dont_log_me_out
No bio...
User ID: 686
In group out group bias could explain it although I do not suggest that is the definite answer.
You are an outsider and conservative in another country. You see your community spread and grow. Feels good.
You are in your own country, you are already surrounded at all times by your own. You will be fine with the natural decline in fertility rate within your own country.
Other alternative would be that you primarily see that population boom among refugee groups not the wealthy immigrants from those countries which matches income relation to fertility.
In their own country with a larger population those conservative groups are a minority of the population as part of total, in a rich country with a far smaller population, they have a larger impact over the total.
3rd theory would seem more realistic as per my experience. In India there is a concept about how people who went abroad in the 70's or 80's appear to be more conservative than those that stayed in India from that time period. This is theorized to be primarily due to people retaining the culture they left with to another country, so they never had any natural changes in their cultural practices that they would have otherwise had over the years if they had remained in their own country.
So you have a cultural divergence. The Middle Eastern immigrant in the middle east is living according to the cultural values of the middle east now. The middle easterner in Europe is living according to the middle eastern values of whatever point in time they left which is their last true reference point.
Again, all hypothesis, it could be any of these or none of these or a combination.
I think the decline in fertility below 2.1 (replacement rate) can be directly linked to modern day feminism and women's rights. However, what I have noticed is that rich female friendly nations do far better in terms of birth rate than rich conservative strict gender role societies.
For example - France has a fertility rate around 1.8. 1.7 for the US. Germany 1.4.
In the east with more strict gender norms the rich societies however have far more abysmal fertility rates - Japan 1.3, South Korea 0.8, Taiwan 1.1, Singapore 1.2.
Now one may argue that the decline in fertility rate is not due to feminism and women's emancipation but rather due to improvements in wealth of society. However, a counterpoint to this is that faster modernizing societies; in terms of becoming more feminist, tend to have declining fertility rates even when not wealthy nations.
Example- Nepal - 1.8, India - 2.0-2.1.
Based on the above data I would posit that feminist societies result in fertility rates declining to below replacement rates, but once a country is wealthy it is far worse for the population to remain conservative than for it to be a feminist nation due to the fact that conservative rich nations do far worse on population growth than feminist nations.
Conclusion - modern feminism doomed/ saved human civilization to constant steady population decline and that's the best case scenario for population demographics from all the options currently available.
Thoughts?
That's pretty much arguing that your thoughts have no influence on your actions and I disagree with that notion. Otherwise any mental abuse isn't real abuse.
Exactly. You get it.
Can you give me the standard that defines a high quality contribution? Thank you.
Doesn't have to be conspirational. You may want less jews for the same reason you might want less white men on a board representing a diverse city, or more support programs for underprivileged black youth. Sometimes being from the same ethnic group results in similar experiences which may blind one to the experiences of other groups.
LOTR is a fantasy genre, most of those thin women movies are action movies or thriller movies. I would argue that one requires a higher standard of realism than the other.
The sexuality and sexual experiences of our children is one of those few times where a clear bias exists within each and everyone of us and if the science gave us an answer the was counter to that bias then we would deny and burn down the science department. That is to say, it's one of the few dark spaces in scientific discourse where the science becomes irrelevant by the end of the day due to extreme public blowback.
So honestly by the end of the day all I can say on the subject is that you will almost likely never get a satisfactory discussion on the subject matter if you go against the current acceptable standard at any point in history, and arguing for or against even neutrally is not worth the social status loss risk of doing so.
And just to further clarify, my statements here are not from a they don't want to hear they are wrong about 16 being too young position, rather my lack of joy is from a I hate science having dark no go spaces when it clashes against social beliefs and comfort zones.
Utilitarian systems or practice styles seem to survive the longest in a competitive environment so even with no active intent that's what we end up with?
You are obviously uneducated too but I do not see how that is relevant to our conversation now. ( I jest dramanaut. )
If feminism misguided then why South Korea collapsing first?
My thoughts are that feminism began as a misguided quest to treat women like men
Disagree unless you mean be given the same basic rights as men. Then the same financial and social freedoms as men. Acting like men was a very 2010's thing.
then was adopted by bitter harridans and predatory men who realized the sexual revolution and increasing destruction of traditional mindsets would secure them steady supplies of consequence-free young pussy
Disagree. 1960's feminism had a whimsical quality to it which would have genuinely attracted many followers who wanted to see the world be a nicer place.
at the expense of the stability and health of our previous culture (a boon for the former).
There weren't enough harridans in that time period. Most incels actually came to be in recent decades only.
The goal of feminism is to let women be the type of men they've always hated. It's no surprise this suffocates fertility.
That appears to have been the trend of only the newest wave of feminism.
I believe you are making the mistake of taking current day attitudes and extending them through previous historical time periods to come to conclusions as to what they were about.
Because the show keeps on selling.
Hey I never said I was an exception to the rule, i am just further proof of the rule being true.
Eh. If all the Mohammed's behave culturally french and are 3rd generation french citizens then they are french. Naming conventions live on far longer than all other cultural habits. Just look at the surname Smith for example.
then I would argue that we should accept both black elves and skinny women in our lives.
no but nobody can spend their whole lives with their thoughts and opinions about someone desynched from how they treat them there will be leaks.
Could you tell me what is HBD?
Thank you for the encouragement.
Mocking the mentally ill or looking down on everyone around you.
more than 10%. I assume if you have more than 10% sociopaths in your society then its likely gonna collapse.
I may have come from means I come from. I believe that's a colloquial phrase?
I did familiarize myself with them, do you expect a baby to walk perfectly with its first step because you showed it a diagram and gif of how to walk?
last line acknowledged.
Friends with Rick, bad by associating with terrible people.
No, I clearly mentioned wanting less whites on a board how have you equated that with affirmative action for whites?
would you expect Mohamed to be #19 for French boys in 2019?
I mean by 19th ranked name for all you know you are on the name used by 1% or 0.1%. That honestly doesn't sound so bad.
Assuming the most extreme case of all names being equally popular, Mohammad would be the name of 5.2% of men. Still a vast minority.
Also all the refugees Europe took.
The upper classes irrespective of cultural background tend to integrate better. Maybe just stop taking in poor people.
Disagree with your final point. America's greatest export of the past century has been it's culture. Name one country without pizza or superman. ( You may argue that Pizza isn't American and I would reply exactly, their cultural propagation is so extreme we even give the Americans claim of non-American western inventions. )
Agreed with everything you said in first para. Cheap birth control makes sense, but birth control is available to every single one of these countries yet they have different fertility rates so birth control isn't the only thing. I don't know how your statement about more global connectivity explains fertility decline. More peaceful world more people can leave their homes harder to find mates in a different geographical environment makes sense. However, any of your points that work are an additional reason for fertility decline but in no way state that feminist ideology is not a part of this population decline.
No what I am trying to say is that for life to continue from its personal individual reference point it should value itself more than any other life around it. The moment that is not the case the likelihood of death increases.
I said it. Independent thought.
More options
Context Copy link