A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday that some demographers say could signal an impending baby "boomlet."
~ USA Today, July 17th
"The last time the number was this high was in 1957, in the middle of the baby boom years; about 78 million Americans were born from 1946 to 1964. Demographers have been monitoring gradual increases in recent years; data for 2006, which won't be made final until September, show a 3% increase over 2005. That's the largest single-year increase since 1989."
Finally, we are seeing bigger families again. The article reports that the average number of births per woman was 2.1 in 2006, the highest since 1971.
It does not appear that the grim picture painted by secularization theorists influenced by Thomas Malthus are having much of an impact ... thankfully.
HEADS UP churches! Get that nursery ministry organized and running like a well oiled machine. You are going to need it!
(Image © AP)
So sad to contemplate what future generations will suffer because of this unwise proliferation of our species.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 23, 2008 at 11:06
Remind me to not send you any birth announcements :)
(though I don't expect there will be any new Dawntreaders)
Posted by: Mr. D | July 23, 2008 at 11:45
Rob,
Thank goodness we have the wisdom and charity of China's one child policy. (the drip, drip you hear is just sarcasm)
Posted by: matt curtis | July 23, 2008 at 13:26
I did not advocate government intervention, Matt. It would be nice if we had the wisdom to do this on our own for the love of mankind and the planet. No sarcasm here.
And, Mr. D., I welcome birth announcements, but after the third per couple I send condoms instead of presents. :-)
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 23, 2008 at 16:02
I suspect that much of the increase in birth rate can be attributed to the dramatic increase in the Latino population. That means a whole lot of Catholics.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 23, 2008 at 17:36
Rob, I really hope you're not the sort of person who accosts parents in the grocery store and tells them they, or the planet, cannot "afford" for them to have so many children. Right in front of the children.
I think every one of my littles has as much right to existence as you. They'll be working their tushies off to support you in your old age. You're welcome, in advance. :)
Posted by: Susannah | July 23, 2008 at 20:18
"Rob, I really hope you're not the sort of person who accosts parents in the grocery store and tells them they, or the planet, cannot "afford" for them to have so many children."
I'm not that agressive a person, Susannah, and, besides, it wouldn't do any good.
"I think every one of my littles has as much right to existence as you."
I never said they didn't. Nor did I say you did not have the right to contribute all you possibly can to the misery of them and their children by doing your part to exceed this planet's capacity to support human life. It's up to us all to decide the best course of action. I wish we'd take a longer view of things instead of selfishly serving our own interests.
Thanks, anyway, to your kids, but I have already seen to my retirement needs with wise investments (there's that foresight thing again!), and I have two children of my own.
Posted by: | July 24, 2008 at 09:41
Rob:
Don't worry, the Second Coming will be here Any Day Now (tm), and then we won't have to worry about an overcrowded planet, unsustainable living, etc. Then I'll be sorry, because I foolishly didn't collect as many salvation frequent flier miles oops, kids, as possible... :)
Sorry, I'm apparently in a massively snarky mood today. ;)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 24, 2008 at 10:37
I think these flights of fancy generated by my mere expression of dismay at unbridled proliferation of our species are quite amazing. Why people would read such misanthropy into my position is beyond me; my position is pro-human. Sometimes less is more. I love the people on the planet more than the potential people some seem so keen on bringing into the world. Do any of you doubt that the earth is finite? At what point would you advocate cutting back on reproduction? Would you prefer that nature deal with it?
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 24, 2008 at 10:56
There's just no arguing with someone who has your incredible predictive powers. ;) I'm sure they are on the order of Paul Ehrlich's.
The tables certainly have turned when children have become a symbol of selfishness, and anxiety over resources selflessness.
Talk about putting "bitter for sweet." (Isaiah)
Posted by: Susannah | July 24, 2008 at 22:09
Rob, which scenario is more likely to produce a dystopian future?
One in which people are placed on a par with weeds? In which the ideas of Peter Singer
http://www.cbc-network.org/enewsletter/index_7_23_08.htm
and radical environmentalists
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200701/ai_n17220790
and eugencists (too many links to include) are given traction and guide policy?
