Okay, there's no way on god's green earth that declining birth rates in Europe can be compared with the Black Death. None. At. All.

And yeah, the whole article is kinda nausea-inducing. Yech.

i didn't read the whole article. then again, this isn't the first time that i hear the 'argument' that america / europe / canada aren't making enough white babies. i hope i'm formulating this right, but with current reproductive rates below the replacement level, we are headed towards a 'demographic winter' anyway in some areas of the world. my personnal theory on the subject is that the ones most afraid of this demographic slump are business people in these same regions: they see the next wave of consumers will be smaller, their companies will make less money, etc... all the while india, china & other growing economies will take over, selling their products to their populations, and eventually their countried will be more powerful than them (and of course, they can't have that). the racism underneath it all isn't even hidden. yet, does anyone call them out on it?

I have really never understood why people get so excited over reports that, say, there are more women giving birth in certain parts of England who weren't born in England themselves than who were. Humans are not dying out. The women giving birth are paying taxes like anyone else. There is no crisis-- unless these people think that people from Poland or the Middle East or whatever are necessarily inferior to people from England. Really, to hear some people talk you'd think it was immigrants who posed some kind of danger, and not nationalists.

But that is the point Marnanel, they aren't saying that humans are dying out, they're saying WHITE people are dying out, particularly white CHRISTIANS.

And they are using that fear to motivate people to go back to a time where women had no choice and they pumped out as many babies as possible because they're trying to fight the Muslims who are "taking over" their countries. What I find interesting about the article is that these christian groups are now banding together with Muslims in order to fight women's rights and reproductive freedoms, when you'd think they wouldn't care about Muslim women gaining reproductive freedom, seeing as it would bring down the birth rate if women had more choices.

It's a frightening article and no, the racism isn't even hidden anymore. One country even had a reward for people having more than one child and some immigrants won the reward but they were asked to give it back because there weren't the "right" kind of people. It's sickening.

I got to about page three in the article. It strikes me as funny that back in the early 1900's or so, the people the eugenicists in this country were worried about were Catholic immigrants from countries like Poland and Italy. It's even funnier that today's racists are decrying the "demographic problem" of Latin American immigrants while simultaneously allying themselves with Latin American anti-population control ... wait, that's not funny, that's tragic.

Is anybody else getting uncomfortable flashes from The Handmaid's Tale? Or am I being overly melodramatic?

Of course, by those standards I'm an "unwoman," so I guess that at least forced birth wouldn't be one of my worries.

Clearly the only solution is for me to drop out of college, get off BC and start popping out lots of agnostic/atheist liberal babies.

*snark*

This will end in another few hundred years, if transportation remains good... the only reason there are such big differences between people at all is because of the former difficulty of transportation.
Bah!

No, sleipetorva, remain in college and pop em out- in fact I am planning to do the same.. at least the atheist agnostic babies will have educated mums...
:D

'm living in Italy right now. I actually have a different take.

The problem is that many of the western mainland countries seem liberal and modern on the outside, but they are actually still quite traditional when it comes to women's roles in the family. They are so unyielding here that many women say "screw it". For example, it doesn't seem like as men are as open to the idea to being a stay-at-home dad in these parts.

And as far as reproductive laws--don't believe the hype. They are strict here as well. Here's where Italy really shot itself in the foot. Case in point. Italy provides the first round of in-vitro for FREE. Yet Italians with means actually go to Spain (that's right) or Switzerland to pay cash, because the laws are less stringent. Guess what the middle class Italians do. No babies, thank you very much.

As for immigration: True integration a generation---if you can blend in and lose the accent---just like in the US. But Europeans can't even decide who they are! You got Kosovo breaking away, Belgium cracking at the seams...people fighting to perserve their languages and dialects...it's crazy.

I went to the Netherlands 10 years ago fully expecting to learn Dutch. But no, I wound up in Freisland--the northern part of the country--where they spoke, guess what? Fresian! How is someone supposed to integrate into that?

I could go on, but I won't.

Kimmy, you're not alone in the Handmaid's Tale flashbacks. I read articles like this, and I find myself looking at my own baby and wondering if I'm white enough to be used as a breeder. I pass more than 90% of the time, so I suspect my future would be bleak in a world controlled by the pro-family conservatives.

A little piece of me died and I then I played angry music on my guitar to make myself feel better. It didn't work, I think I need to go read a modest proposal......

Funny, all the mentions about Handmaid's Tale. One of Atwood's points in that novel was how the men were slaves to the patriarchy just as much as the women... something that our white Christian friends in Europe would do well to learn.

