Europe's below-replacement-level birthrates
It would be very interesting to read an essay that discusses the positive aspects of a below-replacement-level birthrate, instead of just the negative aspects.
An ever-increasing population is not necessarily the human imperative. In fact, it may be counter-productive to the highest and best way of living.
People fail to reproduce for a number of reasons -- they die young, they go to prison, they're gay, they have genetic diseases they don't want to pass on, they become Catholic clergy, they just don't like children.
And the rest of the population may prefer to have no more than two children per nuclear family.
Why does this cause visions of Gotterdammerung?
There's a nasty little subtext here that rarely gets mentioned in public but said in private -- that it's our duty as white people of European heritage to keep reproducing our kind or we'll be wiped out. How many millions of white children does it take to make these people satisfied so they don't break out the Wagner?
I've raised two children to reproductive age. I did my job to keep the white European "race" from being wiped out by the non-white barbarian hordes clamoring at the gates of Rome, and I don't want to hear that I should have had three or four or six or twelve, thank you. The whole argument is creepy.
The apotheosis of Europe occurred when the total population was much smaller, did they ever think of that? Maybe there are just too many people in Europe to live well as it is.
And, finally (and then I'll shut up), people from Latin America and the Asian sub-continent and the Middle East are all white, if race matters. |
