What happened to the comments that were posted here yesterday?

alive:

The consume society that we know is absolutely dependent on the breakup of the family. When families were a much more cohesive group, up until the end of WWII, there was little consumption for the sake of self-gratification. Consumerism wasn't in fact coined until the '60's, when the first post-war, post-depression generation was "grown up". That was about when the Disney version of the American Dream began appearing on the toob (sic). My three Sons, Father Knows Best, et al -- basically all variations on a theme, with the big house in the suburbs, the little lady in the kitchen, and dad away at some (non-labouring, grey flannel suit) job the whole day touted the consumer society. The one thing these series did not show, was grandma and grandpa making up the third generation that was much more common in pre-WWII times. If the latter were ever shown, it was inevitably when they popped back into town in their motorhome, exploring the continent in a well-deserved retirement, having won the war. Carefree and independent were the buzzwords of the day.
Then Mom began popping valium........

“The consume society that we know is absolutely dependent on the breakup of the family.”

Amen to that. It works hand in glove: Schools oblige by doing their best to beat the stuffing out of the kids, so they’ll spend the rest of their life trying to buy it back (their stuffing). Parents are out there raking it in for the goods, and they can’t be bothered with the finer points of soul-mangling.

Two things:

One, the birth rate in a developed country with an educated population is the truest and most profound expression of what people think of their society. The monumental arrogance of politicians in refusing to see the writing on the wall is truly fantastic. They seem to believe it’s a fad, which they can (must) ride rouhgshod over in order to ‘fill in the blanks’, so their buddies in the various industries won’t lack for ‘workers’. Even the two worthy ladies who wrote the article talk about ‘young workers’. When we start thinking of the next generation as people first and workers second; when we start thinking of Canada as a homeland for humans instead of a place where we wring money out of the ground and pluck it off the trees, when we realize we can choose to effect a real shift in our cultural paradigms instead of lamenting pseudo-problems of our own making, then we may have hope.

It is claimed that Canada is founded on the Rule of Law and the Supremacy of God; Well then, never mind the Rule of Law, pretty words but no one in North America know what they mean. God, now, told us to first seek his kingdom and his justice, and the rest would follow. How about starting to look at our priorities? The ones we really have, and the ones we only lay claim to?

Two, with all due respect, have the two authors tried to bring up children in this economy? Do you know how hard it is to stand up to the religion of spick-and-span, new-and-spiffy? The advertisings are hammering people to spend their last dollar on equipping their kids to be ‘equal’, meaning, wearing the last stuff. Schools are mean little gossipy villages complete with withch-hunts, ‘criminal’ records (as in: you’ll not live it down for ten years, if the wrong people saw you eat a peanut-butter sandwich), and tribunals and excutioners. Good luck to your kids if they are either without a strong culture of their own, which is why we had the Kirpan debate, or they don’t have a mom who is free to stand in the class-room door and make small talk with the teacher and bring a cake once in a while, to make things cozy. Everyone needs pass-marks according to the teachers, and so the best and brightest do not get pushed to their potential, at least not if they’re not either from one of the founding nations or one of those new power blocks that have bouhgt a licence to whack others over thead with the demand for political correctness. Prozac, Ritalin and other garbage can now be sold in truckloads to remedy our mistreatment – hurrah, business. The fast food companies made money on feeding the kids into obesity, now ‘Jenny' can make money on slimming them down again. And so on.

Until we stop trashing a staggering proportion of the people who are indeed born among us, in our mad stampede for the ready, we will not really be able to have this discussion in earnest. We are not at square one yet, but maybe we are aprroaching it. At least the authors deserve kudos for raising the question. Now you know, ladies, why no one has raised it before. That’s because there are all these scarred warriors out there who might come out and say stuff like the previous writer and I just have. And that might be ‘disturbing’.

Not to mention the other elephant in the room - the fact that in our current society, it's all too easy to slide through the cracks - whether it's through job loss, divorce or ill health. The middle class is fast being replaced by the 'working poor", and a lot of the working poor in BC (and especially in Vancouver) can barely afford to

Most animal species won't reproduce when they're not secure in terms of survival. Why should we expect humans to be any different? Given our current economic and social climate, many people are choosing not to have children because it can mean the difference between financial security and living on the brink of disaster. It's ridiculous for some politician who's never had to worry about their rent or food payments in their life to start bleating about how people should be patriotic and "responsible" and "breed for der Fatherland!"

