Endangered....

The three women across from me the other night represented thirty-six children. That, you say, would be an average of twelve children per class. Yes, it would be – if these women were classroom teachers. But the women weren't teachers, they were mothers (including my own wife); and the children weren't students, they were offspring – their respective offspring. (Most of those kids and their parents were at our house for a weekend wedding.)

Trouble is, I don't know if either one of the other families is finished having kids.

Shocking, you say. Over-population, you quickly add. These people aren't being responsible, you finally hiss. Well, let me tell you a thing or two about shocking over-population responsibility issues. Simply stated: Can you spell M.Y.T.H?

Are you aware of a documentary called "Demographic Winter"? It is a treatise on the fabrication of over-population; its premise, in fact, is that there will be a very, very serious population crunch in the not-too-distant future. And the population crunch will translate into an economic crunch. The writer concludes that at least forty nations in the world are operating at a below-replacement birthrate.

These studies have documented patterns in such far-flung countries as Mexico, Iran, Latvia, Sri Lanka, and many others. Iran, for example, possesses one of the most rapidly aging populations. Forty years ago, Mexican families produced an average of seven children; now they produce 2.1 – the same as the USA. China, with its ridiculous one-child policy, is realizing now that its low birth rate will undo its recent economic prosperity - sooner rather than later. (These are not my thoughts, people; these are indirect quotes from my source.)

To be sure there are pockets worldwide where there has been devastation that couldn't be helped – AIDS, drought, cyclones, tribal warfare, for starters. But in the main, populations are going down generally due to one of two reasons: artificial birth control or abortion. (And I won't touch the possible motives for those decisions.)

This is not a polemic about turning women into baby factories. Far from it. Those who read this column know me better than that. This is about simply reproducing ourselves, and then some. This is about the generation of consumers that is diminishing and will continue to diminish. This is about the morality of economics.

Communities are dying right across Canada and the States because there is no one to replace the present and previous residents. Some of their kids are flocking to the city, to be sure, but the problem is there are simply fewer and fewer kids to flock to the city. Babies grow up to become consumers. And consumers, well, consume: They buy food, houses, cars, and clothing; they rent DVDs and motels; they attend schools, recitals, and grand openings. Limited kids ultimately means limited consumers. It also means limited workers, but, as usual, that is fodder for another column.

Do you sort of get the picture? This is simply not a moral decision whether to have kids or not. This now becomes an economic stability issue for our future.

The double income, no kids policy of many Generation X'ers has been a bust. Sure, it's easy to have just two adults in the house, money to burn, nothing to tie you down, but at what cost? If we are hardly reproducing ourselves, we are setting up ourselves for a significant financial vacuum on a national scale.

If couples are willing but unable to conceive, there is a huge opportunity for adoption. While this does not address the chronic shortage of new babies in the world, it most certainly alleviates other manpower (childpower?) problems.

I suggest to you that the "stork" is an endangered species.