|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:50 PM July 23rd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
With more than six billion people on the planet, I'm not particularly concerned with population collapse.
On an unrelated (and somewhat far-fetched) topic, I was discussing the infertility issue with a friend of mine. He more or less believes that nature is a sentient being, which is trying to control human population expansion and not succeededing.
At first it released mega viruses like AIDS and Ebola on humanity, but for the most part we've kept that from putting a major dent in our billions of people. Realizing that contagious viruses aren't working, nature instead decides to let people live, but keep them from reproducing, though reproductive damage that otherwise isn't harmful. Since the biolocical desire to mate is much stronger than the instinct to obtain children at any other cost, my friend thinks that nature will win with this approach, since test tube babies aren't in particularly high demand.
Okay, so this is really odd and probably not worth serious thought. But it's interesting to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:16 PM July 23rd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with most of what is said above. And I don't think it is "odd" at all to assign method to the most successful program ever invented - (created?) evolution.
There is similar "research" that shows that about a similar number of men donot intend to get married (Which is not the same as not gong to reproduce; the same applies to women.)
The worrying thing is that no comparable research exists regarding previous ages' conditions. Some does re: speculative attempts at reconstructing birthrates in the Roman Empire etc, some about birth and abortion pattern in Pre-World War 2 Vienna etc - but nothing on a large scale which would allow for comparions and relative assessments.
It also doesn't matter (well, it does to us who belong to the the "White Tribes" - even if only vicariously) if the White Tribes are dying - they just import people from other, "over-populated" nations. This is, indeed, already happening: the US is flooded by Middle and South Americans. The Philipines export 8 millions or thereabouts people, similarly for Bangladesh. Europe can't stem the invasion from Asia and Africa. Australia's population "grows" through a (carefully controlled) immigration program. The economies of all these nations could not function without any of these events occurring. People are like water - where there is a void - they fill it.
Now,Europeans and the USers may not like what is happening - well, neither did the Romans relish the invasion of the Barbarians - or the the American Indians the arrival of Europeans - but,
it did happen inspite of whatever (token?)efforts were made to stop it.
This is not the first time in history that such a population shift has occurred. Nature has a way of balancing things out.
We live in an age of momentous change - indeed.
These are "The Interesting Times" of the Chinese Curse.
We're at the cusp of momentous change.
Enjoy!
(Oh, and feminism isn't really all that important; just another and irritating but failing attempt to bugger things up. It too "will pass and be forgotten like the rest". And, at any rate, most Feminists are Lesbians so they won't breed (See? Evolution knows how to handle things like these!) Future generations will look back at this age and marvel at it all and - perhaps - even envy us, the lucky ones, who were witness to it all.)
As I said: enjoy!
Tertullian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:48 PM July 23rd, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Being Australian I am familiar with immigration to counter declining birthrates. The problem with this argument is that the people immigrating aren't, oftem, all that young. A person born here will have a full working life to offer the economy, less the costs of education. An immigrant will not require pre-tertiary or often tertiary education but only have a limited working life to offer the country. I have a feeling that this will lead to a population explosion due to excessively high immigration rates required to counter this ageing problem. In a country running out of water this will not be a good thing. Further, the loyalties of these people to the country have never been tested, as many are essentially economic refugees whose allegiances can be questionable. Be curious to see where many will stand if Australia ever ends up in a religious war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being Australian I am familiar with immigration to counter declining birthrates.
I often refrain from responding to posts from anonymous users, but you've made such a good point (what you say corresponds with what I've read) that I wanted to say a couple additional things.
Australia is one of the few countries that at the highest level has expressed concern about population implosion for some time. In addition to immigration, they've tried PR campaigns that entail, in part, guilt tripping men into fathering more children. So far, this seems to have been as effective as Japan's new angel program. In other words, it's had little effect if any.
I sometimes wonder if such campaigns just make young adults more acutely aware of the drawbacks of parenthood. I mean, if the government has to guilt trip the populace into doing something, maybe there's a good reason that individuals don't want to do it.
Also, AU, if you're willing to get a handle, I'd like to discuss this some more with you. (If you don't have a handle, and other AUs start to respond, a rational discussion will become impossible, because I won't know who is saying what to whom.)
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thomas
it's not that I don't have a login, I've just been too bloody lazy too look up my password and bother to login. I think I shall forwith discontinue this practice...
Monash university (http://www.monash.edu.au) here has come up with another fine study..from the institution that has produced famous studies such as the "5kmh over the speed limit doubles you chances of being involved in a car crash" (which resulted in speed cameras set to 3kmh over the speed limit being used here) and the ever popular
"all young drivers should have a curfew on night driving", have produced a new and even better study..."The cause of Australia's declining birthrate is not selfish career minded "single white female princesses (SWFP) but is infact those loathsome useless pleasure seeking yobbo males again. Instead of begging the atypical SWFP to get married and have a baby if I could pop out babies myself I surely would. Pity help the poor unfortunates married to likesame SWFP who are no longer allowed to have their children blood tested to infact see if they are wasting their alimony payments on some stray that shared a tender moment with SWFP at some time in her root rat past kids or not. As I sit in a country slowly haemoraging to death what can I say...lets bring in some more refugees!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:17 PM July 26th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that the majority of people born in first world countries would like to have children. But they also want to enjoy middle class lives with a decent amount of wealth. Often, that required pursuing advanced education, investing in businesses, and/or focussing on career over family. In other words, one reason for declining fertility rates among people born in first world countries could just be the piss-poor states of the nations' economies.
People are more likely to have children when they enjoy a sense of having economic stability, which they no longer have in first world nations, and they recognize that children can be very expensive and burdensome. Hence, they have fewer children. The fact that many women also want to earn middle class incomes and develop their own independent economic security probably plays a large role in this, too.
One (of several) drivers in people's deciding not to have children is simply a feeling of a lack of economic security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People are not having children because there is no longer any focus on our families. A new house, two SUVs, promotions, trips to Hawaii, have all replaced what was once the ultimate happiness, being parents. Women are no longer expected or encouraged to have children, and men have become afraid to. Materialism has replaced family values.
Just remember Darwin. Those of us who are decent, reasonable people will pass our genes on, those who are extremist idiots won't. I sometimes think I would welcome a collapse of society. Would wipe out a lot of misery.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've said this before on this board, but I'm gonna repeat it. I feel today like I did in the late 70s, when I spoke out against the growing threat of hateful feminism. I had a number of friends, some of them very good friends, who all seemed to think I was overboard on that one. (And the feminists thought that I should be carted off.)
Today, as men's rights activists, we're largely fighting a battle that should have been fought and won decades ago. Our impending problem isn't feminism. Feminism is doomed. The problem we're facing is the devastation of society in the wake of feminism. The collapse of population in advanced society will probably be the greatest source of strife for decades to come. (My wife will testify that I've been saying this for about a decade now, and people have largely responded to me the way they did decades ago, when I spoke about the threat of feminism -- Chicken Little revisited.)
I did a search on Amazon and found two recently published books on the subject of this thread. The first, by Phillip Longman, is titled, "THE EMPTY CRADLE: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do about It." It was published in April this year.
Under "About the author," Amazon states "Phillip Longman is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of numerous articles and books on demographics and public policy. Formerly a senior writer and editor at US News & World Report, he has written for such publications as The Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, and the Wall Street Journal."
In its book description, Amazon says:
"Overpopulation has long been a global concern. But between modern medicine and reduced fertility, world population may in fact be shrinking--and is almost certain to do so by the time today's children retire. The troubling implications for our economy and culture include:
* The possibility of a fundamentalist revival due to the decline of secular fertility
* The threat to the free market as the supply of workers and consumers declines
* The eventual collapse of the American health care system as inordinate expenses are incurred by an aging population."
The second book is "The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future." by Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. It was published in February this year.
In the book description, Amazon states, "In 2030, as 77 million baby boomers hobble into old age, walkers will outnumber strollers; there will be twice as many retirees as there are today but only 18 percent more workers. How will America handle this demographic overload? How will Social Security and Medicare function with fewer working taxpayers to support these programs? According to Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns, if our government continues on the course it has set, we'll see skyrocketing tax rates, drastically lower retirement and health benefits, high inflation, a rapidly depreciating dollar, unemployment, and political instability."
This, not terrorism, is the biggest threat faced by advanced societies today.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Today, as men's rights activists, we're largely fighting a battle that should have been fought and won decades ago.
I'm with you 1000% on that issue, Thomas. To your "chicken little" I have been cast in the role of "bearded madman in the wilderness" pointing out and fighting thousands of the incremental steps which the culture took to embark and stay on a path which I was absolutely convinced was a dead end.
However, as Ayn Rand points out repeatedly in her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged", when observed events do not make sense, it is necessary to check our assumptions - we will discover that one of them is wrong.
I would change your statement above to say "it could have been fought and won years ago" rather than "should" have. Even though I am areligious, I believe in a principle that can be best stated as "the universe is unfolding exactly as god intended it to." Natural law will always trump man-made law. I am extremely skeptical of "shoulds" because most of the time they seem to me to be a projection of the speaker's personal preferences disguised as some sort of moral imperative. Again, the easiest way to put this into perspective is the response "if god had intended the world to be different than it is, then it would be."
The reason for this approach is to move toward the scientific method and instead of reacting against the way things are to begin to question why they are that way. Thus, to me, the question becomes "Why wasn't this battle fought and won years ago?" I believe this moves us closer to the development of workable theory regarding the best way to respond.
Like a couple of the other posters to this thread, I am not the least bit concerned about population "collapse." In the same way that I reject the description of a flood, or earthquake, or volcanic eruption as a natural "disaster", I view them as natural events because, as the Jefferson Airplane put it, "Compared to a scream, the human dream, doesn't mean shit to a tree."
With 6 billion people in the world today, the human race itself is in no danger at all of dying out. The low birth rates of countries like Japan need to be considered in the context of it having one of the highest population densities on the planet. Most of human history, and particularly the last few centuries of it, is based on confiscation of resources from one population group by another. I am a US citizen and as proud of the accomplishments of this culture as anyone else, but I cannot ignore the fact that it is based on imperial conquest of an indiginous people which was essentially exterminated in the process. Sorry, but any gang of idiots could be successful in the short term given most of a continent rich in natural resources.
The history of the human race is little more than a series of cultures which have gone through cycles of growth followed by cycles of decay. I have come to believe that the seeds of a culture's demise are contained it its success. The fight for survival produces and favors strength and vitality, while too much safety breeds indolence and weakness. A culture fights and struggles to establish itself, but once it does the population seems to inevitably become complacent and corrupt and eventually succumb to another culture which is hungrier and more motivated.
