why conservatives will inherit the earth

[jakobscalpel]

Every once in awhile you come across an article that makes you stand up and cheer. This is one of them for me.

BTW, I came across the author, Steve Sailer, while searching for a refutation of the Freakonomics chapter on abortion and crime rate. He has a convincing one, thank goodness.
read me (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060305_patriarchy.htm)

[MadScot]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif If it were a movie I'd have stood up and left. I read as much as I could stomach. "No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it." I would argue that no advanced civilization has really endured. All great civilizations have eventually fallen. It typically happens when they reach the end of the consumer phase. A phase we are in now marked by ever increasing trade deficit and the declining manufacturing base.

He really lost me in the first couple sentences of the thesis. "Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend,"

I don't know how he can make a case that this is a pervasive trend. The population of the planet is projected to grow to 9 billion by the year 2050. Almost every country in the world still has a positive population growth. China has forced sterilization India has tried many techniques in an attempt to slow population growth. He doesn't even take Catholics into account South America continues to grow at a steady 8+%.

I also would question the wisdom of trying to back up any opinion based on the results of two election cycles where we had such voting irregularities as reported in Ohio and Florida. If you used the Bush to Clinton transition you would more than likely come up with numbers that would say the liberal population is growing. Being as though Gore won the popular vote I don't even know how one can justify much if any shift. Remeber more people voted against Bush in the last election than any incumbent President in history.

I also have to point out that the 2 examples he uses for birthrate in liberal states are 2 of the smallest states in the country Rhode Island and Vermont. Hardly represenative of say New York or California the 2 states with the most liberal voting clout.

[John @ 3300ft.]

The whole business about fertility rates is pointless. The article compares Utah to other states, but fails to grasp that the population of Utah is insignificant compared to CA.

[jakobscalpel]

At 1.5 babies per woman the population falls by 50% every 65 years. That rate indicates a significant shift in a population. The larger the population, the larger the effect in raw numbers. Obviously that makes the comparison between Utah and California more than relevant. The wild card is immigration...

[John @ 3300ft.]

ENTIRE Pop of Utah, 2000 census: 2.23 Million...
89% white
9% hispanic/Latino

What's the population of L.A. county?

I don't think there's going to be a significant increase in Utah's immigrant population. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif