Correct for humanity as a whole, but incorrect for subpopulations. E.g. South Koreans probably want to continue to exist, and this is not equivalent to the landmass of South Korea being populated.
> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction. Maybe it’s a bad idea to to look at the current birth rate anf extrapolate it in the future like it’s a constant number.
A good point. But one could also look at an ailing elephant, and say it need not worry about dying, because look, it is so much larger than a healthy kitten. Yet in a year, the elephant will be a skeleton, and the kitten will be a healthy cat. It all depends how they will handle the population drop - in a controlled way, gently reducing their numbers, or will it trigger a crisis, they let 52 million Chinese into their country, and slowly disappear as a distinct people.
> The culture? That already dies through changes in time.
By this logic a child dying or growing up is no different - both are "deaths through change". Of course the culture that Korea's culture will evolve into is much different than how Hungarian or Nigerian culture will evolve.
> The South Korean gen? Humans are pretty similar regarding their genes.
Even in a place as small and inter-connected as Europe, people have differentiated genes [1]. Globally, especially with geographic barriers, the diversity is even greater [2]. I find it extremely callous to so casually say Korean genetic distinctions aren't worth preserving, or that Koreans are interchangeable with any other people.
Like your first link showed:
There is a greater diversity between African countries than any African country to Europe.
You could break down those differences down to the village level but it’s a useless distinction and more likely the base useless racism and nationalism.
By that logic every single humans death is a loss of genetic diversity.
And thanks to international travel and migration this differences already get mixed up.
> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction.
Countries aren't species, they are social constructs; they are maintained memetically, not genetically. There is no shortage of humans to assure that survival of countries that pay sufficient effort to their memetic continuity.
With present population trends, in a few centuries it might be time to be concerned about birthrates if they don't adjust thermostatically to changed global population conditions, but there is certainly no imminent threat from low birthrates.
The people shouting about low birth rates don't actually care about low birth rates.
They are using concern about low birth rates to get people riled up and trojan horse bigotry into a mainstream message to gain a base of people who will support their efforts to enforce their values on others.
IF there's a low birth rate crisis leading to a lack of workers THEN you can justify child labor
IF there's a low birth rate crisis it's because of women and THEN you can justify restricting women's rights
IF there's a low birth rate crisis "we all know what that means" THEN you can talk about replacement theory without talking about it
IF there's a low birth rate crisis THEN you can propose all manner of ludicrous things that are otherwise socially unacceptable
IF there's a low birth rate crisis THEN you can distract people from the other shit you're doing
The easiest way to prove that the people shouting about a low birth rate crisis don't actually care about birth rates is to compile a list of their solutions to the "crisis".
Are the solutions the subsidizing of childcare and healthcare or lower taxes?
Are the solutions supporting young families or punishing and demonizing women who choose not to be mothers?
The only thing the people shouting about low birth rates care about is money.
That's it. That's all.
Money.
"Civilization is going to collapse unless you elect someone who will fix the low birthrate crisis and the best solution is eliminating the capital gains tax so while you're angry and panicking please vote for this guy over here."
There is indeed some plain old bigotry and sexism at the margins but on the whole it's about money.
Hungary's fertility rate was 1.2-1.3 from 2000 to 2011, and then jumped to ~1.5 [1]. Whether that is because of this policy is up for debate.
But that doesn't matter - I responded to your claim that they don't actually care about birthrate, because they don't fund families. But they do fund families, hinting that they probably do care about the birthrate, regardless of if their efforts are successful.
It takes very motivated thinking to say that, because a solution doesn't work, those that tried the solution don't care about the problem.
It's possible politicians in Hungary both care about low birth rates, are doing something that has an effect, yet have other motives they give a higher priority.
Why only tax breaks? That won't help if the poor already pay little or nothing in taxes and still lack childcare.
It's not only tax breaks - the loans are government loans (up to $36,000) that get fully forgiven after 3 children are equivalent to a cash payment.
And the poor pay 18% tax [1], so they would also benefit from a tax break. Though the poor aren't the only target of that program, so even if they get less help from it, it doesn't follow that politicians don't care about birthrates.
> It's possible politicians in Hungary both care about low birth rates, are doing something that has an effect, yet have other motives they give a higher priority.
