Post: #1

Inevitable result of women putting career and alpha cock before family. Immigration is just a short term fix..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...70718.html

Quote:Relying on immigration to prop up our fertility rate also presents several problems, the most important of which is that it's unlikely to last. Historically, countries with fertility rates below replacement level start to face their own labor shortages, and they send fewer people abroad. In Latin America, the rates of fertility decline are even more extreme than in the U.S. Many countries in South America are already below replacement level, and they send very few immigrants our way. And every other country in Central and South America is on a steep dive toward the replacement line.

...

As for the Hispanic immigrants who are already here, we can't count on their demographic help forever. They've been doing the heavy lifting for a long time: While the nation as a whole has a fertility rate of 1.93, the Hispanic-American fertility rate is 2.35. But recent data from the Pew Center suggest that the fertility rate for Hispanic immigrants is falling at an incredible rate. To take just one example, in the three years between 2007 and 2010, the birthrate for Mexican-born Americans dropped by an astonishing 23%.

The article beats around the bush without mentioning the F word (birth control is mentioned instead).

ROK had an article on this:

http://www.returnofkings.com/1683/demogr...is-upon-us

Post: #2

As you know from previous posts, I'm against unrestricted mass immigration - and in Britain, I'd be called a 'racist' etc. Even if said immigration is from Poles or other Eastern Europeans, who are white.

I think I need to re-evaluate my thoughts. Yet again, the blame is feminism! Every fucking ill that plagues the West is due to it. Transnational capitalism is also to blame, but socially, feminism and all it's offshoots too.

Quote:all because well-off European women refuse to procreate

Makes me mad on behalf of all the betas, of which I was, who are desperate to have a nice wife and family, who will probably be blamed for this mess for 'not manning up' etc.

Whilst the collapse of Europe and the West in general is good for players who can slay with ever increasing ease, I am sad because of what we have been deprived of: A family with a feminine woman and a meritocratic way of life that truly rewarded male intelligence and hard work.

Post: #3

Not buying this shit. First over-population and now under-population?

Tell women to lose the weight. Problem solved (if there really is one).

Post: #4

Imagine if, back when you were a child, instead of going to school every day your parents gave you the option of doing whatever else you wanted. Maybe you would choose to sit around all day and eat chocolate chip cookies. Or build a fort in the woods. Or play basketball with your friends. The point is, simply imagine if you had the freedom as a child to choose to do something besides that which you were compelled to do by your parents and the law. Is there any chance you would have been going to school five days a week? Even the most studious and responsible children would have regularly skipped out to partake in activities that were more fun.

Modern, educated, affluent, Western women are like the children in this example. They simply have so many seemingly fun, exciting, self-fulfilling options in life that motherhood cannot compete. We educate women and fill their heads with feminist propaganda which tells them that it's very important for them to have a career, and that being a mother is boring, thankless and degrading in comparison to the glamorous, big city professional life they could otherwise lead. At best, marriage and children are an afterthought, something to be considered when 30 is approaching and a woman knows that her best years are behind her.

Is it any wonder, then, that women who are in a position to choose, choose fun over the responsibility of motherhood? Who wants to be changing diapers when you could instead be having mimosas with your girlfriends? Or spend thousands of dollars on childcare instead of blowing your entire paycheck at Nordstrom? Or commit to one man when you can leverage your physical prime looks for the attention of several alphas?

Feminists would counter that this is equally the fault of men who refuse to grow up and get serious about marriage and children, but of course this is nonsense. We all know that it is women who control the sexual marketplace through their monopoly of pussy. It is women who determine the price of access to their vaginas, be it lifelong commitment and support or three strong cocktails and some smoothly delivered dialogue. Men simply respond to the reality of the sexual marketplace that women create through their choices. If for some reason every woman suddenly decided that she would only fuck men who wore chicken suits, by the end of the week we'd all be discussing tips on how to keep our feathers from being ruffled when we sit down and the best techniques for drinking through a beak. The undeniable fact is that female lifestyle choices dictate the choices that men make in response.

For this reason, for most of history female choice was artificially limited by social convention and law. With few exceptions, women simply did not have a realistic option of choosing to be anything except a wife and mother. In turn, this meant that in order to get pussy, your average man had little choice except to become a husband and father. Both men and women had fewer choices for individual "fun" and "self-fulfillment", but the species thrived because of it. Feminism, or female empowerment, completely upends this historical arrangement and thereby destroys the family. With the freedom to choose, many women choose themselves over their potential children, and the population is no longer growing at replacement rate as a result.

