Guest Post by TUJ
Awhile back, well known HBDer commenter 'The Undiscovered Jew' asked to supply a guest post. The series will come in a number of parts, all thoroughly researched by TUJ. Maybe it's just me, but it seems TUJ has a rather similar written voice as I do. Anyway, here's part 1:
One is hard pressed to think of any other issue which draws more intense interest and worry across the entire prism of American conservatism – both mainstream and non-mainstream – than that of the white American birth rate.
It is equally hard to think of another topic of debate among American conservatives that generates as much fact free assertions and bloviating than white fertility (naturally, the mainstream right rarely mentions the word “white” when bemoaning low Western fertility). But it is glaringly obvious when, for example, mainstream conservatives such as Laura Ingraham blame abortion for low birthrates in Europe, or National Review runs an article promoting an increase the child tax credit to $5,000 to help “middle class families” that their true objective is to raise the number of births among whites as opposed to increasing fecundity within American inner cities or French Muslims.
Rather than actually analyzing the matter, most conservatives have, in general, used the decline in American fertility as an iron bludgeon to strike out against the evils of liberalism in general, and feminism and modern hedonism in particular. The primary charge conservatives have levied against the left has been the allegation that abortion, sexual decadence, feminism, and the other usual suspects are the prime culprits behind low Western fertility. Whether the commenter making such an accusation is an outcast such as Lawrence Auster, or a mainstream authority such as Cal Thomas or Peggy Noonan, the charge is usually the same: Modern decadence and a turn away from historic cultural values are the antagonists of the play.
However, while the left is certainly guilty of many things, the evidence leftism caused the fall in Western fertility is disproven by analyzing fertility trends both historically and recently.
Firstly, if leftism and feminism are the primary factor involved in declining birthrates, why is it that, compared to Europe and America, fertility rates are even lower in socially conservative and patriarchal East Asia? And why do even more socially conservative Muslim states such as Iran, Tunisia, and Algeria have TFRs below the 2.1 level needed for replacement? Surely, if feminism were the major factor, then all these nations would maintain high birthrates rather than equaling and even falling behind European and American TFRs.
Secondly, if feminism and leftism caused the decline, why then did birthrates begin to rapidly descend in the mid-19th century across much of the advanced sections of the Western world and long before the birth of modern feminism?
Clearly, social liberalism - while of course not totally irrelevant to fertility as American Mormons show – provides a rather unsatisfying explanation for the decrease. As will be verified in this series of blog posts, the origin of low birthrates lies not in social liberalism, but in macro-economic trends which forced women to delay having children.
TUJ will continue outlining the causes and potential remedies for increasing white/high-IQ birth rates. Stay tuned. It gets very very good!
30 comments:
It is indeed a very complicated phenomenon that tends to get oversimplified.
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, though: this wouldn't be a big deal if we weren't drowning in a tsunami of foreign aliens.
The obvious solution would be for child welfare to only to go children with both white parents. Perhaps the 'white' parants have to show their own parents and maybe their grandparents were white too. Even then it should be means tested so white dunces don't get any incentives to breed up.
Undoutably overpopulation is a problem but it's a Tragedy of Commons scenario - those who the right thing by having fewer children inadvertedly let the jerks who have upteen babies inherit the future. A lower world population is good but it has to be made sure the dunces and thugs are the ones to be inspired to have few to no babies.
African population quadrupled in the 20th century.
right now there are so many young women in Africa, that if they continued at the current rate, they could outnumber all other races combined by the end of this century.
The difference between our fertility rate is the big threat. The UN in their infinite clumsiness failed to incentivize smaller families in Africa. We give tons of food aid when we should give contraceptives instead, not in addition. They could use it to achieve a stable population they could then feed.
And if conservatives really care about this issue, then they are out making babies instead of writing about the problem on small blogs nobody of significance reads. TUJ and STDV should put their money parts where their mouth is. Not literally.
The UN is finally making some noises about population control, in terms of environmental impact. Of course they could also mention the impact on child poverty of women averaging over 6 children due to lack of contraception.
***The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) claims that climate change could become “much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic” as population growth “outpaces the Earth’s capacity to adjust.***
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17786
you need sourced data. CLaiming birth rates declined in 19th century developed world is wrong - anyone who knows the data will find birthates as high as 4.0 in th 1950s.
Logical cogency.
For every declining asian country, there is one that is booming. Nor are Chinese rates homogenous - considering that many move West, and breed like rabbits.
As per white rates - they are homogenously declining in a mysterious global pattern irrespective of development (vis Eastern Europe, and Russi, and Argentina, and whites in Brazilian favellas)
Nor are East Asian countries declining faster than developed countries. China is forcing the population into decline. Japan is the real issue. Tunisia is quite developed, and Iran's numbers are by no means certain. Japan is not "patriarchal" in the sense you imply. Socially conservative? Depends what you mean.
By the way, the issue isn't declining numbers, but their replacements.
