I read (-groan-) the entire article in the NYT magazine. The author actually has some talent. He did a good job identifying (admitting?) the problem and fencing off the possible causes for it.

Then, after raising the most likely candidate for the declining birthrate–secularism–he fails to follow up to see if it’s correlated. Then whilst trying to explain the higher birthrates in northern Europe, he fails to even consider an issue he touches (courageously, for the NYT) on earlier–namely that Muslim immigrants breed at much higher rates than the pre-existing Europeans.

After getting about two-thirds of the way, I was utterly disappointed that he failed to even look at the twin conservative theses of Mark Steyn, much less refute them. Instead, he simply went on and proferred up what is, to my mind, an absurd argument for the higher birthrates in the north: nannystate liberalism, which supposedly allows these working women the freedom to have more children, etc., etc.

Balderdash! Take a look at the names of the children being born in these countries. Mohammed is pretty darn popular these days for a reason. And the reason the birthrates are up is because these new immigrants who are arriving in the north are delighted at the additional dough they get for doing what they would do anyway: have large families.

Honestly, this writer is exactly the reason I don’t read the NYT any more.