Does liberalism kill off the next generation?

[infoterror]

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.

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. Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

 

[Øjeblikket]

"progressive secularist" sounds like meme, firstly. Many people might rather not be hassled with diapers, mislead by genre, or personally indecisive. I find it highly unlikely that progthink is holding back on sowing in the hefer because it's better for the fact.

just saying.

 

[derek]

Ha, Nice article.

There is some mileage in asking whether the curbing of the world population is really such a bad thing.

 

[ølfeen]

A good observation. But liberalism is not so popular and not so active to "kill off the next generation".
However, spreading of liberal values is likely to reduce fertility in liberal Europe.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Liberals make rubbish parents. They would be unlikely to be able to discipline their kids sufficiently and if they had one it would be so out of control and annoying that it would put them off having any more. Liberal parents have been blamed as the reason kids are much more disruptive since the 1960s.
I think they put everyone off having kids. It is logical that liberalism will presumably go extinct as Infoterror says.

 

[RookParliament]

Liberals make rubbish parents. They would be unlikely to be able to discipline their kids sufficiently and if they had one it would be so out of control and annoying that it would put them off having any more. Liberal parents have been blamed as the reason kids are much more disruptive since the 1960s.
I think they put everyone off having kids. It is logical that liberalism will presumably go extinct as Infoterror says.

That's a broad brush you're painting there with.

 

[infoterror]

"progressive secularist" sounds like meme, firstly. Many people might rather not be hassled with diapers...

Uh, this was a contrast. Your argument is non-sequitur.

 

[infoterror]

That's a broad brush you're painting there with.

Not really, if you think like a philosopher.

Liberalism = radical individualism.

Traditionalism = holisticism.

Why is it surprising that the former would lead to more selfishness (thus fecal parenting) than the latter?

 

[RookParliament]

Not really, if you think like a philosopher.

Liberalism = radical individualism.

Traditionalism = holisticism.

Why is it surprising that the former would lead to more selfishness (thus fecal parenting) than the latter?

My point wasn't talking about the liberalism or traditionalism. It was taking offense at a broad statement saying that liberal make bad parents.

 

[speed]

Not really, if you think like a philosopher.

Liberalism = radical individualism.

Traditionalism = holisticism.

Why is it surprising that the former would lead to more selfishness (thus fecal parenting) than the latter?

This is a sweeping generalization if Ive ever seen one (and Ive made a few in my time).

Frankly, I see this liberalism you are talking about, as a development of our economic structure. Our economy is me me, I want to be rich, laissez faire, etc. But classical liberalism in its truest sense (the 19th century sense) is about empowering the individual over the corrupt and inefficient government, setting the individual free creatively over censorship and the mores of society. Point being, there is nothing wrong with the individual, until such a philosophy encourages individuals to be selfish to thge detriment of society and those around them.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I admit to generalising. I also generalised about kids being out of control, as there are obviously many who aren't, but there has been a rise in badly behaved obnoxnoxious (I won't use the word feral because that means wild and wild is good) hyperactive brats and this rise cooincided with the rise of the kind of selfish liberalism typified by the 60s era.

 

[infoterror]

Frankly, I see this liberalism you are talking about, as a development of our economic structure. Our economy is me me, I want to be rich, laissez faire, etc. But classical liberalism in its truest sense (the 19th century sense) is about empowering the individual over the corrupt and inefficient government, setting the individual free creatively over censorship and the mores of society. Point being, there is nothing wrong with the individual, until such a philosophy encourages individuals to be selfish to thge detriment of society and those around them.

What if the solution and problem were one and the same? Individualistic worldview makes crappy government, hence reaction to it.

Also, individualism means "individual over all else" -- the alternative is not "anti-individual" but "individual in context."

I guess people never learn, and we should just give up on finding a solution. Suicide is sweet.

 

[ølfeen]

It is logical that liberalism will presumably go extinct as Infoterror says.

If it runs in the family, with blood. But who will prevent the children of more conservative parents to have liberal thoughts? They are not exact copies of their parents. Liberalism gives more freedom and a chance to make your choise without thinking about the interests of the society you live in, if there is no punishment for this choise. So it would be always popular

The main (maybe, subconcious) aim of making more children is to save the nation you belong to, i believe, to enlarge its number, but would it make any real difference, wheather you have one child or three? Hardly. There would certainly be some people in your nation, who would bear children instead of you. A liberalist considers that he can afford to be the one, instead of whom some other people would bear children. The problem is, that the more people think like that, the quicker the nation will die out.

 

[MURAI]

I dont think liberalism directly causes a smaller population. But more of something that becomes a trend idealogy after a developing country grows to a first world country. For example, Japan's population now 100 million is expected to decrease to half in that in 50 years. I read it is more likely that third world countries have increasing populations and first world countries the opposite. Families in developing countries tend to desire more children. But in first world ones families know to have a materially and financially comfortable life it's the better choice to have fewer children.

It's still stupid that the U.N (the fucking good guys of the world) advocate ideas of democracy, liberalism and human rights and what not. You can't even talk about ideas like that if your country is not some large capitalist empire.

 

[infoterror]

It's still stupid that the U.N (the fucking good guys of the world) advocate ideas of democracy, liberalism and human rights and what not. You can't even talk about ideas like that if your country is not some large capitalist empire.

I've thought on this too. It's like all pity: feeling good for being the giver, even if the recipient isn't helped -- or is helped so incrementally they become your ward.

The UN and 1st world West are completely nuts however.

 

[speed]

What if the solution and problem were one and the same? Individualistic worldview makes crappy government, hence reaction to it.

Also, individualism means "individual over all else" -- the alternative is not "anti-individual" but "individual in context."

I guess people never learn, and we should just give up on finding a solution. Suicide is sweet.

We generally agree on most things infoterror, however... Your nationalism seems totally incompatable with your views and personality. Any nationalistic government that you so wish to see in power, will most likely be rather reactionary, and the very nature of government and power means such a government will be corrupted quickly. Thus, I wonder, wont the thing you are advocating (Nationalism) censor, harass, and arrest you? Unless you have some power, I can see you becoming a disillusioned and persecuted man after a few years--a Trostkyite if you will. I have always wondered this. You seem like a good nihilist chap, but you have these wildly optimistic dreams for earthly government and power--which you should know have no chance of becoming reality.

Ive been meaning to ask you this for awhile.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Uh, this [progressive secularist] was a contrast.

Instead of contrast, perhaps you meant to say secularist's adjective is redundant. I was handling some beer that evening, though.