Post: #26

(10-04-2015 11:12 PM)dreambig Wrote:  Sometimes I think I'm living in a parallel universe. The lack of a PC narrative is refreshing in Asia. However, it's depressing how it's OK for them to close borders and preserve their culture but back home we are immediately labelled racist if we even suggest doing the same.

They are 100% right and this is why i've always been against multiculturalism as well.

I don't see anything good that comes with mixing vastly different people together to make it all work in some weird "assimilation" program. It's common sense that has been lost in favor of pushing this North American experiment in the past 300 years.

The end result is lots of disaffected and inevitably disatisfied people in society. This is true even with relatively well off expats living in asia who constantly whine about asia/asian(s). It's also true for asian immigrants in the U.S. or asian-americans and other minorities who end up screwed in various ways living in a multiculturalist society too. I believe America will become even more balkanized down the road. The majority whites aren't happy..minorities aren't happy..noone is happy except for the elites.

It just doesn't really work in the end.

You see all the race fractures in U.S. society and the way people piss on each other in some weird stacked race tier. It's better if people just live in their own ancestral homelands or those that they can easily (and truly) assimilate into.

Post: #27

(10-04-2015 10:57 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  ^Most Western countries have this pyramid.

More deaths than births is never a good thing. The system needs things to be the other way around, to be able to keep going. (i.e - pensions)

Canada for the first time in history, has more seniors than children.

Some of you guys are beyond deluded.

Do you realize how retarded that logic is? Let me sum up what you just said in a few words:

The population must keep growing forever!

Common sense homie, use it. The difficulty of handling a fucking political problem (a pension system) is trivial. It can be solved by the signing of a few pieces of paper. The difficulty of sustaining a population of 20 billion (or 40, or 100 billion, since you're a fan of never ending growth) is a real problem. Can you solve it, buddy? Do you have the secret sauce stashed away somewhere in your pocket that you can squirt into the ground and create more land? If not, don't call people delusional, because the only thing delusional is thinking the population can grow forever.

That you think the goddamn pension system(!) is enough of a reason to keep the population growing indefinitely even if it were possible is beyond stupid as well, but whatever. To each his own.

Post: #28

Basing all these entitlement programs on what amounts to a generational Ponzi scheme is a colossal failure and doomed right from the beginning.

The moment one generation isn't set up to breed and have (relatively) stable families that interest both males and females before 25, that generation is fucked from the get-go.

Post: #29

The major issue with these declining birth rates, is of course, the ridiculous social welfare and entitlement programs in the Western countries, which need constant influx of young workers. Otherwise, it will collapse. That said, even if you are 100% free market capitalist state with no welfare, sooner or later economy will decline and shrink along with birth rates-you still need people to create economic output.

Post: #30

(10-04-2015 07:27 AM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm going to say something a little bit more controversial, but it's in the vein that Eddie talked about.

Declining birthrates are a GOOD thing.

There are many, many indications that this century will not be as resource-rich as the last century was. Look at the drought problems and water scarcity in the southwest. Those problems are going to happen in many areas of the world. Aquifers all over the world are being depleted quite quickly, along with other resource problems.

There are no indications whatsoever that Earth has reached or is close to reaching its human carrying capacity. There is more than enough usable arable land, water, and food to support a population vastly larger than the one Earth hosts now, and this is to say nothing of future technological advancements - Malthusian arguments have a tendency to focus pretty heavily on potential future catastrophes, but they rarely account for technological advances that can have the opposite effect (Malthus himself totally missed the green revolution). The issues you mention are not related to actual resources scarcity, but to problems with the inefficient use and distribution of resources.

Quote:An indication of this is wage and income stagnation since the 70's. Even among college graduates, wages have been stagnant since 2000.

That is not unrelated to stagnant/declining populations and ageing societies. Old nations are generally not very economically dynamic and growth is hard to come by in most.

Quote:In other words, the high IQ populations of Europe, Japan, white Americans and Canadians, etc. realize instinctively that something is wrong and are taking the appropriate action - reducing their population in line with future resource supplies.

