1
2

Red Pill TheoryFeminism and Population Control (self.TheRedPill)

akaipill が 投稿

As we know, feminism is fertility negative. All developed nations that have been exposed to feminism have declining birth rates.

I can't find the quote, but a UN chief was trying to spread feminism for the purpose of declining the birth rates in African countries, where the birth rates are very, very high right now.

Many economists believe that constant population growth is good for a healthy economy. Isn't this just a giant ponzi scheme? We're faced with increasing automation and a long lived populace.

Should we just 'ride the tiger'?

全 3 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]themanwhosaid 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Meh, it depends how quickly the population is declining. Europe has some issues to resolve no doubt about that. Keep in mind you don't want to end up like China or India because at the end of the day you only have so many resources. Yet on the flip side more people can prove to be desirable as well, larger workforce, more minds to innovate, need for manual labor ect.

Everyone is talking about how we will run out of resources, well that may be true form our relative perspective at this point in time but in the future we could possibly innovate to become more efficient. For instance food is a big question but I remember seeing on the news that they were able to grow a hamburger in a petri dish. Things like that could solve our hunger problem and/or we could just utilize our food more efficiently. Keep in mind we waste a lot of it.

In seventeenth and eighteenth century England they thought they were having trouble feeding the population (and they were) but they only had roughly four million people. Then technological improvements came along and they are now able to sustain more people.

Many economists believe that constant population growth is good for a healthy economy. Isn't this just a giant ponzi scheme? We're faced with increasing automation and a long lived populace.

Well it's not always growth more so the ability for the population to at least replace itself. Companies will need to replace white collar workers as well and if they can't do that then they might really find themselves in some trouble.

In a capitalist economy growth is paramount, and in order to grow such an economy a country does need people to create demand. However in the future we may not be living in 100% capitalist economies (we aren't really now). Or the capitalism of tomorrow may look a lot different form the capitalism of today.

Personally if the population steadily declines at least here in the US that wouldn't be such a bad thing. If we can consolidate our resources into fewer people what they have to bring to the table may yield more in the long run anyway. Simply having a lot of people will not guarantee economic growth. China/India in the twentieth century and Czarist Russia are good examples of this.

On a side note: If there are less children, then feminists may not have as many opportunities to utilize the state to abuse the family court system. This could very well help to undermine them.

[–]Elodrian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I should preface my remarks by stating I am not an economist or a social scientist. The graphs that I find most instructive for understanding population dynamics are of the "population pyramid" variety. If you can find one that is animated year on year, the effect is quite striking. Recent years will show the pig-in-the-python of the Baby Boomers all creeping steadily towards a retirement armageddon, with a comparatively narrow cohort of workers following in their wake to pay for that retirement. It seems to me that in an ideal society, an animated population pyramid graph would not move. You have a stable population, zero net growth, with very steep sides through ages 1-75 (low infant mortality/early death), followed by a rapid tapering to zero between 75-90.

The notion that a growing population is good for the economy might be true, but it is also unsustainable. If you need a growing economy to prop up a bankrupted retirement system, that's not a good thing. The retirement age needs to be calibrated in a sustainable fashion. My grandmother worked from age 17 - age 60. 43 years. She has since been retired for a further 33 years (and counting). If this is a typical case, it means that every year of productive work a person performs needs to pay for that year of their life, plus store up enough value for ~250 days of retirement after a 40 year appreciation period.

An amateur's back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me that (overly simplified with constant income and cost of living), if a person works from age 20 to age 60, and sets aside slightly less than 10% of their income, if that money appreciates at 5% per year compounded annually, they will be able to sustain a retirement until age 90. At that point, they will have consumed everything they produced. Now, I pay into a pension plan, I pay into the Canada Pension Plan, and I set aside 10% of my gross income each month for investment. I think I'm being responsible. I don't think I'm a typical Canadian in this regard. We are forced to have a growing population to create a growing economy to pay for people who didn't take responsibility for themselves.

[–]ShitfacedBatman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's about the money. Population control was just an unintended consequence.

Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO.