Topic: Capitalism and reproduction?
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #37,845
So if i understand it all correctly, capitalism is all about making profits. What about making babies though? I mean countries like Japan are facing something not so good which is the decline of baby making, should being a parent become a job?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #507,589
Japan isn't the only one. The whole Altaiosphere is expected to become extinct by 2750, if nations like South Korea, China, North Korea, Japan, and Mongolia don't start incentivizing reproduction. You might be interested to know that the Japanese economy is practically socialist with guaranteed life-positions, many nationalized industries and impossible personal tax-rates. South Korea is much the same in that respect. Food shortages in North Korea and ensuing poverty in China make it risky to raise children beyond one's means. Mongoloids are genetically prone to lower rates of reproduction anyway (Rushton's hypothesis), having struggled throughout history to maintain a replacement rate of fertility (2/woman) irrespective of whatever regime they were under, and these factors compound the phenomenon.
It has little, in fact next to nothing, to do with capitalism. Socialist Europe has lower birth rates than capitalist America.
It has little, in fact next to nothing, to do with capitalism. Socialist Europe has lower birth rates than capitalist America.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,591
Japan are also at the forefront of automatization tech. They will fare better than the overpopulated and underemployed.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,592
@507,589 (B)
well actually, i have strong doubts that raising children because its risky is the obstacle here. It is actually capitalism eroding the public's morality. The strongest empahsis is focused on profit making rather then traditional virtues/values that keeps society going, like reproduction
well actually, i have strong doubts that raising children because its risky is the obstacle here. It is actually capitalism eroding the public's morality. The strongest empahsis is focused on profit making rather then traditional virtues/values that keeps society going, like reproduction
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,593
@507,591 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
That much is a front. The government pools together concessionary incentives to leading technological magnates in order to develop seemingly impressive prototypes. Meanwhile, the majority of Japanese industry is a technological backwater stuck in a mentality of 'it werks' over the most archaic of technology (90s fax-machines and 80s automotive bots are widespread.) The Japanese are actually a much more simple minded people than their purer-Mongolian cousins over the East Sea (Korea, where innovation seems non-stop and early adoption rife.)
That much is a front. The government pools together concessionary incentives to leading technological magnates in order to develop seemingly impressive prototypes. Meanwhile, the majority of Japanese industry is a technological backwater stuck in a mentality of 'it werks' over the most archaic of technology (90s fax-machines and 80s automotive bots are widespread.) The Japanese are actually a much more simple minded people than their purer-Mongolian cousins over the East Sea (Korea, where innovation seems non-stop and early adoption rife.)
Anonymous B double-posted this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,595
@507,592 (A)
I point you to the statistics. American whites, at 2.1/woman fertility rate, are at a replacement level; while socialist Europe, at 0.9-1.9/woman across the board, is slowly dying out.
I point you to the statistics. American whites, at 2.1/woman fertility rate, are at a replacement level; while socialist Europe, at 0.9-1.9/woman across the board, is slowly dying out.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,599
@previous (B)
I think its kind of risky to take your statistics as being accurate, since your reefer to all of europe as socialist.
I think its kind of risky to take your statistics as being accurate, since your reefer to all of europe as socialist.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,601
@previous (A)
The lowest scoring in fertility rates are known for having massive welfare states (Sweden at 1.3) or for being ex-Soviet shitholes present recovering from inter-generational 'socialist patriotic' conditioning.
The higher scoring (if Scotland was independent, it'd actually be at replacement, at exactly 2) have significantly liberalized (classic sense) economies.
The lowest scoring in fertility rates are known for having massive welfare states (Sweden at 1.3) or for being ex-Soviet shitholes present recovering from inter-generational 'socialist patriotic' conditioning.
The higher scoring (if Scotland was independent, it'd actually be at replacement, at exactly 2) have significantly liberalized (classic sense) economies.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,602
@previous (B)
Well with your same logic i could point to places with the highest fertility rates, which is in Africa. Would you say that the high fertility rates in africa is a reflection of capitalism in that continent?
