Author Topic: Pets winning out over having children  (Read 3200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23002
  • Reputation: +20146/-243
  • Gender: Male
Pets winning out over having children
« on: October 18, 2013, 12:40:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Journalist and new dad Jonathan Last has no illusions about starting a family.

    “God help me. I have 3 children under the age of 4, I don’t know who’s idea that was,” he tells weather.com. “Most of the time, I’m covered in vomit and poop ... It’s an enormous amount of work and I am totally unsentimental about children and child-rearing," Last tells weather.com

    So why then is he warning Americans -- and for that matter, the world -- that unless women start having more babies, humankind is headed for big trouble?

    It’s all about fertility rates worldwide, especially among the educated and middle-class, Last writes in his new book: What to Expect when you’re Not Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster. Worldwide, birth rates are declining at an alarming rate and that has serious consequences for the future.

    “The age profile inverts so there are more old people than children. The economy stagnates because there are too few innovators and entrepreneurs and there isn’t enough investment capital. The entitlement state teeters on collapse because there aren’t enough workers to support all of the retirees,” he writes.

    The Numbers Tell a Scary Story

    For years, demographers, policy-makers and environmentalists warned that overpopulation -- and not underpopulation -- was driving the human race toward doom. The overpopulation problem would cause widespread hunger, economic, social and environmental disaster as more and more people competed for limited resources.

    That threat was wildly exaggerated, and in fact, the opposite happened, Last argues.

    Last is obsessed with demographic data and proudly declares himself a numbers nerd. His book contains nearly 500 source footnotes and in total, they paint a very scary picture:  

    In 1970, the global total fertility rate (average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime) was 6.5.
    Today, it’s 2.5. In the U.S., it’s only 1.9.
    The replacement level -- defined as the average number of children a woman needs to have to keep the population from shrinking -- is 2.1.
    "Whether you think it’s a good thing or bad thing ... where we’re heading towards in the next 60-70 years is a peak population of 9 Billion or so and then we’re going to begin contracting ... and that is a VERY BAD THING," Last says.

    Japan: The Demographic Death Spiral Has Begun

    As a microcosm of the consequences, Last points to Japan, where the demographic death spiral has already begun.

    According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Japan’s population will go from 128 million to 87 million as the aging adult population continues to live longer and the fertility rate per woman drops.

    The birthrate for the average Japanese woman in 1950 was more than 6 children. Today it’s one of the lowest in the world -- 1.39.

    In 2012, for the first time, sales of adult diapers surpassed those for babies. Currently, the elderly make up 23 percent of the population. But the Ministry of Health and Welfare projects that people age 65 and older will account for nearly 40 percent of the total Japanese population by 2060.

    With fewer sons and daughters there won’t be as many future working adults to support the economy and take care of the elderly.  

    Japanese Increasingly Replacing Children With Pampered Pets

    Another bellweather of how society is changing, Last points out, is that Japanese are increasingly choosing pets -- and not children -- as family members. Official estimates put the pet population at 22 million or more, but there are only 16.6 million children under 15.

    "In Japanese society, it's really hard for women to have a baby and keep a job ... so my girlfriend decided against having a baby, and that's why we have a dog instead,” one Tokyo pet owner told The Guardian.

    The Japanese lavish attention and money on their pets with the latest grooming products and designer outfits, expensive treatments at hot-springs resorts and pricey dinners at upscale restaurants where Fido is invited to dine alongside his human “parents.”

    Many people spare no expense, even in death. For about $8,000, you can arrange for a traditional Buddhist funeral, complete with a monk officiating.

    The Trend Continues in the U.S.

    Pets are fast-becoming replacements for children

    “Pets have become the fuzzy, low maintenance replacements for children in other countries, like Germany, Italy and the U.S." Last writes.

    Americans who’ve opted out of the parenthood club complain that it’s just too expensive and stressful (easily costing over $1.1 million to raise a child -- including college tuition and lost parental wages). But the fact that Americans spent more than $50 Billion on their pets in 2011, doesn’t seem to faze them, Last says.

    “You look around, we have car insurance for pets, we have medical insurance for pets. We spend more and more money on them.

    “Pets are in many ways like kids but easier and they make you happier than kids do. They don’t cost as much as kids do. You can board them for a week and go to Paris. But I’ve found, much to my chagrin, that people frown when you try to board your children to take a vacation ... It’s certainly a new phase in American cultural development,” he tells weather.com.

    So Last talks the talk. But does he walk the walk? Is the Last family doing its part to reverse the declining birthrate trend by choosing to have more human kids rather than pets as replacements? The jury is still undecided on that question.

