.

March 2, 2006 4:23 PM

From Foreign Policy, Patriarchy's Big Comeback. Maybe you didn't believe it had been away. But Societies that are today the most secular and the most generous with their underfunded welfare states will be the most prone to religious revivals and a rebirth of the patriarchal family. The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father.
posted by jfuller (58 comments total)

oooookay...
posted by delmoi at 4:36 PM on March 2, 2006

wishful thinking does not make something true. Might as well say that rap music has so alienated people that soon the world will be taken over by Schubert Lieder.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 4:41 PM on March 2, 2006

Almost all religions tell their members to be fruitful and multiply, in more or less those terms. There certainly is a tendency towards higher birthrates, but when secular minds pushing real advancement do decline the overall critical thinking of the society goes sharply down and its civilization dissolves under its own illusions. This ends up leaving others to beat them out. It's a cycle, and one in which the U.S. is about 15 years over the crest.
posted by mystyk at 4:59 PM on March 2, 2006

Does anyone actually think it's a good idea for government to replace the family? If so, why?
posted by JekPorkins at 5:00 PM on March 2, 2006

Here's an interesting challenge, I call it pop philosophy:

Looking at global trends what is the most outlandish scenario you can come up with that sounds not only plausible, but erudite and insightful, at the same time being almost completely vacuous.

I'll start.

The past 400 years of human history has been, almost exclusively the history of scientific achievement. Great political shifts have been merely the veerner upon socioeconomic conflicts won by those with the best technology. The US civil war pitted outmoded feudalism with unfettered capitalism that viewed enslaved races as potential consumers and/or workers motivated by profit sharing, not the whip.

The world wars were won and lost by technology, particularly the U.S war against Japan and the splitting of the Atom.

But as more's law has shown, technology is growing at an exponential rate, doubling every 18 months or somesuch, and as technology grows so quickly, so too will conflict and strife increase with the same exponent. Globally, there are more conflicts today, involving more participants, then in 1946. As the last of the oil is gobbled up new technologies promise to liberate some, and annihilate others.

Where once a 500 year, then 50 year hegemony will soon be replaced by the 5 or half year king of the hill struggle. China, then India, then where?

Human growth rates, while stagnant may be augmented by technology, as population is a powerful engine for capitalism. Expect first fertility treatments, ultimately invitro human growth, as global population peaks at 100 billion total war will erupt in huge monolithic cities built by the hands of tens of billions to house hundreds of billions. Vast systems of structure, hundreds of miles across and deep teaming with one on one violence over scarce resources, even nuclear fuel, disappear.
posted by delmoi at 5:03 PM on March 2, 2006

Demographotimebomborific!
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2006

Delmoi, I can't entirely parse the syntax of that last paragraph but then Cliff Pickover gets a bit breathless too. Expect a membership invitation from Edge any day now.

posted by jfuller at 5:14 PM on March 2, 2006

Religion is in serious decline in Europe. Why would a bezlief no lopnger in favor or believed be revived? Should we also go back to believing inThe Tooth Fairy?
posted by Postroad at 5:23 PM on March 2, 2006

> Religion is in serious decline in Europe.

Postroad, how oblivious are you, exactly? Christianity is in serious decline in Europe.

posted by jfuller at 5:32 PM on March 2, 2006

High birth rates affecting culture is kinda predicated on the premise that values, especially religious ones, are easily passed from generation to generation even in the face of large institutions and their tendency towards inertia.
Or: How is this different than the predictions of the '60s that we'd be overrun by Mexicans, or the predictions in the teens and '20s that black birthrates would lead to white society be subsumed? While birthrates affect national character and cultural character, previous predictions of have fallen short by an order of magnitude and the results are almost always more interesting when viewed in historical time scale than they are dramatic changes within a lifetime.
posted by klangklangston at 5:51 PM on March 2, 2006

jfuller: > Religion is in serious decline in Europe.

