May 3, 2019 at 8:31 pm #299758
All we really need to do is bring the world pop growth rate down to 0% per year. This would optimally require some cooperation among nations in advancing all sorts of voluntary contraception to decrease birth rates. All nations becoming more nationalistic would tend, I think to defeat this goal.May 3, 2019 at 8:49 pm #299760
Another possible necessity is reducing the too-high population of old people in the developed world.May 3, 2019 at 9:05 pm #299761
Well even more likely is that with increasing nationalism, wars and conflicts will kill off more and more of the younger whipper snappers who mostly aren’t contributing much to the well-being of humanity anyway. That is not the preferred method of bringing the pop growth rate to zero, imo, but it could work. So you prefer this method, I guess since you are pro-nationalism and anti globalism.
Old ppl are going to die off anyway at some not so distant point. But as a righty, I would think you would want to be careful about killing off the old ppl, as they make up a substantial % of FOX News watching, MAGA spouting, Trump allies. The alt-right needs those oldies.May 3, 2019 at 9:11 pm #299762
We have the historical evidence of the intense and massive destruction that nationalism can lead to. What is your evidence that globalization is more likely to be worse? Or is it just an unsubstantiated theory, like maybe “eugenics” is a theory?
Globalization is destroying the middle class — which history shows having a stabilizing effect on society as well as being necessary for democracy. Unstable societies will inevitably careen towards war and totalitarianism which then affects their neighbors, leading to even more conflict.
Nationalism leads to war and totalitarianism sometimes, but it is often necessary for self-preservation.May 3, 2019 at 9:33 pm #299766
Old ppl are going to die off anyway at some not so distant point. But as a righty, I would think you would want to be careful about killing off the old ppl, as they make up a substantial % of FOX News watching, MAGA spouting, Trump allies. The alt-right needs those oldies.
Of course they will die eventually, the big difference is there is a tremendous surplus of old people sucking up resources in a way that’s never been seen before.
As for the boomer conservatives, they are degenerates who seem only to care about their credit scores and lower taxes. Like the rest of their generation, they are responsible for this mess and won’t be missed at all by the young, new right.May 3, 2019 at 9:36 pm #299769
All we really need to do is bring the world pop growth rate down to 0% per year. This would optimally require some cooperation among nations in advancing all sorts of voluntary contraception to decrease birth rates. All nations becoming more nationalistic would tend, I think to defeat this goal.
Not all humans would agree to not having children. This isn’t exactly the best way to deal with any creature on earth. The Chinese made a one child law, taxation on any more children. Because most couples only had one child, they now have a shortage of workers and elderly caregivers. The older, more populated generations are dying off and their population is decreasing drastically from when this law was enacted. Thus, and I don’t agree with such a law, a one child law would do similar around the world. Why don’t I agree? Because I’m an only child and for so many reasons it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, thus why I had two children, which I think is better than one and three is more than enough. I don’t understand people who have more than 3, but there are many couples in the U.S. who do have man kids. Makes no sense to me.May 3, 2019 at 10:16 pm #299770
I did say voluntary contraception. Also, it wouldn’t be necessary to limit every couple to 2 children. If every couple only had an average of 2 children, the population growth rate would go below 0%. But laws and agreements that encouraged most couples in all nations to have zero or one or 2 or 3, might suffice.May 3, 2019 at 10:32 pm #299772
The problem is groups like the Quiverfull Movement (think Duggars), in which they believe God says women have to be baby factories, popping out a baby every year or two for the rest of their reproductive lives and while they say “Man cannot serve two masters” women have to serve “God and their husband”. They believe “God blesses them with children” instead of sperm and ovum meeting, follow by cell division for the next 40 weeks, until the fetus is ready to be born. So there are those stupid groups with stupid people, who would refuse to follow that law.May 4, 2019 at 2:21 am #299777
That is a VERY big problem, the cultures who promote many children would be the culture groups that grow as other cultures would diminish, at least relatively. They would also probably be poorer cultures, eventually, and even more likely to wind up as refugees or otherwise seeking to immigrate. But the cultures who successfully went below 0% pop growth would probably be wealthier and would need immigrants.
