The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Ideal Number of Children by Political Orientation Over Time
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows, by political orientation and over time, the ideal number of children GSS participants think a family should have and the actual number of children they do have:

There are a lot of intersections on the graph that make it more challenging to follow than it should be. The light colors trace the ideal number of children; the dark lines actual number of children. To allow for family formation to have occurred and also to keep the age range within reason in relation to the total time period under consideration, figures for actual number of children are restricted to those aged 35-65.

Two more remarkable aspects are, 1) that the ideal number of children a family should have has remained remarkably consistent over the life of the survey and varies very little by political orientation, and 2) that a couple of generations ago, people tended to have more children than they perceived to be ideal while today they have fewer than they believe to be ideal.

GSS variables used: CHLDIDEL(0-7), CHILDS, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), AGE(35-65), YEAR

 
Hide 123 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Amazing how US fertility just goes off a cliff immediately after the Reagan tax cuts.

    Low taxes kill human fertility quicker than a high dose exposure to ionizing radiation.

    • LOL: Wade Hampton
    • Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident
    @JohnPlywood

    Why would tax cuts reduce fertility? It probably has more to do with abortion being legalized and widespread availability of contraception.

    Replies: @anon, @JohnPlywood

  2. anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:

    The lines are mixing two effects occuring over 40 years. People within a political label may be changing their views, but also a given type of person may be changing political labels. For example a blue collar union guy might have thought of himself as liberal in 1974 based on the conception of the label then, but the same person wouldn’t be so now. It may be impossible to disentangle the changing birth outcomes of liberals with the changing composition of liberals.

    • Agree: Sollipsist, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Wency
    @anonymous

    It's a valid question, but the self-identifying liberal percentage of the population has been on the increase. I'm not certain, but I don't think your typical Democrat-voting unionized Midwestern Catholic family man in 1974 considered himself a "liberal". Perhaps a "moderate", if someone asked. Or he might not have had an answer to the question. A lot of these people voted for Reagan, which is how he won 49 states.

    I actually think the liberal increase might be entangled somewhat with low births in another way: given how much the gender gap in voting has soared, my guess is your marginal "liberal" today is most likely a "Sex in the City" single woman who would have already been a married mother in 1974. That is to say, part of the reason liberals have fewer children is that childlessness itself makes a person, especially a woman, liberal.

  3. Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do. Don’t wait until you’re too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don’t want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they’ll raise one another: you don’t have to do it all on your own.

    Don’t wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won’t have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    • Replies: @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Young readers of The Unz Review:

    You mean the readers in their 50's, of course...now, what were you saying?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @MattinLA
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes. But there are some people (me) who never managed to even have sex until age 31. It's a miracle I ended up with two children. Now I'm too old to have more. Incel problems among males are killing American fertility.

    Replies: @Truth, @Jay Fink

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    the correct answer is seven or eight.
     
    You, liberal modernist! The correct answer is nine to twelve (you get married in your early to mid twenties, space out the children 1.5 - 2 years and keep having them until your wife is barren).

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing.
     
    Abso-frickin'-lutely! If you don't obsess with material goods like new luxury cars, cable TV, McMansions, and so forth and instead on surrounding yourself with wholesome communities of likeminded people, you'd be surprised by how many children you can raise "on the cheap." Mormons do it all the time and so do "trad" Catholic families. Why, just this Saturday, an economically struggling young couple (who are acquaintances of my friends) came by my house to pick up a crib/toddler bed convertible and a standalone toddler bed (which had been taking up space in my basement). Now they saved themselves a few hundred dollars at least (more like a thousand dollars these days new) and we were also happy to reclaim some basement storage space (we still have more cribs/toddler beds there) and to help out a young couple who are having more babies.

    By the way, once you have a few children, they’ll raise one another: you don’t have to do it all on your own.
     
    The most difficult time for my wife and me was when our first three were 3 years old, 1.5 years old, and newborn. We also had three geriatric dogs at the time. Somebody was peeing or pooping on the floor everyday. Good times. I still have gallons of Nature's Miracle enzyme cleaner.

    Surprise, surprise, those three grew up to be pretty responsible leaders of the little ones (and dogs) and soon my wife and I had built-in babysitters (though we had and have plenty of friends and their older children who were willing to babysit). It's almost shocking how 4+ children were so much easier than 3. When my wife and I had more diddies still, it got pretty easy by comparison. I'm on cruise-control these days (though my biggest enemy now is teenage hormones). Though now we are ever closer to having to think about paying for all the colleges/weddings.

    When you have children, a year goes by like a minute. You know it.

    Replies: @Tony

    , @AndrewR
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I guess that could work for some families. But my parents had seven kids, and many people would be very hard-pressed to objectively say they should have had any.

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids? And how would you judge "success" besides sheer number of descendants?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do."

    Agreed. As Churchill put it, no better investment for any society than putting milk into babies.

    Unfortunately "our" elites tax working Brits to pay for incomers to put milk into their babies.

    Twinkie - "It’s almost shocking how 4+ children were so much easier than 3"

    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other. The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    You don’t want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.
     
    Nonsense. Pro-natalism lies.

    Studies have repeatedly shown voluntary childfree people have the lowest rates of depression and enhanced well-being.

    "Having children is associated with reduced happiness, particularly for women, and particularly in the U.S., and that link appears to sustain over the long term."
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-therapy/201912/why-so-many-are-satisfied-being-childless-choice

    The American Sociological Association conducted a major study and found that parents are more likely to be depressed than people who are childfree.
    https://www.livescience.com/7009-kids-depressing-study-parents-finds.html

    Replies: @Catdog, @Charles, @DanHessinMD

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do. Don’t wait until you’re too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.
     
    LOL. You people are insane.

    Have you never heard of overpopulation? What "demographic collapse"? We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)

    Replies: @Catdog, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnotherDad

    , @Dutch Boy
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Can you imagine looking at your fourth, fifth, or 6th child and thinking: "Dang, we went over the ideal!" They are pure gold.

    , @Supply and Demand
    @V. K. Ovelund

    That's what I'm aiming for bud, Manchus have ethnic minority exemptions from one-child policy. I'm sure I'm exactly the person you were thinking of, right?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.
     
    Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to have that many kids? Do you think 330 million Americans is not enough? Would you really want an America with a billion people? Does any western country actually need a larger population? Australia was a much more pleasant country when it had a lot fewer people. In those days people could afford to buy houses.

    What is needed is replacement-level fertility, not a population explosion.

    Not that it matters, since even replacement-level fertility will almost certainly turn out to be impossible to achieve. The best we can hope for is to slow the decline a little.

    With populations about half the current levels life would be a lot more pleasant.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  4. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    Young readers of The Unz Review:

    You mean the readers in their 50’s, of course…now, what were you saying?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    You mean the readers in their 50’s, of course…now, what were you saying?
     
    You have a point.

    Matt: I didn't get all the way there, either.

    Andrew:

    I guess that could work for some families. But my parents had seven kids, and many people would be very hard-pressed to objectively say they should have had any.
     
    I do not know your parents, so cannot comment.

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids?
     
    Well, reading The Unz Review would be a pretty good criterion, except see the point about readers in their 50's.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  5. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    Yes. But there are some people (me) who never managed to even have sex until age 31. It’s a miracle I ended up with two children. Now I’m too old to have more. Incel problems among males are killing American fertility.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Truth
    @MattinLA

    Damn, virgin until 31?

    As a man who started fairly early and had plenty of practice, my reaction to that is much different now then it would have been in my 20s or 30s; "that's not a bad idea."

    And you still had a family. I think it did it properly.

    , @Jay Fink
    @MattinLA

    Yes. A large number of men want to have children and would make high quality family men but women aren't interested in them.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  6. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    the correct answer is seven or eight.

    You, liberal modernist! The correct answer is nine to twelve (you get married in your early to mid twenties, space out the children 1.5 – 2 years and keep having them until your wife is barren).

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing.

    Abso-frickin’-lutely! If you don’t obsess with material goods like new luxury cars, cable TV, McMansions, and so forth and instead on surrounding yourself with wholesome communities of likeminded people, you’d be surprised by how many children you can raise “on the cheap.” Mormons do it all the time and so do “trad” Catholic families. Why, just this Saturday, an economically struggling young couple (who are acquaintances of my friends) came by my house to pick up a crib/toddler bed convertible and a standalone toddler bed (which had been taking up space in my basement). Now they saved themselves a few hundred dollars at least (more like a thousand dollars these days new) and we were also happy to reclaim some basement storage space (we still have more cribs/toddler beds there) and to help out a young couple who are having more babies.

    By the way, once you have a few children, they’ll raise one another: you don’t have to do it all on your own.

    The most difficult time for my wife and me was when our first three were 3 years old, 1.5 years old, and newborn. We also had three geriatric dogs at the time. Somebody was peeing or pooping on the floor everyday. Good times. I still have gallons of Nature’s Miracle enzyme cleaner.

    Surprise, surprise, those three grew up to be pretty responsible leaders of the little ones (and dogs) and soon my wife and I had built-in babysitters (though we had and have plenty of friends and their older children who were willing to babysit). It’s almost shocking how 4+ children were so much easier than 3. When my wife and I had more diddies still, it got pretty easy by comparison. I’m on cruise-control these days (though my biggest enemy now is teenage hormones). Though now we are ever closer to having to think about paying for all the colleges/weddings.

    When you have children, a year goes by like a minute. You know it.

    • Replies: @Tony
    @Twinkie

    Guess your wife isnt Korean.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  7. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    I guess that could work for some families. But my parents had seven kids, and many people would be very hard-pressed to objectively say they should have had any.

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids? And how would you judge “success” besides sheer number of descendants?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @AndrewR


    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids?
     
    You didn’t ask me, but I’ll volunteer anyway. Couples should read and internalize the lesson in O. Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi.” You don’t have to (and can’t) be perfect people, but if you are capable of mutual sacrifice, you are ready for children.

    And how would you judge “success” besides sheer number of descendants?
     
    If your children are good, decent people who are productive, it’s a success. The rest is gravy.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  8. @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Young readers of The Unz Review:

    You mean the readers in their 50's, of course...now, what were you saying?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You mean the readers in their 50’s, of course…now, what were you saying?

    You have a point.

    Matt: I didn’t get all the way there, either.

    Andrew:

    I guess that could work for some families. But my parents had seven kids, and many people would be very hard-pressed to objectively say they should have had any.

    I do not know your parents, so cannot comment.

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids?

    Well, reading The Unz Review would be a pretty good criterion, except see the point about readers in their 50’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund

    If you want people to have more kids you'll have to persuade them to give up helicopter parenting. Helicopter parenting makes parenting incredibly labour-intensive. Helicopter parenting is one of the reasons people have only one child.

  9. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    “Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do.”

    Agreed. As Churchill put it, no better investment for any society than putting milk into babies.

    Unfortunately “our” elites tax working Brits to pay for incomers to put milk into their babies.

    Twinkie – “It’s almost shocking how 4+ children were so much easier than 3”

    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other. The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other.
     
    There are factions among my children. That’s how many I have.

    The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.
     
    You speak the truth. The parking lot at my parish church looks like a Secret Service convention with all the super large SUVs.

    When a friend of mine traveled overseas with his family, he rented a school bus.

    I have another friend who lived in a two bathroom-house with nine children, most of them girls. You best use the bathroom at home beforehand before visiting that household.

    I have yet another friend with eleven kids, nine of them boys. That house is a battlefield. My friend stopped patching holes some years ago and decided to just wait until they all left home (though at that point, the grandkids will be putting more holes on the walls).

    My house is orderly - I don’t have a whistle (I don’t need one), but I am Captain von Trapp. Kids are like puppies, you gotta let them know upfront you mean business! My wife is a softie though and I know the house turns into hell in a handbasket when I’m away (I can hear the pandemonium on the phone). Even the dogs act out while I’m gone. And of course everyone, including the dogs, likes mommy best. That’s as it should be.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Dutch Boy

  10. @AndrewR
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I guess that could work for some families. But my parents had seven kids, and many people would be very hard-pressed to objectively say they should have had any.

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids? And how would you judge "success" besides sheer number of descendants?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids?

    You didn’t ask me, but I’ll volunteer anyway. Couples should read and internalize the lesson in O. Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi.” You don’t have to (and can’t) be perfect people, but if you are capable of mutual sacrifice, you are ready for children.

    And how would you judge “success” besides sheer number of descendants?

    If your children are good, decent people who are productive, it’s a success. The rest is gravy.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie


    Abso-frickin’-lutely! If you don’t obsess with material goods like new luxury cars, cable TV, McMansions, and so forth and instead on surrounding yourself with wholesome communities of likeminded people, you’d be surprised by how many children you can raise “on the cheap.”
     
    I don't think cost per se is holding people back. There are some who make lifestyle choices about where to spend their money, but there are other people whose finances are simply very precarious. This is the position my wife and I are in. We could get by with a kid as long as nothing changed (and my wife would have to keep working), but if either of us lost a job, we would be in dire straights as it would be difficult for us to find work at the same level again. It's difficult to have kids in this situation.


    And how would you judge “success” besides sheer number of descendants?
     
    If your children are good, decent people who are productive, it’s a success. The rest is gravy.
     
    I don't agree. I think "success" of parenting should be measured by the tools you provide children to launch their lives. See The Nurture Assumption for why I don't think being decent or productive is a good measure of your parents' parenting behaviors.
  11. @YetAnotherAnon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do."

    Agreed. As Churchill put it, no better investment for any society than putting milk into babies.

    Unfortunately "our" elites tax working Brits to pay for incomers to put milk into their babies.

    Twinkie - "It’s almost shocking how 4+ children were so much easier than 3"

    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other. The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other.

    There are factions among my children. That’s how many I have.

    The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.

    You speak the truth. The parking lot at my parish church looks like a Secret Service convention with all the super large SUVs.

    When a friend of mine traveled overseas with his family, he rented a school bus.

    I have another friend who lived in a two bathroom-house with nine children, most of them girls. You best use the bathroom at home beforehand before visiting that household.

    I have yet another friend with eleven kids, nine of them boys. That house is a battlefield. My friend stopped patching holes some years ago and decided to just wait until they all left home (though at that point, the grandkids will be putting more holes on the walls).

    My house is orderly – I don’t have a whistle (I don’t need one), but I am Captain von Trapp. Kids are like puppies, you gotta let them know upfront you mean business! My wife is a softie though and I know the house turns into hell in a handbasket when I’m away (I can hear the pandemonium on the phone). Even the dogs act out while I’m gone. And of course everyone, including the dogs, likes mommy best. That’s as it should be.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Twinkie

    My brother and I never put any holes in the walls besides the time he punched a wall in anger. It didn't break through but it left a very noticeable indentation which is still there 25 years later.

    , @Dutch Boy
    @Twinkie

    My three brothers and I were an ornery bunch. One of my female cousins from an all female (except Dad, of course) family was aghast when she saw us amusing ourselves by running at each other from each end of the hallway to collide in the middle. My two sisters learned to stay out of the way.

  12. Anyone who supported the lock-down/masking kabuki theater for a bad flu contributed to one of the most fertility-nuking events of the last half century. Damn all those who stole a year from our lives.

    With that said, the Unz natalist mania is so foreign to me it might as well come from another universe. You would think that pessimists who regularly find new depravities to bewail, and see the Tiber foaming with much blood, would be a little less cavalier about bringing new lives into a world that is apparently going all to hell.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    @Average and Harmless

    Natalist logic says that the Titanic would have been less of a disaster if only they'd had more children on board.

    , @Wency
    @Average and Harmless

    As someone who is pessimistically inclined, I can only say that children *are* the hope. They exude hopefulness in all they do and in their mere existence. What was somewhat surprising to me was that in my and my wife's dwindling extended families, our firstborn brought an outpouring of hope not just from our parents, but various aunts and uncles who are either childless or the parents of permanently childless kids. And if you belong to a community of any sort with other parents -- neighborhood, religion, or whatever -- everyone is delighted at the birth of everyone else's children.

    Once you hit middle age, everything on a personal level starts going downhill all the time. Your body is breaking down, you're getting uglier, slower, weaker, fatter. Tasks that you once took for granted now cause you pain every time. So if you have a shortage of hope when you're 20, just wait until you're 40, and then 60.

    But if you have kids, they're continuously getting stronger, faster, smarter, up to the point when they themselves are hopefully soon having children of their own. In a world governed by entropy, they're anti-entropic.

    The whole "who would want to bring children into a world like this" line of thinking never really made sense to me, even when I wasn't sure if I wanted kids. Yes, things are headed downhill, but I am preceded by thousands of generations that endured brutality, famine, oppression, and plague that moderns can scarcely comprehend, and yet my ancestors still went through the trouble of having children. Kids are resilient, they adapt to their environment, and the task of parents is partly to help them adapt but also to teach them that in adapting they still remember and pass along what is good in this world. And a big part of what's good in this world is having kids.

    Replies: @Average and Harmless

  13. “Conservative” covers a lot of ground. I wonder what “traditionalist” or “reactionary” would look like.

  14. Steve Sailer wrote about the fact that Whites are no longer the majority in the younger cohorts and Sailer sardonically said something along the lines that that doesn’t relieve the White Core American burden to give up everything for the minorities when Whites become the minority of majority non-Whites.

    Sailer from May of 2019:

    If integration is the goal and integration is defined as going to school at a school that is at least 10% white, then the big problem is that America is running out of white children.

    White children aren’t the majority anymore, but that doesn’t relieve the white children of their duties to their fellow minorities.

    Maybe we should be taking steps to encourage more white babies? For the sake of integration.

    I replied in May of 2019 to Sailer:

    Steve Sailer is so nice you would think he’s from Iowa or Minnesota or New Hampshire or Wisconsin.

    My answer is that White Core America must immediately call for a WHITE BABY BOOM to prepare for the inevitable Civil War II that is on its way.

    Thankfully, Civil War II will be much less bloody than the Civil War because it only involves White Core America decapitating the JEW/WASP ruling class and immediately taking over the corporate propaganda apparatus and the internet and the newspapers and the radio and the electronic command and control of the nuclear and conventional arsenal of the United States military. We can do it in a few hours and then drink some beer to celebrate our victory.

    The new White Core American ruling class understands that in a mass democracy the key to power is to control the mass media.

    If you combined a WHITE BABY BOOM with a MASS DEPORTATION of foreigners you would make it easier for young White people to engage in AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION.

    White Core America must identify and crush its enemies and liquidate them financially and politically and culturally and then deport them to sub-Saharan Africa.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/schools-becoming-more-segregated-as-america-runs-out-of-white-children/#comment-3219311

  15. WHITE CORE AMERICA MEANS AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION

    WHITE CORE AMERICA WILL DEPORT THE FOREIGNERS

    I wrote this in May of 2019:

    Want a White baby boom?

    Raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent and use emergency mass deportation powers to remove 50 or 60 million foreigners and their spawn from the USA.

    Housing costs would sink through the floor of the basement and the removal of the foreigners would drive a sense of rejuvenation and rebirth in the USA.

    Trump has stabbed his voters in the back by pushing mass legal immigration and by refusing to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Trump says he wants foreigners pouring into the USA “in the largest numbers ever.”

    Baby Boomer Conservatism Must Be Crushed and Buried To Advance The Interests of WHITE CORE AMERICA.

    High housing costs and multicultural mayhem are killing Affordable Family Formation.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/you-must-not-replace-you/#comment-3239523

    • Thanks: Catdog
  16. @Twinkie
    @AndrewR


    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids?
     
    You didn’t ask me, but I’ll volunteer anyway. Couples should read and internalize the lesson in O. Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi.” You don’t have to (and can’t) be perfect people, but if you are capable of mutual sacrifice, you are ready for children.

    And how would you judge “success” besides sheer number of descendants?
     
    If your children are good, decent people who are productive, it’s a success. The rest is gravy.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Abso-frickin’-lutely! If you don’t obsess with material goods like new luxury cars, cable TV, McMansions, and so forth and instead on surrounding yourself with wholesome communities of likeminded people, you’d be surprised by how many children you can raise “on the cheap.”

    I don’t think cost per se is holding people back. There are some who make lifestyle choices about where to spend their money, but there are other people whose finances are simply very precarious. This is the position my wife and I are in. We could get by with a kid as long as nothing changed (and my wife would have to keep working), but if either of us lost a job, we would be in dire straights as it would be difficult for us to find work at the same level again. It’s difficult to have kids in this situation.

    And how would you judge “success” besides sheer number of descendants?

    If your children are good, decent people who are productive, it’s a success. The rest is gravy.

    I don’t agree. I think “success” of parenting should be measured by the tools you provide children to launch their lives. See The Nurture Assumption for why I don’t think being decent or productive is a good measure of your parents’ parenting behaviors.

  17. As I always said being childfree transcends the left-right political spectrum. You still have these idiots like Edward Dutton who think being childfree is “left-wing” or “SJW”.

  18. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    You don’t want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Nonsense. Pro-natalism lies.

    Studies have repeatedly shown voluntary childfree people have the lowest rates of depression and enhanced well-being.

    “Having children is associated with reduced happiness, particularly for women, and particularly in the U.S., and that link appears to sustain over the long term.”
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-therapy/201912/why-so-many-are-satisfied-being-childless-choice

    The American Sociological Association conducted a major study and found that parents are more likely to be depressed than people who are childfree.
    https://www.livescience.com/7009-kids-depressing-study-parents-finds.html

    • Replies: @Catdog
    @Oliver D. Smith

    There is no feeling better in the world than cuddling up to your wife, fat with child, and feeling your future heir moving under your hand. There is no feeling better than looking at your child and seeing yourself in their features and personality.

    It's sad that you will never know this feel. Believe what ever you need to in order to cope.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Charles
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Yes, you should certainly take with full faith anything stated by Psychology Today magazine or The American Sociological Association. It is not as if they have agendas, certainly not. The people who run those outfits are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life.

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Maybe parenthood is tough on women (understandable since they have a lot of the childcare work).

    But parenthood makes men MUCH MUCH happier.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/nickfigure3-w640.png

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  19. @JohnPlywood
    Amazing how US fertility just goes off a cliff immediately after the Reagan tax cuts.


    Low taxes kill human fertility quicker than a high dose exposure to ionizing radiation.

    Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident

    Why would tax cuts reduce fertility? It probably has more to do with abortion being legalized and widespread availability of contraception.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Magic Dirt Resident

    FYI you are responding to a known troll.

    , @JohnPlywood
    @Magic Dirt Resident

    Tax cuts put more surplus wealth in to the hands of young people, which is invariably spent on anything but children: vacations, video games, cameras, phones, etc.

    Increased personal income (and pursuit thereof) is the #1 correlate of sub-replacement fertility.

    Abortion is illegal in South Korea, the first or second least fertile country on Earth, and contraceptive use is much less common in Japan, Taiwan, etc than it is in the West. Yet their fertility is actually even lower than the West.


    Abortion has been our friend, primarily due to its eugenic effects; it's mostly crackheads who have abortions.

    Our enemy is money and physical comfort. Contraceptives were just a tool for the pursuit of money.

    Replies: @stare_into

  20. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do. Don’t wait until you’re too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    LOL. You people are insane.

    Have you never heard of overpopulation? What “demographic collapse”? We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)

    • Replies: @Catdog
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "We" aren't adding people. White population is in decline while Africans are reproducing like Gremlins in a swimming pool.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Have you never heard of overpopulation?
     
    I've heard of the infinity negroes program, if that's what you mean.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Oliver D. Smith


    We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)
     
    "We"--white people--are not adding anyone, much less 80 million people a year. Africans account for most of it. White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.

    Nations with 3/4 of the earth's surface near or sub-replacement fertility. Population growth--where it exists--is simply demographic momentum, or--sadly--immigration from less constrained regions.

    White people--if they want to survive--need to nudge back up toward replacement fertility. But most immediately they need to stop immigration so they have actual nations worth saving.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Oliver D. Smith

  21. @Magic Dirt Resident
    @JohnPlywood

    Why would tax cuts reduce fertility? It probably has more to do with abortion being legalized and widespread availability of contraception.

    Replies: @anon, @JohnPlywood

    FYI you are responding to a known troll.

  22. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do. Don’t wait until you’re too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.
     
    LOL. You people are insane.

    Have you never heard of overpopulation? What "demographic collapse"? We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)

    Replies: @Catdog, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnotherDad

    “We” aren’t adding people. White population is in decline while Africans are reproducing like Gremlins in a swimming pool.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Catdog

    There's been a global decrease in TFR over the past 40-50 years including across Africa (although the latter is slower than other continents for a number of reasons.) TFR in Ethiopia was above 7 in the 1980s its now 4.2, Nigeria in 1970s was above 6, its now 5.3.

    Is the 'White' population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don't think so - this seems to be an alt-right myth. There are still many European countries where native (excluding first/second generation immigrant) annual birth rates are higher than death rates so natural population growth. Take Ireland as an example.

    60,173 registered births in 2019
    32,084 registered deaths in 2019

    The 2021 census in UK will also show a population increase for 'White British'.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @JohnPlywood, @AnotherDad, @Audacious Epigone

  23. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    You don’t want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.
     
    Nonsense. Pro-natalism lies.

    Studies have repeatedly shown voluntary childfree people have the lowest rates of depression and enhanced well-being.

    "Having children is associated with reduced happiness, particularly for women, and particularly in the U.S., and that link appears to sustain over the long term."
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-therapy/201912/why-so-many-are-satisfied-being-childless-choice

    The American Sociological Association conducted a major study and found that parents are more likely to be depressed than people who are childfree.
    https://www.livescience.com/7009-kids-depressing-study-parents-finds.html

    Replies: @Catdog, @Charles, @DanHessinMD

    There is no feeling better in the world than cuddling up to your wife, fat with child, and feeling your future heir moving under your hand. There is no feeling better than looking at your child and seeing yourself in their features and personality.

    It’s sad that you will never know this feel. Believe what ever you need to in order to cope.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Catdog

    I don't get so much of the future heir and seeing yourself bit, but I love my kids, I love their mother, and I adored her when she was carrying them. Mmmm! I think I need a cold shower.

  24. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    You don’t want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.
     
    Nonsense. Pro-natalism lies.

    Studies have repeatedly shown voluntary childfree people have the lowest rates of depression and enhanced well-being.

    "Having children is associated with reduced happiness, particularly for women, and particularly in the U.S., and that link appears to sustain over the long term."
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-therapy/201912/why-so-many-are-satisfied-being-childless-choice

    The American Sociological Association conducted a major study and found that parents are more likely to be depressed than people who are childfree.
    https://www.livescience.com/7009-kids-depressing-study-parents-finds.html

    Replies: @Catdog, @Charles, @DanHessinMD

    Yes, you should certainly take with full faith anything stated by Psychology Today magazine or The American Sociological Association. It is not as if they have agendas, certainly not. The people who run those outfits are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I’ve ever known in my life.

  25. @Magic Dirt Resident
    @JohnPlywood

    Why would tax cuts reduce fertility? It probably has more to do with abortion being legalized and widespread availability of contraception.

    Replies: @anon, @JohnPlywood

    Tax cuts put more surplus wealth in to the hands of young people, which is invariably spent on anything but children: vacations, video games, cameras, phones, etc.

    Increased personal income (and pursuit thereof) is the #1 correlate of sub-replacement fertility.

    Abortion is illegal in South Korea, the first or second least fertile country on Earth, and contraceptive use is much less common in Japan, Taiwan, etc than it is in the West. Yet their fertility is actually even lower than the West.

    Abortion has been our friend, primarily due to its eugenic effects; it’s mostly crackheads who have abortions.

    Our enemy is money and physical comfort. Contraceptives were just a tool for the pursuit of money.

    • Replies: @stare_into
    @JohnPlywood

    The other guy said you were a troll but this is actually a kind-of-interesting take. Does material wealth beget materialist individualism? If that's the direction the causality flows, then I'd have to tentatively agree with your assessment. The rich are spiritually severed from their life cycle? Wealth, the thing that separates man from his animal nature? Make Whites Poor Again?

    I'm sure most in Kaczynski's camp would be quick to agree with this.

  26. @Catdog
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "We" aren't adding people. White population is in decline while Africans are reproducing like Gremlins in a swimming pool.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    There’s been a global decrease in TFR over the past 40-50 years including across Africa (although the latter is slower than other continents for a number of reasons.) TFR in Ethiopia was above 7 in the 1980s its now 4.2, Nigeria in 1970s was above 6, its now 5.3.

    Is the ‘White’ population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don’t think so – this seems to be an alt-right myth. There are still many European countries where native (excluding first/second generation immigrant) annual birth rates are higher than death rates so natural population growth. Take Ireland as an example.

    60,173 registered births in 2019
    32,084 registered deaths in 2019

    The 2021 census in UK will also show a population increase for ‘White British’.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    People live longer and longer, but since old people can't have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one, supporting older and older people. Ireland has 5 million people, the US has like 200 million whites. Ireland is frankly irrelevant, but even they have fewer and fewer children, below replacement rate: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ireland+fertility+rate

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @JohnPlywood
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The annual birth/death ratio is meaningless. For example, let's envision an alternate history scenario where Ireland enters World War 3 in 1950 and loses 50% of its male population. The children of the surviving males then have a baby boom, and produce a larger population than their predecessors. By 2019, Ireland has an aberrantly high birth/death ratio for a country with a modest 2.0 fertility rate -- but only because the generation that fought WW3 got decimated early on, and was always smaller.

    That might sound fantastical, but keep in mind Ireland is an unusual country that has experienced a lot of emigration -- 40% of Irish-born adults lived overseas in the early 20th century. It's a country that has experienced inter-generational fluccuations in population size, particularly in the mid-20th century, similar to what would happen in a catastrophic war or a famine.


    https://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/generationemigration/2011/11/02/traditions-of-emigration-the-irish-habit-of-going-away/


    In eras of economic crisis, the Irish have left in their millions for new lives overseas. In the twentieth century mass emigration reached levels during the 1940s and 1950s that were reminiscent of the 1850s, in the aftermath of the Great Irish Famine. Again the 1980s were another “lost” decade characterised by emigration and unemployment. It is difficult to predict how many will leave or indeed how long the current exodus will last, though all the early indications are that it will be yet another peak in the long history of movement out of Ireland.
     
    , @AnotherDad
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Is the ‘White’ population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don’t think so – this seems to be an alt-right myth.
     
    Not a myth at all. The white population is already in decline in the US.

    With the Xi virus we finally popped 3m deaths in 2020. Say 80% of those will be whites who utterly dominate among the elderly. That's 2.4m. We've been running at 2m white births a year for a while and are crashing further. As the death cull increasing hits fatter Boomer generations white population decline will ratchet up toward the million a year mark.

    Even a nation like Germany--which had a later post-War baby boom after reconstruction--the death rate is already a couple points higher than the birth rate--and that's everyone, including non-whites.

    Most "white" nations where the birth rate is still above the death rate, that is only true because of previous non-white immigrants (as in the US). The native white birth rate is already below the white death rate. Population growth is mostly driven by immigration and secondarily by previous invaders--in the net younger than the natives--having children.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Oliver D. Smith

    To what do you attribute the slower decline in sub-Saharan African fertility rates than that of the rest of the world?

    The drop has been dramatic in countries like Bangladesh. Not so much in Africa, though as you note, the drop has been substantial and people who pretend it hasn't been are deluding themselves.

    The strongest (inverse) correlate I've found with fertility is female educational attainment, both within countries and between them.

  27. Hey Audie, you are a stats man.

    Try not to get mesmerized by these active bar graphs.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Truth

    Haha, is that what it means to have your whole life flash before your eyes? Because mine just did. Very cool, thanks!

  28. @Catdog
    @Oliver D. Smith

    There is no feeling better in the world than cuddling up to your wife, fat with child, and feeling your future heir moving under your hand. There is no feeling better than looking at your child and seeing yourself in their features and personality.

    It's sad that you will never know this feel. Believe what ever you need to in order to cope.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    I don’t get so much of the future heir and seeing yourself bit, but I love my kids, I love their mother, and I adored her when she was carrying them. Mmmm! I think I need a cold shower.

  29. @MattinLA
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes. But there are some people (me) who never managed to even have sex until age 31. It's a miracle I ended up with two children. Now I'm too old to have more. Incel problems among males are killing American fertility.

    Replies: @Truth, @Jay Fink

    Damn, virgin until 31?

    As a man who started fairly early and had plenty of practice, my reaction to that is much different now then it would have been in my 20s or 30s; “that’s not a bad idea.”

    And you still had a family. I think it did it properly.

  30. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Catdog

    There's been a global decrease in TFR over the past 40-50 years including across Africa (although the latter is slower than other continents for a number of reasons.) TFR in Ethiopia was above 7 in the 1980s its now 4.2, Nigeria in 1970s was above 6, its now 5.3.

    Is the 'White' population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don't think so - this seems to be an alt-right myth. There are still many European countries where native (excluding first/second generation immigrant) annual birth rates are higher than death rates so natural population growth. Take Ireland as an example.

    60,173 registered births in 2019
    32,084 registered deaths in 2019

    The 2021 census in UK will also show a population increase for 'White British'.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @JohnPlywood, @AnotherDad, @Audacious Epigone

    People live longer and longer, but since old people can’t have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one, supporting older and older people. Ireland has 5 million people, the US has like 200 million whites. Ireland is frankly irrelevant, but even they have fewer and fewer children, below replacement rate: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ireland+fertility+rate

    • Agree: Reverend Goody
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy

    You're posting a common misconception.

    Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically reduce population size because of population momentum and other factors. Ireland is not shrinking in population size but has annual population growth. The following European countries have annual population growth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    The population growth in many of these countries is not solely the result of net-migration i.e. more immigration than emigration (another alt-right myth) but natural growth in terms of more births than deaths e.g.

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So are 'White people' declining in number? Sure doesn't look like it when lots of European countries have natural population growth. And in the European countries where there is population decline - they're hardly decreasing at all e.g. Greece -0.07%, Poland, -0.16%, Germany -0.17%.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @DanHessinMD, @JohnPlywood

  31. @Twinkie
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other.
     
    There are factions among my children. That’s how many I have.

    The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.
     
    You speak the truth. The parking lot at my parish church looks like a Secret Service convention with all the super large SUVs.

    When a friend of mine traveled overseas with his family, he rented a school bus.

    I have another friend who lived in a two bathroom-house with nine children, most of them girls. You best use the bathroom at home beforehand before visiting that household.

    I have yet another friend with eleven kids, nine of them boys. That house is a battlefield. My friend stopped patching holes some years ago and decided to just wait until they all left home (though at that point, the grandkids will be putting more holes on the walls).

    My house is orderly - I don’t have a whistle (I don’t need one), but I am Captain von Trapp. Kids are like puppies, you gotta let them know upfront you mean business! My wife is a softie though and I know the house turns into hell in a handbasket when I’m away (I can hear the pandemonium on the phone). Even the dogs act out while I’m gone. And of course everyone, including the dogs, likes mommy best. That’s as it should be.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Dutch Boy

    My brother and I never put any holes in the walls besides the time he punched a wall in anger. It didn’t break through but it left a very noticeable indentation which is still there 25 years later.

  32. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Catdog

    There's been a global decrease in TFR over the past 40-50 years including across Africa (although the latter is slower than other continents for a number of reasons.) TFR in Ethiopia was above 7 in the 1980s its now 4.2, Nigeria in 1970s was above 6, its now 5.3.

    Is the 'White' population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don't think so - this seems to be an alt-right myth. There are still many European countries where native (excluding first/second generation immigrant) annual birth rates are higher than death rates so natural population growth. Take Ireland as an example.

    60,173 registered births in 2019
    32,084 registered deaths in 2019

    The 2021 census in UK will also show a population increase for 'White British'.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @JohnPlywood, @AnotherDad, @Audacious Epigone

    The annual birth/death ratio is meaningless. For example, let’s envision an alternate history scenario where Ireland enters World War 3 in 1950 and loses 50% of its male population. The children of the surviving males then have a baby boom, and produce a larger population than their predecessors. By 2019, Ireland has an aberrantly high birth/death ratio for a country with a modest 2.0 fertility rate — but only because the generation that fought WW3 got decimated early on, and was always smaller.

    That might sound fantastical, but keep in mind Ireland is an unusual country that has experienced a lot of emigration — 40% of Irish-born adults lived overseas in the early 20th century. It’s a country that has experienced inter-generational fluccuations in population size, particularly in the mid-20th century, similar to what would happen in a catastrophic war or a famine.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/generationemigration/2011/11/02/traditions-of-emigration-the-irish-habit-of-going-away/

    In eras of economic crisis, the Irish have left in their millions for new lives overseas. In the twentieth century mass emigration reached levels during the 1940s and 1950s that were reminiscent of the 1850s, in the aftermath of the Great Irish Famine. Again the 1980s were another “lost” decade characterised by emigration and unemployment. It is difficult to predict how many will leave or indeed how long the current exodus will last, though all the early indications are that it will be yet another peak in the long history of movement out of Ireland.

  33. @MattinLA
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes. But there are some people (me) who never managed to even have sex until age 31. It's a miracle I ended up with two children. Now I'm too old to have more. Incel problems among males are killing American fertility.

    Replies: @Truth, @Jay Fink

    Yes. A large number of men want to have children and would make high quality family men but women aren’t interested in them.

    • Agree: Reverend Goody
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jay Fink


    Yes. A large number of men want to have children and would make high quality family men but women aren’t interested in them.
     
    Masculinity is brutal. Nature overproduces the male of the species. However, American society used to try not to exacerbate the problem.

    An anecdote: when I was about 30, my wife and I were serendipitously seated at the president's table at the banquet of a major U.S. industrial conference. The linen was crisp, the food was good, the conversation was clever, the band was hot. We were probably the only two at the table who were not multimillionaires. I was the youngest man at the table by a margin of a decade.

    My wife, aged mid-20s, was however not the youngest woman at the table. Two or three trophy wives were younger.

    The trophy wives looked great, of course. Insofar as some of the multimillionaires were decent men who had brought along their old, original wives, everybody pretended that it was normal to expect wives in their 50s and 60s to socialize as peers with 22-year-old trophy wives. It was disgusting. Ex-wives who had been present at the previous year's banquet were presumably, discreetly forgotten.

    I don't want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That's a different problem but these men could afford to lose the house. My point is this: forty years earlier, that banquet wouldn't have been infested with trophy wives in the United States. Robust young fellows would have gotten to marry those women, instead.

    Replies: @Rosie

  34. @Average and Harmless
    Anyone who supported the lock-down/masking kabuki theater for a bad flu contributed to one of the most fertility-nuking events of the last half century. Damn all those who stole a year from our lives.

    With that said, the Unz natalist mania is so foreign to me it might as well come from another universe. You would think that pessimists who regularly find new depravities to bewail, and see the Tiber foaming with much blood, would be a little less cavalier about bringing new lives into a world that is apparently going all to hell.

    Replies: @Sollipsist, @Wency

    Natalist logic says that the Titanic would have been less of a disaster if only they’d had more children on board.

  35. @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    People live longer and longer, but since old people can't have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one, supporting older and older people. Ireland has 5 million people, the US has like 200 million whites. Ireland is frankly irrelevant, but even they have fewer and fewer children, below replacement rate: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ireland+fertility+rate

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    You’re posting a common misconception.

    Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically reduce population size because of population momentum and other factors. Ireland is not shrinking in population size but has annual population growth. The following European countries have annual population growth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    The population growth in many of these countries is not solely the result of net-migration i.e. more immigration than emigration (another alt-right myth) but natural growth in terms of more births than deaths e.g.

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So are ‘White people’ declining in number? Sure doesn’t look like it when lots of European countries have natural population growth. And in the European countries where there is population decline – they’re hardly decreasing at all e.g. Greece -0.07%, Poland, -0.16%, Germany -0.17%.

    • Replies: @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Yeah, I specifically explained that to you:


    People live longer and longer, but since old people can’t have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one.
     
    When people live longer, population can increase even though every generation is smaller. More 90-year olds is not cancelling out fewer 20-year olds in any meaningful way, it's just a greater burden.

    And of course whites are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the population in their own countries, which is even worse.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Oliver D. Smith

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Where's Germany? Where's Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.

    Now do low income countries.

    Niger: 45/7

    Nigeria: 37/12

    India: 18/7

    Guatemala: 24/4.7

    Mexico: 17/6

    Haiti: 24/8

    Congo: 40/9

    Afganistan: 32/6.4

    Yemen: 30/6

    The thing is, none of these are static things. When talking about this stuff, we are talking about exponential growth and decay rates and exponents are a hell of a thing.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @JohnPlywood
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Again, you are basing your entire argument on birth/death ratio, which is too simplistic. Countries like Ireland and Russia can have misleading birth/death ratios if they have experienced mass emigration/death/infertility in the past, reducing older cohort sizes. And they have. You won't able to comprehend what is actually happening just based on the ratio of deaths to births. A high birth/death ratio doesn't necessarily imply population growth, and can merely be a reflection of past population shrinkage.

    Russia and Germany experience a lot of immigration which is why their countries aren't losing absolute numbers so quickly.

  36. anon[561] • Disclaimer says:

    1) that the ideal number of children a family should have has remained remarkably consistent over the life of the survey and varies very little by political orientation,

    That is rather interesting, and the ideal tends to reside around 2.5, which is of course impossible. The obvious speculation would be that it’s splitting the difference between 2 and 3 via averaging.

    By they way, it’s difficult to read that chart. I think a year-by-year bar graph would be a better visualization of the data.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  37. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy

    You're posting a common misconception.

    Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically reduce population size because of population momentum and other factors. Ireland is not shrinking in population size but has annual population growth. The following European countries have annual population growth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    The population growth in many of these countries is not solely the result of net-migration i.e. more immigration than emigration (another alt-right myth) but natural growth in terms of more births than deaths e.g.

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So are 'White people' declining in number? Sure doesn't look like it when lots of European countries have natural population growth. And in the European countries where there is population decline - they're hardly decreasing at all e.g. Greece -0.07%, Poland, -0.16%, Germany -0.17%.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @DanHessinMD, @JohnPlywood

    Yeah, I specifically explained that to you:

    People live longer and longer, but since old people can’t have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one.

    When people live longer, population can increase even though every generation is smaller. More 90-year olds is not cancelling out fewer 20-year olds in any meaningful way, it’s just a greater burden.

    And of course whites are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the population in their own countries, which is even worse.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @Some Guy

    It's difficult to have patience with these alt-right types who hyperventilate about the browning of America while supporting anti-natalism. If a people doesn't reproduce, they will be replaced by those who do. Who says A must say B (if you will the end, you must will the means).

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy

    I was disputing the idea that white people are declining in population size when in most countries across Europe there is natural population growth (= more births than deaths) so they aren't right now declining. I interpreted your comment "Every white generation is smaller than the last one" to mean population shrinking but you appear to have meant something different. If so, my mistake.

    Because of population momentum and increase in average life expectancy - most European countries still have natural population growth.

    If you look at South Korea - nearly 30 years with subreplacement fertility only saw population decrease for the first time recorded last year.

    'South Korea sees more deaths than births for first time ever'
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-deaths-birth-rate-b1781920.html

    And even then it barely decreased... we're talking something like a reduction of 30,000 people last year when South Korea has population of 51+ million. Have to laugh at the frenzy of the media claiming that this was some sort of 'alarm'. The insanity of pro-natalists. A country is massively overpopulated with over 51 million people and there's panic for a decrease in like 0.1% in the population.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  38. The commenters that suggest large numbers of children…………..WHAT?! The woman decides the number. Almost all American women have no domestic skills whatsoever. Similarly, they have no nurturing skills – they prefer purses and vacations to children.

    Frankly, American women have driven men to other sorts of women, BUT they become American women quickly enough in YOUR house.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reverend Goody


    WHAT?! The woman decides the number.
     
    Cite your source or you're a liar.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Reverend Goody
    @Reverend Goody

    Source - women own the birth channel. Biology!

  39. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    Can you imagine looking at your fourth, fifth, or 6th child and thinking: “Dang, we went over the ideal!” They are pure gold.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  40. @Twinkie
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Yes, 3 is as hard as it gets, after that they occupy/distract each other.
     
    There are factions among my children. That’s how many I have.

    The only pain is having to get a six, seven or eight seater car.
     
    You speak the truth. The parking lot at my parish church looks like a Secret Service convention with all the super large SUVs.