The elephant in the room that no one wants to address is that this is an inevitable consequence of female empowerment. If you give women affluence and the ability to choose what they want to do, not enough will choose to become young mothers of multiple children. It's hard choose the socially responsible thing over the fun thing. And perhaps this is not a female weakness, but a human weakness. It's hard to imagine that many men would do any different in the same situation. But whether or not men would do the same is simply irrelevant, because whether one likes it or not, women are the ones whose choices dictate the outcomes of the sexual marketplace, the strength of the family structure and ultimately population growth or decline.

The unspeakable, monstrously politically incorrect conclusion is that societies that empower females will thus inexorably slide toward demographic oblivion as a consequence of low birth rates, while those that retain a more patriarchal structure with limitations on female choice, independence and affluence will continue to grow. And this is not some gross conjecture. All you have to do is compare the birth rates of Muslim countries to Japan, the U.S. and Western Europe to verify this fact.

The battle against feminism will ultimately be one of survival.

Post: #5

Post: #6

This isn't an American problem, it's a developed world problem.

Post: #7

Three options for the West, all currently unpalatable:

1) Incentivize people to have more children.
2) Greatly increase immigration.
3) Greatly decrease state liabilities.

Much of the current welfare elements of Western states implicitly rely on a larger, younger generation to pay off the older generation in a Ponzi-like fashion. When the younger generation ceases to grow or, in fact, shrinks the welfare system breaks down. As the article alludes to, China is going to be in an even worse position than the west in a decade or two.

Post: #8

(02-03-2013 03:58 PM)Roosh Wrote:  ROK had an article on this:

http://www.returnofkings.com/1683/demogr...is-upon-us

I read that article on ROK. This is a big deal. I see this play out among some of my married friends. Without exception, my friend wants kids (that's why they get married) and the wife does not "yet" want them, which translates to ultimately becoming just too old.

Post: #9

Speaking from a Southern american point of view: i lived in Uruguay most of my life and also travelled a lot to Argentina,girls there get married young (really young in Argentina,like before 25) but no young couple i knew in both countries wanted to breed like rabbits,actually i never heard an Argentinian or Uruguayan couple planning to have more than 2 children.

I've not lived in Brazil long enough to have an opinion,but i haven't see a breed like rabbits mentality here.

So,making a choice of having a fun life instead of starting a 10 people family at 19 is not exclusive of first world countries,it is nearly everybody's choice unless if there is religion involved or such poverty birth control is unknown,but in this last case i'd rather say it is a lack of choice.

Post: #10

What are the 40 year implications of this?

WIA

Post: #11

People have been ringing this alarmist bell for at least a decade. Population aging and decline is only a problem if you allow immigration since it will lead to the native population being overwhelmed. Japan is an extreme case and even it hasn't yet felt significant economic effects as a result of population aging and decline. The effects of immigration on the West have been far more devastating. I agree it may be a problem for a country if its birth rate falls off a cliff, but I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe a birth rate of 1.8+ and gradual population decline isn't a good thing. China's one child policy and soon-to-be declining population has probably had more positive effects than any government policy of the last 50 years (where are the environmentalists applauding hundreds of million fewer Chinese?). And of course this article comes from the WSJ, which is as bad as any liberal publication when it comes to advocating a society based on endless immigration and population growth.

If the south Asian and African countries get their birth rate down below 2, especially if south asian birth rates falls off a cliff like in east Asia, we could be looking at a new golden age. But I'm not optimistic that the West will succeed in preserving its ethnic/cultural integrity to any degree before birth rates fall in countries providing migrants. I'm skeptical of the WSJ's claim that there is 0 net immigration from Mexico but if true it is the best news and only positive trend to have developed in the USA in recent history.

Post: #12

Is a declining fertility rate for the world a bad thing? We went from our first billion to 7 billion in the span of 100 years. I'm frankly happy to see a stop to Malthusian population growth. Fewer people to compete with for oil, food, water, arable land, clean air and jobs.