One of the best descriptions of the process we are going through (with most moralism and "shoulds" removed) is in The Death of Marriage in Scandinavia. Briefly, the rise of central socialist goverment creates a situation where parents still bear most of the costs of creating and rearing children to become future taxpayers, but the benefits are then confiscated by government to be redistributed.
Before the advent of such concepts like "social security", children were a long term investment. They were a person's retirement plan, long term medical care plan, as well as a short-term investment in wealth building because in agrarian or family business settings children could start making a direct contribution to the family by the time they were 6 or 7. In today's circumstances, children are extremely expensive burdens who have to be supported by the parents for an average of 2 decades or longer, and in many cases still never provide any return on the investment the parents have made.
The point made in one of the referenced articles about the declining number of taxpayers to support the pensions and medical care of an aging population illustrates a principle known as "The Tragedy of the Commons."
The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known Pamphlet in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). [6] We may well call it "the tragedy of the commons," using the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it [7]: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." He then goes on to say, "This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama."
(see also Andy Turnbull's The Cassandra Papers)
Whether or not one accepts the theories of Malthus, the fact that some resources are finite is indisputable. While his theories were concerned with the food supply, they actually apply in a compounded fashion to energy consumption in a world where both population and and per capita energy consumption are expanding. The geometric consumption of food by a population which doubles, then doubles again is dwarfed by the energy consumption of a population which doubles twice while its per capita energy consumption also doubles twice - a 4:1 ratio suddenly becomes 16:1.
My animosity toward feminism really lies more on the personal level than the cultural one. Even though tearing apart the family unit and turning the naturally complementary characteristics of men and women into the foundation of competition has hastened the fragmentation of the culture and fueled the increased rate of consumption, it is the destruction of the social bonds between mates and families which I believe has led to the most human suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would change your statement above to say "it could have been fought and won years ago" rather than "should" have. Even though I am areligious, I believe in a principle that can be best stated as "the universe is unfolding exactly as god intended it to."
I don't have time for a lengthy response, but I will say that I disagree on these two points. For one thing, "should" is very much the point of this site and, for that matter, the men's movement as a whole. A couple examples are "Women should be held to the same legal standards as men," and "unless they've been convicted of a relevant crime, such as child abuse, men should have access to their children after divorce." There's a whole litany.
As far as the universe unfolding as some sort of god intended it to, if I didn't believe that we are, to a significant extent, masters of our own destinies, then the only reason I'd see for being part of the men's movement would be the joy of complaining.
I do agree with much of the rest of your post, though.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" "should" is very much the point of this site and, for that matter, the men's movement as a whole. A couple examples are "Women should be held to the same legal standards as men," and "unless they've been convicted of a relevant crime, such as child abuse, men should have access to their children after divorce." There's a whole litany."
There are a lot of weaknesses inherent in resorting to external moral authority - which is what "should-ing" on people amounts to. Unless someone largely agrees with your moral belief system, and accepts your external moral authority, there is no other foundation for the position. Take the example of same-sex marriage for example. One group of people think people who love each other "should" be allowed to marry. Another group thinks that marriage "should" be only between a man and a woman.
The challenge to that belief system in the form of "on whose authority do you base that statement?" leads to either pointing to an external moral authority - like religion - or simply saying "that is what I believe, that is the way I want things to be."
One of the fundamental principles for keep one's own power is making "I statements" - "I believe", "I want." I believe that holding all people equally accountable under a legal system produces the best possible results for all concerned, no "shoulds" about it. Not doing so leads to a loss of confidence in the system, and even a cynicism about it, which leads to decreased voluntary compliance which leads to increased costs of enforcement but declining effectiveness and so on. This approach presents clearly demonstrable evidence supporting the advantages of one orientation versus the other. I believe this is a stronger position from which to argue with someone who may not share our moral viewpoint.
As far as the universe unfolding as some sort of god intended it to, if I didn't believe that we are, to a significant extent, masters of our own destinies, then the only reason I'd see for being part of the men's movement would be the joy of complaining.
And, who is to say that our involvement at this time, in the way that we are involved, is not part and parcel of that plan?
In fact, since I do not believe in a deity of the same sort that many people do, my actual contention is stated in terms of natural law. A summary of that law as it applies here is that those who are not actively involved in securing their own survival soon lose the vitality to survive at all.
I believe that cultures are ruled by the same set of evolutionary and physical laws which affect individuals. An individual who becomes sedentary and lax about diet will likely succumb to heart disease. Likewise, a complacent and "obese" culture runs the risk of early death.
Respect for individual rights seems to be very much an aberration in the history of the world, and those cultures which have taken that to extremes have not proven to be particularly viable. The desire to control resources and other people seems to be a very common human trait - and certainly one which did not magically disappear early in the 20th century CE.
It is precisely the principle of controlling one's own destiny which converges for me in the points of disagreement you cite. I believe that if we want the world to be different that it is, that the secret and principle of real power is simply to get off our asses and get about the work involved in making it different.
I also believe that feminism is a self-limiting pathology. It will destroy the cultures which create conditions that allow it to exist. But, if those cultures breed a virulent pathogen like feminism, do they not therefore deserve to perish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the fundamental principles for keep one's own power is making "I statements" - "I believe", "I want." I believe that holding all people equally accountable under a legal system produces the best possible results for all concerned, no "shoulds" about it.
