcing people to have it. Demographic Jihad will hit us long before. And even before that we will be hit by the resource collapse. And even before that we will be hit by the dollar collapse.
In my blog there is an analysis of the effects of scenarios of different birth rates for a Western country of today (the articles are part of a series I had about Catholicism).
Here is Part 1
Here is Part 2
First scroll down to the second half of Part 1, where I have three Excel tables showing that increasing a nations birth rate from 1.5 to 2.5 has marginal effect in the face of demographic Jihad. As I wrote "Muslim mass immigration is the black death. Low birth rates is a flue in comparison. Which one would you consider urgent to cure? Which one will kill us?"
However, in Part 2 I show, in another Excel table, the great difference of having a birth rate of 1.3 or 1.75, in a 100 year time span, for a country. I.e. for the Southern and Eastern European countries, having a birth rate of 1.3 or less, they'll have to fix this within a generation. Otherwise they are heading for deep trouble.
Part 2 also debunks a simplistic explanation that it would be the welfare state that directly causes lower birth rates. This since the typical welfare state countries of the North-West are doing so much better then the rest of Europe. I provide another explanation though.
I think the mantra about having more children -- when its repeated narrow-mindedly, such as from Mark Steyn or the Catholic Church -- comes from conservative identity politics. Anti-abortion is probably the main identity issue among conservatives, that they still share. The idea of having many children goes hand in hand with that. It's a fairly safe issue to advocate, it's non-aggressive, and as brave as conservatives dare to be today.
So while, as I clarified in the beginning, I am in no way against having more children -- on the very contrary! It's the one-eye narrow-minded look at this that is the problem. First of all since this issue is no way near to be our most urgent concern. And secondly, and more important, that it is the very anti-abortion mentality, which goes together with the sacredness of every single human life, that is causing the population explosion in the Third World. At this particular stage (with its universalist mindset) we would actually, objectively, be better off with the opposite attitude.
I have discussed this last issue more deeply here and here.
Rocha: Read the link i posted you would surprized by the new trends...
I did and somehow remain unsurprised at this new trend towards "Reproductive Outsourcing". This is especially so in light of the participation by homosexuals. While I still defend the civil rights of homosexuals, their collective behavior has caused me to thoroughly recalibrate my support for their cause.
It continues to amaze me that homosexuals can display such hostility or derision for the Nuclear Family. One simple fact, be it only through heterosexual insemination, a vast majority of all homosexuals are the product of Nuclear Families.
Even less amusing is how homosexuals continue to try and replicate Nuclear Families of their own with complete disregard for what the concept implies.
I'll go out on a limb here and venture that children from a "family" with two "fathers" are going to experience a larger degree of neuroses than a child born to a lesbian "family" where at least one participant actually gave birth to the child in question. At least there will be the opportunity for the sort of neuro-chemical bonding that takes place during infancy.
A child from an all male "family" will have less opportunity for critical post-natal bonding and be more likely to display all of the symptoms previously associated with the sensory deprivation of premature babies who were once kept in incubators without human contact.
While money may be able to secure a birth mother of beauty and high IQ, no amount of wealth can reproduce the balanced and effective model of the Nuclear Family. If there was a viable alternative, it would already have manifested long ago. There would be a pre-existing historical record of homosexual couples adopting and raising emotionally stable and productive children. To my knowledge such a thing does not exist and it comes as no surprise.
In the rush to utilize surrogacy as a substitute for genuine Nuclear Family life, I forsee an upcoming generation that is even more disconnected from the already distorted natural roots that so few of us managed to enjoy as children.
The ramifications of millions of children who do not feel any abiding genetic bond to family or clan bespeak the potential for criminality and inhumanity on a previously unheard of scale. It will make the African child-soldiers look like boy scouts.
Conservative Swede,
"In spite of this I partly agree with Elisabeth when she says:
I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear [because of our low birth rates today]."
Please note that each case is a case, the west is not europe only.
The same birth rates that could give europe some more space would be catasthopic in Brazil, USA, Australia and Canada. Europe has "fat" to burn America and Oceania do not. But be sure that the natality problem is THE problem after "reverse" colonization and the cultural war. As for abortion i do not care about the fetus but i do care about the culture it promotes that's why i'm againsnt it after the 2nd month. And well you have two months to decide that's a hell of a time. Had a condom problem? Take the day after pill. That's it.
Zenster,
I was terrified when i read the articles about it (some where way better that this crap i brought for expediency). We are getting to the technologies and pratices showed as distopians in cyberpunk literature. How much time for slave clones and organ outsourcing?