The decision of wealthy first-worlders to cease procreating has nothing to do with some brilliant pre-preemptive play in line with their supposedly superior intellect. It has everything to do with their tendency toward pathological altruism, focus on the self (along with a corresponding de-emphasis on extended kinship groups in line with the norms of the Germanic societies whose descendants now run the planet and account for most of our modern "first world"), materialism, and high costs of living within their societies. These people are eroding their own number and ceding demographic ground (and political ground as well, given the tendency of said first world nations to favor democratic systems in which demographic weight is an important factor in the allocation of political power) to people who a) have little in common with them and b) do not at all share their values, concerns, culture, or priorities.

There is nothing particularly intelligent about that.

Sub-replacement fertility and population aging are no better for society than astronomical birth rates and an oversupply of youthful dependents. What the first worlders are doing is far from logically sound and they will pay the price for it one way or another. What we have now (critically low sub-replacement fertility rates and accompanying campaigns to offset the consequences of this and avoid demographic crisis by importing masses of people from abroad as a quick "duct tape fix") is not sustainable. Something will give.

Post: #31

(10-04-2015 11:45 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:57 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  ^Most Western countries have this pyramid.

More deaths than births is never a good thing. The system needs things to be the other way around, to be able to keep going. (i.e - pensions)

Canada for the first time in history, has more seniors than children.

Some of you guys are beyond deluded.

Do you realize how retarded that logic is? Let me sum up what you just said in a few words:

The population must keep growing forever!

Common sense homie, use it. The difficulty of handling a fucking political problem (a pension system) is trivial. It can be solved by the signing of a few pieces of paper. The difficulty of sustaining a population of 20 billion (or 40, or 100 billion, since you're a fan of never ending growth) is a real problem. Can you solve it, buddy? Do you have the secret sauce stashed away somewhere in your pocket that you can squirt into the ground and create more land? If not, don't call people delusional, because the only thing delusional is thinking the population can grow forever.

That you think the goddamn pension system(!) is enough of a reason to keep the population growing indefinitely even if it were possible is beyond stupid as well, but whatever. To each his own.

Post: #32

(10-05-2015 12:50 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  There are no indications whatsoever that Earth has reached or is close to reaching its human carrying capacity. There is more than enough usable arable land, water, and food to support a population vastly larger than the one Earth hosts now, and this is to say nothing of future technological advancements - Malthusian arguments have a tendency to focus pretty heavily on potential future catastrophes, but they rarely account for technological advances that can have the opposite effect (Malthus himself totally missed the green revolution). The issues you mention are not related to actual resources scarcity, but to problems with the inefficient use and distribution of resources.

It's verging on the naturalistic fallacy to say that because lives have got better as population has increased, increasing population will always make our lives better.

Efficiency and quality of life are not directly related. I'd rather live in a smaller world where you can live as you please, than in a crowded place that relies on endless rules and restrictions to stay efficient and be liveable.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #33

Politicians worry about the wrong part of the GDP per capita equation. I would so love it if we reduced population and became a rich country. We dont even manufacture shit. Why would we need more people when most people are too dumb for modern jobs anyways?

Post: #34

(10-05-2015 12:50 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  There are no indications whatsoever that Earth has reached or is close to reaching its human carrying capacity.

Yes there are. The only reason the planet is presently able to support this many people is because of cheap, dense, energy in the form of fossil fuels, which is indeed what Malthus missed. That energy is becoming less cheap (and is a reason why wages have been stagnant), both in terms of money and more importantly in terms of the energy return.

That's a long tangent of course. And I am not discounting that some technological breakthrough can come, I just don't see it so far. Even at best, fusion power is supposedly ~50 years away, and the situation will be changed a lot by that time.

Quote:There is more than enough usable arable land, water, and food to support a population vastly larger than the one Earth hosts now, and this is to say nothing of future technological advancements - Malthusian arguments have a tendency to focus pretty heavily on potential future catastrophes, but they rarely account for technological advances that can have the opposite effect (Malthus himself totally missed the green revolution). The issues you mention are not related to actual resources scarcity, but to problems with the inefficient use and distribution of resources.

Not really. The fresh water resources of the planet are in severe trouble. At any rate, it can't go on like this and desalination is a very expensive, energy intensive process, at least for now (the operative words).

So you're either going to have to do exactly what Benoit said - have a massive regulatory regime (such as already exists in certain places and we are seeing in California), or reduce the population.