Actually, "should" is precisely what your statement is about. When I majored in philosophy at Georgetown, I took a course in meta-ethics is which many people tried to argue around this, and their attempts were no more successful than the one cited above. A person who didn't agree with you could simply point out that by "best result" you mean those that "should" come about. You could give your arguments about how you believe that "Not doing so leads to a loss of confidence in the system, and even a cynicism about it, which leads to decreased voluntary compliance which leads to increased costs of enforcement but declining effectiveness and so on." Another person could respond with "So, what's wrong with that?" You could make other statements that you believe support your argument, but you are still making statements of what you believe "should" be. Avoiding the word "should' doesn't change that. You are still stating what you believe should be and why you believe it should be.
In addition, "should" does not necessarily resort to an external moral authority. It could be based on one's own value system. What you are really saying is, "I believe that all people should be held equal under a legal system, because I believe that doing so produces the best possible results for all concerned." You are still stating what you believe "should" be done.
You even make this clear at the end of your post with your question: "It (feminism) will destroy the cultures which create conditions that allow it to exist. But, if those cultures breed a virulent pathogen like feminism, do they not therefore deserve to perish?" What you are asking with the words "do they not therefore deserve to perish?" is "should they not perish?" based on some moral authority, whether that moral authority is yours or something that you hold to be external.
And, who is to say that our involvement at this time, in the way that we are involved, is not part and parcel of that plan?
And who is to say that it is? I've found that people who speak of "natural law" tend to bandy the words about somewhat carelessly, very much so compared to people who, in sound arguments, refer to such laws as those of Newton and Thermodynamics. To state that an individual who "becomes sedentary and lax about diet will likely succumb to heart disease," and then go on to make a statement about an "'obese' culture" running the risk of early death with the word "obese" in quotes is to play very fast with words. An obese person has a certain body mass to weight ration. A culture may have a number of obese members, but cultures don't have body mass to height ratios.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This, not terrorism, is the biggest threat faced by advanced societies today.
I agree, at least over a time scale represented by the next 50 years. Terrorism is certainly an immediate threat, although it is not going to significantly change society or our culture. Population collapse will.
A lot of people are confusing an end to (Western) civilization with human extinction. Human's are never going to become extinct. We are physically and mentally too adaptable. However, our Western civilization faces pending doom.
People are also making the argument that 6 billion people on the planet is enough. While there is some truth to this, ironically, population collapse is occuring in regions that are technologically advanced enough to tolerate population growth. The collapse is coming from the people who can increasingly afford children. Significant growth is still occuring in regions that don't have this advantage.
I believe Europe will be much more strongly hit than the United States, since the shift that is currently underway in coming from cultural immigration significantly different than the status quo.
I believe that feminism and its friends are mostly responsible for the current epidemic. The cosmic irony is that the cultural transition will be in a direction that is opposite to that of feminism. Feminism is its own worst enemy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cosmic irony is that the cultural transition will be in a direction that is opposite to that of feminism. Feminism is its own worst enemy.
Great post, shawn.
Not too long ago, Fred Reed had an article in which he stated that the collapse of western civilizations, especially the US, as a result of population collapse, isn't the problem of the young men in this country. This brought to my mind a very basic difference between best interests in a macroeconomic sense and best interests in a microeconomic sense. Our economy is largely driven by consumer spending. So, to an extent, the more consumers spend the healthier the economy is. But it's not necessarily in the best economic interest of an individual to spend on anything that isn't a necessity. Maximized saving for the so-called "rainy day" as well as for retirement is generally in the best interest of the individual. However, if everyone focussed more heavily on that, the economy would shrink, and the average individual would have less money to save.
The same is true in a way with population collapse. It's extremely risky for a man to father children today, but a man can avoid the problems associated with child loss, and all the problems associated with marriage and divorce, in part by not fathering any children. However, if too many men take this precaution (especially in addition to all the women who are avoiding motherhood), the society will soon end up in dire straights from population collapse (we're already in the soup, but it can and almost certainly will get a lot hotter). When that happens, few men who currently live in the US are likely to be happy with the results. Frankly I'm not terribly keen on living in a radical, fundamentalist religious society, whatever the religion.
I'd be looking forward to it even less, though, if I were female, and this brings up one way that I've found I can start getting women, even some nasty feminists, to start listening. I tell them, "Suuuure. No problem. You just keep it up. But you might want to bear in mind that everything you're doing is leading to population collapse." I then tell them about population implosion, if necessary, and point out the fact that fundamentalist Muslims are already positioning themselves to take over a number of western nations. I then say, "Let's see. I've already got a beard, so that wouldn't change. I like wearing hats, so a turban wouldn't be a problem. Hmmm. I can bow to Mecca three times a day. I really don't know Islam, so I might find that I like parts of it. As for you, I'd advise that you buy your burqa now, before demand drives the price through the stratosphere after the laws are passed."
I've tried that approach a couple of times, and it's seemed, somewhat, to get through to the nutcases that their hatefulness might actually be backfiring on them. One time there were a some other women there, who were willing to let the feminist hatefulness stand without their comment. By the time I was done, they looked very uncomfortable.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I despise the feminists, the reasons for birth rate decline are more complicated.
Basically, the cost of raising a family has increased significantly, and as any economist will tell you, as the cost of any activity increases, the propensity to engage in that activity decreases.
