6.6 Billion is "Depopulation"?

Please save these innocent swings from their horrifying fate!

10 Good Ridiculous Reasons to Have Another Child by Barbara

Reason One: Have another child to join with God in the creation of an immortal soul. Parents are given the incredible opportunity to assist God in the creation of an immortal soul. As the late Cardinal Mindszenty said, even the angels have not been given such a grace. Um, yeah. There are 6.6 Billion "immortal souls" right now. That's not including every other human that ever lived and died. Can God never be satisfied?

Reason Two: Have another child to bring joy into your life.There is no joy like the joy of welcoming another child into your life. You will marvel anew at how perfectly formed your little one is, and over how quickly you will fall head over heels in love with him. You will be enchanted with every tiny aspect of her appearance. The color of her hair, the shape of her nose, and the winsomeness of her smile will occasion endless happy debates about from which side of the family (yours, of course) she got that adorable trait. Baybeez ar teh kyoot!!!1!!! Babies take no work at all. Babies don't require any care or money or sleepless nights or sacrifice at all. They're just pure cute, all the time.

Reason Three: Have another child to grown in holiness and virtue.For those who marry and have families, children are the primary means God uses to help them grow in holiness and virtue. So, how many children does it take to be holy and virtuous, exactly? Clearly one isn't enough, what about two? What if I can only have three, am I less holy and virtuous than a woman with six? 50% less holy and virtuous, or are there diminishing returns for each baby?

Reason Four: Have another child to help end abortion.When Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by a young mother about the best way to proceed with pro-life work, she responded emphatically, "Have a big family. That is the best way to end abortion!"
How this works is not difficult to understand. As children become more rare due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, whole segments of society become less and less familiar with the sense of joy and hope that only babies and children can give. In this climate, contraception and abortion feed on themselves, as the increasingly selfish few further reduce their number. I know, children are so rare, I've gone 35 minutes without seeing one. Of course, I'm at work, but rare! Yes! 1 out of every 4 Americans is a child, I'm surprised I see any children at all.

Reason Five A: Have another child so your sons will have brothers and your daughters will have sisters. Children who have siblings learn early to share. They learn to take turns and to put the needs of others before their own. The bond formed between brothers and sisters is lifelong, and stronger than the bond between the closest friends. That's right. You should have children you can't afford and don't want so the children you already do have with have less siblings. And, hey, if you've have 3 boys so far in your quest to give your daughter a sister, just keep trying.





Reason Five B:Have another child so your sons will have sisters and your daughters will have brothers. Boys who have sisters learn the dignity of women. They learn to treat other girls and women with respect, as they consider how they would like their own sisters to be treated. Girls who have brothers learn the complementarity of men and women, both fashioned in the image and likeness of God. Because boys can't possibly learn about the "dignity of women" from the actual woman in their life, their mother.





Reason Six:Have another child so you (and your parents) won't be lonely in old age. People who have children don't have to rely upon strangers to care for them in their old age. That's right. There aren't any people in nursing homes who have children. You're not having children, your creating a free labor pool for later in life!





Reason Seven:Have another child because people are our greatest resource. Humans are blessed with the gifts of an intellect and free will. It is human ingenuity that discovers creative solutions to the problems which confront us. People without children should remember that it will be someone else's child who will become the doctor that performs their life-saving operations. Someone else's child will become the firefighter that saves their house. Someone else's child will become the railroad engineer. We can't have that! It must be my child who performs life saving operations and works on a train . . . ? Railroad engineer? Anyway, it could also be your child who developes a lifelong addiction to heroin or ends up working as a prostitute, so keep that in mind.





Reason Eight:Have another child to contribute to the economy.Families with children are fuel to the economy, purchasing houses and cars and college educations. Without young people to enter the workforce, social security systems fail. Without children to attend school, teachers are jobless. Many industries, from fast food restaurants to toy stores, obviously rely heavily upon business from and for children to stay in business. But ultimately the whole economy does. If you don't keep breeding McDONALDS WILL FAIL! Will the horror never end? How can our consumer society survive if you don't push out an endless stream of future consumers? I'm dooming us all!!!eleventy!!!





Have another child to counter global depopulation.Anyone who has traveled from coast to coast in the United States and seen the vast empty spaces should know that America is not overpopulated. In fact, the entire population of the world could live in the state of Texas, in single-family dwellings with front and back yards.
Fertility rates are falling everywhere. The world's population will never again double. If current trends continue, world population will peak by the middle of this century and then begin demographic freefall. If there is one empty acre of land without people on it, then we have failed!