Quote:The decision of wealthy first-worlders to cease procreating has nothing to do with some brilliant pre-preemptive play in line with their supposedly superior intellect. It has everything to do with their tendency toward pathological altruism, focus on the self (along with a corresponding de-emphasis on extended kinship groups in line with the norms of the Germanic societies whose descendants now run the planet and account for most of our modern "first world"), materialism, and high costs of living within their societies. These people are eroding their own number and ceding demographic ground (and political ground as well, given the tendency of said first world nations to favor democratic systems in which demographic weight is an important factor in the allocation of political power) to people who a) have little in common with them and b) do not at all share their values, concerns, culture, or priorities.

I did not discount that, but the biggest factor is not cultural but economic, because of the increasing wealth stratification and cost of living. In that regard it is the smart thing to do. Wealthy people tend to have less kids than poor people.

Quote:What the first worlders are doing is far from logically sound and they will pay the price for it one way or another. What we have now (critically low sub-replacement fertility rates and accompanying campaigns to offset the consequences of this and avoid demographic crisis by importing masses of people from abroad as a quick "duct tape fix") is not sustainable. Something will give.

Of course, but this is largely related to irresponsible immigration policies that the elite keep pushing, for many reasons.

Post: #35

(10-04-2015 11:45 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:57 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  ^Most Western countries have this pyramid.

More deaths than births is never a good thing. The system needs things to be the other way around, to be able to keep going. (i.e - pensions)

Canada for the first time in history, has more seniors than children.

Some of you guys are beyond deluded.

Do you realize how retarded that logic is? Let me sum up what you just said in a few words:

The population must keep growing forever!

Common sense homie, use it. The difficulty of handling a fucking political problem (a pension system) is trivial. It can be solved by the signing of a few pieces of paper. The difficulty of sustaining a population of 20 billion (or 40, or 100 billion, since you're a fan of never ending growth) is a real problem. Can you solve it, buddy? Do you have the secret sauce stashed away somewhere in your pocket that you can squirt into the ground and create more land? If not, don't call people delusional, because the only thing delusional is thinking the population can grow forever.

That you think the goddamn pension system(!) is enough of a reason to keep the population growing indefinitely even if it were possible is beyond stupid as well, but whatever. To each his own.

Most Western countries are not even at replacement level, homie!

No one is talking about the population reaching 20 billion.

Pension system is trivial, really!

The elites have a goal to reduce the population down to 500 million worldwide, i am sure many of you are in favour of this.

(source: Georgia Guidestones)

http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/message.htm

Post: #36

(10-04-2015 11:45 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  ...
Common sense homie, use it. The difficulty of handling a fucking political problem (a pension system) is trivial. It can be solved by the signing of a few pieces of paper. The difficulty of sustaining a population of 20 billion (or 40, or 100 billion, since you're a fan of never ending growth) is a real problem. Can you solve it, buddy? Do you have the secret sauce stashed away somewhere in your pocket that you can squirt into the ground and create more land? If not, don't call people delusional, because the only thing delusional is thinking the population can grow forever.
...

The use of homie and buddy really detracted from your good points.

That said, I just realized there's a "Buddy List" on RVF.

Post: #37

All this talk of needing population growth and people ignore the fact that 1/2-2/3 of the world's population is already redundant. 1/2-2/3 of the population is at subsistence level. They consume only what they can get their hands on today. They produce nothing. At best, they break even. Their only real purpose is to serve as a warning to the top 1/3 (minus the elites in their ivory towers) of what can happen if they step out of line. If they all disappeared tomorrow, it would mostly go unnoticed.

Post: #38

(10-05-2015 07:50 AM)Libertas Wrote:  I did not discount that, but the biggest factor is not cultural but economic, because of the increasing wealth stratification and cost of living. In that regard it is the smart thing to do. Wealthy people tend to have less kids than poor people.

If a given peoples' intellect has led them to create and perpetuate a society in which it has become undesirable and/or impractical for them to carry out the most basic of human biological functions/purposes (read: procreating and replacing themselves so as to ensure that they persist in future generations and are not supplanted en-masse by supposedly "dumber" people from elsewhere), then one must wonder to what extent all that "intellect" has really benefited said peoples.