    When a friend of mine traveled overseas with his family, he rented a school bus.

    I have another friend who lived in a two bathroom-house with nine children, most of them girls. You best use the bathroom at home beforehand before visiting that household.

    I have yet another friend with eleven kids, nine of them boys. That house is a battlefield. My friend stopped patching holes some years ago and decided to just wait until they all left home (though at that point, the grandkids will be putting more holes on the walls).

    My house is orderly - I don’t have a whistle (I don’t need one), but I am Captain von Trapp. Kids are like puppies, you gotta let them know upfront you mean business! My wife is a softie though and I know the house turns into hell in a handbasket when I’m away (I can hear the pandemonium on the phone). Even the dogs act out while I’m gone. And of course everyone, including the dogs, likes mommy best. That’s as it should be.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Dutch Boy

    My three brothers and I were an ornery bunch. One of my female cousins from an all female (except Dad, of course) family was aghast when she saw us amusing ourselves by running at each other from each end of the hallway to collide in the middle. My two sisters learned to stay out of the way.

  41. @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Yeah, I specifically explained that to you:


    People live longer and longer, but since old people can’t have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one.
     
    When people live longer, population can increase even though every generation is smaller. More 90-year olds is not cancelling out fewer 20-year olds in any meaningful way, it's just a greater burden.

    And of course whites are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the population in their own countries, which is even worse.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Oliver D. Smith

    It’s difficult to have patience with these alt-right types who hyperventilate about the browning of America while supporting anti-natalism. If a people doesn’t reproduce, they will be replaced by those who do. Who says A must say B (if you will the end, you must will the means).

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Dutch Boy

    What? Who in the alt-right or WN is anti-natalist? I've debated alt-righters and HBD (basically the pseudointellectual alt-right faction) on this topic in past decade (Tara McCarthy, Mark Collett, Laura Towler, Greg Johnson, Anatoly Karlin, to name a few) none of these individuals want to drastically reduce white fertility rates but the opposite and increase them so does every alt-right/WN organisation. I'm only aware of Johnson once allowing an antinatalist to post an article on his site, but this was back in 2013 - that AN got viciously attacked in the comments.

  42. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    the correct answer is seven or eight.
     
    You, liberal modernist! The correct answer is nine to twelve (you get married in your early to mid twenties, space out the children 1.5 - 2 years and keep having them until your wife is barren).

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing.
     
    Abso-frickin'-lutely! If you don't obsess with material goods like new luxury cars, cable TV, McMansions, and so forth and instead on surrounding yourself with wholesome communities of likeminded people, you'd be surprised by how many children you can raise "on the cheap." Mormons do it all the time and so do "trad" Catholic families. Why, just this Saturday, an economically struggling young couple (who are acquaintances of my friends) came by my house to pick up a crib/toddler bed convertible and a standalone toddler bed (which had been taking up space in my basement). Now they saved themselves a few hundred dollars at least (more like a thousand dollars these days new) and we were also happy to reclaim some basement storage space (we still have more cribs/toddler beds there) and to help out a young couple who are having more babies.

    By the way, once you have a few children, they’ll raise one another: you don’t have to do it all on your own.
     
    The most difficult time for my wife and me was when our first three were 3 years old, 1.5 years old, and newborn. We also had three geriatric dogs at the time. Somebody was peeing or pooping on the floor everyday. Good times. I still have gallons of Nature's Miracle enzyme cleaner.

    Surprise, surprise, those three grew up to be pretty responsible leaders of the little ones (and dogs) and soon my wife and I had built-in babysitters (though we had and have plenty of friends and their older children who were willing to babysit). It's almost shocking how 4+ children were so much easier than 3. When my wife and I had more diddies still, it got pretty easy by comparison. I'm on cruise-control these days (though my biggest enemy now is teenage hormones). Though now we are ever closer to having to think about paying for all the colleges/weddings.

    When you have children, a year goes by like a minute. You know it.

    Replies: @Tony

    Guess your wife isnt Korean.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Tony

    You must be new here.

    My children are Hapas, though I always joke that they see themselves as whites with a touch of the exotic.

  43. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do. Don’t wait until you’re too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.
     
    LOL. You people are insane.

    Have you never heard of overpopulation? What "demographic collapse"? We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)

    Replies: @Catdog, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnotherDad

    Have you never heard of overpopulation?

    I’ve heard of the infinity negroes program, if that’s what you mean.

  44. @Jay Fink
    @MattinLA

    Yes. A large number of men want to have children and would make high quality family men but women aren't interested in them.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes. A large number of men want to have children and would make high quality family men but women aren’t interested in them.

    Masculinity is brutal. Nature overproduces the male of the species. However, American society used to try not to exacerbate the problem.

    An anecdote: when I was about 30, my wife and I were serendipitously seated at the president’s table at the banquet of a major U.S. industrial conference. The linen was crisp, the food was good, the conversation was clever, the band was hot. We were probably the only two at the table who were not multimillionaires. I was the youngest man at the table by a margin of a decade.

    My wife, aged mid-20s, was however not the youngest woman at the table. Two or three trophy wives were younger.

    The trophy wives looked great, of course. Insofar as some of the multimillionaires were decent men who had brought along their old, original wives, everybody pretended that it was normal to expect wives in their 50s and 60s to socialize as peers with 22-year-old trophy wives. It was disgusting. Ex-wives who had been present at the previous year’s banquet were presumably, discreetly forgotten.

    I don’t want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That’s a different problem but these men could afford to lose the house. My point is this: forty years earlier, that banquet wouldn’t have been infested with trophy wives in the United States. Robust young fellows would have gotten to marry those women, instead.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You:


    Nature overproduces the male of the species.
     
    "It's really hard to find a wife."

    Also you:


    I don’t want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That’s a different problem...
     
    "Let's make it worse by allowing double-dipping dirty old men to kick their aging wife out of the house and replace her with a younger model."

    Even if you buy this crap about "female hypergamy," there can be no hypergamy without corresponding hypogamy.

    Meanwhile:

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-mackenzie-scott-following-marriage-seattle-teacher

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Charles Pewitt, @nebulafox

  45. @Dutch Boy
    @Some Guy

    It's difficult to have patience with these alt-right types who hyperventilate about the browning of America while supporting anti-natalism. If a people doesn't reproduce, they will be replaced by those who do. Who says A must say B (if you will the end, you must will the means).

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    What? Who in the alt-right or WN is anti-natalist? I’ve debated alt-righters and HBD (basically the pseudointellectual alt-right faction) on this topic in past decade (Tara McCarthy, Mark Collett, Laura Towler, Greg Johnson, Anatoly Karlin, to name a few) none of these individuals want to drastically reduce white fertility rates but the opposite and increase them so does every alt-right/WN organisation. I’m only aware of Johnson once allowing an antinatalist to post an article on his site, but this was back in 2013 – that AN got viciously attacked in the comments.

  46. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    That’s what I’m aiming for bud, Manchus have ethnic minority exemptions from one-child policy. I’m sure I’m exactly the person you were thinking of, right?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Supply and Demand


    That’s what I’m aiming for bud, Manchus have ethnic minority exemptions from one-child policy. I’m sure I’m exactly the person you were thinking of, right?
     
    Some readers seem to think that I should have a complicated agenda, but I don't.

    1. Civilization is not a problem to solve but a garden to tend.

    2. Individualism is overrated.

    3. Political optics is overrated.

    4. My country, right or wrong.

    5. History is a slaughterbench. Events will ride the saddle.

    6. White people have interests.

    Other than these, I have no program. If you have read my advice regarding raising children, then the advice is for you. Best of luck.

  47. @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Yeah, I specifically explained that to you:


    People live longer and longer, but since old people can’t have kids they are irrelevant when it comes to reproduction. Every white generation is smaller than the last one.
     
    When people live longer, population can increase even though every generation is smaller. More 90-year olds is not cancelling out fewer 20-year olds in any meaningful way, it's just a greater burden.

    And of course whites are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the population in their own countries, which is even worse.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Oliver D. Smith

    I was disputing the idea that white people are declining in population size when in most countries across Europe there is natural population growth (= more births than deaths) so they aren’t right now declining. I interpreted your comment “Every white generation is smaller than the last one” to mean population shrinking but you appear to have meant something different. If so, my mistake.

    Because of population momentum and increase in average life expectancy – most European countries still have natural population growth.

    If you look at South Korea – nearly 30 years with subreplacement fertility only saw population decrease for the first time recorded last year.

    ‘South Korea sees more deaths than births for first time ever’
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-deaths-birth-rate-b1781920.html

    And even then it barely decreased… we’re talking something like a reduction of 30,000 people last year when South Korea has population of 51+ million. Have to laugh at the frenzy of the media claiming that this was some sort of ‘alarm’. The insanity of pro-natalists. A country is massively overpopulated with over 51 million people and there’s panic for a decrease in like 0.1% in the population.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The reason South Korean population is only now going down is that these things have a huge amount of momentum. It's like an oil tanker.

    South Korea had a fertility rate of 6 kids per woman in 1960, so there was a huge amount of momentum there. But that momentum is spent. The women born from 1960-1980, this enormous cohort, have now aged out of childbearing.

    There is a huge lag between fertility and life expectancy.

    If I am a heroin addict, I may be in good health right now, but the trajectory will still be sharply downward.

    In the case of South Korea, they are now at only 1/3 of replacement, 0.7 births per woman in the most recent quarters. This makes for steep population collapse over time. This would mean more than a 95% population decline per century.

    This while poor countries double every generation.

    The problem with fertility is that once your productive population is collapsing, it is far too late to solve the problem, because it takes 25-30 years to make a productive person.

    Population is comparable to altitude while fertility rate is comparable to ascent / descent. If you are plummeting, you have a problem. If anything the fall is more dramatic if you are plummeting from a very high altitude.

    South Korea and other countries have seen their engines basically lose most of their power. Yes, they still have a lot of altitude, but with the engines failing it is only a matter of time before there is a crash. A plane can go on a glide path for quite some time, but if power isn't restored to the engines, the plane is going down once its momentum is spent.

  48. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    You don’t want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.
     
    Nonsense. Pro-natalism lies.

    Studies have repeatedly shown voluntary childfree people have the lowest rates of depression and enhanced well-being.

    "Having children is associated with reduced happiness, particularly for women, and particularly in the U.S., and that link appears to sustain over the long term."
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-therapy/201912/why-so-many-are-satisfied-being-childless-choice

    The American Sociological Association conducted a major study and found that parents are more likely to be depressed than people who are childfree.
    https://www.livescience.com/7009-kids-depressing-study-parents-finds.html

    Replies: @Catdog, @Charles, @DanHessinMD

    Maybe parenthood is tough on women (understandable since they have a lot of the childcare work).

    But parenthood makes men MUCH MUCH happier.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @DanHessinMD

    Yes no surprise there since most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don't live with them but have moved out. Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they're happy - the answer will be no. I'm sure there's studies that show this, but I can't be bothered to look right now.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  49. I don’t have any objection to large families, except when the kids emanating there from burden the taxpayers (e.g. enroll in public schools).

    In fairness, I have sympathy for couples who would like to have (more) kids but, due to high taxes they pay, feel that they cannot afford to.

    I’m acquainted with one large family that increases roughly every 18 months. The parents make sure that when one kid is approaching the age when s/he will disqualify for AFDC checks, they have another child in the queue ready to take their place.

  50. @Supply and Demand
    @V. K. Ovelund

    That's what I'm aiming for bud, Manchus have ethnic minority exemptions from one-child policy. I'm sure I'm exactly the person you were thinking of, right?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    That’s what I’m aiming for bud, Manchus have ethnic minority exemptions from one-child policy. I’m sure I’m exactly the person you were thinking of, right?

    Some readers seem to think that I should have a complicated agenda, but I don’t.

    1. Civilization is not a problem to solve but a garden to tend.

    2. Individualism is overrated.

    3. Political optics is overrated.

    4. My country, right or wrong.

    5. History is a slaughterbench. Events will ride the saddle.

    6. White people have interests.

    Other than these, I have no program. If you have read my advice regarding raising children, then the advice is for you. Best of luck.

  51. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy

    I was disputing the idea that white people are declining in population size when in most countries across Europe there is natural population growth (= more births than deaths) so they aren't right now declining. I interpreted your comment "Every white generation is smaller than the last one" to mean population shrinking but you appear to have meant something different. If so, my mistake.

    Because of population momentum and increase in average life expectancy - most European countries still have natural population growth.

    If you look at South Korea - nearly 30 years with subreplacement fertility only saw population decrease for the first time recorded last year.

    'South Korea sees more deaths than births for first time ever'
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-deaths-birth-rate-b1781920.html

    And even then it barely decreased... we're talking something like a reduction of 30,000 people last year when South Korea has population of 51+ million. Have to laugh at the frenzy of the media claiming that this was some sort of 'alarm'. The insanity of pro-natalists. A country is massively overpopulated with over 51 million people and there's panic for a decrease in like 0.1% in the population.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    The reason South Korean population is only now going down is that these things have a huge amount of momentum. It’s like an oil tanker.

    South Korea had a fertility rate of 6 kids per woman in 1960, so there was a huge amount of momentum there. But that momentum is spent. The women born from 1960-1980, this enormous cohort, have now aged out of childbearing.

    There is a huge lag between fertility and life expectancy.

    If I am a heroin addict, I may be in good health right now, but the trajectory will still be sharply downward.

    In the case of South Korea, they are now at only 1/3 of replacement, 0.7 births per woman in the most recent quarters. This makes for steep population collapse over time. This would mean more than a 95% population decline per century.

    This while poor countries double every generation.

    The problem with fertility is that once your productive population is collapsing, it is far too late to solve the problem, because it takes 25-30 years to make a productive person.

    Population is comparable to altitude while fertility rate is comparable to ascent / descent. If you are plummeting, you have a problem. If anything the fall is more dramatic if you are plummeting from a very high altitude.

    South Korea and other countries have seen their engines basically lose most of their power. Yes, they still have a lot of altitude, but with the engines failing it is only a matter of time before there is a crash. A plane can go on a glide path for quite some time, but if power isn’t restored to the engines, the plane is going down once its momentum is spent.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Thanks: Some Guy
  52. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy

    You're posting a common misconception.

    Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically reduce population size because of population momentum and other factors. Ireland is not shrinking in population size but has annual population growth. The following European countries have annual population growth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    The population growth in many of these countries is not solely the result of net-migration i.e. more immigration than emigration (another alt-right myth) but natural growth in terms of more births than deaths e.g.

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So are 'White people' declining in number? Sure doesn't look like it when lots of European countries have natural population growth. And in the European countries where there is population decline - they're hardly decreasing at all e.g. Greece -0.07%, Poland, -0.16%, Germany -0.17%.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @DanHessinMD, @JohnPlywood

    Where’s Germany? Where’s Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.

    Now do low income countries.

    Niger: 45/7

    Nigeria: 37/12

    India: 18/7

    Guatemala: 24/4.7

    Mexico: 17/6

    Haiti: 24/8

    Congo: 40/9

    Afganistan: 32/6.4

    Yemen: 30/6

    The thing is, none of these are static things. When talking about this stuff, we are talking about exponential growth and decay rates and exponents are a hell of a thing.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @DanHessinMD


    Where’s Germany? Where’s Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.
     
    Out of 47 European countries (including Turkey since 3% of its territory lies in Europe) 27 (a majority) have population growth and nearly all of these countries have natural growth as well as net-migration growth., and the growth isn't solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths. Although this data is slightly old and from 2018-2019.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    I said Germany doesn't have population growth but note its population decrease is minimal - it's annually declining by only -0.17% in size. Russia's decrease is negligible.

    Regardless of what European countries have population growth or minimal/negligible population decrease - they remain overpopulated. And if they're decreasing by only ~0.1% a year then it will take many decades even centuries to see any significant population size reduction. Russia's population size will still be well above 100 million in 2100 based on current projections. Depressing when you look at it this way But I have to look on the positive side - fertility rates are continuously dropping across the globe.

    Replies: @sic, @Some Guy

  53. @DanHessinMD
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Maybe parenthood is tough on women (understandable since they have a lot of the childcare work).

    But parenthood makes men MUCH MUCH happier.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/nickfigure3-w640.png

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Yes no surprise there since most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don’t live with them but have moved out. Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they’re happy – the answer will be no. I’m sure there’s studies that show this, but I can’t be bothered to look right now.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don’t live with them but have moved out"

    First child at age 36, last at 46, so I was one of the older Dads in the playground. But not the oldest.

    Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they’re happy – the answer will be no.

    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), "Daddy!" running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.

    The only bad bit is when your company is having yet another reorg, and you are wondering if Daddy will still have a job in six weeks.

    15-17 year old girls, not so much. But the nightmare years don't last for ever, though it may feel like it, and they've come out on the other side as remarkably nice people. The key is (although I still bear a few scars on my heart) to remember that they mean what they say at the time when they say it and they (like other, perhaps all women) are variable creatures.

    Replies: @Wency, @Oliver D. Smith

  54. @DanHessinMD
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Where's Germany? Where's Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.

    Now do low income countries.

    Niger: 45/7

    Nigeria: 37/12

    India: 18/7

    Guatemala: 24/4.7

    Mexico: 17/6

    Haiti: 24/8

    Congo: 40/9

    Afganistan: 32/6.4

    Yemen: 30/6

    The thing is, none of these are static things. When talking about this stuff, we are talking about exponential growth and decay rates and exponents are a hell of a thing.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Where’s Germany? Where’s Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.

    Out of 47 European countries (including Turkey since 3% of its territory lies in Europe) 27 (a majority) have population growth and nearly all of these countries have natural growth as well as net-migration growth., and the growth isn’t solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths. Although this data is slightly old and from 2018-2019.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    I said Germany doesn’t have population growth but note its population decrease is minimal – it’s annually declining by only -0.17% in size. Russia’s decrease is negligible.

    Regardless of what European countries have population growth or minimal/negligible population decrease – they remain overpopulated. And if they’re decreasing by only ~0.1% a year then it will take many decades even centuries to see any significant population size reduction. Russia’s population size will still be well above 100 million in 2100 based on current projections. Depressing when you look at it this way But I have to look on the positive side – fertility rates are continuously dropping across the globe.

    • Replies: @sic
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I'm going to breed many, many more children, I have no intention of taking care of all but a few, and there is nothing you can do about it.

    , @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Overpopulated in what way? It's not like we lack in food, water or land to build housing on. And anyway, politicians will just use natural population decline as an excuse to bring in more immigrants, so low fertility won't actually help this "overpopulation" you speak of.


    and the growth isn’t solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths

     

    And who has the highest birthrates? African and Middle-Eastern immigrants. When you say Germany's decline is minimal, the fact that it's still declining despite longer lifespans and massive immigration of groups with high birth rates speaks to how bad the decline in native births is.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  55. @Oliver D. Smith
    @DanHessinMD


    Where’s Germany? Where’s Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.
     
    Out of 47 European countries (including Turkey since 3% of its territory lies in Europe) 27 (a majority) have population growth and nearly all of these countries have natural growth as well as net-migration growth., and the growth isn't solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths. Although this data is slightly old and from 2018-2019.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    I said Germany doesn't have population growth but note its population decrease is minimal - it's annually declining by only -0.17% in size. Russia's decrease is negligible.

    Regardless of what European countries have population growth or minimal/negligible population decrease - they remain overpopulated. And if they're decreasing by only ~0.1% a year then it will take many decades even centuries to see any significant population size reduction. Russia's population size will still be well above 100 million in 2100 based on current projections. Depressing when you look at it this way But I have to look on the positive side - fertility rates are continuously dropping across the globe.

    Replies: @sic, @Some Guy

    I’m going to breed many, many more children, I have no intention of taking care of all but a few, and there is nothing you can do about it.

  56. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy

    You're posting a common misconception.

    Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically reduce population size because of population momentum and other factors. Ireland is not shrinking in population size but has annual population growth. The following European countries have annual population growth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    The population growth in many of these countries is not solely the result of net-migration i.e. more immigration than emigration (another alt-right myth) but natural growth in terms of more births than deaths e.g.

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So are 'White people' declining in number? Sure doesn't look like it when lots of European countries have natural population growth. And in the European countries where there is population decline - they're hardly decreasing at all e.g. Greece -0.07%, Poland, -0.16%, Germany -0.17%.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @DanHessinMD, @JohnPlywood

    Again, you are basing your entire argument on birth/death ratio, which is too simplistic. Countries like Ireland and Russia can have misleading birth/death ratios if they have experienced mass emigration/death/infertility in the past, reducing older cohort sizes. And they have. You won’t able to comprehend what is actually happening just based on the ratio of deaths to births. A high birth/death ratio doesn’t necessarily imply population growth, and can merely be a reflection of past population shrinkage.

    Russia and Germany experience a lot of immigration which is why their countries aren’t losing absolute numbers so quickly.

  57. @Oliver D. Smith
    @DanHessinMD


    Where’s Germany? Where’s Russia? Where is most of Eastern Europe? You have cherry picked the best-performing European countries to support your thesis.
     
    Out of 47 European countries (including Turkey since 3% of its territory lies in Europe) 27 (a majority) have population growth and nearly all of these countries have natural growth as well as net-migration growth., and the growth isn't solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths. Although this data is slightly old and from 2018-2019.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    I said Germany doesn't have population growth but note its population decrease is minimal - it's annually declining by only -0.17% in size. Russia's decrease is negligible.

    Regardless of what European countries have population growth or minimal/negligible population decrease - they remain overpopulated. And if they're decreasing by only ~0.1% a year then it will take many decades even centuries to see any significant population size reduction. Russia's population size will still be well above 100 million in 2100 based on current projections. Depressing when you look at it this way But I have to look on the positive side - fertility rates are continuously dropping across the globe.

    Replies: @sic, @Some Guy

    Overpopulated in what way? It’s not like we lack in food, water or land to build housing on. And anyway, politicians will just use natural population decline as an excuse to bring in more immigrants, so low fertility won’t actually help this “overpopulation” you speak of.

    and the growth isn’t solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths

    And who has the highest birthrates? African and Middle-Eastern immigrants. When you say Germany’s decline is minimal, the fact that it’s still declining despite longer lifespans and massive immigration of groups with high birth rates speaks to how bad the decline in native births is.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy


    Overpopulated in what way? It’s not like we lack in food, water or land to build housing on. And anyway, politicians will just use natural population decline as an excuse to bring in more immigrants, so low fertility won’t actually help this “overpopulation” you speak of.
     
    The vast majority of politicians support population growth - since they're committed to capitalism (more people = more consumers = more economic growth.) Left-wing greens are too afraid to discuss overpopulation because of political correctness as well as the fact many of them are committed to the idea of "green growth" (eco-capitalism) anyway. The far-right are pro-natalist racists so they won't address overpopulation either. So there are almost no politicians or political parties talking about overpopulation. - the whole political spectrum ignores it and sees it as a taboo. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10042857.2016.1149296

    Russia has one of the highest total and per capita carbon emissions in world- its overpopulated if you look at how much environmental degradation and biodiversity loss it is causing. Also look up how many animal species in Russia are threatened with extinction. This is undeniably linked to population growth, not only consumption.

    The typical user on Unz, though doesn't care about this sort of stuff - but reality is the less people born in countries with high per capita CO2 emissions - the better since it has the most immediate positive impact on mitigating global warming and biodiversity loss.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/2018_Worldwide_CO2_Emissions_%28by_region%2C_per_capita%29%2C_variwide_chart.png

    Replies: @Some Guy

  58. A question for Oliver D. Smith—have you ever looked at what’s happening with the Zoroastrian population in India right now, to see what the future of demographic collapse looks like? It isn’t pretty.

    There’s something I like to call The Shaker Principle: Any culture that outsources reproduction will cease to exist within a few generations.

  59. @Tony
    @Twinkie

    Guess your wife isnt Korean.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You must be new here.

    My children are Hapas, though I always joke that they see themselves as whites with a touch of the exotic.

  60. @Oliver D. Smith
    @DanHessinMD

    Yes no surprise there since most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don't live with them but have moved out. Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they're happy - the answer will be no. I'm sure there's studies that show this, but I can't be bothered to look right now.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don’t live with them but have moved out

    First child at age 36, last at 46, so I was one of the older Dads in the playground. But not the oldest.

    Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they’re happy – the answer will be no.

    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), “Daddy!” running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.

    The only bad bit is when your company is having yet another reorg, and you are wondering if Daddy will still have a job in six weeks.

    15-17 year old girls, not so much. But the nightmare years don’t last for ever, though it may feel like it, and they’ve come out on the other side as remarkably nice people. The key is (although I still bear a few scars on my heart) to remember that they mean what they say at the time when they say it and they (like other, perhaps all women) are variable creatures.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Yeah, some men, especially young men, can't handle the loss of freedom, but I love having a baby around. Whatever else I was going to do wasn't going to be that important or enjoyable. I'll be honest, the worst part isn't waking up in the middle of the night or changing dirty diapers, it's having less sex with my wife, between the tiredness and her libido taking a big hit while breastfeeding. But things could still be a lot worse on that front.


    15-17 year old girls, not so much.
     
    I don't have any girls (yet), but I saw some research come out recently that being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk. I guess I'm sort of ambivalent about ever having girls -- I think I'd be perfectly happy with a pack of boys, but I imagine there's a lot to learn and experience from a girl.

    A good friend of mine tells me that he knows what his boys are thinking before they do, but the girls always keep him on his toes.

    Replies: @Rosie, @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @YetAnotherAnon


    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), “Daddy!” running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.
     
    Thanks for reminding me - another reason I oppose human procreation is because it's patriarchal and sexist. Why should women be expected to look after kids until 7pm and be exhausted?

    https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/feminist-antinatalist-arguments/

    Replies: @mikemikev

  61. @anonymous
    The lines are mixing two effects occuring over 40 years. People within a political label may be changing their views, but also a given type of person may be changing political labels. For example a blue collar union guy might have thought of himself as liberal in 1974 based on the conception of the label then, but the same person wouldn't be so now. It may be impossible to disentangle the changing birth outcomes of liberals with the changing composition of liberals.

    Replies: @Wency

    It’s a valid question, but the self-identifying liberal percentage of the population has been on the increase. I’m not certain, but I don’t think your typical Democrat-voting unionized Midwestern Catholic family man in 1974 considered himself a “liberal”. Perhaps a “moderate”, if someone asked. Or he might not have had an answer to the question. A lot of these people voted for Reagan, which is how he won 49 states.

    I actually think the liberal increase might be entangled somewhat with low births in another way: given how much the gender gap in voting has soared, my guess is your marginal “liberal” today is most likely a “Sex in the City” single woman who would have already been a married mother in 1974. That is to say, part of the reason liberals have fewer children is that childlessness itself makes a person, especially a woman, liberal.

  62. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don’t live with them but have moved out"

    First child at age 36, last at 46, so I was one of the older Dads in the playground. But not the oldest.

    Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they’re happy – the answer will be no.

    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), "Daddy!" running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.

    The only bad bit is when your company is having yet another reorg, and you are wondering if Daddy will still have a job in six weeks.

    15-17 year old girls, not so much. But the nightmare years don't last for ever, though it may feel like it, and they've come out on the other side as remarkably nice people. The key is (although I still bear a few scars on my heart) to remember that they mean what they say at the time when they say it and they (like other, perhaps all women) are variable creatures.

    Replies: @Wency, @Oliver D. Smith

    Yeah, some men, especially young men, can’t handle the loss of freedom, but I love having a baby around. Whatever else I was going to do wasn’t going to be that important or enjoyable. I’ll be honest, the worst part isn’t waking up in the middle of the night or changing dirty diapers, it’s having less sex with my wife, between the tiredness and her libido taking a big hit while breastfeeding. But things could still be a lot worse on that front.

    15-17 year old girls, not so much.

    I don’t have any girls (yet), but I saw some research come out recently that being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk. I guess I’m sort of ambivalent about ever having girls — I think I’d be perfectly happy with a pack of boys, but I imagine there’s a lot to learn and experience from a girl.

    A good friend of mine tells me that he knows what his boys are thinking before they do, but the girls always keep him on his toes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Wency


    I don’t have any girls (yet), but I saw some research come out recently that being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk.
     
    One theory is that women are less willing to accept being mistreated in front of their teenage daughters who may come to see that as normal. Anecdotally, this has been a major factor for a couple of women I have known contemplating divorce.

    OT, but funny as hell:

    https://www.kmov.com/news/missouri-pastor-slammed-for-telling-wives-to-lose-weight-look-less-butch-to-keep-husbands/article_74bf3477-28bd-5efc-9c3c-f0ade3d653ed.html

    And here's his fugly a$$.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/08/multimedia/08xp-pastor/08xp-pastor-articleLarge.png?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Wency

    "being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk"

    Unlike Rosie I don't think it's because I can't abuse my wife any more 'cos she's setting an example to her daughters, it's just that daughters going off the rails are a much bigger worry/stress - and a fair number do.

    I'm sure there are a few underlying things, from mum no longer being the only woman in the house to the tension between "let her enjoy herself" and "no you are not staying at that party".

    There's nothing like a daughter (whose phone is never charged, none of them are) going out with a friend (agreed that she's staying over at her place) and us getting a 4am call from the friend's mum.

    "Is Lydia back yet? Because the police called, Julie (her daughter) was found unconscious in the street and taken to hospital, and we don't know where Lydia is."

    We have had a few calls of that sort over the years, only one involving one of our boys. They are paragons of sense compared with the girls.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  63. @Average and Harmless
    Anyone who supported the lock-down/masking kabuki theater for a bad flu contributed to one of the most fertility-nuking events of the last half century. Damn all those who stole a year from our lives.

    With that said, the Unz natalist mania is so foreign to me it might as well come from another universe. You would think that pessimists who regularly find new depravities to bewail, and see the Tiber foaming with much blood, would be a little less cavalier about bringing new lives into a world that is apparently going all to hell.

    Replies: @Sollipsist, @Wency

    As someone who is pessimistically inclined, I can only say that children *are* the hope. They exude hopefulness in all they do and in their mere existence. What was somewhat surprising to me was that in my and my wife’s dwindling extended families, our firstborn brought an outpouring of hope not just from our parents, but various aunts and uncles who are either childless or the parents of permanently childless kids. And if you belong to a community of any sort with other parents — neighborhood, religion, or whatever — everyone is delighted at the birth of everyone else’s children.

    Once you hit middle age, everything on a personal level starts going downhill all the time. Your body is breaking down, you’re getting uglier, slower, weaker, fatter. Tasks that you once took for granted now cause you pain every time. So if you have a shortage of hope when you’re 20, just wait until you’re 40, and then 60.

    But if you have kids, they’re continuously getting stronger, faster, smarter, up to the point when they themselves are hopefully soon having children of their own. In a world governed by entropy, they’re anti-entropic.

    The whole “who would want to bring children into a world like this” line of thinking never really made sense to me, even when I wasn’t sure if I wanted kids. Yes, things are headed downhill, but I am preceded by thousands of generations that endured brutality, famine, oppression, and plague that moderns can scarcely comprehend, and yet my ancestors still went through the trouble of having children. Kids are resilient, they adapt to their environment, and the task of parents is partly to help them adapt but also to teach them that in adapting they still remember and pass along what is good in this world. And a big part of what’s good in this world is having kids.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Average and Harmless
    @Wency

    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago. I’m fairly confident that 50 years from now will be better still. But all of us are going to find ourselves becoming older, fatter, slower, and, eventually, dead. That certainty isn’t likely to change in the next 50, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.

    Replies: @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

  64. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jay Fink


    Yes. A large number of men want to have children and would make high quality family men but women aren’t interested in them.
     
    Masculinity is brutal. Nature overproduces the male of the species. However, American society used to try not to exacerbate the problem.

    An anecdote: when I was about 30, my wife and I were serendipitously seated at the president's table at the banquet of a major U.S. industrial conference. The linen was crisp, the food was good, the conversation was clever, the band was hot. We were probably the only two at the table who were not multimillionaires. I was the youngest man at the table by a margin of a decade.

    My wife, aged mid-20s, was however not the youngest woman at the table. Two or three trophy wives were younger.

    The trophy wives looked great, of course. Insofar as some of the multimillionaires were decent men who had brought along their old, original wives, everybody pretended that it was normal to expect wives in their 50s and 60s to socialize as peers with 22-year-old trophy wives. It was disgusting. Ex-wives who had been present at the previous year's banquet were presumably, discreetly forgotten.

    I don't want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That's a different problem but these men could afford to lose the house. My point is this: forty years earlier, that banquet wouldn't have been infested with trophy wives in the United States. Robust young fellows would have gotten to marry those women, instead.

    Replies: @Rosie

    You:

    Nature overproduces the male of the species.

    “It’s really hard to find a wife.”

    Also you:

    I don’t want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That’s a different problem…

    “Let’s make it worse by allowing double-dipping dirty old men to kick their aging wife out of the house and replace her with a younger model.”

    Even if you buy this crap about “female hypergamy,” there can be no hypergamy without corresponding hypogamy.

    Meanwhile:

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-mackenzie-scott-following-marriage-seattle-teacher

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @Rosie

    I wrote this in June of 2017:

    Mark Zuckerberg has spent a lot of money pushing for nation-wrecking mass immigration. Zuckerberg has paid many politicians to vote for more legal immigration.

    Zuckerberg pushed hard to get the Illegal Alien Amnesty — Mass Immigration Surge bill(S744) of 2013 passed in the US Senate. The US House refused to vote on the bill. Boehner knew that a vote on S744 would destroy the Republican Party. President Trump ran on the political energy created by riled up Americans who were angered by S744.

    Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg have too much political power. Bezos and Zuckerberg must be stopped when they push for more mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/jeff-bezos-languishes-under-the-trump-tyranny/#comment-1920363

    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Rosie

    I wrote this in June of 2017:

    Sam Francis — Pat Buchanan — Peter Brimelow — Steve Sailer — Ann Coulter — President Donald Trump

    American Patriots who fight to enact a pro-sovereignty immigration moratorium and begin the hard business of mass deportations will eventually defeat billionaire mass immigration enthusiasts such as Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/jeff-bezos-languishes-under-the-trump-tyranny/#comment-1920363

    Tweet from 2017:

    https://twitter.com/peterbrimelow/status/880848771982209026?s=20

    , @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    Everyone wants the best mate they can attract. That's not specifically male or female. That's just human nature. The Internet and the tacit societal decision to treat courtship like another economic market might exacerbate these tendencies in novel ways, not least because people simultaneously have more prospects and fewer connections than ever, but the basic drive hasn't changed much.

    The difference between men and women is that the former are much more likely to sleep with someone they have no interest in as a long-term prospect, to the shock of nobody who understands the biological differences between the two sexes. R

    Really, a surprising majority-perhaps all-of the differences between men and women can boil down to one single, simple thing: Women. Give. Birth.

  65. @Reverend Goody
    The commenters that suggest large numbers of children..............WHAT?! The woman decides the number. Almost all American women have no domestic skills whatsoever. Similarly, they have no nurturing skills - they prefer purses and vacations to children.

    Frankly, American women have driven men to other sorts of women, BUT they become American women quickly enough in YOUR house.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reverend Goody

    WHAT?! The woman decides the number.

    Cite your source or you’re a liar.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Rosie

    @Reverend Goody's statement is too strong, but women do usually have more input.

    What I would say is that in practice, in a normal marriage (which excludes scenarios like sabotaging birth control or disagreements about abortions), either person can put a hard veto on more children. But men, who are less affected by childbirth and (usually) childcare, are more likely than women to be ambivalent or lack a strong opinion about family size, and in such a scenario the woman will largely decide the number. If he weakly favors around 2 children and she strongly favors 10, his opinion will still come into play somewhere. But if we're operating in the usual space of 1-3 children, she will 100% pick the number in such a marriage. I know more than one family that has played out this way.

    The dynamic where the woman is ambivalent about having more children but will go along with her husband's strong opinion and keep getting pregnant is much more rare.

    Replies: @Rosie

  66. @Wency
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Yeah, some men, especially young men, can't handle the loss of freedom, but I love having a baby around. Whatever else I was going to do wasn't going to be that important or enjoyable. I'll be honest, the worst part isn't waking up in the middle of the night or changing dirty diapers, it's having less sex with my wife, between the tiredness and her libido taking a big hit while breastfeeding. But things could still be a lot worse on that front.


    15-17 year old girls, not so much.
     
    I don't have any girls (yet), but I saw some research come out recently that being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk. I guess I'm sort of ambivalent about ever having girls -- I think I'd be perfectly happy with a pack of boys, but I imagine there's a lot to learn and experience from a girl.

    A good friend of mine tells me that he knows what his boys are thinking before they do, but the girls always keep him on his toes.

    Replies: @Rosie, @YetAnotherAnon

    I don’t have any girls (yet), but I saw some research come out recently that being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk.

    One theory is that women are less willing to accept being mistreated in front of their teenage daughters who may come to see that as normal. Anecdotally, this has been a major factor for a couple of women I have known contemplating divorce.

    OT, but funny as hell:

    https://www.kmov.com/news/missouri-pastor-slammed-for-telling-wives-to-lose-weight-look-less-butch-to-keep-husbands/article_74bf3477-28bd-5efc-9c3c-f0ade3d653ed.html

    And here’s his fugly a$$.

  67. Jeff Bezos must be financially liquidated and then he must be permanently and forcibly exiled to a walled and fenced compound in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Jeff Bezos is a large part of the problem of declining White births in that he is a globalizer plutocrat who has bought and payed for politician whores to protect his ability to concentrate wealth and power for the plutocrats.

    Jeff Bezos and the globalizer plutocrats are clear and present threats to the White people in White Core America to be able to engage in and enjoy AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION.

    Young Whites in White Core America could couple up and form bigger families if it wasn’t for Jeff Bezos and his globalizer plutocrat pals concentrating all the conjured up cash.

    I wrote this in January of 2019:

    Mr. Buzz Mohawk, will you please tell me why ugly bastard billionaire mass immigration booster Bezos is giving up 70 billion dollars for a dark-haired Charo knockoff?

    If I were president I would call for a wealth tax on billionaire bastards to financially wipe them out. Bezos’s wife could get half of what Bezos got and I would take the other half. Amazon would be obliterated and any electronic services or other things provided by Amazon would be done in-house by the intelligence agencies, the military and other unmentionables.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-sixties-vs-the-current-year/#comment-2777914

  68. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You:


    Nature overproduces the male of the species.
     
    "It's really hard to find a wife."

    Also you:


    I don’t want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That’s a different problem...
     
    "Let's make it worse by allowing double-dipping dirty old men to kick their aging wife out of the house and replace her with a younger model."

    Even if you buy this crap about "female hypergamy," there can be no hypergamy without corresponding hypogamy.

    Meanwhile:

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-mackenzie-scott-following-marriage-seattle-teacher

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Charles Pewitt, @nebulafox

    I wrote this in June of 2017:

    Mark Zuckerberg has spent a lot of money pushing for nation-wrecking mass immigration. Zuckerberg has paid many politicians to vote for more legal immigration.

    Zuckerberg pushed hard to get the Illegal Alien Amnesty — Mass Immigration Surge bill(S744) of 2013 passed in the US Senate. The US House refused to vote on the bill. Boehner knew that a vote on S744 would destroy the Republican Party. President Trump ran on the political energy created by riled up Americans who were angered by S744.

    Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg have too much political power. Bezos and Zuckerberg must be stopped when they push for more mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/jeff-bezos-languishes-under-the-trump-tyranny/#comment-1920363

  69. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You:


    Nature overproduces the male of the species.
     
    "It's really hard to find a wife."

    Also you:


    I don’t want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That’s a different problem...
     
    "Let's make it worse by allowing double-dipping dirty old men to kick their aging wife out of the house and replace her with a younger model."

    Even if you buy this crap about "female hypergamy," there can be no hypergamy without corresponding hypogamy.

    Meanwhile:

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-mackenzie-scott-following-marriage-seattle-teacher

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Charles Pewitt, @nebulafox

    I wrote this in June of 2017:

    Sam Francis — Pat Buchanan — Peter Brimelow — Steve Sailer — Ann Coulter — President Donald Trump

    American Patriots who fight to enact a pro-sovereignty immigration moratorium and begin the hard business of mass deportations will eventually defeat billionaire mass immigration enthusiasts such as Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/jeff-bezos-languishes-under-the-trump-tyranny/#comment-1920363

    Tweet from 2017:

  70. @Rosie
    @Reverend Goody


    WHAT?! The woman decides the number.
     
    Cite your source or you're a liar.

    Replies: @Wency

    ’s statement is too strong, but women do usually have more input.

    What I would say is that in practice, in a normal marriage (which excludes scenarios like sabotaging birth control or disagreements about abortions), either person can put a hard veto on more children. But men, who are less affected by childbirth and (usually) childcare, are more likely than women to be ambivalent or lack a strong opinion about family size, and in such a scenario the woman will largely decide the number. If he weakly favors around 2 children and she strongly favors 10, his opinion will still come into play somewhere. But if we’re operating in the usual space of 1-3 children, she will 100% pick the number in such a marriage. I know more than one family that has played out this way.

    The dynamic where the woman is ambivalent about having more children but will go along with her husband’s strong opinion and keep getting pregnant is much more rare.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Wency


    But men, who are less affected by childbirth and (usually) childcare, are more likely than women to be ambivalent or lack a strong opinion about family size,

     

    If kids didn't cost money, this would make some sort of logical sense. Here in the real world, this is nothing but idle speculation.

    Thanks ever so much for your completely unsubstantiated anecdotal bullsh!t.

    I, of course, have my own anecdotes that tell a different tale. I won't waste your time.
  71. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:

    In related news, my rural county hospital is closing its obstetrics unit due to lack of births. The news report quotes the hospital’s chief executive as saying “there’s been a dramatic decline in deliveries” and that the birth rate has collapsed, down 44 percent from some unspecified high. The closest OB unit will now be some hours away in another county over roads often closed, especially in winter, sometimes for weeks, due to washouts, landslides, flooding, etc.
    The population of the county is 83 percent White, 7 percent American Indian, 9 percent Hispanic and 1 percent black.
    As far as the age pyramid goes, 19 percent of the population is 18 or younger and 6 percent 5 or younger, 18 percent 65 or older.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anonymous


    In related news, my rural county hospital is closing its obstetrics unit due to lack of births.
     
    Note that obstetrics is one of the least profitable fields in medicine (pediatrics is even worse, but that’s another story) and also requires a high cost in liability insurance.

    Because of the consolidation going on in hospitals throughout the country, rural hospitals are closing or cutting money-bleeder departments/services. Ob is a money-bleeder, especially where the population is graying rapidly.
  72. @Wency
    @Rosie

    @Reverend Goody's statement is too strong, but women do usually have more input.

    What I would say is that in practice, in a normal marriage (which excludes scenarios like sabotaging birth control or disagreements about abortions), either person can put a hard veto on more children. But men, who are less affected by childbirth and (usually) childcare, are more likely than women to be ambivalent or lack a strong opinion about family size, and in such a scenario the woman will largely decide the number. If he weakly favors around 2 children and she strongly favors 10, his opinion will still come into play somewhere. But if we're operating in the usual space of 1-3 children, she will 100% pick the number in such a marriage. I know more than one family that has played out this way.

    The dynamic where the woman is ambivalent about having more children but will go along with her husband's strong opinion and keep getting pregnant is much more rare.

    Replies: @Rosie

    But men, who are less affected by childbirth and (usually) childcare, are more likely than women to be ambivalent or lack a strong opinion about family size,

    If kids didn’t cost money, this would make some sort of logical sense. Here in the real world, this is nothing but idle speculation.

    Thanks ever so much for your completely unsubstantiated anecdotal bullsh!t.

    I, of course, have my own anecdotes that tell a different tale. I won’t waste your time.

  73. @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Overpopulated in what way? It's not like we lack in food, water or land to build housing on. And anyway, politicians will just use natural population decline as an excuse to bring in more immigrants, so low fertility won't actually help this "overpopulation" you speak of.


    and the growth isn’t solely because there are more immigrants than emigrants but more births than deaths

     

    And who has the highest birthrates? African and Middle-Eastern immigrants. When you say Germany's decline is minimal, the fact that it's still declining despite longer lifespans and massive immigration of groups with high birth rates speaks to how bad the decline in native births is.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Overpopulated in what way? It’s not like we lack in food, water or land to build housing on. And anyway, politicians will just use natural population decline as an excuse to bring in more immigrants, so low fertility won’t actually help this “overpopulation” you speak of.

