Topic: Would this solve population decline?
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #131,283
It's like encouragement with power, each child gives you one more vote. Plus grandchildren.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #1,405,159
People don't vote anyway. Our last election for mayor was decided with 4,500 votes. The population is 46,000 (granted some are kids or otherwise not eligible for voting).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,160
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 16 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,161
Lots of things would solve population decline. Banning contraception would do it. If you want people to want to have children, you need to make housing inexpensive. Factory made housing is one idea. Made in another country. Shipped over and assembled by the homeowner.
Ebolalalala joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 32 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,162
The Europeans found a solution to solve population decline in Africa. Africa was underpopulated for basically all of history until the Europeans showed up. What you have to do to make people have a lot of children, is you have to go into their country, enslave everybody, steal their resources, prevent women from being educated, prevent people from being educated in general, don’t give people access to healthcare, don’t let people vote, do this for hundreds of years, then one day, just leave and let whatever random person fills the power vacuum first control the entire country. That will make birth rates skyrocket!
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,163
Ebolalalala replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,165
Before the scramble for Africa:
Africa in 1800: 90 million people (not a lot of black people yet)
Europe in 1800: 150 million people
While Africa was colonized, the Europeans wanted to depopulate the continent entirely but failed to do so.
During the Second World War (following WWII African countries became independent):
Africa in 1940: 200 million
Europe population 1940: 556 million
Following the Second World War (Europe was rebuilt and became wealthy, Africa became independent and had a bunch of bloody civil wars and ethnic conflicts):
Africa population 2025: 1.5 billion <- that’s your solution right there
Europe population 2025: 745 million
What we need is bloody civil wars and ethnic conflicts in wealthy democratic nations in order to increase the population.
Africa in 1800: 90 million people (not a lot of black people yet)
Europe in 1800: 150 million people
While Africa was colonized, the Europeans wanted to depopulate the continent entirely but failed to do so.
During the Second World War (following WWII African countries became independent):
Africa in 1940: 200 million
Europe population 1940: 556 million
Following the Second World War (Europe was rebuilt and became wealthy, Africa became independent and had a bunch of bloody civil wars and ethnic conflicts):
Africa population 2025: 1.5 billion <- that’s your solution right there
Europe population 2025: 745 million
What we need is bloody civil wars and ethnic conflicts in wealthy democratic nations in order to increase the population.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,166
@1,405,163 (E)
> Like Singapore. That place is a mess!
Ah yes, the classic "colonization wasn’t bad" *proceeds to compare one city to an entire continent*
> Like Singapore. That place is a mess!
Ah yes, the classic "colonization wasn’t bad" *proceeds to compare one city to an entire continent*
Ebolalalala triple-posted this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,167
It’s kind of ironic. Europeans wandered into an underpopulated continent, decided that they conquered it because they were superior in biology instead of the more obvious reason which is that they were just superior in numbers. Then the Europeans oppressed these people for so long, trying to depopulate the continent with the thought Africans would die out if they were starved that they inadvertently made the population explode because poor people actually have more children than rich people. So now Europe has half the population of Africa, which has never been the case before in all of history, Europe has a birth rate below replacement meaning they can only grow their population by importing non-whites from other parts of the world, African women have 4 children on average, which is double replacement rate, meaning they’ll probably go from a little bit less than 20% of the population to about 40% of the population by 2100. But Europeans still have a superiority complex so they think that this will never wind up having massive future economic consequences for Europe over the coming centuries.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Ebolalalala quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,168
But there is a lesson in all of this, which is if we want people to have more kids, all we have to do is incite violent conflicts and keep people poor!
Anonymous E replied with this 1 month ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,170
@1,405,166 (Ebolalalala)
Why do some countries have lots of bad things going on, and other countries few bad things? Culture.
Just like when Sweden changed from driving on the left to changing on the right. The accident rate dropped because people were extra cautious. When they saw deaths dropped, the drivers got more risky.
Same with the pandemic. Why did some countries fare much better? Culture. Just like what happened in Africa. Culture.
Why do some countries have lots of bad things going on, and other countries few bad things? Culture.
Just like when Sweden changed from driving on the left to changing on the right. The accident rate dropped because people were extra cautious. When they saw deaths dropped, the drivers got more risky.
Same with the pandemic. Why did some countries fare much better? Culture. Just like what happened in Africa. Culture.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 18 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,178
Just send a different beautiful woman to my door every night and I will solve the fertility crisis.
Ebolalalala joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 45 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,187
@1,405,170 (E)
Culture is intangible. China is authoritarian but they have the second largest economy. You’re just using "culture" as a proxy for racism. There is no African culture, there are African cultures, just like there are Asian cultures or European cultures, but African itself is not a culture. Culture isn’t measurable, there’s no substance to it. I care about objective measurable tangible things. The reason why Europe is so wealthy isn’t because of culture, it’s because 500 years ago, Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas, and old world diseases wiped out 90% of the natives. This is purely an accident, Columbus thought the world was smaller than it actually was, he was trying to get to India. If an Indian or a Chinese thought the world was smaller and one of them tried to get to Europe instead, the America’s would have been settled by them instead of the Europeans. There aren’t very many continents that make up the old world, just Europe, Africa, and Asia, they all had a 1 in 3 chance of being first, those aren’t extraordinary odds. Then 200 years ago Europe used the wealth from their American colonies to colonize Africa, which had a much smaller population than Europe. This didn’t end until after the Second World War. For all of history Africa always had significantly fewer people than Europe did, despite being much larger until the 1990s, when Africa surpassed Europe in terms of population. That was only 30 years ago, and now Africa is twice as large as Europe. Africa hasn’t developed, because Africa can’t develop due to its rapid population growth. Building nicer houses and nicer streets won’t make the city look nicer if 30 years later the city is twice as large. Probably more than twice as large since cities can grow even faster than countries. And you don’t see as many old buildings in Africa as you do in Europe, not because Africans never built buildings, it’s because there were just fewer people living in Africa compared to Europe until very, very recently. You are only using culture as an explanation because culture is intangible the same way your belief in your own superiority is intangible, you have this idea that Europe is magically better somehow, but there was a world before European colonization when there actually wasn’t a very large technological difference between African kingdoms and European kingdoms. Europeans didn’t view themselves as superior to Africans until 500 years ago, and they actually weren’t technologically superior until the Industrial Revolution, which coincidentally happened while Africa was under European rule, which is why it didn’t also happen in Africa, because the European colonists didn’t care about developing Africa beyond moving resources to the coasts to get shipped back to Europe. China used to be poorer than most African countries relatively recently in history, but China developed first because their birth rates declined first.
Culture is intangible. China is authoritarian but they have the second largest economy. You’re just using "culture" as a proxy for racism. There is no African culture, there are African cultures, just like there are Asian cultures or European cultures, but African itself is not a culture. Culture isn’t measurable, there’s no substance to it. I care about objective measurable tangible things. The reason why Europe is so wealthy isn’t because of culture, it’s because 500 years ago, Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas, and old world diseases wiped out 90% of the natives. This is purely an accident, Columbus thought the world was smaller than it actually was, he was trying to get to India. If an Indian or a Chinese thought the world was smaller and one of them tried to get to Europe instead, the America’s would have been settled by them instead of the Europeans. There aren’t very many continents that make up the old world, just Europe, Africa, and Asia, they all had a 1 in 3 chance of being first, those aren’t extraordinary odds. Then 200 years ago Europe used the wealth from their American colonies to colonize Africa, which had a much smaller population than Europe. This didn’t end until after the Second World War. For all of history Africa always had significantly fewer people than Europe did, despite being much larger until the 1990s, when Africa surpassed Europe in terms of population. That was only 30 years ago, and now Africa is twice as large as Europe. Africa hasn’t developed, because Africa can’t develop due to its rapid population growth. Building nicer houses and nicer streets won’t make the city look nicer if 30 years later the city is twice as large. Probably more than twice as large since cities can grow even faster than countries. And you don’t see as many old buildings in Africa as you do in Europe, not because Africans never built buildings, it’s because there were just fewer people living in Africa compared to Europe until very, very recently. You are only using culture as an explanation because culture is intangible the same way your belief in your own superiority is intangible, you have this idea that Europe is magically better somehow, but there was a world before European colonization when there actually wasn’t a very large technological difference between African kingdoms and European kingdoms. Europeans didn’t view themselves as superior to Africans until 500 years ago, and they actually weren’t technologically superior until the Industrial Revolution, which coincidentally happened while Africa was under European rule, which is why it didn’t also happen in Africa, because the European colonists didn’t care about developing Africa beyond moving resources to the coasts to get shipped back to Europe. China used to be poorer than most African countries relatively recently in history, but China developed first because their birth rates declined first.