Or a world in which loved children are brought up in spiritually rich, healthy, happy families, where they are brought into relationship with God, and His law is written on their hearts...
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Jesus Christ)
Anecdotal, maybe, but 100% of the large families I know are God-fearing, joy-filled families who respect the dignity of human life. Precisely the kind of citizens you want surrounding you and your own children in the future.
"The future belongs to those who show up for it." Mark Steyn
Posted by: Susannah | July 25, 2008 at 11:06
tgirsh
Color me skeptical, but previous "prophets" have "spoken presumptuously"--demonstrably so. Here we are, not having resorted to Soylent Green yet and I even still have a few green acres to "sustain" my family on.
Apparently I missed the moment demagogues evolved into omniscient beings...
Also, I'm not sure what having children has to do with earning salvation, but thanks for trotting out the straw man; he and his maker bear a striking resemblance to one another. ;) Works oriented, guilt-fueled religion, indeed.
Posted by: Susannah | July 25, 2008 at 21:01
Perfect timing on this post. You must be clairvoyant.
Offspring #2 was born on the 23rd. Not sure how we're going to pull off that 0.1 child, though.
Posted by: Nick | July 25, 2008 at 21:18
"There's just no arguing with someone who has your incredible predictive powers."
It requires no predictive powers to follow a simple line of logic: The earth is finite. If sustained population growth is our modus operandi, our numbers will eventually exceed the planet's capacity to sustain us. Long before that happens, quality of life will decline for the people unfortunate enough to experience this future. Wars, disease, and famine will lead to a massive die-off. Nature will address what we are failing to forestall.
"Rob, which scenario is more likely to produce a dystopian future?"
Here you employ the either/or fallacy. Since Neither side is what I advocate, to respond further would be a waste of time. You are attacking a strawman.
"...100% of the large families I know are God-fearing, joy-filled families who respect the dignity of human life. Precisely the kind of citizens you want surrounding you and your own children in the future."
I definitely do not want me or my children to be surrounded by God-fearing people. God-fearing people are ruining the world. I like joy-filled families who respect the dignity of life, but there will be little joy or dignity on an overpopulated planet.
Who loves animals more: the man who keeps one hundred starving, feces-encrusted cats in a squalid apartment, or the man who keeps two healthy, clean cats in a nice house with a kitty door and a backyard? I have a salt water aquarium that holds 58 gallons. It has five small fishes in it. It could hold many more, but to stock it further would be to subject the occupants to undue stress and increased risk of disease. It would also be more difficult to ensure that all are adequately fed. So I keep fewer fish. Is that what you call selfish?
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 26, 2008 at 11:16
"The tables certainly have turned when children have become a symbol of selfishness, and anxiety over resources selflessness."
I see the tables as turned when it is considered selfish when one wants one's progeny to have enough to eat, forests to explore, and creatures to regard with wonder. I see the tables as turned when indulging one's desire for a housefull of children and a disproportionate genetic stake in the future is seen as selfless.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 26, 2008 at 11:32
"Offspring #2 was born on the 23rd. Not sure how we're going to pull off that 0.1 child, though."
Congratulations, Nick. My #2 child is ten years old now, and when I see a baby those old feelings come back. Fortunately, I work at a school, and between younger colleagues and former students, I occasionally get to hold one. My wife call it "getting my baby fix." ;-) They certainly grow up quickly.
As for the .01, my wife and I yielded that back to the population at large, kind of like the penny tray at the convenience store.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 26, 2008 at 20:35
Um....I didn't have children to have a "disproportionate genetic stake in the future." I doubt anybody has children for that reason. I don't know anybody that calculating.
People have children for reasons of love.
The way I see it, life is all about relationships.
In truth, as my own family members died, or didn't marry, and grew much smaller, I realized how lonely one or two children would be in the wake of their parents' death. I wanted them to have a strongly bonded family and lots of emotional and practical support around someday, even after patriarch and matriarch are gone...especially in an increasingly dark and hostile world.