Most worthwhile careers these days require many years of schooling beyond 12th grade, and many more years of job devotion after that. Centuries ago, the only choice that most women had was to have lots of babies and be a stay-at-home mom.
Today a woman can be a physician, attorney, engineer, or scientist. Most women that pursue these careers, however, are unlikely to raise large families. This isn't due to patriarchy or government or society. This occurs because there are only 24 hours in the day and something has to give (resources are scarce). Therefore, trade- offs are made. It is no surprise that the most developed nations have the lowest birth rates.
The reality is that despite all government efforts, we will not return to the days when ten children families are typical. Birth rates will continue to decline, since more progress will continue to raise the costs of having children.
The only way to stave off population collapse is to increase the human life span by ASTRONOMICAL amounts (i.e., centuries); in other words, counter a birth rate decline with a death rate decline. The 80-year life expectancy needs to go the way of the vacuum tube.
Also, please stop blaming birth control. It isn't the problem. We need more birth control options-for men!
Amperro
Paranoia Is A Virtue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I despise the feminists, the reasons for birth rate decline are more complicated.
Of course, the reasons for the collapse in fertility rates are complicated. There is, however, no doubt that abortion, birth control, and the breakdown of male-female relations is a major, perhaps by far the greatest, cause. Approximately 40 million babies have been aborted in the US since Roe v. Wade. That's a lot of babies, and many of them would not have been illegally aborted.
I'm not saying that abortion and birth control are in and of themselves good or bad things. But there is no doubt that they are major contributors to population collapse.
Today a woman can be a physician, attorney, engineer, or scientist. Most women that pursue these careers, however, are unlikely to raise large families. This isn't due to patriarchy or government or society. This occurs because there are only 24 hours in the day and something has to give (resources are scarce).
No. It doesn't occur because there are only 24 hours in a day. It occurs to a very large extent because the women prevent fertilized eggs from developing through the use of birth control or they abort their fetuses and embryos. Whatever you think about the morality of abortion and birth control (I have no problem with birth control and mixed feelings about abortion), abortion and birth control are what freed women from their biology so that they could enter the workforce. Feminism, through the glorification of work outside the home and the denigration of motherhood and the nuclear family then led to the extensive use of these medical procedures as the traditional family broke down.
The reality is that despite all government efforts, we will not return to the days when ten children families are typical.
I doubt that ten children families were ever typical. Even in horrendously impoverished sub-Saharan Africa from 1970-1975, before advanced abortions and birth control had any influence, fertility rates were still at 6.8.
The only way to stave off population collapse is to increase the human life span by ASTRONOMICAL amounts (i.e., centuries); in other words, counter a birth rate decline with a death rate decline.
No, there are other possibilities. If social upheavel becomes extreme, then all bets are off as far as social structure. Birth control and abortion could become illegal, and that would lead to an increase in fertility rates. Also, artificial wombs are our best hope. We need to develop, refine, and deploy them on a massive scale. Society as a whole will have to bear the cost of the next generation.
We need more birth control options-for men!
To level the playing field between men and women, yes. However, it will lead to an increased decline in fertility rates. And this will lead to, like it or not, greater economic and social upheaval.
To a very large extent, feminism is the cause of the collapse of fertility rates and will lead to horrendous social and economic strife. It's all well and good to try to level the playing field between men and women, by increasing birth control for men. But this is precisely what I'm warning about. It is, in a significant way, the wrong battle.
We're destroying ourselves through population collapse.
Then again, I'm not surprised when these facts are ignored or overlooked or denigrated. I got the same sort of response in the 70s when I spoke out against feminism.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I TOTALLY support the idea of artificial wombs (that is how the abortion problem will be resolved), but I stand by my position on increasing the human life span.
Amperro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:27 PM July 26th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
The world is in danger of a population collapse? Population collapse?
Last I looked the world had over 6 billion people and the population was continuing to grow at a rapid pace. The overwhelming majority of the people in the world live in poverty and squalor, often in overpopulated areas (ever heard of India?). If anything, the world NEEDS a population collapse--a collapse (due to declining birth rates) to a population of only 3 billion people would be very, very welcome.
Really, a population collapse is the very LEAST of our worries right now. When we get down to less than 1 billion people and when we no longer have environmental issues and when widespread poverty and famine have been eradicated, then we can begin to discuss whether a "population collapse" is a problem. Until then, let's hope for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:35 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with this. What makes one profession "worthwhile" over another? Do you know how much a mechanic with a few years of experience can make? I think you'd be surprised.
If anything, society has moved into the new age of invention - more jobs require advanced degrees to produce more and more technological (and otherwise) innovations. But do we really "need" them? So in fact there are many jobs today that help us advance society technologically, but contribute little to nothing directly to humanity's survival (Viagra? Prozac? Blogs? Who _needs_ these?)
The cost of having children is merely based on the erroneous assumption that it is only those careers that are worth your while.
Society holds people to unrealistic standards, but not because there is a particular need. Does the average middle class family _need_ a big house and 2+ (semi-) luxurious cars/SUVs/etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just aded this to the Men's Hour Blog about this discussion -
Amperro wrote
As much as I despise the feminists, the reasons for birth rate decline are more complicated.
Basically, the cost of raising a family has increased significantly, and as any economist will tell you, as the cost of any activity increases, the propensity to engage in that activity decreases.
I disagree. I say it is problem and it is due to feminism.
