Rise of the DINKs (Final Civ Death Stage)

[Australia Sucks]

This doesn't make sense. You think the solution to over population is to have extremely low birthrate countries lower their birthrate even farther?

You've drank the Kool-Aid. The West is short sighted and is kicking the can down the road? What, with their extreme sub-replacement birth rate?

The high birthrate areas are the only real concern.

Ideally all countries would lower their birthrate.

But in any case having a low birth rate for a first world country while damaging in the short-run for economic growth is beneficial in the long run as long as you stop the immigration. Like I said labour needs will be minimal in the future once AI and robots replace a lot of jobs. Or would you rather have a large population in 30 years time with half our population sitting around unemployed receiving universal basic income?

I mean the west is kicking the can down the road by importing immigrants not by their low birth rates. The immigration is the can kicking. Just take your bitter medicine like Japan is doing.

Tech companies have minimal employees compared to the "industrial" giants of the past. Nvidia is the 3rd most valuable company in the world by market cap yet it only has around 30,000 employees. General motors has around 163,000 employees. Walmart has 2.1 million employees.

And if you have a small population the land and natural resource wealth will be spread over a smaller population meaning everyone is wealthier. Like I said look at Brunei, UAE, Qatar and Norway as good examples of this.

 

[Thomas More]

Ideally all countries would lower their birthrate.

But in any case having a low birth rate for a first world country while damaging in the short-run for economic growth is beneficial in the long run as long as you stop the immigration. Like I said labour needs will be minimal in the future once AI and robots replace a lot of jobs. Or would you rather have a large population in 30 years time with half our population sitting around unemployed receiving universal basic income?

I mean the west is kicking the can down the road by importing immigrants not by their low birth rates. The immigration is the can kicking. Just take your bitter medicine like Japan is doing.

Tech companies have minimal employees compared to the "industrial" giants of the past. Nvidia is the 3rd most valuable company in the world by market cap yet it only has around 30,000 employees. General motors has around 163,000 employees. Walmart has 2.1 million employees.

And if you have a small population the land and natural resource wealth will be spread over a smaller population meaning everyone is wealthier. Like I said look at Brunei, UAE, Qatar and Norway as good examples of this.

You say countries with extremely low sub-replacement birth rates need to lower their birth-rate.

How low is enough for you?

 

[Australia Sucks]

You say countries with extremely low sub-replacement birth rates need to lower their birth-rate.

How low is enough for you?

I don't think it needs a particular target or goal. Just allow it to unfold as it will. Just stop the immigration and it will work out just fine as long as your country is well managed (budget surplus, low taxes, low regulation, small government, focus on innovation and maximizing extraction of natural resources, etc).

So what is your solution then? First world countries should increase their population so that in 30 years time half the country can sit around unemployed and recieve universal basic income? Or what exactly is your vision?

 

[bubs]

If you are a dirt world person in an area where fertility is 6 per woman, and they all are ultra low IQ peasants, then having kids exacerbates the collapse.

If you are a civilized person in a society with a sub-replacement birthrate, then failing to have kids exacerbates the collapse. Don't buy the leftist brainwashing that first world people with sub-replacement birthrates are causing some kind of population explosion that's destroying the Earth. That's such an obvious lie by people who hate you.

So with this mindset, we’re ok with Bill Gates sterilizing sub-Saharan African populations?

 

[Thomas More]

I don't think it needs a particular target or goal. Just allow it to unfold as it will. Just stop the immigration and it will work out just fine as long as your country is well managed (budget surplus, low taxes, low regulation, small government, focus on innovation and maximizing extraction of natural resources, etc).

So what is your solution then? First world countries should increase their population so that in 30 years time half the country can sit around unemployed and recieve universal basic income? Or what exactly is your vision?

Do you math? If you increase the birthrate from extreme sub-replacement to replacement levels, you could have a huge increase in birthrate, and yet not increase the population. You seem to be saying we need to lower the population-shrinking birthrate because otherwise the population will grow too much.

As for my solution, it is to reduce the birthrate in places where it is too high, without reducing it in places where it is too low. Is this not obvious?

 

[Thomas More]

So with this mindset, we’re ok with Bill Gates sterilizing sub-Saharan African populations?

Logic is hard. Obviously I don't want Bill Gates to sterilize the sub-African populations. I want them glassed with dirty nukes.









Or, I suppose I could accept something less extreme like supporting economic development and teaching them that having 6-8 babies will leave them starving in squalor. It's not like having all those babies is beneficial in those places where the population is exploding. Those places are hell on Earth.

Helping the places with excess births is good for them, and they need it desparately. Convincing westerners to be DINKs as a way to address overpopulation is a leftist trick that doesn't help anyone, and certainly doesn't help the people suffering from excess birth rates.

 

[RedLagoon]

So with this mindset, we’re ok with Bill Gates sterilizing sub-Saharan African populations?

Just stop sending them food (aid) and all the troubles will stop.

Gates is just using those people as a vector for the destruction of Europe.