Postroad, how oblivious are you, exactly? Christianity is in serious decline in Europe.

No, all religion is in serious decline in Europe, if you factor out the effects of recent Muslim immigration.

I bet if you look at 3rd generation immigrants in England from Pakistan that a large proportion are no longer practicing Muslims.

I've seen statitistics that show the population of Jews in the US is declining (that is if "Jew" is taken to mean "practicing Jew" not just Jewish ethnicity). While orthodox/fundamentalist Jews tend to have large families, many of the children take up the less extreem froms of Judiasim that breed less. And these in turn have children that often stop practicing.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 5:59 PM on March 2, 2006

Does anyone actually think it's a good idea for government to replace the family? If so, why?

As a non-parent just hitting the age where all my childhood friends are becoming parents, I'm watching over and over again people I've known for over a decade undergo radical personality revision as neurohormonal changes refactor their priorities in favor of their offspring. I have difficulty believing that what is best for their individual child is best for society as a whole, and I have difficulty believing that this imbalance multiplied across the whole of all reproducing couples makes for healthy and progressive societies.

Coupled with significant statistical evidence that reproduction corresponds inversely with education level/general intelligence, I have grave concerns about the desirability of natural reproduction and the traditional family unit in a time when all natural threats have been eliminated due to the ecological dominance of humans and the ubiquity of warning labels.

Is the answer vat-grown children raised by the state? Perhaps not, but I don't think our current situation is optimal either. I'm all ears to what alternatives people think might be effective.
posted by Ryvar at 6:04 PM on March 2, 2006

MonkeySaltedNuts Shit! Sounds like it is time to start up a religion, what with the market opening up like so.
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:06 PM on March 2, 2006

> Or: How is this different than the predictions of the '60s that we'd be overrun by Mexicans,

Bad example, around here anyway. Since about 2001 the soccer has gone from a few shrimpy white kids who couldn't make the football team to Pele-quality, the Latino restaurants have gone from Taco Bell to a first-rate one on every corner, and all the signs are bilingual. And we see families--whole families, together in public. Almost exclusively brown-skinned ones, and the kids don't talk back to Dad. The Catholic churches are overflowing.


> I'm all ears to what alternatives people think might be effective.

Oh, none.

posted by jfuller at 6:09 PM on March 2, 2006

Birthrate by country:

Rank. Country ... Births per 1000 Population
1. Niger ... 48.3
91. India ... 22.3
153. Ireland ... 14.47 [1st Western European country in list]
156. United States ... 14.14
164. China ... 13.14
188. United Kingdom ... 10.78
220. Germany ... 8.33 [Last Western European country in list]

Once again*, the Irish are leading in the race to save Western civilization. May they rise to the occasion...

*[NYT BugMeNot login: thissuxbigtime, nopass]
posted by cenoxo at 6:18 PM on March 2, 2006

jfuller: Almost exclusively brown-skinned ones ... . The Catholic churches are overflowing.

Again you are talking about recent immigrants. Give them a generation or two where they are not ostricized from societiey and they will start acting like everybody else.

You seem to have a fear of alien high breeders. The solution is not to make white educated college people breed more, but to give the aliens college educations.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 6:43 PM on March 2, 2006

I have difficulty believing that what is best for their individual child is best for society as a whole, and I have difficulty believing that this imbalance multiplied across the whole of all reproducing couples makes for healthy and progressive societies.

You have difficulty believing that what's good for children is good for society? Food? Healthcare? Education? Homes to live in? Kindness and nurturing by others? I'm having a difficulty thinking of anything that's best for a child that is harmful to anyone. Please, help me out with this one.

significant statistical evidence that reproduction corresponds inversely with education level/general intelligence

And you've concluded that reproduction turns people into idiots and is therefore bad for society? Since I've reproduced, maybe I've gone through the "neurohormonal changes" you referred to and I'm consequently too unintelligent to understand this apparent logical mistake. Do you really think that having children turns people stupid, and is, therefore, detrimental to society?

