The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

Perpetual growth is neither feasible nor desirable. We need to have a serious look at ourselves and our economic models and what they actually do (or most importantly don't do) for us.




Well not really, eugenics is about controlling which genes are passed on and which ones aren't, not how many children everyone is equally entitled to. People can bleat about civil liberties as much as they like, but it won't change the fact that our reproductive rates are unsustainable, and the only alternative to reproductive restrictions are wars and famine.

it would be helpful for one thing if our welfare system would quit basically rewarding "sleeping around"....the more kids a woman has out of wedlock the more welfare money she gets....at least that's how it is here in Commieville, aka New York State

[KEK]

it would be helpful for one thing if our welfare system would quit basically rewarding "sleeping around"....the more kids a woman has out of wedlock the more welfare money she gets....at least that's how it is here in Commieville, aka New York State

I'm not sure what marriage has to do with anything. I'm pretty sure the mother would get the benefits either way wouldn't she? Regardless, making sure the parents have the means to look after their kids (for the sake of the kids) is far more important than punishing benefit scrounging, which is invariably blown way out of proportion. It's more often the religious fundamentalists who don't believe in contraception that end up having a ridiculous number of children, not to mention immigrants from cultures where that is seen as normal.

[mad_gater]

I think the benefit is for single mothers...I might be wrong on that though...my idea would involve, since they're abusing the welfare system...declare them unfit mothers and give their kids to sterile couples who don't need to feed at the government trough to take care of them....and as for the contraception thing that's for good reason.....man-made methods of contraception invariably fail, many times at rather inopportune moments....exercising self-control is a far surer method...we are not dumb animals and I think it's high time to stop letting the liberal "sex whenever you want however you want with no consequences" crowd tell us otherwise

[Gatefan1976]

I'm not sure what marriage has to do with anything. I'm pretty sure the mother would get the benefits either way wouldn't she? Regardless, making sure the parents have the means to look after their kids (for the sake of the kids) is far more important than punishing benefit scrounging, which is invariably blown way out of proportion. It's more often the religious fundamentalists who don't believe in contraception that end up having a ridiculous number of children, not to mention immigrants from cultures where that is seen as normal.

Bingo.

[jmoz]

Who is "we" because the Japanese certainly do not need it right now.


Easier said than done though, way easier. There are so many variables. The answer can't just be dwindled down to controlling how many kids people have. Each action will have an adverse effect due to the current state of human migration and the various models of localized economies. Any change will be detrimental to some in either the short run or the long run.

I was just bringing it up as an issue on the whole with respect to a solution being the advancement of other nations as a means of population growth decrease. Most of the developed nations have lower population growth, some even negative; one of them being Japan and others in parts of Western Europe and the like.

[Womble]

I was just bringing it up as an issue on the whole with respect to a solution being the advancement of other nations as a means of population growth decrease. Most of the developed nations have lower population growth, some even negative; one of them being Japan and others in parts of Western Europe and the like.

The problem, however, is that to STAY developed. you NEED population growth. You cannot retain a reasonable level of prosperity when the number of elderly dependents exceeds the number of productive workers. Perpetual growth is absolutely necessary no matter how one structures the economy; it's a matter of straightforward mathematics.

There's no need whatsoever to take any kind of hard looks at the Western economic models to limit population growth. Western economic and social models ARE the most efficient population growth killers in human history. Unsustainable population growth comes from the population groups which are not Western in any sense. It comes from the dirt-poor, undemocratic, culturally repressive Third World. It comes from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Any Western leftist radical who fancies himself a Malthusianist, however, will recoil in utter horror at the idea of imposing limits on the birth rate of Black, "brown" and Asian peoples, because the very suggestion would reek of racism. So they're playing it safe, bemoaning the Western affluence as the engine of population growth despite most Western birth rates being below replacement. There is no perfect balance. There is no middle ground between growth and decline.

If you want to reduce the global birth rates you need to attack head on precisely those societies which are treated by the leftists as protected species. You need to openly confront - with more than words - the Muslim restrictions on women's education and social roles. There is a proven link between female education, workforce involvement and birth rate. You need to undermine the ever-so-authentic traditional lifestyles of Africans and Asians, weaken their childbirth- motivating cultures. You need to do a lot of things that will run counter to the Western political consensus and will make you look like a despicable racist. Which you would be.

Anyone who genuinely wants to reduce population will have to take that road, because nothing else is going to do the trick. Anyone who wants to reduce population growth but doesn't want to go there is just a loudmouthed hypocrite.

(Yep, there is no defensible position for advocating against population growth in my book )

[KEK]

The problem, however, is that to STAY developed. you NEED population growth. You cannot retain a reasonable level of prosperity when the number of elderly dependents exceeds the number of productive workers. Perpetual growth is absolutely necessary no matter how one structures the economy; it's a matter of straightforward mathematics.

The more we advance technologically the more we can automate and streamline, and the less workers we need. The retirement age is also much earlier than it needs to be.

[aretood2]

The problem, however, is that to STAY developed. you NEED population growth. You cannot retain a reasonable level of prosperity when the number of elderly dependents exceeds the number of productive workers. Perpetual growth is absolutely necessary no matter how one structures the economy; it's a matter of straightforward mathematics.