I've actually read Buchanan's book on this and while I don't buy his entire thesis I do understand where he is coming from. Its not that I agree with him but I am conflicted at times when thinking of the one world concept. If we truly broke down all cultural barriers, in a few hundred years there would be no more people with blonde or red hair, green or blue eyes. It seems a shame to lose that kind of diversity. I know its silly.

The birth rate is an issue in some countries as they cannot support their current systems without more people. Sweden as an example is well below replacement rate and as long as the people doing it aren't doing it for the wrong reasons, I see nothing wrong with calls being made for more births.

As far as some in England thinking Arabs now or the Catholics of old are somehow "inferior" to them, some do hold that view but I see it as more an issue of culture than ethnicity. The Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned giving Sharia law equal costanding with Britsh law. Men could have mulitiple wives for example as long as they weren't married in Britain. I think thats what the readers of these books are responding too. As an Irish girl myself I see nothing wrong with wanting to cherish one's culture as long as you dont disadvantage anyone else.

"If we truly broke down all cultural barriers, in a few hundred years there would be no more people with blonde or red hair, green or blue eyes."

Can't a couple of people with black hair and brown eyes still have a blonde blue-eyed baby, if both parents carry the recessive genes for blonde hair and blue eyes?

"The birth rate is an issue in some countries as they cannot support their current systems without more people."

OTOH, births aren't the only way to get more people. For starters, there's adoption (even though I bet some people would still complain about white Europeans who adopt African-American children). Meanwhile, what's wrong with accepting people who choose to join you?

"It seems a shame to lose that kind of diversity."

Dananddanica (I don't know which of you is on though lol), I disagree about the diversity disappearing. It won't. You will still have ppl with red hair, blonde hair, blue eyes or green, etc. Those things are not dependant upon being white, they're dependant upon having a couple (or several) recessive genes. All you need is for both parents to have at least one allele for a recessive trait, and then their kids could possibly express it instead of the dominant one.

And recessive genes from what I know, tend to pop up again and again in a family line rather than just withering up and dying away.

I think what would end up happening could be much cooler, as the diversity and variety of genes etc would spread leading to new combinations that you may not see as often now.

And I think the issue with culture is that too often people prefer to define themselves and their culture more by what they're *not*, rather than what they are.

And I agree with everyone who brought up the Handmaid's Tale. I also couldn't help think of that whole "Make love, not war" reframe. Except they've seem to redone it into "Make love for war". sigh.

i am frequently reminded of the handmaid's tale when reading about creepy fundie stuff like this. it's such a great book but i wish i could read it without thinking that anything in it could actually ever happen. *shudder*

i honestly don't know what's more appalling about this particular article--the misogyny or the racism. it makes me pukey all around.

Sometimes I wake up in night sweats frightened that the fundies will out-breed us all, but then I laugh at my childishness and go back to sleep. I suggest these people do the same. I also am reminded of the Handmaid's Tale. And fascists. Sure it might be a little sad if the current European cultures were replaced or changed, but change is healthy and a part of life. Sometimes you just need to let go. Especially since inter-cultural contacts lead to some wonderful advancements! Just look at the culture of modern Spain. It would not exist today if not for the melding of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic cultures during the middle ages. Culture is not static and was never meant to be.

"Sweden as an example is well below replacement rate and as long as the people doing it aren't doing it for the wrong reasons, I see nothing wrong with calls being made for more births."

While I understand the underlying point [though I can't say I especially agree with it] of people/countries having an interest in making sure their culture/population/whatever remains "intact" [and, as the previous poster mentioned, why does culture have to be treated as static?], I think it's sort of stupid of any country to promote people giving birth. There are TONS of people in the world, and we're essentially in an environmental crisis right now. Not to mention all the children that don't have homes already. Honestly, I have to say that actively encouraging further reproduction is slightly irresponsible. I am certainly not advocating for the restriction of women's reproductive rights in the least, and I mostly believe it's an intensely personal choice that shouldn't be subjected to governmental interference, but people seem to already be choosing not to reproduce.
The motives are full of xenophobia and the crazy-nationalist obsession with "preserving" culture and even dominant appearance of citizens... which is pretty offensive and petty considering the other issues at stake here.

I, too, and reminded of The Handmaid's Tale. Ew.

Mina,
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with accepting people who choose to join you. I would say there is something wrong with the people you accept in turn not accepting you as is becoming the case in some European countries.