    “We don’t have any (pets) and I want to get my children out of diapers before we consider it ... I would say this isn’t a subject of intense conversation right now (between my wife and I) ... If you’re on the fence and if it’s a close call between a dog and baby, you should get the dog!”


    Jonathan V. Last is a senior writer at the Weekly Standard. He’s also written for the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post,  The Week, Salon and Slate. He is not particularly fond of children or pets, but argues they are both players in a potential global population crisis.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23002
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #1 on: October 18, 2013, 12:48:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Americans who’ve opted out of the parenthood club complain that it’s just too expensive and stressful (easily costing over $1.1 million to raise a child -- including college tuition and lost parental wages). But the fact that Americans spent more than $50 Billion on their pets in 2011, doesn’t seem to faze them, Last says.


    This is the essence of the insanity, right here.

    "Too expensive and stressful", and then they get a dog and spend tons of money on it.

    And thousands of Trad men didn't get the memo that it costs $1.1 Million to raise each child.

     :facepalm:

    Maybe that's a good critique of women in the workforce, and daycare -- but that's not part of the Trad Catholic lifestyle.

    Once men can manage to support their families without monetary input from their wives, a man's wife can provide "daycare" for 1 child or 10 at the same expense.

    A lot of the men in the article need to "man up".  

    "Covered in poop and vomit." ...really now... Sounds like a pathetic moron to me. You're supposed to put the diaper on the baby's bottom. At least before you give your baby a piggyback ride. And no, you don't feed the baby and then bounce him in the air while holding him over your head...

    It's not that difficult, really...
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #2 on: October 18, 2013, 01:25:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :confused1: :reporter: :baby:
    Mr. Last is confused!  MRS. Last should be changing the diapers and dealing with the vomit!  Surely his journalist income is ample enough to support his wife, three children, and no pets!
    But, as Bishop Williamson said in one of his U.S. conferences, "One sees nappy counters in men's lavatories!"
    A problem already showing itself is that of aging or needy "only" children.  When there were big families, there was always a brother or sister to turn to in times of need.  Now, a formerly temporary setback like illness or job loss can result in long-term homelessness or becoming a ward of the welfare state.  

    On the positive side, there is a huge increase in Sodom and Gomorrah "couples," the "men" of whom mercifully seem to prefer pets to adopting children.  I don't know about the "women."

     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #3 on: October 18, 2013, 01:56:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sick,  irrational,  and frankly, creepy. Comparing a pet to a baby is degrading our humanity,  and thus, God. Pets are not children!

    Another sign of the social oblivion we are falling into.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Tiffany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3111
    • Reputation: +1639/-27
    • Gender: Female
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #4 on: October 18, 2013, 02:12:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Frances
    :confused1: :reporter: :baby:
    Mr. Last is confused!  MRS. Last should be changing the diapers and dealing with the vomit!  Surely his journalist income is ample enough to support his wife, three children, and no pets!
    But, as Bishop Williamson said in one of his U.S. conferences, "One sees nappy counters in men's lavatories!"
    A problem already showing itself is that of aging or needy "only" children.  When there were big families, there was always a brother or sister to turn to in times of need.  Now, a formerly temporary setback like illness or job loss can result in long-term homelessness or becoming a ward of the welfare state.  

    On the positive side, there is a huge increase in Sodom and Gomorrah "couples," the "men" of whom mercifully seem to prefer pets to adopting children.  I don't know about the "women."



    No more Aunts and Uncles to care for children whose parents are unable or unwilling to care of them.


    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1114
    • Reputation: +839/-102
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #5 on: October 18, 2013, 03:47:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A few things need to be understood about this article and, even more so, about the book by Last that it refers to and the mind-set of Last and everyone involved in the publicity surrounding it.

    (1) Last is a Jewish writer who works for one of the premier Jewish neocon outlets, the Weekly Standard.

    (2) Thus, while the book, the article cited in the OP, and the various articles on demography written by Last are all technically published in the open, the plain fact is that their actual and intended readership is, to an overwhelming degree, not you, me, or anyone remotely describable as Christian or white.

    (3) Q. So who are the people who make up Last's true audience?
    A. The Jews who read the Weekly Standard, a group that consists virtually in toto of non-Orthodox atheists, many of whom dishonestly describe themselves as assimilated. All they are assimilated to, however, are their fellow Jews who run this country and most other industrialized nations—China and India being the biggest exceptions, what with Jewish influence in Japan and Singapore having increased exponentially in the past twenty years.