Well with your same logic i could point to places with the highest fertility rates, which is in Africa. Would you say that the high fertility rates in africa is a reflection of capitalism in that continent?
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,603
@previous (A)
No, I'd say it's a reflection of Rushton's r-K hypothesis, stipulating that, as r-selected, evolutionary throwback thugs, they opt for the 'alphamale' stategy of cadding over fatherly investment in their progeny. The high death rate of these infants is really what distinguishes capitalist reproduction patterns (where this is not an issue, given highly developed healthcare infrastructure and the lack of infanticidal behaviour in those White societies where this economic system preponderates) from African reproduction patterns.
No, I'd say it's a reflection of Rushton's r-K hypothesis, stipulating that, as r-selected, evolutionary throwback thugs, they opt for the 'alphamale' stategy of cadding over fatherly investment in their progeny. The high death rate of these infants is really what distinguishes capitalist reproduction patterns (where this is not an issue, given highly developed healthcare infrastructure and the lack of infanticidal behaviour in those White societies where this economic system preponderates) from African reproduction patterns.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,605
@previous (B)
Well, at least in Iceland the reproduction rates are about 2.0 while in america they are 2.1. In iceland children have a greater chance to survive, one of the best in the world. However so many things affect the reproduction rates, what i am trying to say is that if a society only cares about making money, then its subject won't make babies.
Well, at least in Iceland the reproduction rates are about 2.0 while in america they are 2.1. In iceland children have a greater chance to survive, one of the best in the world. However so many things affect the reproduction rates, what i am trying to say is that if a society only cares about making money, then its subject won't make babies.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,607
@previous (A)
You use one outlier socialist European country as 'proof' of the superiority of socialism. Who couldn't call that desperate cherry-picking?
You use one outlier socialist European country as 'proof' of the superiority of socialism. Who couldn't call that desperate cherry-picking?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,609
@previous (B)
> Who couldn't call that desperate cherry-picking?
Certainly not me, since never was i trying to prove the superiority of socialism, at all. You are the one who blatantly started referring to all of europe as socialist. But all i wanted to do is to question capitalism as the dominant ideology.
> Who couldn't call that desperate cherry-picking?
Certainly not me, since never was i trying to prove the superiority of socialism, at all. You are the one who blatantly started referring to all of europe as socialist. But all i wanted to do is to question capitalism as the dominant ideology.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,611
@previous (A)
But it isn't the dominant ideology in huge swathes of the Earth's political borders; that's just your leftist persecution complex talking.
But it isn't the dominant ideology in huge swathes of the Earth's political borders; that's just your leftist persecution complex talking.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,612
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #507,614
@previous (A)
I can't think of a single nation that isn't known for profligate spending, massive social welfare states, employment laws punishing corporate reform on an executive level, and massive excise and personal taxes.
(Excluding Africa because they're socio-organiational retards who can't form a piss-up in a brewery, but imagine some eugenics programme is implemented which raises their genotypical IQs to the lower end of European nations, and they'd probably even more likely opt for social welfare states. It's the direction which Nigeria, smartest native African country in the sub-Sahara, is going.)
I can't think of a single nation that isn't known for profligate spending, massive social welfare states, employment laws punishing corporate reform on an executive level, and massive excise and personal taxes.
(Excluding Africa because they're socio-organiational retards who can't form a piss-up in a brewery, but imagine some eugenics programme is implemented which raises their genotypical IQs to the lower end of European nations, and they'd probably even more likely opt for social welfare states. It's the direction which Nigeria, smartest native African country in the sub-Sahara, is going.)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #507,615
@previous (B)
Oh i see, i always thought it was the opposite but who knows, i might be wrong. I just think its sad that an Ideology, which i see and dominant, is an ideology that focuses on profit making. As people see the main goal of their lives to make money, well then all morality will be shape by it. A morality that isn't unifying, at all.
Oh i see, i always thought it was the opposite but who knows, i might be wrong. I just think its sad that an Ideology, which i see and dominant, is an ideology that focuses on profit making. As people see the main goal of their lives to make money, well then all morality will be shape by it. A morality that isn't unifying, at all.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #507,616
@previous (A)
Another thing, to counter-act the morally deleterious effects of excessive capitalism, usually it is the role of organized religion to substitute as the predominant moral ruleset; however, that isn't really important, because throughout the Northern races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids), empathy has a genetic basis in those child-rearing techniques developed amidst the challenges of a harsh environment in the ice age (particularly in women, but also in men to a significant degree). The main emphasis on a uniform morality just appears to be, then, biologically and deterministic inevitability, rather than needing to be influenced by some poitico-economic or religious system necessarily (actually, they've arisen from the former; the complex social organizational patterns formed as a result of increased intellect).
This self-imposed eugenics might actually benefit reproduction in the long run as even more conscientious human beings will arise, able to note and perceive more acutely, and thus address more astutely, these problems.
Another thing, to counter-act the morally deleterious effects of excessive capitalism, usually it is the role of organized religion to substitute as the predominant moral ruleset; however, that isn't really important, because throughout the Northern races (Caucasoids, Mongoloids), empathy has a genetic basis in those child-rearing techniques developed amidst the challenges of a harsh environment in the ice age (particularly in women, but also in men to a significant degree). The main emphasis on a uniform morality just appears to be, then, biologically and deterministic inevitability, rather than needing to be influenced by some poitico-economic or religious system necessarily (actually, they've arisen from the former; the complex social organizational patterns formed as a result of increased intellect).
This self-imposed eugenics might actually benefit reproduction in the long run as even more conscientious human beings will arise, able to note and perceive more acutely, and thus address more astutely, these problems.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #507,617
@previous (B)
Not very sure what you mean, but its something like the idea of our morality being hardwired into us? I don't think that is the case, it might be hardwired into us but the hard wiring reacts to our environment. An ideology like capitalism is unfit to deal with global problems, which is why its a shame that its the mot dominant.
I would say that Waste is the inherent side effect of capitalism, and right now the waste is plastic, plastic that has chemicals which acts like estrogen in the human body. That can hardly be good for our genes.
Not very sure what you mean, but its something like the idea of our morality being hardwired into us? I don't think that is the case, it might be hardwired into us but the hard wiring reacts to our environment. An ideology like capitalism is unfit to deal with global problems, which is why its a shame that its the mot dominant.
I would say that Waste is the inherent side effect of capitalism, and right now the waste is plastic, plastic that has chemicals which acts like estrogen in the human body. That can hardly be good for our genes.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #507,618
@507,601 (B)
According the CIA World Factbook Sweden has been hovering around 1.9 for the past three years. Where are you getting your numbers?
According the CIA World Factbook Sweden has been hovering around 1.9 for the past three years. Where are you getting your numbers?
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #507,619
@507,617 (A)
The hard-wiring already had time to react to the environment many thousands of years ago (when the first haplotypical proto-Europids settled in Ukraine and the Caucusus from their migratory path across the Middle East from Africa), and it would take many thousands of years for it to react to any environment degeneration providing there actually is any, meaning we'd be dead long before noticing devolutionary dysgenics ala Idiocracy.
I like how you've basically admitted to globalism being inextricably related to socialism, because the kind of homogenizing influence it has to offer would be the last solution to any 'global problem' (which I'm sure you're imagining of extremely local problems specific to the inferior quality of human present in whatever third world shitholes came to your mind when conjuring that.)
Xenoestrogens have no agonistic activity on estrogen receptors and in actual fact have slight antagonistic activity.
The hard-wiring already had time to react to the environment many thousands of years ago (when the first haplotypical proto-Europids settled in Ukraine and the Caucusus from their migratory path across the Middle East from Africa), and it would take many thousands of years for it to react to any environment degeneration providing there actually is any, meaning we'd be dead long before noticing devolutionary dysgenics ala Idiocracy.
I like how you've basically admitted to globalism being inextricably related to socialism, because the kind of homogenizing influence it has to offer would be the last solution to any 'global problem' (which I'm sure you're imagining of extremely local problems specific to the inferior quality of human present in whatever third world shitholes came to your mind when conjuring that.)
Xenoestrogens have no agonistic activity on estrogen receptors and in actual fact have slight antagonistic activity.
Anonymous B double-posted this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #507,620
@507,618 (D)
Even if I was to concede to that, it doesn't change my point about the beneath-replacement rate of socialized Europe.
Even if I was to concede to that, it doesn't change my point about the beneath-replacement rate of socialized Europe.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 48 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,624
@previous (B)
The rate for many Soviet satellite nations didn't start to drop below replacement until the early 90s. Do you think they were better off as satellite states?
The rate for many Soviet satellite nations didn't start to drop below replacement until the early 90s. Do you think they were better off as satellite states?
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,629
@previous (D)
They operated under the socialism not found in today's modern Europe, in that it subsidized Slavic national interests as opposed to this emphasis on economic globalization, and the redistribution of resources to third-world immigration that entails, at the expense of the indigenous populus. Not mistaking this socialism for the kind of socialism Anonymous C, for example, envisages, yes, the Soviet closed-market worked fortuitously for reproduction rates.
They operated under the socialism not found in today's modern Europe, in that it subsidized Slavic national interests as opposed to this emphasis on economic globalization, and the redistribution of resources to third-world immigration that entails, at the expense of the indigenous populus. Not mistaking this socialism for the kind of socialism Anonymous C, for example, envisages, yes, the Soviet closed-market worked fortuitously for reproduction rates.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,699
@507,589 (B)
China, with 1.5 billion people and the birthrate growing yearly, has no problem in this area.
China, with 1.5 billion people and the birthrate growing yearly, has no problem in this area.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,706
@507,629 (B)
> They operated under the socialism not found in today's modern Europe
The "send us your money and goods and we get to set up your elections to our liking" kind? How is that good for reproduction?
I'm not seeing your point. Is some socialism good for reproduction? If so what kind? Birth rates in the first world seem to level-off, but arguably that is due to low disease rates, low infant mortality, and the availability of reliable health care. In some first-world, predominantly capitalist, countries the fertility rates are at slightly lower than replacement levels. Will that change and why might it change? The post-WW2 baby boom certainly seems to show that other factors certainly play a role in reproductive rates. I don't think the economic system in place is a very strong predictor of fertility rate. Other factors probably play a greater role in that.
As to whether capitalism distracts people from making babies, the US saw a rise when capitalism was riding high during the 80s. (1.84 in 1980 vs. 2.08 in 1990) Hong Kong's fertility rate only dropped as the approach to the Chinese handover happened, and it's now back on the rise. As for other nations it's hard to tell: Germany has been under replacement levels since 1970, but Japan was at over 2 until 1975. I think it's probably difficult to predict the hundreds of factors that contribute to some particular statistic, and it's probably bad science to put forward a single-factor hypothesis.
> They operated under the socialism not found in today's modern Europe
The "send us your money and goods and we get to set up your elections to our liking" kind? How is that good for reproduction?
I'm not seeing your point. Is some socialism good for reproduction? If so what kind? Birth rates in the first world seem to level-off, but arguably that is due to low disease rates, low infant mortality, and the availability of reliable health care. In some first-world, predominantly capitalist, countries the fertility rates are at slightly lower than replacement levels. Will that change and why might it change? The post-WW2 baby boom certainly seems to show that other factors certainly play a role in reproductive rates. I don't think the economic system in place is a very strong predictor of fertility rate. Other factors probably play a greater role in that.
As to whether capitalism distracts people from making babies, the US saw a rise when capitalism was riding high during the 80s. (1.84 in 1980 vs. 2.08 in 1990) Hong Kong's fertility rate only dropped as the approach to the Chinese handover happened, and it's now back on the rise. As for other nations it's hard to tell: Germany has been under replacement levels since 1970, but Japan was at over 2 until 1975. I think it's probably difficult to predict the hundreds of factors that contribute to some particular statistic, and it's probably bad science to put forward a single-factor hypothesis.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,723
@previous (D)
If single-factor hypothesis are unscientific, then you should stop making sweeping presumptions about Soviet socialism.