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,188
But when Africa does develop, it will have a massive population compared to Europe, and it will also have a massive population compared with China, since China’s population is actually shrinking.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,189
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,190
Ebolalalala replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,191
@previous (I)
There are no African city-states, but there are some cities in Africa that don’t look half bad tbh. Africa is the poorest continent, but Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Pretoria, given the historical circumstances seem fairly okay, all things considered.
There are no African city-states, but there are some cities in Africa that don’t look half bad tbh. Africa is the poorest continent, but Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Pretoria, given the historical circumstances seem fairly okay, all things considered.
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,193
I mean, I’m not claiming they’re the best cities in the world or anything like that, obviously they would have problems, but I don’t think you can google any of those three cities, and tell me it’s the worst thing you’ve ever seen without intentionally cherry picking to look for the worst angle you can find.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,194
@1,405,191 (Ebolalalala)
> There are no African city-states
That wasnt the question. Can you name any city that did what Singapore did?
Being part of a larger country doesn't stop a city from developing, being orderly, and thriving economically. If anything it offers them more opportunity to concentrate resources into that city, opens up protected trade routes and gives a buffer against others.
> Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Pretoria, given the historical circumstances seem fairly okay, all things considered.
They're less organized than a south east Asian city from 100 years ago.
> There are no African city-states
That wasnt the question. Can you name any city that did what Singapore did?
Being part of a larger country doesn't stop a city from developing, being orderly, and thriving economically. If anything it offers them more opportunity to concentrate resources into that city, opens up protected trade routes and gives a buffer against others.
> Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Pretoria, given the historical circumstances seem fairly okay, all things considered.
They're less organized than a south east Asian city from 100 years ago.
Ebolalalala replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,195
Although, South Africa has birth rates that aren’t quite as high as some other African countries, which supports my theory as to why African nations aren’t developing yet.
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 53 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,196
@1,405,194 (I)
> They're less organized than a south east Asian city from 100 years ago.
Respectfully, wtf are you talking about?
> They're less organized than a south east Asian city from 100 years ago.
Respectfully, wtf are you talking about?
Ebolalalala triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,197
@1,405,194 (I)
> That wasnt the question. Can you name any city that did what Singapore did?
Well then what did Singapore do? That’s a vague question.
> That wasnt the question. Can you name any city that did what Singapore did?
Well then what did Singapore do? That’s a vague question.
Ebolalalala quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 32 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,198
I assume you meant developed, which there are cities in Africa that are developed, and I gave examples of those.
Ebolalalala quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,199
@1,405,194 (I)
> Being part of a larger country doesn't stop a city from developing, being orderly, and thriving economically.
Why is it with types like you that you can’t understand the difference between a value and a derivative? I never said that a city being large is bad, or a country being large is bad. I’m talking about the derivative of population with respect to time. For example, if you make 100 dollars a day, I make 200 dollars a day, you have 500 dollars, I’m broke, if you come back in a week, I’ll have more money than you. That’s the point I’m making.
> Being part of a larger country doesn't stop a city from developing, being orderly, and thriving economically.
Why is it with types like you that you can’t understand the difference between a value and a derivative? I never said that a city being large is bad, or a country being large is bad. I’m talking about the derivative of population with respect to time. For example, if you make 100 dollars a day, I make 200 dollars a day, you have 500 dollars, I’m broke, if you come back in a week, I’ll have more money than you. That’s the point I’m making.
Ebolalalala sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,200
But say to make twice as much as you, I have to work twice as hard, so my life will be worse than yours, and you will have more money at the beginning of that week. You would say, "Oh my life is easier and I’m richer this will continue on forever."
Ebolalalala septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,201
And okay, India for example, is poor, right? Have you ever looked up how fast India’s GDP is growing, and compared it to any country in Europe? At some point, these things are exponential in nature, it actually does matter.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,202
@1,405,197 (Ebolalalala)
Singapore rapidly developed, and has always had a culture that managed new technologies better. They have social harmony.
There are African cities with cars and computer shops but they have serious internal political issues, hygiene, and crime issues that continue to exist.
