February 16, 2007
UNICEF hates kids
Yeah, that's provocative. But they just released a report that purports to be a measure of the overall "child well-being" of top industrial/post-industrial nations. To no one's surprise, the US comes in dead last (21st), with the UK in 2nd to last. Ireland comes in at a measly 9th. The top countries are, in order, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Spain.
So why do I say that UNICEF hates kids? Because the US is the only country on the list whose birth-rate is sufficient for population replacement. Women in the Netherlands have, on average, 1.66 children a piece ([1]), Sweden has the same ([2]), Demark has 1.74 ([3]), Finland comes in with 1.73 ([4]), and Spain has only 1.28 ([5]. The so-called "replacement rate" is 2.1 children per women, one for each of the parents plus a little extra to account for gender ratios etc. Many of these countries, most of them European, are currently in a state of population decline, and the ones that aren't are growing solely by virtue of net immigration. Which isn't good for parked cars.
So basically, UNICEF is telling us that the way to have happy children is not to have them. Frankly, this makes a lot of sense, considering the UN's general positions on vital issues (in every sense of the word "vital"). The UN consistently advocates a death-affirming, post-Christian, Euro-phillic culture that is not consistent with a healthy, growing, vibrant civilization. It is utterly contradictory for an international organization purportedly dedicated to the global well-being of children to encourage people to have fewer children. I mean, sure, there will be fewer unhappy children if there are fewer children, but that's kind of like saying that the solution to prison-overcrowding is to let everyone go.
A plague on them, I say. Only that probably isn't needed. All we have to do is wait, and the lefty types will simply disappear for want of offspring. The meek may inherit the earth, but only if they have enough kids.