One article quoted is Women Say Single Life Is Better? BERLIN (Reuters) - More than 80 percent of single German women are perfectly happy without a man in tow and say living solo gives them more freedom to do what they want, according to a survey for Stern magazine.
Coming amid mounting political alarm about Germany's low birthrate and aging population, the survey of 1,003 women showed only two percent did not enjoy their solitary lifestyle and 36 percent opted to stay single because it was more fun.
Almost half the women said they preferred single life because it was easier to keep their homes tidy and 36 percent said with no man on the scene they didn't have to endure watching sports on television. It is quite possible that leading questions were asked in order to get the answers wanted by the magazine but I do not see how women can arrive at those conclusions without hating men. I do not like soap operas on my TV but this would not, and indeed has not, excluded women from my life, even those who want to watch soap operas. If I loved a woman then I could "endure" soap operas that she would want to watch; whereas if I didn't love her then I could well find the soap operas and her irritating. Besides if I found the soap operas too much but wanted to still be with her then there are solutions such as a second TV.
The word love seems to have disappeared from a lot of women's vocabularies. Women talk less about falling in love with the right man and starting a family with him. I can only see this as due to the constant denigration of men. If you look at the media and women's magazines you'd be hard put to find references to love and good men and even children are often portrayed as an inconvenience.
These women are apparently having fun. For fun read sex, because I doubt very much if they are all celibate or lesbians. This means they are having relationships with men. However for any reason, no matter how fatuous, such as watching sports they can get rid of him. They can get rid of him like he's an old TV set, and of course it does;'t matter if he wants to continue the relationship, he's just being possessive, but if a man does that to them then men have no commitment.
Of course, the other thing some of these women will do is decide their biological clock is running out and they want a baby. Not only do they think that a men is expendable,apart from the sperm, from the family, which doesn't bode well for any children, especially boys who may be mead to feel inferior, but women can also run into biological problems. What would have been easy 20 years before, having a baby, now becomes difficult or even impossible.
Also quote is Japanese women struggle to have it all Sometimes, I miss my job ... but it would have been impossible, or at least improbable for me to continue working" and being a mother at the same time, said Inui, an attractive woman in her early 30s.
Yet at the same time, she has no intention of having another child.
"I love being a mother, but one is quite enough," she said.
Here we see children as an inconvenience. As women tend not to take jobs have pressure or stress that some men take to get more money, it's quite likely she works were the work is light and the atmosphere friendly; in short a cosy home from home.
Women are told a career is important. My question is for what? Sure, you need to work to live; although didn't do that before as they relied on a man, but what do live for? Surely children are a natural biological desire and for most of us our work is just something to pay the rent. Very few are curing AIDS or saving the world. So it seems to me that women are being encouraged to think something unimportant, a career, is important and something important, children, are unimportant. This cannot be occurring without the denigration of men,.fathers, families, children and love.
Can this be occurring for other reasons; like the economy. To some extent, yes, but some of this has occurred because more owned are working these days. This means everybody gets less. Imagine, however, that feminists were in favour of families and stay at-home mums. Do you think we wouldn't be hearing constantly about how the patriarchy doesn't help families? No, clearly, feminists are against families. This is the main reason we have this situation now.
At MensActivism, one anonymous user wrote
With more than six billion people on the planet, I'm not particularly concerned with population collapse.
I think however that he/she should be worried. I, like other sceptics, think that the population problem is exaggerated. It may not be a problem of over-population but of insufficient food. Food, like oil, is not a finite resource. More can be grown with better land use, improvements in technology and agriculture. In any case, quite a lot of food is thrown away. It is however the popular view that the world is over-populated and therefore that reducing the population is good.
Firstly what is expected to happen. According to UNITED NATIONS EXPERT MEETING ON WORLD POPULATION IN 2300 where the report is available in PDF format, the population increases to 9 billion (Medium scenario, most probable of 5 scenarios).
In terms of fertility, the medium scenario assumes that the total fertility of each country will reach below replacement levels and remain at those levels for about 100 years, after which it will return to replacement level and remain there until 2300.
According to the medium scenario, world population rises from 6.1 billion persons in 2000 to a maximum of 9.2 billion persons in 2075 and declines thereafter to reach 8.3 billion in 2175. The return to replacement level fertility coupled with increasing longevity in the medium scenario produces a steadily increasing population after 2175 that reaches 9 billion by 2300.
All scenarios result in significant shifts in the geographical distribution of the world population (tables 2 and 3). According to the medium scenario, the share of Africa would double (passing from 13 per cent of the world population in 2000 to 24 per cent in 2300), whereas that of Asia would drop by about ten per cent (from 61 per cent in 2000 to 55 per cent in 2300) and that of Europe by about half (from 12 per cent in 2000 to 7 per cent in 2300).
In this time, according the medium scenario by 2300 Africa increases by 1.3 billion to 2.1 billion, Asia also increases by 1.3 billion to 4.9 billion, North America increases by 200 million to 500 million and Europe declines by 100 million to 600 million. Both Europe and North America decline compared to Asia and Africa.