Time marches forward everywhere, but culture is still relevant.
Singapore rapidly developed, and has always had a culture that managed new technologies better. They have social harmony.
There are African cities with cars and computer shops but they have serious internal political issues, hygiene, and crime issues that continue to exist.
Time marches forward everywhere, but culture is still relevant.
Ebolalalala replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,203
@previous (I)
Remember when I told you that Singapore is a city? There are countries in Asia that have all those problems you just mentioned. You’re cherry picking to make a broader argument that doesn’t really hold up that well.
Remember when I told you that Singapore is a city? There are countries in Asia that have all those problems you just mentioned. You’re cherry picking to make a broader argument that doesn’t really hold up that well.
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,204
Crime? Myanmar.
Political problems? North Korea.
Hygiene? India.
You know what I’m saying? This stuff is intangible. Both Koreas are Korean, are they both rich? Culture is vague and a lot of countries have more than one culture, even in Asia.
Political problems? North Korea.
Hygiene? India.
You know what I’m saying? This stuff is intangible. Both Koreas are Korean, are they both rich? Culture is vague and a lot of countries have more than one culture, even in Asia.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,205
@1,405,201 (Ebolalalala)
The average Indian makes $1,000 per year. It's not hard to add $500 and say you've doubled your income to that. Easier still when the west innovated already and you can just copy.
You should be asking why they aren't keeping up when others can.
The average Indian makes $1,000 per year. It's not hard to add $500 and say you've doubled your income to that. Easier still when the west innovated already and you can just copy.
You should be asking why they aren't keeping up when others can.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Ebolalalala replied with this 1 month ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,206
And by the way: Singapore isn’t really a liberal democracy. And also, not all European countries are rich. For example, Ukraine has a GDP per capita of about 6,200 USD and so does South Africa.
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,207
…but I bet you don’t spend all day trying to argue Ukrainian culture is inferior because they’re white.
Ebolalalala triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,208
Even this whole thing about politics or crime, that’s just bias. Are there authoritarian countries in Africa that are dangerous you couldn’t pay me to visit? Yes, 100%. Is South Africa one of those countries? Nope.
If you gave me the option to go to Russia and Ukraine vs Kenya and South Africa, I’d much rather visit Kenya and South Africa.
If you gave me the option to go to Russia and Ukraine vs Kenya and South Africa, I’d much rather visit Kenya and South Africa.
Ebolalalala quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,209
@1,405,205 (I)
> The average Indian makes $1,000 per year. It's not hard to add $500 and say you've doubled your income to that. Easier still when the west innovated already and you can just copy.
>
> You should be asking why they aren't keeping up when others can.
This is a stupid way of thinking about the world. India is basically guaranteed to wind up having the third largest economy. If you start talking about GDP per capita, all Asian countries are "behind." Just compare Japan’s GDP per capita to the United States for instance. All non-western countries have been negatively impacted by colonization, including the Asian countries you’re trying to use as a whataboutism to make it sound like you’re not a white supremacist, even though you’ve already made that clear as day that you’re not Asian.
> The average Indian makes $1,000 per year. It's not hard to add $500 and say you've doubled your income to that. Easier still when the west innovated already and you can just copy.
>
> You should be asking why they aren't keeping up when others can.
This is a stupid way of thinking about the world. India is basically guaranteed to wind up having the third largest economy. If you start talking about GDP per capita, all Asian countries are "behind." Just compare Japan’s GDP per capita to the United States for instance. All non-western countries have been negatively impacted by colonization, including the Asian countries you’re trying to use as a whataboutism to make it sound like you’re not a white supremacist, even though you’ve already made that clear as day that you’re not Asian.
Ebolalalala quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 51 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,210
India’s GDP is growing as fast as China’s GDP was when China developed. Your argument about "culture this" and "culture that" that you keep arguing for just makes you look dumb.
Ebolalalala sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,211
Like, I feel like you don’t "get it"
Look at what the largest economies are, look at where India is. Look at what the rates of growth of those economies are. Look at the actual data before you say something based on "culture" (which is really just subjective vibes). The Untied States and China have the two largest economies, nobody comes close. After the US and China, nobody comes close. India is basically neck and neck with a bunch of other countries that have smaller economies with China, none of them are growing nearly as fast as India. Before colonization, India and China were the most prosperous civilizations, because they had the biggest populations. Now they have the highest populations and they’re catching up.