Do realize that the African-American fertility rate is now similar to that of the white U.S. fertility rate, around 1.8. It is true the recent Mexican immigrants have a fertility rate at around 3.0, but this will drop with the next generation. This one cannot be blamed on the NAMs.
We discussed this at feministX. The real reason for decline in fertility is economic development and increased standard of living as well as increased education of females (primary and secondary, not university). Fertility rates are rapidly declining all over the world, except for Sb-Saharan Africa. The fact that the Afro-Caribbean countries fertility rates have dropped to near replacement tells me that the same will happen in Sub-Saharan Africa in the coming decades.
This demographic transition is universal and is as irreversible as the industrial revolution.
Stop your belly-aching and get used to it.
This is only an introduction.
There's much more to come, which I'm sure will consider what you're saying.
There was a massive decline in Western fertility throughout the 19th century, especially in France and the United States:
Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Family Planning
Early History
Family size declined between 1800 and 1900 from 7.0 to 3.5 children (4). In 1900, six to nine of every 1000 women died in childbirth, and one in five children died during the first 5 years of life.* Distributing information and counseling patients about contraception and contraceptive devices was illegal under federal and state laws (8,9); the timing of ovulation, the length of the fertile period, and other reproductive facts were unknown.
Anonymous at 4.36PM-
"you need sourced data. CLaiming birthrates declined in 19th century developed world is wrong - anyone who knows the data will find birthrates as high as 4.0 in th 1950s."
Here are the stats for the US:
Birth rate Death rate per 1000
2000...14.7...8.7
1950...24.1...9.6
1900...37.6..17.2
1850...51.0..20.0
1800...55.0..27.0
source: www.populationeducation.org/docs/300millionlessons/
sgrusa.pdf
And-
"Abstract: American fertility has gone through dramatic changes in the past century, including the "baby boom" after World War II and the "baby bust" of the 1960s and the 1970s, which brought births below the replacement level of 2.11 births per woman for the first time in recorded history. In contrast, the average American woman in 1800 gave birth to seven children. Back then, the US was an agrarian society, so children had economic value. Cities saw a trend toward lower fertility: Families in Nantucket, for example, began limiting the number of children as early as the 1730s. Raising kids was costly, and, being whalers, residents had less incentive to have many children. Birth rates began dropping nationally during the 19th Century because of urbanization and the decreasing supply of farmland, whick lessened the need for extra hands. The most popular methods of family limitation were coitus interruptus, followed by the douche and the condom. By 1930 the US birth rate had fallen to about a third of that recorded in 1800. (excerpt)
Scientific American, 2003 Sep;289(3):38
And now for my unsourced comments-
The American birthrate was cut in half during the course of the 19th Century. By 1900 the average American woman had less than 4 children, and the native-born urban American had a birthrate below replacement. Birthrates declined dramatically during the Depression years, and demographers expected the American population to decline after 1980. No one predicted the Baby Boom!
This decline in the birthrate was nearly universal in the West during the 19th Century.
And yes, feminism had an impact as early as the 1850s, when some activists began expressing desire for careers over motherhood.
Sure, but of those 7 children, how many would live to see children of their own? The population growth rate is what really matters.
m stein
The UN is finally making some noises about population control, in terms of environmental impact. Of course they could also mention the impact on child poverty of women averaging over 6 children due to lack of contraception.
The report is mainly about population growth in third world countries (The Catholic Church is opposed to expanding contraceptives in the third world):
Birth control: the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
The report rejects the idea of Chinese-style laws to control population but says that a similar outcome could be achieved by promoting contraception and ensuring that women are better educated.
It says that 215 million women, mainly in developing countries, want contraception but have no access to it. Funding from donor countries for the UN’s birth control programme has fallen from $723 million (£431 million) at its peak in 1995 to $338 million in 2007.
The report also says that the longer women remain in education, the fewer babies they have. Women who have never gone to school have an average of 4.5 children. Those who complete one or two years of university have 1.7.
“Dollar for dollar, investments in voluntary family planning and girls’ education would, in the long run, reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least as much as investments in nuclear or wind energy,” the report says.
It reveals that, contrary to received wisdom, rates of unintended pregnancies are higher in rich countries than in poor ones. In Europe, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, an average of 41 per cent of pregnancies are unintended, compared with 35 per cent in developing countries.
However, most of the projected increase in population will be in developing countries. The population of Africa is expected to double to 2 billion by 2050. The population of all developed countries is likely to rise only 3 per cent, though this masks big differences, with the US population expected to rise by a third to 400 million and Japan’s expected to decline by a fifth to 100 million.
The Population Fund acknowledges that reducing population growth in developing countries would have little immediate impact on emissions because their inhabitants have relatively small carbon footprints. But it says that the savings would increase as the economies of developing countries grew and levels of consumption — and, therefore, emissions — rose.
The report says that population growth is only beginning to be recognised as an important topic in international negotiations on climate change. It will not be discussed at next month’s UN summit in Copenhagen.
“Fear of appearing supportive of population control has, until recently, held back any mention of ‘population’ in the climate debate.”
