How do these Natalists feel about the African continent?
You must log in or register to comment.
Antinatalism what what - don’t make fresh when plenty actual living kids need rescuing.
Adopt, don’t
shopbreed!I watched a video recently on how South Korea is pretty fucked because of their declining birth rate. 2.1 is fine by me.
There is nothing bad about going back to a sustainable population level. The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly. When elderly die that frees up resources for the next generation making it even easier.
The problem with declining population is the huge bubble pop you get when the population is mostly elderly people and few workers.
Right, but this can be resolved with immigration.
That’s not a solution, that’s just outsourcing the childbirth
Immigration isn’t ‘outsourcing childbirth’, it’s investing in the future of our country. People who come here, build lives, and raise families contribute just as much to our communities as anyone born here. Their children are American in every meaningful way. That’s not a loophole, that’s the foundation of our nation. If we start drawing lines around who counts as a ‘real’ solution based on origin, we’re moving away from what has always made America strong.
I think their point is that you then have to rely on other populations to breed workers for you which in the long term is not sustainable.
I could be wrong though. I’m a soft anti-natalist myself, but I do think an aging population is going to cause problems.
Immigration as a solution to population decline is absolutely outsourcing and pretty much cultural suicide.
There are a lot of naive answers to this thread… Do people not realise that countries with higher birth rates are precisely the ones where people have the opposite worldview of secular, liberal low-birthrate countries? I don’t know if I’m coming across xenophobic, it’s just that I don’t think people in the “first world” actually know how most “third worlders” actually are. You are not keeping, say, gay marriage rights unopposed for long if you’re mass importing latin americans raised by devout evangelicals and muslim middle easterners. I see Germany and France already having some public demonstrations of muslim protest over progressive laws, for example.
Outsourcing is a solution.
If the original goal (as stated) is maintaining sustainable population levels, not really, since that implies maintaining the same population level, just outsourcing part of the childbirth (and potentially raising and education)
Maybe in the west. Not in places like South Korea or Japan. Even if you got the populations to buy in to immigration 100%, you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.
English’s hegemony over the world makes immigration to non-English-speaking areas a huge problem. Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.
I mean you’re presupposing that it’s important to convince immigrants to learn the language. Maybe multiculturualism is okay actually
Learning the local language is a survival skill. It doesn’t require forgetting your first language nor does it mean the end of your culture.
The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.
If your population is declining and immigrants aren’t even learning the language, it’s not “multiculturalism”, it’s just handing the country over to another culture. Taking into account that progressive values are correlated with lower birthrates, and “regressive” ones are related to higher birthrates, are you comfortable with the consequences of this transition?
Are you sure that things like women’s rights are going to stay the same in the long term by substituting the secular population with people raised with religious values associated with high birth rates, like indians, middle easterners, africans and so on? Are you sure material conditions will remain the same by substituting the working class with immigrants from countries with poor education systems, fresh off large scale political instability?
you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.
Do we? The languages aren’t that hard, people learn languages all the time especially if they move.
Just make it a requirement for citizenship, offer classes, etc. I’m picking up 2 languages right now, 1 for work and 1 for my new home in Europe. The human brain does things.
Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.
Ok, so I actually speak some french (from school), and that’s not about it not being English, it’s just that French is a shit language to push for no reason.
Tell Quebec to switch to Spanish, everyone will be happier.
Most people don’t want to learn another language they want to do other stuff.
Example: me, I want to do other stuff.
If you already know French, can you get an “in” immigration wise?
Yeah but no more of an “in” than knowing English. Immigration policy is controlled by the federal government which only cares if you know one of the two official languages of the country (or not).
This is Asia we’re talking about. The land of robots. They’ll be fine.
Or robots.
Korea used to have 2 workers and 10 dependents. Now its 2 workers and 7 dependents. There are literally more workers per dependent. There’s no bubble that will pop.
Where are your statistics? Do any cursory searching and you’ll find that South Korea is desperate for care workers. There’s a huge shortage.
The 6 kids on average for South Korea in the 1950’s was from the Kurzgesagt video originally posted.
