Western birthrates

Politics International Politics
1

Given that overpopulation is an obvious problem, do.
A new thread though, please.[/quote]

Given that Western societies, once you take out immigration, have negative growth rates, over-population is not a problem. There are two problems. The first is that liberalism has produced certain expectations with regard to government services, yet with an ageing population, it will need to figure out a new way to continue to provide such services and in a sustainable way. I think that’s possible. However, at the end of the day, there may very well be an over-population problem on the planet, and it is a “we or they” problem. The liberal solution might be to go quietly into the pages of history, but the virile solution would be to be on the winning side of history. The harsh reality of that is that the other guy gets a smaller piece of the pie or none at all. If you add up all the people in developed nations, the world could support them. Sorry, but fuck the developing world. In this respect, I’m a social Darwinian all the way.

The second is that the very existential natures of many Western societies and their cherished institutions are under immense pressure. Liberalism is not very good at defending itself in this respect. At present demographic projections, some of the most liberal societies will become decidedly less so in coming decades, either as they are taken over or as a response/defence to being taken over. It’s only a matter of years before we see a massive shift to conservative politics in Europe, if not to the outright neo-right.

2

I’m just going to chime in here if you don’t mind!

Social Darwinism: Easy to be a Social Darwinist if you are rich, harder if you are poor. And in any case, you can say “fuck the developing world” but then they’ll just say “fuck you back at ya” some other time. My point is, it’s better to have friends than enemies. If you want the developing world (for example, Brazil, Russia, India, China [BRIC]) to go along on climate change, food safety, oil prices etc, then “fuck you” isn’t a great place to start. Remember: Darwinism was about competition between species. We are all the same species, so to a large extent need to find a global solution to problems.

Liberalism: Liberalism is essentially kindness, and like kindness it’s much easier to manifest when you are comfortable. However, it is more noble when practised under duress.

Aging: As the population ages, there will indeed be greater demands put on the health care budget. The temptation might be to “cut the oldies loose to pay their own way” as they cost too much and are going to die soon anyway. But don’t forget that as the population ages, so too does the voter base. Aging voters aren’t going to vote for policies that are against their own interests.

3

[quote=“BigJohn”]I’m just going to chime in here if you don’t mind!

Social Darwinism: Easy to be a Social Darwinist if you are rich, harder if you are poor. And in any case, you can say “fuck the developing world” but then they’ll just say “fuck you back at ya” some other time. My point is, it’s better to have friends than enemies. If you want the developing world (for example, Brazil, Russia, India, China [BRIC]) to go along on climate change, food safety, oil prices etc, then “fuck you” isn’t a great place to start. Remember: Darwinism was about competition between species. We are all the same species, so to a large extent need to find a global solution to problems.[/quote]

There’s competition within species, right down to between tribes, clans, and even family units.

Anyway, the rest of the world already is saying “fuck you” to the West. If the West thinks otherwise, it’s naive. Whether we’re talking about pirating brand label clothing or software or we’re talking about stopping them polluting, there are only a couple of ways for the West to stop this happening. The first is to grease their palms with silver. The second is to force them in some other way. In neither case would/is the developing world doing something for the greater good.

Furthermore, we already do practise a “fuck you” attitude to the third world, or most of us do. I simply own up to it. The last I heard, read or saw, people were still buying products made under dubious conditions in countries with dubious governments, environmental records, etc. How many people out there are really buying Fair Trade and the like at every turn?

Whether we like it or not, there have always been, and will always be, winners and losers.

No, liberalism is two things. It’s either modern liberalism, which is about promoting avoiding the consequences of actions (which is not always kind in the long run, but gets votes in the short to medium term); or it’s classical liberalism which is about freedom. Being free to screw up (or succeed on the other hand) may be a kind of tough love, but it’s not really kindness in the sense that I think you mean.

This is a huge problem, and I’m not sure I see a way out of it. States have grown so big in the West and so has the dependency upon them. Weaning people off that is a lot harder than making them dependent in the first place.