I mean, what am I supposed to say to this? First of all, we're not talking just about politicians - voters seemingly care about this, and are getting what they want, at least partly. As for the hearts of politicians - who knows? Maybe? We're getting into unfalsifiable territory here. At a minimum, the politicians themselves are Hungarians - presumably they care about the survival of their people, at least some of them, at least a little? At the very least the initial post's simplistic they-don't-care-because-they-don't-fund-it logic has been disproven, at least for Hungary.
People do genuinely care about low birth rates. Nobody wants to use child labour, where do you even come up with this rubbish? Bigotry? What does it have to do with bigotry?
This one is particularly funny:
>IF there's a low birth rate crisis "we all know what that means" THEN you can talk about replacement theory without talking about it
For those that don't know, "replacement theory" is what the far left calls the idea that as the native population falls below replacement rate, immigration will be used to replace natives to keep up a sufficiently large workforce.
The far left assures us that this is a racist conspiracy theory and no such thing is going to happen.
At exactly the same time they say "we can't reduce migration, we have an aging population". That is not replacement theory because......? Uh?? It is different?!
>Are the solutions the subsidizing of childcare and healthcare or lower taxes?
I personally do not see how encouraging people to separate from their children at an early age so they can work would be a good idea. I'm not proposing mothers should necessarily stay home until their kids go to school but they should probably stay home for the first couple of years. There is a lot of evidence that that is beneficial for the child.
I would rather see tax credits for families with children, and much better quality institutions.
Currently, schools are just bad. They are full of ideological teachers more concerned about their unions than their pupils. They are all of a single ideological view on every issue. The results they produce year after year are getting worse. In the same time period that every other product and service available has improved by leaps and bounds, education has got worse.
So I say replace the schools and the teachers, and people will be more willing to have kids, knowing they won't be sending them off to be bullied and taught fuck all.
This is a genuinely a conservative cause in the US. Florida is currently in the news for working to weaken protections, but people have championed it across the country.
It's a conservative cause the same way that tightening IP laws and bank bailouts are a liberal cause - something politicians do regardless of what their voters want. I hang around a few conservative forums, and have seen zero (literal zero, not hyperbole) child labor advocacy.
It's possible some exists, the way that any cause will have some proponents, but not nearly enough to be the reason laws are getting changed, especially while other far more strongly championed causes get ignored. It's corporations buying laws, and (in this case conservative) voters getting the blame.
It was named after lifelong republican Sonny Bono and support was so great that it passed with unanimous consent in the republican majority senate and by voice vote in the republican majority house.
You're actually going to make me defend the statement "politicians don't perfectly represent the will of their voters" because I chose a few bad examples? Fine.
Clinton signed the DMCA, and it passed the senate unanimously - does that mean both liberal and conservatives agree that bypassing DRM should be criminal?
The Obama administration vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements on land illegally occupied by Israel - does that mean liberals support those settlements?
Leaving the US, Trudeau promised to reform Canada's first-past-the-post system that leads to two-party politics, but reneged on his promise - does that mean Canada's liberals are now against e.g. proportional representation? Despite voting on the promise of such?
In the UK, the Tory part oversaw the largest immigration in history, despite campaigning on reducing it [1]. Does that mean UK conservatives are pro-mass-immigration?
Mind you in all these cases, I am asking about the opinions of voters, not politicians. So I don't know why you're citing that Florida law - is there some vast grassroots movement behind it, or is it as I said - corporations buying legislation, and voter getting the blame? Well, the voters you don't like - when it's voters you do like, it's "oh dear the corrupting influence of money in politics, whatever will we do?", isn't it?
[1] U.K. Sets an Immigration Record That the Tories Could Do Without; The governing Conservative Party has long promised to reduce arrivals. It said Brexit would help. But the numbers in 2022 were the highest ever. - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/23/world/europe/uk-migration...
If the politicians do something and then are reelected by their constituents, yes, that means explicitly and without question that those constituents condone those actions.
Condone, or tolerate? Voters don't have infinite choices (in first-past-the-post systems like those of the UK, US, or Canada, they mostly have only two), and are forced to compromise. If you think that compromise means agreement, well, then your thinking is so alien to me I don't think I can convince you of anything.
I mean it depends what you mean by child labour. Is it child labour for teenagers to work at McDonalds? Or for kids to do paper rounds? Nobody has an issue with that and if that is against the law then it should be relaxed.
> At exactly the same time they say "we can't reduce migration, we have an aging population". That is not replacement theory because......? Uh?? It is different?!