Look at what the largest economies are, look at where India is. Look at what the rates of growth of those economies are. Look at the actual data before you say something based on "culture" (which is really just subjective vibes). The Untied States and China have the two largest economies, nobody comes close. After the US and China, nobody comes close. India is basically neck and neck with a bunch of other countries that have smaller economies with China, none of them are growing nearly as fast as India. Before colonization, India and China were the most prosperous civilizations, because they had the biggest populations. Now they have the highest populations and they’re catching up.
Ebolalalala septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,212
Like how do you not get it? It’s like you’re a moron.
Ebolalalala octuple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,213
Your entire argument is basically "aren’t some people just better for literally no reason." That’s not even an argument, it’s not even an idea, it doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t explain for example, why did China become so much wealthier? They’re still Chinese aren’t they? Culture isn’t a valid thing you can use to explain anything. It’s not real, it’s not a thing that exists that you can measure.
Ebolalalala nonuple-posted this 1 month ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,214
Like where did you even get this way of thinking in the first place? It’s like this sociopathic arrogance that you have to say there’s something magically special about you that makes you win for no reason. Which is basically the worst character trait a human can possibly have. No one who thought like that in the history of the world ever turned out to be a good person.
Ebolalalala decuple-posted this 1 month ago, 34 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,215
Every single time anyone who ever thought like that got in power anywhere ever, every single time mass murder was the result.
Ebolalalala joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,216
The other problem with your way of thinking is that it’s just fundamentally false, it just fundamentally doesn’t work. You aren’t special, you won’t always win for no reason because there’s something magical about you. If you keep thinking that way, it’s going to kill you someday.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,231
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,237
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,248
+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 35 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,252
@1,405,178 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Just send a different beautiful woman to my door every night and I will solve the fertility crisis.
Based on one personal experience when wandering when MARRIED - Kid grows up and needs to go to EXPENSIVE University. I am still paying on the Mortgage of a house in Cambridge Mass, with a little more than one year to go.
> Just send a different beautiful woman to my door every night and I will solve the fertility crisis.
Based on one personal experience when wandering when MARRIED - Kid grows up and needs to go to EXPENSIVE University. I am still paying on the Mortgage of a house in Cambridge Mass, with a little more than one year to go.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,258
+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,260
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 52 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,261
@1,405,252 (+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y)
> I am still paying on the Mortgage of a house in Cambridge Mass, with a little more than one year to go.
If you hadn't spunked all that money up the wall gassing up J. D. Rockefeller's plane you could have paid it off by now.
> I am still paying on the Mortgage of a house in Cambridge Mass, with a little more than one year to go.
If you hadn't spunked all that money up the wall gassing up J. D. Rockefeller's plane you could have paid it off by now.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 40 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,269
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 22 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,273
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,277
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,337
Why would we want populations to expand indefinitely? If we’re already resource-constrained, why do we need billions more? Automation was supposed to solve for aspects of labor.
Anonymous Q replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,347
@previous (R)
because groids multiply like locusts and its unpleasant to be outnumbered by them even if they can effortlessly be killed hundreds at a time as easily as africans make mosquito burgers
because groids multiply like locusts and its unpleasant to be outnumbered by them even if they can effortlessly be killed hundreds at a time as easily as africans make mosquito burgers
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Ebolalalala joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,349
@1,405,337 (R)
> Why would we want populations to expand indefinitely? If we’re already resource-constrained, why do we need billions more? Automation was supposed to solve for aspects of labor.
Well you see, the problem is robots make products in factories owned by rich people. Robots don’t buy the products. Overproduction doesn’t create a utopian economy where nobody has to work, it just leads to greater unemployment. Robots making products in factories owned by rich people only makes rich people richer if poor people can still afford to buy their products.
> Why would we want populations to expand indefinitely? If we’re already resource-constrained, why do we need billions more? Automation was supposed to solve for aspects of labor.
Well you see, the problem is robots make products in factories owned by rich people. Robots don’t buy the products. Overproduction doesn’t create a utopian economy where nobody has to work, it just leads to greater unemployment. Robots making products in factories owned by rich people only makes rich people richer if poor people can still afford to buy their products.