Yes there are many ways you can increase a population other than the people already there having more kids. Adoption is a great option but the majority of the people will come through immigration. One of my best friends lives in Sweden, (Gothenburg, I'm hoping he can get me a sweet deal on a new Volvo), and they have a great country there. Lots of problems just like any other country but on the whole they have a great human rights record and excellent educational/social benefits. Their birth rate is really low from their "native" population. They used to be more willing to accept any kind of immigrant but they are running into problems with people coming in, rejecting Swedish culture, interjecting their own and becoming angry when they are asked to learn a little about Sweden, its language, history or culture. That doesn't seem right to me. All people benefit from a mixing of cultures and as noted above its not like "culture" is some specific thing and completely separate from any other but it seems it will be an especially rocky process when you mix progressive Western Europeans with some peoples ideas of islamic ideaology.

Faery,
That could very well be true. I've read a number of articles/reports that say blondes will not exist by 2200 or that freckles will go the way of the dodo by a certain date. I'm no geneticist but those publications are out there even if I discount the buchanan-type writings.

We will sign these posts from now on, this time you got --Dan

LlesbianLlama, exactly. Although I would never want to force my beliefs about reproduction onto anyone, I too find it irresponsible to be advocating reproduction (especially considering that the only reason they even care is so that they can keep out the brown people (horrors)). In the West people consume resources at an insane rate , many times more than the rest of the world, despite our lesser populations. Therefore, given the current environmental problems we are having, to have more Western children is probably negative.

I find it so ironic someone with a screen name like "athiest woman" loses sleeps over "fundies" (as do I) but prefers Islam. Not all Muslims fit the "stereotype" of stringently religious, woman-oppressing (as part of religion and/or "culture").

" Sure it might be a little sad if the current European cultures were replaced or changed, but change is healthy and a part of life. Sometimes you just need to let go. Especially since inter-cultural contacts lead to some wonderful advancements! Just look at the culture of modern Spain. It would not exist today if not for the melding of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic cultures during the middle ages. Culture is not static and was never meant to be."

Are you kidding me? I agree that the Jews and Muslims brought "reason" into Dark Ages Europe, but are you ACTUALLY saying that's what goes on now? Muslims of the modern world are importing wisdom to liberal, democratized, largely secular countries (as opposed to balking at it....anyone here heard of Theo van Gogh?)

I never understood how a Muslim from an economically stable family (as the 7/7/05 bus bombers were) and suicide bombers who enjoy living in a country like England can terrorize people and choose death.

I am aware racism exists in some of these places with new immigrants; but even then, I'm sorry, but again, I have no romantic feelings for those few who practice their "culture" by abusing and oppressing women, and am wary of all organized religion after being raised Catholic. If "multi-culturalism" means condoning practices we've worked centuries to rid ourselves of him, to hell with it. That doesn't mean disenfranchising or shutting people out simply b/c of the color of their skin, their faith (unless they're in a destructive cult), etc. etc.

But bitching about the fundies...the same people referred to as "the American Taliban" in the U.S....

How can we make blanket statements about the treasures of others' "cultures" when those "cultures" SOMETIME represent the worst in our own society?

P.S. Their is no population crisis...if preserving liberal European culture is the problem, hell, let people adopt impoverished North African orphans and raise children that way.

xxhelenaxx. Thanks for reading a whole lot of wrong into what I said. I NEVER said I preferred Islamic culture, although they do have some good ideas about a lot of things. Yeah, I know about what they did to Theo. I shouldn't actually have to say this, but I don't at all endorse the Taliban, and also do not support a culture when it oppresses or abuses women, or denies them agency. Also, I wasn't making blanket statements about how wonderful all other cultural aspects are, I was referring to a specific result (Modern Spanish culture) that came about because of a turbulent and violent time (hint, Spain was invaded by the Moors). Also the fundies are not the "american taliban" the two arise out of the same cultural patterns.

My family has a red haired recessive gene in there somewhere. It's cute because the vast majority of us are brown haired, brown eyed, yet I have 2 redheaded cousins and a redheaded uncle. I fully expect to birth my own redhead some day :)

that was...blatant.

i read the original quiverfull article and thought it was "meh."

and the duggar photo, imho, doesnt really belong on a feminist website. respect for choice extends to all choices.

This argument comes up all the time in Australia - and of course the white people who have the most babies are relatively poor, and we don't want THEM either! Oh, and I'll be sure to remind my blue-eyed blond-haired brother that he is a race traitor for having half-Chinese children...