I'm just baffled, really. But seriously, would you mind telling me what is best for a child, but has a net detriment to society as a whole?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:43 PM on March 2, 2006

What klangklangston said. Most of my more politically radical friends and acquaintances are people who became that way due to over-zealous parenting re: do and believe and think this. A disturbing number of the people I know consider their parents and childhood to be something they "got over," or even worse, "escaped" (Jack Mormons, anyone?).

This piece was provocative, although I disagree with most of it. "Population is power"? For China, I think so. For India, not so much, or at least not without lots of state control beyond all of the procreation. For sub-saharan Africa? Not one bit, given HIV/AIDS at the very least.

jfuller, I see your point, but don't you think most of those second- and third-generation folks would call themselves American, as opposed to Mexicans-living-in-America? You'd probably offend them greatly otherwise. (And I'm reminded of Richard Rodriguez's comments about hispanics and the Catholic Church--have the "brown-skinned" folks really been converted to the European tradition, or haven't Central and South Americans actually made the Catholic church their own, Ratzinger being an anomaly for the 21st century?)
posted by bardic at 6:51 PM on March 2, 2006

(Better, what MonkeySalted said.)
posted by bardic at 6:53 PM on March 2, 2006

The biggest example that sticks out in my mind is the sweeping excess of security we've seen in the United States lately. It may be good for your child, and as a result many of my formerly sane friends are advocates of the Patriot Act because things like libraries surrendering checkout lists of patrons doesn't affect their children. This is detrimental to the formation of a healthy, progressive society . . . at least in my opinion.

The entire gated community nesting instict is at odds with a diverse, dynamic, and liberated populace that I believe makes for a better society than one ruled by the nameless fears and boogeymen lurking in the shadows that currently plagues the mind of American parents.

Consider the vast repression of personal liberty afforded to schoolchildren and the overreaction to the slightest sign of aggression in our modern era - these are directly attributable to this same phenomenon, and I believe that this repression has a greater longterm detrimental effect on the whole of the school populace than minor physical harm (a few fistfights, etc.) does to a few. In place of a few cuts and bruises and important life lessons we have factory-produced citizens who consider current limitations on their freedoms a relief when they emerge from our educational system.

As to the latter half - you're misplacing cause and effect. I am suggesting that lack of general intelligence and education results in a slightly higher likelihood of breeding, and (far more) a much greater tendency to produce more than two children. One can certainly breed without being an idiot.

Finally, saying that breeding causes people to become stupid is a vast oversimplification because raw intelligence doesn't factor into it. Rather it triggers a refactoring of personal priorities with the wellbeing of one's offspring as the greatest good - and that wellbeing may be at odds with the liberty of the greater populace.
posted by Ryvar at 7:04 PM on March 2, 2006

> You seem to have a fear of alien high breeders.

Take off those shit-colored glasses, brother. I am most intensely fond of our new Hispanic friends. After all, they see eye-to-eye with me on so many points at which I am at loggerheads with almost all of you mefioids. As for the Moslems over yonder, I do object to getting blown up or having my car torched but in the last analysis I feel distinctly closer to those who believe in something greater than themselves, no matter what it is, than I do to those who believe in nothing in particular (large wooly abstractions like "society" don't count, nobody really gets passionate over wooly abstractions.)

posted by jfuller at 7:08 PM on March 2, 2006

No, all religion is in serious decline in Europe, if you factor out the effects of recent Muslim immigration.

The planet earth is completely covered with water, if you factor out the continental land masses..
posted by codswallop at 7:10 PM on March 2, 2006

Ryvar: I have difficulty believing that what is best for their individual child is best for society as a whole

JekPorkins: You have difficulty believing that what's good for children is good for society?