Some on the left (myself included) consider ourselves both immigrants and native. And see immigration as a net good, even if it is offsetting a declining 'native' workforce. At least in the US few can claim to have ancestors from their own town going back thousands of years. And if they some can, IMO that's not necessarily a virtue.
My ancestry records go back a few hundred years and is a blend of people from a variety of countries (at least one no longer exists, good riddens because it was a mess) and a couple different continents. My kids have a parent from another country. This only makes us stronger IMO.
Of course too much immigration too fast can entirely replace a nation. That is tragic and worthy of concern, especially if done without consent. But not even the far left is calling for that. Biden was poised to sign the strictest immigration and border policy ever proposed by a democratic president. And it was Trump that put a stop to it. Because those in power on the right aren't interested in pragmatic or real solutions. They want an issue they can leverage forever, like a carrot dangling in front of a mule, to steer it wherever they desire. Hence their made-for-TV theatrics with Dr Phil and photo ops at the extraordinary rendition centers.
> Biden was poised to sign the strictest immigration and border policy ever proposed by a democratic president.
The 2024 Border Act? It wasn't remotely strict - just one of the issues:
The Border Act does provide the president with authority to close the border down when illegal crossings between ports of entry reach an average of 4,000 per day for more than seven days. This is not mandatory, however, unless the average rises above 5,000 per day for more than seven days, which would be more than 1.8 million per year. And even that provision would sunset in three years. - https://thehill.com/opinion/4812643-border-act-2024-reforms-...
Does the left assure people replacement isn't going to happen, it is it more that it doesn't actually matter because we're currently living in the results of "replacement?"
What I take from the article is that birth rate is a statistic with many ideas tied to it.
It almost feels like it is trying to "They Live!" me into believing everything about it is "REPRODUCE" propaganda.
You can't do that using "OBEY" propaganda though, otherwise it becomes satirical. What I mean by that is that the article provides guidelines on what to focus on when discussing these things in typical conversations.
It reminds me of that scene of "Starship Troopers" in which an official appears and explains how to kill an insect from Klandatu by shooting at the heart, not the leg.
Does it really matter? I mean, for my silly stupid life. I don't care about birth rates. Maybe I care about the non statistical or political part. Most people would like to have a family, right? You media guys know that some people see things from a personal perspective, some from a partisan perspective and so on.
Well, I am the computer kid grown up. I am supposed to see things like a little tiny robot. To care about the big statistics things, and to care about the end of the world. Sounds like the article partially targets me!
You know what? Maybe I will fight for the insects from Klandatu instead. It seems that those guys need a help.
What about the low birth rates? Well, the article isn't about birth rates. Why should I talk about them?
Article starts with "Commentators across the political spectrum" then cites many well known far-right pundits and one liberal writer you never heard of. Why this weird bothsideism? I heard one guy on the right say "we must make this the climate change of the right". This weird craze is purely a right-wing one, why feel the need to equate "both sides" on every issues?
There's an endless amount of writing from the left bringing up the concern about falling birth rates, but it's instead framed as "who will pay for our retirement?" or "who will consume our products?".
humanity is almost certainly immune to extinction,
there are too many of us, spread out over the whole globe for anything less than a planet killing asteroid to take us all out.Even the most horribly infectious and deadly diseases are never
100% fatal to those who get it.
a low birth rate in any given culture is definitly a threat to that culture, and almost all cultures have a deep identity with they bieng
"the people", so it is easy to understand how a lot of cultural groups are feeling threatend, and certainly genocide is real.We have very clear evidence of missing y chromosone groups, and the
fact of all previous hominid species going extinct
so it's not for nothing that people worry.
Correct for humanity as a whole, but incorrect for subpopulations. E.g. South Koreans probably want to continue to exist, and this is not equivalent to the landmass of South Korea being populated.
There are 51 million people in South Korea, #29 in a list of 233 countries and there population.
I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction.
Maybe it’s a bad idea to to look at the current birth rate anf extrapolate it in the future like it’s a constant number.
And even if, what exactly goes extinct?
The people living in a country?
Unlikely, others will occupy the space.
The culture?
That already dies through changes in time. The South Koreas now has few in common with the South Koreans from 100, 200, 500 etc years ago.
The South Korean gen?
Humans are pretty similar regarding their genes. There isn’t really a loss or you could say the same about the gene pool of every village or city.
> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction. Maybe it’s a bad idea to to look at the current birth rate anf extrapolate it in the future like it’s a constant number.