No gibs, no migration.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

Females oblige males to be dishonest to obtain sex.

The only power that females have is given to them by males; The only thing which females do with that power is use it against males.

Any voluntary system must be to the advantage of the female or the female will not participate.

Females are never satisfied.

I shall treat animals better than men.

I shall have the right to do everything and the obligation to do nothing.

I shall have babies whenever and by whom I please.

I shall maintain males in a state of neurosis and confusion, and any male who disagrees with me, or induces any unpleasant feeling, shall be deprived of every amenity I have the power to withhold.

Pretty much any heavily career oriented woman is annoying... men will never truly care about a woman's job, education, money, etc.

Normies aren't having kids because they want to be selfish... That's basically how the "west" views having children (especially the females). Too much of a bother...

I can attest to all of the above. These points collectively are my last 5-year relationship in a nutshell which resulted in no marriage or kids [even though these were agreed upon at the 1-year mark of the relationship (otherwise I would not have continued)]. Painful stuff to read. Oh well, the truth hurts, but it also sets you free.

 

[Blade Runner]

Yes, we're just arguing here about what to do, in a way that's funny because we're powerless anyway. The plans and chaos have been set in motion, and we're going to find out what happens to the population and financial system, and how fast. Even if we wanted to force some sort of new regional pro natalism movement, we'd get knocked out because we'd be too small, it'd get too much attention, and it's too early (sad but true). It always has to happen the organic way, which is the dumb human way of waiting for collapses of sorts. We are in one, but there's still too much "money" around and bad (women) actors to really change anything. For europeans, at least.

 

[Australia Sucks]

As for my solution, it is to reduce the birthrate in places where it is too high, without reducing it in places where it is too low. Is this not obvious?

You have missed my argument entirely despite the fact that I have stated it multiple times. All countries should have less population in the future because there will not be demand for labour due to advancements in AI and robotics.

More population in the future = more unemployed people sitting around collecting universal basic income. At least with a shrinking population the natural resource wealth (iron ore, gas, oil, coal, copper, farmland, etc) if it is properly taxed (royalties, resource rent taxes, etc) will be spread over a higher population meaning each citizen is wealthier. In a future economy that has minimal need for labour this is the only way to maintain living standards for the average citizen.

 

[Thomas More]

You have missed my argument entirely despite the fact that I have stated it multiple times. All countries should have less population in the future because there will not be demand for labour due to advancements in AI and robotics.

More population in the future = more unemployed people sitting around collecting universal basic income. At least with a shrinking population the natural resource wealth (iron ore, gas, oil, coal, copper, farmland, etc) if it is properly taxed (royalties, resource rent taxes, etc) will be spread over a higher population meaning each citizen is wealthier. In a future economy that has minimal need for labour this is the only way to maintain living standards for the average citizen.

You have missed my argument besides my stating it several times. If all countries should lower their population, and some already have a severe sub-replacement birth rate, then the ones with the severely sub-replacement birthrate are already shrinking drastically. Even if you think they should shrink, these are already shrinking too fast.

The ones that are already shrinking too fast do not need to lower their birthrate further, by encouraging even more women to be barren. If they are shrinking too fast, then they should shrink more slowly, which actually means they should encourage women to have more children, which would slow the rate of shrinking.

So, in order to have all nations shrink, you don't need to encourage fewer children in all nations. Only in the ones that are growing rapidly. The ones that are shrinking too fast should lift their foot off the brakes a little.

 

[Blade Runner]

So, in order to have all nations shrink, you don't need to encourage fewer children in all nations. Only in the ones that are growing rapidly. The ones that are shrinking too fast should lift their foot off the brakes a little.

Thomas, there are checks for all of these things anyway, as I stated above. It's not like we can convince women to all of a sudden (through argument) to have more children, or even appreciate men - they are what they are which is consensus thinkers that respond only (99%) to external or atmospheric conditions.

You can be against elites and the general idea of depopulation and still understand that the population boom created a lot of problems, due to many average and dysgenic people, since all men for example, want decent women and a family, regardless of their quality. My thesis talks about this quite specifically and I think, coherently. This crowding aspect has hurt the above average man far more than anyone else, which actually hurts the population more than any other eventuality.

 

[Thomas More]

Thomas, there are checks for all of these things anyway, as I stated above. It's not like we can convince women to all of a sudden (through argument) to have more children, or even appreciate men - they are what they are which is consensus thinkers that respond only (99%) to external or atmospheric conditions.

You can be against elites and the general idea of depopulation and still understand that the population boom created a lot of problems, due to many average and dysgenic people, since all men for example, want decent women and a family, regardless of their quality. My thesis talks about this quite specifically and I think, coherently. This crowding aspect has hurt the above average man far more than anyone else, which actually hurts the population more than any other eventuality.

I am in favor of reducing the population. I just don't think nations with under 1.4 births per women need to make a positive effort to reduce the birth rate even further.

