Red Diaper Deficit

I have posted frequently on demographics as it affects the future of the developing nations, and especially of the great democracies.  Philip Longman had a piece in Foreign Policy, "The Return of Patriarchy," that examines the effect of differential birthrates both within and between countries.  He has a piece in USAToday on "The Liberal Baby Bust."  The punchline of both essays is that so called progressives are on a path to extinction. 

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.

This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

This simple fact is one that is bound to have social and political consequences.  The people most likely to hold "progressive views" are those least likely to have more than one child, and very many of them will have no children at all.  The reverse is true for most conservative subcultures, and especially for religious cultures. 

In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

A fertility rate that is double that of the opposition is an advantage that will accrue very rapidly, in sociological terms. 

A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

I admit to mixed feelings about this.  On the one hand, I am intrigued at the thought of electoral votes dieing off in blue states and being reborn as part of the Republican coalition.  On the other hand, also believe in science and particularly in Darwinism.  It would be an irony of history (and perhaps one of God's jokes) if Darwinism as a theory were to disappear due to Darwinian processes. 

I wrote a column for the American News on Longman's Foreign Policy piece.  I will post it shortly.