Birth Strike

Woke Hogan · 05-03-2019 12:51PM

biko wrote: »

I suppose all the supporters above are for contraception in the developing world.
There are a lot more children born there than here.

Somalia has a birth rate of 6.27
Ireland has a birth rate of 1.92

Shouldn't you guys be out protesting the Somalis for killing the planet?

People should have less children in general. Irish, Somalis, Papua New Guineans. Everybody.

Auntie Semite · 05-03-2019 01:12PM

With birth rates below replacement levels in most Western countries one might say Westerners were doing their bit.
But now the west is importing millions of migrants from all over the world.
Millions of consumers who will consume resources, generate waste, consume fossil fuels etc
This is apparently to pay for our pensions so it would seem like our governments have chosen pensions over climate change.

You also have many on the left advocating for a reduction in population whilst at the same time advocating for an increase in immigration, generally from populations with a much higher birth rate than indigenous Europeans.
It doesn't really make any sense.
.

wakka12 · 05-03-2019 01:16PM

El_Bee wrote: »

Actually if you factor in the production, movement & distribution of foreign aid it works out about the same.

Any sources on that? The amuont of somalian children suffering malnutrition would seem to disprove that point

'Somalia has chronically high malnutrition rates; one in eight children under five is acutely malnourished.'

Not to mention the fact the life expectancy in somalia is only 51 years, even if they did use as many resources as europeans(which they absolutely do not) they would use far less in their limetime due to living for fewer years

Anyway as I said a few posts back there is definitely no hope for the world. A poster said there is time to reverse the damage and make changes well how do you make changes when plenty of first world people living incredibly privileged lives think they only use the same resources as starving east africans

Irish Guitarist · 05-03-2019 01:18PM

She's worried about insects going extinct. She should have sex with an insect to see if she can get pregnant with a giant bee or something.

El_Bee · 05-03-2019 01:23PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Any sources on that? The amuont of somalian children suffering malnutrition would seem to disprove that point

'Somalia has chronically high malnutrition rates; one in eight children under five is acutely malnourished.'

Not to mention the fact the life expectancy in somalia is only 51 years, even if they did use as many resources as europeans(which they absolutely do not) they would use far less in their limetime due to living for fewer years

Yeah I probably should have worded it more accurately, while the resources are distributed they don't actually get to the people who need it, I mean it's no secret that at this stage foreign aid has done more damage to Africa then colonialism ever did.

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2019 01:29PM

We've doubled the human population by several billion[/b] people in something like have a century. I've been saying this for a long time - human overpopulation is the elephant in so many rooms when we talk about why the world is f*cked up, but it's not one anyone wants to address. Fair play to these people for bringing it into the open in some form.

We cannot sustain our own unrestricted growth as a species without a corresponding inevitable drop in individual quality of life. Regardless of how the planet changes in the future, this is a fundamental fact - the planet's resources are not going to change, at least not nearly as quickly as our population is increasing, so eventually we will reach a crescendo in terms of potential quality of life with a sharp drop off thereafter if we continue to expand. Humanity needed to reach some kind of equilibrium, but that's very much past tense - even if we stop expanding now and the population simply remains roughly where it is, there are still too many of us. Until we find other planets capable of sustaining us and develop the means to get large numbers of people to those planets safely, we need to put the brakes on population growth.

Fair play to these people for waking up to that.

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2019 01:32PM

Auntie Semite wrote: »

You also have many on the left advocating for a reduction in population whilst at the same time advocating for an increase in immigration, generally from populations with a much higher birth rate than indigenous Europeans.
It doesn't really make any sense.
.

As a leftist I have to agree. The lack of logic in it is astounding. I'm not in favour of entirely closed borders like many on the right are, but population needs to decline and that becomes entirely useless if we simply replace our own falling population with population from elsewhere - the point is that as it stands, our current way of living cannot be sustained if the population doesn't fall.

Baggly · 05-03-2019 01:39PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

We can all do our bit!

Finally, the justification i was looking for!

monkeybutter · 05-03-2019 01:42PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

People who want/have kids generally want them for selfish reasons. Not the most PC thing to say, and I’m sure parents/future parents will probably jump on me for saying it.

Usually when I ask friends who have kids why they decided to have kids, the response is ‘sure who’s going to look after me when I’m old?’

Yeah let’s overpopulate the planet so your kids can visit you in your nursing home.

You'd think it would be hard to find someone to top yer wan in the video

And yet here you are

Auntie Semite · 05-03-2019 02:02PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As a leftist I have to agree. The lack of logic in it is astounding. I'm not in favour of entirely closed borders like many on the right are, but population needs to decline and that becomes entirely useless if we simply replace our own falling population with population from elsewhere - the point is that as it stands, our current way of living cannot be sustained if the population doesn't fall.