I guess your attitude towards "God-fearing" people is illustrative of what they could face. Wow.
Although it seems I now do have a greater stake in the future, simply by default. Which means I'm just as concerned about my children's future as your are about yours.
Your children are not threatened by mine; on the contrary, I hope to rear my children to be a benefit and a blessing to yours (theoretically speaking). And I could probably tick off all our "green" credentials that make our lifestyle more "sustainable" (ick) than most smaller families. But that would be talking foolishness (a la the Apostle Paul).
I have to admit, I do look forward to grandchildren. How "selfish" of me. There's no guarantee I'll live to see them, of course, or that any of my children will marry or have children of their own. There are no guarantees in life. But I hope the odds are stacked in my favor. :)
For the record, I wasn't equating your point of view with the radicals to whom I linked. I don't know your point of view well enough (yet). But I do believe you concede the argument to them, and give their pernicious ideas traction.
All of your doomsaying has been said before, only it was supposed to have happened three or four decades ago. What happened instead? Advances in the way we farm, new discoveries of resources, technological leaps, deregulation, improved medical care, and etc. all brought about by *people* (that most precious natural resource) under a *free system of laws and economics.*
It's odd how the proposed "solutions" to climate change or what-have-you always involves a loss of freedom or human dignity.
You can't use simplistic logic to account for every unforeseen circumstance. For all you know, an asteroid strike could render all your hand-wringing moot. Science can't even tell us with any accuracy what the weather will be three weeks from now.
Granted, bad things are going to happen in the future. Starting...one minute from now. See? I'm a prophet too! ;) But you don't know the particulars and neither do I. You can't possibly, with any seriousness, claim to know.
Isn't yours an either/or argument? Either we stop having more than two children per couple, or the earth is going to DIE!! Or kill us off. (Am I reading that right?) Sounds more like anxiety disorder to me. (My theory is that progressivism is fueled at some level by G.A.D.)
Finally, I'm a bit confused. If you dislike God-fearing folks so much, what are you doing here? I ask honestly.
Posted by: Susannah | July 27, 2008 at 02:14
"Offspring #2 was born on the 23rd. Not sure how we're going to pull off that 0.1 child, though."
Congratulations Nick! Blessings to you and yours.
Posted by: Mr. D | July 27, 2008 at 05:52
"I have to admit, I do look forward to grandchildren. How "selfish" of me."
So do I. I love children. I don't think it is selfish to want children or grandchildren in moderation.
"But I do believe you concede the argument to them, and give their pernicious ideas traction."
Likewise, I believe that religious moderates provide cover for fundamentalists and extremists.
"It's odd how the proposed "solutions" to climate change or what-have-you always involves a loss of freedom or human dignity."
I don't see that as true. I only propose voluntary responsible behavior. I hope that self-education and individual choice can do the job, but I often worry that my hopes are vain.
"But you don't know the particulars and neither do I."
I only this much: the earth is finite. If we continue to reproduce in rates that exceed replcement, we will fill the planet up. All else is conjecture, but the fact that population increase is unsustainable in the long run is indisputable. Eventually, increased efficiency will fail to compensate for lack of space.
"Isn't yours an either/or argument?"
Yes, but, unlike yours, it is a valid one. Either we stop increasing population, or we eventually exceed the earth's capacity to sustain us. Your argument juxtaposes two approaches that are not exhaustive of possible approaches. Mine juxtaposes two approaches that ARE exhaustive: either we continue to increase population, or we reduce or stabilize population.
"If you dislike God-fearing folks so much, what are you doing here?"
I don't dislike them. I love many of them. If I met you, we might find that we have some things in common. I might be charmed by your manner. Who knows? Our interactions have been based on issues we disagree upon, which leads to tension, which can be mistaken for enmity.
I don't trust God-fearing people, in general, acting in concert. I don't want them surrounding my children, to a greater extent than they already do, for the same reason you probably don't want yours surrounded by atheists.
I am here to engage others in discourse that may lead to better mutual understanding.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 27, 2008 at 11:43