I have difficulty believing that you are as obtuse as you come off with this little rejoinder.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:11 PM on March 2, 2006

And you think those things are best for the children? You think that the Patriot Act is actually the best thing that can be done for individual children -- let alone children in general? I think you have a serious problem if you think that reproduction is to blame for the existence of gated communities and the patriot act or that the reason for those things is that people are giving children what's best for them at the expense of society.

I'm just blown away, frankly. Blown away. Your suggestion that placing the wellbeing of children as the greatest good is at odds with the liberty of the greater populace is just dumbfounding.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:12 PM on March 2, 2006

Are you deliberately misreading Ryvar, JekPorkins?
posted by Kwantsar at 7:14 PM on March 2, 2006

I feel distinctly closer to those who believe in something greater than themselves, no matter what it is, than I do to those who believe in nothing in particular

First, this is a false dilemna. Secondly, people who believe in some force 'greater than themselves' do so without reproducible evidence of the existence of said force (or we'd all have to believe in it) which from where I'm standing sounds a lot like insanity. I can arbitrarily choose to believe in a giant invisible elephant, sure, but without any real reason to do so this is pretty idiotic behavior on my part.
posted by Ryvar at 7:15 PM on March 2, 2006

Jek please reread both my responses to you - as Kwantsar says you're wildly misreading what I've written to the point that you've completely reversed my arguments.
posted by Ryvar at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2006

Millions now living will never die.

Thankfully they'll be the transhumanist singularitarians, and not prone to the mimetic vagaries of ancient tribal middle eastern war gods.
posted by Freen at 7:20 PM on March 2, 2006

nobody really gets passionate over wooly abstractions

I do. To wit: Justice, Freedoms of Speech and Expression, Equality (not always compatible with the former I realize), progress, civil society

I'll take any of these over mythological beings any day. At least we can discuss them by relating shared experiences. Your lavishing praise on an invisible deity? Not so much. And keep that sort of ignorance away from my family too.
posted by bardic at 7:26 PM on March 2, 2006

MeFi: Take off those shit-colored glasses (#jfuller)
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 7:28 PM on March 2, 2006

jfuller writes: I am most intensely fond of our new Hispanic friends.

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant on so many levels. Do your little friends dance around for you? Do they make you feel good about yourself? Do they clean your clothes and tend your garden?

They're Americans dude. And by the way you stereotype them, I really doubt you're genuinely friends with any of them.

And "new"? They were here long before your ancestors, buddy.
posted by bardic at 7:29 PM on March 2, 2006

Err..whose ya Daddy?
posted by Mr Bluesky at 7:31 PM on March 2, 2006

Freen, I'd like to believe that you're right but I get this sinking feeling that between lack of advancement in software engineering methodologies, near abandonment of artificial consciousness research, slow development of post-fossil energy sources, overpopulation (should plateau at 11.5 billion), intellectual property legislation, and gradual natural selection against intelligence that nobody now living is going to make it. The classic transhumanist argument against this was that life extension through medical means would be sufficient, but amazingly the aging baby boomers have not produced the promised explosion in geriatric medicine targeted at aging both physiological and neurological/psychological, which was the one real hope of anybody now living for seeing any sort of singularity event in light of the above factors.
posted by Ryvar at 7:31 PM on March 2, 2006

Ryvar, we may be talking past each other here. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying: 1) Putting the interests of one's children ahead of one's own interests is detrimental to society, 2) The Patriot Act and gated communities are an example of this.

I think what you're trying to say is that what people think is good for their children is actually not good for their children ultimately. That makes sense. But it's not an argument against reproduction, unless you think that such poor decisions are both the inevitable result of becoming a parent and avoidable if people would simply stop having children.

I want to find common ground, but I just can't get past this gem: "I have grave concerns about the desirability of natural reproduction and the traditional family unit in a time when all natural threats have been eliminated due to the ecological dominance of humans and the ubiquity of warning labels."

I mean, WTF? Kwanstar, did you read that one?

