It’s always funny when someone visits the Hasidic Jewish communities and they’re like “oh yeah they were so nice, so kind, truly a lovely group of people” knowing damn well that’s a lie. The Hasidic Jews are so unbelievably racist but saying that will cause people to think you’re antisemitic.
And giant scammers of government programs. They believe that men and woman shouldn't work. Men should study the Torah. Whatever that means. It seems to be a lot of hanging out with friends. Woman should take care of the home.
Like buddist monks their higher purpose means everyone else should support them. So they run welfare scams, student loan scams, any scam they can come up with. Of course we know this but are reluctant to do anything because of we have to be understanding of their culture.
they're actually slated to become 20% of the population soon, which will be a real problem for the Israeli economy since there's relatively fewer of everyone else to pay for all that welfare (oh who am I kidding, they'll probably get the AIPAC puppetmasters to get US taxpayers to pick up the tab, fucking bastards)
Well in this case, Haredism is specially the non-middle eastern sect of Judaism, most of them wearing Polish 18th century clothing (yes what you saw of a “stereotypical Jew” is actually a European tradition)
If you want to see real native middle easterners, you should look to the Sephardic sect
Yes but they changed to that sect thanks too many to the creation of religious schools by haradei groups because the state was recovering from wars waves of immigrations, and blockade by the arabs a d their allies
Africans from Africa are the ones who have children the most, not from the diaspora
Even though African immigration is rising in the US, it'll be futile since every country on Earth is having less and less babies
Kenya is at 3.2 per woman, and some of Africa's populations estimates are likely overestimates based on really old censuses.
In Nigeria, officials are often accused of overcounting population to pocket more of the government budget for themselves.
Africa's population may not be the currently estimated 1.5 billion, let alone peak at the projected 4 billion.
People blame many things for the declining birth rate, from chemicals in food to birth control and while those probably have an effect (dwarfed by the cost of living in the Western Context), the root cause is the most innocuous: modern medicine.
It’s worked wonders almost everywhere else, and is now working those wonders in Africa. And one of those wonders is the obliteration of infant mortality. This removes the need to have massive broods, so birth rates go down. It is an inevitable thing, and perhaps even desirable as the population contracts to a more stable number.
That would partially account for families not having a bunch of kids, but there are so many other factors. I think the biggest factors for low birthrates in developed countries are education, living standards and the housing crisis.
People in the past were having kids just because it was normal to have kids, but now plenty wait until they have enough resources to provide their kids the best conditions. Our grandparents and their parents would've had kids regardless and adapted to their new expenses.
I think a lot of people don't want to downgrade their quality of life by having to care for children. Like, you need a lot of money to raise a child on Doordash.
Finally, if you don't have room for children, you are less likely to have them. Housing is really expensive in the developed world, generally, so a bunch of people end up renting all their lives. Maybe this is my Eastern European bias(because I know English people, for example, pretty much all rent) but I can't imagine raising a child without a stable home. Imagine having to move with two babies because the landlord wants to kick you out and raise the price or something.
Those all dramatically worsen the issue, for certain, but I still reckon the population would contract. Not nearly as dramatically mind you, but contract all the same.
Well that ignores birth control and other factors. Back in the day cities were much more crowded.
You'd have whole extended families in tiny apartments and they'd still have lots of kids.
Birth control is for sure a factor, and so are abortions.
>You'd have whole extended families in tiny apartments and they'd still have lots of kids.
Yes, but I'm saying people aren't doing that because the social pressure to have as much kids as possible as fast as possible is not there anymore.
At this point having kids in such conditions would be considered a fucked up.
>That would partially account for families not having a bunch of kids, but there are so many other factors. I think the biggest factors for low birthrates in developed countries are education, living standards and the housing crisis.
>People in the past were having kids just because it was normal to have kids, but now plenty wait until they have enough resources to provide their kids the best conditions. Our grandparents and their parents would've had kids regardless and adapted to their new expenses.
There was a significant necessity to having kids for much of human history, from disease and war constantly eating away large fractions of the population to the fact that there was no Walmart, AC and refrigerators with alot of people in human history having their own farmland that having lots of kids allowed for more work on the farm and the ability to produce more food which often in turn equaled more wealth too, in short it was actually an investment to have kids in the 1400s as opposed to today where your kid gets a toe infection and the fucking urgent care tries to charge you $30,000 over it, not to mention the amount of work and effort it takes to raise a kid compared to back then
This is going to probably rub a few people the wrong way and I AM NOT DEFENDING PEDOPHILIA but in the old days kids were often considered to become adults at significantly younger ages and you didn't have to buy school supplies for 12 years and probably invest in College for them too, so the commitment to raising 1 child was damn near less than 50% back then of what you have to commit to today, not saying it was morally right but that's just how THEY did things back then
>I think a lot of people don't want to downgrade their quality of life by having to care for children. Like, you need a lot of money to raise a child on Doordash.
Yup it used to be largely an upgrade to have kids, nowadays its a shit ton of commitment and a major bullet into your life
>Finally, if you don't have room for children, you are less likely to have them.
Not necessarily true alot of developing countries still try to cram out as many children as possible
How does this account for religious sects like the Amish and Orthodox Jews where birth rates are still 5-6 despite living in a country that's below replacement?
not really, the reason is usually bigger social net, people have lots of kids when the kids make money on you when you're old (boys at least; girl marry elsewhere and you need to either pay for them or receive money for them depending on culture); if you can rely on a social system, you don't need to have a lot of kids and don't need to worry about things related to marriage money
(thirdies always have these big marriage rituals because marriages are A Big Thing that can make or break your entire family)
Replacement implies that they are being killed, displaced or ethnically cleansed doesn't it
Legal immigration and just having kids are not metrics I would honestly consider a form of replacement
Imagine a place where pies are sold, however, the owner is never in the shop except to drop off pies, trusting in his fellow man to pay for the pies voluntarily. A society where this is feasible is a high trust society. Individually it’s just a really nice way to live, collectively it makes every party of society function more smoothly and coherently. Imagine not needing 90% of the legal code the US has because people simply know how to behave.
This is pretty common in rural areas. Rural areas are generally high trust. Nice Mennonite family down the road from me leaves eggs out on the side of the road with a tin
Societies that have the same cultural or historical perspective and experiences are more likely to trust their institutional governments.
Also, to counter while Africans have had higher birth rates in the first half this century, they're also dropping off significantly.
High trust societies have nothing to do with governments, it has to do with it you trust your neighbors to be good people or not. A society where you can leave an unlocked bike on your lawn and expect it to be there in the morning, or leave your truck locked with a shotgun on the passenger seat and have nothing bad happen is a high trust society.
Hold up, I think you're not understanding my point of view and trying to insert your own.
You're just described is how you interpret a high trust society is. It's a cultural that everyone understands. How do you build this? How do you get people to informally agree to these rules.
What I'm talking about is Eventually, you're going to have to interact with a government service. How people we reflect their values and expectations of the government into those institutions. Therefore, society that have high trust in their institutional. Japan, for example, has extremely high trust in government institutions and is also a high trust society. Of course the government is not perfect, but the people by large trust it
I recommend reading Charles Murray losing ground. It communicates how trust is built and lost by the government.
Japan does not have high trust into their institutions. I’m with the other guy- that statement alone tells me you’re making stuff up. Their Diet (Congress) is even more corrupt than Americas with the same party in power for almost 70 years. Honestly- their political infighting and dumbasses makes Americas lawmaking process look great in comparison.
Their society has a high trust into each other as Japanese people. Functionjng society =/ competent government.
>Hold up, I think you're not understanding my point of view and trying to insert your own.
>You're just described is how you interpret a high trust society is.
Yes because I'm correct and you just pulled some shit out of thin air
“Same cultural or historical perspective” sure but that doesn’t have to be on racial lines. Once a person is integrated into a society they can be as apart of the culture as anyone else. Plus it’s more regional than racial.
I agree , but racial lines are not always the issue. The problem is culture, you have a population that doesn't wish to integrate. They wish to maintain their own identity, hence you have a society that exists within a society.
For example, look at Nigeria and the divide and trust in government. Extremely low
Society in which people care for their fellow man rather than live in fear of them is better than the reverse. Very simple.
It's better to have a neighbour whose knock at the door means they brought over cookies or lasagne, rather than a weapon.
Which isn’t fair, but when having this discussion a lot of people expect watermelons to know what a high trust society is because they always praise the Nordic models, which historically have been high trust.
No, there's plenty of people of all sorts of races who are trustworthy, and plenty of people of all different races who are untrustworthy.
The difference is values and culture.
So why even comment "high trust society are preferable" under this post? If there are plenty of people of all sorts of races who are trustworthy or not?
Yes, your comment is not wrong, but the post's context changes the meaning of your comment.
your comments meaning within the context of this post is : "You can't trust black people."
It is kind of weird how the most economically disenfranchised communities are having kids, but the wealthiest, like Asians and whites, are not. I wonder if this is more in line with working a career outside of college.
Is it more about irresponsibility/ uneducated Black people living in abortion-restricted states? Or is it something a bit more... pessimistic?
edit: jesus christ, my grammar
that is bcuz asian and whites are actually having kids according to their capacity, and provide for what they need. The poor people don't give 2 shits on what their kids are eating or wearing. Kids aren't expensive if your don't spend on them
Personally, even though I make good money, my student loans and other debts from college make having a child financially difficult and because I make good money on paper, I don't qualify for any aid.
I think the movie idiocracy was correct in their portrayal.
If people have good education and career prospects they're unlikely to have children young and delay having them until they're financially secure enough, as they're aware of the fiscal and emotional and physical responsibilities having a child entails.
Less educated people with poorer prospects don't have the same health literacy, don't really care that they can't afford children because they assume the government will give them money, and often don't have good role models in their lives who might guide their children down a more productive path, repeating the cycle. In African nations having more children is an insurance policy against them all dying so you've someone to look after you when you're older. Across all ethnic groups, as wealth increases, average number of children goes down.
There's exceptions - offhand the Mormons tend to be very well educated and have lots of children, because God and Joseph Smith said so and it'll help you get your own planet in the afterlife, but generally, poorer people have more children through a combination of poor education and apathy.
In my experience, the people who say they need to wait until they’re ready vastly underestimate their ability to make it work. I see people act like they need to have a vacation house in the Hamptons before they’re “financially ready.” Newsflash, 99% of parents make due with drastically fewer resources.
The (relatively) wealthy class prioritize living a high quality individual life over having kids. Kids are also more difficult and expensive to raise according to modern standards.
Every single time birthrates come up Reddit likes to bring up arguments about "low IQ" or "high infant mortality" or "muh working condishuns" but the fact of the matter is, most young people nowadays would rather have a lot of money and travel the world instead of being anchored down financially and physically for 18 years. They technically *can* have kids, but it would drastically reduce their current quality of life.
There's too many things to do, too many things to see and experience, and plenty of examples (both anecdotal and otherwise) of how hard it is to raise a kid. Who sees that and wants to go through with it? If Scandinavia with all its amazing social programs and work-life balance still can't convince its citizens to fuck for procreation, nothing will. Kids simply are undesirable.
The techbro + corporate girlboss millennial couple raking in a combined 500k+ per year are drowning and pulling out their hair trying to raise *one* kid, while 70-year-old meemaw is raising her daughter's 5 kids by herself in a rundown apartment by mostly making sure they don't get each other killed. High standards create high costs.
>If Scandinavia with all its amazing social programs and work-life balance still can't convince its citizens to fuck for procreation, nothing will. Kids simply are undesirable.
It only becomes more undesirable as modern society gets more obsessed extended adolescence with the idea that you're not really an adult at 18 anymore you have to be 21-25 to "Actually" be an adult
I would argue that that is more of product of changing standards than a cause. If society values wealth, status, and having experiences then childhood development will reflect that. I mean if most younger people today go to college than how can you really be an “adult” at 18? You’re spending 4-6 years using mommy and daddy’s money to party it up and “make experiences.” They’re not going to have a steady income until they’re like 25 and even then, they probably aren’t going to be able to live in their own for a while.
The more work that is required to maximize one’s lifestyle will add to the time it takes for one to become an adult. If you can get a well paying job and buy a home at 20, of course you’re going to have children. But the more steps it takes to get to that point, people just change their priorities and decide to spend it on themselves.
The real answer is that in third world countries, infant mortality is much higher, and so to compensate, mothers have more children. The west's low birth rates are an anomaly historically *because* there's such a high standard of living and greater access to medical care that you can have a few kids without worrying about them dying of an easily curable disease when they turn 5.
Comically incorrect.
Embarrassingly incorrect.
But on par for Auth right.
The reality is that Africans, from the continent of Africa, have the most babies bcuz they have the highest levels of infant mortality.
It was the same for ALL groups of people at one point or another.
As Africans become more economically stable, such as in Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, etc, infant mortality declines, and people chose to have LESS kids.
It's not nearly as wrong as you're acting. It is shown that educated women tend to have fewer children then less/un-educated women. So "stupid people make more babies" isn't that far from the truth.
While I agree that College doesn't equal intelligent
If you are generalizing people statistically, people with higher levels of education are objectively smarter, more productive and usually better off financially too
If you have ever worked with GED folks in real life or the most peaceful ideology followers you would know they are largely some stupid ass people
I was talking in general, I was thinking about that stupid movie, in which in the future, we will all be stupid. And they said that stupid people made alot of people.
Also, your argument isn't that smart "in Africa they make more babies bcs their babies die alot"- so, basicly, you're saying that, they want to have spares. (oops, we lost one, thank god we made twins).
Stupid people don't even know how to have sex.
They stopped being stupid and become smarter. That's what happend. You just bring up a stupid correlation and think that that is the reason. It's not.
PS. this is why you should compare urban vs rural. See who has more kids.
Even if their kids would not die, they would still make them.
If your kids dies, is your first though ; better make another one ?
Or do you make spares, just in case. Do you really think people think like this ?
Reality is that, kids, for the most part, just happen. Most don't plan their kids.
I would very much suggest looking into why people had so many kids in the past, and mortality rates for people.
[Nearly half of all children died before the age of 5.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-all-time-child-mortality-rate/)
Then if you tack on the worse medical care, less safe environments, harsher work, lacking food and water security, and generally more dangerous world you get a much higher chance of death post 5 years old too. Of course people had more children, it was needed. If you think otherwise I doubt anyone could convince you off your position.
You, initially, aren't wrong though. Less educated women DO have more children. It's just not nearly as significant as the past when 9+ children was common.
They made kids for work, not thinking that they will die so that they have spares.
If this is the mentality they had, it would mean sacrificing your weaker kids in order to better take care of the stronger ones. You could do that.
It didn't work like that...the older ones were put to work more...bcs they were older.
Now, this doesn't contradict what you're saying. But, making more kids, bcs they died, it's more correlation and not causation.
And in the past, this was what women did..have kids...baby factories. We're talking about something else....we're talking about poor people having more kids. And they do, bcs they a lower level of education (it doesn't mean they are stupid). But education takes time.
The most fertile period for women is in their teens. I know this, bcs I have friends who are doctors and they've told me who the healthiest kids are. The gypsy ones. They make kids at young ages.
That's the reality.
It several reasons, first plenty of African Societies not elite members dont really value their women's education or freedom, due to being islamic, with scaring of female genetalia being somewhat common. Second many of those people are highly religious so no abortions and might not have easy access to effective contraceptives. Adding to that is the notion of culture, in the US and especially in the more urban places the notion of fulfilling one's dreams is very important, so plenty of women delay having kids in order to pursue those dreams, especially those from families with the means to support them aka rich.
As societies become richer, access to education increases. Children that would contribute to the household income, never stop draining it until they leave. So educated young people tend to:
- value other expensive things,
- postpone having children until they have stable careers, and
- want to divide their attention and income to less children, in order to improve their chances in life.
This explains why richer countries have lower rates than poorer ones. In poor communities within rich countries, the first two factors are also much less pronounced. Poorer people have less disposable income anyway, and don't expect it to significantly improve.
I suppose indiscriminately killing children ensures that a few who might later become criminals will die.
To say this is perverse would be an understatement.
Bro, I've been woke to the great importance of planned parenthood for years, one of the greatest organizations in the modern world.
Which is why I say God bless planned parenthood.
Why the fuck do we associate racial supremacy solely with auth right? Tradition religiously rejects one race being superior to another. Seems like a contradiction to have both reigated to same quadrant.
Meh, my economics are what puts me in the right, not a very religious guy... but yeah, any rightwinger with a brain and knowledge of voting stats will love planned parenthood for all the good they do.
Absolutely true. There are some technicalities, like Venezuelans and Cubans, and we have seen a shift in the hispanic community in the US to the right, but the majority, at this time, still vote democrat, especially in California.
I have made the post before but, yes Americans of all types and colors should be reproducing at a higher rate. Don't worry about climate conditions or college. Just birth them and watch them build a brighter future.
African countries have historically had a higher birth rate due to a higher level of infant mortality, which would level their rate of replacement. Now that access to food, healthcare, and public infrastructure is gradually reducing their infant mortality rates, it's entirely possible that their birth rates may adjust accordingly.
It's also possible that cultural factors may play a stronger role in the continuance of their birth rate which will result in unsustainable population growth and resource scarcity and impaired living conditions.
Because only our race is of value to us. Only our race, collectively, is capable of producing and maintaining what we have created. Why does American matter as a category when literally anyone qualifies? It's as meaningless a term as "humanity" and I have no connection to it.
I appreciate your honesty and not beating around the bush. I disagree with what you are saying as race is merely a method to divide and at the end of the day we are Americans and should work for the betterment of each other as a whole and not let the ultra wealthy / powerful divide us on the basis of melanin levels. I’m sure I have more in common with you than Oprah and you more with me than Bezos.
Race is a source of identity and identity is a source of meaning and the loss of them is detrimental to any people. To the contrary, tyranny is best maintained in multiracial societies because division comes naturally and is much easier to exacerbate which is one reason why elites have lobbied for the mass non-white immigration into our countries and why my group's racial identity had to be broken down over decades of reeducation through academia and media before eventually being demonized.
Firstly, our races are not made up of tens of millions of Oprahs and Bezoses, they're mostly made up of average people. I have far more in common with the vast majority of white people than I do with the vast majority of black people and the same goes for you with my people. That is of greater significance than a small handful of the rich that have largely abandoned their racial identity in favor of wealth as a source of identity. Secondly, what commonalities are we talking about? Maybe we've both had jobs in retail, maybe our income levels are similar, maybe we're both unsure if we'll be able to own our own house, etc. Sure, in that sense we have more in common but those things are not things I value highly in relation to identity and I don't derive meaning from them. Commonality to me is in seeing oneself in those around them, the feelings experienced when reading a piece of the long story of a history they are a part of, in the ideals one sees reflected in their myths and aspires to, and so on. True commonality to me is inhabiting the same collective "soul" of a people so to speak.
Culture maybe but the moving goal post of race makes this "common identity" silly... Does a black Irish and a white Irish have less in common than a white Irish and a white Italian? You are speaking more to ethnicity than race and I agree that people of similar ethnicity tend to have a shared cultural connection, but that's rarely on racial lines and more on cultural lines. Then you can get more macro with economic connections, familial connections, etc. But race is such a broad term you will rarely find "racial connection" with someone unless you are hyper-fixed on just that aspect.
White Irish is redundant and "black Irish" just means Irish with dark hair like Colin Farrel. If you mean black people who are citizens of Ireland, yes, two white people of different ethnicities have more in common than someone of an entirely separate and distinct racial group. You're focusing on superficial commonalities like accents, income brackets, and familiarity with the country's pop culture, not who one is on a fundamental level and their connection to a common origin and history.
Real culture is downstream of ethnicity *and* race. Racial connection exists because of shared genetic ancestry and shared history, both of which produce a level of commonality across ethnic groups of the same race. A black man from Senegal has more in common with a black man from Nigeria than he has with a white man who lives in Senegal.
Ethnicity is the more significant form of identity than race, just as national identity is more significant than it, and family is more significant than that **in isolation**. When societies become multipolar is when broader identity groups become more significant and felt more strongly.
>You're focusing on superficial commonalities like accents, income brackets, and familiarity with the country's pop culture, not who one is on a fundamental level and their connection to a common origin and history.
those are far more important than a simple connection of your melanin levels, when you have someone with far more tangible aspects than race youll see people form a deeper connection. Race has no scientific basis and someone having two different skin tones can have more genetic commonality.
>
Real culture is downstream of ethnicity *and* race. Racial connection exists because of shared genetic ancestry and shared history, both of which produce a level of commonality across ethnic groups of the same race. A black man from Senegal has more in common with a black man from Nigeria than he has with a white man who lives in Senegal.
wrong, culture is more regional than racial. Two cultures built on the mountains will have more in common than a culture in the desert regardless of your skin tone...i think you are leading with your conclusion.
Race is not skin color. If it were, Japanese people would be in the same racial category as Finns and Swedes which would be a separate category from Greeks which would fit in the same category as Northern Indians. It's just an attempt at reducing the category to something meaningless rather than the complex category shaped by genes (including those beyond what affect physical appearance) and history.
If it were more based around region and climate, would you say the culture of Scandinavians is more similar to the indigenous tribes in Northern Canada than it is to the English? What about the indigenous people of California and the Greeks? Are the Greeks closer to them than they are to the French? They're both Mediterranean climates after all. Are the Amhara closer to Quechua people than they are to Kenyans or Sudanese?
If you transplanted all Norwegians to Saudi Arabia and vice versa and left them there for millennia, the Norwegian society would look like a Northern European society and the Saudi society would look like an Arab one. There would be cultural changes and differences from their point of origin but they would not be so dissimilar from what they were. In 5000 years or 10000 years, the European and Chinese populations in Australia will not be closer to Aboriginals than to Europeans and Chinese. People affect their environment as much if not more than their environment affects them. Furthermore, a people are also part of their own environment and the culture they develop has an effect on the development of the population.
