The problem is, as with many of the left's assumptions, is that there is nothing inherently wrong with a declining population. Sure, in the tribal days you would like your tribe to be bigger and therefore stronger than the other tribes, but since society no longer operates on the premise that "big" is always "better" the growth rate (positive or negative) of a population is moot.
Now of course I will be forced to waste the intelligent and intellectually honest people's time and provide the caveat to address the incredibly predictable claim that RAPID declines in population due to war, famine, plague,
First a slowly declining population is nothing to worry about. It doesn't mean you'll go extinct as people will always be willing to fornicate. And it doesn't mean the economy will collapse as there are less people the economy needs to support. Ergo, the focus should not be nominal economic growth, but rather the key and infinitely more important variable, GDP per capita. What are the standards of living the individual person is enjoying. Ergo, lets say Japan's economy shrinks an enormous 25% in the next 50 years. That's great if its population shrinks 50% because those people who remain just saw an enormous increase in their standards of living.
Second, logic would dictate that if a declining population is "bad" then a booming population is "good."
Like how the 2.8 billion people in China and India are all living at first world standards of living?
Like how Hispanics and Blacks have the highest birthing rates and (shock of shocks) also suffer the lowest standards of living in the US?
And let's not forget that sociologist's, SJW's, and social worker's utopian
Sorry, it's just not true, increasing populations WITHOUT commensurate or better economic growth just means increased poverty, suffering, and strife.
The truth is the left has ulterior motives for increasing the population perpetually. And it has nothing to with the unfounded concerns that "population decline is bad mmmkay?"
First, (though not leftist) companies and corporations want a perpetually increasing population so people buy more stuff. Nothing wrong with that on account purchasing and enjoying material things in life is part of goal of economics. But let's be clear, corporations and companies don't care if it's sustainable in the long run or if it's in the best financial interests of the population. This is why we have slowing economic growth, but booming debts. People are willing to borrow to pay for what they can't afford today. This not only boosts consumer spending (which profits companies), but it slows long term economic growth because said monies are NOT going into investments. Again, though not specifically leftists, this goal has nothing to do with preventing the "horrors" of a declining population, but is merely corporations trying to beat the previous quarters EPS.
Second, very much like how the private sector needs perpetual (though unsustainable) growth to increase their profits, the entire socialist economic/government system the left has installed in the US (and west) depends on future hosts for today's parasites. What I love the most is how the left tells people right to their face "Well we need future children to afford the social programs like social security and medicare!"
Shouldn't something in your brain be going off saying "Well where the hell did the old people's SS contributions go? Why is it behooved upon the youth to pay for the elderly?"
Of course, Westerners have become idiotic sheeple and just blindly agree saying, "Well yeah! We need more population growth in the future to afford all this sh!t we want to buy ourselves today!" But for those of us with half a brain we realize this is an admission and proof that the socialist's government/economic system is unsustainable and needs to parasite off of the future to make it SEEM like it's working today. Ergo, to keep up the facade they import as many new immigrants as possible with the the hope they'll be the willing slaves that will pay the taxes to support them in their old age (when in reality they don't produce anything as much as they parasite on welfare and other social programs making it laughable they will become the economic juggernaut that will make good on all those government IOU's and social welfare promises).
Third, perpetually increasing asset prices.
Since our entire retirement system is based on capital gains in the stock market, we need to, in theory, increase not only the demand for companies' goods and services (therefore driving up prices), but we need more purchasers of said assets to drive these prices up. This not only plays out in the stock market, but especially so in real estate in that more people directly drive up the rents and value of land.
But imagine if the population was declining. What would happen to asset prices?
Well stocks would tank, as would commodity prices, not to mention real estate. And since nearly every pension, trust fund, and American's 401k is dependent upon those prices why we just can't afford to have those drop now can we? So let's import a bunch of people who hate our guts and want to kills us, or at least live off of us, so our precious little government pensions and IRA accounts stay fully funded.
And finally, the blatant and painfully obvious attempt to stack the voting bloc deck with parasitic immigrants who will vote left because "welfare." Do not be fooled thinking the left is being charitable of kind. They couldn't care less about the immigrants just as they couldn't care less about the black community. They view and use these people as pawns in their political game to remain in political power, thereby avoiding any real work, suffering, or strife in life.
So the next time you have some idiot sociologist, politician, or leftist talk about the "horrors" of a declining population, please show them this little post, tell them they are a liar, and then tell them to have a cup of STFU.
Yes. Yes, indeed.ReplyDelete
So the next time you have some idiot trad con taking about your duty to have a bunch of kids to save Western culture, please show them this little post, tell them they are a liar, and then tell them to have a cup of STFU.
There are almost 8 billion people on the planet and counting. The human race does not need any more numbers. Despite that, the desperate hoards are reproducing like roaches and the productive class is dwindling and dying out rapidly. I cannot envision a future that is not a dystopian nightmare. I really can't.ReplyDelete
I don't have a crystal ball, and I'm not necessarily smarter than anyone else. However, virtually all of my friends and family believe that humanity will just keep plugging along as it always has. It won't. We are living in truly unprecedented times, by many standards; technological, societal, environmental, etc. Nuclear power and weaponry have only been around for a few generations. Humanity will end in the nuclear age. I think this shit-show we call humanity has less than 20 years left.
I know they've been saying that since the beginning of time, but c'mon. Things are really different this time. REALLY different.