Need a liver? For 100,000 you got it and the family of the african you killed would even be grateful... How long for this kind of nightmare?
Rocha: How long for this kind of nightmare?.
In theory, this is a place where technology may be able to stem such drastic abuse. The individual growth of whole organs and other biological technologies made be able to prevent any further emergence of a body parts black market.
I am unable to identify the ex-NASA astronaut in question, but he wrote a book positing the invention of an artificial womb. I see this as the ultimate answer to abortion. If a woman does not want her fetus and the father or another adoptive party does, then the fetus could be brought to term ex-utero and spared an untimely death.
My current pro-choice position is based upon the lack of socio-economic parity between genders. If that gap is closed and the artificial womb invented, it could lead to a sea change in Western attitudes towards abortion and reproductive choice in general. This is specifically so in the area of paternal rights with respect to terminating a pregnancy. It is something that I think is in serious need of redress and, at present, a sorely overlooked and neglected right of men.
Currently, technology is playing a spoiler role by allowing homosexuals to create synthetic "families". The wisdom or folly of this has yet to be seen. Sheer statistics do indicate that some homosexual households will provide a less abusive child-rearing environment than some heterosexual homes but there is a strong intuitive sense that children raised without a traditional nuclear family will continue to exhibit the same issues that they currently do.
Furthermore, using technology to artificially overcome the genetic box canyon that homosexuality represents has far reaching implications upon society that are difficult to envision. Homosexuality clearly is not a heritable trait, as any genetic predisposition for such behavior was culled from the human genome at the dawn of mankind.
To forcibly reinstitute and artificially propagate a genetically terminal lifestyle like homosexuality is something that may have potentially disruptive effects upon modern civilization. My own impression is that this sort of contrived structure will eventually express certain weaknesses that originally caused such behavior to be non-propagating.
All said, I believe that technology is able to play a much more positive long-term role in helping humanity improve its overall quality of life. The current abuses are relatively small-scale and it must be hoped that they will not cause any sort of anti-technology backlash that could cripple the more proper emergence of beneficial scientific progress in this field.
Rocha,
I agree that the situation is different in different countries. And I already touched upon that in what I wrote.
Regarding the discussion of birth rates, demographic Jihad etc.
It's once again as Professor Bartlett says:
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Watch his lecture here.
As he explains, a 7% growth rate, means a doubling time of 10 years. Our increase of usage of nonrenewable resources have been increasing at these kind of rates. That means that even if we discover as much new oil, as all the oil we have used previously in the history of mankind, the oil will only last 10 more years.
It's the same with the growth of the number of Muslims in the West. It's also exponential. People in general simply do not understand that this can make them outnumber us in just two generations, and take over several cities within just one generation.
But even the conservative opinion makers who point to the problem of demography, do not understand the significance of the exponential function. They repeat the mantra of how we need to have more babies. But there is no chance we can fix this problem in that way. Even if we have a birth rate of 4 children (and the Muslims have the same). Those "conservatives" never speak of dealing with immigration. So if we keep "family reunion" Muslims will grow at a much higher rate then us (50-100%), i.e. for every child-producer a new one is added. And then there is the other new immigration.
No the only way to deal with it is to stop all Muslim immigration, and to have a way to make the others leave.
Elisabeth said,
"So the bottom line is: Unless we win the lottery, or work even more hours than we already do, it's an unfortunate NO to another child. I refuse to have more children for the sake of saving our civilization. Those children deserve better. And if it can't be, then that's the way it is.
A smart mind (Henrik??) told me once that no civilization has ever disppeared because fewer babies were born; I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear."
"When the fight is over, it's time to have babies again."
Excuse me, but the fight has gone on 1400 years and isn't going to end anytime soon. (Sorry, Zenster, we could, but until and unless the 5 great obstacles are dealt with, we WON'T).
Now, Elisabeth, people in the Sahel (senegal to Somalia), northern Nigeria, Yemen, and Afghanistan CAN AFORD seven children a woman, so Western women can afford larger families.
It may be that western people can't afford the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, if they have more children. But their lifestyle is unsustainable ANYWAY, due to a fatal lack of human capital. There is an argument to be made that rich people get ahead because they choose to have fewer children. However, this simply means that they are mooching off of society, by depriving it of human capital -- 'people power'.
People power is composed of youth and 'will', as well as raw numbers.
