Liberal baby bust

[Atreides]

Here's a piece that basically says liberals are less likely to have as many kids as conservatives and their long-term effects.

 

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

 

 

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

 

What do you think?

[taks]

maybe... really hard to say. historically, liberalism and conservatism do seem to cycle.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

maybe... really hard to say.  historically, liberalism and conservatism do seem to cycle.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As taks said.

 

American conservatism seems to be popular right now in the U.S. But i'll i give another 5-10 years, and it's the other way around. The younger ones tend to revolt against their parents, no matter the reasons.

[WITHTEETH]

Children are most likely to get their beliefs from their parents and they personalities/interests from their friends.

 

I'm not worrying about it, the information is out there if they ever want to reach for it. Sometimes all it takes is recognition. With sciences, public schools, college becoming more popular, and the information age here, its going to be hard to have a narrow mind.

 

Philosophy will die when the curious mind dies. I can't see that coming anytime soon.

[Atreides]

The elections works by points each state is worth in the US, right? So the volume of votes doesn't matter as much as the locatin of the votes? Which I suppose is another kettle of fish.

[taks]

no, it does matter, in spite of what anybody claims otherwise. there are reasons, some for the better and others not so much better.

 

btw, conservatism is not necessarily = narrow mind. one of the failures of liberalism is labelling conservatives either narrow minded, or lacking in compassion. neither is really true, unless you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum. it gets worse when you consider about 60-70% of the population (in the US at least) really don't fit in the completely liberal or conservative camps...

 

taks

[julianw]

it gets worse when you consider about 60-70% of the population (in the US at least) really don't fit in the completely liberal or conservative camps...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And many of them don't vote. The turnout rate among registered voters is roughly 50% even for presidential elections. I'd say moderates tend to stay at home since the ultra liberals and conservatives have the stronger urge to voice their opinions.

[Enoch]

The real engine of population growth in America isn't domestic reproduction (which is right around the replacement rate), it's immigration.

[Judge Hades]

The real engine of population growth in America isn't domestic reproduction (which is right around the replacement rate), it's immigration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is a problem when it is done illegally.

[metadigital]

Children are most likely to get their beliefs from their parents and they personalities/interests from their friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would tend to say that (most) personality is innate, and is merely shaped by the environment (whether supportive or abusive). Also, don't kid yourself: most people think they are "new, improved" versions of their parents, yet grow up to be almost identical (not immediately: but remember that your parents are a few decades older than you are).

[Fenghuang]

I'm already turning into a younger version of my dad.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Isnt this the same thing as with Intellectual families getting only a few children but trailertrash breeding like rabbits?

[Llyranor]

Is that a political statement?

[WITHTEETH]

Children are most likely to get their beliefs from their parents and they personalities/interests from their friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would tend to say that (most) personality is innate, and is merely shaped by the environment (whether supportive or abusive). Also, don't kid yourself: most people think they are "new, improved" versions of their parents, yet grow up to be almost identical (not immediately: but remember that your parents are a few decades older than you are).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Innate? Apriori? Canyou explain your case, because I can't see it being innate, i personally believe that people aren't born with knowledge like morals ect... My defense is if you look around there seems to be contradiction everywhere with morality. IE is lieing really bad, is killing really wrong, equality is fair.

 

I believe in analytical knowledge but this wouldn't really count would it?

 

 

PS thanks mete for you know what! :D

[Judge Hades]

Our instincts tell use to kill, gives our sense of greed, and our need for pleasure. It is our environment, our civilization that keeps us from being the beasts that we are.

[WITHTEETH]

Our instincts tell use to kill, gives our sense of greed, and our need for pleasure.  It is our environment, our civilization that keeps us from being the beasts that we are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah instincts, quite possible. I'm not sure if our instints really do just want to kill and fight. Maybe it just only tries to find everything in personal interest. And if killing is part of it, then run. Maybe our instincts just naturally try to make us happy. Maybe we are self interestd, but part of our instincts are empathy and guilt, which also plays a roll in morality by creating compassion.

Edited April 13, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[metadigital]

Children are most likely to get their beliefs from their parents and they personalities/interests from their friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would tend to say that (most) personality is innate, and is merely shaped by the environment (whether supportive or abusive). Also, don't kid yourself: most people think they are "new, improved" versions of their parents, yet grow up to be almost identical (not immediately: but remember that your parents are a few decades older than you are).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Innate? Apriori? Canyou explain your case, because I can't see it being innate, i personally believe that people aren't born with knowledge like morals ect... My defense is if you look around there seems to be contradiction everywhere with morality. IE is lieing really bad, is killing really wrong, equality is fair.

 

I believe in analytical knowledge but this wouldn't really count would it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, no a posteriori! (empirical observation rather than theoretical deduction)

 

Babies have personalities. Cats have personalities. Spiders have personalities (Sir David Attenborough was reciting an experience when a film crew were trying to capture a couple of arachnids on celuloid, and one was shy, one was light-sensitive and one was happy to perform)!

 

Morals come from empathy. Empathy is a conseqence of self-awareness, which infants do not have (they do not distinguish between "self" and "the world").

 

Morals ≠ personality

 

Although different personalities would not necessarily have the same ethical values, that is more to do with Moral absolutism than personality.

[Laozi]

I think conservatives are slightly more likely to multiply because a good deal of them believe in an archaic religion that tells them to be fruitful. I can't remember what that religion is called, but I remember something about being fruitful but also not having excessive sexual thoughts.

 

Also most diseases have a tendency to fester.

[Atreides]

Fruity!