    (4) Q. So what's the actual point of the piece and the book, then?
    A. The point is that these upscale Jews are exhibiting traits that Last and his masters love in the goyim but hate in the Chosenites: breeding themselves out of existence. Since the Jews in question don't get mixed messages from the print outlets they follow or the TV programs they watch—they realize without being told that they are ipso facto exempt from any critical commentary, since they have known for generations that when their fellow Jews lament the crimes of "white people," they are referring not to pigmentation but to absence of Tribal affiliation—they know precisely what's up when one of their number talks about "danger" or "unfortunate consequences" if they don't resume breeding at population-replacement level or higher. What distresses Last and those like him (Elliot Abrams, e.g.) is loss of complete Jewish control of government—perhaps even loss of control to the dreaded white Christian remnant (just barely still a majority here) that doesn't understand that it isn't fit to govern itself. That's what all the talk about a new Final Solution and new pogroms means: resumption of Jewish minority status in the societies they were incompetent to construct on their own. (Not that simple justice matters to them …)

    (5) Apropos reinforcement, as anyone who has spent any time in the conciliar church during the past fifty years can tell you, no Sunday "presider" has ever given a homily in which he's told the assembled huggers and yakkers and orant-position good-timers that they better start having more children. Quite the opposite, in fact, at least on occasion. What is more, the refusal to reinforce the need for sizable families goes all the way up to the Vatican, which effectively sends out the message that people who bother to work for a living need to have both parents working full-time, since the ever-more-intrusive governments of the once Christian nations now expect those who work to pay, involuntarily, the bills of those who don't. Diversity being our greatest strength, after all, it would be terrible to expect the breeding portion of the "diverse" population to pay its own way.

    (6) Since the state of affairs the conciliar church has at least tacitly supported since its inception under the not-yet-"conanized" Paul VI has long since come to pass, it's hard to be too tough on married neocatholics who have only one or two kids. First, no one in a position of moral authority is telling them to act otherwise. Second, they are faced with enormous costs, as we all are, and in most cases two jobs are needed simply to maintain a lower-middle-class standard of living. I am quite sure that many of these one- and two-child couples never even have to consider natural or artificial birth control, since sheer exhaustion at the end of the day frequently brings about the same result.

    (7) Finally, contempt for our enemies and their evil designs shouldn't be allowed to translate into contempt for pets per se (cards on the table time: I don't have a pet any longer, but I'm an unapologetic cat lover). Pets are not children, needless to say, but they have a lot going for them nonetheless. For example, no pet, after going off to college for a semester or two, has ever returned home to tell Mom and Dad that they've ruined his or her life by being so incredibly uncool. Lucky the parents nowadays who never get told that!

    Offline Traditional Guy 20

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3427
    • Reputation: +1660/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #6 on: October 18, 2013, 05:09:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a soft spot for animals and think animals deserve to be treated descently HOWEVER I also see some of this crazy animal mentality such as the "crazy old cat lady" who has 20 cats in her house but never decided to get married (for the record I'm a cat fan but one or two cats is enough for me).

    I myself one of these days plan on having a large Catholic family with at least 8 children, if not more, economics on the matter be damned.

    Now my major dilemna is finding a woman out there who can put up with having a lot of children and my right-wing views. :wink:

    Offline Traditional Guy 20

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3427
    • Reputation: +1660/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #7 on: October 18, 2013, 05:22:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • claudel I agree with a lot of what you're saying but a few things should be cleared up though.

    While the majority of neo-cons are Jewish, the Weekly Standard is also full of Christians who support Israel "because the Bible tells them to do so."

    Also the major problem, which you alluded to, but did not say per se, is that there is a large minority population out there who pays little if no taxes, and sees its population subsidized through this large welfare state paid by white Americans. The Catholic Church has no problem with this and supports more immigration from the Third World and supports an even larger welfare state and a state of more cops, prisons, laws, etc. caused by the newcomers.

    Also business supports women out of the kitchen into careers, where both parents work and there are no children and does not support a living wage for the head of household so he can support his large family.

    Finally the reason children badmouth their parents like that is that they of course have no good parents. Of course one can put out a few exceptions, since if I had followed my family, I'd be one of those pro-Jewish, feminist, liberal, non-Catholic males out there.


    Offline Tiffany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3111
    • Reputation: +1639/-27
    • Gender: Female
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #8 on: October 18, 2013, 05:46:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Traditional Guy 20


    I myself one of these days plan on having a large Catholic family with at least 8 children, if not more, economics on the matter be damned.
    :applause:

    Offline alaric

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1760
    • Reputation: +1520/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #9 on: October 19, 2013, 10:53:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
    I have a soft spot for animals and think animals deserve to be treated descently HOWEVER I also see some of this crazy animal mentality such as the "crazy old cat lady" who has 20 cats in her house but never decided to get married (for the record I'm a cat fan but one or two cats is enough for me).