Concerning the clueless concept of "no civilization has ever disppeared because fewer babies were born", no one would think that who really knew history (MOST WESTERNERS DON'T). Whoever thinks that is WOEFULLY MISINFORMED.
How about the Native Americans, who produced far fewer children than the whites? More to the point,
Here is a quote from a Greek historian Polybius, around the time Rome conquered Greece (150 BC).
"In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owning to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics... For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence [Pride, greed, and laziness] that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, [they needed each child to have "a quality of life"] the evil rapidly and insensibly grew."
Sound familiar? It should, because that is what is happening now to the West. Those who don't breed, won't exist. At current fertility rates, Europe will lose 80% of its native population by 2100.
Watch the Demographic Winter to learn more (the trailer on You Tube is excellent.)
It's not only about the Islamists having more children than us (though they are), it's about having sufficient confidence in our own culture to sacrifice comfort in order to preserve it. We've gone soft, and if the Islamists "win" there'll be no culture at all.
Civilisations aren't conquered, they commit suicide. ,
Concerning the "resource collapse", anyone who promotes this, knowing what the real agenda is, is a oligofacist commissar. (CS is Not an oligofacist commissar, he has just been misinformed). The whole point of the "resources scarcity" argument is for the Western elite "governing class" to CONTROL the world's resources-- for the 'people's good'-- NOT!!!
Two important points--
1)Humans grow their resources (and invent new ones) faster than they can reproduce
2)Humans can become mal-adapted to cause the population to implode.
If the "resources scarcity" theory had any validity, India would be a good case study. India added 650 MILLION people in the 40 years following the writing of "The Population Bomb". It was also a very poor country, and the starting food supply was relatively meager at the start.
However, in the 40 years, per capita calorie consumption in India rose 25%, India became an exporter of FOOD in 1974 and has been every since, and India has the world's largest labor force, and it an emerging superpower. Why?
India had a western heritage, a developing parlimentary democracy, an emerging capitalistic system, and a lack of hubris.
Look at freedom -- India exports FOOD (with 1,200 Million people), while Cuba -- with a government to ensure that they 'don't deplete the scarce resources'-- must IMPORT sugar!!!
In the 20th Century, human population quadrupled, and the real price of grain fell by 70%!
When famines occured, they were either caused or greatly worsened by government mismanagement-- the people who were going to "control the resources".
Most 3rd. world countries are more food self-sufficient now than they were 40 years ago, despite the population having tripled, in many cases.
Concerning the MME, they are building Coal, Nuclear, and Desalination plants, while our governments tell us in the West that we MUST use windmills and solar power!!
(The 'environmental movement' is ALL about depriving Western economies of the resources they need to grow-- so that 'Western Hegemony' can be ended.)
There will be no great die-off when Western civilization collapses. Food production might increase, because the Caliph isn't going to waste money PAYING farmers NOT to grow food (in the West), and the jizya means that many new customers are wanting to increase their purchases of food.
The 3rd. World populations skyrocketed after the 1950's BECAUSE the newly independent countries were DESPERATE to increase their numbers!
Finally, hunger and poverty are these people's problems, NOT the west's. We have FAR TOO MUCH of the "resource" of Hubristic Egomania. (Thinking that Western Civilization will survive, somehow, that we don't need to struggle against anything, and that we have time to worry about 'the World's resources'.) Western leaders should worry about the West having enough resources, especially native children.
CS said in another post that the West conquered by superior application of violence. I merely point out that 'people power' was the other part of the story. A group with plenty of young people can "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly do what no one has done before."
I now republish an article to give some context to the situation today:
The fourth major delusion we have is that rapid population growth for a society is bad, and that a controlled population is good. Although the "Population Bomb" and the anti-natalist Leftists promoted this theory to the hilt, it is totally false. First, why did the West have such dominance in the late 19th and 20th. Centuries?
It is because the West experienced a population explosion during the 19th. Century, while other regions of the World had stable populations. The extra "people power" enabled the West to settle the world. Steyn said that England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality (in 1820).
Well, he was NOT entirely accurate. Another nation conquered infant mortality 200 years before that, (without the aid of modern medicine). But more than that, this nation was the champion of human fertility rates for nearly 250 years!
The fertility rates of this nation soared like a fighter jet with full afterburners! It would even have given the Kenyan women of the 1980's (known for their breeding prowess in modern history) very stiff competition.
The women discharged babies like combat shotguns with extended magazines. Women who had 6 to 8 children were considered average, and women who had a 12 or more children were NOT UNCOMMON.