The whole "red hair/blue eyes/pale skin will disappear" thing is racist propaganda. Outside of racist circles it gets spread by people with poor knowledge of genetics. The reality is recessive genes don't just go away. Almost all genetic diseases are recessive and even though the genes are usually very rare in populations (much rarer than red hair or blue eyes) they keep popping up when people least expect it. Like someone I know who had a child with a genetic disease and found out she and her husband shared an ancestor centuries ago on the other side of the world. The gene was passed on through all that time without disappearing.

Dananddanica the problem with the "blondes/redheads will go extinct!1!twelve!" thing: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/blondes.asp It's a myth.

And as other have mentioned, blondeness, red hair and light eyes? All in the recessives. I'm naturally a blonde with green eyes, and none of my family has either.

@athiestwoman:

My apologies if it was a little incoherent/hostile. (Should have finished that first sentence for myself because I put it there to avoid being accused of slandering ALL immigrants of Muslim countries to Europe...unfinished thought = I come off like especially unclear/accusatory).
I don't you think you prefer Islam or the Taliban.

My point is I'd call myself "liberal" and agnostic and I am wary of both and all fundies, which is why I cringe at the notion of "multiculturalism" b/c it seems to be a code word for tolerating what we wouldn't if it was done by the "majority".

Whether the "fundies" are white and Christian or brown and non-Christian believes "tradition" involves keeping women in their place and is wary of science (because science disrupts faith), to hell with it.

That and I did find the comment about the Middle Ages out of place. Nations with a majority of Muslims (even the non-Arab countries which are supposedly more liberal) are going through their own "dark age." Some of has alot more to do with poverty than poverty coupled with deliberate, institutionalized misogyny, but when they overlap, how can you tell?

I don't believe in churning out babies to "preserve culture", but if someone told me religious anti-choice anti-gay voters of all nationalities--Hispanic, American, Caribbean, etc.--were forming a "culture" that was dwarfing and swallowing the "culture" of moderates and liberals, I'd be uncomfortable too.

The notion of one "culture" (largely secularized, if flawed) being replaced by another (one in which some of its members practice violence and sexual humiliation of women) is not neutral. The whole "make babies" notion is not a good solution, but I hate pretending that you have to be blatantly, 100% racist if you don't turn a blind eye to honor killings, disowning daughters, and anything else condoned under the title of "tradition/culture/religion" of ANY people, not just whitey.

articles like this one make me want to...

Adopt a bunch of African and Middle Eastern babies with another woman when I am old enough and have a good career!(I am also a woman btw)

I have thought of this idea before, adopting children from an orphanage. I just think it would be nice to give some kids a chance at opportunities they normally wouldn't have in a foster home or orphanage.

People needs to stand up for these these "unwanted" kids! It must be horrible growing up in a country as a kid and having some rightwing nutjob tell you you are the wrong kind of kid!

um. wow.

it will be an especially rocky process when you mix progressive Western Europeans with some peoples ideas of islamic ideaology.

and

If we truly broke down all cultural barriers, in a few hundred years there would be no more people with blonde or red hair, green or blue eyes. It seems a shame to lose that kind of diversity.

i mean, wow.

If "multi-culturalism" means condoning practices we've worked centuries to rid ourselves of him, to hell with it.

i haven't got too much to add to that, because i think this jingoist, racist and ethnocentric claptrap speaks for itself.

i would like to thank folks like wonderbunny and becca for bringing some sense into the conversation and spike for genuinely engaging with what's going on and adding a perspective that i, for one, found enriching.

this other stuff - well, let's say it helps me understand why some people peg this site as having a very narrow demographic.

nevermind, i will say something.

i mean, really, i did not expect to wander on here during my all-nighter to find people defending racist christian fundies by arguing that brown people (and, particularly, muslims) are a monolithic, violent and right-wing group. i mean, really, that's what this is.

while i, too, feel threatened by the resurgence of right-wing fundamentalism among religions (particularly, abrahamic religions), i also see that it's a lot easier to see what's bad in the "other" than in our own culture.

that does not necessarily mean that these negative characteristics are any more essential in other cultures than they are in our white-christian dominated one.

see, where multiculturalism, for lack of a better word, comes in, is in recognizing that every culture, world-over, is rich and diverse and to break it down to a two-dimensional caricature of everything we fear is in the worst interest of humanity. multiculturalism, at its best, not co-opted ideal, involves listening before speaking, ie., recognizing that an overwhelming majority of people who are different than you are not monsters and that it's important to tell the difference between people who commit horrendous acts and people who just look like them.

no one here is trying to "turn a blind eye to honor killings," but rather to recognize that finding all muslims guilty of honor killings is paramount to finding all christians guilty of killing lgbt folks (um, 'cos christians don't have issues with viciously blaming women for premarital sex and rape) or all white people guilty of lynching black people. it's intellectually dishonest and serves to do nothing but push a blatantly political agenda and silence the voices of any allies we could have had in struggling against the oppression and repression of all people.

on the other hand, enough people of color have probably given up on trying to convince white people that they're human that it doesn't matter all that much now what a bunch of white liberal feminists think. is that what i want? no. is it reasonable in light of half the comments on this post? perhaps.

so before folks take a step further in justifying fundamentalism as a valid response to fundamentalism, just realize that that's exactly what it is.

white supremacism, jingoism, racism and ethnocentrism, by any other names, smell just as nasty.

ugh.