A spokeswoman for CAFOD, the Catholic aid agency, said that it did not support the promotion of birth control in poor countries, where the “underlying causes of large families . . . are lack of education of women and unequal power relationships between men and women”.
***A spokeswoman for CAFOD, the Catholic aid agency, said that it did not support the promotion of birth control in poor countries, where the “underlying causes of large families . . . are lack of education of women and unequal power relationships between men and women”.***
This person doesn't understand that women aren't going to have equal "power relationships" unless they can access contraception.
This person doesn't understand that women aren't going to have equal "power relationships" unless they can access contraception.
She's just repeating the position of the enire RCC.
Personally, I don't understand the Catholic objections to condoms and the pill - even for married couples.
I can see why the Church thinks abortion is murder (even though I don't agree) but contraception merely prevents the egg from being fertilitzed in the first place.
Apparently, the Catholics argue contraception encourages promiscuity but contraception also reduces the need for abortion. Logically, they should support abortion while encouraging more sexual restraint. There's no reason why they can't support contraception and sexual restraint simultaneously.
Logically, they should support abortion while encouraging more sexual restraint.
I meant
they should support contraception while encouraging more sexual restraint.
An African I know told me that in his country, children are your social security. If you don't have any, you will be poor in your old age (unless you can get a nephew or niece to take care of you). Also, lots of people there are still farmers who need child labor.
Onestdv,
Interesting example of omitted variable bias here? The guy compares economic growth in Jamaica & Singapore. No mention of the work by Heiner Rindermann, Lynn or Vanhanen.
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/jamaica-vs-singapore
@ Holtz:
Great article.
"Interesting example of omitted variable bias here? "
I think that about sums it up. While everything they say is probably true, all those phenomena are all caused by the same obvious initial cause: HBD.
It's funny how they twist themselves just to avoid the obvious.
This reminds of a joke about Catholics:
Q. What do you call those who practice the rhythm or the withdrawal methods of contraception?
A. Parents! :)
In Colorado, Hispanic births fell 7.9% YOY from 2007-2008.
Asians were down 2.1%, Native Americans down by 4.1% and whites were down by 0.08%:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/mchdata/vs2007/Colorado.pdf
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/vs/2008/Colorado.pdf
whites were down by 0.08%:
I meant
down by 0.8%
I think it would be a great virtue in a theory if it could explain the timing of TFR Reduction in White Countries while also explaining the timing of TFR Reduction in East Asian Countries.
I'm looking forward to the next installment.
What's needed is a foundation / charity to provide smart, young, fertile, struggling (struggling because they are young, not because they are stupid) married White couples with economic assistance so they can make babies while they are young and fertile, rather than have them burn up fertile years trying to accumulate sufficient money to afford family formation.
How about interest-free loans that White moms, in order to replenish the fund, can repay by working fulltime after menopause? She gets to have her kids and her dignity of "not taking charity."
"There's no reason why they can't support contraception and sexual restraint simultaneously."
Unfortunately, the Church looks at the increasingly secular First World and sees the Third World as its "growth sector". A less cynical view is that they see contraception as promoting promiscuity. The two ideas are not incompatible.
"It is true the recent Mexican immigrants have a fertility rate at around 3.0, but this will drop with the next generation."
As long as we permit massive waves of legal and illegal immigration, there will always be a "first generation" that reproduces at an unsustainable rate.
Unfortunately, the Church looks at the increasingly secular First World and sees the Third World as its "growth sector". A less cynical view is that they see contraception as promoting promiscuity. The two ideas are not incompatible.
Nah.
I don't agree with your cynicism in this case.
First of all, I don't think the Church is as interested in creating a population boom in the third world so much as simply converting them to Catholicism.
Secondly, the Church also warns Europeans and Americans not to use contraception. Their advice isn't limited simply to third worlders. Fortunately, hardly anyone in Europe or America is stupid enough to obey the Church's suggestions when it comes to condoms and the pill.
More importantly, the Catholic Church does promote the rhythm method. It may not be perfect, but it does lower birth rates.
But why wouldn't the rhythm method lead to promiscuity and abortion?
But why wouldn't the rhythm method lead to promiscuity and abortion?
Practicing the rhythm method should cause more abortions than the use of condoms and the pill.
But the Catholic Church does work towards differential birthrates between the West and the Third World by telling the Thirld Worlders birth control is an evil plot by the West to weaken the Third World. This is of course not as effective in the West.
But the Catholic Church does work towards differential birthrates between the West and the Third World by telling the Thirld Worlders birth control is an evil plot by the West to weaken the Third World. This is of course not as effective in the West.
You are being paranoid. The Church would restrict, if not necessarily ban, contraception and abortion in the first world just as quickly as they would in the third world if they had the legal authority to do so. They are not being hypocritical: The RCC wants to restrict contraception in the first world as badly as they do anywher else.
And when have officials in the RCC said contraception is a plot by first world against the third? Do you have quotes?
Post a Comment