What would a war be without a baby boom(let)? Alone in the Occident, Americans continue to invest in the future with strong population growth, while Europe continues to die off faster than it reproduces. Will these new babies be the inheritors of a lonely world in Steynian fashion?
-
Archives
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
-
Meta
“Experts believe there is a mix of reasons: a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.”
Sort of interesting way to phrase it.
I will say, though, that poor education and poverty probably do account for a greater desire to have children. Children are inherently hopeful. It surprises me not at all that young women in poor (not necessarily financially poor, ie. Spears girls) want to and do have babies even though most people would consider that a poor choice for them to make.
There is a strong bias against having children in the United States. Note that a replacement fertility rate is expressed as a baby boom! But I think there may be a shift happening as the well educated (and not-poor) start to realize that their children are ultimately contributers rather than consumers, and that they *can* morally justify having them.
Yes indeed. Their characterization of the development leaves quite a lot to be desired, IMO.