"The whole 'red hair/blue eyes/pale skin will disappear' thing is racist propaganda. Outside of racist circles it gets spread by people with poor knowledge of genetics. The reality is recessive genes don't just go away."

Right on!

"The whole 'make babies' notion is not a good solution, but I hate pretending that you have to be blatantly, 100% racist if you don't turn a blind eye to honor killings, disowning daughters, and anything else condoned under the title of 'tradition/culture/religion' of ANY people, not just whitey."

I totally agree. The answer is to accept good customs, accept neutral/harmless customs, and crack down on cruel customs, no matter where the customs are from.

When you read the article you get a clue of some aspects in the demographic discussion we have here in Germany for two or three years. Catholics and conservatives are freaking out because German women give birth to "only" 1,4 babies to average. And they say that the "wrong" Germans get the babies - turkish immigrants, poor people and people with a lower education. This is all such a crap, so stupid and shameful for a "civilized" society. And it's crazy that these populists are now supported by some Americans!

Puckalish,

Thank you. Really. I saw some of those comments and didn’t know how /didn’t have time to begin to address them, other than to say “F you!�. Actually I stopped reading this thread after I saw the blue-eye blonde hair nonsense…. So thank you for responding to those. The comments do get really nauseating for me whenever there is a post up about immigrants/ Muslims/ or Muslim women’s issues.

Less white babies being born. What the article is saying is the affluent, liberal, liberated culture is delaying/postponing childbirth and then having just one kid. Also, the culture having multiple babies is having them because there is little abortion, women are relegated to subservient roles, and Father/Husband is ruler of the household. In other words,the high birthrate is due to the aggressive patriarchy.

"Less white babies being born. What the article is saying is the affluent, liberal, liberated culture is delaying/postponing childbirth and then having just one kid. Also, the culture having multiple babies is having them because there is little abortion, women are relegated to subservient roles, and Father/Husband is ruler of the household. In other words,the high birthrate is due to the aggressive patriarchy."

...yet *neither* limiting immigration *nor* pushing locals to have more babies than they want will solve *this* problem.

Instead, how about liberating everyone including *all* immigrants (not just the patriarchs among them)? Have age-appropriate and comprehensive sex ed in all the schools, don't exclude the ones with "overwhelmingly immigrant" student bodies (a la the Netherlands in 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3398769.stm ). Have a high minimum age for marriage for everyone, not a lower one for recent immigrants and their descendants (remember how Sweden, with the support of the Federation of Kurdish Associations, fixed its double standard: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3267727.stm ). And so on.

"white supremacism, jingoism, racism and ethnocentrism, by any other names, smell just as nasty."

third that, thanks.

This is not to say that there are no issues there...
...but that article was crap.

Applause for writing an oversimplified, superficial, narrow-minded, factually weak article about how somebody else is oversimplifying, superficial and ideologically biased.

"white supremacism, jingoism, racism and ethnocentrism, by any other names, smell just as nasty."

Exactly. I'm now reminded of a couple of other cases involving white bigots and immigraton:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6985808.stm

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=809

"Applause for writing an oversimplified, superficial, narrow-minded, factually weak article about how somebody else is oversimplifying, superficial and ideologically biased."

Indeed. Also, I've seen the "I don't like domestic violence so I'm anti-immigrant" vs. "I like immigrants so I'm pro-domestic violence" debate a whole bunch of times out there and both sides are so stupid.

puck, i heart you.

Also, I just want to point out that when we do the redesign there will be the opportunity for comment rating and community moderation, which should help make for better discussions, etc...

dananddanica:

I'm sorry, but you're buying into racist fear mongering if you believe that blonde-haired blue-eyed people will go "extinct." First of all, no kind of human can go extinct if there are humans alive. Parts of species don't go extinct, entire species go extinct. Even if all the humans in the world died tomorrow except a group of humans living in Argentina who all had dark brown skin and hair, their genes may mutate and produce lighter (or darker) skin and hair. Skin, hair, and eyes are complex physical characteristics that are the result of many genes, not just one on/off switch between white/black and blue/brown and blonde/black. Also, humans are already in one global breeding population. There is absolutely no biological reason that any human can't breed with any other, and humans have the technology to travel to any environment in the world that supports human life. And, even if all humans took advantage of this fact, some people would still refuse to mate with people who don't look like them for racist and xenophobic reasons expressed in Joyce's article.

