Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Liberals Losing Baby War

No joke -- a professor writes in the WSJ that theres a "baby gap" between left and right thats increasing:

Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%.
The article is interesting but not astoundingly so until you get to the angry person quote:
Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation.
Wanton breeding? Environmental destruction? Dire effects of overpopulation? Its like a flyer for a contraceptive company. I love the tone, the bitterness, the overall sneering tone of elitism. That's right -- liberals want you to have less kids for the health of the planet. That way we can join Europe in their upcoming social meltdown!


Matt said...

It's true. My parents wanted to have more than two children originally, but they felt morally obligated to stop because of over-population. I have a coworker that has 14 kids and isn't going to stop until his wife hits menopause (or however you spell that). You're so damn snarky when it comes to scientists warning us of the perils that we're going to have to face in the future. Why? Were you beaten as a child by a mad scientist or something? I just can't figure it out.

k2aggie07 said...

Because science has no place in directing public policy. To quote Heinlein:

"...'let the intelligent elite run things and you'll have utopia'. [It would fall] flat on its foolish face, of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility."

Scientists should stick to what they know -- science, and stay the heck out of policy.

Matt said...

Where did I say, "scientists should be in control of government?" Nobody takes these warnings seriously, including yourself. I've never heard a politician or anyone in the media ever talk about the negative impacts of us over-populating the planet. I'm just saying, heed warnings from people who obviously know what they're talking about, increase awareness. Right now, people in general don't know or even understand these effects. You mocking scientific warnings on your blog doesn't help anything.

k2aggie07 said...

Politicians and the media take their spoon-fed science all the time! Everything from DDT to global warming to overpopulation is fed to the media via "science"!

You say "obviously" know what theyre talking about, but you're completely taking that on blind faith. I have the *gall* to dissent with these so-called scientists and you mark me as anti-earth.

Its not hard to get a PhD. It really isn't. You go to college, then you go again for 5-10 years. Its more an issue of tenacity than brilliance. These people aren't superhumans because they have another degree on the wall.

I'll heed warnings from people when their warnings make sense. If Stephen Hawking said that all the air in the atmosphere was going to simultaneously ingnite, and we'd all die, I'd tell him to go jump in a lake, too.