logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The unfolding extinction of western Europeans shows the fallibility of the infallible


Posted with permission:

The Report, February 3, 2003, p. 51

The unfolding extinction of western Europeans shows the fallibility of the infallible

By TED & VIRGINIA BYFIELD
All through our lives, from our distant youth onward, people of our generation were repeatedly warned of a dire circumstance threatening the world. It was called "the population explosion," and the warnings came from unimpeachable sources—earth scientists, demographers, and economists, men whose authority one dared not challenge. Their message was always the same.

By the 1980s, or at the latest some time in the 21st century, they predicted, vital resources would run out, massive starvation beset the world and people perish by the millions. The cause of this doom was that the human race was having far too many children. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood, therefore, deployed their forces about the globe, wildly wielding contraceptives and frantically opening abortion mills in a desperate effort to save humanity.

Many took their message to heart. Single men in North America voluntarily opted to be vasectomized, ostensibly to escape personal responsibility for the coming disaster. Parents would announce the advent of unplanned children with undisguised shame. "We may have one, possibly two, but certainly no more," newlyweds would typically vow, convinced that any more hungry young mouths would constitute wanton excess.

But now, it turns out, all this was balderdash. The experts, we are told, were dead wrong, and the problem is the precise reverse. There's a critical threat all right, but it stems from too few babies, not too many, and the process is rapidly reaching a point of no return.

In Europe, where birth rates are far below replacement levels, the Caucasian race may soon become a beleaguered minority or vanish entirely. Already, workforces cannot be maintained, economies are imperiled, and the most massive migration since the fall of the Roman Empire is replacing the missing Caucasians with Middle-Eastern workers. Since these continue having numerous children, Europe's democracies in the not-very-distant future will yield to Muslim autocracies and her great cathedrals become mosques. Europeans prefer not to talk about this. A French teacher was actually prosecuted for asking her students to calculate the date when France would have a Muslim majority. The newspapers covered the story—but did not reveal their conclusions.

Canada, with a birth rate 15% to 20% below replacement level,[1] also must maintain heavy immigration. U.S. figures are much the same, although complicated by an avalanche of Latino "illegals." Illegal or no, however, they are necessary to the U.S. economy.

Four recent books on the subject are reviewed in the current issue of Touchstone magazine by Leon ]. Podles, one of the magazine's senior editors.* The figures he quotes are more startling than ever. To maintain zero-population growth, women of childbearing age must have an average of 2.1 children, but Spain and Italy—lowest in Europe—are now down to 1.2. In Canada, the province of Quebec is a prime contender for the world's lowest birth rate, but the city of Bologna in Italy, at 0.8, probably still retains that title. And there are other ominous trends. In Vienna, Austria, for example, half the population is single.

The inevitable effects are indeed striking. As our population ages, Cartoon showing disproportionate burden of providing for the elderlythe proportion of seniors expands while the proportion of people who must support them diminishes. Newcomers brought in to do this job—replacing, in effect, our own non-existent children—will soon constitute a majority. But these replacements may not remain all that keen about providing massive tax subsidies for elderly Caucasians.

Meanwhile, our social planners are beginning to ask themselves why people, especially women, do not want to have children. Here are a few possible explanations:

  1. Because for 50 years we have employed every possible instrument of social propaganda to persuade women to embrace careers, which usually limit them to one child or none.
  2. Because our entire social apparatus emphasizes material well being as "success," and raising children erodes material well being.
  3. Because hare-brained "anti-spanking zealots work to prohibit effective discipline of children, which makes raising them extraordinarily difficult.
  4. Because teachers are encouraged to undermine parental authority in sex-education courses.
  5. Because divorce has been de-stigmatized and made into a common occurrence easily acquired, thereby depriving the family of the social support it has received in every previous era.
  6. Because wage levels and job opportunities no longer favour heads of families.
  7. Because State funding continues to support anti-birth lobby groups, although their efforts are socially detrimental and destructive.

Most serious of all is the pervasive anti-Christian bias of most of the media and at every government level. The greatest incentive for having children comes from the belief that they constitute a precious gift from God. No God means no children, which is why birth rates follow church-attendance rates downward. But failure to recognize God also entails divine judgment, as surely as effect follows cause. In this century, we may discover to our sorrow just what that means.

*A Question of Numbers, by Michael S. Teitelbaum and Jay Winter; Hill & Wang, New York. The Death of the West, by Patrick J. Buchanan; St. Martin's Press, New York. World Population Prospects, United Nations Publications, New York. The New Christendom: the Coming Global Christianity, by Philip Jenkins; Oxford University Press, New York.

______________

My note:

  1. The latest figures for Canada show a much more serious extent of the shortfall of the Canadian 'birth rate'. StatCan reported that, with an average of 1.49 children born to each Canadian woman during her fertile years (age 15 - 49), the fertility rate of Canadian women had in the year 2000 fallen to an all-time low. With a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman being required to maintain population levels, that puts the shortfall in the fertility rate at 29% for Canada. (The Daily, 2002 09 26, StatCan).
       In 1999 the Canadian fertility rate was at 1.52.
  2. Is the world overpopulated?

    If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have 98.6m2 of land to live on.

    Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.

    • Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
    • World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source: CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)

    It is obvious that the world's population density will be the controlling factor.  Is that a problem?  Will people any time soon be standing on each other's shoulders? 

    How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state the size of Texas,  even if we divide the whole population into families of three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?

    The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population densities. 

     A table of population densities of various countries, with columns for country, area, population, and population density per km^2

    Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?


The Report February 3, 2003

The REPORT
Copyright 2003 United Western Communications Ltd.
All Rights Reserved.


Index to more article from The Report

See also:

Feminism For Male College Students A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2003 02 01
Updates:
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)