So don't worry, there will still be blonde hair, freckles, blue eyes, pale skin, and all the other hallmarks of whiteness that racists hold so dear.

And in Dutch news today:

"Minister Rouvoet of Youth & family says the Dutch should make more babies. This way the costs for [old people] can be covered. Dutch women have on average 1.7 children, and it should go up to 2.1. "That's the figure that Europe claims is sustainable". The minister acknowledges that family politics isn't very Dutch but it's an interesting discussion we should have".

Rouvoet is the bible literalist head of the (fringe) Christian party, but in the ruling coalition. He (or rather his wife) has 5 children.

Well put, puckalish.

May I also note that anyone who really craves blond or red hair can get it out of a bottle? Is it really that 'special'? And why is it that when these discussions come up it's only features identified with white people that are valued? I think my Korean-born niece's beautiful straight black hair is a genetic treasure too.

"May I also note that anyone who really craves blond or red hair can get it out of a bottle? Is it really that 'special"

No. It ain't. My husband is a strawberry blond, blue-eyed Italian and I'm African American. We can't wait to mix this sh*t up.

Let's all do our part now, shall we?

Too bad, Bwrites! Curly hair is genetically dominant! Soon we curly-haired ethnic types will rule the world! Mwah hah hah hah!

I don't see why a declining population is necessarily a bad thing.

First, there's the issue of the environment. The world population could use a good stabilizing right about now and it can't hurt for countries that consume the most to see some population decline.

Second, there's also the aspect of having less people to take care of. Children from small families are better off in many respects than children from large families. One reason is that better educated and well off couples tend to have fewer children. Another reason is simply that it's easier to provide for fewer children. A couple with just one child is better prepared to provide a college education to that child than a couple with four children. Why can't this work out the same way for larger populations? Funding pensions, Social Security, and other entitlements for the elderly will be difficult but not insurmountable.

Besides, I look at countries with exploding populations and I'm not seeing a lot of stability, wealth or happiness there. It would seem that if you keep your declining population well educated, creative and flexible, your country will only become more wealthy over time.

I agree with everyone above about the total creepy bullshit of the racist/xenophobic arguments... and that overall slowing in birth rates is good for the environment... however, isn't is possible that demographic changes could have real negative social effects (beyond culture and consumerism)?

I recall reading somewhere that there are serious consequences to having an inverted "population pyramid", so to speak, where there are more older people than there are younger people coming up behind them -- especially as people now live longer and longer past retirement age. Think about the impending Social Security crisis -- part of the problem is that there will be far more people drawing benefits from the system than there will be paying into it. I'm no anthropologist, but isn't one of the reasons that humans have traditionally had lots of children so that they would be sure to have someone to care for them in their old age? Granted, industrialized societies have found ways to collectively take care of the eldery even when they don't have any children (Social Security and Medicare being examples), but what happens when there aren't enough younger people paying into those things?

Someone probably knows a lot more about these issues than me, but it strikes me as something to think about that might be an actual rational concern.

But Caro, the issue isn't that these countries have a declining population. It's that the birthrate of the "native" populations is declining. Immigrants and their children are more than making up for any such decline. So the issue isn't that there won't be anyone to sustain the social fabric--it's just that more and more of those sustaining it won't be of the same ethnic background as the elderly who are being sustained.

Ugh. You know what? I WOULD like to see a decline in white Christian births. There, I said it, release the hounds, sound the alarm, let Bill O'Reilly out of his cage, whatever.

To offset the loss, though, I would like to see an increase in multiethnic/multifaith births.

@puckalish:

I am aware racism exists in some of these places with new immigrants; but even then, I'm sorry, but again, I have no romantic feelings for those few who practice their "culture" by abusing and oppressing women, and am wary of all organized religion after being raised Catholic. If "multi-culturalism" means condoning practices we've worked centuries to rid ourselves of him, to hell with it. That doesn't mean disenfranchising or shutting people out simply b/c of the color of their skin, their faith (unless they're in a destructive cult), etc. etc.

I don't think all Muslims or immigrants ascribe to those practices, but for those who do--I don't care whether you are a James Dobson follower or

among those who inevitably practice "traditions" that screw over women (and children, arguably, especially girls).