I was always a leftist and voted accordingly but now my opposition to mass immigration sees me categorised as 'far right'
It's worth remembering that the Capitalist right were always in favour of mass immigration and still are.
The big wtf? Moment for me was a number of years ago when leader of the Green Party (I voted for them) Eamonn Ryan spoke about the need to double Irelands population to 10 Million.
How can an environmentalist advocate for such an increase in population and the accompanying strain on resources and increase in consumption?
Surely such an increase is the opposite of what environmentalism is all about?

Slightly off topic but the great Angela Nagle wrote a piece recently about the leftist case against mass immigration.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

Just to note I am not opposed to tightly controlled immigration just not what we have at the moment.

Zorya · 05-03-2019 03:04PM

Fair enough if individuals decide they don't want children - children are troublesome smelly things on the whole, I cannot blame people for abstaining - but what these ladies are doing is different.

First they are choosing to imagine that everything personal is political. Every inner feeling must be recognised and addressed by the body politic, otherwise they are profoundly disappointed in the ''authorities''. Not only do they live feeling ''terrified'', apparently, and ''depressed'' but they also want to start a movement. This is narcissism. And collectivism. Don't want children on your own time, pet, and if you need a movement there are plenty of environmental movements that have been thriving for very long times on the idea of impending cataclysm and nihilistic doom, I'm sure you will find one that tickles your fancy.

Second the agument for over-population is contestable. I cannot put in every fact and figure here to say how this is so, but it is. It cannot be proven conclusively. It looks like population will level out in the near future. And yet this contestable argument forms a fundamental tenet in the religion of modern peoples. Wash out your jam jars and hold back your eggs and sperm because the planet cannot be saved. Sounds predictably Malthusian. This has been a problem that has bothered self indulgent intellectuals for more than a century - what to do with the filthy swarming masses. People like Maurice Strong lectured about over population from his UN high chair and meanwhile was buying up vast swathes of land to keep back the dreadful hordes.

The rate of population growth has been slowing quite dramatically over the past 50 years, in fact the rate of fertility has dropped off a cliff. Which seems to bother hardly anybody, though surely it is indicative of something seriously amiss. Efforts to control population such as have happened in China and India have had horrendous unforeseen results - sex selective abortion and female infanticide has left over 30 million extra men in both countries at present, which has increased prostitution, bride kidnap, extortionate dowries, suicide and depression. We are not good at population control - except in one area. Increased wealth and education reduces birth rate per family to sustainable levels.

It is not over-population that is the problem at the moment, but reckless and exorbitant use of resources. Especially in the pursuit of profit. Built in obsolescence (Buck me! I managed to spell that correctly without google!!). Over consumption of literally everything. We all consume too much, far too much. Irrational solutions for transport, home heating, land management and so on. The concentration of resources in the hands of very very few people, people who have been proven over time to be amoral and profligate wastrels.

There are loads of smart people coming up with brilliant ideas all the time. Human ingenuity is one of the best things about the species. To be wringing your hands like these girls are doing is profound alienation from their fellow humans, and not good for their mental health.

Neither of them look as though they are in the throes of poverty either. They are neurotic - in the sense of being maladapted, cynical and preoccupied with negative mental imaginings. It's not useful.

That's enough for the minute.

tritium · 05-03-2019 03:58PM

Looking at birth rates, in particular relative to the replacement rate, I’d suggest the focus here shouldn’t be on the first world.

If you want the first world to input part of the solution start addressing questions around overconsumption rather than birth rate. Then leverage the technology the first world has developed to reduce wastage and optimize production.

Meanwhile deal with population growth where it actually is growing unsustainably, in the third world, by encouraging contraception instead of pumping more aid into pretending birth rates there aren’t an issue.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-03-2019 04:12PM

Genuine question because I feel like I'm missing something obvious, what is this connection between migration and global population that means you can't logically advocate for halting or reversing population growth and also advocate for unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? What's the difference between having 20 people in region A and 80 people in region B, and having 40 people in region A and 60 people in region B?

Gimme A Pound · 05-03-2019 04:20PM

wakka12 wrote: »

There is so much hope, but its being squandered with each passing day. Who is going to turn things around? Nobody gives the slightest ****

Loads of people give a ****.

biko wrote: »

I suppose all the supporters above are for contraception in the developing world.

I suppose so too. No reason not to be.

Shouldn't you guys be out protesting the Somalis for killing the planet?

Is there an indication that they're ok with the over population of Somalia?

monkeybutter wrote: »

You'd think it would be hard to find someone to top yer wan in the video

And yet here you are

Strangely personal. And what's actually so wrong with what he said?

Quite the irrational defensiveness here.