    The vast majority of politicians support population growth – since they’re committed to capitalism (more people = more consumers = more economic growth.) Left-wing greens are too afraid to discuss overpopulation because of political correctness as well as the fact many of them are committed to the idea of “green growth” (eco-capitalism) anyway. The far-right are pro-natalist racists so they won’t address overpopulation either. So there are almost no politicians or political parties talking about overpopulation. – the whole political spectrum ignores it and sees it as a taboo. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10042857.2016.1149296

    Russia has one of the highest total and per capita carbon emissions in world- its overpopulated if you look at how much environmental degradation and biodiversity loss it is causing. Also look up how many animal species in Russia are threatened with extinction. This is undeniably linked to population growth, not only consumption.

    The typical user on Unz, though doesn’t care about this sort of stuff – but reality is the less people born in countries with high per capita CO2 emissions – the better since it has the most immediate positive impact on mitigating global warming and biodiversity loss.

    • Replies: @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Russia has one of the highest total and per capita carbon emissions in world- its overpopulated if you look at how much environmental degradation and biodiversity loss it is causing.
     
    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn't be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be "overpopulated", which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you're trying to say but it's misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.


    This is speculation, but I think it's plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we'll switch to green energy or something anyway.

    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there's a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there's more "room" for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they're not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we'll "save" a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  74. @Reverend Goody
    The commenters that suggest large numbers of children..............WHAT?! The woman decides the number. Almost all American women have no domestic skills whatsoever. Similarly, they have no nurturing skills - they prefer purses and vacations to children.

    Frankly, American women have driven men to other sorts of women, BUT they become American women quickly enough in YOUR house.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reverend Goody

    Source – women own the birth channel. Biology!

  75. @Wency
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Yeah, some men, especially young men, can't handle the loss of freedom, but I love having a baby around. Whatever else I was going to do wasn't going to be that important or enjoyable. I'll be honest, the worst part isn't waking up in the middle of the night or changing dirty diapers, it's having less sex with my wife, between the tiredness and her libido taking a big hit while breastfeeding. But things could still be a lot worse on that front.


    15-17 year old girls, not so much.
     
    I don't have any girls (yet), but I saw some research come out recently that being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk. I guess I'm sort of ambivalent about ever having girls -- I think I'd be perfectly happy with a pack of boys, but I imagine there's a lot to learn and experience from a girl.

    A good friend of mine tells me that he knows what his boys are thinking before they do, but the girls always keep him on his toes.

    Replies: @Rosie, @YetAnotherAnon

    “being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk”

    Unlike Rosie I don’t think it’s because I can’t abuse my wife any more ‘cos she’s setting an example to her daughters, it’s just that daughters going off the rails are a much bigger worry/stress – and a fair number do.

    I’m sure there are a few underlying things, from mum no longer being the only woman in the house to the tension between “let her enjoy herself” and “no you are not staying at that party”.

    There’s nothing like a daughter (whose phone is never charged, none of them are) going out with a friend (agreed that she’s staying over at her place) and us getting a 4am call from the friend’s mum.

    Is Lydia back yet? Because the police called, Julie (her daughter) was found unconscious in the street and taken to hospital, and we don’t know where Lydia is.

    We have had a few calls of that sort over the years, only one involving one of our boys. They are paragons of sense compared with the girls.

    • Thanks: Wency
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @YetAnotherAnon


    We have had a few calls of that sort over the years, only one involving one of our boys. They are paragons of sense compared with the girls.
     
    That's nature telling us that girls should marry young.
  76. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Oliver D. Smith

    "most individuals with fathers who are 50-70 years old don’t live with them but have moved out"

    First child at age 36, last at 46, so I was one of the older Dads in the playground. But not the oldest.

    Ask fathers living with babies, infants or young teenagers if they’re happy – the answer will be no.

    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), "Daddy!" running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.

    The only bad bit is when your company is having yet another reorg, and you are wondering if Daddy will still have a job in six weeks.

    15-17 year old girls, not so much. But the nightmare years don't last for ever, though it may feel like it, and they've come out on the other side as remarkably nice people. The key is (although I still bear a few scars on my heart) to remember that they mean what they say at the time when they say it and they (like other, perhaps all women) are variable creatures.

    Replies: @Wency, @Oliver D. Smith

    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), “Daddy!” running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.

    Thanks for reminding me – another reason I oppose human procreation is because it’s patriarchal and sexist. Why should women be expected to look after kids until 7pm and be exhausted?

    https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/feminist-antinatalist-arguments/

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Women having children is patriarchal and sexist, if you had any doubt of the absurdity and meaninglessness of these words.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  77. “Why should women be expected to look after kids until 7pm and be exhausted?”

    It is the blight man (and woman) was born for. Why should a father of young children do a 70-hour week to get a project back on schedule? Because he’s got six mouths to feed, that’s why.

    And because he needs to cement his status as a key person before that next restructuring thins the herd. If you think an exhausted wife is bad for a marriage, see how it goes with young kids and an unemployed husband. I have seen it and it’s not pretty.

    Men who have just become fathers increase their working hours, not reduce them.

    sarc/Of course you are right, she should be out working for someone else while lower-paid strangers care for her child/sarc

    Not to mention the lifelong effects of institutional child care.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12938695/

    At child care, 35% of infants and 71% of toddlers showed a rise in cortisol across the day; at home, 71% of infants and 64% of toddlers showed decreases. Toddlers who played more with peers exhibited lower cortisol.


    “Chronically elevated cortisol in infants and the hormonal and functional adjustments that go along with it are shown to be associated with permanent brain changes that lead to elevated responses to stress throughout life, such as higher blood pressure and heart rate. “

    I hope you are young and with limited life experience, otherwise I’d be sorely tempted to go full John Plywood on you.

    • Thanks: JohnPlywood
  78. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy


    Overpopulated in what way? It’s not like we lack in food, water or land to build housing on. And anyway, politicians will just use natural population decline as an excuse to bring in more immigrants, so low fertility won’t actually help this “overpopulation” you speak of.
     
    The vast majority of politicians support population growth - since they're committed to capitalism (more people = more consumers = more economic growth.) Left-wing greens are too afraid to discuss overpopulation because of political correctness as well as the fact many of them are committed to the idea of "green growth" (eco-capitalism) anyway. The far-right are pro-natalist racists so they won't address overpopulation either. So there are almost no politicians or political parties talking about overpopulation. - the whole political spectrum ignores it and sees it as a taboo. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10042857.2016.1149296

    Russia has one of the highest total and per capita carbon emissions in world- its overpopulated if you look at how much environmental degradation and biodiversity loss it is causing. Also look up how many animal species in Russia are threatened with extinction. This is undeniably linked to population growth, not only consumption.

    The typical user on Unz, though doesn't care about this sort of stuff - but reality is the less people born in countries with high per capita CO2 emissions - the better since it has the most immediate positive impact on mitigating global warming and biodiversity loss.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/2018_Worldwide_CO2_Emissions_%28by_region%2C_per_capita%29%2C_variwide_chart.png

    Replies: @Some Guy

    Russia has one of the highest total and per capita carbon emissions in world- its overpopulated if you look at how much environmental degradation and biodiversity loss it is causing.

    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn’t be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be “overpopulated”, which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.

    This is speculation, but I think it’s plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we’ll switch to green energy or something anyway.

    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there’s a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there’s more “room” for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they’re not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we’ll “save” a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy


    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn’t be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be “overpopulated”, which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.
     
    My main concern is biodiversity loss not resources - I don't consider myself a neo-Malthusian. Instead, here's a definition of human overpopulation I can work with -

    "Where people are displacing wild species so thoroughly, either locally, regionally, or globally, that they are helping create a global mass extinction event."
    https://overpopulation-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Manuscript_Overpopulation_InPress.pdf

    I don't agree with the common definition of overpopulation that is based solely on carrying capacity - commonly measured by contrasting ecological footprint with biocapacity; as noted in the above paper: "a country could be sustainable, according to the GFN’s criteria, even if it had no national parks and exterminated all its native wildlife." So a population by this definition could wipe out all the non-human animal species in its territory and yet not be classified as overpopulated... not a definition I favour.

    Russia is not overpopulated as a country if you define overpopulation solely by carrying capacity -

    Biocapacity per person: 6.9 gha
    Ecological footprint per person: 5.4 gha
    = an ecological reserve not deficit*

    But Russia is clearly overpopulated if you look at the biodiversity loss caused globally by its high carbon emissions and locally by agricultural expansion and urbanisation.

    * Although if the entire world population had the same ecological footprint as Russia - the world would be overpopulated in terms of carrying capacity and we would need 3 Earth's to be sustainable (for US we would need 5 Earth's and China 2.)

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/How_many_earths_2018_English.jpg

    This is speculation, but I think it’s plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we’ll switch to green energy or something anyway.
     
    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02:

    https://i.cbc.ca/1.4204289.1499983814!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/emissions-choices.jpg


    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there’s a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there’s more “room” for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they’re not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we’ll “save” a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

     

    China has very high total emissions and high per capita CO2 emissions so they need to be drastically reducing their population size too. I've never said climate change and biodiversity loss is a white people only problem - it's a global issue. And countries with low emissions are the ones most sharply increasing; Brazil for example has increased its CO2 emissions per capita from 1 to 2.25 tons in a few decades.

    Replies: @A123, @Some Guy

  79. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Wency

    "being a parent to teen girls in particular elevates divorce risk"

    Unlike Rosie I don't think it's because I can't abuse my wife any more 'cos she's setting an example to her daughters, it's just that daughters going off the rails are a much bigger worry/stress - and a fair number do.

    I'm sure there are a few underlying things, from mum no longer being the only woman in the house to the tension between "let her enjoy herself" and "no you are not staying at that party".

    There's nothing like a daughter (whose phone is never charged, none of them are) going out with a friend (agreed that she's staying over at her place) and us getting a 4am call from the friend's mum.

    "Is Lydia back yet? Because the police called, Julie (her daughter) was found unconscious in the street and taken to hospital, and we don't know where Lydia is."

    We have had a few calls of that sort over the years, only one involving one of our boys. They are paragons of sense compared with the girls.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    We have had a few calls of that sort over the years, only one involving one of our boys. They are paragons of sense compared with the girls.

    That’s nature telling us that girls should marry young.

  80. @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Russia has one of the highest total and per capita carbon emissions in world- its overpopulated if you look at how much environmental degradation and biodiversity loss it is causing.
     
    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn't be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be "overpopulated", which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you're trying to say but it's misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.


    This is speculation, but I think it's plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we'll switch to green energy or something anyway.

    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there's a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there's more "room" for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they're not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we'll "save" a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn’t be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be “overpopulated”, which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.

    My main concern is biodiversity loss not resources – I don’t consider myself a neo-Malthusian. Instead, here’s a definition of human overpopulation I can work with –

    “Where people are displacing wild species so thoroughly, either locally, regionally, or globally, that they are helping create a global mass extinction event.”
    https://overpopulation-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Manuscript_Overpopulation_InPress.pdf

    I don’t agree with the common definition of overpopulation that is based solely on carrying capacity – commonly measured by contrasting ecological footprint with biocapacity; as noted in the above paper: “a country could be sustainable, according to the GFN’s criteria, even if it had no national parks and exterminated all its native wildlife.” So a population by this definition could wipe out all the non-human animal species in its territory and yet not be classified as overpopulated… not a definition I favour.

    Russia is not overpopulated as a country if you define overpopulation solely by carrying capacity –

    Biocapacity per person: 6.9 gha
    Ecological footprint per person: 5.4 gha
    = an ecological reserve not deficit*

    But Russia is clearly overpopulated if you look at the biodiversity loss caused globally by its high carbon emissions and locally by agricultural expansion and urbanisation.

    * Although if the entire world population had the same ecological footprint as Russia – the world would be overpopulated in terms of carrying capacity and we would need 3 Earth’s to be sustainable (for US we would need 5 Earth’s and China 2.)

    This is speculation, but I think it’s plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we’ll switch to green energy or something anyway.

    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02:

    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there’s a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there’s more “room” for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they’re not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we’ll “save” a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

    China has very high total emissions and high per capita CO2 emissions so they need to be drastically reducing their population size too. I’ve never said climate change and biodiversity loss is a white people only problem – it’s a global issue. And countries with low emissions are the ones most sharply increasing; Brazil for example has increased its CO2 emissions per capita from 1 to 2.25 tons in a few decades.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Listing "Buy Green Energy" as a positive makes your entire position lack credibility.

    Toxic Solar Death Cells -- Require huge amounts of poisonous raw material during fabrication which creates an epic environmental toll overseas. After their useful life ends -- Best case they wind up poisoning landfills -- Worst case they add to unrestricted ground contamination if they are abandoned.

    Endangered Species Bird Choppers -- Have similar problems to Toxic Solar Death Cells. The poisonous raw material used for assembly is brutal burden on humanity. When disassembled at end of life, non-recyclable wind turbine blades clog landfills (1). Or, again, are a permanent hazard if abandoned.

    These abominations need to be heavily regulated, much like the nuclear power industry. They should be forced to fund their own decommissioning to protect the human race from Toxic Green Energy.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294057/Hundreds-non-recyclable-fiberglass-wind-turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html

     
    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/05/06/20/28085536-8294057-image-a-13_1588795105637.jpg

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    , @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02
     
    Do you happen to have the details on how that's calculated? For example if you estimate the lifetime emissions of a child by current emissions per capita, that's pretty useless since that could completely change in 20 or even 10 years.

    Anyway, looking at the expected number of births in Russia in the next 10 years, it's like 14 million out of a population of 145 million. So even halving the number of births would have a very limited impact on population in the near term, while causing huge population declines later on when green energy has presumably replaced fossil fuels anyway.

    Meanwhile Sweden and France has less than 50% the emissions per capita that Russia does(https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden?country=~SWE), with Sweden even being lower than the world average despite being a rich country. So even an extreme reduction in fertility is way less effective than just doing whatever Sweden or France is doing with energy policy(nuclear etc).

    Do you ever debate people who want to cure cancer or covid or whatever? Because if you want to keep populations low, low fertility rates are a lot worse for a country in the long term than old people dying.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  81. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy


    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn’t be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be “overpopulated”, which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.
     
    My main concern is biodiversity loss not resources - I don't consider myself a neo-Malthusian. Instead, here's a definition of human overpopulation I can work with -

    "Where people are displacing wild species so thoroughly, either locally, regionally, or globally, that they are helping create a global mass extinction event."
    https://overpopulation-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Manuscript_Overpopulation_InPress.pdf

    I don't agree with the common definition of overpopulation that is based solely on carrying capacity - commonly measured by contrasting ecological footprint with biocapacity; as noted in the above paper: "a country could be sustainable, according to the GFN’s criteria, even if it had no national parks and exterminated all its native wildlife." So a population by this definition could wipe out all the non-human animal species in its territory and yet not be classified as overpopulated... not a definition I favour.

    Russia is not overpopulated as a country if you define overpopulation solely by carrying capacity -

    Biocapacity per person: 6.9 gha
    Ecological footprint per person: 5.4 gha
    = an ecological reserve not deficit*

    But Russia is clearly overpopulated if you look at the biodiversity loss caused globally by its high carbon emissions and locally by agricultural expansion and urbanisation.

    * Although if the entire world population had the same ecological footprint as Russia - the world would be overpopulated in terms of carrying capacity and we would need 3 Earth's to be sustainable (for US we would need 5 Earth's and China 2.)

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/How_many_earths_2018_English.jpg

    This is speculation, but I think it’s plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we’ll switch to green energy or something anyway.
     
    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02:

    https://i.cbc.ca/1.4204289.1499983814!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/emissions-choices.jpg


    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there’s a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there’s more “room” for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they’re not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we’ll “save” a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

     

    China has very high total emissions and high per capita CO2 emissions so they need to be drastically reducing their population size too. I've never said climate change and biodiversity loss is a white people only problem - it's a global issue. And countries with low emissions are the ones most sharply increasing; Brazil for example has increased its CO2 emissions per capita from 1 to 2.25 tons in a few decades.

    Replies: @A123, @Some Guy

    Listing “Buy Green Energy” as a positive makes your entire position lack credibility.

    Toxic Solar Death Cells — Require huge amounts of poisonous raw material during fabrication which creates an epic environmental toll overseas. After their useful life ends — Best case they wind up poisoning landfills — Worst case they add to unrestricted ground contamination if they are abandoned.

    Endangered Species Bird Choppers — Have similar problems to Toxic Solar Death Cells. The poisonous raw material used for assembly is brutal burden on humanity. When disassembled at end of life, non-recyclable wind turbine blades clog landfills (1). Or, again, are a permanent hazard if abandoned.

    These abominations need to be heavily regulated, much like the nuclear power industry. They should be forced to fund their own decommissioning to protect the human race from Toxic Green Energy.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294057/Hundreds-non-recyclable-fiberglass-wind-turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html

     

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @A123

    I think you misread -the chart I posted shows what methods reduce the most amount of C02 and it shows nuclear and renewable energies are not very effective at reducing carbon emissions - I don't support them and these things won't solve the climate crisis. I'm personally against nuclear energy and renewable energies. Yes both are destructive to the environment and cause biodiversity loss of wildlife, aside from that they're ugly-looking things that ruin countryside views. Most rural people don't want concrete nuclear power plants or solar/wind farms built next to them.

    The most effective, least costly and environmental friendly way to reduce CO2 is not to breed.

    That's why I posted this-

    https://i.cbc.ca/1.4204289.1499983814!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/emissions-choices.jpg

    See also:

    https://www.dw.com/image/39688212_304.png

    The most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to be child free. And the latter won't kill loads of birds and other animals like nuclear power plants and solar/wind farms do. But why don't politicians or science textbooks talk about the most effective and environmentally friendly way to reduce CO2 emissions? Talking about population is still a taboo.

    Replies: @Charlie2345

  82. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy


    So what is that determines if a place is overpopulated, total or per capita emissions?

    Total seems wrong, since that would imply if Russia split into a bunch of countries then they wouldn’t be overpopulated anymore, even though everything with regards to emissions is the same.

    Per capita seems wrong because then even extremely sparsely populated countries can be “overpopulated”, which seems like a contradiction in terms. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s misleading and confusing to label a per capita problem as an overpopulation problem, when per capita is a measurement specifically controlling for population.
     
    My main concern is biodiversity loss not resources - I don't consider myself a neo-Malthusian. Instead, here's a definition of human overpopulation I can work with -

    "Where people are displacing wild species so thoroughly, either locally, regionally, or globally, that they are helping create a global mass extinction event."
    https://overpopulation-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Manuscript_Overpopulation_InPress.pdf

    I don't agree with the common definition of overpopulation that is based solely on carrying capacity - commonly measured by contrasting ecological footprint with biocapacity; as noted in the above paper: "a country could be sustainable, according to the GFN’s criteria, even if it had no national parks and exterminated all its native wildlife." So a population by this definition could wipe out all the non-human animal species in its territory and yet not be classified as overpopulated... not a definition I favour.

    Russia is not overpopulated as a country if you define overpopulation solely by carrying capacity -

    Biocapacity per person: 6.9 gha
    Ecological footprint per person: 5.4 gha
    = an ecological reserve not deficit*

    But Russia is clearly overpopulated if you look at the biodiversity loss caused globally by its high carbon emissions and locally by agricultural expansion and urbanisation.

    * Although if the entire world population had the same ecological footprint as Russia - the world would be overpopulated in terms of carrying capacity and we would need 3 Earth's to be sustainable (for US we would need 5 Earth's and China 2.)

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/How_many_earths_2018_English.jpg

    This is speculation, but I think it’s plausible that having a kid could decrease emissions in the short term as it leads to parents staying at home more instead of working, leading to lower economic production. In the long term we’ll switch to green energy or something anyway.
     
    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02:

    https://i.cbc.ca/1.4204289.1499983814!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/emissions-choices.jpg


    Anyway, suppose we white people stopped having children to stop climate change. First of all, there’s a danger that other countries will simply delay their green energy transitions if there’s more “room” for emissions without causing Armageddon. Second of all, whites will care a lot less about the climate since they’re not worrying about the future their children will inherit. Third, we’ll “save” a world in which like 90% of the high IQ people will be in China, in other words handing them the world on a silver platter.

     

    China has very high total emissions and high per capita CO2 emissions so they need to be drastically reducing their population size too. I've never said climate change and biodiversity loss is a white people only problem - it's a global issue. And countries with low emissions are the ones most sharply increasing; Brazil for example has increased its CO2 emissions per capita from 1 to 2.25 tons in a few decades.

    Replies: @A123, @Some Guy

    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02

    Do you happen to have the details on how that’s calculated? For example if you estimate the lifetime emissions of a child by current emissions per capita, that’s pretty useless since that could completely change in 20 or even 10 years.

    Anyway, looking at the expected number of births in Russia in the next 10 years, it’s like 14 million out of a population of 145 million. So even halving the number of births would have a very limited impact on population in the near term, while causing huge population declines later on when green energy has presumably replaced fossil fuels anyway.

    Meanwhile Sweden and France has less than 50% the emissions per capita that Russia does(https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden?country=~SWE), with Sweden even being lower than the world average despite being a rich country. So even an extreme reduction in fertility is way less effective than just doing whatever Sweden or France is doing with energy policy(nuclear etc).

    Do you ever debate people who want to cure cancer or covid or whatever? Because if you want to keep populations low, low fertility rates are a lot worse for a country in the long term than old people dying.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Some Guy


    Do you happen to have the details on how that’s calculated?
     
    The source I posted is based on carbon legacies (that only applies if you breed). So it calculates the carbon footprint of your descendants. It's simple maths - each person alive has a carbon footprint so if you have kids you are adding CO2 to your own footprint in terms of legacy, your grandkids and so on.

    If you ignore carbon-legacies, you can simply calculate CO2 emissions per household.