Perhaps you agree and perhaps you don't, but I happen to believe that it's good for society when people's priorities shift from being rationally self-interested to being focused on the well-being of another person. I don't think that shift is inevitable where childbirth is concerned, sadly.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:34 PM on March 2, 2006

Jek: the statement you have concerns about is simply highlighting my reservations over the removal of natural selection as a force for determining genetic factors within the human race. We're seeing that happen now, and I think it's reasonable to be worried about it. How do you contend with anti-progressive natural progress without resorting to wildly artificial means?

Also, you seem to have me confused with a Randroid - I don't believe for a second that rational self-interest is the greatest good. Down that path lies every evil of corporatism in which the collection of individuals act as a single unit to harm the entire human race in order to the benefit those at the top of the collective pyramid (example: General Electric dumping PCBs into the Hudson River, and most anti-ecological legislation).

I believe communal-interest subsumed to personal liberty, not advancement, is the greatest good.
posted by Ryvar at 7:45 PM on March 2, 2006

bardic:

Add "education" to that list. Man does the passion fly out whenever subjects on that topic come up! :)
posted by -harlequin- at 7:53 PM on March 2, 2006

Ryvar, you don't need to worry about natural selection being removed. It can't be removed. There's also no such thing as "survival of the fittest." It's actually "survival of the most reproductive."

And if someone chooses to subordinate their own interests help another member of society, is that not an exercise of liberty that benefits the greater good?
posted by JekPorkins at 7:58 PM on March 2, 2006

Geez jfuller, I can't figure out what axe you are grinding.

The linked article was based on the valid evolutionary point that if a population has a (fixed) high breeding subpopulation and a (fixed) low breeding one then the high subpop will drive out the low subpop.

But then the article somehow says that a human high subpop must be deeply religious and patriarchal, which to me seem a non sequiter and only justified by past history. Also the article ignores that human subpops based on belief are not fixed - a low breeding subpop may succeed through incorporating another subpop by transmitting/imposing its beliefs.

So which of the 4 independant auxillary points are you pushing: Strong Religion is necessary?, Patriachy is necessary?, Large Families are necessary? Isolation of Sub-Populations is necessary?

And can you also say why your points are necessary, other than "my group will disappear"?
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:01 PM on March 2, 2006

Millions now living will never die.

Thankfully they'll be the transhumanist singularitarians, and not prone to the mimetic vagaries of ancient tribal middle eastern war gods.

Yes, because transhumanism and The Singularity are NOT religious prophecies. They're INEVITABLE historical developments! Any day now...

Heh. Mimetic vagaries indeed.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:02 PM on March 2, 2006

Ryvar, you don't need to worry about natural selection being removed. It can't be removed. There's also no such thing as "survival of the fittest." It's actually "survival of the most reproductive."

Exactly. The two used to be one and the same, but this is no longer the case. Hence my concern.

And if someone chooses to subordinate their own interests help another member of society, is that not an exercise of liberty that benefits the greater good?

That was my point, yes.
posted by Ryvar at 8:02 PM on March 2, 2006

Artifice_Eternity: I was being facetious. But, it's just as ridiculous as arguments made in the linked article.
posted by Freen at 8:10 PM on March 2, 2006

""No matter how dominant a species become the genes contain a fatal flaw which will ensure its undoing. The human race is following the typical patterns that have characterized the extinctions of plague species in the past.


The fatal flaw in the human gene is the inevitable conflict between two paramount genetically driven behaviors. The one being the drive for materialistic Growth and Progress. The other being a fundamental drive towards religion, mysticism and spirituality."

From The Spirit in the Gene, by Reg Morrison
posted by troutfishing at 8:24 PM on March 2, 2006

Ryvar: And if someone chooses to subordinate their own interests help another member of society, is that not an exercise of liberty that benefits the greater good?

That was my point, yes.