There's no need whatsoever to take any kind of hard looks at the Western economic models to limit population growth. Western economic and social models ARE the most efficient population growth killers in human history. Unsustainable population growth comes from the population groups which are not Western in any sense. It comes from the dirt-poor, undemocratic, culturally repressive Third World. It comes from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Any Western leftist radical who fancies himself a Malthusianist, however, will recoil in utter horror at the idea of imposing limits on the birth rate of Black, "brown" and Asian peoples, because the very suggestion would reek of racism. So they're playing it safe, bemoaning the Western affluence as the engine of population growth despite most Western birth rates being below replacement. There is no perfect balance. There is no middle ground between growth and decline.

If you want to reduce the global birth rates you need to attack head on precisely those societies which are treated by the leftists as protected species. You need to openly confront - with more than words - the Muslim restrictions on women's education and social roles. There is a proven link between female education, workforce involvement and birth rate. You need to undermine the ever-so-authentic traditional lifestyles of Africans and Asians, weaken their childbirth- motivating cultures. You need to do a lot of things that will run counter to the Western political consensus and will make you look like a despicable racist. Which you would be.

Anyone who genuinely wants to reduce population will have to take that road, because nothing else is going to do the trick. Anyone who wants to reduce population growth but doesn't want to go there is just a loudmouthed hypocrite.

(Yep, there is no defensible position for advocating against population growth in my book )

Don't forget to lump in East Asia with the Western world. Pretty much doing the same thing. The issue with population control is that people think contraception. In reality, true and effective population control would involve socioeconomic changes in societies that experience rapid population growth. And even then, to satisfy fears (or rather phobias) of overpopulation, you'd need a stagnating population that doesn't go into decline. Nevermind the economy.

The more we advance technologically the more we can automate and streamline, and the less workers we need. The retirement age is also much earlier than it needs to be.

Less workers will make the problem even worse. I don't think you understand. You need more workers than retired individuals, not less workers.

[jmoz]

You don't absolutely need a large population growth to stay developed, you could just have an equilibrium where the birth rate is at or near the death rate. There will likely be some level of population growth that will maintain and sustain the functional aspects of some country. Yeah, the way to deal with it is through socioeconomic aspects.

[Womble]

The more we advance technologically the more we can automate and streamline, and the less workers we need. The retirement age is also much earlier than it needs to be.

First, the more we advance technologically the longer we live and the more children being born survive. Explosive population growth in the Third World is not solely a function of high birth rate, it is the combination of high birth rate and progress in medicine.
Second, you can automate and streamline all you want, but you cannot sustain productivity if population continues to decline. There is no reason to assume exponential productivity growth due to technological advancement; in fact there are some indications that we may be approaching a technological plateau of sorts, temporary or otherwise. Increasing resource scarcity and self-imposed technological burdens due to ecology considerations aren't helping, either.

As for retirement age, it may be too early, but you can only drive it up so far. In most professions a 70 year old is not fit to work.

[Womble]

You don't absolutely need a large population growth to stay developed, you could just have an equilibrium where the birth rate is at or near the death rate. There will likely be some level of population growth that will maintain and sustain the functional aspects of some country. Yeah, the way to deal with it is through socioeconomic aspects.

There is no equilibrium.

And speaking of socioeconomic aspects, no country is an island. Cultures who limit their birth rate, willingly or otherwise, will be displaced or destabilized by those which do not. Europe will be learning it the hard way over the next two decades.

[KEK]

Less workers will make the problem even worse. I don't think you understand. You need more workers than retired individuals, not less workers.

You need workers to do work. The more automated everything is, the less work there is and the less workers you need.

Second, you can automate and streamline all you want, but you cannot sustain productivity if population continues to decline.

Why can't you? Automation would offset the decrease in workers. If you mean we'd make less stuff because there would be less consumers, well... so what?

[KEK]

There is no equilibrium.

And speaking of socioeconomic aspects, no country is an island. Cultures who limit their birth rate, willingly or otherwise, will be displaced or destabilized by those which do not. Europe will be learning it the hard way over the next two decades.

That's the sort of rhetoric you normally hear from white nationalists.

[mad_gater]

counterbalances the "human beings are capable of nothing more than being a blight upon Mother Earth" rhetoric that I've been reading so far quite nicely....dehumanizing mankind so that they can be more easily used as nothing more than cogs in a machine and can rationalize "removing" these "cogs" when they fail this "machine"....rather than recognizing mankind's inherent dignity and worth and their individual natural inalienable rights.....sounds like a capital idea..../sarcasm

[Gatefan1976]

counterbalances the "human beings are capable of nothing more than being a blight upon Mother Earth" rhetoric that I've been reading so far quite nicely

No one is being a "tree hugger" here MG, they are looking at just how much the planet can sustain.

....dehumanizing mankind so that they can be more easily used as nothing more than cogs in a machine and can rationalize "removing" these "cogs" when they fail this "machine"....

You mean like killing infidels and such?
Forced conversions?
Witholding humanitarian aid until they fall in line with your beliefs?
Yeah...............GTFO.

rather than recognizing mankind's inherent dignity and worth and their individual natural inalienable rights.....sounds like a capital idea..../sarcasm

Nothing in the notion of having a population overload dehumanizes people, it's looking at long range responsibility for your actions, I thought you liked the idea of people having responsibility.