NationStates Jolt Archive

(Link to CIA's World Factbook - fertility rates. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html )

Thanks to liberal propaganda.

Today, it is like scientists and intellectuals are trying their best to destroy the population of West.

Before, it was like this - A guy meets a girl. They act foolish and sleep together, and you get a baby as a result. They, of course, marry, have few more children and live together. Man goes to work, woman stays home and looks after the children. As it was, during the entire history of mankind.

Then, the organisations to "liberate women" came. You don't have to stay home, you can go to work, you can be equal as the men!

Ok, but who will then take care of the children? Men?

No, you don't have to have children at all! Why to ruin your own life just to have some little buggers that will take away 20 years of your prime time in life?

Yes, who cares about children or future of our very species, I only care for my big fat butt.

-----

So, women got same rights as the men, they go and work, everything.

Then happened - you got protection of getting children. Heavens forbid (Oh yes, sorry, I forgot I'm not allowed to use any terms that can be associated with religion in the liberal culture, because everyone knows religion is backwards. But that's for another thread.) you get those nasty little buggers that only want to screw your life out. Use protection - anti-baby pills, condoms, whatever.

Hell, even if you don't do that, you can always go to a "doctor" and have him KILL the child. Who cares about it, huh?

That's how it went. Women are not to have children, don't waste your life on them! Waste your life having fun, who cares about future generations? I'll be long dead then so I won't have to worry about them, I'll just enjoy my own life.

So, population growth came to a halt, over time. Then it started to decline. It takes 2.1 children per women to keep the humanity alive. In some of European countries it's way lower (Italy 1.28 for example...). Not a single European country has 2.1 or more children per women. US has 2.09. (Close to maintaining it, but still falling down. It has it that high only because of latin-americans and other minorities with many children.)

Now, governments of all the european countries are shaking their heads, trying to figure out what to do. It is too late already. Women will never give up the luxury of this life now. Money women receive for having children (by government) simply won't do it. They (And to be honest - men too.) have simply decided not to have any children.

I talked to a friend of mine and his wife. They only have one child. When I asked them why, they said "Well, it's much easier to take care of one child than of more of them. And this way, we can focus more money on ourselves, going to vacations and buying stuff from e-bay and stores.".

Why am I saying this? I don't know. I know this will have no effect whatsoever, but I decided to say it anyway. I'm sure many people here know about it, but many others simply don't care.

Now, you can go and flame me in this thread, for being a backward and a freak, and then go happy to your own life, until (for some 50 years) you realise government has decided to stop giving pension to old people since majority of your nation is supposed to get it, and you end up broke and old. You'll forget about this thread, but will remember how stupid you were back then.

If Western culture doesn't do what is neccesary for survival - ban child-killing and preservatives, tries to focus people to care about their families more than for their jobs and having an easy life - it will die out. Third world countries that have increased population will take over Europe and US. After all, it is already happening.

[STOLEN QUOTE] Does the thinking that entire world is insane makes me insane? [/STOLEN QUOTE]

(Link to CIA's World Factbook - fertility rates. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html )

Thanks to liberal propaganda.

Today, it is like scientists and intellectuals are trying their best to destroy the population of West.

[STOLEN QUOTE] Does the thinking that entire world is insane makes me insane? [/STOLEN QUOTE]

Our population in the West has experienced a 'bubble'. It has been allowed to artificially raise above the supportable level, by lifespan enhancing medication, the removal of predators, the removal of pathogens, and unseasonal peace.

If the population increases at a slower rate for a while, that's just a return to business as usual.

For all your hysteria about the 'un-natural' ideas of women working, babies outside of marriage, abortion, and contraception... the really unnatural thing, has been us keeping sick babies alive, and living longer as adults.

Quick, somebody call the fire bregade!

the world doesnt need more people; it needs fewer people. people in the developed world use way more resources per capita than people in the undeveloped world do so every time we decline to breed, we help save the world.

no one should have more children than they want and can support.

Our population in the West has experienced a 'bubble'. It has been allowed to artificially raise above the supportable level, by lifespan enhancing medication, the removal of predators, the removal of pathogens, and unseasonal peace.

If the population increases at a slower rate for a while, that's just a return to business as usual.

For all your hysteria about the 'un-natural' ideas of women working, babies outside of marriage, abortion, and contraception... the really unnatural thing, has been us keeping sick babies alive, and living longer as adults.

More wars!

If feminism prevents overpopulation, I'm all for it. We need to spread it to the rest of the world.

More wars!

That's what we've had, for all of recorded history... and, one assumes, long before it started getting recorded.