As for the video: one of the women - "25 and not wanting children" shocker!

There is truth to what they say though, even if they're no craic and that bit too jaded. But that's not an attack on people who do have children either. Whichever choice is fair enough to me.

There was a thread a while back (seems to be deleted) about the same topic... well actually I think it was something like "What's the most selfish thing a person could do?" - of course the "woke" folk had to chime in "Have children". Thus started a train wreck of nuttiness of the highest order - far worse than these women. Some kid thought he was so cool saying "NPC" over and over. Normally I see both sides but on that thread I was with the parents all the way. This case is far more rational though.

Zorya · 05-03-2019 04:22PM

Virginia Breezy Police wrote: »

Genuine question because I feel like I'm missing something obvious, what is this connection between migration and global population that means you can't logically advocate for halting or reversing population growth and also advocate for unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? What's the difference between having 20 people in region A and 80 people in region B, and having 40 people in region A and 60 people in region B?

I cannot answer that comprehensively, it's not something that I think about in relation to population, I also don't advocate for control of population as that is happening naturally.
The issue, or one of the issues I could see with unrestricted migration is the collapse of welfare states by being over-whelmed. People with lower education, language issues etc will not be able to take many jobs in a post-industrial economy and will need housing, health services etc., and it would take a long time to balance the welfare requirements with inward taxes, and unrestricted migration would put a serious strain on the set up.
I have also have a personal (and not economic) bugbear on this issue in that multiculturalism that does not require integration into the cultural, societal and civic ethos of the receiving country - which is what is called for generally - this means that cultural habits and ideas that are inappropriate in a secular liberal state may gain ground with unrestricted migration. Some migrants are coming from places where there are medieval ideas regarding women, gays, sex, etc, and I have no truck with cultural equivalence or relativism.
It is better to rise the tide on location, whereby education and opportunity and the emancipation of women will naturally curb the numbers of children per family, educate people for global jobs, and perhaps make those destitute parts of the world attractive for people to live in because they will thrive.

professore · 05-03-2019 05:24PM

Europe's indigenous population is collapsing. You see lots of articles about how more childcare etc is needed but in countries like Sweden this seems to make the birth rate collapse even further. Our tax base is going to collapse as a result. Even in developing countries the birth rate is collapsing.

Sperm quality and consequently fertility has been on a steep decline for 30 years now. Combine that with lots of women not wanting kids or putting them off until it's too late and it becomes clear that the real problem is population collapse, not population explosion.

Baggly · 05-03-2019 05:32PM

Zorya, your posts are a credit to the forum, imo.

Zorya · 05-03-2019 05:35PM

Pter wrote: »

Zorya, your posts are a credit to the forum, imo.

Thanks Pter. Be sure I am capable of quite the opposite

When you are carding me in the future I will remind you of this post

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2019 05:47PM

Virginia Breezy Police wrote: »

Genuine question because I feel like I'm missing something obvious, what is this connection between migration and global population that means you can't logically advocate for halting or reversing population growth and also advocate for unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? What's the difference between having 20 people in region A and 80 people in region B, and having 40 people in region A and 60 people in region B?

It doesn't make a difference on a global level, obviously that's more a local issue. But to take one example, if you already have a desperate local shortage of a vital resource (in the case of Dublin, housing), then any form of population increase - be it indigenous reproduction or immigration - will cause a drop in quality of life per capita. Some small towns who oppose immigration aren't doing so out of any reason other than wanting their small town to remain a small town and not become more crowded and thus more urban in culture and lifestyle. That's a reasonable position to hold IMO, and doesn't make one racist or right wing. I'd imagine a lot of those places would have the same issue with a sudden influx of newcomers from Cork or Dublin - they just don't want their close-knit and small community becoming less close knit.

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2019 05:50PM

professore wrote: »

Europe's indigenous population is collapsing. You see lots of articles about how more childcare etc is needed but in countries like Sweden this seems to make the birth rate collapse even further. Our tax base is going to collapse as a result. Even in developing countries the birth rate is collapsing.

Sperm quality and consequently fertility has been on a steep decline for 30 years now. Combine that with lots of women not wanting kids or putting them off until it's too late and it becomes clear that the real problem is population collapse, not population explosion.

But this is all a good thing ultimately - a smaller population means a greater share of resources per capita.

Baggly · 05-03-2019 05:51PM

Zorya wrote: »

Thanks Pter. Be sure I am capable of quite the opposite When you are carding me in the future I will remind you of this post

Looking......forward....to it....i guess

:pac::pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-03-2019 06:00PM

TomSweeney wrote: »

She is a lunatic, but we need more people like her, far far too many people in the world , and it's gonna go absolutely ****ing nuts in the next 50/100 years.

But then we hear that we need to import people from other regions to offset Europe's falling birthrate.

We can't have both.

Rubberchikken · 05-03-2019 06:06PM

some people will decide not to have kids. personally i admire them for making this decision and being comfortable stating it.
the world has no shortage of people already.

what type of reception would she have gotten if she'd said ill have as many kids as i possibly can and may need to sign on to support them.

Zorya · 05-03-2019 06:12PM

Rubberchikken wrote: »

some people will decide not to have kids. personally i admire them for making this decision and being comfortable stating it.
the world has no shortage of people already.

what type of reception would she have gotten if she'd said ill have as many kids as i possibly can and may need to sign on to support them.

How many of those people making a personal decision feel the need to start political movements? I don't have a problem at all with people not having children, many of my friends and family have made that choice but to elevate that choice to an ideology is problematic.
It is for one thing a biological imperative in the species to reproduce, it is hardwired in our evolutionary traits - to make a problem out of fundamental evolutionary activities is unwise to say the least. Anti natalism is a very nihilistic philosophy on so many levels.
Also to live with the level of fear and depression they describe is very unhealthy.

suicide_circus · 05-03-2019 06:28PM

i wonder will she accept the pensions and welfare benefits paid for by other peoples children when shes old?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-03-2019 06:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It doesn't make a difference on a global level, obviously that's more a local issue. But to take one example, if you already have a desperate local shortage of a vital resource (in the case of Dublin, housing), then any form of population increase - be it indigenous reproduction or immigration - will cause a drop in quality of life per capita.

But when people are talking about a population growth crisis they're almost always talking about globally. There is no leftist hypocrisy in supporting immigration and also advocating for limiting population growth. Plenty of room within those two positions for hypocrisy, but they're not mutually exclusive views to hold.

I can see a glimmer of a point in the contention that it's impossible to be both a leftist and a globalist, but I think the ol globalisation battle has been fought and rather decisively won by neo-liberalism at this point, no sense living in the past.

Zorya wrote: »

I cannot answer that comprehensively, it's not something that I think about in relation to population, I also don't advocate for control of population as that is happening naturally.
The issue, or one of the issues I could see with unrestricted migration is the collapse of welfare states by being over-whelmed. People with lower education, language issues etc will not be able to take many jobs in a post-industrial economy and will need housing, health services etc., and it would take a long time to balance the welfare requirements with inward taxes, and unrestricted migration would put a serious strain on the set up.
I have also have a personal (and not economic) bugbear on this issue in that multiculturalism that does not require integration into the cultural, societal and civic ethos of the receiving country - which is what is called for generally - this means that cultural habits and ideas that are inappropriate in a secular liberal state may gain ground with unrestricted migration. Some migrants are coming from places where there are medieval ideas regarding women, gays, sex, etc, and I have no truck with cultural equivalence or relativism.
It is better to rise the tide on location, whereby education and opportunity and the emancipation of women will naturally curb the numbers of children per family, educate people for global jobs, and perhaps make those destitute parts of the world attractive for people to live in because they will thrive.

Integration vs multi-culturalism, added strain on soft and hard infrastructure etc are separate though related issues. I'm not far off your own views there at all, even so I've quite a few points of disagreement but I realised I was after typing a hee-yuge long post with nothing to do with the thread so sure look I might see you in one of the bajillion Muslims/migrants threads :pac:

Fr_Dougal · 05-03-2019 06:51PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

i wonder will she accept the pensions and welfare benefits paid for by other peoples children when shes old?

Won’t she have contributed herself throughout the years?

It will be interesting to see what the world economy looks like in 20 years time, especially considering the acceleration of automation in most jobs.

suicide_circus · 05-03-2019 07:07PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Won’t she have contributed herself throughout the years?

yes but thats not how it works in practice. the current workers pay the pensions of the previous generations. our prsi comtributions dont go into a vault waiting for our retirement day.

Yer Da sells Avon · 05-03-2019 07:07PM

professore wrote:

Sperm quality and consequently fertility has been on a steep decline for 30 years now.

Speak for yourself. Mine is of the highest quality.

As far as population control is concerned, an individual deciding not to have children is a drop in the ocean. If I was that way minded, I think I'd prefer to have children and do whatever I can to ensure that they're brought up to care about the environment and have a positive impact on the world. At the very least, they'd be likely to inherit my good looks.

suicide_circus · 05-03-2019 07:11PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

If I was that way minded, I think I'd prefer to have children and do whatever I can to ensure that they're brought up to care about the environment and have a positive impact on the world. At the very least, they'd be likely to inherit my good looks.

this is the problem. if the thinking people with climate change concerns etc dont have children, the next generation will be made up exclusively of people raised by those who dont think beyond their next bag of chips.

Birth Strike

Comments