Well, you ask, which nation was this? It was America, from the Pilgrims to the Civil War. Did you know that Ben Franklin was the 15th. child out of 17 children?? Or that Daniel Boone's parents had 11 children, and he and his wife had 10?? It is historical fact. America had a continual population explosion for this entire period.
Think about this: If "family planning" had existed and been used in the English North American colonies, by say, 1720, the United States of America would LIKELY NOT EXIST TODAY-- Native Americans would likely still be roaming the Great Plains.
Now, how does this matter to us today. Well, take Pakistan. It is home to about 10% of the Ummah today). Realize that in the mid-1960's, Pakistan [West Pakistan] had a population that was less than that of the UK.
However, today Pakistan has more people than the EU-27 has (of native Europeans) that are UNDER THE AGE OF 15. Let that sink in.
While they claim that the fertility rate is going down in Pakistan, it seems that people keep reporting the children's births older than they really are, which makes it look like fertility is declining faster than it is.
One thing we can be sure of-- the young Pakis will have more children than the young EU-27 native citizens in the coming generation.
You ask, well what is up?
Well, first check out the great pillar of "community resilience" 'Andy' Choudary,in these two videos here (the guy to his left is Sulyman Keeler, an English Muslim who is running one of 'Andy's' groups.
Two videos
Better yet, check out their website.
'Andy' and Co's Website
Here is a clip about "Islamic tolerance"
Lecture on Islamic tolerance
You may ask, why does this Wackjob matter. Well, Anjem Choudary just happens to be the Head Judge of the UK Shariah court system!!
85 Shariah courts
Not only that, but non-Muslims are starting to use the Shariah Court system in the UK!!
native use of Shariah courts
Well, you ask, do the Muslims really aim to conquer the West by mass Migration? Look at these three quotes:
A quote from an earlier article on 9/08/2006, from the Gates of Vienna blog:
Does this mean that ALL Muslims are lying about their true agenda, all of the time? No, of course not. Some are quite frank about their intentions.
Norway’s most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, has said in public that there’s a war going on between the West and Islam, and that Islam will win. “We’re the ones who will change you,” Krekar told. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.”
“Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.” He claimed that “our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours.” He loosely defined “Western thinking” as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-Islamic nations. Its “materialism, egoism and wildness” has altered Christianity, Krekar claimed.
I give two more quotes:
"The conquering of Rome, and Italy and Europe, means that Islam will return to Europe. It is necessary to conquer by war? NO! There is a peaceful conquest."
--Yusuf al Qaradawi
"There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe-- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
Gaddafi, Leader of Libya.
I think these people know what they are talking about.
Social changes and the Leftist treason threat:
Elisabeth said:
"I am fairly certain that European civilization will not disappear. It might change, but the natives will and must one day wake up and realize that without beer and bratwurst, without music and dance, without playboy magazine and glamour magazine, without democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech, life is not worth living."
Well, Elisabeth if things keep going the way they are, in 10 years, most native Europeans under 20 will think that Islam is 'part of our society" and that giving concessions to Shariah is "part of 'tolerance' and 'diversity'", and thus, 'the thing to do'.
The greatest threat to the West is the "Westbusters Alliance".
We had better deal FIRMLY with Leftist traitors (in a manner that Islamists will respect) before they start reinforcing the drive to Shariah in the West.
If the Leftists are not STOPPED with sedition and treason laws, I expect to see Leftists march alongside Islamists in the coming years to prevent "islamophobia and racism" [prevent Shariah implementation from being stopped in the West (Leftists won't get it)].
Don't be surprised if the Leftists march with their women in hijabs, and in gender segregated fashion, along with Caliphate flags alongside Greenpeace symbols.
The Leftist "feminists" will say that they must "show solidarity" with their 'Muslim sisters'. Leftists will assure you that they must "unite" in the "struggle" against "Western Hegemony".
The new slogan will be something like "Leftists and all migrants from the Ummah, UNITE!!"
The Birmingham Confrontation is just the prequel to what is to come.
The Clueless Traitor Left
If you don't understand how much the Leftists hate the West, you are as disadvantaged as the clueless Leftists thinking that the Islamists are the 'guides' leading us to the 'worker's paradise' on earth, at long last.
Watching Eagle:
Now, Elisabeth, people in the Sahel (senegal to Somalia), northern Nigeria, Yemen, and Afghanistan CAN AFORD seven children a woman, so Western women can afford larger families.
