Going Extinct? President Obama and the Childless Women Who Adore Him So

Childless Unmarried Women Look to Obama as their Prince

...Unmarried women (along with ethnic minorities, the poor and the workers in the public bureaucracy) are rapidly becoming a core constituency of the Democratic party, in a sense replacing the ethnic white working class.

In the short term at least, the president and his party are seizing a huge opportunity. Since 1960, the percentage of the population that is over age 15 and unmarried increased by nearly half, 45 percent from 32 percent. Since 1976, the percentage of American women who did not have children by the time they reached their 40s doubled, to nearly 20 percent.

...There are now more houses with dogs than houses with children. _Joel Kotkin

DB: Obama Adored by Childless Women

In 2008, singles helped put Obama over the top, something widely recognized by party leaders. This summer’s surge in Obama’s ratings also derived largely from his growing appeal to single voters, and particularly women.

This reliance on single and childless voters could transform the Democratic party in the years ahead.

...But the Single Nation’s grip on power may not be sustainable for more than a generation. After all they, by definition, will have no heirs. This, notes author Eric Kauffman, hands the long-term advantage to generally more conservative family-oriented households, who often have two or more offspring. Birth rates among such conservative populations such as Mormons and evangelical Christians tend to be twice as high than those of the nonreligious. _Joel Kotkin

Obama Baby Bust
President Obama's reign has had a depressing effect on US birthrates -- much like the depressing effect it has had on the US economy as a whole.

U.S. births fell for the fourth year in a row, the government reported Wednesday, with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children. _Baby Bust

Women choose not to have marry and have children for a variety of reasons, including a lack of faith in the future. A depressed sense of the future may be due to economic or environmental beliefs, personal /emotional forebodings, radical feminist ideology, or to a vague spiritual void in the lieu of anything real to believe in.

Many of these women will grow to regret their current ideological stubborness and blind faith. But a significant number of them will simply grow old, embittered, and shrivel into ugly husks of their younger, more promising selves.

Dead end or no, they too are a part of the larger circle of life and death. Just hope that they do not cast too many votes for Obama in the coming November US elections. Zombies, as we know, do not understand the concept of honour.

Self-Important Professors With Silly Ideas Should Have to Pay a Carbon Tax For All the Hot Air They Create

Australian professor of Obstetrics Barry Walters has demanded that every human family with more than two children be required to pay a carbon tax, to offset the carbon footprint created by the extra babies.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

The professor's demands predictably flew like a lead balloon with Australia's more baby-friendly population.

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.

Source via Icecap

As anyone with a brain who is paying attention should understand by now, CO2 is not an existential risk. If he truly wanted to learn about true existential risks, Walters should visit the Lifeboat Foundation, Michael Anissimov, or any number of websites and bloggers linked here and there, who actually deal with real-life existential, global risks.

Global warming is the perfect crisis for idiots. Since it is not a serious problem, it doesn't matter that those working so hard and expensively on "solutions" haven't a clue as to what they are doing. The fact that they expose themselves so easily as anti-natalists, anti-humans, anti-babies etc., and promote the "post-human" vision of the planet Earth, suggests that they are not very intelligent.

They failed to learn the lessons of the Club of Rome, Stephen Schneider, Paul Ehrlich, and the many other doomseekers of the 1970s and 80s who now look like total fools for their doomish predictions.

As Bruce Hall points out in Hall of Record, there are no requirements for evidence or proof in the "global warming" crusade. Just making a prediction is considered "new evidence." What morons.

Russia (and the West) Goes Anti Natalist: Better Never to Have Been?

Anti natalism is the view that it is better not to be born. The argument is made by David Benatar in Better Never to Have Been:"The central idea of this book is that coming into existence is always a serious harm". The breeding pairs of several western countries are putting Benatar's ideas into practise.

The most recent predictions indicate a decline in the Russian population of twenty million people in the next decade due to an excessively low birthrate of 1.2 children per family (well below replacement level) and a rise in the death rate because of widespread alcoholism and the spread of disease.

According to one Professor Antonov, “Two thirds of Russian territory is settled now as sparsely as it was in the Neolithic Age: less than one person per square kilometer. In other words, east of the Urals, a demographic wasteland is superimposed on the geographic wasteland.”

What this startling point reveals is a dramatic decline in the desire for reproduction among the younger generation. The prevalence of one-child families, the decline in the number of recorded marriages, the increase in cohabitation, and the rise in divorce are all symptoms of this condition.

