I was just reading an article in my national paper (Ireland) about the decline in the birth rate among white Americans and that white Americans are destined to be a minority in the near future, ethnic composition and cultural conservatism.
To get to the point she eventually came to say that the decline in white birth rates over a number of developed countries can be ascribed to feminism and secularism. She explains that feminists defer childbearing until later in life, automatically reducing fertility, which I can understand but have no idea if it's true.
She then says that 'secular, agnostic and atheist groups always have lower fertility rates than religious ones as they practice birth control more assiduously, and are more likely to choose childlessness for a number of reasons'. Now I have a very strong feeling that this is completely false and have never heard these claims before, especially since I have never considered my atheism as a factor in choosing to have children or not. Has anyone else ever come across this sort of claim before or have any information about it?
Well, I think both parents are gritting their teeth, but what can they do? Kick them (and their grandbaby girls) to the curb? Barge in the bedroom every time the kids get frisky and demand they use condoms? My brother will hopefully have a better job next month and, ideally, they'll be out by the time the new one shows her little face. But uh... yeah... hopefully REALLY having to support a family of 4 in this economy will will wise them up. And yeah, that wad of chewing gum does nothing for anyone.
Is there something inherently wrong with a declining population of "white" people? In all honesty, I wish people the world over would curb their kiddo-count because we really are dealing with overpopulation. Aside from that, this purist idea of "whites" must be flawed. People who have more melanin than "white" folks are often irritated when they're lumped into a category like "African American" when they may actually be from the Caribbean, or "Hispanic" when they're really from Columbia. Sometimes I get irritated that "white" people are all lumped together as if whiteness is some kind of race in and of itself. It's not. There are Russians, Germans, Italians (?), English, Irish, French, Swedish, Finnish, etc... and they actually do have different characteristics/cultures/features that differentiate them one from the other beyond just a pale hue. But in America, this truly is a melting pot, and even most people who consider their selves "white" have some Native American back there, or even black.
The thing is, because of interracial marriage and childbearing, ALL of the races are melding together. There are very few "pure" races, and I think that's good in many ways. I don't have a source, but I remember hearing/reading something that said humans will eventually all be a nice shade of tan... because of globalization. Now, I'm sure that's got to be merely someone's guess; that would certainly not happen in our lifetimes. But... personally... I have no problem with integrating the races so no one can claim they're the superior race (although I'm sure someone will still find a way to have a superiority complex). I am NOT concerned about becoming the minority... and I'm certainly not going to rush out and get pregnant to make sure the "brown people" don't overrun the neighborhood. That is an IGNORANT mindset.
I'm white and I live in a middle-class black suburb of Cleveland where I feel very at ease. I don't pick up any hostile vibes and while some white people might feel inherently unsafe when they are not the majority, there are places where real integration is already working. The world will someday be homogeneously brown.
Also, I'm pretty sure that in 100 years or so Spanish will be the predominant language in the U.S. All government forms will be available in English also, for the minority who still speak only English.
Ah, right "homogeneously brown" is the term I was looking for. Yup. I wish I was homogeneously brown and not so damn... white. I can tan, but... ah, to have that lovely olive skin. le sigh
IMO in the USA will happen what already happened in Latin America, everybody is so mixed that people identify by their nationality rather than by skin colour. The 1st time I heard the term "Afrolatino" was in an american website, this term is not known to us and I can assure you that there are blacks from Mexico, to Puerto Rico, to Argentina. But if they were born in Colombia, they are Colombians not Afrocolombian. IMHO it is riduiculous!.And I think you guys will end up giving up that term, the same as "Hispanic".
I think we love our countries and our cultures so much because we don't have those labels so we identify as a Nation, not as a group within a nation, that's why you won't hear about many racial crimes in this side of the world. But USA is not such an old country so with time you will evolve the racial classifications too.
This study claims that "Hispanics" are growing, but which are they talking about? There are 20 countries in Latin America that are Hispanics (Spanish).. They should be more specific, because I bet the growth of mexican population can't be the same as uruguayan population (mainly because there are less people from Uruguay in USA).
The biggest mistake of those studies is that they are calling "hispanics" a racial group when is not. "Hispanics" can contribute to bring more white, black, native, asian and arab babies to the world (all of these races make up what Hispanics are).
What the hell does the word "race" mean anymore anyway? When I was a kid, many decades ago, I learned there were four races defined along color lines: white, black, yellow, and red (Native Americans). Which is absurd, of course. What about Pacific Islanders and Native Australians to take just a couple examples?
So, more and more so-called races were added. Today, the world population is so thoroughly parsed into separate "races" that you end up with absurdities such as Mediterranean ethnic Jews being lumped into a different category from Arabs, whereas those who study DNA looking for actual differences say that the difference between Jews and Arabs is cultural, not genetic. It turns out that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Mediterranean Jew and an Arab genetically. That they hate each other is just a Mediterranean Hatfields vs. McCoys thing based on religion.
As is so often the case, religion is more a source of conflict than harmony.
In Egypt if you are a Christian your rights are not the same as if you are Muslim, basically you are class B citizen, and depending who wins the elections, Christians may be kicked out or murdered. Even if they share the same nationality and race. But Religion always finds the way to divide people.
I don't think Atheism is some sort of anticonceptive method (Would be cool though, can save us money). But for example when it comes to Abortion, I see how is an option for Atheists and is not one for theists. I also see that Atheists don't need to show off in front of a congregation their 10 kids like mormons do. Atheists also tend to be more realistic about life in general, and know that no deity will be favoring them from bringing kids to this world. Atheists tend to be free thinkers and have their own ideals on when is the right time and who is the right person, so family and church members can't influence them.
Now, I know many Atheist men and none of them has ever told me they don't want to have kids. They want it as much as the Catholics I know. Some of them already have a couple of their own. And others are expecting to have their 1st kid in the next 5 years. But this could be a cultural thing also.
So I would say, is harder for an Atheist to get an unwanted child when they are so many options to avoid it. And judging the high teen pregnancy statistics in the US, and the high religious fanatism, and the amount of single mothers, then yes Theists are more "fertile". But that's because they get more unwanted pregnancies than Atheists.