Post: #39

(10-04-2015 01:45 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 01:21 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  Keep the BAD immigrants out, and gladly welcome the GOOD ones.

Why? Why should even the "good" ones be welcomed? What if the "good" ones come and their kids displace the natives' kids from Harvard or medical school, are they still "good" then? And what if the good immigrants become a critical mass at certain institutions that the natives created and begin to engage in nepotism, only hiring their co-ethnics at the expense of the natives? I'm using the word "if" but actually these scenarios are far from hypothetical. It's exactly what has happened with Asian immigration to N.A. and Australia.

And what has been the upside? The population is bigger, woo fucking whoo. Seriously. Unless the immigrant in question is a bona fide superstar of the caliber of a Fermi or an Einstein, there is almost no upside. And those superstars are exceedingly rare. I'm happy with importing all 20 of them a year. But 2 million? Give me a break. Your "good" immigrants for the most part end up displacing natives from lucrative fields (see: medicine, dentistry) or simply making fields less lucrative (IT) by increasing the supply of labor. And of course the more of them come, housing prices increase (making it more expensive for the natives to have kids, since we're on the topic), the traffic gets worse, the public spaces are more crowded. The country becomes less livable. Forget it.

I also agree with you on all points with some additions:

+ No one needs population growth in terms of required labor force. As you have correctly put it - currently work is being shifted via free trade to Asia, but sooner or later that will stop as well since technological unemployment will make most current work obsolete. We will simply need even less people to upkeep civilization.

+ Growth is only required for one simple reason: USURY - when 99% of all money is created as debt AT INTEREST and the interest is not created as well, then it must be generated somehow. That means that all growth is necessitated via usury. No country on earth would have to borrow anything and no human on earth should borrow at interest for the self-used property he requires for living. So long as we have this money system, then we MUST FORCE growth because debt and interest needs to be repaid. Of course since it is even with massive population growth impossible to repay the debt, then periodically currencies have to be devalued, reset via war, economic collapses etc.

+ As Fast Eddie put it so eloquently - no one needs any worker - not high or low-skilled. The couple dozen real geniuses and sports superstars we can let in gladly - they are as he correctly put exceedingly rare. For any other there is useless wage pressure and displacement of locals.

+ However one of the reasons why the global money elite keeps on pushing with fertile immigrants from the South for the US, Canada, Australia and the EU is because even if those workers don't create any work, even if they don't work at all as in the case of the EU - then they are pumping up the GDP via transfer payments from the budget - effectively rising debt. All that immigration currently does is expand the government debt faster making the next economic collapse a reality sooner. But it kicks the can further down the line and the system of usury and fractional reserve banking in place.

+ As for Earth maximum carrying capacity - yes - we could have more people on Earth. In fact you can settle the entire human population of the Earth in Texas - giving each 4 individuals 400m2 of land. The rest of Earth would be free of humans. Currently the distribution is just off and the cities are crappy. Also the technologies are still very primitive. Still - I am no fan of 100 billion , 10 trillion people on earth. For civilization we don't even need 500 million. So I wouldn't promote any further growth just so that the 0,0001% can rule via their stupid usury system which has an inbuilt periodic bankruptcy and transfer scam in it.

Declining birthrates are good, though a lot of it is created by the very same usury top who poison us through toxic food, medicine, feminism, poverty etc. However even in an ideal system I would limit the number of children to 2 - more if you have only girls. It's always good to have more women than men - vice versa is not so good. Women behave much better when there is less of us than them and for procreation some will gladly wife up 2 if they absolutely have to. The other system of polyamory is just crap. One woman getting pregnant by two dudes is just stupid while one daddy having two mommas is much better.

Happy man, happy women:


Everyone unhappy:

Post: #40

^^ You xenophobic shitlords are like so out of touch.



See, we NEED the Syrian refugees.

Post: #41

(10-04-2015 11:12 PM)dreambig Wrote:  My other question to him was "How about Japan takes 100,000 Syrians for humanitarian purposes?" He laughed out loud and looked at me like I was crazy.

Naturally, because that's crazy. Actually what we should really do is send 100,000 Japanese to Syria. They'd polite that place back to order in no time.