The population boom and cycle thread

[SpyofMoses]

It says it has been deleted, what did this one say?

It was basically some idiot suggesting that we should return to polygamy, because marriage is "relatively new" and if rich men had harems instead of just one wife, then birth rates would go up, lol. Even redditors started to wonder if that would really work. But of course, not all of them.

People started talking about the middle east, and how in Islam polygamy's normal. Of course noone mentioned that the lack of women that so many men face as a result of this practice is a huge part of why the middle east is so unstable.

 

[Blade Runner]

It was basically some idiot suggesting that we should return to polygamy, because marriage is "relatively new" and if rich men had harems instead of just one wife, then birth rates would go up, lol. Even redditors started to wonder if that would really work. But of course, not all of them.

People started talking about the middle east, and how in Islam polygamy's normal. Of course noone mentioned that the lack of women that so many men face as a result of this practice is a huge part of why the middle east is so unstable.

The entire birth rates thing is a canard.

All one has to do is, again, look at history. That's actually the point of this thread, if you see it but don't really notice it in the title: the population boom made it a good time to be born, but the aftermath suffers precisely because of the boom.

The only elites that lament it are the "Oh, woe is me! Our debt based system and desire for slave labor will take a hit ..."

 

[SpyofMoses]

The entire birth rates thing is a canard.

Yes.

An old colleague once told me a story. He was in some semi rural area of New Hampshire or something, where there was an abundance of squirrels. One particular spring and summer the season was unusually fruitful for the squirrels somehow. I forget exactly how now, maybe there were extra acorns around due to a longer, warmer spring than normal or something like that. Either way, the squirrels had a great year. So great, there was a population boom of squirrels. The next year the weather(or acorn growing conditions or whatever) was normal. So then there were a ton of squirrels just starving everywhere. Things returned to normal for squirrels in the neighborhood after that.

This story stands out in my mind because we're basically living through the same thing albeit as human beings. There was plenty, and a relatively peaceful world to live in for a while. Or at least a relatively clean world. Now we're seeing the pressure cracks of society being pushed further apart by our own overpopulation.
The skewed gender ratio due to men not dying young (or at least getting maimed) nearly as often is one aspect of this. I think I might've touched on that before. But that's a point that deserves its own post.

The only elites that lament it are the "Oh, woe is me! Our debt based system and desire for slave labor will take a hit ..."

A while back I was trying to explain to another coworker that since brith rates tend to decline in industrialized nations no matter the culture, all we really have to do is wait out the slowing of births while we incorporate the high tech that off sets the need for unskilled labor. It would require a more patient and educated society to actually work, however. He couldn't handle it, he was a PC SJW through and through and just kind of went "hmmm, interesting" in the way that NPCs typically do upon encountering a thought that isn't pre-approved by the talking heads. Not to suggest that I must be right, mind you, just saying that he couldn't even engage the thought at all. Glad we can talk about this more objectively here.

There's some point about the Japanese figuring this problem out over in the Japan thread. And predictably the Jews are trying to get as many Indians sent into Japan as possible now. They're not even suffering some kind of labor shortage over there, they incorporated a ton of automation in all kinds of ways. Some of those ways are only possible because that society is so insanely high trust. Basically they seem to be figuring out the problem for what it is and are trying to deal with it in a way that works well enough in spite of the personal suffering some must go through due to what you earlier called "the war of peacetime."

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

The entire birth rates thing is a canard.

All one has to do is, again, look at history. That's actually the point of this thread, if you see it but don't really notice it in the title: the population boom made it a good time to be born, but the aftermath suffers precisely because of the boom.

The only elites that lament it are the "Oh, woe is me! Our debt based system and desire for slave labor will take a hit ..."

What about the boom makes the aftermath bad? Isn’t birth control and second wave feminism the main cause?

 

[Blade Runner]

What about the boom makes the aftermath bad? Isn’t birth control and second wave feminism the main cause?

