Jeff Wise Wrote:American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.
But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to 87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000 women—not enough to sustain our current population.
Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.
A rebuttal article took this mangina approach:
John Seager Wrote:It is true that many nations—including the United States—will need to adjust to an older population. But it’s not any reason wax nostalgic about bygone days when women had no choice but to have large families, which Wise seems to do.
“One of the first things that countries do when they start to develop is educate their young people, including girls,” he wrote. “That dramatically improves the size and quality of the workforce. But it also introduces an opportunity cost for having babies.”
Why, yes, it does! And I bet most women today are thrilled that they have the choice to make family, a job or both their priority. If we have to adjust to a smaller population to allow the half of the population that’s historically been denied choice to gain some measure of control over their own lives, I’d say that’s a fine trade-off.
Wikipedia's list of sovereign states and dependencies by total fertility rate shows that the world average is somewhere around 2.5, with 2.1 being the population replacement rate.
What is to prevent the fertility rate from falling below replacement globally? Birth control is pretty affordable. The poor can easily say, "Let's only have a couple kids, because that's all we can afford." The rich can easily say, "Let's only have a couple kids, so we're not too distracted from our careers." (As families get richer, they send their daughters to school, and then those daughters become breadwinners who are too busy with their jobs to care for a bunch of kids.)
Theoretically, if kids brought in more money to support the family than what had to be spent to support them, then people might have kids for that reason. But more and more countries don't have an agricultural economy anymore where a lot of unskilled labor is needed for the farm. They have an industrialized economy that requires workers with expensive training.
Religion could theoretically influence people to have more kids. It seems like Catholics aren't taking seriously the rule against birth control, though. A problem arises, that a society needs to have a certain amount of logic in order to solve the problems that confront it, yet it needs to not be TOO logical or else it will discard religion and then suffer a population collapse.
The church has become cucked anyway. From what I've seen, most churches do whatever they can to discourage girls from getting married at a young age, and instead help provide indigent families whatever assistance they need to send those girls to college. There's an especially strong push to get minority women into school, because it's viewed as a way of breaking the cycle of poverty. Even the Mormons now want to send their young women out on missions rather than have them start families.
What about Muslims? Iran's fertility rate is 1.71; Turkey's 2.07. Syria's is 2.95, and Iraq's is 4.57, but I assume that's just because those are war-torn countries at the moment. I would imagine they'll become cucked too once the situation stabilizes:
Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi and Mary Mederios Kent Wrote:Within Israel, Muslim women had 4.0 children on average in 2005, compared with 2.7 for Jewish women, and 2.2 for Christian women. These cultural factors helped delay the transition to lower fertility in MENA, even as the region was developing economically.
But several changes in recent decades hastened the decline in fertility: delayed marriage, wider acceptance of and access to family planning services, and increased education of girls and young women. In some countries, the laws that have restricted women's rights and participation in the wider society are being relaxed. Some observers have noted that these fundamental changes demonstrate that Islam is not itself a barrier to fertility decline or improved status of women as many had assumed, but that the high fertility that persisted in the region for so long reflected a constellation of social and economic as well as religious factors.
Theoretically, as men, we can hold women to a standard by saying, "I'm not interested in marrying you unless you're going to quit school at 18 and start having a bunch of kids with me." How's that idea working out so far, though? It seems like most women these days place a much higher priority on having a high standard of living than on having more than two kids. They want to spend whatever extra money the family has on iPhones, vacations, a nicer house, etc. If you don't provide that for them, then they're unhaaaaaappy and want to leave.
So what are we going to do? Just tell her, "Look bitch, you need to do what I say, or you're going to get a spanking"? Unfortunately, if you propose a society where men are dominant in the family, you get attacked by manginas and white knights. I guess a certain number of men are alpha enough to keep their women under control through dread game and whatnot, but the majority of men are betas, which keeps the overall fertility rate low, because they're not able to get their women to cooperate without the help of larger cultural forces applying social pressure. I think that for the same reasons that it would be hard for all women to be 10s, it would be hard for all men to be alphas, because it's a measure that's based on comparison to others.
My prediction is that feminism drives the whole human race extinct by the year 4000, with the possible exception of a few indigenous tribes here and there that haven't discovered birth control yet.
![[Image: un_population_projections_steve_sailer_2.png]](http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/un_population_projections_steve_sailer_2.png)
RooshV.com