Umm . . . why should the world's population double again? And demographic freefall? Really? On the one hand, these people are telling me all about how the brown mooslins are breeding OUT OF CONTROL, the next you're telling me the world doesn't have enough people in it? Also, this is an out and out lie. According to the World Population Data Sheet for 2007:

World population growth will continue. World population is 6.6 billion in
2007, up from 6.1 billion in 2000. It is projected to rise to 9.3 billion by
2050, with nearly all of that increase in developing countries. By 2008, half of
all people will live in urban areas.

Fertility rates may be rising again in some European countries. After
years of low but stable rates, the number of children women are having is
increasing in Italy, Spain, and Sweden, among others.

Fertility rates are holding steady at high levels in some developing
nations after years of decline. In Afghanistan, the rate is nearly seven
children per woman; in Nigeria, it is nearly six.

Yeah, I'm not feeling the panic.





Reason Ten: Have another child to help populate heaven.The child that you and your spouse have been generous in accepting from God was created to return to Him, after a life of love, service, and obedience on earth, to spend eternity with God in heaven.
Our Lord Himself said that there was plenty of room for those immortal souls. There is no overpopulation problem in Heaven! They have to live here first, Barbara.

Gaddafi Is One Sly Mofo

demographic, winter, china, america, muslim, islam, christian, racism, ageism

Selwyn Duke of American Thinker (lulz) gives Muammar al Gaddafi, Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya (that appears to be an official title. and you thought "president" was cool.) more credit than I would have thought possible. You'll see.

While the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding was good cinema damn, i think i just choked up my skull, it was also a big fat Hollywood fiction NO! it wasn't a documentary?!. With Greece's fertility rate of 1.36 children per woman -- well below the replacement level of 2.1 -- "big" is not a modifier demographers would associate with today's Greek families. In fact, a more accurate film might be called My Big Fat Muslim Wedding. does Mr. Duke get how averages work? there are big Greek families. not every Greek family involves a mother, a father, a child and part of a torso.

the next five, count 'em five, paragraphs are devoted to the demographic woes of notArab people. white europeans? not reproducing enough. asian? not reproducing enough. mexicans? no reproduco enougho. (though they do "stream across our sieve-like southern border" by the million.)

next up: ageism!

The young and vibrant are the worker bees; they are the inventors, innovators and creators of wealth. old people are like leeches, lazy, stupid leeches. They drive the economy. Of course, the elderly may take jobs out of necessity or boredom, lazy, stupid leeches! but they can match the economic engine of a peak-working-years population little more than they could match it on the athletic field. because in America's increasingly white collar economy, old is a disadvantage . . . asshat. This is part of the reason why famed economist Adam Smith taught that decreasing population correlates with economic depression. Adam Smith died in 1790. I'm guessing that prior to penecillin and pacemakers, "old age" was a different thing than it is today.

after the appetizer of ageism, we get to the main course: racism.

Now we come to the death of the West. Many of you know that Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, the face of 1980's terrorism, has been relatively well-behaved for nigh on 25 years now. he's busy being the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution Of course, this may be because Ronald Reagan effected a bomb-induced attitude adjustment in 1986. first of all, people died. be respectful. secondly, a lot has changed since 1986. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union fell apart, the socialism scare is . . . oh, yeah. Yet, such punitive action, while sometimes necessary, seldom yields a permanent change in behavior without a permanent change in vital signs. It didn't scare Saddam Hussein or the Taliban sufficiently, that's for sure. oh, for cryin' out loud. (Of course, they don't wear dresses, either. he included a link here. to a pay site. i'd just like to say: Muslims- they dress funny, hahahhahahaaha. asshat.) But is faint-heartedness on the part of Gaddafi the reason? Or is there another factor? Well, a clue can possibly be found in something he once said:

"There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50 million Muslims will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

translation via Mr. Duke: "Islam will spread through breeding like Mexicans through a sieve!"

Is this Gaddafi wearing pragmatist's clothes? instead of dresses! Perhaps he realizes that the West is voluntarily committing civilizational suicide, aka birth control and all he need do is stay out of its way. Gaddafi's so sly, he doesn't car if winning happens now, or 100 years after he dies. Now that's one sly mofo!

If so, he simply notes what civilizations from the good to the bad to the ugly dress wearin' mooslins! always have understood, that their success largely hinges upon their ability to replenish that invaluable resource: people. except for old people, who are like wrinkly vampires. lazy, wrinkly vampires. For example, the ancient Romans at one point became obsessed with the idea that they weren't creating enough babies which had everything to do with their deep understanding of the writings of Adam Smith?; Joseph Stalin, hardly a pro-lifer, outlawed abortion; and the Nazis had their Lebensborn program yeah, they were just a little interested in eugenics, which requires, you know, teh bebbes. And even today governments are taking note of the problem. To name a handful, Russia, Poland, France and an Italian town are offering citizens substantial monetary incentives (i.e., cash and sometimes tax breaks) to be fruitful and multiply. Yet it isn't working -- and for good reason: a cultural problem cannot be solved with a political solution. yeah, you can't buy my uterus with a tax break. Why, even demographically correct Augustus Caesar "demographically correct"? what does that mean?, who wielded absolute power, could not remedy the birth dearth among Roman nobility. i guess his power wasn't quite so absolute, now was it?

This almost universal concern is warranted because a people is like a species: a failure to reproduce leads to extinction. OW! Teh Stoopid, it burns! that is such an amazingly racist biology fail, i'm not sure what to say. Americans are not a species. Nor are Muslims. human beings are a species, but we're in no danger of dying out. Now, this doesn't mean that neutron bomb-like cityscapes how can cityscapes be like neutron bombs? does he perhaps mean a cityscape after a neutron bomb? in which case, why use a neutron bomb? N bombs are as destructive as A bombs, the added benefit is that they kill more people, not destroy more buildings. lie in the West's future. More likely is that its peoples will be dominated -- and supplanted -- by other cultures. so, the future will be exactly like the past? amazing! hey, Mr. Duke! Yeah, you! the land you're standing on belonged to the native peoples of the Americas- until they were dominated and supplanted by Europeans. Oh, its new master may not be Islam; it may be China, India or, even more likely, different groups in different parts of the West. who? who's left if we remove the US, Mexico, Korea, Japan, Europe, China, India and the entire Muslim world? Venezuela? The point is that while the Third World and Asia are following in our footsteps, they are far healthier demographically and may be able to recover. But we may soon be at the point of no return.

Now the question is, does this matter? does what matter, that the world is continuing just as it always has? If you listen to the left, our demographic demise is something to be ignored when possible and applauded when not. it's just the way things are, don't get your panties in a twist about it. As Kathryn Joyce did in an incredibly snide and stupid article titled "Missing: The ‘Right' Babies," yeah, she called you on your racism the concern about the West's baby bust is often chalked up to just "old-fashioned race panic." pretty much. The left's implication is that cultural suicide is our civilization's comeuppance. cultural suicide? talk to some real live middle easterners, Mr. Duke. They listen to our music, watch our movies, wear our clothes- we'll be all right.

The irony of this is that the people extinguishing themselves are leftists, people who aren't enlightened enough to understand that their "enlightened" values will die with them. people enlighted enough to understand that lots of brown babies isn't something to panic about. Whether tomorrow brings us a Chinese hegemon unlikely, a worldwide caliphate unlikely or, more likely, a bipolar or multi-polar world you mean a world the same as ours? what?, it may be a place ruled neither by the virtues of Christendom i'll be happy, anyway nor the values of those crucifying her why would you want that, Mr. Duke?. When the people who birthed political correctness disappear i'm fairly certain we're not supposed to go in the rapture, they won't be able to reproduce it any more than little baby libertines. what. the. fuck. Of course, also true is that the West's glorious triumphs, such as its unprecedented respect for human rights, would also fade into history. yes, no one will ever respect human rights again without America to give them an "attitude adjustment".

And this is something mature racist people consider. Would the world be a better place with China as the dominant force? If you have trouble with that one, ponder how the Chinese are currently raping Africa as they zealously exploit the continent's resources. They are making European colonialism look beneficent. probably not.

Mature racist people also do something else -- they acknowledge facts. And what bothers me about the current debate over population is the steadfast refusal to do so. there is no problem here. human beings are not dying out. as a whole, we're fine. all you're left with is the argument that certain types of humans need to be encouraged, and certain other types discouraged, and we call that racism. If you believe that man is a pox upon the planet, be forthcoming. If you think he needs to cut his numbers by 90 percent, make your case. If you want a "Planetary Regime" to control world population -- which Obama's science czar John Holdren wrote about before i was born, btw. -- stand and be counted. But, as liberal icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts." Before debating where we should go, there must be an acknowledgement of where we are. you're a racist. there we go. i acknowledged it.

When I ponder our materialism, promiscuity, frivolity and selfishness, our abortion-mill archipelago i repeat: what. the. fuck. that churns with Nazi-like efficiency, hey, you godwin'd your own article! it occurs to me that perhaps the leftists are right -- just not for the reasons they think. we're wrong even when we're right. It's not sins of our past that haunt us but those of our present, and maybe the euthanizing of Western civilization is, after all, our comeuppance. at this point, if everyone like you dies, i'm okay with western civilization dying off tomorrow.