Then perhaps you see my point that, when someone reproduces and then chooses to subordinate their own interests to help that child, putting the child's interests above their own, that is an exercise of liberty that benefits society, rather than hurting society. The problems arise, I think, when people reproduce but do not subsequently subordinate their own interests to those of their offspring, since they have increased society by one person who can't even look after her own needs, and they're not (all other things being equal) doing anything to offset the burden they have placed on society.

Society benefits most when people help each other, using their liberty to provide for each other's needs. In order for this to happen on a large society-wide scale, some organizational scheme is vital. Strong families are an outstanding way for people to benefit society by exercising their liberty to subordinate their own interests to help their family members. Plus it has the bonus of a strong biological, psychological and emotional bond.

The solution is to strengthen families and to help parents to truly subordinate their own wants and needs in favor of those of their children. Sure, you could just do away with families and have the government reorganize things with some sort of buddy system or something, but why? What would be the benefit? As you watch your friends have children and "undergo radical personality revision as neurohormonal changes refactor their priorities in favor of their offspring," you should be happy about that, since they're doing exactly what you now claim benefits the greater good: choosing to subordinate their own interests to help another member of society. (or did you mean the double negative literally when you responded above?)
posted by JekPorkins at 8:30 PM on March 2, 2006

The interests of the community as a whole, Jek, not just one's offspring. Sorry, I really should have been clear on that point.

Society benefits most when people help each other, using their liberty to provide for each other's needs. In order for this to happen on a large society-wide scale, some organizational scheme is vital.

OK, I agree with you thus far.

Strong families are an outstanding way for people to benefit society by exercising their liberty to subordinate their own interests to help their family members. Plus it has the bonus of a strong biological, psychological and emotional bond.

This is what I disagree with. Strong families mean that communal-interest is relegated to a select few individuals rather than the society as a whole. Furthermore bonds on the basis of biology, emotion, or religion are going to result in decisions that may be intellectually and logically unsupported - the sacrifice of a thousand individuals for one's family, etc.

Sure, you could just do away with families and have the government reorganize things with some sort of buddy system or something, but why? What would be the benefit?

A government-mandated buddy system would be an unmitigated disaster beyond imagining. If we took the opposite extreme, even vat-grown clones educated through identical direct mental downloads would be subject to the butterfly effect resulting in wildly different and often incompatible individual personalities.

One societal model that has always interested me was the early Christian church, back when its members were being fed to lions and used as human torches. This early church was one of the most successful examples of socialism precisely because all self-interest was subordinated to an overriding common cause (survival of their belief system in the face of overwhelming odds). While the uniting cause was unfortunate (especially in light of the consequences since), a very interesting ideal was created from that situation. Namely strong communal interest devoid of familial obligation and overriding self-interest.

I'd be very interested to see a society that could duplicate the same effect with a progressive, secular cause - and without compromising personal liberty.
posted by Ryvar at 8:55 PM on March 2, 2006

The author of this piece wrote a book called "The Empty Cradle", which Stewart Brand liked. Apparently he made some of the same points there.
posted by lbergstr at 8:59 PM on March 2, 2006

Anyone know how did this depopulation thing worked out in Japan?
posted by lbergstr at 9:00 PM on March 2, 2006

Strong families mean that communal-interest is relegated to a select few individuals rather than the society as a whole.

Think globally (societally), act locally (in your family). (and by family, I don't mean just nuclear family)
It's impossible for an individual to act in a way that benefits society as a whole except by acting to benefit other individuals. Society benefits from the collective acts of individuals serving other individuals. Service to one's fellow person is the only way for society to be served. The notion that strong families in some way intrinsically hurt society is just the most F-ed up thing I've ever heard in my life. I wonder if maybe you're ignoring or forgetting that ultimately, families are connected to one another, and that serving one's family actually means serving everyone.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:19 PM on March 2, 2006

It's impossible for an individual to act in a way that benefits society as a whole except by acting to benefit other individuals.

Therein lies the core of our disagreement.
posted by Ryvar at 9:23 PM on March 2, 2006

Therein lies the core of our disagreement.