If single-factor hypothesis are unscientific, then you should stop making sweeping presumptions about Soviet socialism.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,755
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,763
@507,699 (E)In from my morning Ocean a Blue break of dawn Surfing and
> China, with 1.5 billion people and the birthrate growing yearly, has no problem in this area.
Oh of that were only true but its noooooooooooooooooo't China is in a world of future hurt with huge problems that on paper or in the air that force people to put on masks for days at a time in order to breath - (its beyond unbelievable how China plans to solve asap the chocking bad air problem {1/2 trillion bucks to turn bad air in2 chunks that fall to earth so drones can continue to spy on people) NOT Joking - yet its their solution to chocking
Anyway heading out now Triple espresso Uped & back to water [Surf up conditions terrific - Tide swings weird = Fun2muchfun] but if you want to really see how OLD People in China and the Young people who were only allowed to have one child...now have horrid future math problems unsolved or addressed by Commie Masters then I Offer you some lite reading for your Sunday so enjoy
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2010/09/china-population-wang
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_population.htm
U can skim for following China math buttt hurt of future with current issues
*Young people fewer then necessary do to prior One Child policy
*Old people growing growing without young people left to support them
*Food about to run out (seriously) as population exceeds internal food production And unplanned {see next}
*World climate change that will reduce food imports from them who export: to feed population increase of China (China may go back to starvation trends)
*Environmental tragedies if not solved smartly as opposed to silly solutions currently planned for chocking air,
See ya all later a bit maybe - Must work a as I goofed off for play yesterday Yet more fun opportunities2day so wot do I do?
AND wood luv to get in2 the Soviet problem because I R 1/2 Russian and worked/lived in Russia - Alas current political climate defies Math solution - One dare NOT try and add 2+2 = X - In a rational world 2+2 never = X currently in Russia politics it does. Something gotta collapse one way or the other
Anonymous E replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,764
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 30 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #507,767
@previous (E)Hell NO.
If you want/need such go find Fatfuck. He lives in it ...he eats it (proven 110% true) as he has totally no choice, as it cums with the territory as an added condiment. (its cultural acceptable and has been since 16th century)
Also based on posts from TC eye C - Someone tagged him yesterday as:
Anonymous K —
> What good is a higher degree when all you get with it...
> who would want to go out into that ugly city?
> global www couch potato.
> Saturday China adventure on couch.
> that filth.
> 491 km 7 h 36 min without traffic to get away from ugly.
!a4fa8BKGtQ —
> Correction: you stayed inside on weekends from the age of 10 because you were bullied for being fat and talking about poop constantly. You have never been loved by anyone who was not directly related >to you, and you never will be. Your father is a criminal and you can relate, as you are barred from holding a job in your area of education because you were sloppy enough to let an old surfer dude in >California catch you writing rape stories about students from the school you taught at. It is appropriate that you will spend the remainder of your days rotting in a third-world shit hole living on a >pittance of a salary at a job that where your degree is as good as toilet paper to your employer.
Omen
> (fatfuck) Would that break be all day & night, every Friday and Saturday.
Its commonly accepted that you spend every spare waking minute, on the internet..
!mcpasUMCI6
> Syntax is not my favorite poster. He does peg you as a loser. The rich architectural background? Views from the air posted on tc; Indy how many hours to get to what you link? [takes 9 hours]
> And if its so rich, what are you doing here and why not there? Whats so good about it, if you're surfing your couch?
!LUhAJqDjn6
> You old as fuck like Syntax.
Anonymous Z-42
> I think you have grown to old to understand that. If one day I get any degree, you won't find me fucking on a chan night and day, when with money I can go out and find a girl to fuck with.
!AmPAFsAhLk
> Fuck the old dude, {Indy} he's old news, body is probably so fucked over. Old people {Indy} just flop on couch and its end of life for them.
If you are looking for the expert on Chinese food, sewers...LookC for him here as in photo