Ebolalalala double-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,351
So the end result is if you fire everybody because robots can do anything, if nobody has jobs, nobody can buy anything, so now rich people are just sitting around with factories full of robots using up electricity to produce products that nobody buys.
Although, this actually isn’t really that much of a problem, because there’s another problem with depopulation that’s much worse. Old people still receive money to live off of even though they don’t work. How? How do old people still get paid even when they’re retired and not working? They invested in the economy while they were still working and over time their investment grew. But why did their investment grow? Because the economy got larger. But why did the economy get larger over time? Because the population grew over time. So what happens if the population shrinks when people live longer than ever before because people are having fewer children?
Just look at Japan, decades of economic stagnation. If a larger and larger portion of the population that is too old to work is dependent on a smaller and smaller portion of the population that’s still young enough to work, the economy doesn’t grow. Which is incidentally why people who fear monger about immigrants ruining the economy are actually completely wrong. Developed countries like Japan that had very little immigration have fallen behind developed countries that had more immigration like Germany. Japan has more people than Germany, they used to have a bigger economy than Germany, they don’t anymore, because they didn’t do anything to offset their aging population, but Germany did. People don’t like it, but there are only limited options. Either westerners can have more kids (they’re not doing that), they can import people from other parts of the world, and have their native populations slowly replaced, or they can just collapse demographically and economically and decline even faster by rejecting immigration out of racism or jealousy or whatever (emotional reasons rather than rational ones).
Although, this actually isn’t really that much of a problem, because there’s another problem with depopulation that’s much worse. Old people still receive money to live off of even though they don’t work. How? How do old people still get paid even when they’re retired and not working? They invested in the economy while they were still working and over time their investment grew. But why did their investment grow? Because the economy got larger. But why did the economy get larger over time? Because the population grew over time. So what happens if the population shrinks when people live longer than ever before because people are having fewer children?
Just look at Japan, decades of economic stagnation. If a larger and larger portion of the population that is too old to work is dependent on a smaller and smaller portion of the population that’s still young enough to work, the economy doesn’t grow. Which is incidentally why people who fear monger about immigrants ruining the economy are actually completely wrong. Developed countries like Japan that had very little immigration have fallen behind developed countries that had more immigration like Germany. Japan has more people than Germany, they used to have a bigger economy than Germany, they don’t anymore, because they didn’t do anything to offset their aging population, but Germany did. People don’t like it, but there are only limited options. Either westerners can have more kids (they’re not doing that), they can import people from other parts of the world, and have their native populations slowly replaced, or they can just collapse demographically and economically and decline even faster by rejecting immigration out of racism or jealousy or whatever (emotional reasons rather than rational ones).
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Ebolalalala triple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,352
Interestingly, Africa has the exact opposite situation. Their population is too young (19 on average), so their workforce is going to grow by hundreds of millions of people regardless of whether or not they have population growth (which they also have).
Ebolalalala quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,353
Of course, people will disagree with me over "cultural" reasons, that some people are of a higher quality than others. There is actually absolutely zero evidence that this is true. There is an incredible amount of evidence that this is not true.
Just take this for example.
This map shows which countries have the most immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population#/media/File%3AMigrant-share-2020.png
This map shows per capita GDP.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank
They’re the same map.
Just take this for example.
This map shows which countries have the most immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population#/media/File%3AMigrant-share-2020.png
This map shows per capita GDP.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank
They’re the same map.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 month ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,445
@1,405,248 (K)
If they didn't it was clearly fake. If they did, it was also fake. 👍
@1,405,252 (+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y)
Can't squeeze blood from a stone. It I have 50,000 kids I'll avoid having to pay for all of them probably.
If they didn't it was clearly fake. If they did, it was also fake. 👍
@1,405,252 (+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y)
Can't squeeze blood from a stone. It I have 50,000 kids I'll avoid having to pay for all of them probably.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,405,448
@1,405,337 (R)
I don't, but the wealthy do. It means more cogs and customers, their condos and mansions are safe from the riff raff mostly so they don't care. Plus they can pay the help to go shopping for them and gas up the cars, never having to deal with the peasants.
I don't, but the wealthy do. It means more cogs and customers, their condos and mansions are safe from the riff raff mostly so they don't care. Plus they can pay the help to go shopping for them and gas up the cars, never having to deal with the peasants.