I think you're right about that. Can you tell me an example of how you think an individual can benefit society without acting to benefit another individual?
posted by JekPorkins at 9:27 PM on March 2, 2006

The notion that strong families in some way intrinsically hurt society is just the most F-ed up thing I've ever heard in my life.

Uh, JekPorkins, maybe you should open a newspaper. Strong tribal relationships lead to weak states. Weak states fall apart and create power vacuums that lead to civil wars. When people are so devoted to their tribal relations that they hold tribal law above national law then yes, these individuals may act to benefit one another but they will most definitely be hurting the state. Open a newspaper and read about a place called 'Iraq' to see this principle in action.
posted by nixerman at 9:39 PM on March 2, 2006

Sure:
An ethical legislator or judge does it all the time.
Anyone stringing fiber optic cable through a hostile environment.
A security expert doing penetration work on a hospital's medical records database.
Any artist or entertainer if you consider their products and services beneficial.
posted by Ryvar at 9:46 PM on March 2, 2006

Anyways, the article is crap. Indeed, it's shockingly bad. I don't even know where to begin. The belief that population is power? That fertility rates determine national winners and losers? That Rome fell apart because the elites stopped having children? Blah. This isn't even worth commenting upon.

Though it is mildly amusing to watch all of the conservatives now harp upon the issue of fertility. You know people are truly terrified when their new solution to the world's problems is to start having children. Maybe thirty years from now we'll all be talking about the 'Bin Laden baby boom'.

As for patriarchy, heh, corporations simply wouldn't let it happen. The strongest proponents for women's rights these days all have stock prices. The liberated woman is simply too valuable as a consumer and as a laborer. From the moment they can read women today are fed pictures of themselves as liberated--free to buy what they want, free to do any job--and there is no notion of a 'duty' to reproduce. Hundreds of billion dollars are spent every year to reinforce these concepts through advertising, entertainment and the media and it's highly unlikely any mere demographic shift could alter the status quo.
posted by nixerman at 9:59 PM on March 2, 2006

Christianity is in serious decline in Europe

yellow brown peril!
posted by matteo at 12:34 AM on March 3, 2006

> yellow brown peril!

Now now, matteo. I think San Pietro will look just fine when it gets its minarets, like Hagia Sophia. Better, in fact--with that broad, flat dome Ayasofya looks like a hippopotamus wearing a jetpack. Michaelangelo's/della Porta's dome is much more upward-thrusting to begin with. A quartet of strap-on solid rockets will be just the thing to bring the design forward to the 22nd century. Especially if they're MIRVed.

posted by jfuller at 3:46 AM on March 3, 2006

I don't know if you've seen this month's FP cover, but when I received it I noticed what it says on the cover -- "Why men rule and conservatives will inherit the earth." Then I looked at the plastic bag the magazine came in and THAT said "This is your last copy of Foreign Policy" (my subscription having expired), so I thought to myself "ain't that the truth".

Actually there was also another title on the cover -- "the politics of sexual frustration" (I kid you not). I think FP's editors have gone off the deep end.
posted by clevershark at 5:53 AM on March 3, 2006

jfuller, you owe me the five minutes of my life I lost reading that piece of complete trash. And since I'm not extending my bloodline into the future, I value my time on Earth.
posted by palinode at 9:22 AM on March 3, 2006

Mmmm hmmm. Well, since the essence of the article is encapsulated and visible in the front page post, you can't say you weren't warned. Oh, my bad, maybe you're saying it took you five minutes to read the FPP. I and all my blood descendents from now down to the Last Judgement, or the heat death of the universe, whichever occurs first, apologize. We owe you five. That would be...wait (jots on back of envelope)... one seventh of an attosecond per descendent. I've already sent you mine, you may have noticed when you got it back.

posted by jfuller at 10:10 AM on March 3, 2006

Pretty big assumption that your line won't die out.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:11 AM on March 3, 2006