    Households without children (particularly single adults but also childfree couples) have the lowest carbon footprint-

    Parents ‘have bigger carbon footprint than childless couples’
    https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/04/19/parents-have-bigger-carbon-footprint-than-childless-couples/

    Swedish study:
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231105


    Do parents have a smaller carbon footprint? Using a unique data set that allows us to compare CO2 emissions from Swedish two-adult households with and without children, we find that two adults in households with children increase CO2 emissions by more than 25 percent relative to two adults in households without children. Parents’ CO2 emissions are higher due to increased transportation and changed food consumption.
     
    There's no way around this data but you find pretty much all politicians ignoring it. Why do governments fail to point out being childfree is the most effective method to reduce CO2? Instead all we hear is talk about recycling, converting to veganism or green energy.
  83. @Anonymous
    In related news, my rural county hospital is closing its obstetrics unit due to lack of births. The news report quotes the hospital's chief executive as saying "there's been a dramatic decline in deliveries" and that the birth rate has collapsed, down 44 percent from some unspecified high. The closest OB unit will now be some hours away in another county over roads often closed, especially in winter, sometimes for weeks, due to washouts, landslides, flooding, etc.
    The population of the county is 83 percent White, 7 percent American Indian, 9 percent Hispanic and 1 percent black.
    As far as the age pyramid goes, 19 percent of the population is 18 or younger and 6 percent 5 or younger, 18 percent 65 or older.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    In related news, my rural county hospital is closing its obstetrics unit due to lack of births.

    Note that obstetrics is one of the least profitable fields in medicine (pediatrics is even worse, but that’s another story) and also requires a high cost in liability insurance.

    Because of the consolidation going on in hospitals throughout the country, rural hospitals are closing or cutting money-bleeder departments/services. Ob is a money-bleeder, especially where the population is graying rapidly.

  84. @Wency
    @Average and Harmless

    As someone who is pessimistically inclined, I can only say that children *are* the hope. They exude hopefulness in all they do and in their mere existence. What was somewhat surprising to me was that in my and my wife's dwindling extended families, our firstborn brought an outpouring of hope not just from our parents, but various aunts and uncles who are either childless or the parents of permanently childless kids. And if you belong to a community of any sort with other parents -- neighborhood, religion, or whatever -- everyone is delighted at the birth of everyone else's children.

    Once you hit middle age, everything on a personal level starts going downhill all the time. Your body is breaking down, you're getting uglier, slower, weaker, fatter. Tasks that you once took for granted now cause you pain every time. So if you have a shortage of hope when you're 20, just wait until you're 40, and then 60.

    But if you have kids, they're continuously getting stronger, faster, smarter, up to the point when they themselves are hopefully soon having children of their own. In a world governed by entropy, they're anti-entropic.

    The whole "who would want to bring children into a world like this" line of thinking never really made sense to me, even when I wasn't sure if I wanted kids. Yes, things are headed downhill, but I am preceded by thousands of generations that endured brutality, famine, oppression, and plague that moderns can scarcely comprehend, and yet my ancestors still went through the trouble of having children. Kids are resilient, they adapt to their environment, and the task of parents is partly to help them adapt but also to teach them that in adapting they still remember and pass along what is good in this world. And a big part of what's good in this world is having kids.

    Replies: @Average and Harmless

    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago. I’m fairly confident that 50 years from now will be better still. But all of us are going to find ourselves becoming older, fatter, slower, and, eventually, dead. That certainty isn’t likely to change in the next 50, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Average and Harmless


    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago.
     
    "Better" can mean many things, depending on one's notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Of course, 50 years ago, the early 1970s, is right around when economic and technological progress famously decelerated, and many things that had been improving started to get either worse or no better (at least in the US). But life still seems to be generally easier, cleaner, less crime-prone. And the USSR is gone.

    When you look back 10 years, things aren't quite so rosy. I can't find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.

    But again, I don't despair. I have children. And Jesus.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @nebulafox

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Average and Harmless

    Aubrey de Grey has devoted his life to changing that in the next 50 years.

    What a significant increase in the average human lifespan would do with regards to population is an interesting one. The simplest explanation is that it will increase it.

    On the other hand, both average population age and average age at first birth correlate (inversely and positively, respectively) with fertility. If everyone started living longer than Koreans, maybe they'd have fewer children than Koreans, too.

  85. @V. K. Ovelund
    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you'll ever do. Don't wait until you're too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.

    You don't want to end up lonely, old and gray in your chair, reflecting on a wasted life.

    Your recent ancestors did it with a dirt floor and an outhouse. You can do it with a proper floor and indoor plumbing. By the way, once you have a few children, they'll raise one another: you don't have to do it all on your own.

    Don't wait to figure out all the details. By the time your eighth child finishes high school, you still won't have figured out all the details, but no one in America ever starves. Start now.

    Not after you finish college, pay off your loan and buy a house. Now.

    Replies: @anon, @MattinLA, @Twinkie, @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Oliver D. Smith, @Oliver D. Smith, @Dutch Boy, @Supply and Demand, @dfordoom

    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.

    Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to have that many kids? Do you think 330 million Americans is not enough? Would you really want an America with a billion people? Does any western country actually need a larger population? Australia was a much more pleasant country when it had a lot fewer people. In those days people could afford to buy houses.

    What is needed is replacement-level fertility, not a population explosion.

    Not that it matters, since even replacement-level fertility will almost certainly turn out to be impossible to achieve. The best we can hope for is to slow the decline a little.

    With populations about half the current levels life would be a lot more pleasant.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @dfordoom

    "Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to have that many kids? "

    Because we know perfectly well that the bluehairs and city girls aren't going to have very many at all. That exciting office job, the bars and restaurants, new plays and concerts, the rented flat starts to get a bit old when you're past 40. Their mothers should have told them.

    Someone's going to have to show up to the future, and it may as well be our lot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/02/the-desire-to-have-a-child-never-goes-away-how-the-involuntarily-childless-are-forming-a-new-movement


    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.”
     

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  86. @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    You mean the readers in their 50’s, of course…now, what were you saying?
     
    You have a point.

    Matt: I didn't get all the way there, either.

    Andrew:

    I guess that could work for some families. But my parents had seven kids, and many people would be very hard-pressed to objectively say they should have had any.
     
    I do not know your parents, so cannot comment.

    What, if any, criteria do you think people should meet before having kids?
     
    Well, reading The Unz Review would be a pretty good criterion, except see the point about readers in their 50's.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    If you want people to have more kids you’ll have to persuade them to give up helicopter parenting. Helicopter parenting makes parenting incredibly labour-intensive. Helicopter parenting is one of the reasons people have only one child.

  87. @Oliver D. Smith
    @YetAnotherAnon


    I loved having babies and infants around. Great days. You walk in at 7pm, toddlers are fed, bathed, in pyjamas (mother is just about dropping with exhaustion), “Daddy!” running to your arms to be held (mother glares with the last of her remaining strength). I used to take odd days off work just to take them out for the day and give her a break, absolutely loved it.
     
    Thanks for reminding me - another reason I oppose human procreation is because it's patriarchal and sexist. Why should women be expected to look after kids until 7pm and be exhausted?

    https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/feminist-antinatalist-arguments/

    Replies: @mikemikev

    Women having children is patriarchal and sexist, if you had any doubt of the absurdity and meaninglessness of these words.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @mikemikev

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Sexism
    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Political_views


    He thinks women should not have professional jobs nor even be able to vote, writing: "If only there was a patriarchy, women voting is a crazy idea".
     
    Do you still oppose women-voting? What a nutcase.
  88. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Young readers of The Unz Review: the correct answer is seven or eight.
     
    Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to have that many kids? Do you think 330 million Americans is not enough? Would you really want an America with a billion people? Does any western country actually need a larger population? Australia was a much more pleasant country when it had a lot fewer people. In those days people could afford to buy houses.

    What is needed is replacement-level fertility, not a population explosion.

    Not that it matters, since even replacement-level fertility will almost certainly turn out to be impossible to achieve. The best we can hope for is to slow the decline a little.

    With populations about half the current levels life would be a lot more pleasant.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to have that many kids? “

    Because we know perfectly well that the bluehairs and city girls aren’t going to have very many at all. That exciting office job, the bars and restaurants, new plays and concerts, the rented flat starts to get a bit old when you’re past 40. Their mothers should have told them.

    Someone’s going to have to show up to the future, and it may as well be our lot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/02/the-desire-to-have-a-child-never-goes-away-how-the-involuntarily-childless-are-forming-a-new-movement

    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.”

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The oldest reply to that Guardian piece:


    ‘The desire to have a child never goes away’

    Damn genes. Always being selected for the ability to make copies of themselves.
     
  89. @YetAnotherAnon
    @dfordoom

    "Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to have that many kids? "

    Because we know perfectly well that the bluehairs and city girls aren't going to have very many at all. That exciting office job, the bars and restaurants, new plays and concerts, the rented flat starts to get a bit old when you're past 40. Their mothers should have told them.

    Someone's going to have to show up to the future, and it may as well be our lot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/02/the-desire-to-have-a-child-never-goes-away-how-the-involuntarily-childless-are-forming-a-new-movement


    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.”
     

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    The oldest reply to that Guardian piece:

    ‘The desire to have a child never goes away’

    Damn genes. Always being selected for the ability to make copies of themselves.

  90. @Average and Harmless
    @Wency

    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago. I’m fairly confident that 50 years from now will be better still. But all of us are going to find ourselves becoming older, fatter, slower, and, eventually, dead. That certainty isn’t likely to change in the next 50, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.

    Replies: @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago.

    “Better” can mean many things, depending on one’s notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Of course, 50 years ago, the early 1970s, is right around when economic and technological progress famously decelerated, and many things that had been improving started to get either worse or no better (at least in the US). But life still seems to be generally easier, cleaner, less crime-prone. And the USSR is gone.

    When you look back 10 years, things aren’t quite so rosy. I can’t find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.

    But again, I don’t despair. I have children. And Jesus.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    I can’t find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.
     
    I agree.

    It's kind of ironic that the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union marked the beginnings of the serious push towards liberal totalitarianism in the West.

    Because it's not just cultural deterioration. It was a transformation of liberalism into an oppressive totalitarian system. Social liberalism became something to be imposed on us by force.

    I'm not convinced that it was entirely a coincidence. It was in the 90s that the Cold War apparatus of surveillance and propaganda was turned against the American people (and this happened in other Anglosphere countries as well, especially Britain). It was the beginning of a new Cold War, but this time the enemies weren't the Soviets - the enemies were the ordinary people of the West.

    The directing of the vast propaganda apparatus at people defined as domestic enemies was very very notable.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @nebulafox
    @Wency

    >“Better” can mean many things, depending on one’s notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Is it? Over the past 50 years, the costs of healthcare, housing, non-junk food, and a lot more have exploded. Wages, not so much, at least if you don't consider the demographically expanded upper-middle class. You could argue that the American dream of the 1950s and 1960s was always going to end at some point, but you can't argue against stats like these.

    https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

    Being told you should stop complaining because you can buy more throwaway crap than your grandparents as compensation for that and that you are suffering from some kind of false consciousness in thinking that these aren't the best of times isn't going to solicit a good reaction. Hence why Zombie Reaganism needs to die.

    Replies: @Wency

  91. @mikemikev
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Women having children is patriarchal and sexist, if you had any doubt of the absurdity and meaninglessness of these words.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Sexism
    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Political_views

    He thinks women should not have professional jobs nor even be able to vote, writing: “If only there was a patriarchy, women voting is a crazy idea”.

    Do you still oppose women-voting? What a nutcase.

  92. @JohnPlywood
    @Magic Dirt Resident

    Tax cuts put more surplus wealth in to the hands of young people, which is invariably spent on anything but children: vacations, video games, cameras, phones, etc.

    Increased personal income (and pursuit thereof) is the #1 correlate of sub-replacement fertility.

    Abortion is illegal in South Korea, the first or second least fertile country on Earth, and contraceptive use is much less common in Japan, Taiwan, etc than it is in the West. Yet their fertility is actually even lower than the West.


    Abortion has been our friend, primarily due to its eugenic effects; it's mostly crackheads who have abortions.

    Our enemy is money and physical comfort. Contraceptives were just a tool for the pursuit of money.

    Replies: @stare_into

    The other guy said you were a troll but this is actually a kind-of-interesting take. Does material wealth beget materialist individualism? If that’s the direction the causality flows, then I’d have to tentatively agree with your assessment. The rich are spiritually severed from their life cycle? Wealth, the thing that separates man from his animal nature? Make Whites Poor Again?

    I’m sure most in Kaczynski’s camp would be quick to agree with this.

  93. @Wency
    @Average and Harmless


    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago.
     
    "Better" can mean many things, depending on one's notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Of course, 50 years ago, the early 1970s, is right around when economic and technological progress famously decelerated, and many things that had been improving started to get either worse or no better (at least in the US). But life still seems to be generally easier, cleaner, less crime-prone. And the USSR is gone.

    When you look back 10 years, things aren't quite so rosy. I can't find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.

    But again, I don't despair. I have children. And Jesus.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @nebulafox

    I can’t find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.

    I agree.

    It’s kind of ironic that the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union marked the beginnings of the serious push towards liberal totalitarianism in the West.

    Because it’s not just cultural deterioration. It was a transformation of liberalism into an oppressive totalitarian system. Social liberalism became something to be imposed on us by force.

    I’m not convinced that it was entirely a coincidence. It was in the 90s that the Cold War apparatus of surveillance and propaganda was turned against the American people (and this happened in other Anglosphere countries as well, especially Britain). It was the beginning of a new Cold War, but this time the enemies weren’t the Soviets – the enemies were the ordinary people of the West.

    The directing of the vast propaganda apparatus at people defined as domestic enemies was very very notable.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    The reason Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look like cavemen to postmodern Western bien-pensants is that-ironically-growing up under the Old Left tended to immunize you from the movements of the 1960s and their echo effects. Their social attitudes are hardly outliers for their generations of Russians and mainland Chinese, respectively. With an exception (Lenin) here and there, Communist governments tended to be quite socially reactionary. Especially when it came to family formation: the state heavily subsidized young couples, and good party members were strongly socially pressured to get married and get busy in the old fashioned way.

    This makes sense, if you consider Marxist ideology: and, in the cases of the Soviet Union and China, the depopulation of the first half of the 20th Century between civil war, famine, and invasion. The revolution needed soldiers, bureaucrats, workers, farmers. Who was going to lead mankind into a classless end-state if women weren't producing babies?

    Also, perspective needs to be kept here. Mao's views on women tended to be quite progressive for his times: no more footbinding, an end to forced marriages (Mao's first marriage was arranged, so he had personal experience with how miserable that could be), anti-prostitution, generally not treating women as outright subhumans. But these were the same positions that the Christian missionaries of his time period had, not those of a modern 3rd wave feminist. Mao certainly was not interested in anything that could potentially curb China's birthrate: the One Child Policy was a direct result of the population growth that took place when he was in charge.

    >Social liberalism became something to be imposed on us by force.

    I don't think that's true, exactly: there have been genuine social shifts in the West. Casual racism used to be so common that it wasn't considered noteworthy. It is now is treated on the same moral level as child molestation. Interracial marriage has become completely mundane, to the point where the wokeists seem to have a problem with it.

    I do think that the combination of the USSR falling and the postwar generation taking power in the US explains a lot about policies-domestic and foreign-that insistently ignore objective limits or human nature. As: well as the sheer rapaciousness of American elites: ancient Roman political behavior showed a similar shift when there were no rivals around the Mediterranean left.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  94. @A123
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Listing "Buy Green Energy" as a positive makes your entire position lack credibility.

    Toxic Solar Death Cells -- Require huge amounts of poisonous raw material during fabrication which creates an epic environmental toll overseas. After their useful life ends -- Best case they wind up poisoning landfills -- Worst case they add to unrestricted ground contamination if they are abandoned.

    Endangered Species Bird Choppers -- Have similar problems to Toxic Solar Death Cells. The poisonous raw material used for assembly is brutal burden on humanity. When disassembled at end of life, non-recyclable wind turbine blades clog landfills (1). Or, again, are a permanent hazard if abandoned.

    These abominations need to be heavily regulated, much like the nuclear power industry. They should be forced to fund their own decommissioning to protect the human race from Toxic Green Energy.

    PEACE 😇
    _________

    (1) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294057/Hundreds-non-recyclable-fiberglass-wind-turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html

     
    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/05/06/20/28085536-8294057-image-a-13_1588795105637.jpg

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    I think you misread -the chart I posted shows what methods reduce the most amount of C02 and it shows nuclear and renewable energies are not very effective at reducing carbon emissions – I don’t support them and these things won’t solve the climate crisis. I’m personally against nuclear energy and renewable energies. Yes both are destructive to the environment and cause biodiversity loss of wildlife, aside from that they’re ugly-looking things that ruin countryside views. Most rural people don’t want concrete nuclear power plants or solar/wind farms built next to them.

    The most effective, least costly and environmental friendly way to reduce CO2 is not to breed.

    That’s why I posted this-

    See also:

    The most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to be child free. And the latter won’t kill loads of birds and other animals like nuclear power plants and solar/wind farms do. But why don’t politicians or science textbooks talk about the most effective and environmentally friendly way to reduce CO2 emissions? Talking about population is still a taboo.

    • Replies: @Charlie2345
    @Oliver D. Smith

    That enviro-babble sounds awesome.

    Perhaps you can have it engraved into your headstone.

    I am sure there will be lots of people interested in it.

    Meanwhile my family will go on. Not only that but I am willing to bet that your environmental disaster claims will prove about as accurate as enviro-babble about food and resource shortages from 40 years ago proved.

    Rest in peace my friend :-)

  95. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You:


    Nature overproduces the male of the species.
     
    "It's really hard to find a wife."

    Also you:


    I don’t want to get into a discussion right now of how the ex-wife was awarded the house in divorce court. That’s a different problem...
     
    "Let's make it worse by allowing double-dipping dirty old men to kick their aging wife out of the house and replace her with a younger model."

    Even if you buy this crap about "female hypergamy," there can be no hypergamy without corresponding hypogamy.

    Meanwhile:

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-mackenzie-scott-following-marriage-seattle-teacher

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Charles Pewitt, @nebulafox

    Everyone wants the best mate they can attract. That’s not specifically male or female. That’s just human nature. The Internet and the tacit societal decision to treat courtship like another economic market might exacerbate these tendencies in novel ways, not least because people simultaneously have more prospects and fewer connections than ever, but the basic drive hasn’t changed much.

    The difference between men and women is that the former are much more likely to sleep with someone they have no interest in as a long-term prospect, to the shock of nobody who understands the biological differences between the two sexes. R

    Really, a surprising majority-perhaps all-of the differences between men and women can boil down to one single, simple thing: Women. Give. Birth.

  96. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    I can’t find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.
     
    I agree.

    It's kind of ironic that the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union marked the beginnings of the serious push towards liberal totalitarianism in the West.

    Because it's not just cultural deterioration. It was a transformation of liberalism into an oppressive totalitarian system. Social liberalism became something to be imposed on us by force.

    I'm not convinced that it was entirely a coincidence. It was in the 90s that the Cold War apparatus of surveillance and propaganda was turned against the American people (and this happened in other Anglosphere countries as well, especially Britain). It was the beginning of a new Cold War, but this time the enemies weren't the Soviets - the enemies were the ordinary people of the West.

    The directing of the vast propaganda apparatus at people defined as domestic enemies was very very notable.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    The reason Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look like cavemen to postmodern Western bien-pensants is that-ironically-growing up under the Old Left tended to immunize you from the movements of the 1960s and their echo effects. Their social attitudes are hardly outliers for their generations of Russians and mainland Chinese, respectively. With an exception (Lenin) here and there, Communist governments tended to be quite socially reactionary. Especially when it came to family formation: the state heavily subsidized young couples, and good party members were strongly socially pressured to get married and get busy in the old fashioned way.

    This makes sense, if you consider Marxist ideology: and, in the cases of the Soviet Union and China, the depopulation of the first half of the 20th Century between civil war, famine, and invasion. The revolution needed soldiers, bureaucrats, workers, farmers. Who was going to lead mankind into a classless end-state if women weren’t producing babies?

    Also, perspective needs to be kept here. Mao’s views on women tended to be quite progressive for his times: no more footbinding, an end to forced marriages (Mao’s first marriage was arranged, so he had personal experience with how miserable that could be), anti-prostitution, generally not treating women as outright subhumans. But these were the same positions that the Christian missionaries of his time period had, not those of a modern 3rd wave feminist. Mao certainly was not interested in anything that could potentially curb China’s birthrate: the One Child Policy was a direct result of the population growth that took place when he was in charge.

    >Social liberalism became something to be imposed on us by force.

    I don’t think that’s true, exactly: there have been genuine social shifts in the West. Casual racism used to be so common that it wasn’t considered noteworthy. It is now is treated on the same moral level as child molestation. Interracial marriage has become completely mundane, to the point where the wokeists seem to have a problem with it.

    I do think that the combination of the USSR falling and the postwar generation taking power in the US explains a lot about policies-domestic and foreign-that insistently ignore objective limits or human nature. As: well as the sheer rapaciousness of American elites: ancient Roman political behavior showed a similar shift when there were no rivals around the Mediterranean left.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    I do think that the combination of the USSR falling and the postwar generation taking power in the US explains a lot about policies-domestic and foreign-that insistently ignore objective limits or human nature.
     
    Yes. What we've seen has been liberal triumphalism - liberalism freed from all restraints.

    The existence of the USSR imposed restraints on the excesses of liberalism. And it imposed restraints on the excesses of the liberal elites.

    ancient Roman political behavior showed a similar shift when there were no rivals around the Mediterranean left.
     
    Yes. Once the Romans had destroyed all their rivals they started work on destroying themselves.

    The Cold War was a good thing. It's necessary for alternative systems to exist. Once liberalism's external rivals were destroyed it was inevitable that liberalism would become even more corrupt and much much crazier.
  97. @Wency
    @Average and Harmless


    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago.
     
    "Better" can mean many things, depending on one's notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Of course, 50 years ago, the early 1970s, is right around when economic and technological progress famously decelerated, and many things that had been improving started to get either worse or no better (at least in the US). But life still seems to be generally easier, cleaner, less crime-prone. And the USSR is gone.

    When you look back 10 years, things aren't quite so rosy. I can't find many reasons to be glad to be living in 2021 instead of 2011. Our practical technology mostly stopped improving around then, so all we have to observe is the cultural deterioration. And everything that has gotten worse in the past decade looks at this moment like it still has a lot of worsening left ahead of it.