Declining populations are only a problem if you are running a Ponzi scheme disguised as a retirement pension.ReplyDelete
Roosh seems to disagree in his latest post, entitled "Why Nationalism Without Natalism Will Fail." Link:ReplyDelete
Nice.You have that rare ability to look at a problem from a fresh perspective.ReplyDelete
Yes, it is a lie. However, consider the reason why we have declining populations... it's because our most intelligent women are refusing to reproduce. So declining, and dropping the IQ too.ReplyDelete
Im of the opinion that the right to personal freedom is an inalienable one that must be protected especially from foreign persecution that can happen anywhere even on our street corner - and even from our own indigenous brothers - they can be particularly hostile especially if they get the wrong idea - like you need help from persecution even from them!ReplyDelete
Of course here in Australia it is no freedom without responsibility unless free people act with the requisite level of personal responsibility against foreigners! We must all take responsibility for our actions even after work, work hard to improve our lives and thus contribute to the betterment of society especially if you get drunk. This is fundamental to the success of any democracy - but sobriety is required in the ballot box yessiree! I wont hear another word on that one!.
From a grassroots campaign point of view - the family is the core unit of society, its foundation and the best form of social welfare - even better than the dole which is just a handout to people wont wont work or will but just not now - even if you sent them to Karratha!
The problem isn't that there's too many people. The problem is that there's too many low-IQ, tribal, cousin-marryin' people with no sense of future time orientation. The reason that there's too many low-IQ, tribal, cousin-marryin' people with no sense of future time orientation,is because white people developed petroleum and high yield food crops, then handed them to the world's poor without any kind of oversight. The smart thing to do would have been to require the Third World to implement education measures and birth control before handing out the free grub, but that would have taken effort and intelligence, - something the Left has never wanted anything to do with.ReplyDelete
If all your neighbor is good at is making kids, then handing them a $1000 stipend a month will not result in their going to college/tech school, buying work clothes and landing a decent job so you can stop giving them the $1000 stipend a month. It will result in their having more kids and begging you for more money so said kids don't starve. Population reduction starts first with the West biting it's bottom lip and saying "Sorry. You're on your own. We're tapped out. We'll buy you some condoms and try to educate you so you can think and plan beyond next week, but the free lunches are over."
However, the future belongs to those that show up for it. And if only unproductive parasites are reproducing, then the future is dark indeed.ReplyDelete
Once the people who know who to make and build and run the things that make civilization happen are gone, all that's left is the 7th century.
So while humanity may well survive, everything we've achieved will be wiped away by hordes of idiots.
I love the Liberal "Let's turn our country into a hellhole tomorrow so we can rule today!" approach. So glad I'm past the point that I have fewer years ahead of me than behind me.ReplyDelete
But aren't liberals the ones who are worried about overpopulation, not conservatives? In the past, liberals were for population control , but in recent years that may have switched due to immigration concerns. The fact that conservative religions and households have many kids, while liberal households and agnostics/atheists have fewer, is evidence of the former. Consumer spending could help private sector investment, as companies reinvest profits into new technologiesReplyDelete
I agree with most comments made here. Sadly, the parasites are now out numbering and out breeding their hosts, thus leading to the inevitable elimination of useful mankind, followed by said parasites. I'm very glad to be coming to the end of my hosting duties, so that I can sit on the sidelines and watch the decline. All thanks to the progressive, liberal agenda. In the end these self-serving pricks won't really have power over anything.ReplyDelete
This. With jobs that are suitable for lower IQ people declining due to various automation techniques, why import additional low skill set people?ReplyDelete
Good jobs for people on the left side of the intelligence bell curve has been in rapid decline for decades. We have a real issue with keeping these people employed with well paying jobs.
The open borders policies by the Chamber of Commerce/Democrats/Republicans hurts people looking for work.
Its not only the non-professionals being impacted. Take a look at how Disney, Southern California Edison, etc., have been abusing the H1B visa programs by firing their IT departments and replacing them with low qualified/cheaper people from India/Pakistan. The kicker here is that the IT people were forced to train their replacements if they wanted a severance package.
Funny that I don't see the companies replacing their upper management with lower cost foreigners.
Its coming to all of us if this is not changed.
Not a bad post, but it skirts around the actual main argument for why population decline is bad. It's not about Social Security being set up as a Ponzi scheme where everyone collects more than they'd put in. Now, it might be that SS is a Ponzi scheme, but if so, it's because life expectancy has increased.ReplyDelete
The argument is, rather, that with a declining population, the ratio of pensioners to everyone else is increasing, a lower % of the population is working to support everyone. It doesn't matter how much the old folks paid into SS and thus deferred consumption when they were young, that money isn't going to magically turn into the goods and services needed to support them. It's ultimately the labor of those of working age that does, and if they are few in number, lots of cashed-out SS contributions are going to chase fewer goods and services. Inflation will ensue.
A compelling conservative take on population decline is David Goldman's How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too). I can't recall if he did hand-wringing about the business issues. He most certainly spent time on how populations lose the will to live due to diminishing religion in their lives.ReplyDelete
Has anybody read it? Thoughts?
Still waiting for that deck of cards....ReplyDelete
Printing money as debt will quickly eat away at the benefits of a declining population by robbing everyone of wealthReplyDelete
bluecatclub, I wouldn't recommend anything written by David "Spengler" Goldman to anyone. All he does is look at contemporary demographic trends, extrapolates with abandon, and forces the resulting projections into a self-congratulatory narrative of civilizational will to power. While beig utterly clueless about the existing scholarly work on long-term demographical development, which is entirely adequate in explaining everything he attempts to explain:ReplyDelete