You might well say does this matter? For a start it could mean that you work until you are 70; retirement becomes a privilege of the lucky few. Sure, there will be some pension when you retire but it might not be enough and you may have to continue working. Retirement move raises work until 70 fear The trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, last night sought to reassure older employees they will not be forced to work until the age of 70 as she published proposals aimed at outlawing ageism - the "last bastion" of lawful unfair discrimination. An aging population means less people working and more people retired. Those working will not want to pay high taxes to support you, and the nature of your country may be changing.Ethnic birth rate climbs Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows Immigrants 'could stem population fall' Britain needs more immigrants to avoid a crisis caused by falling birth rates and an ageing population, a report suggests. Both of these could mean that the country is changing and the traditional values are declining. Immigrants have different cultures and ideas about fairness and morality can get watered down in a cultural mix. They may not value what you value.
The amazing thing about all this is the fact that so many people are quite happy to ignore it. I can't imagine anyone in previous times would be so silent and complacent that their population is stagnating or declining, but no politician has even mentioned it. They all must be satisfied with the idea that their country is in decline or perhaps they are too frightened to mention it because it might put the blame on women.
By coincidence as I am writing this there is a programme on TV about genetics and someone has said "Every time you tinker with nature's design, there are unknown consequences." The UN Medium scenario is that fertility declines for 100 years and then you simply turn it back on. One can only hope that you can turn it back on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post. I think that when people see population decline they think good, less polution. One issue they are not seeing is that the only ones producing at high levels in this world are the poor. (Kind of takes the whole poor economics out of the running) The world's skilled labor will decline and the worlds unskilled labor will greatly increase, just at a time in our history when the opposite is happening in the job market. Even if immigration can numerically keep the population up, many of the people will have no education. Just in Americal alone, the inner city minorities have a much higher and younger rate of birth than middle -upper class whites. One quarter of all children were born of single mothers and rising.
We will see a stagnation of technological breakthroughs, and while people tend to be anti-technology, they change their tune when a new SUV or allergy medicine comes out.
I get worried that in another few decades we will be facing a huge unemployment rate of unskilled labor and under employment of skilled labor. Colleges are too expensive for most poor people to attain.
Of course, if you were a conspiracy theorist, maybe that is what the feminists are hoping for. Women get the grants and child support payments allowing them to go to school leaving men too poor to get degrees. Women get all the jobs, men stay poor and are forced to become virtual slaves. Women take over medical, government, entertainment, education, business, and leave men as whipping posts. Women can go out and party all the time, then go to the sperm bank and buy a baby when they feel ready or go to the (un)Planned Parenthood to kill one if they don't.
Of course, being feminists, as always they are short sighted...who will be left to buy them their drinks?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men had children becouse the cost of having them was less than the benefits, but then the western goverments socialized all benefits leaving only the cost to the parents, so having children became a BURDEN, as a result the fertility rate started to decline, but later, instead of socializing also the costs, they turned having children from a BURDEN into DISGRACE.
BENEFITS OF HAVING CHILDREN:
If a man has children he is not going to be paid by the goverment, no help, no aid, no socila benefits, nothing at all, no even the right to rise "his" children, so what for?, no reason at all.
THE COSTS FIANACIAL AND NON FINANCIAL:
But regarding costs, he will lose his house, adding taxes plus child support, (only male pays children tax), he will lose arround 60% of his salary, and eventually will end in jail, in addition of the degradation and humilliation of being exploited as slave labor by a woman, (non finacial cost, ask a femenist what would her feel about having to pay 30% of her wage to a man for almost the remaining of her live).
So :
1)PHASE ONE:
having children were assets, a joy for men.
2)PHASE TWO
They became a burden
3)PHASE THREE
A disgrace, a crime for most men.
The different phases are just the result of state intervention.
Just the idea of child support is outrageous, in societies were there is a lack of children goverments makes people that have them pay for it, paying for having children?, absurd, taxed into slavery for having children, what a bunch of idiots, the result people do not have them.
When the goverment wants to promote certain activity, subsidizes it, not taxes it.If one taxes something one gets less of this, if ones criminalizes some activity .........
Men who have children lose 60% of their income, their homes, their savings and are jailed, for CHILDREN THAT NO EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO RISE, FOR CHILDREN THEY NO EVEN DECIDE TO HAVE IN FIRST PLACE.
Western goverments could turn back and privitize benefits of children, or step forwrd and fully socilized the cost of having them, giving men and women the same rights to have them, and paying both for having them, but they rather pay only women to have them while forcing only men to shoulder the cost.
That way women that now have no legal obligation to serve men can still profit from men labor, in return of NOTHING, so women that now have the right to rise children, (custody), can do it without the obligation to support them. All this based in male slave labor ofcourse.
A society that uses children as an excuse for some people to use others as slave labor, steal their houses, thier savings, that uses children as pretext to jail people, a society that makes having children a total disgrace for a lot of his members is bound to extinction.
A society that treats men as trash, that uses children as an excuse for women to exploit them, do not deserve to exist, it is bound to hell, were it belongs, so wether this chages, and having children is a joy rather than a disgrace, and men are respected as women are, or this is over, and as you said thomas, this is happening much faster than people thinks.
Most women will not have children if they must use an sperm bank to do it, and most men wont do it if they know that they will have no rights at all, and having them will result in slave labor, one ticket to misery, lost of properties and jail.
"It's been just over two years since Makiko Inui became a full-time mother, having left her job as an administrative assistant after having her son, Takuya"
Full-time mother, for that she needs an slave that works to support "her" son, and herself, if a woman has no legal obligation to do anything for a man but she lives at his expense, she is a parsite and he is her slave, if women are the ones that have the right to chose, and the right to rise the children they should be the ones supporting those children, if not who are going do that?, again the slaves. (responsabilities without rights)
So that woman is not a full-time mother is just a full-time parasite, a social parasite that lives at the expense of a working person, that has a child and uses another person work, not hers to support him.