4

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Given that Western societies, once you take out immigration, have negative growth rates, over-population is not a problem.[/quote] We’re already over-populated. A negative growth rate merely means that we’re on the path to a correction.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]There are two problems. The first is that liberalism has produced certain expectations with regard to government services, yet with an ageing population, it will need to figure out a new way to continue to provide such services and in a sustainable way. I think that’s possible.[/quote]That is a serious problem.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”] However, at the end of the day, there may very well be an over-population problem on the planet, and it is a “we or they” problem. The liberal solution might be to go quietly into the pages of history, but the virile solution would be to be on the winning side of history. The harsh reality of that is that the other guy gets a smaller piece of the pie or none at all. If you add up all the people in developed nations, the world could support them. Sorry, but fuck the developing world. In this respect, I’m a social Darwinian all the way.[/quote]That’s silly for a number of reasons. For one, the virile solution is not on the winning side of recent history. The correlation between high population, environmental degradation, and political instability is pretty clear; A healthy environment and political order are preconditions to growing the pie. And a larger population does not provide a bulwark against a technologically/ politically/ militarily superior power. If it did, the Palestinians would have long ago overrun Israel, China wouldn’t have been slapped silly by Japan.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]The second is that the very existential natures of many Western societies and their cherished institutions are under immense pressure. Liberalism is not very good at defending itself in this respect. [/quote]In what respect? If you mean militarily, well, democratic states go to war more frequently than non-democratic states, but do so against non-democratic states, with greater ferocity and probability of success.

Politically, the liberal-democratic state proved itself fantastically successful in the 20th C, spreading around the globe. Very, very few regimes – no matter how retrograde – fail to attempt to justify their authority without reference to liberal-democratic principles and ideals.

Culturally? Inclusive, multinational states face different challenges but have proven to be more successful the more inclusive they are.

5

Talking about plummeting birth rates. Do you know much about Mexico? in the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s (like twenty five years), there was a huge baby boom because Mexico was quite a stable and successful country during its High Modernist period. Until education reform, land reform, contraception and such kicked in the birth rate was incredibly high 6.5 births per mother. in the past thirty years it has dropped down to 2.?? something births per mother. Why is this interesting? Because one of the reasons for all the migration to the US was the lack of resources in Mexico for such a massive boom. Coupled with NAFTA, an entire generation of Mexicans came to the us from 1990 to 2005. But now, because of the recession, the anti-immigration policies of several states and the end of the Boom, the migration to the US has slowed to a trickle. (I really love the Anti-Immigration Policies because they’re kicking in AFTER the Boom has already come and gone. Way to close the barn door AFTER the horse got out.)

I bring this up because it’s part of the overall story of Globalization. We are witnessing one of the largest mass migrations in World History as billions of people move from the South to the North. (Or from America to Taiwan, as the case may be ;p ) I think the declining Western Birthrate is very interesting and, as it is raw numbers, cannot be assigned a value of Good or Bad. What is my base point here is that the declining Western Birthrate may not be that bad a thing because the less babies we have, the smarter more educated we tend to be (I know my causation is reversed.)

I’m interested in your comments, but I realize that we should probably not hijack this thread with a demographics discussion. Most people will flee!

6

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Anyway, the rest of the world already is saying “fuck you” to the West. If the West thinks otherwise, it’s naive. [/quote]Silly statement. The rest of the world wants to enjoy Western affluence. Much of the world spent the last 8 years saying “No thanks” to the US, leaving Bush’s ridiculous policies hanging out to dry… and are now deliriously happy that there will be a real partner in Washington.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]No, liberalism is two things. It’s either modern liberalism, which is about promoting avoiding the consequences of actions [/quote]Straw man.

7

Guy In Taiwan: Of course there is a lot of competition within species. My point is that we may have a better chance of surviving as a species - or we in the West may even be better off - by cooperating.

That’s a load of totally unsubstantiated shite man! So gay rights and universal health care are about avoiding the consequences of actions! How is that? And, according to your definition, Dubya and Cheney’s Iraq policy was built on a firm foundation of liberalism!

What I meant by kindness is perhaps better expressed as tolerance and inclusiveness. I will accept you as who you are and try to help you, not judge you for being weak and say “you fucked up or had bad luck so you can rot.”

The size of the state is only an ideological issue. Having health care for “losers” as you put it is the only Christian thing to do and I’m amzed that a nation as Christian as the US would not see that. Jesus was not a Social Darwinist! People in wheelchairs are “losers” too in a Darwinian way. Should we not bother to pay for wheelchair ramps in schools because some people are winners and some aren’t? Should we euthanize the inferior babies at birth, so as to not waste resources and pollute the gene pool? Mercy also is a Christian principle, a part of kindness, and a key element to modern liberal policy with regards to health care, human rights, etc.

Anyway, even if you don’t have to deal with “losers” in your gated mental community, they still exist. How is it useful to a nation to have a permanent underclass that feels disenfranchised? Plus, there’s a fairness dimension here: A lot of the winners are thieving corrupt rat bastards, and many of the losers just had bad luck. Hence, we can’t build a system that only rewards performance if we value fairness.

8

If you add up all the people in developed nations, you get less than a billion people on the planet. The planet can support that many people. Other people may be over-populated, but we’re not.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]There are two problems. The first is that liberalism has produced certain expectations with regard to government services, yet with an ageing population, it will need to figure out a new way to continue to provide such services and in a sustainable way. I think that’s possible.[/quote]That is a serious problem.

I’m not talking about expanding indefinitely. I’m talking about at least maintaining population levels. Fertility rates have to be about 2.1 children per adult female for that. I think the E.U. average is 1.5 off the top of my head. Some countries fare better, some fare worse. Overall, the developed world is not reaching replacement levels by a long shot. It’s quite possible for us to maintain our population levels (or increase them modestly) and maintain the environment so long as we set up good and sensible resource management practices.

You’re also missing my point about the existential threat. The problems Israel (and any other developed nation) ultimately face have nothing to do with war. The simple fact is that in Israel, every group is rapidly out-breeding Jews, and moderate Jews specifically. This is echoed in the Netherlands and many other parts of Europe. No one has to go out there and fight the status quo because within a couple of generations they will be the status quo. It’s merely a waiting game.

Again, I don’t mean militarily. I mean that, as Mark Steyn points out, once a society reaches a critical mass of Muslims, for instance, the nature of that society changes. Are you suggesting that if The Netherlands reached that critical mass (which is far less than 50% in electoral terms) that it can survive in its present ultra-liberal incarnation?

It was quite touch and go for liberal-democracy in the 20th century, and I’d say very few nations really qualify for that. I’d say the percentage of nations that have successfully been liberal-democracies continuously over the past fifty years would be less than 25% of countries. Plenty of places may couch themselves in the language of liberal-democracies, but is anyone under any pretences about Zimbabwe for instance?

There is the great liberal mistake though, which is the flip-side of a similar one made by neo-cons. Not everyone does want to be like us. They may move to some Western nation to escape persecution, or for better economic opportunities. However, not all embrace all of even many at all of the social values of the societies they move to. You wouldn’t get people trying to set up Sharia Law banking systems or systems of justice otherwise. One of the tenets of the legal system inheritted by the English-speaking world is that it is supposedly not pluralistic. There’s one system of laws for everyone. Of course, some who want Sharia Law may ultimately want that to be the single system, but in the meantime, they want a dualistic system.

9

Talking about plummeting birth rates. Do you know much about Mexico? in the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s (like twenty five years), there was a huge baby boom because Mexico was quite a stable and successful country during its High Modernist period. Until education reform, land reform, contraception and such kicked in the birth rate was incredibly high 6.5 births per mother. in the past thirty years it has dropped down to 2.?? something births per mother. Why is this interesting? Because one of the reasons for all the migration to the US was the lack of resources in Mexico for such a massive boom. Coupled with NAFTA, an entire generation of Mexicans came to the us from 1990 to 2005. But now, because of the recession, the anti-immigration policies of several states and the end of the Boom, the migration to the US has slowed to a trickle. (I really love the Anti-Immigration Policies because they’re kicking in AFTER the Boom has already come and gone. Way to close the barn door AFTER the horse got out.)