Post: #13

(02-03-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Is a declining fertility rate for the world a bad thing? We went from our first billion to 7 billion in the span of 100 years. I'm frankly happy to see a stop to Malthusian population growth. Fewer people to compete with for oil, food, water, arable land, clean air and jobs.

Thank you. Too many people.

Post: #14

Limiting immigration will not force entitled white women to have more children!
Whether it be the Poles in the UK, the Indians in Canada or the Mexicans in USA, they are ALL needed to do the low paying jobs that the "natives" will not do.
I don't believe there is a crisis in America, if there was they would simply open the gates a bit more. Despite what others say, a large majority of people from around the world would give an arm to be able to live in America.

Post: #15

(02-03-2013 06:01 PM)poutsara Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 03:58 PM)Roosh Wrote:  ROK had an article on this:

http://www.returnofkings.com/1683/demogr...is-upon-us

I read that article on ROK. This is a big deal. I see this play out among some of my married friends. Without exception, my friend wants kids (that's why they get married) and the wife does not "yet" want them, which translates to ultimately becoming just too old.

Men want kids from women who don't want kids who want kids from men who don't want kids who have kids indescriminately.

First the WSJ. I'm scared shitless by what happens when this subject drops into popular psyche. You know it will be watered down to be politically correct. The answer is going to be "We just have to give women anything and evertyhing they want to be encouraged to have kids."

Sorry bubs. The answer is not giving things to women. The answer is taking them away.

Post: #16

The Mormons are doing just fine.

Post: #17

(02-03-2013 09:10 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  The Mormons are doing just fine.

That's if their kids decide to stay with Mormonism. Kids may not necessarily share your values.

Post: #18

Like speakeasy and others have alluded to, it's not clear that lower fertility is a completely bad thing. When the plague struck Europe, wages for workers climbed, because the ratio of capital to labor climbed - i.e. there was the same amount of land that needed to be farmed, but many fewer workers to till it. Perhaps because Japan is at the forefront of the aging issue, and has been an innovative country in the past, it will come up with superior solutions which will become a major export for the Japanese.

If you had perfect knowledge, and could determine the optimal size and density for urban living, you'd find that most big American cities are well beyond that threshold. Can you imagine people fifty years ago complaining because their city was just not dense and populated enough? Productivity is bolstered by specialization and division of labor, but there are diminishing returns - after a city gets to a size of say, one million, will adding another million will produce more benefits than the cost of traffic, infrastructure strain, increased housing costs, etc?

Mainstream macroeconomists are shills for corporatism, landowners and big government. When overall GDP increases but GDP per person is flat or decreasing, the only parties who benefit are corporations and (maybe) the government. Even more so when those 'guest workers' become permanent, import their families and earn much less than they receive in welfare benefits. Landowners benefit from a bigger population because there's more people chasing the same amount of land, all else equal.

The main reason a decline in fertility is bad for us is it means a worse sex ratio. But if the decline is sustained, the effect peters out.

Also, there are evolutionary theorists who say that fertility is bound to rebound - there's still variation in fertility among families, and some of this variation is due to genetic variation. So more fecund people will proliferate. Some of it will be obvious, eg Mormons, Amish, Orthodox Jews, some won't be.

Post: #19

(02-03-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Is a declining fertility rate for the world a bad thing? We went from our first billion to 7 billion in the span of 100 years. I'm frankly happy to see a stop to Malthusian population growth. Fewer people to compete with for oil, food, water, arable land, clean air and jobs.

It isn't a bad thing...to a point.

Sub-replacement fertility causes problems in the longterm. I'll be explaining this to Lemmo in a bit.

(02-03-2013 06:49 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  People have been ringing this alarmist bell for at least a decade. Population aging and decline is only a problem if you allow immigration since it will lead to the native population being overwhelmed. Japan is an extreme case and even it hasn't yet felt significant economic effects as a result of population aging and decline.

Yet.

The problems that are inherent to japan's current demographic situation have been gone over a million times by economists and political commentators alike. Everyone who is anyone in Japan, from finance ministers to the Emperor himself, has acknowledged the seriousness of the issue. The same has been done in Korea, Singapore, and gradually some of that thinking is coming to China as well. Russia and other European nations with similar fertility issues have also acknowledged the issue, and have been spending to deal with it.

Japan's chickens are going to come home to roost. Some might argue that they're already beginning to do so, but the notion that this might not happen is wishful thinking at best.

This is not a problem that societies are going to be able to run away from. The notion that allowing less immigration could allow an escape from the consequences of low fertility is even more faulty-Japan's lack of immigrants might actually create an even bigger fall later on by exacerbating the consequences of the demographic decline and the aging workforce.

Quote:The effects of immigration on the West have been far more devastating.

I don't agree, Japan is in a much more precarious position than the majority of Western nations, the USA included. Those few western nations that manage to keep their fertility at or above replacement level are going to be in a much stronger position later this century than those who fail to do so.

Quote:I agree it may be a problem for a country if its birth rate falls off a cliff, but I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe a birth rate of 1.8+ and gradual population decline isn't a good thing.

Sub-replacement fertility is never a good thing in the long term. The goal should be to maintain a fertility rate that ensures sustainable growth-2.0 to 2.5, approximately. High enough to stave off population decline and keep a steady number of productive, working age citizens, low enough to avoid the issues tied to rampant growth.

Population decline will cause serious long term problems unless that society is able to draw on masses of migrants to make up the short fall, and even then problems remain serious.

Quote:China's one child policy and soon-to-be declining population has probably had more positive effects than any government policy of the last 50 years (where are the environmentalists applauding hundreds of million fewer Chinese?).

You're alluding to the Demographic Dividend.

To summarize this, nations benefit from sudden declines in fertility in the short term because these declines reduce the dependency ratio-the number of dependents (children in this case) goes down relative to the number of productive, working age citizens. This is good at first, because suddenly you're left with masses of working age people (product of the last high fertility generation) who have fewer dependents. They can be highly productive and spend more as a result.

This is great...for a while. The problem is that eventually these people age, and leave the working age demographic. Their productivity declines, and now they themselves become dependents. The fact that they had few kids now begins to work against them, as there are not enough working age citizens to pick up the slack and maintain the productivity they once had.

The dependency ratio climbs back up again, and the nation is right back where it started (read: not a great place). Productivity declines, economic growth stalls, and other issues (ex high social welfare expenditures, low tax revenues, etc) creep up.

This is where China is going. China was able to take advantage of the demographic dividend for the past 40/50 years. That dividend is about to run out, and it will do so before China is able to catch the west's level of economic prosperity. The same will happen to Brazil and other nations that have seen fertility declines and are beginning to take advantage of the demographic dividend.

Quote:And of course this article comes from the WSJ, which is as bad as any liberal publication when it comes to advocating a society based on endless immigration and population growth.

Hate them or love them, they're not wrong to point out the importance of growth and immigration to the sustainability to our societies.

There is a reason why so many low-fertility western nations are courting immigrants and allowing hundreds of thousands of them through the door annually.

They aren't doing it because they love diversity and want to build glorious rainbow nations. They're doing it because they understand the fact that sub-replacement fertility will bite them very badly, and they want to mitigate its consequences as best they can.

Quote:If the south Asian and African countries get their birth rate down below 2, especially if south asian birth rates falls off a cliff like in east Asia, we could be looking at a new golden age.

...for about 50 years, maybe.

Our grand children would have some very serious problems once the demographic dividend from that decline wares off and those nations are left with massive dependency ratios and old, unproductive populations.

Either way, I doubt this will happen. I expect declines in Asian and African fertility, but I don't expect them to reach East Asian levels. Their culture and lack of money will prevent this, and declines that take place will eventually stall as they have in places like Pakistan.

This disparity in fertility rates will create other problems, and I haven't even mentioned the potential for Idiocracy to come true.

Post: #20

(02-03-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Is a declining fertility rate for the world a bad thing? We went from our first billion to 7 billion in the span of 100 years. I'm frankly happy to see a stop to Malthusian population growth. Fewer people to compete with for oil, food, water, arable land, clean air and jobs.

Decreasing fertility = aging population.

Aging population = unsustainable entitlements to take care of elderly

Unsustainable entitlements = high taxes on youth, capital flight, then eventual economic collapse of many nations

Post: #21

(02-03-2013 09:28 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Also, there are evolutionary theorists who say that fertility is bound to rebound - there's still variation in fertility among families, and some of this variation is due to genetic variation. So more fecund people will proliferate. Some of it will be obvious, eg Mormons, Amish, Orthodox Jews, some won't be.

This is important-the fertility declines we're seeing may very well bring about Darwinian selection.

The only folks left standing in numbers will be the highly fecund, and if there is at all a genetic correlation there (there is evidence to suggest there is), then we'll be shaping humanity in the long term.

(02-03-2013 09:23 PM)tmason Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:10 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  The Mormons are doing just fine.

That's if their kids decide to stay with Mormonism. Kids may not necessarily share your values.

They don't always, but they usually do. Politics are heritable to a significant extent, and apples do not tend to fall very far from their trees.

The nurture component is real here too, since differing fertility rates mean that certain people with certain views are going to be doing most of the nurturing in the future due to their having most of the children. Those kids will not only be impacted by the heritable component of politics (the nature portion), but they'll be nurtured in that direction as well.

This will have a cumulative impact in the future, and fertility differences between religious groups and ideologies are going to have some impact in shifting general societal trends and the composition of the nation's politics as a whole. We are not going to be able to count on children shunning the dreams of their fathers en-masse.

Post: #22

(02-03-2013 09:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Decreasing fertility = aging population.

Aging population = unsustainable entitlements to take care of elderly

Unsustainable entitlements = high taxes on youth, capital flight, then eventual economic collapse of many nations

No question but the flip side is just as bad with a decrease in the availability of resources.

So, the decrease in population is bad in the short term (100 years or so) but best for the long term of humanity.

Post: #23

(02-03-2013 09:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Is a declining fertility rate for the world a bad thing? We went from our first billion to 7 billion in the span of 100 years. I'm frankly happy to see a stop to Malthusian population growth. Fewer people to compete with for oil, food, water, arable land, clean air and jobs.

Decreasing fertility = aging population.

Aging population = unsustainable entitlements to take care of elderly

Unsustainable entitlements = high taxes on youth, capital flight, then eventual economic collapse of many nations

Or you could reform entitlements and then your chain of causation falls apart. Entitlements based on a pyramid scheme where there is an ever increasing population are undesirable and unsustainable (I would argue) and are in any case unrealistic (as the birth rates in your link point out). Govt attempts to increase the birth rate have not had significant success in any country. Immigrants won't be available in the long run (assuming the birth rates from the WSJ) and the type of large scale immigration required to have a significant effect on national birth rates is not politically feasible in most countries and has so far without exception been shown to primarily attract immigrants who are a net burden to the economy. So you are left with the option of entitlement reform.

Post: #24

(02-03-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Is a declining fertility rate for the world a bad thing? We went from our first billion to 7 billion in the span of 100 years. I'm frankly happy to see a stop to Malthusian population growth. Fewer people to compete with for oil, food, water, arable land, clean air and jobs.

Its arguably better for the environment, but the reality of it is that its an economic disaster waiting to happen. Harry Dent had an interesting theory on the effect demographics have on the economy. Now its quite a new and under developed theoryl, but he provides more than enough evidence to support his long term views.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Depressi...1416588981

Some of his predictions have been right, others wrong, so its not a perfect science. It is a good marker though on the way things are going over the long term, because government intervention or random events can slow the process down. The end result almost seems inevitable though

Another thing to bare in mind is that population growth is actually a result of aid too.

Post: #25

(02-03-2013 10:08 PM)tmason Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:41 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Decreasing fertility = aging population.

Aging population = unsustainable entitlements to take care of elderly

Unsustainable entitlements = high taxes on youth, capital flight, then eventual economic collapse of many nations

No question but the flip side is just as bad with a decrease in the availability of resources.

So, the decrease in population is bad in the short term (100 years or so) but best for the long term of humanity.

I agree. I also agree with Roosh that those short-term negative effects are indeed going to be real. But the economy will eventually adjust to it and things will smooth out. I'm also far more concerned about a growing population in a world of finite resources. What will happen to the price of oil when places like India and Pakistan start to approach energy usage levels of the U.S.? These people want air-conditioning, electronics and designer goods just like everyone else. If all the impoverished people of the world were to rapidly industrialize, the cost of oil would explode. There is plenty of oil left for now, but it is getting increasingly more difficult to drill. The easy to get, light sweet crude is has already peaked.

Another point that doesn't get mentioned in these articles is the effect of abortion. Fertility rate is a bit of a misnomer. They should be saying birth rate. Many women are fertilized, but more babies are aborted in the West than born.