    But again, I don't despair. I have children. And Jesus.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @nebulafox

    >“Better” can mean many things, depending on one’s notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Is it? Over the past 50 years, the costs of healthcare, housing, non-junk food, and a lot more have exploded. Wages, not so much, at least if you don’t consider the demographically expanded upper-middle class. You could argue that the American dream of the 1950s and 1960s was always going to end at some point, but you can’t argue against stats like these.

    https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

    Being told you should stop complaining because you can buy more throwaway crap than your grandparents as compensation for that and that you are suffering from some kind of false consciousness in thinking that these aren’t the best of times isn’t going to solicit a good reaction. Hence why Zombie Reaganism needs to die.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @nebulafox

    Yeah, I don't really disagree with you much, but I'm trying to give a fair shake to both sides. The truth is even the people here who were adults in 1971 probably have fuzzy, nostalgic memories of it.

    I do have memories of my hometown's downtown being a very dark and scary place when I was a child at the height of the crack epidemic in the late 80s, early 90s, including a very scary near-miss when my mother miscalculated one night and the two of us ended up alone downtown after dark.

    I am grateful that crime is quite a bit lower, for now. Even if you're working class, I'd contend life is mostly easier. You have access to more conveniences, better housing, cars, and entertainment, cleaner air and safer neighborhoods. Things like the cost of healthcare increasing haven't really affected health in a meaningful way for many people (prescription opioids are another matter), between Medicaid/Medicare and the option to just not pay your bills.

    But yeah, life being easy is not the same as life being good. Contrast the Amerindian living on a reservation, on welfare, dying of cirrhosis of the liver, to his pre-Columbian ancestor hunting buffalo or whatever. The first one has an easier life, but is it better? Well, that pre-Columbian life might have ended in a scalping, or death in infancy from some cold or complication. Cold nights without central heating. Years of famine.

    I think our intuition tells us it's worth risking all those things for the chance to live free and hunt buffalo under the blue sky. But I also suspect a great many Amerindians, given the choice between 15th century hunter-gatherer life and 21st-century reservation life, would end up choosing the modern reservation life -- the path of least resistance.

    And likewise, if you gave 21st century NEETs the choice to live in a place with 1971 technology, air, and crime as a unionized blue collar family man, or to continue their NEET lifestyles, how many would really pick 1971? I just don't think it's that many. Life as a NEET is *easy*, but wretched to behold. Life as a pater familias is challenging and stressful, but rewarding and enriching.

  98. @nebulafox
    @Wency

    >“Better” can mean many things, depending on one’s notion of the good. Life is *easier* though, for sure.

    Is it? Over the past 50 years, the costs of healthcare, housing, non-junk food, and a lot more have exploded. Wages, not so much, at least if you don't consider the demographically expanded upper-middle class. You could argue that the American dream of the 1950s and 1960s was always going to end at some point, but you can't argue against stats like these.

    https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

    Being told you should stop complaining because you can buy more throwaway crap than your grandparents as compensation for that and that you are suffering from some kind of false consciousness in thinking that these aren't the best of times isn't going to solicit a good reaction. Hence why Zombie Reaganism needs to die.

    Replies: @Wency

    Yeah, I don’t really disagree with you much, but I’m trying to give a fair shake to both sides. The truth is even the people here who were adults in 1971 probably have fuzzy, nostalgic memories of it.

    I do have memories of my hometown’s downtown being a very dark and scary place when I was a child at the height of the crack epidemic in the late 80s, early 90s, including a very scary near-miss when my mother miscalculated one night and the two of us ended up alone downtown after dark.

    I am grateful that crime is quite a bit lower, for now. Even if you’re working class, I’d contend life is mostly easier. You have access to more conveniences, better housing, cars, and entertainment, cleaner air and safer neighborhoods. Things like the cost of healthcare increasing haven’t really affected health in a meaningful way for many people (prescription opioids are another matter), between Medicaid/Medicare and the option to just not pay your bills.

    But yeah, life being easy is not the same as life being good. Contrast the Amerindian living on a reservation, on welfare, dying of cirrhosis of the liver, to his pre-Columbian ancestor hunting buffalo or whatever. The first one has an easier life, but is it better? Well, that pre-Columbian life might have ended in a scalping, or death in infancy from some cold or complication. Cold nights without central heating. Years of famine.

    I think our intuition tells us it’s worth risking all those things for the chance to live free and hunt buffalo under the blue sky. But I also suspect a great many Amerindians, given the choice between 15th century hunter-gatherer life and 21st-century reservation life, would end up choosing the modern reservation life — the path of least resistance.

    And likewise, if you gave 21st century NEETs the choice to live in a place with 1971 technology, air, and crime as a unionized blue collar family man, or to continue their NEET lifestyles, how many would really pick 1971? I just don’t think it’s that many. Life as a NEET is *easy*, but wretched to behold. Life as a pater familias is challenging and stressful, but rewarding and enriching.

    • Agree: Yahya K.
  99. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    The reason Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look like cavemen to postmodern Western bien-pensants is that-ironically-growing up under the Old Left tended to immunize you from the movements of the 1960s and their echo effects. Their social attitudes are hardly outliers for their generations of Russians and mainland Chinese, respectively. With an exception (Lenin) here and there, Communist governments tended to be quite socially reactionary. Especially when it came to family formation: the state heavily subsidized young couples, and good party members were strongly socially pressured to get married and get busy in the old fashioned way.

    This makes sense, if you consider Marxist ideology: and, in the cases of the Soviet Union and China, the depopulation of the first half of the 20th Century between civil war, famine, and invasion. The revolution needed soldiers, bureaucrats, workers, farmers. Who was going to lead mankind into a classless end-state if women weren't producing babies?

    Also, perspective needs to be kept here. Mao's views on women tended to be quite progressive for his times: no more footbinding, an end to forced marriages (Mao's first marriage was arranged, so he had personal experience with how miserable that could be), anti-prostitution, generally not treating women as outright subhumans. But these were the same positions that the Christian missionaries of his time period had, not those of a modern 3rd wave feminist. Mao certainly was not interested in anything that could potentially curb China's birthrate: the One Child Policy was a direct result of the population growth that took place when he was in charge.

    >Social liberalism became something to be imposed on us by force.

    I don't think that's true, exactly: there have been genuine social shifts in the West. Casual racism used to be so common that it wasn't considered noteworthy. It is now is treated on the same moral level as child molestation. Interracial marriage has become completely mundane, to the point where the wokeists seem to have a problem with it.

    I do think that the combination of the USSR falling and the postwar generation taking power in the US explains a lot about policies-domestic and foreign-that insistently ignore objective limits or human nature. As: well as the sheer rapaciousness of American elites: ancient Roman political behavior showed a similar shift when there were no rivals around the Mediterranean left.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I do think that the combination of the USSR falling and the postwar generation taking power in the US explains a lot about policies-domestic and foreign-that insistently ignore objective limits or human nature.

    Yes. What we’ve seen has been liberal triumphalism – liberalism freed from all restraints.

    The existence of the USSR imposed restraints on the excesses of liberalism. And it imposed restraints on the excesses of the liberal elites.

    ancient Roman political behavior showed a similar shift when there were no rivals around the Mediterranean left.

    Yes. Once the Romans had destroyed all their rivals they started work on destroying themselves.

    The Cold War was a good thing. It’s necessary for alternative systems to exist. Once liberalism’s external rivals were destroyed it was inevitable that liberalism would become even more corrupt and much much crazier.

  100. @Oliver D. Smith
    @A123

    I think you misread -the chart I posted shows what methods reduce the most amount of C02 and it shows nuclear and renewable energies are not very effective at reducing carbon emissions - I don't support them and these things won't solve the climate crisis. I'm personally against nuclear energy and renewable energies. Yes both are destructive to the environment and cause biodiversity loss of wildlife, aside from that they're ugly-looking things that ruin countryside views. Most rural people don't want concrete nuclear power plants or solar/wind farms built next to them.

    The most effective, least costly and environmental friendly way to reduce CO2 is not to breed.

    That's why I posted this-

    https://i.cbc.ca/1.4204289.1499983814!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/emissions-choices.jpg

    See also:

    https://www.dw.com/image/39688212_304.png

    The most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to be child free. And the latter won't kill loads of birds and other animals like nuclear power plants and solar/wind farms do. But why don't politicians or science textbooks talk about the most effective and environmentally friendly way to reduce CO2 emissions? Talking about population is still a taboo.

    Replies: @Charlie2345

    That enviro-babble sounds awesome.

    Perhaps you can have it engraved into your headstone.

    I am sure there will be lots of people interested in it.

    Meanwhile my family will go on. Not only that but I am willing to bet that your environmental disaster claims will prove about as accurate as enviro-babble about food and resource shortages from 40 years ago proved.

    Rest in peace my friend 🙂

  101. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Catdog

    There's been a global decrease in TFR over the past 40-50 years including across Africa (although the latter is slower than other continents for a number of reasons.) TFR in Ethiopia was above 7 in the 1980s its now 4.2, Nigeria in 1970s was above 6, its now 5.3.

    Is the 'White' population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don't think so - this seems to be an alt-right myth. There are still many European countries where native (excluding first/second generation immigrant) annual birth rates are higher than death rates so natural population growth. Take Ireland as an example.

    60,173 registered births in 2019
    32,084 registered deaths in 2019

    The 2021 census in UK will also show a population increase for 'White British'.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @JohnPlywood, @AnotherDad, @Audacious Epigone

    Is the ‘White’ population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don’t think so – this seems to be an alt-right myth.

    Not a myth at all. The white population is already in decline in the US.

    With the Xi virus we finally popped 3m deaths in 2020. Say 80% of those will be whites who utterly dominate among the elderly. That’s 2.4m. We’ve been running at 2m white births a year for a while and are crashing further. As the death cull increasing hits fatter Boomer generations white population decline will ratchet up toward the million a year mark.

    Even a nation like Germany–which had a later post-War baby boom after reconstruction–the death rate is already a couple points higher than the birth rate–and that’s everyone, including non-whites.

    Most “white” nations where the birth rate is still above the death rate, that is only true because of previous non-white immigrants (as in the US). The native white birth rate is already below the white death rate. Population growth is mostly driven by immigration and secondarily by previous invaders–in the net younger than the natives–having children.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @AnotherDad


    Not a myth at all. The white population is already in decline in the US.
     
    Nope it isn't. Alt-right myth. Stop lying.

    The self-identified 'White American' total population has increased on the census since 1790 every decade.

    Self-identified as White 1790–2010
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans#Demographic_information

    And from 2010 to 2017 the self-identified 'White American' population increased from:

    223,553,265 (2010)
    234,370,202 (2017)

    Now some may exclude 'White Hispanics' from 'White American', but doing so you still end up with an increase in self-identified non-Hispanic Whites. This can be seen by looking at census data for each state showing the vast majority of them have increased in non-Hispanic Whites from 2010-2018.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_whites#Population_by_settlement

    Take for example Florida:
    9,475,326 (2010)
    11,342,671(2018)

    'White genocide' when the non-Hispanic Whites are increasing? LOL.

    'White genocide' conspiracy theorists like Mikemikev are liars and propagandists.

  102. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Supporting a wife to stay at home and raising children with her is the best thing you’ll ever do. Don’t wait until you’re too old to do it. Do not contribute to the cause of demographic collapse.
     
    LOL. You people are insane.

    Have you never heard of overpopulation? What "demographic collapse"? We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)

    Replies: @Catdog, @V. K. Ovelund, @AnotherDad

    We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)

    “We”–white people–are not adding anyone, much less 80 million people a year. Africans account for most of it. White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.

    Nations with 3/4 of the earth’s surface near or sub-replacement fertility. Population growth–where it exists–is simply demographic momentum, or–sadly–immigration from less constrained regions.

    White people–if they want to survive–need to nudge back up toward replacement fertility. But most immediately they need to stop immigration so they have actual nations worth saving.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @AnotherDad


    White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.
     
    The world champions in fertility decline are South Koreans. They have something like 0.7-0.9 birth per woman, the lowest in the world. In 1960, it was over 6 per woman.

    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility (South Korea has the highest rate of college attendance for both men and women in the world).

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith, @dfordoom

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @AnotherDad

    White populations are mostly still increasing because of momentum.

    You're mistaken they're declining and I've already rebutted this with data.

    Most European countries still have population growth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    And most of this growth is not solely because of net-migration but more births than deaths so natural population growth

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So the question is:

    Why lie when people can check the data?

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  103. @AnotherDad
    @Oliver D. Smith


    We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)
     
    "We"--white people--are not adding anyone, much less 80 million people a year. Africans account for most of it. White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.

    Nations with 3/4 of the earth's surface near or sub-replacement fertility. Population growth--where it exists--is simply demographic momentum, or--sadly--immigration from less constrained regions.

    White people--if they want to survive--need to nudge back up toward replacement fertility. But most immediately they need to stop immigration so they have actual nations worth saving.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Oliver D. Smith

    White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.

    The world champions in fertility decline are South Koreans. They have something like 0.7-0.9 birth per woman, the lowest in the world. In 1960, it was over 6 per woman.

    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility (South Korea has the highest rate of college attendance for both men and women in the world).

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Twinkie

    It took South Korea ~30 years with sub-replacement fertility to actually decline in population because of population momentum and increasing life expectancy.

    This is what so many idiot 'white genocide' conspiracy theorists like Mikemikev fail to understand. Even though European countries have sub-replacement fertility - many are still growing in population by natural growth (more births than deaths each year).

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility
     
    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing. Generally speaking the more education you have the more choices you have.

    What's the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

  104. @Some Guy
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Well not having children saves the most amount of C02
     
    Do you happen to have the details on how that's calculated? For example if you estimate the lifetime emissions of a child by current emissions per capita, that's pretty useless since that could completely change in 20 or even 10 years.

    Anyway, looking at the expected number of births in Russia in the next 10 years, it's like 14 million out of a population of 145 million. So even halving the number of births would have a very limited impact on population in the near term, while causing huge population declines later on when green energy has presumably replaced fossil fuels anyway.

    Meanwhile Sweden and France has less than 50% the emissions per capita that Russia does(https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden?country=~SWE), with Sweden even being lower than the world average despite being a rich country. So even an extreme reduction in fertility is way less effective than just doing whatever Sweden or France is doing with energy policy(nuclear etc).

    Do you ever debate people who want to cure cancer or covid or whatever? Because if you want to keep populations low, low fertility rates are a lot worse for a country in the long term than old people dying.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Do you happen to have the details on how that’s calculated?

    The source I posted is based on carbon legacies (that only applies if you breed). So it calculates the carbon footprint of your descendants. It’s simple maths – each person alive has a carbon footprint so if you have kids you are adding CO2 to your own footprint in terms of legacy, your grandkids and so on.

    If you ignore carbon-legacies, you can simply calculate CO2 emissions per household.

    Households without children (particularly single adults but also childfree couples) have the lowest carbon footprint-

    Parents ‘have bigger carbon footprint than childless couples’
    https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/04/19/parents-have-bigger-carbon-footprint-than-childless-couples/

    Swedish study:
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231105

    Do parents have a smaller carbon footprint? Using a unique data set that allows us to compare CO2 emissions from Swedish two-adult households with and without children, we find that two adults in households with children increase CO2 emissions by more than 25 percent relative to two adults in households without children. Parents’ CO2 emissions are higher due to increased transportation and changed food consumption.

    There’s no way around this data but you find pretty much all politicians ignoring it. Why do governments fail to point out being childfree is the most effective method to reduce CO2? Instead all we hear is talk about recycling, converting to veganism or green energy.

  105. @Twinkie
    @AnotherDad


    White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.
     
    The world champions in fertility decline are South Koreans. They have something like 0.7-0.9 birth per woman, the lowest in the world. In 1960, it was over 6 per woman.

    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility (South Korea has the highest rate of college attendance for both men and women in the world).

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith, @dfordoom

    It took South Korea ~30 years with sub-replacement fertility to actually decline in population because of population momentum and increasing life expectancy.

    This is what so many idiot ‘white genocide’ conspiracy theorists like Mikemikev fail to understand. Even though European countries have sub-replacement fertility – many are still growing in population by natural growth (more births than deaths each year).

    • Troll: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Oliver D. Smith


    It took South Korea ~30 years with sub-replacement fertility to actually decline in population because of population momentum and increasing life expectancy.
     
    Yes, but now that the momentum has swung dramatically the other way, South Korean population will decline rapidly. Basically, from this generation and out, each cohort will give birth to 1/3 the size of itself. I am sure you can do the math on each generation being 1/3 the size of the previous generation. It doesn't take long for that to result in a dramatic contraction in the population.

    idiot ‘white genocide’
     
    While I agree that "white genocide" is a silly idea and is mathematically disproven, the current trajectory is not healthy especially considering the dramatic increase in sub-Saharan African population. I don't think this will be much of a problem for the United States, but certainly doesn't bode well for Europe.
  106. @Twinkie
    @AnotherDad


    White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.
     
    The world champions in fertility decline are South Koreans. They have something like 0.7-0.9 birth per woman, the lowest in the world. In 1960, it was over 6 per woman.

    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility (South Korea has the highest rate of college attendance for both men and women in the world).

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith, @dfordoom

    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility

    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing. Generally speaking the more education you have the more choices you have.

    What’s the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    What’s the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.
     
    Not nearly as strong as that between female education and low fertility, as I recall. In civilized societies, women have the most say in how many children are born to them.

    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing.
     
    That would be an unwarranted assumption. It may well be that, for example, the the very process of undergoing more schooling (brought on by increased educational credentialism) and subsequent professional focus ("can't waste the degree") retards fertility in women by taking up their prime fertile years.

    Note that AE's numbers were for the U.S. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are rather unique in the world in that those women with higher education credentials have slightly higher fertility (which seems to falsify your contention above) though that should be weighed against the fact that Scandinavian women have relatively low fertility by the world mean (I believe Norway, Denmark, and Sweden all have around 1.6-1.8 births per woman compared to about 2.5 per woman in the world).

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >What’s the correlation between education level of men and fertility?

    Men can wait until their 40s to have a family. We don't give birth. We can always shoot out sperm. It's not advisable in some ways, including a decline in sperm quality, but provided you can attract a fertile woman, it's easily doable.

    Women don't have that flexibility. If you are a single woman in your late 30s and you want kids, biology is going to force you to make some quick, hard decisions. Female fertility doesn't truly plummet until you hit 40, so it's not impossible if all you want is 1 or 2 kids, but it does take more effort: and that's assuming you can attract a good partner who will get straight down to the business of impregnating you. Some women will go around that straight to a sperm donor.

  107. Crackpot troll Mikemikev: “Jews are reducing white birth rates”.

    This clearly reduces White birth rates. How the Jews do this: media, academia, finance, legal lobbying, all interconnected. White demonization, hiding non White crime stories. According to the UN definition actions which reduce birth rates are a form of genocide.

    https://kiwifarms.is/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-30#post-1445687

    I’ve always said the far-left and far-right are the same with their overpopulation denial.

  108. @AnotherDad
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Is the ‘White’ population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don’t think so – this seems to be an alt-right myth.
     
    Not a myth at all. The white population is already in decline in the US.

    With the Xi virus we finally popped 3m deaths in 2020. Say 80% of those will be whites who utterly dominate among the elderly. That's 2.4m. We've been running at 2m white births a year for a while and are crashing further. As the death cull increasing hits fatter Boomer generations white population decline will ratchet up toward the million a year mark.

    Even a nation like Germany--which had a later post-War baby boom after reconstruction--the death rate is already a couple points higher than the birth rate--and that's everyone, including non-whites.

    Most "white" nations where the birth rate is still above the death rate, that is only true because of previous non-white immigrants (as in the US). The native white birth rate is already below the white death rate. Population growth is mostly driven by immigration and secondarily by previous invaders--in the net younger than the natives--having children.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Not a myth at all. The white population is already in decline in the US.

    Nope it isn’t. Alt-right myth. Stop lying.

    The self-identified ‘White American’ total population has increased on the census since 1790 every decade.

    Self-identified as White 1790–2010
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans#Demographic_information

    And from 2010 to 2017 the self-identified ‘White American’ population increased from:

    223,553,265 (2010)
    234,370,202 (2017)

    Now some may exclude ‘White Hispanics’ from ‘White American’, but doing so you still end up with an increase in self-identified non-Hispanic Whites. This can be seen by looking at census data for each state showing the vast majority of them have increased in non-Hispanic Whites from 2010-2018.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_whites#Population_by_settlement

    Take for example Florida:
    9,475,326 (2010)
    11,342,671(2018)

    ‘White genocide’ when the non-Hispanic Whites are increasing? LOL.

    ‘White genocide’ conspiracy theorists like Mikemikev are liars and propagandists.

  109. @AnotherDad
    @Oliver D. Smith


    We still add more than 80 MILLION people each year. World population is now 7.9 BILLION (!)
     
    "We"--white people--are not adding anyone, much less 80 million people a year. Africans account for most of it. White people and Japanese people are in demographic decline. The Han Chinese are close and will be in demographic decline in a decade or so.

    Nations with 3/4 of the earth's surface near or sub-replacement fertility. Population growth--where it exists--is simply demographic momentum, or--sadly--immigration from less constrained regions.

    White people--if they want to survive--need to nudge back up toward replacement fertility. But most immediately they need to stop immigration so they have actual nations worth saving.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Oliver D. Smith

    White populations are mostly still increasing because of momentum.

    You’re mistaken they’re declining and I’ve already rebutted this with data.

    Most European countries still have population growth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    And most of this growth is not solely because of net-migration but more births than deaths so natural population growth

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So the question is:

    Why lie when people can check the data?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Oliver D. Smith

    It was falsely claimed I cherry picked these:

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60

    Hardly 'cherry picked' when I posted more than 10.

    So here's yet more European countries with natural population growth:

    Liechtenstein: 10.40/7.20
    Switzerland: 10.30/7.80
    Denmark: 10.90/9.50
    North Macedonia: 10.70/10.10
    Netherlands: 10.10/8.90

    Probably a few other's I have missed.

    And these two are pretty much balanced:

    Belgium: 10.70/10.70
    Austria: 9.40/9.50

    Stop with the alt-right myths.