Funny What You Learn When You Do Actual Research

muslim, uk, germany, citizenship, demographic, winter
We've heard it time and time again since 911: Muslims move into a country like the UK or Germany and never assimilate. They form their own little muslim communities which essentially become separate muslim countries within the host country.

That's not true.

A report by the Gallup and Coexist foundation found that Muslims are actually identify more with their adopted country than the other residents. They also have more confidence in the judicial system, financial institutions and the honesty of elections.

The report by Gallup and the Coexist Foundation says 77% of British Muslims identified with the UK, compared with 50% of the general public.

. . .

In Germany, 40% of Muslims identified with the country against 32% of the wider public.

Maybe the demographic winter won't be such a bad thing after all.

How 6 turns into 13.1 million

(hint: it's not lack of condoms.)

Anthony Gottlieb, in Faith = Fertility, manages the most offensive interpretation of simple demographic data EVAH!

From INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, Winter 2008

If a Martian were to look at a map of the Earth’s religions, what he might find most surprising is the fact that such a map can be drawn at all. why? does religion work differently on Mars. Is it in any way surprising that people with similar beliefs and values tend to live close to one another, if possible? Do Martians prefer the opposite? How strange--he might say to himself--that so many of the world’s Hindus are to be found in one place, namely India. uh, where hinduism was born? why would that be surprising? And how odd that Muslims are so very numerous in the Middle East. again, where muhammed was born and spread his new faith? how peculiar. With the disconcerting curiosity that is so typical of Martians yeah, it's not cute, give it up, he might wonder what explains this geographical clustering. see above. Do people move countries in order to be close to others of the same faith? Or do people simply tend to adopt the religion they grew up with? The answer, of course, is the latter--on the whole. again, this is so obvious not even the hypothetical martion should be surprised by it. There are exceptions: Jews moving to Israel, for example, and there are many other cases of religious migration.

Still, the huddling of the masses yearning to be free? faithful is mainly explained by the fact that religion runs in families. If you have a religion, it is probably the same one as your parents. Earlier this year a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that nearly three-quarters of American adults professed the religion in which they were raised. not surprising. But instead of finding this glass to be three-quarters full, newspapers preferred to notice that it was one-quarter empty. It was the minority of Americans who either switched religions, or abandoned religion altogether, who were highlighted in reports of the survey well duh. they're the oddballs, and oddballs are interesting. when was the last time you saw an article about people doing totally normal, boring tasks that everyone does? okay, the onion, but not satire?(“Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in US”, ran a headline in the New York Times).

Plainly it does not count as news that religion remains largely a family affair. Yet it should do be? "do" doesn't make sense here, because of its largely unnoticed consequences. dum dum dum! Some religious groups are dramatically outbreeding others, in ways that have an impact on America, Europe and elsewhere. the brown people are coming! the brown people are coming! Consider the Mormons, who grew from six people in a log-cabin in upstate New York in 1830 to 13.1m adherents around the world in 2007.

okay, i hate mormons. their religious book is such an obvious forgery it's ridiculous, they hate gays, and they endlessly proselytize. It's obnoxious. But, the above sentence, in context, makes it sound like 6 family members having endless incestuous sex eventually created 13.1 million people. Physically impossible, and rude to imply.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Mormons were a fringe sect in America, with decidedly unusual beliefs. as compared to what? i find their beliefs no more odd than anyone else's. yeesh. (They officially hold that God once had a body; that people exist as spirits before they are physically conceived; and that Jesus will one day commute between somewhere in Israel and somewhere in the United States. why is that last one strange? has this guy consulted his own beliefs lately?) Today Mormons are about to overtake Jews in America da dum, da dum, da dum; in fact, they may already have done so. And they almost had their own presidential candidate, in the person of Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts. no they didn't have their own presidential candidate. he would have been all republicans' candidate. that's how that works, asshat. The rapid rise of Mormons in America, growing by an average of 40% every decade in the 20th century, is mainly due to their large families. The American state with the highest birth rate is Utah, which is around 70% Mormon. In America, on average, Mormon women have nearly three times more children than Jewish women. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, however, do have plenty of offspring. because they're not allowed to use birth control. what do you think will happen when you combine sex with no birth control? in a healthy woman, a baby every year or so. This fact is changing the face of Israel, where such families have three times more children than other Israelis. As a result, at least a quarter of Israel’s population of under-17s is expected to be ultra-Orthodox by 2025, according to Eric Kaufmann at Harvard.