 

[Blade Runner]

I am in favor of reducing the population. I just don't think nations with under 1.4 births per women need to make a positive effort to reduce the birth rate even further.

My point previously though was that it's less important to debate what should happen, since we are powerless. Rather, we should make predictions on what WILL happen, and what we should do as a result.

This is why I talk about the finance stuff all the time.

 

[scorpion]

Reduced fertility seems to be an inescapable consequence of modernity, specifically the combination of feminism, material affluence and high population density. That being said, concerns about total population collapse are overblown. Humanity is not in danger of extinction, nor is any particular ethnic group. Sure, populations will certainly decline, but decline is a far cry from collapse or extinction. And the children who continue to be born in the future will inherit the genes of parents who prioritized parenthood despite the considerable social and economic headwinds, and thus will themselves be more likely to have children, whatever the cost. The problem then, becomes self-correcting over time. You see this with groups like the Amish and Mormons, whose numbers will continue to increase over the coming decades, while urban white liberals will see their populations dwindle in contrast.

 

[WaveMechanic]

And what exactly should people do to reduce the population of the Earth? Is not God in control?

Should everyone be sterilized, or put on birth control? Mandate abortions if pregnancy occurs? Should recreational sex be criminalized? To enforce the sex ban should government surveillance be utilized in people's homes. Obviously all of the above would be preposterous, dystopian, and outright evil, though criminalizing fornication would actually be good.

Doesn't God want us to marry? Without unnatural intervention isn't pregnancy a typical outcome of a marriage for healthy individuals? Aren't marriage and children gifts from God?

Unless the solution to the perceived problems comes from God it is bound for failure, and unintended consequences. God has already given us the solutions, but the world increasingly refuses to listen.

 

[Thomas More]

And what exactly should people do to reduce the population of the Earth? Is not God in control?

Should everyone be sterilized, or put on birth control? Mandate abortions if pregnancy occurs? Should recreational sex be criminalized? To enforce the sex ban should government surveillance be utilized in people's homes. Obviously all of the above would be preposterous, dystopian, and outright evil, though criminalizing fornication would actually be good.

Doesn't God want us to marry? Without unnatural intervention isn't pregnancy a typical outcome of a marriage for healthy individuals? Aren't marriage and children gifts from God?

Unless the solution to the perceived problems comes from God it is bound for failure, and unintended consequences. God has already given us the solutions, but the world increasingly refuses to listen.

Public policy does make a difference. The current low birth rates in developed countries are partly inevitable due to the the availability of birth control, and the ability of women to work instead of being a stay at home mom.

However, the current low birth rates are definitely influenced by neo-Marxist ideologies pushed by governments, corporations, news and entertainment, and schools. However, the pendulum is swinging against these things. If a push is made against these things, and women are encouraged to see that they have been deceived by these neo-Marxists, then more women will have babies. In fact, I do expect an increase in the birth rate of legacy non-Immigrant Americans over the coming years.

My point is that we should not repeat arguments about how it is best for women to be childless. There are enough choosing this without us promoting it. We should promote having children. I would not say that if the US birth rate was 6 children per women. However, I do say it given the low actual birthrate among legacy Americans.

I think it does make a difference for a major portion of society to shift their opinions on this matter.

 

[Australia Sucks]

In fact, I do expect an increase in the birth rate of legacy non-Immigrant Americans over the coming years.

I cannot see it happening. Young people are for the most part doing very badly financially compared to previous generations at the same stage of life. Having children is increasingly becoming a luxury that many young couples cannot afford with rock bottom wages, insecure gig work, and high and increasing cost of living (and house prices), etc.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

I cannot see it happening. Young people are for the most part doing very badly financially compared to previous generations at the same stage of life. Having children is increasingly becoming a luxury that many young couples cannot afford with rock bottom wages, insecure gig work, and high and increasing cost of living (and house prices), etc.

Money is not the answer. Learning to live with less, which requires one to recalibrate one's social conditioning of entitlement, while putting down one's phone in order to develop skilled hands is the answer. If your hands have not been trained via manual labor to fell timber, maintain a tractor, frame and roof a house, or to produce electricity, then yes, you will always require a steady supply of usurious capital to hire other men to do your dirty and expensive work for you.

If in 1804 a 16 year-old Sacagawea could give birth in the wilderness of South Dakota (without anesthesia, antibiotics, or a doctor) and then for a year-and-a-half carry her baby on her back for 6,000 miles while traveling to the Oregon coast and back to Missouri on foot (and by canoe) as part of the Lewis and Clark expedition, then surely Gen Z'ers can gird their loins and start families without owning a home or having a ton of money in the bank.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Clark expedition, then surely Gen Z'ers can gird their loins and start families without owning a home or having a ton of money in the bank.

The point is not whether you can have kids its a question of if you can give your children a good standard of living. There are Africans living in mud huts with 6 children but why would you want to put your children through that? Nobody should be born to suffer through life. You have a responsibility to provide a high standard of living to your children since they did not ask to be born. If you cannot do it then do not have children. Its selfish otherwise.