  110. @Oliver D. Smith
    @AnotherDad

    White populations are mostly still increasing because of momentum.

    You're mistaken they're declining and I've already rebutted this with data.

    Most European countries still have population growth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    And most of this growth is not solely because of net-migration but more births than deaths so natural population growth

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60
    etc.

    So the question is:

    Why lie when people can check the data?

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    It was falsely claimed I cherry picked these:

    Births per 1000/Deaths per 1000 [2019 or 2020 estimates]

    Albania: 11.80/7.40
    Iceland: 12.00/6.90
    Faroe Islands: 13.60/7.60
    Ireland: 13.50/6.40
    Cyprus: 10.80/6.90
    Switzerland: 10.50/7.80
    Norway: 11.20/7.80
    Sweden: 11.80/9.20
    Czech Republic: 10.70/10.20
    Luxembourg: 10.40/7.30
    Malta: 9.70/7.60

    Hardly ‘cherry picked’ when I posted more than 10.

    So here’s yet more European countries with natural population growth:

    Liechtenstein: 10.40/7.20
    Switzerland: 10.30/7.80
    Denmark: 10.90/9.50
    North Macedonia: 10.70/10.10
    Netherlands: 10.10/8.90

    Probably a few other’s I have missed.

    And these two are pretty much balanced:

    Belgium: 10.70/10.70
    Austria: 9.40/9.50

    Stop with the alt-right myths.

  111. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Catdog

    There's been a global decrease in TFR over the past 40-50 years including across Africa (although the latter is slower than other continents for a number of reasons.) TFR in Ethiopia was above 7 in the 1980s its now 4.2, Nigeria in 1970s was above 6, its now 5.3.

    Is the 'White' population actually in decline and not growing in population? I don't think so - this seems to be an alt-right myth. There are still many European countries where native (excluding first/second generation immigrant) annual birth rates are higher than death rates so natural population growth. Take Ireland as an example.

    60,173 registered births in 2019
    32,084 registered deaths in 2019

    The 2021 census in UK will also show a population increase for 'White British'.

    Replies: @Some Guy, @JohnPlywood, @AnotherDad, @Audacious Epigone

    To what do you attribute the slower decline in sub-Saharan African fertility rates than that of the rest of the world?

    The drop has been dramatic in countries like Bangladesh. Not so much in Africa, though as you note, the drop has been substantial and people who pretend it hasn’t been are deluding themselves.

    The strongest (inverse) correlate I’ve found with fertility is female educational attainment, both within countries and between them.

  112. @Truth
    Hey Audie, you are a stats man.

    Try not to get mesmerized by these active bar graphs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3w8I8boc_I

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Haha, is that what it means to have your whole life flash before your eyes? Because mine just did. Very cool, thanks!

  113. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility
     
    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing. Generally speaking the more education you have the more choices you have.

    What's the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

    What’s the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.

    Not nearly as strong as that between female education and low fertility, as I recall. In civilized societies, women have the most say in how many children are born to them.

    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing.

    That would be an unwarranted assumption. It may well be that, for example, the the very process of undergoing more schooling (brought on by increased educational credentialism) and subsequent professional focus (“can’t waste the degree”) retards fertility in women by taking up their prime fertile years.

    Note that AE’s numbers were for the U.S. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are rather unique in the world in that those women with higher education credentials have slightly higher fertility (which seems to falsify your contention above) though that should be weighed against the fact that Scandinavian women have relatively low fertility by the world mean (I believe Norway, Denmark, and Sweden all have around 1.6-1.8 births per woman compared to about 2.5 per woman in the world).

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    It may well be that, for example, the the very process of undergoing more schooling (brought on by increased educational credentialism) and subsequent professional focus (“can’t waste the degree”) retards fertility in women by taking up their prime fertile years.
     
    Yes, that could be a factor.

    Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are rather unique in the world in that those women with higher education credentials have slightly higher fertility (which seems to falsify your contention above)
     
    That's interesting. Of course it would also falsify your contention as well.

    It seems to me that what it comes down to is that changes in human fertility are poorly understood. There are a number of plausible suspects.

    It may be that we're both wrong and that there's some other factor (which presumably correlates with higher educational attainments by women).

    Societies in which women are more highly educated presumably have other factors in common, such as being saturated by mass media and social media. They tend to have higher material living standards.

    Fertility decline is likely to be the result of a multiplicity of factors working in concert.

    We also don't really know why East Asian societies have suffered the most catastrophic drops in fertility.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  114. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Twinkie

    It took South Korea ~30 years with sub-replacement fertility to actually decline in population because of population momentum and increasing life expectancy.

    This is what so many idiot 'white genocide' conspiracy theorists like Mikemikev fail to understand. Even though European countries have sub-replacement fertility - many are still growing in population by natural growth (more births than deaths each year).

    Replies: @Twinkie

    It took South Korea ~30 years with sub-replacement fertility to actually decline in population because of population momentum and increasing life expectancy.

    Yes, but now that the momentum has swung dramatically the other way, South Korean population will decline rapidly. Basically, from this generation and out, each cohort will give birth to 1/3 the size of itself. I am sure you can do the math on each generation being 1/3 the size of the previous generation. It doesn’t take long for that to result in a dramatic contraction in the population.

    idiot ‘white genocide’

    While I agree that “white genocide” is a silly idea and is mathematically disproven, the current trajectory is not healthy especially considering the dramatic increase in sub-Saharan African population. I don’t think this will be much of a problem for the United States, but certainly doesn’t bode well for Europe.

  115. @Average and Harmless
    @Wency

    The world today is obviously better than it was 1,000, or even 50, years ago. I’m fairly confident that 50 years from now will be better still. But all of us are going to find ourselves becoming older, fatter, slower, and, eventually, dead. That certainty isn’t likely to change in the next 50, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.

    Replies: @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    Aubrey de Grey has devoted his life to changing that in the next 50 years.

    What a significant increase in the average human lifespan would do with regards to population is an interesting one. The simplest explanation is that it will increase it.

    On the other hand, both average population age and average age at first birth correlate (inversely and positively, respectively) with fertility. If everyone started living longer than Koreans, maybe they’d have fewer children than Koreans, too.

  116. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    What’s the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.
     
    Not nearly as strong as that between female education and low fertility, as I recall. In civilized societies, women have the most say in how many children are born to them.

    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing.
     
    That would be an unwarranted assumption. It may well be that, for example, the the very process of undergoing more schooling (brought on by increased educational credentialism) and subsequent professional focus ("can't waste the degree") retards fertility in women by taking up their prime fertile years.

    Note that AE's numbers were for the U.S. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are rather unique in the world in that those women with higher education credentials have slightly higher fertility (which seems to falsify your contention above) though that should be weighed against the fact that Scandinavian women have relatively low fertility by the world mean (I believe Norway, Denmark, and Sweden all have around 1.6-1.8 births per woman compared to about 2.5 per woman in the world).

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It may well be that, for example, the the very process of undergoing more schooling (brought on by increased educational credentialism) and subsequent professional focus (“can’t waste the degree”) retards fertility in women by taking up their prime fertile years.

    Yes, that could be a factor.

    Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are rather unique in the world in that those women with higher education credentials have slightly higher fertility (which seems to falsify your contention above)

    That’s interesting. Of course it would also falsify your contention as well.

    It seems to me that what it comes down to is that changes in human fertility are poorly understood. There are a number of plausible suspects.

    It may be that we’re both wrong and that there’s some other factor (which presumably correlates with higher educational attainments by women).

    Societies in which women are more highly educated presumably have other factors in common, such as being saturated by mass media and social media. They tend to have higher material living standards.

    Fertility decline is likely to be the result of a multiplicity of factors working in concert.

    We also don’t really know why East Asian societies have suffered the most catastrophic drops in fertility.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Of course it would also falsify your contention as well.
     
    What contention?

    It may be that we’re both wrong
     
    There is nothing for me to be wrong about, as all I did was state the correlations and did not assert any causation. You are the one who made an unwarranted assertion about "more choices" (whatever that means) reducing fertility.

    Fertility decline is likely to be the result of a multiplicity of factors working in concert.
     
    Of course. Very few social phenomena, if any, are mono-causal. But we do know that the strongest correlation is with female education (years of schooling).

    We also don’t really know why East Asian societies have suffered the most catastrophic drops in fertility.
     
    We can put forth some intelligent guesses - such as higher rates of urbanization, higher private costs of education (South Korea has the highest rate of household spending on education, that is to say, spending on education as a share of household spending/income, in the whole world), higher educational and work competitiveness, higher rates of stress, etc. There could also be some heritable factors such as higher propensity for K-selection (fewer children, more per-child parental investment) that interact with (auto-catalytically) with the environmental factors.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  117. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    It may well be that, for example, the the very process of undergoing more schooling (brought on by increased educational credentialism) and subsequent professional focus (“can’t waste the degree”) retards fertility in women by taking up their prime fertile years.
     
    Yes, that could be a factor.

    Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are rather unique in the world in that those women with higher education credentials have slightly higher fertility (which seems to falsify your contention above)
     
    That's interesting. Of course it would also falsify your contention as well.

    It seems to me that what it comes down to is that changes in human fertility are poorly understood. There are a number of plausible suspects.

    It may be that we're both wrong and that there's some other factor (which presumably correlates with higher educational attainments by women).

    Societies in which women are more highly educated presumably have other factors in common, such as being saturated by mass media and social media. They tend to have higher material living standards.

    Fertility decline is likely to be the result of a multiplicity of factors working in concert.

    We also don't really know why East Asian societies have suffered the most catastrophic drops in fertility.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Of course it would also falsify your contention as well.

    What contention?

    It may be that we’re both wrong

    There is nothing for me to be wrong about, as all I did was state the correlations and did not assert any causation. You are the one who made an unwarranted assertion about “more choices” (whatever that means) reducing fertility.

    Fertility decline is likely to be the result of a multiplicity of factors working in concert.

    Of course. Very few social phenomena, if any, are mono-causal. But we do know that the strongest correlation is with female education (years of schooling).

    We also don’t really know why East Asian societies have suffered the most catastrophic drops in fertility.

    We can put forth some intelligent guesses – such as higher rates of urbanization, higher private costs of education (South Korea has the highest rate of household spending on education, that is to say, spending on education as a share of household spending/income, in the whole world), higher educational and work competitiveness, higher rates of stress, etc. There could also be some heritable factors such as higher propensity for K-selection (fewer children, more per-child parental investment) that interact with (auto-catalytically) with the environmental factors.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    Singaporean Chinese had a birth-rate decline roughly in the same ballpark as South Korea's. It shows no signs of reversing: and not for a lack of trying on the part of the Singaporean government. So, it'd make sense to look for similarities.

    Longer and more expensive education? Check. Urbanization? Definitely check. More competitiveness and more neuroticism/stress? Check, check.

    There's no one factor, but there's an underlying theme that is clearly discernable: neoliberal globalism isn't exactly natalism friendly.

    Secularization? Not as much as I initially expected. If anything, Christianity is more prominent in Singapore than it was 60 years ago, and officially atheist China has been showing the same decline in fertility as all the other developed countries sans Israel. Israel does have the haredim, but the stats show that non-Orthodox Israelis still are very fertile on developed world standards, so that isn't the whole story, and while Israel is hardly the Western nation of US political imagination, Russians aren't known for their fertility, unlike Middle Easterners.

    Tellingly, even the ethnic Malays in Singapore aren't exactly pumping out 10, 12 kid families like they were 60 years ago, though they still have enough of an edge to ensure immigration from the PRC. And conservative developing Muslim countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have nevertheless seen sharp birth rate drops, if not on the level of East Asian societies.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  118. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Of course it would also falsify your contention as well.
     
    What contention?

    It may be that we’re both wrong
     
    There is nothing for me to be wrong about, as all I did was state the correlations and did not assert any causation. You are the one who made an unwarranted assertion about "more choices" (whatever that means) reducing fertility.

    Fertility decline is likely to be the result of a multiplicity of factors working in concert.
     
    Of course. Very few social phenomena, if any, are mono-causal. But we do know that the strongest correlation is with female education (years of schooling).

    We also don’t really know why East Asian societies have suffered the most catastrophic drops in fertility.
     
    We can put forth some intelligent guesses - such as higher rates of urbanization, higher private costs of education (South Korea has the highest rate of household spending on education, that is to say, spending on education as a share of household spending/income, in the whole world), higher educational and work competitiveness, higher rates of stress, etc. There could also be some heritable factors such as higher propensity for K-selection (fewer children, more per-child parental investment) that interact with (auto-catalytically) with the environmental factors.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Singaporean Chinese had a birth-rate decline roughly in the same ballpark as South Korea’s. It shows no signs of reversing: and not for a lack of trying on the part of the Singaporean government. So, it’d make sense to look for similarities.

    Longer and more expensive education? Check. Urbanization? Definitely check. More competitiveness and more neuroticism/stress? Check, check.

    There’s no one factor, but there’s an underlying theme that is clearly discernable: neoliberal globalism isn’t exactly natalism friendly.

    Secularization? Not as much as I initially expected. If anything, Christianity is more prominent in Singapore than it was 60 years ago, and officially atheist China has been showing the same decline in fertility as all the other developed countries sans Israel. Israel does have the haredim, but the stats show that non-Orthodox Israelis still are very fertile on developed world standards, so that isn’t the whole story, and while Israel is hardly the Western nation of US political imagination, Russians aren’t known for their fertility, unlike Middle Easterners.

    Tellingly, even the ethnic Malays in Singapore aren’t exactly pumping out 10, 12 kid families like they were 60 years ago, though they still have enough of an edge to ensure immigration from the PRC. And conservative developing Muslim countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have nevertheless seen sharp birth rate drops, if not on the level of East Asian societies.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Tellingly, even the ethnic Malays in Singapore aren’t exactly pumping out 10, 12 kid families like they were 60 years ago, though they still have enough of an edge to ensure immigration from the PRC. And conservative developing Muslim countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have nevertheless seen sharp birth rate drops, if not on the level of East Asian societies.
     
    And birth rates have dropped dramatically in quite a few sub-Saharan African countries as well. They're still well above replacement level at the moment but the trend is very clearly downwards.

    The only thing we can be fairly certain of is that demographic decline has nothing to do with race and nothing to do with anti-white racism.
  119. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    As Audacious Epigone showed, education level of women is the variable with the highest correlation with low fertility
     
    That fits in with my view that the main reason for fertility decline is that people now have other choices that they consider to be much moire attractive than child-rearing. Generally speaking the more education you have the more choices you have.

    What's the correlation between education level of men and fertility? It is possible that educated men, who also have lots of choices, are also seeing having children as a less attractive choice.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

    >What’s the correlation between education level of men and fertility?

    Men can wait until their 40s to have a family. We don’t give birth. We can always shoot out sperm. It’s not advisable in some ways, including a decline in sperm quality, but provided you can attract a fertile woman, it’s easily doable.

    Women don’t have that flexibility. If you are a single woman in your late 30s and you want kids, biology is going to force you to make some quick, hard decisions. Female fertility doesn’t truly plummet until you hit 40, so it’s not impossible if all you want is 1 or 2 kids, but it does take more effort: and that’s assuming you can attract a good partner who will get straight down to the business of impregnating you. Some women will go around that straight to a sperm donor.

  120. PS:

    The taking more effort part: well, who complains about that part of the process? It’s more the process of attracting a suitable partner. Now, I personally believe that both modern men and women tend to underestimate who they can have a reasonably happy marriage with if they are willing to compromise and put in the work: the modern world encourages the worst in human nature in that regard with choice paralysis. But still, you can never tell how long that part of the process will take.

    The thing is, women are being systematically lied to when they are being told they can behave just like men. No, they can’t. It is apples and oranges, not patriarchy. Men are exponential, women are linear. Being a man is a much higher risk/reward situation. Of course they’ll behave vastly differently. It’s a damning indictment of our age that this is controversial to imply.

    I don’t subscribe to the incel narrative of the “carousel”, exactly: it’s more like failed serial monogamy. But there’s no question that the dynamics of dating apps lead to a lot of women not soberly assessing where they are and what guys are likely to commit to them for too long. (Men make this mistake too, but reality on dating apps ensure they don’t have near as much a chance to act on it on average, nor again, do they have as strict a biological clock.) There’s also the fact that men mature slower, and being implicitly judged off factors other than physical beauty, have more of an incentive to wait than women. Men who are not happy with who they are or where they are going in life are deeply unlikely to be interested in marriage, too, and a lot of guys increasingly aren’t.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    I don’t subscribe to the incel narrative of the “carousel”, exactly: it’s more like failed serial monogamy.

    Lol, the term "cock carousel" was not coined by any incel, and you are pedestalizing just a wee bit.

    But there’s no question that the dynamics of dating apps lead to a lot of women not soberly assessing where they are and what guys are likely to commit to them for too long.

    Never mind the dating apps, although that is where the action lies now. Just examine biology. A 22 year old woman has more male options than any 30 year old, and social media just pours the attention onto her, unless she's the rare individual who stays off of it.

    Remember the average age of a US woman on the day of her first marriage is 27, heading for 28; if she has a college degree it's 28 heading for 29. Some girls stick the landing, I know a couple who married at 30 and each of them have pushed out 2 kids. If they had waited a few years more, the chances of problems would have gone way up, as everyone should know by now.

    There’s also the fact that men mature slower, and being implicitly judged off factors other than physical beauty, have more of an incentive to wait than women.

    Dude, this image is over 8 years old, and the concept is even older.

    https://i0.wp.com/therationalmale.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/smv_curve1.jpg

    tl;dr

    "Men age like wine, women age like milk".

    Men who are not happy with who they are or where they are going in life are deeply unlikely to be interested in marriage, too, and a lot of guys increasingly aren’t.

    Correct. There is no global solution, either, there is only the one-by-one solution. Elsewhere in the wilds of the Internet there are serious discussions on this, often in terms of "How can I find a mate for my child?", they all reduce to a version of what Twinkie is doing.

  121. anon[416] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    PS:

    The taking more effort part: well, who complains about that part of the process? It's more the process of attracting a suitable partner. Now, I personally believe that both modern men and women tend to underestimate who they can have a reasonably happy marriage with if they are willing to compromise and put in the work: the modern world encourages the worst in human nature in that regard with choice paralysis. But still, you can never tell how long that part of the process will take.

    The thing is, women are being systematically lied to when they are being told they can behave just like men. No, they can't. It is apples and oranges, not patriarchy. Men are exponential, women are linear. Being a man is a much higher risk/reward situation. Of course they'll behave vastly differently. It's a damning indictment of our age that this is controversial to imply.

    I don't subscribe to the incel narrative of the "carousel", exactly: it's more like failed serial monogamy. But there's no question that the dynamics of dating apps lead to a lot of women not soberly assessing where they are and what guys are likely to commit to them for too long. (Men make this mistake too, but reality on dating apps ensure they don't have near as much a chance to act on it on average, nor again, do they have as strict a biological clock.) There's also the fact that men mature slower, and being implicitly judged off factors other than physical beauty, have more of an incentive to wait than women. Men who are not happy with who they are or where they are going in life are deeply unlikely to be interested in marriage, too, and a lot of guys increasingly aren't.

    Replies: @anon

    I don’t subscribe to the incel narrative of the “carousel”, exactly: it’s more like failed serial monogamy.

    Lol, the term “cock carousel” was not coined by any incel, and you are pedestalizing just a wee bit.

    But there’s no question that the dynamics of dating apps lead to a lot of women not soberly assessing where they are and what guys are likely to commit to them for too long.

    Never mind the dating apps, although that is where the action lies now. Just examine biology. A 22 year old woman has more male options than any 30 year old, and social media just pours the attention onto her, unless she’s the rare individual who stays off of it.

    Remember the average age of a US woman on the day of her first marriage is 27, heading for 28; if she has a college degree it’s 28 heading for 29. Some girls stick the landing, I know a couple who married at 30 and each of them have pushed out 2 kids. If they had waited a few years more, the chances of problems would have gone way up, as everyone should know by now.

    There’s also the fact that men mature slower, and being implicitly judged off factors other than physical beauty, have more of an incentive to wait than women.

    Dude, this image is over 8 years old, and the concept is even older.

    tl;dr

    “Men age like wine, women age like milk”.

    Men who are not happy with who they are or where they are going in life are deeply unlikely to be interested in marriage, too, and a lot of guys increasingly aren’t.

    Correct. There is no global solution, either, there is only the one-by-one solution. Elsewhere in the wilds of the Internet there are serious discussions on this, often in terms of “How can I find a mate for my child?”, they all reduce to a version of what Twinkie is doing.

  122. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    Singaporean Chinese had a birth-rate decline roughly in the same ballpark as South Korea's. It shows no signs of reversing: and not for a lack of trying on the part of the Singaporean government. So, it'd make sense to look for similarities.

    Longer and more expensive education? Check. Urbanization? Definitely check. More competitiveness and more neuroticism/stress? Check, check.

    There's no one factor, but there's an underlying theme that is clearly discernable: neoliberal globalism isn't exactly natalism friendly.

    Secularization? Not as much as I initially expected. If anything, Christianity is more prominent in Singapore than it was 60 years ago, and officially atheist China has been showing the same decline in fertility as all the other developed countries sans Israel. Israel does have the haredim, but the stats show that non-Orthodox Israelis still are very fertile on developed world standards, so that isn't the whole story, and while Israel is hardly the Western nation of US political imagination, Russians aren't known for their fertility, unlike Middle Easterners.

    Tellingly, even the ethnic Malays in Singapore aren't exactly pumping out 10, 12 kid families like they were 60 years ago, though they still have enough of an edge to ensure immigration from the PRC. And conservative developing Muslim countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have nevertheless seen sharp birth rate drops, if not on the level of East Asian societies.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Tellingly, even the ethnic Malays in Singapore aren’t exactly pumping out 10, 12 kid families like they were 60 years ago, though they still have enough of an edge to ensure immigration from the PRC. And conservative developing Muslim countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have nevertheless seen sharp birth rate drops, if not on the level of East Asian societies.

    And birth rates have dropped dramatically in quite a few sub-Saharan African countries as well. They’re still well above replacement level at the moment but the trend is very clearly downwards.

    The only thing we can be fairly certain of is that demographic decline has nothing to do with race and nothing to do with anti-white racism.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS