Left-liberals heading for extinction?

There is a long article on The Brussels Journal by the always brilliant Fjordman entitled How the Feminist’s “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam. This is a long piece packed with good information which I intend to mine for material for the next couple of days. Tonight I would like to focus on what certain demographic trends may mean for the future:

It is numbers like these that have induced Phillip Longman to foresee “the Return of Patriarchy” and proclaim that “conservatives will inherit the Earth:”

“Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry.” “It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as “world citizens” are also those least likely to have children.” “The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies.” “Tomorrow’s children, therefore, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society.”

Regardless of who wins the elections coming up in November or even in 2008 the long term prospects for the Democrat Party do not look good. At least not the Democrat Party as it exists today.

The fact is that left-liberals are not reproducing at replacement rates. Perhaps this is a kind of biological defense mechanism which God or evolution has built into our genes. When a segment of the population embraces an unviable social model the urge to reproduce gets “switched off”.

In nature most, if not all, species have ways of ensuring that the best genes get passed along to the next generation. The displays of plumage and courtship dances and vocalizations seen in some species of birds are designed to show off males who are well fed, healthy and in good physical condition. These are the kind of males most likely to possess genetic characteristics which will enhance the survivability of the species.

The fights over mates which other species, from herbivores like deer to carnivores like lions, engage in perform the same purpose with the added benefit of purging out the weak altogether.

The complexity of the human cerebellum precludes instinctive behavior as seen in many lower animals where the creature is incapable of resisting or even questioning the inborn compulsion to act in a certain way. However it is very likely that in humans the irresistible instinct of the lower animal is transformed into strong predisposition. After all most people chose to pair up in a permanent union with a person of the opposite sex and have children*. Most parents will sacrifice their own safety and well being for the benefit of their children.

The biochemical changes which take place in a woman’s brain as she carries a child to term and goes through childbirth leave her with a different set of priorities. It isn’t that she faces the irresistible compulsion to nurture her child against her will; it is just that the baby seems to be the most important thing in the world to her, whatever she thought before she became pregnant. This is the result of a whole bunch of “chemical switches” getting closed in her brain which has the effect of rewiring her operating system.

The same thing is true of a man as he falls in love with a woman and bonds with his child. Although the bonding isn’t as strong as that between a woman and her child it is still real and is partly based in brain chemistry.

But human beings possess the intellectual ability to make rational choices which can override predispositions. A man can feel himself growing closer to a woman (or vice versa) and chose to break off the relationship because he has made the deliberate decision not to become involved. A man or woman can make the decision that they never want children and have themselves surgically sterilized. A couple can make the decision that they value a certain level of affluence more than parenting and so choose to use birth control.

Now it could be that when a person adopts the worldview or mindset of left-liberalism that a different set of chemical switches get closed in his/her brain and the result is a diminished desire to reproduce. When you boil down the whole left-liberal philosophy what you get are two basic ideas. One is that you want someone else to take responsibility for your life and the other is that you are unwilling to fight, to kill or die, to defend what you value.

The left-liberal wants a massive state apparatus to guarantee the feeding, clothing, housing, physical safety and healthcare for the population and is an anti-military pacifist.

In the wild both of these traits would render an organism’s chances of survival somewhere between zero and none. A creature which will neither feed itself nor defend itself is a genetic dead end.

It could very well be that there is some genetic emergency cutoff switch either hardwired into us by two billion years of evolution or the very hand of God which predisposes people who hold these dead end views to end their own genetic lines.

This would apply to the upper class Republican couple who chose to remain childless in order to be able to afford the house in the mountains and two Mercedes as much as it would to the tube-tied feminist or the vasectomized metrosexual Kerry voter. In both cases those who find other things of more value than parenting fail to fling their genes into the pool and so create the strong likelihood that the next generation will contain less of their kind.

The reverse is also true. Those who chose to reproduce will pass along not only their genetic material but their values (the values that led to the creation of the children in the first place) as well.

The result of this is that over the course of multiple generations both the terminally weak (the left-liberal) and the terminally selfish (the two career “power couple”) will self select themselves out of the genetic lottery.

What this means for the future of the United States is that the culture of Middle and Working Class “Red State” America is more viable and therefore will ultimately dominate.

*The statistic which says that half of all marriages end in divorce is an example of Mark Twain’s axiom that there are “lies, damned lies and statistics”. It is arrived at by taking the number of marriages in a society in a year and comparing it to the number of divorces in the same year. Thus if there are 1000 marriages and 500 divorces it is said that half the marriages end in divorce. What this doesn’t take into account are all the people who began the year already married. So if you have 1000 couples who are already married on January 1 and over the course of the year 1000 more people tie the knot and 500 couples divorce you have a divorce rate of 25%, not 50%. The true divorce rate in the US peaked at 33% in the mid 1980s and has been declining ever since.