I was not thinking about punitive laws, but more like laws that reward couples while they have zero kids, reward a bit less when they have 1, even less when they have 2, and the least amount of reward, but something, if they have 3. If 4 kids – give them a stern talking to; 5 kids – say something bitingly sarcastic to them; 6 or more – just stare at them frowning and silently shaking your head.May 4, 2019 at 8:07 am #299780
I don’t know if frowning and shaking one’s head would help these group due to their belief that their god “blessed” them with all those children. They literally see children as a blessing from God and not something created through having sex, which IMO is utter stupidity, making a woman a baby factory, degrading the woman to a cow, etc etc. Of course, cows get better treatment, because they are not forced to bow and coo to a man.May 4, 2019 at 11:39 am #299782@mikeyoheParticipant
Tell me if I am wrong. But my understanding is that children are the Social Security programs of many poorer countries for the people when they get old. In America we want more babies. We pay for people to have babies. We pay people to raise children in the form of tax benefits. We help feed a lot of the children. We pay for their schooling. Let’s for discussion sake say the we stopped all those benefits. If you had children and you had to paid for day care, schooling, no tax breaks, no welfare state. What do you think would happen to the birth rate? I bet the churches will try and fill the gaps for the 10%ers.
Point being, is religion really as powerful reason as many think it is for having babies or a moral excuse.May 4, 2019 at 1:31 pm #299785
I wouldn’t stop educating and insuring that the babies we have, grow up healthy and smart. If the birth rate did go down, and we needed more ppl, there will be immigrants we could choose from. A side benefit of a system such as this, is that white nationalists’ heads would explode.
Humans have too many babies for various reasons, be it religious beliefs, economic reasons, longing for more familial connections, but especially because humans really like having sexual intercourse.May 4, 2019 at 7:28 pm #299804@bigmouthParticipant
“Humans have too many babies for various reasons, ”
At base, could it be a simple as “that’s what mammals tend to do”? By that I mean breed to the point of exhausting natural resources. We’re clever mammals, so have found many ways of accessing resources.
An aside. How is it that ‘nature’ always ensures a global balance between males and females? I think there are slightly more of one than another, but that overall balance is close to 50/50. When an imbalance occurs, such as after WW2, there is a population explosion. This question puzzles me, but am not willing to simply declare ‘god did it’, just because I don’t understand.–Nor d I accept the notion of Gaia, which I consider a sneaky way to introduce deism.
May 4, 2019 at 8:30 pm #299812
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Patrick D.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Patrick D.
However, people need basic needs (and btw, I never was paid to have my two sons) such as education, medicine, healthy food, clean water, shelter, and clothing. I don’t think it would be humane to stop educating people and alike. IMHO, this isn’t what causes people to have more children. I’ve already stated that it isn’t these safety nets that encourage these things, but rather humans being gullible concerning religion. There are people out there who really believe their god (usually the Xian deity in the U.S.) wants women to pump out babies and women either fall for it or they are forced to because of their religion. It is these stupid and superstitious beliefs that do these things and quite frankly, whether the woman knows it or not, it is religion that is highly abusive to women. What I would do, if it were possible, is remove the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution and state we are all free from religion, by basically outlawing any form of religion, especially if it force a person to do things that are harmful and unhealthy, such being a baby factory. We should not remove the safety nets from the people though, just religion.May 4, 2019 at 9:34 pm #299819@laustenKeymaster
But my understanding is that children are the Social Security programs of many poorer countries for the people when they get old.
Mike gets something right every now and then. I’m not sure where you’d find this, but I did an online class on the economics of the poor. Yes, it’s what humans did to survive for a long time, procreate excessively. Some died, some helped with the gathering, some became great hunters. Now, it’s that they might get a job in a sweat shop and be able to send some money home, but, same basic idea. Or, looked at from the other way, when the Middle class grows, birth rates go down. The logic is, with the infrastructure to keep people alive, you are more confident your child will survive, so you invest more into each one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.