As it is, most of the world has enjoyed a few 'big' wars, largely of no affect in relation to domestic birth rates (overall)... and little by way of genocide... in the last century or two.

Ban condoms.

Now... who wants some of my man juice?

Thanks to liberal propaganda.
Don't be silly. It's the Communazi muslim axis that's behind all this, not the liberals...:D

That's what we've had, for all of recorded history... and, one assumes, long before it started getting recorded.

As it is, most of the world has enjoyed a few 'big' wars, largely of no affect in relation to domestic birth rates (overall)... and little by way of genocide... in the last century or two.

That's why we need to get more use out of those nuclear weapons.

<suspiciously familiar snippage>

Has Ny Nordland caught religion?

If Western culture doesn't do what is neccesary for survival - ban child-killing and preservatives, tries to focus people to care about their families more than for their jobs and having an easy life - it will die out. Third world countries that have increased population will take over Europe and US. After all, it is already happening.


What would reducing personal liberty to encourage baby-making do to keep Western culture alive? It seems almost antithetical to the direction Western culture has moved in for the last century.

And why would third-world countries take over the dominant powers just because of increased population? You need a lot more than a a bigger population to displace a world power.

Oh yes, those evil women...how DARE they treat themselves as equal to men; they ought to tremble in fear of our mighty phallic superiority. They should be nothing more than baby factories for the good of western society.

No, you don't have to have children at all! Why to ruin your own life just to have some little buggers that will take away 20 years of your prime time in life?
Damn straight.
Hell, even if you don't do that, you can always go to a "doctor" and have him KILL the child. Who cares about it, huh?

Not I.
That's how it went. Women are not to have children, don't waste your life on them! Waste your life having fun, who cares about future generations? I'll be long dead then so I won't have to worry about them, I'll just enjoy my own life.
But in the situation you envisage nobody's had any children, so nobody's alive, so nobody suffers. So no problem.

Seriously, the population of the planet is six and a half billion. It can stand to lose a few billion. Extinction isn't imminent.

I can't wait to see what Bottle makes of this thread :D

Oh yes, those evil women...how DARE they treat themselves as equal to men; they ought to tremble in fear of our mighty phallic superiority. They should be nothing more than baby factories for the good of western society.

*Waves his mighty phallic superiority around in public*

*Gets arrested by those with mightier phallic superiority*

Oh yes, those evil women...how DARE they treat themselves as equal to men; they ought to tremble in fear of our mighty phallic superiority. They should be nothing more than baby factories for the good of western society.

And, for me, that is it, in a nutshell.

Given the choice of reversing the emancipation of women... or watching 'Western culture' diminish in scope... I'd pick the vision with the equality, every time.

*Waves his mighty phallic superiority around in public*

*Gets arrested by those with mightier phallic superiority*

Just don't take shit from women cops. You're superior to them - ask instead to see their commanding penis.

*Waves his mighty phallic superiority around in public*

*Gets arrested by those with mightier phallic superiority*

*laughs at his "phallic superioirity"*

That's why we need to get more use out of those nuclear weapons.

Damn right. It'd be a shame to see all that wonderful fissile goodness go to waste eh? Not to mention the billions in taxpayers money that'd go down the tubes if we just left the things to decay in a silo somewhere :D

And, for me, that is it, in a nutshell.

Given the choice of reversing the emancipation of women... or watching 'Western culture' diminish in scope... I'd pick the vision with the equality, every time.

Damned straight.

A western society where people are forced to have children they don't want isn't a society worth saving.

What would reducing personal liberty to encourage baby-making do to keep Western culture alive? It seems almost antithetical to the direction Western culture has moved in for the last century.

And why would third-world countries take over the dominant powers just because of increased population? You need a lot more than a a bigger population to displace a world power.

Because people migrate from one country to another. From a poor one to a rich one, in hopes of a better life. And they, since they're less "corrupted" by the propaganda have three, four, or whatever the number of children more than your average western couple. As the number of foreigners increase and locals decrease, their culture will influence more the west. In the end, we will go extinct and will only be remembered in history books...

Oh yes, those evil women...how DARE they treat themselves as equal to men; they ought to tremble in fear of our mighty phallic superiority. They should be nothing more than baby factories for the good of western society.

It's not only women, it's (same amount of fault) man's fault too. They don't bother anymore to have children. It's not about women being equal as men - men and women are different. This isn't about anyone's superiority - men's job is to work and women's to have children and take care of them. Men isn't superior to women for brining money and security, women isn't superior for being able to continue the species. And besides, you're way too influenced by the propaganda, my words seem sick to. Fair enough, your "culture" seems sick to me too.

