Posted on May 12 at 3:34 a.m.Suggest removal

You mean the Darwin 2009 political, social, and cultural debates, not scientific debates.

The theory of evolution is the only rigorous explanation we have for the diversity of life that closely fits the facts. Other explanations might circumvent the facts or exploit loopholes in our current understanding, and their proponents might insist they haven't been proven wrong. In the case of creationism, this is because it can't be proven wrong: it was constructed to have an answer for everything by tracing its logical roots back to an arbitrary, untestable assertion.

Among life scientists, there is no debate about the explanatory power of the theory of evolution. Some philosophers and life scientists, working in tandem, have proposed that the real debate is over whether the theory ought to be restrained to the role of theoretical knowledge, available in textbooks and museums for the curious to seek out, or employed as an active line of rhetoric in our culture that shapes how we think and act in society.

On

Posted on April 2 at 10:16 p.m.Suggest removal

no more @dios since we appear to be the only people reading this.

I am well aware I quoted a hostile source. I always make an effort to do so. The EU is the world's most liberal intergovernmental body, even beating out the UN. They would never, under any circumstances, accept the idea that there is some kind of demographic winter or invasion because it is extremely inconsistent with all they stand for politically. It is also an extremely "flexible" business to gather this data in Europe: I don't doubt they took several opportunities to spin the numbers their way. The statement I quoted is amusing and interesting because they are basically telling people not to interpret their data one of the ways it can be interpreted.

I know what the sociocultural climate is like in Europe. I know what it's like here. I basically disagree (as I did point out, carefully and rigorously I hoped) with every reason an "Oklahoma Nutjob," as you put it, would be concerned about demographic winter. But I smell it intuitively, and I see it in the data. It's subtler than their rhetoric, but it is real, which is impossible in your worldview. I am worried about the human condition. I see a civilization gone mad creating conditions under which homo sapiens go haywire, and I guess I'm just wondering if others see it too. Freedom is an infectious idea. I wonder if it will keep infecting people at a rate matching the fertility rate of the uninfected, and for some reason I am imagining terrible eventual consequences whether it doesn't or it does.

On

Posted on April 1 at 11:04 p.m.Suggest removal

@dio
"The study confirms the perception that Muslim women have more children than non-Muslims in Western Europe, but shows that the gap is not as large as many believe. And, similar to other immigrants in other countries, Muslim fertility rates tend to fall over time, narrowing the gap with the non-Muslims who make up the vast majority of the European population now, and for the foreseeable future." from the EU

Add that to the immigration rate and the precipitously dropping secular European birthrate and it's not BS.

I hereby reclaim the label islamophobic. Fear is only an emotion. If I were completely rational, I'd fear only imminent threats likely to be realized. But as an emotional creature, I fear people who literally believe their holy books which say to kill me because I'm gay and an atheist. That means I fear fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I've gotten over my fear of the former two because it's been illustrated to me that they're mild mannered for now. Compelling illustrations of the opposite for the latter and voila, fear.

Not to mention none of this was never exactly my point. Actually, fertility rates are dropping precipitously everywhere the West has influence. I think in the long term this is good. To be honest I'd be perfectly ok if there were only a million people on this earth. But this drop all over the Western and Westernizing world will have bad short term effects because instead of taking it seriously, everyone is making an effort to keep from sounding like a ___-ophobe and ignoring/denying the facts. Nobody will be prepared when the social security system pulls out its roots and keels over. And, when I consider the theory of evolution, I see this taking on an additional meaning: contraceptives only work when people want them to. Why are creatures, evolved by forces urging them to make as many copies of themselves as possible, doing exactly the opposite? It is a sign that everything is going haywire.

I also feel I should mention this is in no way about race. I don't care what color the babies are, I care what they're being raised to believe. I fear that one set is being raised to believe I am the devil incarnate, and another (smaller and shrinking) set is being raised to believe that anybody can do anything they want, it's okay to indulge yourself all day, and that the world is too complicated to be at peace.

On

Posted on April 1 at 1:49 a.m.Suggest removal

@dio, Actually, I have been to Europe. Like all tourists, I got the highlight tour- totally worthless, I know. Fortunately, I also have German and Italian family members. Like most nonfundamentalist Western or Westernized people, they are open-minded, fun, and artistic at their best, despair-stricken, aimless, and barren at their worst. My aunt (who recently survived a suicide attempt) is divorced (like everyone) and has two children (who are themselves on track to have none).
The only fundamentalists who make their way into your social circle are EX-fundamentalists. Make no mistake, if a fervent fundamentalist stumbled into an accepting, human rights-forged community like our own, they would think they were in hell. And you wouldn't fare much better in their community. Which is why this: "The fecundity of their group is the same as the other Europeans! They do not have more children, and their children are not even religious themselves!" is just plain not true. Maybe you know basically ex-Muslims from Europe whose communities made the mistake of letting them learn about Western human rights. You will never meet a fundamentalist Muslim because they have no interest in meeting you. Those communities are growing in Europe. Whether Islamic theocracies end up ruling Europe all depends on whether the cultural escape rate keeps up with the disparate and separating fertility rates.

On

Posted on March 31 at 1:49 a.m.Suggest removal

"Tommy Scheurich, neuroscience and music composition junior. Sorry bud, but what do you know about population demographics?"
Actually, a lot. I hope I don't surprise you when I say a person is allowed to have scholarly interests outside his or her major(s). I would hardly call myself an expert, but nor am I a blithering, uninformed ideologue.

