rhubarb
2410809 Curiosities served
Conservative/Religious People May Not Accept Darwinism, but....
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Read/Post Comments (5)
Conservatives and evangelical religious people may spurn the insights of Darwin, but the fact remains that Darwinian reproductive selection give communities of such people an edge. Their reproductive success may be a quick preview of the future of this country.
Seattle: a city with a high proportion of well educated progressives, has 45 percent more dogs than children.
Salt Lake City: a city heavily populated by people of a conservative religious background has 19 percent more kids than dogs.
It's a humorous observation, nonetheless a striking pattern, found throughout the U.S. and Europe. And the pattern will have profound implication for what kind of societies we'll leave as a legacy for our descendants.
Fertility is now highly correlated to politcal and religious beliefs. The more progressive and secular, the less likely to have a big family; the more conservative and fundamentalist, the larger the family is likely to be.
In Utah the birth rate is 92 children for every 1,000 women, the highest in the nation. Vermont, a hotbed of progressive attitudes, has the country's lowest fertility rate, just 51 children per 1,000 women (and this in spite of bitterly cold winters).
Nearly 20 percent of American women who came of age in the '60's and '70's (can you say hippie?) are approaching the end of their fertile years without reproducing, which means that millions of progressive feminists are bequeathing no generational legacy. I see younger women, now in their 20's and 30's, having to learn our lessons all over again.
The trend? We're headed for a far more conservative future, by the numbers, in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback.
Oh, and that business of two children, just to "replace" yourselves? Look at the word "replace"--it means that the originals go away (die) and they are replaced by new ones (children). That's not what happens. The parents continue to live and the population in the house is doubled by the addition of two more. Given average life spans, that's 50 years of a 100 percent increase.
Seattle: a city with a high proportion of well educated progressives, has 45 percent more dogs than children.
Salt Lake City: a city heavily populated by people of a conservative religious background has 19 percent more kids than dogs.
It's a humorous observation, nonetheless a striking pattern, found throughout the U.S. and Europe. And the pattern will have profound implication for what kind of societies we'll leave as a legacy for our descendants.
Fertility is now highly correlated to politcal and religious beliefs. The more progressive and secular, the less likely to have a big family; the more conservative and fundamentalist, the larger the family is likely to be.
In Utah the birth rate is 92 children for every 1,000 women, the highest in the nation. Vermont, a hotbed of progressive attitudes, has the country's lowest fertility rate, just 51 children per 1,000 women (and this in spite of bitterly cold winters).
Nearly 20 percent of American women who came of age in the '60's and '70's (can you say hippie?) are approaching the end of their fertile years without reproducing, which means that millions of progressive feminists are bequeathing no generational legacy. I see younger women, now in their 20's and 30's, having to learn our lessons all over again.
The trend? We're headed for a far more conservative future, by the numbers, in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback.
Oh, and that business of two children, just to "replace" yourselves? Look at the word "replace"--it means that the originals go away (die) and they are replaced by new ones (children). That's not what happens. The parents continue to live and the population in the house is doubled by the addition of two more. Given average life spans, that's 50 years of a 100 percent increase.
Read/Post Comments (5)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