A similar but more gradual increase in the religious right has been taking place in America for decades, and not just because of Mormons. Conservative Protestant denominations as a whole grew much faster than liberal ones in 20th-century America, and it has been estimated that three-quarters of this growth is due simply to higher birth rates. again, sex+no birth control= lotsofbabies Were it not for the fact that Evangelical Christians reproduce faster than other Protestants, George Bush--who attracted most of the Evangelical votes--probably could not have made it back to the White House in 2004. and now i'm pro forced sterilization.

Like other demographers, Eric Kaufmann expects western Europe to become markedly more religious in the course of the 21st century, as a result of the relatively low fertility of unbelievers and immigration from more pious places pious, huh? not religious or observant? pious? does he really count mulsims as pious?. Not only do denominations with traditionalist values tend to have higher birth rates than their more liberal co-religionists, but countries that are relatively secularised usually reproduce more slowly than countries that are more religious. According to the World Bank, the nations with the largest proportions of unbelievers had an average annual population growth rate of just 0.7% in the period 1975-97, while the populations of the most religious countries grew three times as fast.If they want to spread their gospel, then, one might half-seriously conclude that atheists and agnostics ought to focus on having more children, to help overcome their demographic disadvantage. i dont have a gospel, asshat! i have the lack of a gospel! and i don't want to spread it, i want you to leave me the fuck alone!

Unfortunately for secularists, this may not work even as a joke. securalism is not a religion. and why "unfortunately"? are you finally admitting that you intend to kill us all, or at least remove our right to vote? Nobody knows exactly why religion and fertility tend to go together. Conventional wisdom says that female education hey, i can say no!, urbanisation, falling infant mortality it was not uncommon for a woman 80 years ago to have 15 children, only 10 of which made it to adulthood., and the switch from agriculture to industry and services all tend to cause declines in both religiosity and birth rates. In other words, secularisation and smaller families are caused by the same things. makes sense. Also, many religions enjoin believers to marry early make bad decisions while you're too young to know any better! and no divorce!, abjure abortion and sometimes even contraception "sometimes even"? how about "frequently"? how about "as long as men don't have to carry a baby for 9 months and then spend 36 hours giving birth, we don't need no stinkin' birth control"?, all of which leads to larger families. sex+no birth control= lotsofbabies.

But there may be a quite different factor at work as well. Having a large family might itself sometimes make people more religious, or make them less likely to lose their religion. chicken, egg? egg, chicken? Perhaps religion and fertility are linked in several ways at the same time. sociology is like that. Mary Eberstadt, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California, has suggested several ways in which the experience of forming a family might stimulate religious feelings among parents, at least some of the time. She notes that pregnancy and birth, the business of caring for children, and the horror of contemplating their death why, under normal circumstances, are people contemplating their child's death?, can stimulate an intensity of purpose that might make parents more open to religious sentiments yeah, and lack of sleep will make you delusional. Many common family events, she reasons, might encourage a broadly spiritual turn of mind, from selfless care for a sick relation to sacrifices for the sake of a child’s adulthood that one might never see. because atheists are incapable of sacrifice and selflessness. we're teh evul.

Eberstadt argues that part of the reason why western European Christians have become more secular is that they have been forming fewer stable families, and having fewer children when they do. or the other way around, it's hard to say. also, in western europe, and the US, life is simply too expensive for people to afford 10-15 kids, especially with only one spouse working and the other staying home to raise them. this may be affordable in india or the middle east, but it's not here. This, she suggests, may help to explain some puzzles about the timing of secularisation in certain places. In Ireland, for example, she notes that people started having smaller families before they stopped going to church. And, she argues, if something about having families can incline one to religion, this might shed some light on another mystery: why the sexes are not equally religious.

According to Rodney Stark, an American sociologist of religion, the generalisation that men are less religious than women “holds around the world and across the centuries”. In every country--both Christian and non-Christian--analysed by Dr Stark, based on data from the World Values Survey in the 1990s, more women than men said they would describe themselves as religious. There is no agreed explanation for this striking difference. Perhaps the fact that women play a rather larger role than men in the production and rearing of children has something to do with it. If family life does contribute to religiosity, then having larger families might backfire on unbelievers. It might make them more religious. And since faith is still largely a family affair, their children would then be more likely to be religious, too. so, either way we're screwed. have lots of babies to beat the fundagelacists at their own game and end up a fundagelacist. fuck it. i'll stick with none, thank you very much.