I bring this up because it’s part of the overall story of Globalization. We are witnessing one of the largest mass migrations in World History as billions of people move from the South to the North. (Or from America to Taiwan, as the case may be ;p ) I think the declining Western Birthrate is very interesting and, as it is raw numbers, cannot be assigned a value of Good or Bad. What is my base point here is that the declining Western Birthrate may not be that bad a thing because the less babies we have, the smarter more educated we tend to be (I know my causation is reversed.)

I’m interested in your comments, but I realize that we should probably not hijack this thread with a demographics discussion. Most people will flee![/quote]

Jack: I’m not advocating a really high birthrate. I’m merely advocating replacement levels, or thereabouts. I’m also not anti-immigration, per se.

I’m not really concerned about immigration in the New World because of the nature of the immigration and the way it’s carried out. Generally speaking, people get integrated into a society fairly well when 1) that society respects itself (which is partly reflected in its willingness not to compromise its cultural value systems and also to reproduce a new generation), 2) the two groups are not too different, 3) the influx is not too great (and this includes their birth rates). This is a real problem in Europe, much more so than in other parts of the world for all three of the above.

10

Firstly, there’s a big difference between the rest of the world wanting to buy iPods and listening to hip hop on them and the rest of the world wanting to adopt a whole lot of Western attitudes towards women, homosexuals, freedom of speech, etc. That the rest of the world wants the former seems fairly obvious. That it wants the latter is not so obvious. For every Taiwan we have a China, and then some.

Not at all. What is welfare other than two things: saying “we’ll pay you for poor economic decisions” and a way to thus secure a voting bloc?

11

If you add up all the people in developed nations, you get less than a billion people on the planet. The planet can support that many people. Other people may be over-populated, but we’re not.[/quote]

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]You’re also missing my point about the existential threat. The problems Israel (and any other developed nation) ultimately face have nothing to do with war. The simple fact is that in Israel, every group is rapidly out-breeding Jews, and moderate Jews specifically. This is echoed in the Netherlands and many other parts of Europe.
[…]
Again, I don’t mean militarily. I mean that, as Mark Steyn points out, once a society reaches a critical mass of Muslims, for instance, the nature of that society changes. [/quote]
Ahh… I see. My mistake… I took you seriously.

:cluck:

12

I disagree. The planet has a limited number of resources. There isn’t enough of everything to go around. It’s as simple as that. We’ve made a big mistake letting China get as powerful as it is, amongst other places. It’s going to have massive leverage over the West (it already does), and it’s going to (as it should) use that power ruthlessly.

At what point would gay rights not be part of a classical liberal agenda as well as a modern liberal agenda? I don’t think they differ in that respect.

As for universal healthcare, sure, but how do you fund it? This is always the problem. Maybe we’d like people to have a whole lot of stuff too, but how do you fund it? Most of the developed world is going to run into massive funding problems very soon with social security, healthcare and other social programs.

Regarding Iraq, indeed. I’m no fan of the neo-cons. Any within the “right” who believe the Bush government was pro-small government really have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

This is the whole problem. If no one is ever judged for fucking up, then what incentive is there for not fucking up? Before you ask, yes, I think all those fuckers on Wall Street should have been hung out to dry, as should those who invested with them.

Who said (classical) liberalism really has anything to do with Christianity? I certainly don’t want any state run along Christian principles! That’s my whole problem with the state. Nietzsche said something about 19th Century English socialists wanting to replace the Church with more of the same. The same applies to the modern liberal. It’s all slave morality.

Firstly, I’m not saying it is useful to have a permanent underclass, but welfare (and many other liberal ideas) adds to that precisely because it removes the incentive to be anything else but that. It also secures more votes for the political class. Many of the winners are indeed thieving, corrupt bastards. Firstly, in one sense, good on them if they get away with it. In another sense, maybe I should have worked harder or been more ruthless myself to get in their position not mine. Regarding luck, I don’t believe in the concept. Finally, I don’t entirely believe in fairness. In one sense, like everyone in the West, it’s been beaten into me from a young age, so it’s hard for me to let go of the fantasy. In another sense, I realise it is a fantasy. The world isn’t fair and never will be.

13

If you add up all the people in developed nations, you get less than a billion people on the planet. The planet can support that many people. Other people may be over-populated, but we’re not.[/quote]

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]You’re also missing my point about the existential threat. The problems Israel (and any other developed nation) ultimately face have nothing to do with war. The simple fact is that in Israel, every group is rapidly out-breeding Jews, and moderate Jews specifically. This is echoed in the Netherlands and many other parts of Europe.
[…]
Again, I don’t mean militarily. I mean that, as Mark Steyn points out, once a society reaches a critical mass of Muslims, for instance, the nature of that society changes. [/quote]
Ahh… I see. My mistake… I took you seriously.

:cluck:[/quote]

Okay, great. Instead of actually debating any of the points I wrote, that’s what you could muster.

I differ greatly on many points with many of the other so-called conservatives on this site, but the recurring theme is that when someone departs from the liberal status quo, one can almost guarantee that within one or two pages at most, someone (including moderators) will resort to name-calling. Fantastic.

14

Oh, I could muster a whole lot better than that, but as it’s already clear that your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, what’s the point?

Reconcile that with your assertion that (straw man) liberals are unwilling to defend liberal institutions.

15

Clearly what we need are more wars- funded by rich nations and fought by poor nations for cash.

End of subject.
:slight_smile:

16

[quote]Oh, I could muster a whole lot better than that, but as it’s already clear that your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, what’s the point?

Reconcile that with your assertion that (straw man) liberals are unwilling to defend liberal institutions.[/quote]

I do not think that the poster’s response warrants this kind of a non-answer. Clearly, every nation with a large Muslim population is worried. Why? Because they are racist? or because in each and every one of these societies, a certain amount of destabilization has occurred. As to liberals willing to defend liberal institutions… can you provide some examples… surely there must be so many to choose from that this will be quite easy for you.

17

We already have those, and they’re just not working well enough. what we could REALLY do with is a half-way decent bird flu, especially one that’s going to attack the most densely populated areas, and particularly those with the highest birth rates. some kind of sexually transmitted disease that’s only lethal during childbirth? :whistle:

18

Baxter just got caught mixing H5N1 with a normal human flu virus:

google.com/hostednews/canadi … pnu5OIby9w

They shipped it to labs in 18 countries.

Just a mistake of course and the news buried in back-page paragraphs of obscure newspapers. Maybe you and the OP could get a job with Baxter, Urodacus and make your dreams come true.

19

[quote=“dantesolieri”]I do not think that the poster’s response warrants this kind of a non-answer. Clearly, every nation with a large Muslim population is worried. Why? Because they are racist? or because in each and every one of these societies, a certain amount of destabilization has occurred. As to liberals willing to defend liberal institutions… can you provide some examples… surely there must be so many to choose from that this will be quite easy for you.[/quote]Had the argument over Muslim populations many times in the past. You’re welcome to do a search and dig up those threads if you wish.

As to why I’m personally filing GuyInTaiwan under ‘Don’t Even Bother’: advocating social darwinism, straw man arguments, politics reduced to breeding… phttttt I know it’s only the internet, but even so, it’s not worth my time. I’d learn more looking at photos of kittens on flickr.

20

I am not sure that he was advocating social Darwinism. I think that his point was that demographics do matter as nation states are composed of populations that need to have a common purpose/identity. The fact is that there is civil war and unrest in Bosnia, Lebanon, Cyprus, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, southern Russian republics, Xinjiang, Thailand and that it is Muslim-based. That is not to say this type of problem does not exist in any other society.

The problem is that many Western nations are finding that their Muslim populations are not integrating. While this is also true of the Hispanic population in the US, the difference is that the indoctrination of intolerance and violence is much more widespread among Muslims. This is a simple fact that any search of any given day’s news will reveal. What happens when a Western society grants women constitutional rights to equality but the Muslim religion forbids it. Can you base on society on different rights for different segments of the population and should you? This is not only an issue with Muslims but given the levels of violence involved, it certainly has national policy advisors worried. To pretend that this is not the case may give you a frisson of moral superiority but the problem remains and a blaket of political correctness regarding discussion of the subject is not an effective answer.

Now, you may have discussed this before and are wearied by the subject. That is an effective and appropriate answer but that is not how you approach answering the previous poster. I think that you owe him an apology.