I don't think the panacea for low birth rates is handouts or a government-paid reward for having children (nanny state). Neither of these address the root cause. I do think the minimum wage needs to be raised to accurately reflect the basic cost of living. When people feel more secure, they're more likely to invest in reproducing.

sorry, dropped a sentence there.

A lot of the working poor can barely juggle food and rent. As a result, many people are weighing the cost/benefits of kids and coming up with a negative. The fact that having kids in the type of society that Dorothy describes cuts into the ability of many people to live comfortably is often the tipping point. And I'm not talking big screen TV...I'm talking being able to afford a home (of any type), eat decently, and pay for the clothes on your family's back while also paying for your kids' needs. If you're making minimum wage, even a couple of hundred dollars a month in child-related expenses can send you down the slippery slope of financial ruin.

At the present stage of capitalism that we're in, it requires two workers in a family just to make ends meet what with the high cost of housing and the failure of wages to keep pace.

At the same time the gov't childcare plan consists of throwing people a few bucks that will cover them for 3 days a month.

The gov't also requires our young men to fight and die in foreign wars.

Their plan? Its obvious. Polygamy.

If all of us surviving males have 3 wives, all but one of us can work to pay the bills while one stays home with all the kids :-)

Polygamy and rampant commercialism go together hand in hand like a Republican and boys. Be prepared when Harper's caucus rolls this one out before the next election.

I find it sad that in all the articles I've read on the subject - and this includes those in European news media - no one wants to mention the real problem of overpopulation. Quite simply, overpopulation is a main root cause of so many issues, from pollution to climate change to soil degradation to wars. It's just a loaded subject so people avoid it or relegate its necessity to the third world. The per capita impact of all the above, especially pollution, is much higher in industrialized societies, so having less people in industrialized nations is generally good.

I have never seen any real discussion on whether we *should* let population decline. We cite economic reasons, quite true, that our model of the economy is based on more population, more consumption, more production, in every year. But we don't acknowledge that is *us* who create the economic model. Economics of mass consumerism is a failed model when you're dealing with total cost to the planet.

[Most animal species won't reproduce when they're not secure in terms of survival]
Good point! The idea of raising children in this society- the financial costs, the environmental and social degradation looming ahead (or more fittingly, already at our doorstep), the way we pit ourselves against one another in competition rather than build loving communities- it's mind boggling. I'm not going there; no thanks.

[The birth rate in a developed country with an educated population is the truest and most profound expression of what people think of their society.]
You got it, sister!

I am child free by choice but every now & then I consider adoption. Some issues that cause me to change my mind:
There are few, if any, healthy babies or children available for adoption unless you have thousands of dollars for an international adoption.
Where will I find good, affordable child care?
Where will I find a decent,affordable, 2 bedroom suite in Vancouver?
Becoming a parent would be a sentence to living on the poverty line for myself & the child. I grew up in a low income family. Having limited means sucks & I have no desire to live like that again.
Maybe I'll win the lottery?

I am a thirty something male and the reason (or so i'd like to believe) that i've never had children is twofold, one, in the past i've not found the right woman (ie: i have't felt strongly enough about a gal to consider the idea of children), and two, growing up as i did, in the eighties and seeing image after image of starving children in Africa and seeing both of my parents struggle to make ends meet during tough economic times, i took many of these little life images to heart. The concepts of overpopulation and particularly environmental degradation really had strong effects on me as a teenager and though it may have been unconcious, i believe i may have decided during those formative years that bringing children into this doomed world was a selfish and cruel act. The result: I spent my twenties working, having ultra-protected sex, and avoiding commitment.

Now, of course, having lived a little, i realize that the alarmists back then were probably as ill-informed then as they are now. Even though i believe we do have many incredibly important issues to deal with, me not having kids is not going to make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things. And who knows, maybe it will by my kid who actually makes a difference!

So hooray for the couples choosing to raise a family in today's climate. You have courage. You will have to deal with far more than our parents did, but somehow, i know you'll survive. And in that brood of next-gen kids, i'm willing to bet that there'll be a few of them who will unquestionably help to lead us all out of this environmental mess we've got ourselves into. Age doesn't necessarily mean intelligence or even wisdom. Sometimes the simplest of ideas are the most profound. Who knows, maybe the youth of tomorrow will help us redsicover what it means to truly live cooperatively, in the spirit of life and humanity. We can't have birth and renewal without death and decay.

Step easy:
yeah keep dreaming!
The holes we are digging today are so deep, that no Einstein can remedy it!
Like: hey, we do not need Kyoto!
Like: hey, let's kill anyone who has a different belief!
Like: we really need 300 horsepower vehicles, so we can avoid walking a bit.

For step easy:

Wise words for one so young - it took me a lot longer to swallow that life is a package deal of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

A non-squiteur, perhaps, but still:

I have spotted the remark in the above article, about how it works for Sweden and Denmark to give baby-bonuses. I should inform the dear readers, that in Denmark at least, of which I have some little knowledge, the deal is, that those who have babies are not the original Danes. It is the 10% to 12% imported muslims, who are determined to take over the country through breeding (actual quote from a sermon, where an undercover Danish journalist understanding Arabic was present). People predict, that in a few decades, if the current trend continues, Denmark will have a muslim majority.
This may be something we will want to consider. Canada has unique opportunity to engineer its own demographics through immigration choices. Are we doing it wisely? Maybe we should hit the brakes and take a thought on this. it's not as if the world will run out of people to import, so what's the rush?

Hi Dorothy,

thanks for the comments.

I know nothing about Denmark, however i'm not so sure that putting the brakes on our own immigration policies would be all that wise. As we all know our population growth is coming almost entirely from immigration. well, it's a huge can of worms that i don't have a lot of time to go into at the moment, but suffice to say that i believe strongly in immigration, it is absolutely necessary for cultural and economic growth.

However i agree with you completely that a more balanced intake of people from all parts of the world would be better for Canada. Diversity is the key to establishing not only a balanced array of cultures but a balanced economy as well. We in the west seem to think that we understand globalism and economics pretty well, but i would argue against that. A diversity of people with completely differing ideas, viewpoints, life experiences, and of course cultures would, in my view, have tremendously positive impacts on all aspects of life in Canada.

anyways, i went off topic. and it's a huge topic. Aiyaiyai.

Hey alive, yeah, you're right, i guess i am a dreamer of sorts.

Step easy…now show you can do so:

“…suffice to say that i believe strongly in immigration, it is absolutely necessary for cultural and economic growth.”

But I think that is what I am trying to say: I do want to know why economic growth is considered a sacred, untouchable pursuit. I can deal with a degree of complexity. Bring on the enlightenment.

Cultural growth? How about taking an interest in the indigenous people of Canada as real, profound contributors to the culture and not just human museum pieces, whom we give their due in political correctness and otherwise keep our distance from?

Can of worms? Tip that lid and let us see them crawl!

dorothy is NOT exaggerating the problems the Danes have made for themselves!
It would appear that France is much in the same boat for different reasons!

The only kind of workers Canada needs are for the slave jobs harvesting crops of every kind.
Unfortunately, nobody stays on the farm to work for nothing, so we end up with a lot of unskilled labour and little to offer them!

The other part of immigration are grandparents, uncles and aunts,all a mere burden on society.

Here in BC we also wind up with the aged from every other province, coming here to retire and use our monies for healthcare!

Remember they paid their taxes in other provinces but suck on our system when they no longer contribute!

So the entire system need to be overhauled!

Remember they paid their taxes in other provinces but suck on our system when they no longer contribute!

So the entire system need to be overhauled!

You mean, we need to become a united country.........????!!!! (gasp...)

alive......suggestions on the overhaul?

With economic (essentially corporate) globalization rapidly underpinning our very own primary industries, the writing i think, will soon get clearer.

There is no way that wage disparity can continue the way it has been. We'll take those foreign workers thank you very much because all the union cayeying in the world will not stop the forces of capitalism. Sooner or later, as with global corporations, global communications, global supply and global demand, the trend will reach the workers - laboar. It's already beginning to happen with the Mexicans. And so it should. We've all lived pretty high on the hog long enough here in Canada and there is no way our lifestyle can can continue with present global forces.

Dorothy, personally, i don't think economic growth is a sacred, untouchable pursuit. But, the fact is, almost everyone spends a great proportion of their life seeking more monetary wealth. In response to an earlier comment of yours:

".......When we start thinking of the next generation as people first and workers second; when we start thinking of Canada as a homeland for humans instead of a place where we wring money out of the ground and pluck it off the trees, when we realize we can choose to effect a real shift in our cultural paradigms instead of lamenting pseudo-problems of our own making, then we may have hope."

Ideologically, i couldn't agree more. However, the reality is even the most dedicated humanists among us fall prey to consumerism. We are undeniably hard-wired into consuming and unfortunately no logic, compassion, or foresight will alter our current habits. The largest patterns and areas of consumption have been so intricately cemented to our primal/archetypal motivations that nothing short of complete break-down will change that. I'm talking: our need for mobility (both physically and in terms of communication), our drive and desire for action in the sexual arena, food, shelter, superiority, etc, etc.

Dorothy said, "......Cultural growth? How about taking an interest........."

How do we help indigenous peoples to reclaim their heritage? I do not know.

I agree with you though Dorothy, i just don't have a clue as to how to go about that process. I do know that the First Nations peoples in B.C. are rapidly losing many of their traditional languages (and hence much of their culture). But the problem is exacerbated by capitalism - Huge billboards on reserve land. No matter which way you slice it, it almost always comes down to moeny. It's tragic that we're all so damn greedy.

The French also tried to increase their population by offering incentives, something that the Algerian & African immigrants quickly caught onto. The problem was that the French wanted the “true French” to have the babies not the immigrants, but of course they could not say that outright.

The world needs fewer people, not more. The most serious problem we face is global warming, brought about by too many people wanting too much from the Earth's finite resources. With fewer people, each person can have a better life. I do not know the ideal population, but it is a lot less than at present.

Canada needs fewer people, not more. I treasure the wilderness. I need it for my mental well-being. As time goes on I find it harder and harder to get away from people.

Yes, let the population decline. Those who insist we need growth are brainwashed into thinking that way. Growth is not necessary, in fact it is an evil.

Population in decline is a problem? Says who?

According to Dr. Rees (UBC scientist who coined the "environmental footprint" term), we are already in "overshoot", that is, there are too many people on a world that can no longer carry them all. And we want to keep growing?

When are we going to realize that we can't play by the old rules anymore?

British Minister of State for Public Health said that pregnant British teens, seeking to ease their labor pains, were smoking to reduce the birth weight of their babies.[/Ihttp://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2006-10-10.html
[I]but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.http://www.ocap.ca/songs/evedestr.html

Rats! Blew it!
__________________________
[I]British Minister of State for Public Health said that pregnant British teens, seeking to ease their labor pains, were smoking to reduce the birth weight of their babies.[I]

http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2006-10-10.html

[I]but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction[I]

[http://www.ocap.ca/songs/evedestr.html

Wow Dorothy,you are one smart lady who is not afraid the state what is just plain old comon sense.I think a lot of what you have said has over the years caused a down turn in social mood and that coupled with the more educated people in the western economies has caused people to seriously think twice about bringing children into an already over populated world.This mood swing may well be subconcious as well as rational thinking on behalf of the better educated.I think that our natural resourses will be Canada's saving grace not our population. We cannot hope to compete with the eastern or Oriental population growth so we need to take a very defensive stance and be very selective about who we allow in and definately toss a few of the undesireables out.Unfortunately we will at some time have to align ourselves with those guys to the south,hopefully when they have a smarter person running things.

Yes gasp is correct!
our provincial governments need to realize that as the population shifts the revenue needs to shift as well.
Basically it is not sound to have a bunch of provincial governments going every which way on the same subject.
either seperate or become active participating members pursuing the same goals!

If Gordo, Harpo, Klein and others were as eager to promote Canada as they are in sucking up to USA, that would be a good beginning.

Centralization has become a dirty word, primarily because we all smell corruption when it is directed from Ontario and Quebec!

However, a country cannot function if it does not have a cohesive policy!

As I see it the various leaders are afraid to loose clout! they are in effect big frogs in a small pond, and would be nobodies if their portfolios were designed and implemented on a Canada wide basis.

It is just another old boys club, where they sit around and try to figure how their province can be "distinct", to borrow a phrase.