2 parents caring for 6 kids and 4 grandparents equals 10 dependents.
2 parents caring for 4 grandparents and 1 kid equals 5 dependents.
And then finally 1 kid caring for 2 parents and 4 grandparents. 1 worker and 6 dependents.
The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly
Holy [citation needed], Batman!
Cost to raise 1 child is $350k including college.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-240000/
https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college
Average nursing home cost is $120k/yr and people live on average 2 years in a nursing home.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2945440/2 parents working
6 kids = $2.1m 4 grandparents = $960k
So you’re comparing the cost of 18 years’ worth of child-rearing (or 22 years’ worth including college) to an up-to-$120k per year cost of supporting an elderly person, and aren’t even bothering to consider anything but the last two years?
In what fantasy world is $15,900/year ($350k/22 years) somehow more than the annual cost of living for a senior citizen—even a healthy and independent one‽
Until a senior citizen needs to have nursing home care, they are independent. In-home care is far cheaper. They don’t need the costs of 6 hours a day of schooling which cost $15k per child in taxes to pay for the teachers and infrastructure. (That $15k/year isn’t part of the $350k cost quoted earlier because it’s covered by taxes.)
https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics
You aren’t making 3 meals a day for them because they do it themselves. You aren’t paying for day care- until it’s nursing home or in home care time. In many cases the elderly are providing the day care for children.
You aren’t making 3 meals a day for them because they do it themselves.
They still have to pay for it, though! Don’t even try to tell me that an elderly person’s regular living expenses — food, housing, utilities, etc. — averages out to less than $15,900/year.
Are you just forgetting those exist? Are you trying to compare the total costs of raising a child, including all living expenses, to only the extra age-related costs of caring for an elderly person, not including living expenses? 'Cause it sure seems like that’s what you’re doing.
In many cases the elderly are providing the day care for children.
And if it’s a multigenerational household where that’s feasible on a daily basis because they live there, then they could even save on housing expenses too (maybe even brining down their living expenses to nearly equal to that of a child in the same household).
But we’re talking averages, and that’s not the average — neither living together, nor providing regular day care. On average in the US, elderly people live separately from their grandkids and only see them occasionally.
The mean age of decedents was 83.3
That mean they on average, were put into the nursing house at 81yo. Do you think people retire at 80yo or what?
Until then they require less resources than a child. They don’t need $15k a year in public resources for schooling.
True, but the lack of productive workers and the thinned tax base will crash the country while it all balances out. Only way to make a smooth transition is to slaughter the elderly, which is largely what will happen, just not on purpose.
If 10 dependents per 2 workers (6 kids, 4 elderly) didn’t crash the country in 1950, then having more workers per dependent in 2040 won’t either.
The only people who suffer from a population decline are the idle wealthy because their income comes from skimming profit from the workers.
You keep bringing up the same point but do you plan on just letting seniors rot? We literally don’t have the workers to care for the elderly AND run society. Demographic collapse is a real issue
Seniors had care when there were less resources because families had 6 kids to raise. I showed that because children take up more resources than elderly that they not only wouldn’t rot, but would have more care because the resources that went to children would go to them.
We literally don’t have the workers to care for the elderly AND run society.
Yet we can have the resources to raise kids that cost even more? That makes no sense.
children take up more resources than elderly
I can’t begin to tackle that one. Jesus. You’ve certainly never had kids nor been old, I get that much.
I literally mean there will be too many elderly for the slim workforce since many of these elderly won’t have families to take care of them, y’know since nobody is having kids.
Your whole point relies on the elderly getting home are from family like a child would, but the problem is that most won’t have those families and there simply won’t be enough healthcare workers to fill the gap.
Seniors had care when there were less resources because families had 6 kids to raise.
Historically, this was made possible by unpaid care labor performed primarily by women and children.
The video ignores the other side of the economic cost: the number of workers needed to support raising a child.
It costs more to raise a child than to care for elderly. Without child care costs there is a surplus to care for elderly.
