Politically incorrect social trends you don’t hear much about

In case you think nothing is changing in society, here’s a quick overview of two changes that are likely to make a difference in the long run: Who actually has kids and what do the kids think?

Who actually has kids?

That is a highly political issue. Some – for example, Pennsylvania State’s Philip Jenkins – argue that lower fertility in Iran might avert apocalyptic ideology and turn the country into the “Denmark of tomorrow”, but Jonathan V. Last isn’t so sure, for a number of reasons, including:

As demographer Philip Longman demonstrated in his essay “The Return of Patriarchy,” fertility rates do not fall uniformly across populations. They tend to dip most precipitously among secular, liberal segments, and remain higher among orthodox, religious segments. If this rule were to hold in Iran, it would mean that, in the long run, the population would become more, not less, religious, as secular families dwindle and fundamentalist families flourish in their place.

An interesting question. I’ve followed Longman’s writings with great interest over the years. He regards the greater fertility of religious people as a threat that is bound to result in a rising tide of conservatism, and he documents it quite thoroughly. Go here (”The Global Baby Bust”, in Foreign Affairs) for a general overview of  the baby bust:

Summary: Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing the globe. In fact, the opposite is true. As countries get richer, their populations age and their birthrates plummet. And this is not just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also getting older fast. Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay. The right policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it’s too late.  

and also here, and here for some eye-opening stats on who actually has kids.

What do the kids actually think?

Contrary to all predictions, in the United States they increasingly think they should stay out of trouble. According to Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin, writing in Commentary,

More generally, we are seeing important progress in critical areas of youth behavior. Since 1991 (a peak year), the birth rate for teenagers aged fifteen to nineteen has decreased by 35 percent. The number of high-school students who have reported ever having sexual intercourse has declined by more than 10 percent. Teen use of alcohol has also fallen sharply since 1996—anywhere from 10 to 35 percent, depending on the grade in school—and binge drinking has dropped to the lowest levels ever recorded. The same is true of teens reporting that they smoke cigarettes daily.

Wehner and Levin are NOT saying it’s all great, of course, but they do report some other trends toward stability:

According to Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia, college-educated Americans have absorbed the message—from the media, religious institutions, civic organizations, and their own experience—that children do best when born to and raised by married parents. As a corollary, these educated Americans seem more and more willing to make the sacrifices necessary to stay married, for the sake of both their own welfare and that of their children.
Wilcox adduces two additional facts to round out the picture of a declining divorce rate. First, we now see very few teen marriages—a good thing not only for teenagers unprepared for the burdens of married life but for the institution of marriage altogether, since partners in their twenties or thirties are more likely to place a premium on stability. Second, marriage is much more selective. Because those marrying tend to have more income, more social skills, more of a stake in marriage, and more pro-marriage attitudes, they are less likely to divorce.

The stubborn problem area that Wehner and Levin identify is the very high rate of solo parenting (much of which is not the result of failed marriages but of zero marriages). Not a great way to start a kid out in life. But they hope that will change too.

Hmmmm. We shall see. More later.

Also:

Change your mind, change your brain – a Smithsonian conference – but what to do when my mind keeps instructing my brain: Want donut! Want it now! … ?

Atheists on the new shrill atheism. Apparently, not as good a vintage as the old. I hear this all over now. The New Coke of the world of thought?

Pope blames world’s worst woes on atheism. Also blames stupid religion though.

College students more interested in spirituality than previously thought. Binge drinking lobby completely freaked.

Visual art as old as human consciousness? Hmmmm.

Meditation catching on at universities (binge drinking lobby threatens mass suicide)

Coffee break: How died the dinosaur? Let me count the ways …

The Guillermo Gonzalez case: In case you wanted to know where your tax dollars are going – to enforce an ideological materialist point of view?

Controversial Catholic Cardinal writes on evolution and purpose – two views about what he is talking about.

Intelligent design gives trouble to philosopher Mary Midgley. Not clear why.

Guillermo Gonzalez case – university administration’s credibility in shreds as new evidence comes to light

Giant cold spot evidence of parallel universes – or of science media hype?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 at 9:07 pm and is filed under Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 2 views | Trackback | Print this page |

My name is Denyse O'Leary, born 1950, in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. I have been a journalist all my life. I began to publish books in 2001. I live in Toronto, and I have two daughters and two granddaughters, as of 2008. You can reach me at oleary@sympatico.ca | More from Denyse O'Leary