Source

But not just in Russia. Imagine a world with no brothers, no sisters, no uncles, no aunts, no cousins, no nieces, no nephews . . . western societies grow progressively "anti-natalist." Birthrates decline, more women choose sterilisation before ever giving birth. This is Russia, Italy, Spain. This is the western world, the world instigating its own "die off."

As more and more people find themselves living under urban conditions in which children no longer provide economic benefit to their parents, but rather are costly impediments to material success, people who are well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce themselves. And many others who are not so successful will imitate them....Japanese fertility rates have been below replacement levels since the mid-1950s, and the last time Europeans produced enough children to reproduce themselves was the mid-1970s. Yet modern institutions have yet to adapt to this new reality....Not only is the spread of urbanization and industrialization itself a major cause of falling fertility, it is also a major cause of so-called diseases of affluence, such as overeating, lack of exercise, and substance abuse, which leave a higher and higher percentage of the population stricken by chronic medical conditions. Those who reject modernity would thus seem to have an evolutionary advantage, whether they are clean-living Mormons or Muslims, or members of emerging sects and national movements that emphasize high birthrates and anti-materialism.

Source

Anti-Natalism is particularly strong among the young--those who ordinarily would produce the next generation of scientists, engineers, builders, caretakers. University educated youngsters are the most likely to have absorbed the ubiquitous defeatist message of the anti-natalists on campus.

Some lives are so bad that it would be wrong to start them. There is an obligation not to start these lives. But no lives are so good that it right to start them. There is no obligation to start these lives....So all our lives are such that it would have been better had they never been started.

Source

College students are listening to that message--they have no choice if they are to pass their professors' exams and achieve good grades in the professors' classes. But what is to become of the modern west--the welfare state--if students continue to put these ideas into practise?

The social institutions most likely to experience strain from the twin trends of ageing and depopulation are the pension and health systems that comprise the crown jewels of the postwar welfare state. These are by far the largest source of public expenditure in the industrial countries. And they are the programs most likely to be affected by the coming explosion in old-age dependency.

Source

The problem will not continue indefinitely. For Russia, rich with oil and gas, the end will come from the south and east. Resource hungry but population rich China will happily take the resources of a de-populated Siberia off Russia's hands. Putin and the other post-KGB oligarchs lack the ability to prevent it.

For Europe, the end will also come from the south and east. Pro natalist muslim immigrants to Europe will gladly utilise the mechanism of democracy to overturn secular liberalism. The current multiculturalist leftism that leads Europe lacks the ability to resist the dismantling of enlightenment safeguards against the type of tyranny that the new immigrants bring with them.

Japan will find that robots cannot truly replace people. They will also find that if the Japanese people are replaced by non-Japanese, their country will no longer be Japan. Claro que, si.

The future belongs to the people of the future. If the people of the present choose to adopt an anti-natalist stance, their time is as good as gone. But they should not assume that everyone will share their enthusiasm for non-existence. A die-off in western countries simply makes room for an uptick in birthrates for those who inherit the wealth of the absentee builders.

Should Men Get Married? Should Women?

I finally broke down and read Dr. Helen's massively popular posting "Should Men Get Married?" Dr. Helen's article was interesting, but her readers' comments were priceless.

Now Dr. Helen follows up with the posting "Should Women Get Married? Again, Dr. Helen's column is worth reading, but the readers' comments are required reading.

A topic so basic as the decision of whether to marry, raise children, how to live your life . . . obviously draws a great deal of interest in the blogosphere. The most fascinating thing about all the wildly varied points of view is how they reflect upon the pressing demographic issue of our time--the population implosion of western societies.

Western societies--and eastern nations that have adopted western traditions and attitudes--are leading the march into a better future for all humans. If these nations and societies deplete their own populations--for the fascinating reasons given in the comments at the above Dr. Helen columns--the earth will be left to those who can procreate well, but do very little else.

National birthrates and mean population IQs are inversely related, as the map suggests. Even communist China's birthrates are falling as China's population becomes more urban.A world with a population average IQ of 90--like our world--can progress scientifically, technologically, economically, as long as the populations at the upper end of the bell curve are large enough, and operate with enough freedoms.

When the population average IQ drops closer to 80, the number of "smart fraction" persons drops dangerously low. Only the nations that still have significant numbers of smart fraction individuals can hope to maintain any rate of scientific or technological progress.

If immigration and differential birthrates between subpopulations within a heterogeneous society combine to lower the average population IQ, the relative ranking of that nation within the industrialised first world, will drop.