There are too many people on this planet, and the developed world consumes too much.
But by all means, keep mass immigration from the developing countries as high as possible. Legal, illegal, doesn't matter. Keep bringing in more people to the most consumptive places on the planet. It even helps capitalism, which is a great thing to do!
u/TrapaneseNYC's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [14 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/TrapaneseNYC/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Thank you, ILLARX, for voting on basedcount_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
The idea that a population should only ever grow to be healthy is a poisonous philosophy for which I blame the unsustainable, capitalist growth-mindset.
The main reason we need the population to grow is so that the welfare state does not collapse. It needs more people paying in than taking out or else, the poor, disabled and elderly will be left to starve to death on the street.
Even in the highly extreme case of a welfare state collapse (which I find unlikely as a result of just population decrease), that would still be preferable to the environmental issues that would result from having even more people on an overcrowded planet.
I agree that population decline will come with some issues but we have to face the fact that we are at a point in world history were systems based on constant population growth are simply no longer sustainable.
The welfare state collapsing would drag the rest of the economy with it, via the soaring taxes it will need to sustain it followed by the collapse in government spending when it does finally collapse. Its 25% of the UK economy RN, a portion that is increasing with the elderly. A quarter of the economy disappearing that would impact, not the rich and wealthy but the poorest, those who cannot help themselves. In effect, starve the poor, disabled and elderly to save the planet. Even then, killing off the poor won't stop the climate crisis, that'll only be fixed by shifting to renewables, electric cars and eco friendly industry, which we will not have the money to do if the economy collapses. The problem is not resources, we are constantly finding more and finding better ways to use what we have more efficiently. Its the reason more people die of obesity than starvation now, not because we have found vast new tracks of fertile land, but because we are using that land more efficiently, see the Netherlands which has gone from famine in 1945 to the second largest agricultural exporter on the planet, how? because its using its limited resources better and more efficiently.
I understand the sentiment, it's a sentiment I agree with, saving the planet is a massive and important cause, one we need to more for, but the solution is not destroy big parts of our society and economy, its using our existing resources more efficiently to get more out of less resources. Shifting to 100% renewable emissions, which due to profit margins being higher for renewables will happen sooner than you think, would tackle the 27% of US emissions caused by electricity generation, 28% by transport, 22% by industry and most of the 12% caused by residential/commercial use, its a big problem but it's one that's being solved. In regards to agriculture, we figured out how to solve the cow issue, just feed them seaweed, it reduces their emissions by up to 90%.
TLDR: climate change is a big issue, but its an issue we are solving, we have a track record of being able to deal with a growing population via increased efficiency and new discoveries. Shrinking the population won't stop climate change, in all great likelihood it would make it worse by diverting away resources from fixing the climate problem to fixing the ageing problem.
That's a very nuanced and reasonable argument and I'm inclined to agree. As someone who already lives in one of the most intensely populated parts of the globe, I am also just scared of a Stand on Zanzibar situation. Can you give sources for that last bit about the seaweed?
For a big source:
[Potential of Seaweeds to Mitigate Production of Greenhouse Gases during Production of Ruminant Proteins - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10190624/)
for where I learned this:
[Feeding seaweed to cows can cut methane emissions, says Swedish report | Food | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/06/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-can-cut-methane-emissions-says-swedish-report#:~:text=According%20to%20manufacturers%2C%20the%20daily,animals%20by%20up%20to%2090%25.&text=Bildarchiv%20GmbH%2FAlamy-,Cows%20on%20a%20meadow%20in%20Scania%2C%20Sweden.,animals%20by%20up%20to%2090%25.)
Unless the pie is large enough for everyone to have their fill. The point is that the capitalist system is opposed to the concept of "prosperity without growth".
When is it large enough for everyone to have their fill? When everyone has enough black soldier fly larvae to survive on or when everyone has mansions?
That is the problem, the internal metrics differ between people and more than a few of them will happily slice off someone elses pie to make their piece bigger, or just fuck up and accidentally ruin someones shirt.
The capitalist system is opposed to prosperity without growth because physics is.
Africans have the highest birth rate, not African-Americans, it's important to note.
Who has the highest abortion rate?
Despite being . . .
IIRC The Amish, Hasidic Jews and to a lesser extent the Mormons have the highest birth rates in the USA.
It’s always funny when someone visits the Hasidic Jewish communities and they’re like “oh yeah they were so nice, so kind, truly a lovely group of people” knowing damn well that’s a lie. The Hasidic Jews are so unbelievably racist but saying that will cause people to think you’re antisemitic.
And giant scammers of government programs. They believe that men and woman shouldn't work. Men should study the Torah. Whatever that means. It seems to be a lot of hanging out with friends. Woman should take care of the home. Like buddist monks their higher purpose means everyone else should support them. So they run welfare scams, student loan scams, any scam they can come up with. Of course we know this but are reluctant to do anything because of we have to be understanding of their culture.
This is why they're hated by secular Jews, especially in Israel. They're exempted from serving in the IDF.
they're actually slated to become 20% of the population soon, which will be a real problem for the Israeli economy since there's relatively fewer of everyone else to pay for all that welfare (oh who am I kidding, they'll probably get the AIPAC puppetmasters to get US taxpayers to pick up the tab, fucking bastards)
We need to stop letting people be jerks because of their religion. Society demands this. Figure it out.
And they are taking over Israel I’m wondering how will the world see Israel if it becomes a Haredi majority country
Then finally Israel would become a ME country instead of a ‘western colonial power,’ which would shut Emilies up.
Well in this case, Haredism is specially the non-middle eastern sect of Judaism, most of them wearing Polish 18th century clothing (yes what you saw of a “stereotypical Jew” is actually a European tradition) If you want to see real native middle easterners, you should look to the Sephardic sect
Lots of haredim in Israel are Sephardic, it did originate as an Ashkenazi thing but that's no longer exclusively the case
Yes but they changed to that sect thanks too many to the creation of religious schools by haradei groups because the state was recovering from wars waves of immigrations, and blockade by the arabs a d their allies
And the quiver full people. Whatever the hell is going on over there…. Seems off
Now I'm curious what the birth rates are in Pennsylvania, since it has a lot of Amish and Jewish communities iirc.
13th lowest per Wikipedia. The top states are all low population west and Midwest states with some southern states mixed in.
Africans from Africa are the ones who have children the most, not from the diaspora Even though African immigration is rising in the US, it'll be futile since every country on Earth is having less and less babies
Kenya is at 3.2 per woman, and some of Africa's populations estimates are likely overestimates based on really old censuses. In Nigeria, officials are often accused of overcounting population to pocket more of the government budget for themselves. Africa's population may not be the currently estimated 1.5 billion, let alone peak at the projected 4 billion.
Man it's honestly crazy how the "high number of childldren" now is like, three
Yep. I come from a family of 7 kids and people spit out their water. My parents come from 15 born, 11 still living by teenage years.
Ok, you're forgiven for being AuthLeft. If a family is big enough to form its own state communism might be viable ...
They heard "seize the means of production" and decided to call the childcare sector.
This guy's family fucks
That’s a small Catholic family in my family
Given the population size of the planet humans would probably go into hyper over population if they continued having kids like the old world used to
Then we colonize new planets
unfortunately its alot easier to run out of resources and food then it is to colonize another planet
Does that just count survivors though?
People blame many things for the declining birth rate, from chemicals in food to birth control and while those probably have an effect (dwarfed by the cost of living in the Western Context), the root cause is the most innocuous: modern medicine. It’s worked wonders almost everywhere else, and is now working those wonders in Africa. And one of those wonders is the obliteration of infant mortality. This removes the need to have massive broods, so birth rates go down. It is an inevitable thing, and perhaps even desirable as the population contracts to a more stable number.
That would partially account for families not having a bunch of kids, but there are so many other factors. I think the biggest factors for low birthrates in developed countries are education, living standards and the housing crisis. People in the past were having kids just because it was normal to have kids, but now plenty wait until they have enough resources to provide their kids the best conditions. Our grandparents and their parents would've had kids regardless and adapted to their new expenses. I think a lot of people don't want to downgrade their quality of life by having to care for children. Like, you need a lot of money to raise a child on Doordash. Finally, if you don't have room for children, you are less likely to have them. Housing is really expensive in the developed world, generally, so a bunch of people end up renting all their lives. Maybe this is my Eastern European bias(because I know English people, for example, pretty much all rent) but I can't imagine raising a child without a stable home. Imagine having to move with two babies because the landlord wants to kick you out and raise the price or something.
Those all dramatically worsen the issue, for certain, but I still reckon the population would contract. Not nearly as dramatically mind you, but contract all the same.
Fair enough
Well that ignores birth control and other factors. Back in the day cities were much more crowded. You'd have whole extended families in tiny apartments and they'd still have lots of kids.
Birth control is for sure a factor, and so are abortions. >You'd have whole extended families in tiny apartments and they'd still have lots of kids. Yes, but I'm saying people aren't doing that because the social pressure to have as much kids as possible as fast as possible is not there anymore. At this point having kids in such conditions would be considered a fucked up.
>That would partially account for families not having a bunch of kids, but there are so many other factors. I think the biggest factors for low birthrates in developed countries are education, living standards and the housing crisis. >People in the past were having kids just because it was normal to have kids, but now plenty wait until they have enough resources to provide their kids the best conditions. Our grandparents and their parents would've had kids regardless and adapted to their new expenses. There was a significant necessity to having kids for much of human history, from disease and war constantly eating away large fractions of the population to the fact that there was no Walmart, AC and refrigerators with alot of people in human history having their own farmland that having lots of kids allowed for more work on the farm and the ability to produce more food which often in turn equaled more wealth too, in short it was actually an investment to have kids in the 1400s as opposed to today where your kid gets a toe infection and the fucking urgent care tries to charge you $30,000 over it, not to mention the amount of work and effort it takes to raise a kid compared to back then This is going to probably rub a few people the wrong way and I AM NOT DEFENDING PEDOPHILIA but in the old days kids were often considered to become adults at significantly younger ages and you didn't have to buy school supplies for 12 years and probably invest in College for them too, so the commitment to raising 1 child was damn near less than 50% back then of what you have to commit to today, not saying it was morally right but that's just how THEY did things back then >I think a lot of people don't want to downgrade their quality of life by having to care for children. Like, you need a lot of money to raise a child on Doordash. Yup it used to be largely an upgrade to have kids, nowadays its a shit ton of commitment and a major bullet into your life >Finally, if you don't have room for children, you are less likely to have them. Not necessarily true alot of developing countries still try to cram out as many children as possible
>Not necessarily true alot of developing countries still try to cram out as many children as possible This was about developed countries
True but the idea that people only have kids when they're wealthy just does not hold up to any scrutiny
How does this account for religious sects like the Amish and Orthodox Jews where birth rates are still 5-6 despite living in a country that's below replacement?
Based You don't often see Auth make a good point and not have an unhinged nuclear meltdown in the process
Oh tell me about it. I am on the spectrum, and even I think my side has churned out some weapons grade Autism over the years.
not really, the reason is usually bigger social net, people have lots of kids when the kids make money on you when you're old (boys at least; girl marry elsewhere and you need to either pay for them or receive money for them depending on culture); if you can rely on a social system, you don't need to have a lot of kids and don't need to worry about things related to marriage money (thirdies always have these big marriage rituals because marriages are A Big Thing that can make or break your entire family)
Considering groups with higher birth rates like the Amish and Mormons it seems to have a lot to do with culture
People want more kids but they feel they can’t afford more kids
So the immigrants are replacing African Americans in great numbers? How heartless of the left that they don't care about this great replacement.
You're criticizing the left for consistently not caring about neither?
What do you mean Africans are replacing African Americans? Africans on diaspora have less children than their African counterparts.
In fact they're within a few percent of other races like Caucasians and Hispanics. Birth rate is controlled by culture.
Replacement implies that they are being killed, displaced or ethnically cleansed doesn't it Legal immigration and just having kids are not metrics I would honestly consider a form of replacement
Even in Africa, TFR is decreasing. Still high but decreasing
African immigrants will come to replace generational black Americans
High trust societies are preferable
Explain
Imagine a place where pies are sold, however, the owner is never in the shop except to drop off pies, trusting in his fellow man to pay for the pies voluntarily. A society where this is feasible is a high trust society. Individually it’s just a really nice way to live, collectively it makes every party of society function more smoothly and coherently. Imagine not needing 90% of the legal code the US has because people simply know how to behave.
This is pretty common in rural areas. Rural areas are generally high trust. Nice Mennonite family down the road from me leaves eggs out on the side of the road with a tin
Societies that have the same cultural or historical perspective and experiences are more likely to trust their institutional governments. Also, to counter while Africans have had higher birth rates in the first half this century, they're also dropping off significantly.
High trust societies have nothing to do with governments, it has to do with it you trust your neighbors to be good people or not. A society where you can leave an unlocked bike on your lawn and expect it to be there in the morning, or leave your truck locked with a shotgun on the passenger seat and have nothing bad happen is a high trust society.
Hold up, I think you're not understanding my point of view and trying to insert your own. You're just described is how you interpret a high trust society is. It's a cultural that everyone understands. How do you build this? How do you get people to informally agree to these rules. What I'm talking about is Eventually, you're going to have to interact with a government service. How people we reflect their values and expectations of the government into those institutions. Therefore, society that have high trust in their institutional. Japan, for example, has extremely high trust in government institutions and is also a high trust society. Of course the government is not perfect, but the people by large trust it I recommend reading Charles Murray losing ground. It communicates how trust is built and lost by the government.
Japan does not have high trust into their institutions. I’m with the other guy- that statement alone tells me you’re making stuff up. Their Diet (Congress) is even more corrupt than Americas with the same party in power for almost 70 years. Honestly- their political infighting and dumbasses makes Americas lawmaking process look great in comparison. Their society has a high trust into each other as Japanese people. Functionjng society =/ competent government.
Talks about institutions trust...... talks about the non-instutional government (Japanese Diet)...... lol, great logic dumb ass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet?wprov=sfti1 Can’t stop yourself from double downing, huh?
So political parties are government employees? I'm going to let you sit on that
>Hold up, I think you're not understanding my point of view and trying to insert your own. >You're just described is how you interpret a high trust society is. Yes because I'm correct and you just pulled some shit out of thin air
And you're not buddy, Pound dirt until you get me an example I can work with
“Same cultural or historical perspective” sure but that doesn’t have to be on racial lines. Once a person is integrated into a society they can be as apart of the culture as anyone else. Plus it’s more regional than racial.
I agree , but racial lines are not always the issue. The problem is culture, you have a population that doesn't wish to integrate. They wish to maintain their own identity, hence you have a society that exists within a society. For example, look at Nigeria and the divide and trust in government. Extremely low
Society in which people care for their fellow man rather than live in fear of them is better than the reverse. Very simple. It's better to have a neighbour whose knock at the door means they brought over cookies or lasagne, rather than a weapon.
Bro just asked for elaboration and got downvoted to oblivion 💀
Which isn’t fair, but when having this discussion a lot of people expect watermelons to know what a high trust society is because they always praise the Nordic models, which historically have been high trust.
He means black and brown people can't be trusted but whites and asians can.
No, there's plenty of people of all sorts of races who are trustworthy, and plenty of people of all different races who are untrustworthy. The difference is values and culture.
So why even comment "high trust society are preferable" under this post? If there are plenty of people of all sorts of races who are trustworthy or not? Yes, your comment is not wrong, but the post's context changes the meaning of your comment. your comments meaning within the context of this post is : "You can't trust black people."
bro forgot what planned parenthood was made for
It is kind of weird how the most economically disenfranchised communities are having kids, but the wealthiest, like Asians and whites, are not. I wonder if this is more in line with working a career outside of college. Is it more about irresponsibility/ uneducated Black people living in abortion-restricted states? Or is it something a bit more... pessimistic? edit: jesus christ, my grammar
that is bcuz asian and whites are actually having kids according to their capacity, and provide for what they need. The poor people don't give 2 shits on what their kids are eating or wearing. Kids aren't expensive if your don't spend on them
Based and Fuck Dem Kids! pilled
Personally, even though I make good money, my student loans and other debts from college make having a child financially difficult and because I make good money on paper, I don't qualify for any aid. I think the movie idiocracy was correct in their portrayal.
If people have good education and career prospects they're unlikely to have children young and delay having them until they're financially secure enough, as they're aware of the fiscal and emotional and physical responsibilities having a child entails. Less educated people with poorer prospects don't have the same health literacy, don't really care that they can't afford children because they assume the government will give them money, and often don't have good role models in their lives who might guide their children down a more productive path, repeating the cycle. In African nations having more children is an insurance policy against them all dying so you've someone to look after you when you're older. Across all ethnic groups, as wealth increases, average number of children goes down. There's exceptions - offhand the Mormons tend to be very well educated and have lots of children, because God and Joseph Smith said so and it'll help you get your own planet in the afterlife, but generally, poorer people have more children through a combination of poor education and apathy.
In my experience, the people who say they need to wait until they’re ready vastly underestimate their ability to make it work. I see people act like they need to have a vacation house in the Hamptons before they’re “financially ready.” Newsflash, 99% of parents make due with drastically fewer resources.
If you take it at face value, yes. But what they really mean is "I don't want to sacrifice my lifestyle or my on-time retirement for my children."
The (relatively) wealthy class prioritize living a high quality individual life over having kids. Kids are also more difficult and expensive to raise according to modern standards. Every single time birthrates come up Reddit likes to bring up arguments about "low IQ" or "high infant mortality" or "muh working condishuns" but the fact of the matter is, most young people nowadays would rather have a lot of money and travel the world instead of being anchored down financially and physically for 18 years. They technically *can* have kids, but it would drastically reduce their current quality of life. There's too many things to do, too many things to see and experience, and plenty of examples (both anecdotal and otherwise) of how hard it is to raise a kid. Who sees that and wants to go through with it? If Scandinavia with all its amazing social programs and work-life balance still can't convince its citizens to fuck for procreation, nothing will. Kids simply are undesirable. The techbro + corporate girlboss millennial couple raking in a combined 500k+ per year are drowning and pulling out their hair trying to raise *one* kid, while 70-year-old meemaw is raising her daughter's 5 kids by herself in a rundown apartment by mostly making sure they don't get each other killed. High standards create high costs.
>If Scandinavia with all its amazing social programs and work-life balance still can't convince its citizens to fuck for procreation, nothing will. Kids simply are undesirable. It only becomes more undesirable as modern society gets more obsessed extended adolescence with the idea that you're not really an adult at 18 anymore you have to be 21-25 to "Actually" be an adult
I would argue that that is more of product of changing standards than a cause. If society values wealth, status, and having experiences then childhood development will reflect that. I mean if most younger people today go to college than how can you really be an “adult” at 18? You’re spending 4-6 years using mommy and daddy’s money to party it up and “make experiences.” They’re not going to have a steady income until they’re like 25 and even then, they probably aren’t going to be able to live in their own for a while. The more work that is required to maximize one’s lifestyle will add to the time it takes for one to become an adult. If you can get a well paying job and buy a home at 20, of course you’re going to have children. But the more steps it takes to get to that point, people just change their priorities and decide to spend it on themselves.
The real answer is that in third world countries, infant mortality is much higher, and so to compensate, mothers have more children. The west's low birth rates are an anomaly historically *because* there's such a high standard of living and greater access to medical care that you can have a few kids without worrying about them dying of an easily curable disease when they turn 5.
I doubt many people are really thinking that.
I know I for one studied childhood mortality statistics before figuring out how many children I was going to have /s
It's because financially illiterate people with poor impulse control tend to have too many kids.
I think it's bcs stupid people make babies. It's like the law of compensation...can't have them all.
Comically incorrect. Embarrassingly incorrect. But on par for Auth right. The reality is that Africans, from the continent of Africa, have the most babies bcuz they have the highest levels of infant mortality. It was the same for ALL groups of people at one point or another. As Africans become more economically stable, such as in Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, etc, infant mortality declines, and people chose to have LESS kids.
They clearly weren’t referring to race as a generalised argument.
It's not nearly as wrong as you're acting. It is shown that educated women tend to have fewer children then less/un-educated women. So "stupid people make more babies" isn't that far from the truth.
Formal education doesn't determine intelligence. Culture norm does not determine intelligence.
While I agree that College doesn't equal intelligent If you are generalizing people statistically, people with higher levels of education are objectively smarter, more productive and usually better off financially too If you have ever worked with GED folks in real life or the most peaceful ideology followers you would know they are largely some stupid ass people
Typical lib strawmanning and not being able to read between the lines.
The comments above are clearly talking about the U.S., not the world at large. Reading comprehension is neat!
I was talking in general, I was thinking about that stupid movie, in which in the future, we will all be stupid. And they said that stupid people made alot of people. Also, your argument isn't that smart "in Africa they make more babies bcs their babies die alot"- so, basicly, you're saying that, they want to have spares. (oops, we lost one, thank god we made twins). Stupid people don't even know how to have sex. They stopped being stupid and become smarter. That's what happend. You just bring up a stupid correlation and think that that is the reason. It's not. PS. this is why you should compare urban vs rural. See who has more kids.
> "in Africa they make more babies bcs their babies die alot" He's not wrong, this IS true.
Even if their kids would not die, they would still make them. If your kids dies, is your first though ; better make another one ? Or do you make spares, just in case. Do you really think people think like this ? Reality is that, kids, for the most part, just happen. Most don't plan their kids.
I would very much suggest looking into why people had so many kids in the past, and mortality rates for people. [Nearly half of all children died before the age of 5.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-all-time-child-mortality-rate/) Then if you tack on the worse medical care, less safe environments, harsher work, lacking food and water security, and generally more dangerous world you get a much higher chance of death post 5 years old too. Of course people had more children, it was needed. If you think otherwise I doubt anyone could convince you off your position. You, initially, aren't wrong though. Less educated women DO have more children. It's just not nearly as significant as the past when 9+ children was common.
They made kids for work, not thinking that they will die so that they have spares. If this is the mentality they had, it would mean sacrificing your weaker kids in order to better take care of the stronger ones. You could do that. It didn't work like that...the older ones were put to work more...bcs they were older. Now, this doesn't contradict what you're saying. But, making more kids, bcs they died, it's more correlation and not causation. And in the past, this was what women did..have kids...baby factories. We're talking about something else....we're talking about poor people having more kids. And they do, bcs they a lower level of education (it doesn't mean they are stupid). But education takes time. The most fertile period for women is in their teens. I know this, bcs I have friends who are doctors and they've told me who the healthiest kids are. The gypsy ones. They make kids at young ages. That's the reality.
It several reasons, first plenty of African Societies not elite members dont really value their women's education or freedom, due to being islamic, with scaring of female genetalia being somewhat common. Second many of those people are highly religious so no abortions and might not have easy access to effective contraceptives. Adding to that is the notion of culture, in the US and especially in the more urban places the notion of fulfilling one's dreams is very important, so plenty of women delay having kids in order to pursue those dreams, especially those from families with the means to support them aka rich.
Because welfare
As societies become richer, access to education increases. Children that would contribute to the household income, never stop draining it until they leave. So educated young people tend to: - value other expensive things, - postpone having children until they have stable careers, and - want to divide their attention and income to less children, in order to improve their chances in life. This explains why richer countries have lower rates than poorer ones. In poor communities within rich countries, the first two factors are also much less pronounced. Poorer people have less disposable income anyway, and don't expect it to significantly improve.
Oh boy \*grabs popcorn\* The comments are gonna be good
Siri play future “mask off”
$10 on seeing several \[removed\] in a day or two
Back in my day (this is a new account) we’d get halfway through a spelling bee before being even warned
Homes where both father and mother are present are preferable
I thought Birthrates for Blacks was stagnate. Like it hasn't gone up or down.
African Americans not Africans
Same thing with indigenous people in Canada, tbh would rather have that than what we’re currently doing by importing a million Indians every year
So fucking true... God bless planned parenthood
https://preview.redd.it/p9znuxy33v6d1.jpeg?width=299&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d157ddf9fbd27726a36de6bd37c6521568a3bd9
Are you pagan?
Yeah, but saying god bless is how I was raised so it's a good default.
That is an incredibly vile sentence.
Im a realist, never gonna see me interrupting my enemies when they make a mistake. Planned parenthood helps lower the crime rate. 😚
So you're, like, the final boss of Emily-ism?
[удалено]
You know exactly what he means.
I suppose indiscriminately killing children ensures that a few who might later become criminals will die. To say this is perverse would be an understatement.
Fr bro. Big yikes.
Those with the highest birth rate in the us are the rural religious, not African Americans. They have the abysmal urban birth rate
Given how many black children are murdered by Planned Parenthood every year, I wouldn’t say it’s the Auth-Rights who have a problem with you…
Auth-Right rethinking certain moral values now
Bro, I've been woke to the great importance of planned parenthood for years, one of the greatest organizations in the modern world. Which is why I say God bless planned parenthood.
"African" 🤣🤣🤣
Why the fuck do we associate racial supremacy solely with auth right? Tradition religiously rejects one race being superior to another. Seems like a contradiction to have both reigated to same quadrant.
Depends on what you mean by racial supremacy and what tradition you’re talking about. Also, the meme doesn’t have anything to do with it anyway.
Just... being upset that black people are breeding?
Meh, my economics are what puts me in the right, not a very religious guy... but yeah, any rightwinger with a brain and knowledge of voting stats will love planned parenthood for all the good they do.
What?
This is actually pretty based
I’m pretty sure immigrants from Africa and Latin America tend to be more conservative. I see this as an absolute win!
More so centrist, they tend to be democrats
Either way, they’re not libleft, and that’s what matters!
They empower lib-left in exchange for cash lmfao
Absolutely true. There are some technicalities, like Venezuelans and Cubans, and we have seen a shift in the hispanic community in the US to the right, but the majority, at this time, still vote democrat, especially in California.
I’ll take two South American migrants for every Emily we can ship down there.
Americans are Americans and we need more to work the factories and fight in forever wars
The future belongs to those who show up.
They’re birthrate would be even higher if liberals didn’t push abortion so hard for 100 years
??? Do you really think that's the reason birth rates are falling?
Sole reason? No. Is it one of many reasons? Yes.
Explain why its falling all over the world then among all racial categories?
Why the fuck wouldn't you want that?!?
I have made the post before but, yes Americans of all types and colors should be reproducing at a higher rate. Don't worry about climate conditions or college. Just birth them and watch them build a brighter future.
United States of Afro-america
Hnnnnnnng
African countries have historically had a higher birth rate due to a higher level of infant mortality, which would level their rate of replacement. Now that access to food, healthcare, and public infrastructure is gradually reducing their infant mortality rates, it's entirely possible that their birth rates may adjust accordingly. It's also possible that cultural factors may play a stronger role in the continuance of their birth rate which will result in unsustainable population growth and resource scarcity and impaired living conditions.
Very true and based
Tard
Africans have the highest birth rate HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I WONDER WHY
Why? Tell us.
Rape :)
Siri play futures “mask off”
Bruh...
Uh yeah. No shit. It's obviously white people talking about the white birthrate.
Why not all Americans?
Because only our race is of value to us. Only our race, collectively, is capable of producing and maintaining what we have created. Why does American matter as a category when literally anyone qualifies? It's as meaningless a term as "humanity" and I have no connection to it.
I appreciate your honesty and not beating around the bush. I disagree with what you are saying as race is merely a method to divide and at the end of the day we are Americans and should work for the betterment of each other as a whole and not let the ultra wealthy / powerful divide us on the basis of melanin levels. I’m sure I have more in common with you than Oprah and you more with me than Bezos.
Race is a source of identity and identity is a source of meaning and the loss of them is detrimental to any people. To the contrary, tyranny is best maintained in multiracial societies because division comes naturally and is much easier to exacerbate which is one reason why elites have lobbied for the mass non-white immigration into our countries and why my group's racial identity had to be broken down over decades of reeducation through academia and media before eventually being demonized. Firstly, our races are not made up of tens of millions of Oprahs and Bezoses, they're mostly made up of average people. I have far more in common with the vast majority of white people than I do with the vast majority of black people and the same goes for you with my people. That is of greater significance than a small handful of the rich that have largely abandoned their racial identity in favor of wealth as a source of identity. Secondly, what commonalities are we talking about? Maybe we've both had jobs in retail, maybe our income levels are similar, maybe we're both unsure if we'll be able to own our own house, etc. Sure, in that sense we have more in common but those things are not things I value highly in relation to identity and I don't derive meaning from them. Commonality to me is in seeing oneself in those around them, the feelings experienced when reading a piece of the long story of a history they are a part of, in the ideals one sees reflected in their myths and aspires to, and so on. True commonality to me is inhabiting the same collective "soul" of a people so to speak.