THey can't, not really. It's more the case that their the current state of the economy and culture requires they have large families. They're still largely subsistence farmer cultures, tied to the land they were born on. They can't hire workers because they're not rich enough, so they breed them instead. Until recently most of those children would have died before they reached three years old and a fair few would have died before they reached adulthood too.
Western culture is built differently. We aren't agrarian. We're divorced from the necessity to work the land we were born on. More to the point, children are treated as a burden on society rather than a benefit with the result that having more children means you end up increasing your costs without any benefit; they become a drain on your personal existence because the state has effectively declared them a drain on the world through its actions.
"... having more children means you end up increasing your costs without any benefit; they become a drain on your personal existence because the state has effectively declared them a drain on the world through its actions."
How can we change the perception of childbearing in the West? Do we have to wait until it becomes a survival necessity to reproduce, at which time it will probably already be too late, or is there another way to put large families back into vogue?
Personally I want many children because I take a long term view. There's some economical cost and inconvenience in the short term, but it will be beneficial and great fun to have lots of offspring and little helpers around when I'm an old man!
I think this comment is a better fit here than where I made it originally because we need to understand how western leftist governments have made children "unaffordable" and for taxpaying families while encouraging unlimited replication of tax consuming single mother, polygamous and other state dependent facsimiles of families.
Here's a little summary of what leftist "intelligentsia" did (and was allowed to do by supine voters) in full public view. In Scandinavia it is in full flower but the process is well underway in every Western country.
The elites kept raising taxes to pay for bigger government (power and perks they could never achieve in the private sphere despite their degrees) and entitlement programs to buy off voters/peasants.
Eventually many working citizens like Elizabeth now feel they cannot afford any or more children because through their taxes they are supporting adult dependents like lazy bureaucrats, Welfare deadbeats or "artists" who make bad art no one wants to buy.
The elites who created this situation where one half of a couple toils to pay government taxes and the other for personal family use now cry "We are short of youth manpower, especially to care for our elderly in nursing homes!"
Next, the elites import masses of unassimilating and uneducated immigrants from a culture with a terrible work ethic. (This would be funny if it were not so destructive). These immigrants of entitlement especially won't soil their hands with menial work in nursing homes for people they consider beneath them and their undisciplined "youth" run free in feral packs to terrorize the native elderly. The immigrant families are a NET DRAIN on the host society's resources and set about undermining it culturally as well as economically so the elites' "cure" is tenfold worse than the "disease" they caused.
An analogy would be that the elites slowly bled their productive citizens dry with transfusions into the government blood bank. Then they imported leeches to "fix" the anemia.
Anyone who objects to further immigration for self-evident reasons receives the full wrath of the elites, their propagandistic media and the police whose main job has evolved to protect the parasites from reprisals.
Sure leftists are deeply stupid or insane, but they invented a powerful witches' brew of white guilt, one-way multiculturalism and political correctness that paralyzes their victims. The fact that they themselves will be among the first to perish is cold comfort to the rest of us fighting off the alien spores they've loosed.
Middle Easterners and blacks have a lot of children and what do these children accomplish? Not much.
The Western mind-set values quality over quantity. While it would be great for people who espouse Western cultural values to have more children, it is better to focus on the needs of a few bright children rather than having a brood of low-IQed morons who won't accomplish anything.
I predict that when agriculture makes a come-back in the West (witness the urban farms, suburban farms, permaculture, rural farms, and botanical gardens which are starting to spring up again -- the real green revolution which is brewing in the West), white people will have more children.
Also, if we would allow young people to start college or trade school earlier, they could start families earlier as well. And don't discount the advanced reproductive technologies that allow older women to have babies, as well as advances in life extension and nutrition.
I wonder if the Duggar family have read this? ;)
But seriously...I agree with WAKE-UP in that it is truly politically incorrect to say who should stop breeding. At the same time, I can't help but feel that we, in the developed countries of the world, with all our medical marvels, have cheated Mother Nature. I know it's terribly depressing for couples who cannot conceive (and I do have 2 children of my own, so I probably have no right to speak here), but doesn't Mother Nature know best about how to keep the numbers of a species in check? Aren't there plenty of orphaned children who would love a home? Of course, us humans decide we want to do whatever we can to help ease the emotional pain of couples who cannot conceive by themselves, for whatever reason, by providing IVF and other treatments to make it happen no matter what. And then there are the irresponsible couples who decide that God is not happy with them using contraception, and WANTS them to populate the planet with as many children as they can possibly conceive and give birth to during their fruit bearing years! We could probably all take a wake-up pill or two. We think we humans know best, but we just don't.
Post a Comment