"@Tommy: "In the long run, Europe will be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and liberal democracy will go extinct." Apparently you have never lived in Europe. Ridiculous."
Allow me to offer a more nuanced version- this one was fit to print.
- No European nation is at replacement rate. In the lowest-ranking countries, we see half-replacement rate- e.g. when the current generation is gone it will have left behind only half its number. These are simple facts.
- In my opinion, these are not flukes or short term trends. I think any reversal in direction is more likely to be a spike on the graph than a change in trend.
- I am not opposed to a reduction in the size of the earth's population. I think mushroom-shaped demographs will have catastrophic short term results unless policymakers are prepared for them.
- I see a profound irony in the factually-established links between cultural ways of life and birthrates. I treasure the modern idea of human rights. I think it is superior to fascistic, paternalistic, and theocratic alternatives, while I do not think holding it somehow makes us superior people. Yet these same human rights have created a society in which there is an unprecedented array of choices, while more choiceless people incubate five times the number of little people into their ways of life.
- I think theocratic, dominionistic Islam is a more imminent threat in today's world than the same Christianity. If it were Christianity poised in the same situation, I would be equally disturbed. To me it's 6 and a half dozen. I think the political and cultural accomplishments of western civilization are valuable and deserve a chance to impact the future for the better, but if the demographic game plays out as it is currently stacked, all the triumphs and terrible lessons of western heritage will be ignominiously trampled.
- I find myself wondering whether, as biological homo sapiens, (voluntarily explored) simpler ways of life like farming, foraging and community/family living, without schizoid technology and rampant self-indulgence and despair, deserve more consideration as we journey into the future and ask ourselves what makes us happy.

On

Posted on March 25 at 6:07 p.m.Suggest removal

Tucker Cross does right to call our attention to the fact of plummeting fertility rates throughout the western world. This will result in major changes in the future, many of which are disquieting. In the short term, demographic trees will end up shaped like mushrooms, the top-heavy load collapsing retirement funds and social security. In the long run, Europe will be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and liberal democracy will go extinct. I also think Cross has a good point that declining fertility is being unfairly shut out of the public discourse, though I don’t see the point in blaming the bogeyman political correctness.
About halfway through his column, Cross finally tips his hand, revealing the ideology for which he will put these facts to work. And to do so, he makes a claim that does not stand up to rigorous examination. “Statistics,” he writes, “are showing us that the traditional family structure is the most effective and ideal setting for high fertility rates.” In this country, we are currently avoiding falling under replacement rate, and it’s not because of the diligent efforts of fundamentalists who remember learning in Sunday school that a woman’s place is in the home. It’s because of a tremendous gain in babies born to unwed mothers. Experts cite three reasons for this rise: an unexplained surge in accidental teen pregnancy; gains for alternative family practices like surrogacy, adoption, and gay parenting; and a failure of abortion rates to keep up with rising rates of unplanned pregnancy. Anti-abortion activists are still losing in the courts but, as it turns out, they are winning the battle for souls- pregnant teens are more likely to give birth now than they were ten years ago.
What nobody seems to realize is that the “traditional” family was invented and constructed just like everything else. I’d even venture to place it somewhere in the 19th century, when the ideal of marriage for love, 2.5 children and single-family homes took off within Europe’s upper and middle classes. There is nothing “inherent” or “natural” about this family structure. It’s clear to me that nobody really has an angle on the ideal way to live. That is why I still have such high regard for the idea, so important in our time and place, of personal freedom. Fertility has plummeted in our society because people now have the luxury and the freedom to ask themselves questions like “what would make me happy?” Children come into this world extremely needy, expensive, and potentially damaged. There is no law, policy, or constraint that can encourage free people to have children unless the social context helps them see the benefits for themselves.
My modest proposal is to let social retirement money programs collapse- freedom means more than doing whatever you like, it also means facing the consequences of your actions. I anticipate that future thinkers will confront a drastic need for re-evaluation of what really makes us happy.

On

Posted on March 11 at 2:33 p.m.Suggest removal

jfreezy is right, living in OK would be a great threat to non-theocrats... so, if Federalism here were set up like it is supposed to be, we'd get the heck out. I'm behind this article 100%

On

Posted on March 10 at 6:03 p.m.Suggest removal

To John Jennings, I reply that I don't doubt we have a fair way of distributing funds to student organizations and events. I do doubt that we need to spend nearly as much as we spend.

I'm confident we have a fair way of distributing the funds because I'm sure it was drafted by professional administrators and perhaps rubber stamped by student government. This is fortunate, because if the student congress were allowed to decide for itself how to hand out money, I'll wager it'd be every bit as ugly as our own contemporary budget. So much would be spent on legislators' pet projects to get their votes that there'd be none left for equitable distribution.

Which brings me to my reply to Chase Roberts: it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, and that the only bad thing about democracy is the elections. These statements are only partly tongue in cheek. I'd rather be governed by a real expert than George W. Bush anyday, but democracy, when backed by a good heritage and served by virtuous people, serves the important function of preventing individuals from amassing too much power. But I believe our constitutional system is tearing at the seems. Too many strategic gestures have been discovered over the last 100 years, with the result being total budgetary chaos and a delusional faith in infinite credit- political gain today, payment...never? Our republic must be upgraded if it wishes to last longer than Rome's, and apolitical expert administrators should share oversight power with elected officials to keep them from pulling insane stunts to get re-elected.

On

Posted on March 10 at 5:27 a.m.Suggest removal

Oh but Prof. Strauss, if he'd done that, how on earth would you have expected him to fill McCasland Field House?

On

Posted on March 10 at 5:25 a.m.Suggest removal

Well put. But I think like most art, this film should be criticized for what it was supposed to be... as you said, a Charles Dickens lifelike fairytale. And if it was that, it was a good that.

On