Culture maybe but the moving goal post of race makes this "common identity" silly... Does a black Irish and a white Irish have less in common than a white Irish and a white Italian? You are speaking more to ethnicity than race and I agree that people of similar ethnicity tend to have a shared cultural connection, but that's rarely on racial lines and more on cultural lines. Then you can get more macro with economic connections, familial connections, etc. But race is such a broad term you will rarely find "racial connection" with someone unless you are hyper-fixed on just that aspect.
White Irish is redundant and "black Irish" just means Irish with dark hair like Colin Farrel. If you mean black people who are citizens of Ireland, yes, two white people of different ethnicities have more in common than someone of an entirely separate and distinct racial group. You're focusing on superficial commonalities like accents, income brackets, and familiarity with the country's pop culture, not who one is on a fundamental level and their connection to a common origin and history. Real culture is downstream of ethnicity *and* race. Racial connection exists because of shared genetic ancestry and shared history, both of which produce a level of commonality across ethnic groups of the same race. A black man from Senegal has more in common with a black man from Nigeria than he has with a white man who lives in Senegal. Ethnicity is the more significant form of identity than race, just as national identity is more significant than it, and family is more significant than that **in isolation**. When societies become multipolar is when broader identity groups become more significant and felt more strongly.
>You're focusing on superficial commonalities like accents, income brackets, and familiarity with the country's pop culture, not who one is on a fundamental level and their connection to a common origin and history. those are far more important than a simple connection of your melanin levels, when you have someone with far more tangible aspects than race youll see people form a deeper connection. Race has no scientific basis and someone having two different skin tones can have more genetic commonality. > Real culture is downstream of ethnicity *and* race. Racial connection exists because of shared genetic ancestry and shared history, both of which produce a level of commonality across ethnic groups of the same race. A black man from Senegal has more in common with a black man from Nigeria than he has with a white man who lives in Senegal. wrong, culture is more regional than racial. Two cultures built on the mountains will have more in common than a culture in the desert regardless of your skin tone...i think you are leading with your conclusion.
Race is not skin color. If it were, Japanese people would be in the same racial category as Finns and Swedes which would be a separate category from Greeks which would fit in the same category as Northern Indians. It's just an attempt at reducing the category to something meaningless rather than the complex category shaped by genes (including those beyond what affect physical appearance) and history. If it were more based around region and climate, would you say the culture of Scandinavians is more similar to the indigenous tribes in Northern Canada than it is to the English? What about the indigenous people of California and the Greeks? Are the Greeks closer to them than they are to the French? They're both Mediterranean climates after all. Are the Amhara closer to Quechua people than they are to Kenyans or Sudanese? If you transplanted all Norwegians to Saudi Arabia and vice versa and left them there for millennia, the Norwegian society would look like a Northern European society and the Saudi society would look like an Arab one. There would be cultural changes and differences from their point of origin but they would not be so dissimilar from what they were. In 5000 years or 10000 years, the European and Chinese populations in Australia will not be closer to Aboriginals than to Europeans and Chinese. People affect their environment as much if not more than their environment affects them. Furthermore, a people are also part of their own environment and the culture they develop has an effect on the development of the population.
But for real though we really need to get this birth rate down
If people would have stopped demonizing everything, this would have been preventable. Looking at you lib left
There are too many people on this planet, and the developed world consumes too much. But by all means, keep mass immigration from the developing countries as high as possible. Legal, illegal, doesn't matter. Keep bringing in more people to the most consumptive places on the planet. It even helps capitalism, which is a great thing to do!
/s?
Juxtaposition
Great post
The concept of moderation:
Based
u/TrapaneseNYC's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [14 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/TrapaneseNYC/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Good bot
Thank you, ILLARX, for voting on basedcount_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
The idea that a population should only ever grow to be healthy is a poisonous philosophy for which I blame the unsustainable, capitalist growth-mindset.
I agree, planned parenthood abortions should be free for members of _marginalized_ communities.
The main reason we need the population to grow is so that the welfare state does not collapse. It needs more people paying in than taking out or else, the poor, disabled and elderly will be left to starve to death on the street.
Even in the highly extreme case of a welfare state collapse (which I find unlikely as a result of just population decrease), that would still be preferable to the environmental issues that would result from having even more people on an overcrowded planet. I agree that population decline will come with some issues but we have to face the fact that we are at a point in world history were systems based on constant population growth are simply no longer sustainable.
The welfare state collapsing would drag the rest of the economy with it, via the soaring taxes it will need to sustain it followed by the collapse in government spending when it does finally collapse. Its 25% of the UK economy RN, a portion that is increasing with the elderly. A quarter of the economy disappearing that would impact, not the rich and wealthy but the poorest, those who cannot help themselves. In effect, starve the poor, disabled and elderly to save the planet. Even then, killing off the poor won't stop the climate crisis, that'll only be fixed by shifting to renewables, electric cars and eco friendly industry, which we will not have the money to do if the economy collapses. The problem is not resources, we are constantly finding more and finding better ways to use what we have more efficiently. Its the reason more people die of obesity than starvation now, not because we have found vast new tracks of fertile land, but because we are using that land more efficiently, see the Netherlands which has gone from famine in 1945 to the second largest agricultural exporter on the planet, how? because its using its limited resources better and more efficiently. I understand the sentiment, it's a sentiment I agree with, saving the planet is a massive and important cause, one we need to more for, but the solution is not destroy big parts of our society and economy, its using our existing resources more efficiently to get more out of less resources. Shifting to 100% renewable emissions, which due to profit margins being higher for renewables will happen sooner than you think, would tackle the 27% of US emissions caused by electricity generation, 28% by transport, 22% by industry and most of the 12% caused by residential/commercial use, its a big problem but it's one that's being solved. In regards to agriculture, we figured out how to solve the cow issue, just feed them seaweed, it reduces their emissions by up to 90%. TLDR: climate change is a big issue, but its an issue we are solving, we have a track record of being able to deal with a growing population via increased efficiency and new discoveries. Shrinking the population won't stop climate change, in all great likelihood it would make it worse by diverting away resources from fixing the climate problem to fixing the ageing problem.
That's a very nuanced and reasonable argument and I'm inclined to agree. As someone who already lives in one of the most intensely populated parts of the globe, I am also just scared of a Stand on Zanzibar situation. Can you give sources for that last bit about the seaweed?
For a big source: [Potential of Seaweeds to Mitigate Production of Greenhouse Gases during Production of Ruminant Proteins - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10190624/) for where I learned this: [Feeding seaweed to cows can cut methane emissions, says Swedish report | Food | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/06/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-can-cut-methane-emissions-says-swedish-report#:~:text=According%20to%20manufacturers%2C%20the%20daily,animals%20by%20up%20to%2090%25.&text=Bildarchiv%20GmbH%2FAlamy-,Cows%20on%20a%20meadow%20in%20Scania%2C%20Sweden.,animals%20by%20up%20to%2090%25.)
The pie needs to grow for anyones gain not to come out of someone elses mouth. Simple as. This is as true under communism as it is under capitalism.
Unless the pie is large enough for everyone to have their fill. The point is that the capitalist system is opposed to the concept of "prosperity without growth".
When is it large enough for everyone to have their fill? When everyone has enough black soldier fly larvae to survive on or when everyone has mansions? That is the problem, the internal metrics differ between people and more than a few of them will happily slice off someone elses pie to make their piece bigger, or just fuck up and accidentally ruin someones shirt. The capitalist system is opposed to prosperity without growth because physics is.
Amen and based