Claiming South Korea is doomed because right now population growth is .8x is as ridiculous as those claiming South Korea was doomed in 1950 because at 6x population growth, everyone would starve in 50 years. Populations grow and contract to match their environment.
When the population has decreased to sustainable levels, individuals will have the free resources to raise children again.
Sounds like a job for immigration.
Ideally, sure. SK would have to change a lot for that to work, and that does not happen in a hurry. As far as the US is concerned, :gestures_widely:
I too subscribe to Kurzgesagt!
Europe is below 2 almost everywhere.
Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a policy paradigm or personal value that promotes the reproduction of human life as an important objective of humanity and therefore advocates a high birthrate.
The thing that colors babies is melanin
Also blood/haemoglobin!
And a lot of other things if you paint them with it
The 14 Words: The New Generation.
“Natalists” are right-wingers brainwashed into “shitting out” workers for the capitalists. It’s not even about the white race, just about providing more wage-slaves.
The old people here are going to have a fun little surprise when they realise the kids they didn’t have aren’t able to pay for their pension 😁
Block the troll ^ and don’t engage
Why? Because it’s an uncomfortable truth?
What’s your argument on why that’s false?
Its called saving for retirement, which is a lot easier when you don’t have a kid to pay for.
Exactly, they don’t need their society to pay for their pension through taxes and social transfers.
They barely had any costs. So they could invest a lot more.
There’s also no need for generational wealth, so they can just consume that.
Personally I am going to give my kid a whole damn house. That’s money I cannot consume because I need to provide our child with a good future.
I mean, the difference is expectation. If you live in a country where you are expecting to get a pension and they rug pull on you last minute obviously you were spending on the basis of that expectation and are now doomed to misery and homelessness in old age due to no fault of their own.
Further, some countries wages and cost of living make retiring nearly impossible, child or no. But I guess that’s a separate concern.
The primary reason I don’t have a kid might be because of my ideology, but even if I was a pro-natalist I’d not dare have a kid unless I wanted drop into poverty. The US doesn’t give a fuck.
The median net wealth in my country is 250k euros per adult. We spend A LOT on pension. We have an aging population.
More old people, fewer young people.
These people have enough money. They chose not to have kids, that caused them to have more money in the end.
Them getting the exact same pension as my dad, who spent a lot of money on keeping me and my brother alive, while also paying a lot of taxes = unfair.
I don’t want to pay for it. Where are their kids that could help me with producing the goods and services needed to support the elderly? They don’t exist.
I much prefer to invest in immigrants than the elderly that willingly chose this situation
I mean, your morals here makes no sense to me. You are selectively ignoring some things.
Your father owed you. You did not choose to even exist, he and your mother ripped you into existence without your consent. The bare minimum is to try and pay back such an unpayable debt by providing you a good life.
The older people who choose not to have children don’t have that debt burden. They do not owe you or your father anything. They also did not choose to be born and do not deserve to suffer because they chose not to breed and kick the can of our meaningless existence down the road.
That said, those older people still contributed to society in their youth with their labor. Had they not done so your country would be worse or less developed. They labored under the expectation that they’d receive a certain amount of retirement via their pensions.
I’m too autistic for morals if I’m honest.
No kids means no people working while you don’t work. Simple as that.
We want to motivate people to have kids. Then depend the pension on having kids.
More kids = higher pension.
My wife is indonesian. Her mom barely has any pension. But she has 3 adult children. My wife pays for her cost of living alongside her 2 sisters.
The old people there who have no kids are… Well, they work or die.
Is it moral? That’s not really my concern. Is it sustainable. That’s my concern.
The general pension here, where people can save money by not having kids, retire at age 55, enjoy tax paid healthcare. That caused the aging population.
We made a mistake. We should economically reward having kids. Because having kids rewards the economy.
I’m too autistic for morals if I’m honest.
I am also autistic.
And you used the word “unfair” in your previous post so you are not “too autistic” for morals. Or at least you aren’t against pretending you have them when they suit your argument.
You are now just embracing “might makes right” now that the elderly childless suckers got their pension’s rug pulled because otherwise its too financially inconvenient.
