ClappingTree’s Web 2.0

Response

11 Comments »

• COMMENTS SO FAR:

1. Ernie Small says:
   December 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am

   no, i do not think that this has ANYTHING to do with any legalization of gay marriage, and yes, white people (or people with more money in general) do tend to have less children.

   and what is up with the music in that video? the whole thing seems designed to scare white people, and the idea of the US being forced to accept overflowing immigrant populations seems highly unlikely, and, so what if we did?

   i am sorry, but i don’t trust any organization that says that it is dedicated to the “well being of the global white community”.
   in 100 years all of this will hopefully be seen as irrelevant. but until then…..

2. Crick says:
   January 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm

   A region with a fixed population growth rate has a population which grows..rapidly..Thanks for the post which i would like to know.

3. Ivy says:
   January 7th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

   Hmm… this reminds me of my political science class. Looking at the trend, it’s quite apparent what they based their study on: socioeconomic development.

   In terms of development, the Western world is leading, with the East Asians following closely behind. As countries become more developed, people tend to have less kids because children become a burden in terms of opportunity costs (money, time, effort, etc.) The average American or Japanese family would have to spend an incredible amount of money just to send their kids to school (and university), ensure that they are healthy and so forth. To top it off, there is no guarantee that the children will take care of their parents once they are financial stable.

   On the other hand, in underdeveloped and developing nations, having children is often seen with more positive light. The general sentiment is that the more kids he or she has, the more likely that someone will take care of them in the future. In agricultural societies, having more children would also mean more hands for the farm. And it is not a coincidence that more underdeveloped nations have agriculture-based economies.

   And of course, poorer economies also tend to mean less access to general education. Women who have little access to education have shown to be unfamiliar with the concept of family planning.

   There are lots more reasons tied up with birth rate and socioeconomic development, but I think you get my point. Hahaha. I’d like to avoid rewriting my 3rd year essay.

4. J.K. says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am

   Thanks, Ivy, for taking time to explain the socio-economic reasons behind lower birth rates.

   This is definitely a key reason. How do people have less babies? Through abstinence, NFP, contraceptives, abortions… and what else? Perhaps same-sex unions? In some populations, the percentage of gays has apparently been estimated at around 10 percent.

   I just did a search on worldwide abortion statistics. Just a quick extract:

   WORLDWIDE

   Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
   Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000

   Where abortions occur:
   83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries.

   UNITED STATES

   Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
   Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

   • While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women… (Still, that’s 60%.)
   • 64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women
   • 52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25.
   • Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0% (This median income group has the most abortions. They are neither the poorest nor the richest.).
   • 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
   • An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

   For facts on contraceptive usage, see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

5. J.K. says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am

   Thanks, Ernie. Thanks for giving your take on this. You could be right… or perhaps not.

   According to this article on gay Population:

   Question: Most go with the convention that 1 in 10 people is gay. Is this a myth and if so, what is the number?

   Answer (Gary Gates): That’s the single question that I’m asked the most. The answer is unfortunately not simple. I’ll respond with a question. What do you mean when you use the word “gay”? If you mean people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a survey, then the answer is that it’s likely not one in ten, but closer to one in twenty. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as “homosexual” or “bisexual”. A similar proportion of voters identify as GLB. If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure.”

   (Gary Gates is a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy.)

6. Ernie Small says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

   thanks for the thanks, JK.

   however, besides not being able to see what the legalization of gay marriage has anything to do with the proportional growth of the white population as compared to other ethnicities, i also don’t understand what the relevance is to the article you quoted about the estimates of the amount of homosexuals that exist worldwide.

7. J.K. says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

   Ernie, my point is that an apparent increase in homosexual population among whites might have contributed to the decrease in the whites’ population growth. For example:

   Permissive laws, permissive behaviour:

   “An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage—which is being considered by voters in several US states—is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.

   “Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior…

   “For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man’s birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man’s birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

   “For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence…

   “A woman with a college degree in the US is nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma. (True for men, more dramatic for women.) With more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle.”

   College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual:

   “Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors.

   “One excellent example illustrating this is an article recently written in the McGill University newspaper by McGill student Anna Montrose. In it, she wrote:

   ” “It’s hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching ‘The L Word’ and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don’t know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.”

   “(Michel Foucault is a major French “postmodern” philosopher; Judith Butler is a prominent “gender theorist” at UC Berkeley; and “The L-Word” is a popular TV drama about glamorous lesbians.)”

8. J.K. says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

   “Twin study investigations of homosexuality were conducted recently (in 2007/2008) in Sweden and Finland (where same sex civil unions have been legalized since 1995 and 2001 respectively). Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

   “But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.”

   http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/permissive_laws_permissive_behaviour/

   Take a look too at the World Homosexuality Laws map on Wikipedia. Please correct me if I’m wrong here: Seems to me that the countries where homosexuality is legal (especially same sex unions) have predominantly white populations.

9. Ernie Small says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

   oh, i see. what you are saying is that in countries where homosexuality is moreso encouraged (or in other words, tolerated) there are more instances of homosexuality….
   well, the only problem with that logic is that it fails to take into account the number of people who are forced to hide their homosexuality in places where it is shunned. tolerance toward gayness doesn’t create more gays, it liberates them!

   and in addition; it seems to me that if, in fact, there is a connection between the decrease in the population growth of whites due to less of them being forced by their society into living their lives pretending to be straight and thusly having less children (or even -GASP- adopting!) then that is something that the “global white population” should be proud of.

10. J.K. says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Ernie, what you said doesn’t sound logical. However, you do seem to be very sympathetic. Good then for you and those who have you as friends.

11. Ernie Small says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    fair enough. we’ll have to agree to disagree. a most stimulating discussion and topic, regardless…..

 

• ADD A COMMENT:

Hi! I love getting your comments, especially on-topic questions, opinions, experiences or insights. In fact, as Chris Brogan put it, "The more valuable your comments, the more it reflects on your ability and your character." Only then is it useful to build awareness of your brand. And if I'm impressed by your comment, I may write a post that links to some useful content on your blog. On the other hand, personal attacks (on anyone), inane comments, and advertorial comments (e.g. comments signed off with a product/service name and not a human name/nickname... read my rant here) will be deleted or sent to my Spam filter. (For off-topic messages, Contact Me or just "Shout".)

Your Name

Your eMail (will not be published)

Your Website

Your Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

NOTE: Comments are moderated on a daily or even weekly basis here. If your comment does not appear immediately, there is no need to resubmit it.