A good point. But one could also look at an ailing elephant, and say it need not worry about dying, because look, it is so much larger than a healthy kitten. Yet in a year, the elephant will be a skeleton, and the kitten will be a healthy cat. It all depends how they will handle the population drop - in a controlled way, gently reducing their numbers, or will it trigger a crisis, they let 52 million Chinese into their country, and slowly disappear as a distinct people.
> The culture? That already dies through changes in time.
By this logic a child dying or growing up is no different - both are "deaths through change". Of course the culture that Korea's culture will evolve into is much different than how Hungarian or Nigerian culture will evolve.
> The South Korean gen? Humans are pretty similar regarding their genes.
Even in a place as small and inter-connected as Europe, people have differentiated genes [1]. Globally, especially with geographic barriers, the diversity is even greater [2]. I find it extremely callous to so casually say Korean genetic distinctions aren't worth preserving, or that Koreans are interchangeable with any other people.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2735096/
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...
The genetic differences are negligible.
Like your first link showed: There is a greater diversity between African countries than any African country to Europe.
You could break down those differences down to the village level but it’s a useless distinction and more likely the base useless racism and nationalism.
By that logic every single humans death is a loss of genetic diversity.
And thanks to international travel and migration this differences already get mixed up.
> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction.
Countries aren't species, they are social constructs; they are maintained memetically, not genetically. There is no shortage of humans to assure that survival of countries that pay sufficient effort to their memetic continuity.
With present population trends, in a few centuries it might be time to be concerned about birthrates if they don't adjust thermostatically to changed global population conditions, but there is certainly no imminent threat from low birthrates.
That’s my point. There will always be Koreans as long the place is habitable
The people shouting about low birth rates don't actually care about low birth rates.
They are using concern about low birth rates to get people riled up and trojan horse bigotry into a mainstream message to gain a base of people who will support their efforts to enforce their values on others.
IF there's a low birth rate crisis leading to a lack of workers THEN you can justify child labor
IF there's a low birth rate crisis it's because of women and THEN you can justify restricting women's rights
IF there's a low birth rate crisis "we all know what that means" THEN you can talk about replacement theory without talking about it
IF there's a low birth rate crisis THEN you can propose all manner of ludicrous things that are otherwise socially unacceptable
IF there's a low birth rate crisis THEN you can distract people from the other shit you're doing
The easiest way to prove that the people shouting about a low birth rate crisis don't actually care about birth rates is to compile a list of their solutions to the "crisis".
Are the solutions the subsidizing of childcare and healthcare or lower taxes?
Are the solutions supporting young families or punishing and demonizing women who choose not to be mothers?
The only thing the people shouting about low birth rates care about is money.
That's it. That's all.
Money.
"Civilization is going to collapse unless you elect someone who will fix the low birthrate crisis and the best solution is eliminating the capital gains tax so while you're angry and panicking please vote for this guy over here."
There is indeed some plain old bigotry and sexism at the margins but on the whole it's about money.
> Are the solutions the subsidizing of childcare and healthcare or lower taxes?
Hungary subsidizes young families via tax breaks (on those families, not in general) and loan forgiveness, yes: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612
Is it working? It’s been six years.
Or is it feel good populist hand waving bullshit stymied by corruption and incompetence?
Hungary's fertility rate was 1.2-1.3 from 2000 to 2011, and then jumped to ~1.5 [1]. Whether that is because of this policy is up for debate.
But that doesn't matter - I responded to your claim that they don't actually care about birthrate, because they don't fund families. But they do fund families, hinting that they probably do care about the birthrate, regardless of if their efforts are successful.
It takes very motivated thinking to say that, because a solution doesn't work, those that tried the solution don't care about the problem.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/HUN/hun...
It's possible politicians in Hungary both care about low birth rates, are doing something that has an effect, yet have other motives they give a higher priority.
Why only tax breaks? That won't help if the poor already pay little or nothing in taxes and still lack childcare.
> Why only tax breaks?
It's not only tax breaks - the loans are government loans (up to $36,000) that get fully forgiven after 3 children are equivalent to a cash payment.
And the poor pay 18% tax [1], so they would also benefit from a tax break. Though the poor aren't the only target of that program, so even if they get less help from it, it doesn't follow that politicians don't care about birthrates.
> It's possible politicians in Hungary both care about low birth rates, are doing something that has an effect, yet have other motives they give a higher priority.