Women must not obey and serve men anymore and men are not going to support women, neither men are going to support the children that WOMEN decide to have, and WOMEN, not men have the right to rise, they can wait till they drop dead.
I personally will never work to support a woman , (unless i will move to Moroco or another traditional society), as i neither expect that a woman will serve and obey me, and i will only support the children "I" decided to have and the children "I" have the right to rise.
But what are the western goverments doing?, giving men the same rights than women to become single parents, gays or strights, exactly like lesbians and single women are allowed? giving men economic incentives to have children as women are paid not jailed to have children? NO!!.
Western men when regarding the idea of having children asks themselves: i will have the right to rise them as women have? are they going to pay me for having children?, how much money is the goverment going to pay me for having children?, what social benefits i will recieve?.
The answere is very easy .... ZERO.
But wait if you still have doubts, the goverment will take 60% of your income, will steal your house, will jail you.
Very helpfull indeed, no more doubts, after this easy analisis, western are as interested in having children as in having cancer or getting HIV.
Only women have reproductive rights, only women get benefits for having children, and only women are not condemned to salve labor, misery and prision for that, so only them could be interested.
If women want to eat they must work, if they want children they must go to a sperm bank, not enough children?, well western goverments have two choices, more social benefits for women for having them or just force them to do it, like they force men to pay taxes or use them as cannnon fodder.
There is a thrid way, allow men the same rights, giving women the same obligations, but ofcourse that is not possible, eh?.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't need a man, but to have children you need a woman."
This is just the law, women can not have children just PMS, the thing is that the law allows them to get what they need from men to become ingle parents, but not men, men could use a surrogate womb and go to an egg bank.
In fact it could be the other way, an slamic society, (The islam consider children are the seed of men so they belong to them not to the "pottery" where the seeds were planted), could allow men to use surrogate wombs and egg banks, to become single parents while banning women tobecome single mothers, could allow abortion for men but not for women, another way for men to become single parents.
"wouldn't doubt that some of these women are thinking of suckering some guy ("Gee. I was on the pill. It must have failed." Or "Oh, my. I guess that condom [that I secretly poked holes in] must have failed.")
Not to much women will do that, they could force a man into child support, but they will not force them to rise the child they will have to rise them by their own.
In many western countries, (Europe, New Zaeland, Australia, etc), child support from low income men is almost nothing, so no econimic incentive, and from middle income just a weak incentive.
I know many women that having to chose a childless live or a rise children on their own would chose to remain childless, but not take my word just look at the millions of western women that are childless and have already past their fertile age.
"Ah, yes. The joys of single motherhood. No one to share the chores. No one to share the expenses. Coming home from a hard day at a job that is, most likely, far from your dream activity to spend every minute before bed caring for a child. I understand most single mothers with no man to drain just love the experience. No doubt you will too."
Aja!!, just this, they know this, thats why.
PS: Being a father is not a biological fact, it is a legal fact, a sperm donnor is not a father, a man that has adopted a child and rise him is a father. And this is rewarded by slave labor, lost of savings, properties, and eventually jail.
Men are not allowed to become father just sperm providers, a man can provide sperm to a lesbian couple, he can work to support the child, help them with some domestic chores, do some baby sitting so the lesbians can go out to the movies, etc, etc with the promise from the lesbians to participate in the upbringing of the child, but just a promise, they can break whenever they want, becouse is not his child but their child.
A lesbian couple or woman is the same, men are just sperm providers nor fathers.
But if there is a will there is a way, if a western man wanto to become a father he can, he just must go to a couentry taht allow men to be fathers, any muslim country will do, live there or work in the west while having a family there, becoeming a single father?, no problem, marry, divorce, and the deal is done.
But what for? so much trouble, just to turn having children from a DISGRACE back to a BURDEN.
As zenpriest said:
"Before the advent of such concepts like "social security", children were a long term investment. They were a person's retirement plan, long term medical care plan, as well as a short-term investment in wealth building because in agrarian or family business settings children could start making a direct contribution to the family by the time they were 6 or 7. In today's circumstances, children are extremely expensive burdens who have to be supported by the parents for an average of 2 decades or longer, and in many cases still never provide any return on the investment the parents have made. "
Or yourself, (again):
"Ah, yes. The joys of single motherhood. No one to share the chores. No one to share the expenses. Coming home from a hard day at a job that is, most likely, far from your dream activity to spend every minute before bed caring for a child. I understand most single mothers with no man to drain just love the experience. No doubt you will too."
The goverment pays people to build roads, they should pay people to have children, men must pay to have children now, but even if they would not have to, well no one is going to build the roads for free, and nobody is going to give children to goverment for free.
The present system does not benefit men, neither women in general, only benefits some female parasites , for wich having children allows them to live without working, and become wealthy. For them giving men and women the same reproductive rights and being the goverment the one that asumes the cost of rising children, will be terrible, they will have to work for a living and to have properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:55 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
There is an interesting twist to this. Did you see the article about the sperm donor who was recently required by the court to pay child support? This has now set a precedent. If women start abusing the sperm bank system, how long before it collapses?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