    I myself one of these days plan on having a large Catholic family with at least 8 children, if not more, economics on the matter be damned.

    Now my major dilemna is finding a woman out there who can put up with having a lot of children and my right-wing views. :wink:
    That can be quite the dilemma these days but I'm sure there's a willing woman out there for you somewhere, one that is a queer about animals or Cathy" career-chick".

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1114
    • Reputation: +839/-102
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #10 on: October 19, 2013, 06:15:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: alaric
    … I'm sure there's a willing woman out there for you somewhere …


    Maybe; maybe not. Trad parents are just as likely as other parents—probably more so, actually—to tell their daughters what my parents told my sisters and what my older sister told her three daughters: "You can do better, sweetheart." (If only they had all heeded the advice!) Besides, girls who think in terms of having a family, especially a large family, tend reflexively to look for more in a mate than simply the present-day equivalent of "Barkis is willing."

    Virtuous young women, especially those who are smart and pretty too, can be as picky as they want to be. After all, like left-handed pitchers with a working splitter, slider, and changeup, they are a highly prized commodity in very, very short supply.


    Offline Traditional Guy 20

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3427
    • Reputation: +1660/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #11 on: October 19, 2013, 11:01:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ah yes the "you can do better" statement. I really hate this statement as it shows such elitism and no sympathy towards working-class fellows like myself who aren't able to offer much and yet show so much more promise than those who have more money.

    It is well known that those who are more poor have larger families and also are more religious than those who have more money.

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #12 on: October 20, 2013, 11:29:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Liberum eundem lupus
    Quote from: Frances
    On the positive side, there is a huge increase in Sodom and Gomorrah "couples," the "men" of whom mercifully seem to prefer pets to adopting children.  I don't know about the "women."


    Actually, one can do both, as many same-sex married couples do. Two million (human) children are being raised by "Sodom and Gomorrah" couples, many of whom were tossed off by their allegedly superior heterosexual parents. You're welcome.   :dancing:


    The statistic is appalling.  My statement stems from what I observe in my own neighborhood in NY.  There has been a steady increase in noticeably "gay" men, many of whom proudly show off their canine (and feline) children.  I see very few with human children, but my soul aches for those scandalized little ones.
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-17
    • Gender: Female
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #13 on: October 20, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The proper terms are homosexual or lesbian, not "gay."  You don't like my use of men or women?  What word(s) shall I use?  If I see a person who appears to be male, I address him as "Sir," if appearance is female, "Ma'am."  If I can't tell which gender, and courtesy requires it, I introduce myself by name in hope of getting a proper means of address.  Being snide has nothing to do with this.  Ask anyone who knows me IRL on CI if I am snide.  They'll say no.  I have many faults, but this isn't one of them.  Courtesy is part of required charity.

    There is nothing happy or "gay" about a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance,  or the fact that innocent children are being corrupted with the support of civil law.  Better to be have a rough life on earth followed by eternity in Heaven than to be well-cared for, educated, only to lose your soul.  

    As for your brother, if you love him, as you claim, you will have warned him of the grave condition of his soul, and that of his partner-in-sin.  Would you congratulate a man for 30 faithful years of tax fraud, or murder?  I cannot congratulate them for being "faithful" when that fidelity is to a life by which Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother, and all of Heaven is gravely offended. Your erroneous reasoning is like that of Pope Benedict XVI when he said there is virtue in a male prostitute using a condom.

    For the sake of your own soul, please consider having a talk with a good traditional priest about Catholic teaching on homosexuality and how to think and act towards your brother and his "partner."
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1114
    • Reputation: +839/-102
    • Gender: Male
    Pets winning out over having children
    « Reply #14 on: October 20, 2013, 01:37:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Frances
    For the sake of your own soul, please consider having a talk with a good traditional priest about Catholic teaching on homosexuality and how to think and act towards your brother and his "partner."


    Excellent advice, but fifty bucks says it will be roundly ignored, Frances. Sad to say, CI's newest member sounds like a good match for "partnership" with TCat/soulguard, who has already broken his expletive-filled promise never to comment here again.

    Quote from: Frances
    … Would you congratulate a man for 30 faithful years of tax fraud …? …


    … Wait! I'm thinking, I'm thinking!!

    (with apologies to the late Jack Benny)

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16