I mean, what am I supposed to say to this? First of all, we're not talking just about politicians - voters seemingly care about this, and are getting what they want, at least partly. As for the hearts of politicians - who knows? Maybe? We're getting into unfalsifiable territory here. At a minimum, the politicians themselves are Hungarians - presumably they care about the survival of their people, at least some of them, at least a little? At the very least the initial post's simplistic they-don't-care-because-they-don't-fund-it logic has been disproven, at least for Hungary.
[1] http://world.tax-rates.org/hungary/income-tax
What a stupid conspiracy theory.
People do genuinely care about low birth rates. Nobody wants to use child labour, where do you even come up with this rubbish? Bigotry? What does it have to do with bigotry?
This one is particularly funny:
>IF there's a low birth rate crisis "we all know what that means" THEN you can talk about replacement theory without talking about it
For those that don't know, "replacement theory" is what the far left calls the idea that as the native population falls below replacement rate, immigration will be used to replace natives to keep up a sufficiently large workforce.
The far left assures us that this is a racist conspiracy theory and no such thing is going to happen.
At exactly the same time they say "we can't reduce migration, we have an aging population". That is not replacement theory because......? Uh?? It is different?!
>Are the solutions the subsidizing of childcare and healthcare or lower taxes?
I personally do not see how encouraging people to separate from their children at an early age so they can work would be a good idea. I'm not proposing mothers should necessarily stay home until their kids go to school but they should probably stay home for the first couple of years. There is a lot of evidence that that is beneficial for the child.
I would rather see tax credits for families with children, and much better quality institutions.
Currently, schools are just bad. They are full of ideological teachers more concerned about their unions than their pupils. They are all of a single ideological view on every issue. The results they produce year after year are getting worse. In the same time period that every other product and service available has improved by leaps and bounds, education has got worse.
So I say replace the schools and the teachers, and people will be more willing to have kids, knowing they won't be sending them off to be bullied and taught fuck all.
> Nobody wants to use child labour
This is a genuinely a conservative cause in the US. Florida is currently in the news for working to weaken protections, but people have championed it across the country.
It's a conservative cause the same way that tightening IP laws and bank bailouts are a liberal cause - something politicians do regardless of what their voters want. I hang around a few conservative forums, and have seen zero (literal zero, not hyperbole) child labor advocacy.
It's possible some exists, the way that any cause will have some proponents, but not nearly enough to be the reason laws are getting changed, especially while other far more strongly championed causes get ignored. It's corporations buying laws, and (in this case conservative) voters getting the blame.
> bank bailouts are a liberal
The savings and loan crisis, Great Recession bailouts, and Covid bailouts all occurred under Republicans administrations.
Are the liberal bank bailouts hiding in the bushes?
Ah, the notorious liberal Henry Paulson.
The copyright extension act was championed by totally liberal Orrin Hatch and Newt Gingrich. https://variety.com/1998/biz/news/speaker-support-1117477915...
It was named after lifelong republican Sonny Bono and support was so great that it passed with unanimous consent in the republican majority senate and by voice vote in the republican majority house.
And proposals to curtail child labor laws are being made today, right now, at this very moment by famously liberal Florida: https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/fast-facts-hb-1225-and-s...
You're actually going to make me defend the statement "politicians don't perfectly represent the will of their voters" because I chose a few bad examples? Fine.
Clinton signed the DMCA, and it passed the senate unanimously - does that mean both liberal and conservatives agree that bypassing DRM should be criminal?
The Obama administration vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements on land illegally occupied by Israel - does that mean liberals support those settlements?
Leaving the US, Trudeau promised to reform Canada's first-past-the-post system that leads to two-party politics, but reneged on his promise - does that mean Canada's liberals are now against e.g. proportional representation? Despite voting on the promise of such?
In the UK, the Tory part oversaw the largest immigration in history, despite campaigning on reducing it [1]. Does that mean UK conservatives are pro-mass-immigration?
Mind you in all these cases, I am asking about the opinions of voters, not politicians. So I don't know why you're citing that Florida law - is there some vast grassroots movement behind it, or is it as I said - corporations buying legislation, and voter getting the blame? Well, the voters you don't like - when it's voters you do like, it's "oh dear the corrupting influence of money in politics, whatever will we do?", isn't it?
[1] U.K. Sets an Immigration Record That the Tories Could Do Without; The governing Conservative Party has long promised to reduce arrivals. It said Brexit would help. But the numbers in 2022 were the highest ever. - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/23/world/europe/uk-migration...