And yes I stand by the statement that whether it's package by "white Christian fundies" or those of ANY faith or ethnicity, if multi-culturalism means indulging the (minority, perhaps... but not negligible) members of a faith/"culture" that essentially view women as something at the disposal of men, no thanks.

I am not saying anyone here wants to turn a blind eye to honor killings, disowning daughters b/c its discovered they've had premarital sex, etc. etc. but the post is about how Arab/Muslim culture is equal or preferable "European" culture. I don't care. What I do care about is the preservation society that holds reason, gender equality, and separation of church/state over faith (or that faith is practiced but that its doctrines are held up to the light of reason/empathy). I could give a shit about the racial make-up of a society so long as those liberal values aren't entirely replaced or put at risk.

So here does the line between Muslims/immigrants who balance their oral tradition, faith, etc. etc. with liberal secular values of their resident countries begin, and that of the London bus bombers (who were educated, financially stable, and still chose to murder those people) end?

I am all for celebration of one's "culture" and "tradition", but only to a point.

Hell, let's talk about "Christian fundies"--what about THEIR fucked up view of "tradition?" How many moderate Christians (like moderate Muslims/non-white immigrants) are caught in-between, especially when faced with a less-religious (Democratic) electorate? Who do grate against--James Dobson or Howard Dean?

"Even if all the humans in the world died tomorrow except a group of humans living in Argentina who all had dark brown skin and hair, their genes may mutate and produce lighter (or darker) skin and hair."

...and their genes might *already* include the alleles for lighter (or darker) skin and hair.

"May I also note that anyone who really craves blond or red hair can get it out of a bottle? Is it really that 'special'?"

Right on. You can even get it everywhere: http://www.bettybeauty.com/

"Second, there's also the aspect of having less people to take care of. Children from small families are better off in many respects than children from large families. One reason is that better educated and well off couples tend to have fewer children."

Hey, the demographic shift doesn't always work in that order. People with less schooling can still do the math! Take a look at this:

http://www.population.org.za/SAPLER/National%20Survey/Learning%20from%20Others.htm

"Another reason is simply that it's easier to provide for fewer children. A couple with just one child is better prepared to provide a college education to that child than a couple with four children."

Yeah, good points. I'm grateful my parents didn't have 4 or 5 or 18 kids. :)

"Why can't this work out the same way for larger populations? Funding pensions, Social Security, and other entitlements for the elderly will be difficult but not insurmountable."

...and instead relying on a Ponzi scheme for the elderly won't be sustainable forever.

"I'm no anthropologist, but isn't one of the reasons that humans have traditionally had lots of children so that they would be sure to have someone to care for them in their old age?"

Too often that pattern seems to be:
1) have a bunch of kids
2) don't feed all of them enough
3) guilt trip the surviving sons into taking care of you (even if it's at the expense of the many kids you told them to have)

How good an example is this?

"If 'multi-culturalism' means condoning practices we've worked centuries to rid ourselves of him, to hell with it."

Yeah. Likewise, if "multi-culturalism" instead means rejecting those garbage practices and accepting cool, good, harmless, interesting, neutral, whatever practices from all over the world, thank heaven for it. :)

"And they say that the "wrong" Germans get the babies - turkish immigrants, poor people and people with a lower education."

Whatever color or accent the poor people have, they always have the "wrong" babies, until the norms change. This happened all the time in history. Yes, it sucks. Yes, we should fight the idiocy, etc, and no that doesn't mean accepting oppressive/cruel elements of culture along with the good ones. Geesh. Why do people always jump to that!!!
Even if blond haired blue eyed people *could* go "extinct", who cares?

I'm glad there's some good sense here... but Some of the idiots posting here, remind me why I don't donate to human charities. Any human is capable of growing up to be a bigoted jerk. Save the orangutans! :)

Very un-directional and ranty. Sorries.

Caro:

I happen to be an anthropologist! Though I'm still a budding one (as in still an undergrad) but I'll answer your question as best I can. The number of children people have tends to be based on the manner in which resources are obtained. As in, if two parents own a farm, they may have many kids to work on it, they must be more self-sustainable because they're in a rural area, they may have less of a chance of going to college, whatever factors lead to having many kids. If two parents live in a city, there is less space for kids, the costs of living are high, they are more likely to have access to birth control, etc. In my experience, I often hear people use the "have kids so they can take care of you when you're old" line as a way of guilting women into having lots of children instead of making lives for themselves in the public sphere. Not that it's bad to have a large family for support, love, all the good stuff family is about.

Your comment on the inverted pyramid demographic shift is intriguing to me because of how different the pyramid is from how the demographics look in countries most stricken by HIV/AIDS. In those countries, there are large numbers of people under the age of 15 and over the age of 40 or so. As in, people tend to die of complications from AIDS during their most fertile years, and the people who were reproducing before the AIDS pandemic blew up tend to still be alive. So, instead of a pyramid, they have an hourglass. Interesting!

Jessica said: ...when we do the redesign there will be the opportunity for comment rating and community moderation...
Yar! And thank you! I cannot wait.

Soujourner said: ...The comments do get really nauseating for me whenever there is a post up about immigrants/ Muslims/ or Muslim women’s issues... That makes me sad. Thanks for getting over your case of the fuck-yous to point out what you did.

this is a little long again, so skip to the bottom if you're short on time.

most important things first...

jessica, i heart you, too... and your boy... and you know it! someday, when i crawl out from under this rock, we should hang out...

sojourner, mina... y'all rock... i just got here first (and got over the waves of nausea first)...

geeky_girl - DON'T FORGET THE BONOBOS!

now onto the petty ish:
xxhelenaxx,
while i find it heartening that you dislike christian fundies, too, i don't really care right now... that's like saying you're in favor of not killing your own mother... so what?

what's important is to recognize that you were wrong when you said:

the post is about how Arab/Muslim culture is equal or preferable [to] "European" culture

is it? did you read the original article or jessica's words? i thought it was about an article discussing right-wing white-supremacist christian fundamentalists who feel threatened by people hailing from different cultural backgrounds and, as a result, want to proscribe women's role as producing as many babies as possible.

really, um, liberal.

the people showcased in that article (such as folks at pri) do not exactly hold women in the highest esteem.

and here's the point:

reframing the conversation in terms of comparing how "progressive" or "liberal" different cultures (only one of which - yours - you actually understand to any significant degree) is not only off-topic, but it betrays a bias that favors your culture above others... ie, ethnocentric.

you speak as if there are no liberal cultural strings within islam or "immigrant" (whatever that means) cultures... when it's easily demonstrable that islam has had threads of feminism, among other progressive movements, extant throughout it from the beginning.

heck, while the qu'ran proscribes the roles women may occupy, it does so in a much more liberatory fashion than the old or new testaments (going so far as to say that collectives of women are capable of doing business with men without the assistance of men - something not in lock step with, say ephisians, which commands women to follow men even when they know the men are wrong).

i mean, really... the united states is supposed to be this bastion of liberalism and reason, of the sort of which you're speaking - yet pakistan (a majority muslim state) had a female state leader back in 1988. and the united states is still debating whether a woman has the essential nature necessary to fulfill the role (or the legal precedent, see feministing's stories from yesterday).

so, please, before you go agreeing with fundamentalists that white people need to reproduce more rapidly because we're more enlightened or something, just take a step back, take a breath, and think about whether you know anything about the "Muslims/immigrants" of whom you're speaking.

finally - and this is really petty - you brought up "oral history" as if that's relevant at all! islam is a tradition grounded in textual reference and has a strong literate history - like the other abrahamic traditions... perhaps even more so, as the qu'ran is supposed to be the transcribed word of god, whereas the new testament is a collection of stories and letters from the apostles, edited by constantine and king james...

so it strikes me that you'd only bring up "oral tradition" in order to, once again, disparage the intellectual foundation of any culture but white, western, christian-grounded culture - and that's disgusting.

just because your mediated understanding of a culture foreign to your own is so crippled that you aren't aware of the liberating and progressive strains within it, doesn't mean they don't exist. heck... there's even a distinction between muslim feminists (muslim people who seek to balance secular liberal ideals and islam) and islamist feminists (muslim people who build their liberatory idealogies from islam and related spiritual teachings, which really spits in the face of your argument that culture has to be watered down to be liberatory).

i'm too busy to keep doing this.

just as:
"feminism" =/= man-hating
so:
"islam" =/= honor killings
"multiculturalism" =/= "indulging [those who] view women as something at the disposal of men"
"oral history" =/= backwards

I already see enough white people in Redmond, WA!

I do some business there and it's like seeing ghosts...If someone has a tan, it's something of a relief, but not much.

To have everything thrown off by a racist-xenophobic-sexist decree of "MAKE MORE WHITE BABIES" just sickens me.

To be honest, there is enough people on this planet. I took into account that if everyone on Earth could have the best living conditions, we would need 2 additional Earths (since one Earth could only support 2 billion people).