I address this in the first post.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

 

[Blade Runner]

This story stands out in my mind because we're basically living through the same thing albeit as human beings. There was plenty, and a relatively peaceful world to live in for a while. Or at least a relatively clean world. Now we're seeing the pressure cracks of society being pushed further apart by our own overpopulation.

I forgot to respond to this last time, or didn't due to missing it. Yes, with humans the difference is that we can theoretically live and accommodate the population, in a physical and resource/space sense, but apparently we can't in the realm of psychology, politics, and overall harmony because we are so complex. I think it's also because we fall prey to emotions and "caring" for other humans beings, even abstractly, in ways animals wouldn't think twice about. Plus, what happened in one year or one season for your squirrels was able to span 50+ years for us humans, which further complicates the analysis of the subject - we think we can help, subsidize or acommodate the expanding population but with their demands, greed, and envy it turns out that no we really can't. Or, the cherry on top, the elites get sick of it and make policies to cause discord and then pull the monetary plug, inflate while most don't have assets, etc.

The skewed gender ratio due to men not dying young (or at least getting maimed) nearly as often is one aspect of this. I think I might've touched on that before. But that's a point that deserves its own post.

If you know my posts, along with the above is that I posted always (I'm sure I put this in post 1 of this thread) that M:F ratio and excess resources are the biggest quality inducers or selection pressures on women. Fewer males and worse economy of course, make them way better, which makes for way higher production of children, at least per capita. Now we have women working, more and fatter women, and fake jobs, and no one having kids while also have to pay for the older people who control the biggest voting bloc, and just don't care anymore or understand that younger people mostly have no future or demoralized, and they definitely don't care that the women they raised don't care about men at all.

A while back I was trying to explain to another coworker that since brith rates tend to decline in industrialized nations no matter the culture, all we really have to do is wait out the slowing of births while we incorporate the high tech that off sets the need for unskilled labor. It would require a more patient and educated society to actually work, however. He couldn't handle it, he was a PC SJW through and through and just kind of went "hmmm, interesting" in the way that NPCs typically do upon encountering a thought that isn't pre-approved by the talking heads. Not to suggest that I must be right, mind you, just saying that he couldn't even engage the thought at all. Glad we can talk about this more objectively here.

Your seeing the death pangs of the workers unite crowd, who are mostly collectivist since they needed to be; they were the automatons of old. But they're people, so you have connections with them, and even if you don't care about them as people you do if you care about them as people/voters for your cause. Also, your friend implicitly doesn't like this because most of them are either Dem type voters, less competent minorities, or both.

View attachment 25335

Yes, and as above, you know how many older people die with savings of over than 1M from pensions and excessive retirement earnings? Yet they still worry.

Still, the bigger part that the western countries don't talk about is the feminism part. The proof is that I both know many really wealthy men, successful guys, tall guys, etc - they can all afford houses and families, etc - but there aren't women for them, really. Yes, with better economics more people would have had kids, but it's just at the margins. The rate limiting step is women foregoing families for career and just desiring crazy levels of consumption, stupid costs in housing, and demanding a ton from men. All the while, they aren't young, so why would a man spend on them? He won't. By the time he HAS all that $ (in his 30s) the society does all it can to try to get to marry the washed up ones (30+), not the young ones he thought he was working hard to get.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

View attachment 25335

Also another relevant poll graph:






So basically, old people who decided to not have children, outnumber the lower population, have financial power over them, and voting dominance, which leads to the violent government (that’s what defines a government), taking money from them, and then condemns political violence.

Meanwhile, the young people who have almost nothing to lose, decide that using violence (a tactic older people rely on), is fair, but because of being outnumbered, need to resort to guerilla tactics.

Both sides are using violence, all politics is violence, believing otherwise is moronic.

This is why believing in democracy is a sham. This country is headed for hell unless boomers are stripped of their power, and that won’t come from voting.

 

[Blade Runner]

Both sides are using violence, all politics is violence, believing otherwise is moronic.

It's more nuanced than that. I see the argument, but "all politics" isn't violence, but it is true that the government has a monopoly on violence. Perhaps it is best said that the basis of politics is violence, and yes, that would be true. The basis for society, as a result, is even simpler = men (those capable of power/violence and the enforcers of it, one way or another).

This is why believing in democracy is a sham.

We agree here.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

 

[Blade Runner]

Gavin de Becker. Interesting.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What's your opinion of the population boom theory I've posited?

Yeah, this is essentially Wall-e or 2001: A Space Odyssey. The more the population grows and the more technology advances, people will, at varying levels, become more and more out of touch with the things that make them "human." You can already see this at a micro-level in the political sphere. It is no accident that the right-left dichotomy corresponds so strongly with the rural-urban dichotomy.

To maintain such a population, certain concessions have to be made. If you want to not eat GMO foods, then you will have to be willing to put in more work and sacrifice more, bear more responsibility. You have people like this but they will always be the minority since the natural human condition is predisposed to take the easy way out and outsource personal responsibility. With that comes the Satanic elites who are happy to make a buck off of people's baser nature, while presenting themselves as a sort of necessary evil. The Satanic elites are not the cause of the evil, they are the symptom of it. The evil lies within our own fallen nature.

 

[Blade Runner]

With that comes the Satanic elites who are happy to make a buck off of people's baser nature, while presenting themselves as a sort of necessary evil.

It's a bit more than this. They literally control and print the money, so they don't just control them by "selling" things to them that are "bad" they carrot stick them with the immoral money. This is why the backed/fiat/BTC thread and argument is so important; it's profoundly moral. You can make a technical but rather silly argument as well with "you have free speech" while you de-bank or censor someone, or fire them from a job - but once you do that you render their ability to exert that free speech null and void.

The Satanic elites are not the cause of the evil, they are the symptom of it. The evil lies within our own fallen nature.

The evil is a conduit and their synergy is with the evil one, it's not just a symptom, but of course it does include that. We all have symptoms but we don't all align ourselves with the main rebel, or willingly and at all times reject the Good (God). Some do.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It's a bit more than this. They literally control and print the money, so they don't just control them by "selling" things to them that are "bad" they carrot stick them with the immoral money. This is why the backed/fiat/BTC thread and argument is so important; it's profoundly moral. You can make a technical but rather silly argument as well with "you have free speech" while you de-bank or censor someone, or fire them from a job - but once you do that you render their ability to exert that free speech null and void.

Have the elites foisted the fiat system on the world despite God's providence or is it God's providence that the fiat system has become the standard?

 

[Wutang]

Is the thesis here that technology and "progression" in society has led to a increase in population and that most of the people who are among the surplus population are dysgenic and wouldn't have been able to survive in a society that doesn't have safety nets such as welfare and "fake money" (debt, fiat currency, etc.) to artificially prop up the economy and that this has led to movements such as feminism and the other progressive social causes that have wrecked the traditional bonds and relationships between people?

 

[Northumber]

They literally control and print the money, so they don't just control them by "selling" things to them that are "bad" they carrot stick them with the immoral money. This is why the backed/fiat/BTC thread and argument is so important; it's profoundly moral. You can make a technical but rather silly argument as well with "you have free speech" while you de-bank or censor someone, or fire them from a job - but once you do that you render their ability to exert that free speech null and void.

I must have missed the argument in the other thread. Is BTC more moral in terms other than the fiat comparison? My criticisms of BTC center around fundamental concerns over it being more on the technological side and detached from the physical.

 

[SpyofMoses]

Is the thesis here that....

Thats all definitely at least part of it. But there are other consequences for humanity. The overcrowding, too much competition, and the decay of advanced societies while other more primitive societies around them are trying to thrive, etc. Its all an *ahem* cluster-you-know-what.

 

[Wutang]

What I am struggling to understand is how the population boom is supposed to be the center of all of this. From me trying to understand the initial post and also the other references Blade Runner has made to his "population boom" thesis, it seems like he views overpopulation and dysgenics that comes with it as the cause for all the other things bringing societal decay. However, to me it seems like it really is the advancement of technology that is the cause of all of this and the population boom is just one of the effects of technological growth rather then being the thing causing society to devolve. It seems like the thread should instead be called the "the advancement of technology/retreat of society thread" rather than the population boom thread.

Also, if the population boom is something that accompanies feminism, fake money, debt, and the other things being described as negative in the first post, then why is it that populations that are growing or booming the most such as the African countries or other third world nations also the ones that tend to not have these things while the first world countries with low population growth such as Western Europe have high amounts of welfare and feminism? I thought those things were supposed to cause large amount of dysgenic people to be born and to survive but it's the societies where those things are either weak or non-existent that has the highest amount of people that would be considered by people on this forum to be dysgenic to be born. Isn't a regular point of discussion on this forum about how there west is being overrun with low iq people from these high fecund countries while the native population is failing to reproduce their own stock?

 

[Blade Runner]

Have the elites foisted the fiat system on the world despite God's providence or is it God's providence that the fiat system has become the standard?

Did God "create" the Evil One? It's the same (type of) question.

and wouldn't have been able to survive in a society that doesn't have safety nets such as welfare and "fake money" (debt, fiat currency, etc.) to artificially prop up the economy and that this has led to movements such as feminism and the other progressive social causes that have wrecked the traditional bonds and relationships between people?

No, it's that they wouldn't have been born into it. It then leads, with the other things, to imbalance and things like simpting as a prime example of what adds to the social decay mostly for reasons of alternate (poor, sabotaging) strategies of reproduction.

Is BTC more moral in terms other than the fiat comparison?

Yes, but it's more that fiat is unequivocally immoral.

My criticisms of BTC center around fundamental concerns over it being more on the technological side and detached from the physical.

You can bring that up on the other thread, it's an interesting thing to consider. For example, something you'll find is that gold or any element is limited as money due to it being "physical" - it will eventually be centralized as a result (and thus corrupted on a global or national scale).

However, to me it seems like it really is the advancement of technology that is the cause of all of this and the population boom is just one of the effects of technological growth rather then being the thing causing society to devolve.

Yes, but it is the population and its human effects (biology, sociopolitical, intersex dynamics, family) that causes greater social issues. Some degree of technology was clearly present in the American heyday, right? But it was still traditional for those "good times".

By the way, I do think in a sense it is an unstoppable trajectory given the human desire for, or ingenuity, gifting, planning that will involve tech - it's just a matter of time. But one can accurately assess the biology of what goes on when certain things align (like the behavioral sink of the rat utopia/dystopa).

I thought those things were supposed to cause large amount of dysgenic people to be born and to survive but it's the societies where those things are either weak or non-existent that has the highest amount of people that would be considered by people on this forum to be dysgenic to be born.

This is complicated as it is a threshold process with help from european heritage civilizations, and global aid, money printing, technological efficiency, etc. Of course, that will reverse too. But the larger point is that those societies are lopsided and not advanced overall. Another way of putting it is that they are outside of this analysis due to being intrinsically different from advanced civilization. Comparatively they don't become dysgenic, they already are low IQ populations so a "change" doesn't change much in a meaningful way. Downward moves have to designate significant changes in overall living to be called dysgenic for the purposes of this paradigm.

 

[Wutang]

What exactly is it about a big population that causes things like feminism and other social issues to become dominant? That was what wasn't clear to me from reading the first post on this thread or the other posts that refer to the "population boom" being the cause of current social issues. All the reasons that are being given for why feminism and lower quality people are more rampant seems to have more to do with technology than the size of the population.