If the politicians do something and then are reelected by their constituents, yes, that means explicitly and without question that those constituents condone those actions.
My goalposts never move.
Ever.
Condone, or tolerate? Voters don't have infinite choices (in first-past-the-post systems like those of the UK, US, or Canada, they mostly have only two), and are forced to compromise. If you think that compromise means agreement, well, then your thinking is so alien to me I don't think I can convince you of anything.
I mean it depends what you mean by child labour. Is it child labour for teenagers to work at McDonalds? Or for kids to do paper rounds? Nobody has an issue with that and if that is against the law then it should be relaxed.
> At exactly the same time they say "we can't reduce migration, we have an aging population". That is not replacement theory because......? Uh?? It is different?!
Some on the left (myself included) consider ourselves both immigrants and native. And see immigration as a net good, even if it is offsetting a declining 'native' workforce. At least in the US few can claim to have ancestors from their own town going back thousands of years. And if they some can, IMO that's not necessarily a virtue.
My ancestry records go back a few hundred years and is a blend of people from a variety of countries (at least one no longer exists, good riddens because it was a mess) and a couple different continents. My kids have a parent from another country. This only makes us stronger IMO.
Of course too much immigration too fast can entirely replace a nation. That is tragic and worthy of concern, especially if done without consent. But not even the far left is calling for that. Biden was poised to sign the strictest immigration and border policy ever proposed by a democratic president. And it was Trump that put a stop to it. Because those in power on the right aren't interested in pragmatic or real solutions. They want an issue they can leverage forever, like a carrot dangling in front of a mule, to steer it wherever they desire. Hence their made-for-TV theatrics with Dr Phil and photo ops at the extraordinary rendition centers.
> Biden was poised to sign the strictest immigration and border policy ever proposed by a democratic president.
The 2024 Border Act? It wasn't remotely strict - just one of the issues:
The Border Act does provide the president with authority to close the border down when illegal crossings between ports of entry reach an average of 4,000 per day for more than seven days. This is not mandatory, however, unless the average rises above 5,000 per day for more than seven days, which would be more than 1.8 million per year. And even that provision would sunset in three years. - https://thehill.com/opinion/4812643-border-act-2024-reforms-...
Does the left assure people replacement isn't going to happen, it is it more that it doesn't actually matter because we're currently living in the results of "replacement?"
What I take from the article is that birth rate is a statistic with many ideas tied to it.
It almost feels like it is trying to "They Live!" me into believing everything about it is "REPRODUCE" propaganda.
You can't do that using "OBEY" propaganda though, otherwise it becomes satirical. What I mean by that is that the article provides guidelines on what to focus on when discussing these things in typical conversations.
It reminds me of that scene of "Starship Troopers" in which an official appears and explains how to kill an insect from Klandatu by shooting at the heart, not the leg.
Does it really matter? I mean, for my silly stupid life. I don't care about birth rates. Maybe I care about the non statistical or political part. Most people would like to have a family, right? You media guys know that some people see things from a personal perspective, some from a partisan perspective and so on.
Well, I am the computer kid grown up. I am supposed to see things like a little tiny robot. To care about the big statistics things, and to care about the end of the world. Sounds like the article partially targets me!
You know what? Maybe I will fight for the insects from Klandatu instead. It seems that those guys need a help.
What about the low birth rates? Well, the article isn't about birth rates. Why should I talk about them?
Article starts with "Commentators across the political spectrum" then cites many well known far-right pundits and one liberal writer you never heard of. Why this weird bothsideism? I heard one guy on the right say "we must make this the climate change of the right". This weird craze is purely a right-wing one, why feel the need to equate "both sides" on every issues?
There's an endless amount of writing from the left bringing up the concern about falling birth rates, but it's instead framed as "who will pay for our retirement?" or "who will consume our products?".
humanity is almost certainly immune to extinction, there are too many of us, spread out over the whole globe for anything less than a planet killing asteroid to take us all out.Even the most horribly infectious and deadly diseases are never 100% fatal to those who get it. a low birth rate in any given culture is definitly a threat to that culture, and almost all cultures have a deep identity with they bieng "the people", so it is easy to understand how a lot of cultural groups are feeling threatend, and certainly genocide is real.We have very clear evidence of missing y chromosone groups, and the fact of all previous hominid species going extinct so it's not for nothing that people worry.
[dead]