*laughs at his "phallic superioirity"*
That hurt even more than the female cops' 18" black, wooden phallic superiority :(

Just don't take shit from women cops. You're superior to them - ask instead to see their commanding penis.

There goes a mouthful of perfectly good coffee up the ol' sinus cavity.

No. No its not.

The mutual careerism you profile is endemic of the professional class. The "upper" class breed like rabbits, as do the blue-collar class.

I suppose it's mildly reassuring at least that there have been some intelligent replies to the mindless garbage of the OP. When a country's population has artificially swelled for decades (take a look at the world's population in 1900!), seeing it cease to do so is no cause for alarm.

Besides, the population of most Western countries is not decreasing. Your statistics are solely about fertility rates. Population levels are still rising thanks to immigration.

Before you rant about feminism and go into moral panic mode, perhaps you could check your facts. Unless you're too lazy to do so. Latching onto an "enemy" is so much simpler than facing the complexity of reality.

And, for me, that is it, in a nutshell.

Given the choice of reversing the emancipation of women... or watching 'Western culture' diminish in scope... I'd pick the vision with the equality, every time.

The same way that we could all have a nicer time if we had slaves that did all the shitty jobfor free and only men with land was allowed to vote (at least it was better if you were a free male who owned land). But instead we have to have this freedom and "democracy". Bah!

And for the record I do not belive in the above

Because people migrate from one country to another. From a poor one to a rich one, in hopes of a better life. And they, since they're less "corrupted" by the propaganda have three, four, or whatever the number of children more than your average western couple. As the number of foreigners increase and locals decrease, their culture will influence more the west. In the end, we will go extinct and will only be remembered in history books...

So 'Western' culture dies out in favour of an emalgamation of all cultures. Big deal. What's so hot about Western culture anyway? The only good thing about it is the amount of civil and political freedoms, which you seem intent on destroying anyway, so why're you so fussed?

It's not only women, it's (same amount of fault) man's fault too. They don't bother anymore to have children. It's not about women being equal as men - men and women are different. This isn't about anyone's superiority - men's job is to work and women's to have children and take care of them. Men isn't superior to women for brining money and security, women isn't superior for being able to continue the species. And besides, you're way too influenced by the propaganda, my words seem sick to. Fair enough, your "culture" seems sick to me too.

Hmm, so you say we're victims of propaganda for believing that everyone should be given equal opportunities, whilst insisting on your own view of the world? See the irony there?

Oh and just a side note, you need to work on your spelling/grammar, 'cause some of the stuff in there was pretty tricky to figure out.

Because people migrate from one country to another. From a poor one to a rich one, in hopes of a better life. And they, since they're less "corrupted" by the propaganda have three, four, or whatever the number of children more than your average western couple. As the number of foreigners increase and locals decrease, their culture will influence more the west. In the end, we will go extinct and will only be remembered in history books...

And the alternative is what, an oppressive regime that encourages baby-making at the expense of personal liberty in order to propagate a culture that claims more importance than the people that live in it? You're treading very close to a facist society there.

It's not only women, it's (same amount of fault) man's fault too. They don't bother anymore to have children. It's not about women being equal as men - men and women are different. This isn't about anyone's superiority - men's job is to work and women's to have children and take care of them. Men isn't superior to women for brining money and security, women isn't superior for being able to continue the species. And besides, you're way too influenced by the propaganda, my words seem sick to. Fair enough, your "culture" seems sick to me too.

The poster who is trying reinforce traditional gender roles talking about being influenced by propaganda. The irony here is wonderful. If you can present a rationale for "men bring in money, women raise children" beyond tradtion, most people here may take you seriously. But I really doubt that those roles can be rationalized beyond tradition.

Because people migrate from one country to another. From a poor one to a rich one, in hopes of a better life. And they, since they're less "corrupted" by the propaganda have three, four, or whatever the number of children more than your average western couple. As the number of foreigners increase and locals decrease, their culture will influence more the west. In the end, we will go extinct and will only be remembered in history books...


Make your mind up - which do you want, 'nature' or 'western superiority'... because the two are almost diametrically opposed.

'Naturally' humans have wandered around displacing, replacing, and destroying each other. 'Naturally', the 'stronger' culture for a given circumstance will displace or replace the 'weaker'.

Sometimes that is sheer volume of offspring.

The fact that we have our cute little borders, our 'flags', and our imagined partitions between the 'different' people from other countries... all of that is totally UN-natural. That is the set of mechanisms we have instituted to protect our little 'bubble'.

So - the question is - do you want nature (no contraception, but also no borders) or do you want Western 'civilisation'... (borders, 'races', and the power of the PEOPLE to decide whether abortion is right for them).



It's not only women, it's (same amount of fault) man's fault too. They don't bother anymore to have children. It's not about women being equal as men - men and women are different. This isn't about anyone's superiority - men's job is to work and women's to have children and take care of them. Men isn't superior to women for brining money and security, women isn't superior for being able to continue the species. And besides, you're way too influenced by the propaganda, my words seem sick to. Fair enough, your "culture" seems sick to me too.

Again - you live in a fantasy world. You are looking at modern Western values, and pretending they have some greater significance.

If you had lived two or three hundred years ago, women worked - just like men did. Whole families tilled the land, or worked in some production capacity, perhaps.

This idea that women COULD 'stay at home' is almost entirely a peculiar artifact of the Victorians.


Your words don't seem 'sick'... just not very well thought out.

The same way that we could all have a nicer time if we had slaves that did all the shitty jobfor free and only men with land was allowed to vote (at least it was better if you were a free male who owned land). But instead we have to have this freedom and "democracy". Bah!

And for the record I do not belive in the above

Exactly. My life would be much easier if our culture embraced the mechanics of plantation-era culture. And yet - given THAT choice, I wouldn't want to see THAT world. Our culture isn't perfect... but at least we are heading in the right direction.

The poster who is trying reinforce traditional gender roles talking about being influenced by propaganda. The irony here is wonderful. If you can present a rationale for "men bring in money, women raise children" beyond tradtion, most people here may take you seriously. But I really doubt that those roles can be rationalized beyond tradition.

Tell me, why is it in tradition? Big many years ago people lived all equal than some big evil men brought patriachy and started to opress the women? Or maybe because humans are meant to be that way, made by nature? Men were made stronger by nature (Men > Women in a 1v1 fight, like it or not.) because men went to hunt while women got berries and whatnot.

And yes, I'm aware than hundred years' ago, women also worked to feed the family but that was for a different cause - women then worked, as well as men, to support the family and children. Today, women - and men - work only for themselves and their own pleasures, so they can buy other junk they don't need or want.

Tell me, why is it in tradition? Big many years ago people lived all equal than some big evil men brought patriachy and started to opress the women? Or maybe because humans are meant to be that way, made by nature? Men were made stronger by nature (Men > Women in a 1v1 fight, like it or not.) because men went to hunt while women got berries and whatnot.

And yes, I'm aware than hundred years' ago, women also worked to feed the family but that was for a different cause - women then worked, as well as men, to support the family and children. Today, women - and men - work only for themselves and their own pleasures, so they can buy other junk they don't need or want.
Most modern jobs don't need strength, y'know...

Exactly. My life would be much easier if our culture embraced the mechanics of plantation-era culture. And yet - given THAT choice, I wouldn't want to see THAT world. Our culture isn't perfect... but at least we are heading in the right direction.

My life would be awesome in the slavery era, and would it concern me at present? Nope.

Most modern jobs don't need strength, y'know...

Evolution didn't think about modern jobs when it affected mankind, y'know...

As the number of foreigners increase and locals decrease, their culture will influence more the west. In the end, we will go extinct and will only be remembered in history books...

Again with the panic mode... Heck, if Australian Aboriginals have survived being swamped, murdered, driven off their land (the very essence of their cultural identities), subjected to attempted cultural genocide, having their children taken away from them for decades (the Stolen Generations), and being a tiny minority in their own country... I think western cultures can survive a bit of immigration, don't you?

Besides, brings in a bit of diversity. Helps us be aware of, and understand, other ways of life, and the fact that ours is not the only possibility, that it is not a "norm", and that it is not "superior". Not to mention that diversity is excellent for developing your own sense of identity.


men's job is to work and women's to have children and take care of them.

That's never been universally accepted as true; other societies have had clearly defined gender roles in which women did work (I'm thinking of South Pacific societies, for example).

Most importantly, since you're so keen to howl about the decline of "western culture", I'll remind you that one of the key elements of western cultures today is freedom of the individual. Women will do whatever they damn well please with their own lives, and there is (fortunately) nothing you can do about it.

The poster who is trying reinforce traditional gender roles talking about being influenced by propaganda. The irony here is wonderful. If you can present a rationale for "men bring in money, women raise children" beyond tradtion, most people here may take you seriously. But I really doubt that those roles can be rationalized beyond tradition.

That's pretty much what I was going to say in response.

actually all that stuff needs to spread worldwide, the world is overpopulated, and its population needs to decrease.

Evolution didn't think about modern jobs when it affected mankind, y'know...
Hence the fact that what evolution 'designed' certain genders to do is completely irrelevant. Why do we have to live by what evolution has supposedly modeled us for?

Exactly. My life would be much easier if our culture embraced the mechanics of plantation-era culture. And yet - given THAT choice, I wouldn't want to see THAT world. Our culture isn't perfect... but at least we are heading in the right direction.
Yeah, for me as white heterosexual male life would be dandy, but for everyone else it wouldn't be so nice. And if we in the western (if one actually could say that there is a coherent western culture) want our ides to prosper and influence other cultures we can not go back to a time when not everyone was free and could do what they wanted with their life.

Because we may have gone to space and invented medicines, but the for me the defining thing in my culture (that is the Sweden version of the western culture) is the freedom, the freedom to not have children or the freedom for the man or woman to stay home and take care of the children. In Sweden the reason for that we have an increased population is due to that people move here from other countries which mean that there will be mixed cultures. This can be problems but also a way for us to grow stronger. And if it wasn’t for immigration I wouldn’t be able to have gotten familiar with pizza, kebab, taco, and Indian or Chinese food ;)

That hurt even more than the female cops' 18" black, wooden phallic superiority :(

im sorry

i wasnt really being mean, im secretly in awe of your phallic superiority and the mocking was the only way of making me feel better :(

Tell me, why is it in tradition? Big many years ago people lived all equal than some big evil men brought patriachy and started to opress the women? Or maybe because humans are meant to be that way, made by nature? Men were made stronger by nature (Men > Women in a 1v1 fight, like it or not.) because men went to hunt while women got berries and whatnot.

About the only thing that seperates men and women naturally comes down to a few sexual organs that may or may not function right. Certainly, it made more sense that the men gathered and the women stayed behind, it was a smarter reproductive strategy back then. But tradition exists only because something worked in the past, and the success of society has rendered that tradition useless.

Since survival is no longer based upon physical prowess, there's no reason to maintain those roles. Women have opportunities today that did not exist in the past to sustain themselves. They are no longer dependent upon men to provide, and so they don't need to bow to pressure to reproduce. It's a consequence of this Western culture you're worried about protecting; we've been so successful we can bypass nature and traditional roles.

Tell me, why is it in tradition? Big many years ago people lived all equal than some big evil men brought patriachy and started to opress the women? Or maybe because humans are meant to be that way, made by nature? Men were made stronger by nature (Men > Women in a 1v1 fight, like it or not.) because men went to hunt while women got berries and whatnot.

HAH! This is clearly coming from someone who's never bothered to learn to fight. Strength is nice, but it's not the only way one can win at combat.

Until you've had your ass kicked regularly for 5 years by women, you have no ability to judge their fighting skill in the least. I'm built like an Ox. By your definition, I should be able to win a fight with people smaller than me. However, the fact of the matter is that the bigger you are, the harder you fall, and the harder it is to get back up.

Upper body strength isn't everything.

And Tradition is... Traditionally stupid.


And yes, I'm aware than hundred years' ago, women also worked to feed the family but that was for a different cause - women then worked, as well as men, to support the family and children. Today, women - and men - work only for themselves and their own pleasures, so they can buy other junk they don't need or want.

That's nonsense. You just can't deal with the fact that the duties of child-rearing can be put off until they are convenient now (because of contraceptive techniques. Which are, conveniently, not killing a sentient human being, no matter what tripe you spew on the matter.). People live professional lives because they want to, and when they are financially and professionally able to have children, they split the duties, just like the split the duty of work.

Western society won't die out because of this, it will just shrink. That's the first step towards having the whole of the human population stabalize. That's a good thing, since we're approaching the predicted carrying capacity for the earth (9 Billion humans) as long as we eat meat (and I like eating meat, even if we could feed 90 Billlion on a Vegetarian diet).

Yeah, for me as white heterosexual male life would be dandy, but for everyone else it wouldn't be so nice. And if we in the western (if one actually could say that there is a coherent western culture) want our ides to prosper and influence other cultures we can not go back to a time when not everyone was free and could do what they wanted with their life.

Because we may have gone to space and invented medicines, but the for me the defining thing in my culture (that is the Sweden version of the western culture) is the freedom, the freedom to not have children or the freedom for the man or woman to stay home and take care of the children. In Sweden the reason for that we have an increased population is due to that people move here from other countries which mean that there will be mixed cultures. This can be problems but also a way for us to grow stronger. And if it wasn’t for immigration I wouldn’t be able to have gotten familiar with pizza, kebab, taco, and Indian or Chinese food ;)


Damn straight.

A few years ago, I moved to Georgia... it is, in a lot of ways, the Original Poster's wet-dream-come-true... the women are raised to stay home and pop out babies, homosexuality is barely tolerated, and there is a definite aura of 'White is Right'.

It calls itself a Christian society... but it is hard to imagine a place I'd compare more closely to hell-on-earth.

Plus - I moved from an English city... so I am used to the benefits of multicultural lifestyle... not least, as you say, kebabs and curry.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor".

(Link to CIA's World Factbook - fertility rates. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html )

Thanks to liberal propaganda.

Today, it is like scientists and intellectuals are trying their best to destroy the population of West.

Before, it was like this - A guy meets a girl. They act foolish and sleep together, and you get a baby as a result. They, of course, marry, have few more children and live together. Man goes to work, woman stays home and looks after the children. As it was, during the entire history of mankind.

Then, the organisations to "liberate women" came. You don't have to stay home, you can go to work, you can be equal as the men!

Ok, but who will then take care of the children? Men?

No, you don't have to have children at all! Why to ruin your own life just to have some little buggers that will take away 20 years of your prime time in life?

Yes, who cares about children or future of our very species, I only care for my big fat butt.

-----

So, women got same rights as the men, they go and work, everything.

Then happened - you got protection of getting children. Heavens forbid (Oh yes, sorry, I forgot I'm not allowed to use any terms that can be associated with religion in the liberal culture, because everyone knows religion is backwards. But that's for another thread.) you get those nasty little buggers that only want to screw your life out. Use protection - anti-baby pills, condoms, whatever.

Hell, even if you don't do that, you can always go to a "doctor" and have him KILL the child. Who cares about it, huh?

That's how it went. Women are not to have children, don't waste your life on them! Waste your life having fun, who cares about future generations? I'll be long dead then so I won't have to worry about them, I'll just enjoy my own life.

So, population growth came to a halt, over time. Then it started to decline. It takes 2.1 children per women to keep the humanity alive. In some of European countries it's way lower (Italy 1.28 for example...). Not a single European country has 2.1 or more children per women. US has 2.09. (Close to maintaining it, but still falling down. It has it that high only because of latin-americans and other minorities with many children.)

Now, governments of all the european countries are shaking their heads, trying to figure out what to do. It is too late already. Women will never give up the luxury of this life now. Money women receive for having children (by government) simply won't do it. They (And to be honest - men too.) have simply decided not to have any children.

I talked to a friend of mine and his wife. They only have one child. When I asked them why, they said "Well, it's much easier to take care of one child than of more of them. And this way, we can focus more money on ourselves, going to vacations and buying stuff from e-bay and stores.".

Why am I saying this? I don't know. I know this will have no effect whatsoever, but I decided to say it anyway. I'm sure many people here know about it, but many others simply don't care.

Now, you can go and flame me in this thread, for being a backward and a freak, and then go happy to your own life, until (for some 50 years) you realise government has decided to stop giving pension to old people since majority of your nation is supposed to get it, and you end up broke and old. You'll forget about this thread, but will remember how stupid you were back then.

If Western culture doesn't do what is neccesary for survival - ban child-killing and preservatives, tries to focus people to care about their families more than for their jobs and having an easy life - it will die out. Third world countries that have increased population will take over Europe and US. After all, it is already happening.

[STOLEN QUOTE] Does the thinking that entire world is insane makes me insane? [/STOLEN QUOTE]

Personally, why would I want to save societies with people like you in it? :p

Personally, why would I want to save societies with people like you in it? :p
Because it'd give you something to poke with a pointy stick?

Evolution didn't think about modern jobs when it affected mankind, y'know...

And now it is - see? Western culture is clearly just social evolution :D

Tell me, why is it in tradition? Big many years ago people lived all equal than some big evil men brought patriachy and started to opress the women? Or maybe because humans are meant to be that way, made by nature? Men were made stronger by nature (Men > Women in a 1v1 fight, like it or not.) because men went to hunt while women got berries and whatnot.

Men > Women in a fight? I think not. I took on a girl in a one on one a coupole of years back and emerged from it with a broken arm while she walked away unscathed. Fair enough she was a third grade black belt and I was only a green belt but that's precisely the point - it all depends on who has better training/physical prowess. Could I beat up my mum? Sure I could. Could she beat up some wimpy skinny guy who hasn't seen daylight in years? Sure she could. Sweeping generalisations like the one you just made are as ridiculously as they are uninformed.

And you say men got stronger because they went to hunt etc etc. So maybe now women are getting equal? Finally pulling up alongside where they deserve to be? After all, it's all just evolution isn't it :rolleyes:

HAH! This is clearly coming from someone who's never bothered to learn to fight. Strength is nice, but it's not the only way one can win at combat.

Until you've had your ass kicked regularly for 5 years by women, you have no ability to judge their fighting skill in the least.

So true. Every time I see one of these arguments about 'men' being stronger than 'women', I think of my wife.

I'm well over six feet tall, and well over two hundred pounds. I'm not small. I'm not weak.

And my wife, if she chose to do so, could kick my ass.

Because it'd give you something to poke with a pointy stick?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/baiting.gif

And my wife, if she chose to do so, could kick my ass.

Gwan, admit it: Not only could she if she wanted to, but it's secretly what you want as well.

(Link to CIA's World Factbook - fertility rates. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html )

Thanks to liberal propaganda.

Today, it is like scientists and intellectuals are trying their best to destroy the population of West.

Before, it was like this - A guy meets a girl. They act foolish and sleep together, and you get a baby as a result. They, of course, marry, have few more children and live together. Man goes to work, woman stays home and looks after the children. As it was, during the entire history of mankind.

Then, the organisations to "liberate women" came. You don't have to stay home, you can go to work, you can be equal as the men!

Ok, but who will then take care of the children? Men?

No, you don't have to have children at all! Why to ruin your own life just to have some little buggers that will take away 20 years of your prime time in life?

Yes, who cares about children or future of our very species, I only care for my big fat butt.

-----

So, women got same rights as the men, they go and work, everything.

Then happened - you got protection of getting children. Heavens forbid (Oh yes, sorry, I forgot I'm not allowed to use any terms that can be associated with religion in the liberal culture, because everyone knows religion is backwards. But that's for another thread.) you get those nasty little buggers that only want to screw your life out. Use protection - anti-baby pills, condoms, whatever.

Hell, even if you don't do that, you can always go to a "doctor" and have him KILL the child. Who cares about it, huh?

That's how it went. Women are not to have children, don't waste your life on them! Waste your life having fun, who cares about future generations? I'll be long dead then so I won't have to worry about them, I'll just enjoy my own life.

So, population growth came to a halt, over time. Then it started to decline. It takes 2.1 children per women to keep the humanity alive. In some of European countries it's way lower (Italy 1.28 for example...). Not a single European country has 2.1 or more children per women. US has 2.09. (Close to maintaining it, but still falling down. It has it that high only because of latin-americans and other minorities with many children.)

Now, governments of all the european countries are shaking their heads, trying to figure out what to do. It is too late already. Women will never give up the luxury of this life now. Money women receive for having children (by government) simply won't do it. They (And to be honest - men too.) have simply decided not to have any children.

I talked to a friend of mine and his wife. They only have one child. When I asked them why, they said "Well, it's much easier to take care of one child than of more of them. And this way, we can focus more money on ourselves, going to vacations and buying stuff from e-bay and stores.".

Why am I saying this? I don't know. I know this will have no effect whatsoever, but I decided to say it anyway. I'm sure many people here know about it, but many others simply don't care.

Now, you can go and flame me in this thread, for being a backward and a freak, and then go happy to your own life, until (for some 50 years) you realise government has decided to stop giving pension to old people since majority of your nation is supposed to get it, and you end up broke and old. You'll forget about this thread, but will remember how stupid you were back then.

If Western culture doesn't do what is neccesary for survival - ban child-killing and preservatives, tries to focus people to care about their families more than for their jobs and having an easy life - it will die out. Third world countries that have increased population will take over Europe and US. After all, it is already happening.

[STOLEN QUOTE] Does the thinking that entire world is insane makes me insane? [/STOLEN QUOTE]

oh..........my...........God............

*waits for Bottle*

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/baiting.gif

Where do you get your smileys from?

oh..........my...........God............

*waits for Bottle*

Hehehe. That's one of the best things about Bottle; He's willing to wade into the manure of posts like this and give them the thrashing they deserve. I can't do it. I can only mock. It's a weakness, I admit. But it's a fun weakness. :)

Hehehe. That's one of the best things about Bottle; He's willing to wade into the manure of posts like this and give them the thrashing they deserve. I can't do it. I can only mock. It's a weakness, I admit. But it's a fun weakness. :)

That and when she thrashes something, it stays thrashed :D

Hehehe. That's one of the best things about Bottle; He's willing to wade into the manure of posts like this and give them the thrashing they deserve. I can't do it. I can only mock. It's a weakness, I admit. But it's a fun weakness. :)

You know Bottle is a 'she', right?

You have tax breaks for day-care expenses. And subsidize research into child-psychology. Instead of an uneducated mother raising and entertaining children, children go to day-care where they learn and the mother gets to live a fulfilling life of self-improvement just like like the father. This doesn't have to be win/loose you know. Everyone can win if you do capitalism does
best -- specialize the skills.

Where do you get your smileys from?

I collect em. :)

I have a small handful of websites with great collections and I have a few singles I have collected.

My three favorite collections are:
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/

http://www.clicksmilies.com/

and

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/misc.php?do=showsmilies

:)

Hehehe. That's one of the best things about Bottle; He's willing to wade into the manure of posts like this and give them the thrashing they deserve. I can't do it. I can only mock. It's a weakness, I admit. But it's a fun weakness. :)

I probably could do it, but it wouldn't be as pretty. ;)

You have tax breaks for day-care expenses. And subsidize research into child-psychology. Instead of an uneducated mother raising and entertaining children, children go to day-care where they learn and the mother gets to live a fulfilling life of self-improvement just like like the father. This doesn't have to be win/loose you know. Everyone can win if you do capitalism does
best -- specialize the skills.

Or...... just a possibility I could venture.....

Parents should be responsible and have children when, and only when, thay can afford to compensate for most eventualities?

You know Bottle is a 'she', right?

Um...

...


sure.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/big%20liar.gif

Um...

...


sure.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/big%20liar.gif

Smooth move, Batman. :D

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/big%20liar.gif

That's a man who knows how to assert his phallic superiority.

That's a man who knows how to assert his phallic superiority.

Isn't Pinnochio italian for penis-nose?

;)

Or...... just a possibility I could venture.....

Parents should be responsible and have children when, and only when, thay can afford to compensate for most eventualities?

sure, but then we have to be responsible up until that time how much responsiblity do you want people to take for their actions?

Isn't Pinnochio italian for penis-nose?

;)

Haha :p

sure, but then we have to be responsible up until that time how much responsiblity do you want people to take for their actions?

All of it. Its a very simple notion really. Why should society pay for underqualified young mothers to sit at home with children who, in all likelihood, won't break out of the cycle either?

Evolution didn't think about modern jobs when it affected mankind, y'know...

Yeah, but you said so yourself, women had jobs. In fact, based on your logic, you could make the opposite argument, that men should stay home while women work, since women had to gather herbs and berries. They had to learn how to tell what would be poisonous or not, they had to use their wits, watching as the birds ate food and seeing what effect it had on them, finding common factors between poisonous plants so they could identify them quickly and easily. All men had to do was stick and spear in it, so women would have naturally grown superior in areas such as pharmecuticals and anything involving logic, making them more prepared for jobs today.

Or we could get past what we evolved for and give men and women equal opportunity. Of course, evolution didn't think about modern jobs when it effected mankind, y'know, and by your logic we can never get past that.

About the only thing that seperates men and women naturally comes down to a few sexual organs that may or may not function right. Certainly, it made more sense that the men gathered and the women stayed behind, it was a smarter reproductive strategy back then. But tradition exists only because something worked in the past, and the success of society has rendered that tradition useless.

That's the funny thing, women didn't stay at home while men gathered, they gathered while men hunted. Both worked to provide for the family. The breadwinner system didn't exist until the industrial revolution.

Now I shall adress the complaint that our population is no longer rising. Nearly every species upon this Earth has mechanisms to ensure that if their population gets too high, it will level off. Those who don't, die, using up the last of their resources and starve to death. Except for the raindeer, who's population dropped to eight before those final eight were put in zoos, breeding carefully controlled by those running the zoos. At our current booming numbers, I seriously doubt our numbers could drop down to zero as quickly as you describe. People are still having babies, just not as many, and I think the greater risk is actually having too high of a population, depleating all the resources on this Earth, and killing ourselves off.

All of it. Its a very simple notion really. Why should society pay for underqualified young mothers to sit at home with children who, in all likelihood, won't break out of the cycle either?

sarcasm. ;) I would love for everyone to take responsiblity for their actions, realize that certain actions have the possiblity of certian consequences, but people have been told that they don't have to, that if you have unprotected sex and get an STI that it's a freak accident and it's not your fault, that if you don't tell anyone and go pass it around it's "understandable" because you might have "felt bad" about yourself if you had told someone, that if you sleep around and end up with a kid that is possibly the child of 6 different men that's okay too because your "childhood was difficult" and you know sex doesn't cause babies, that's just hogwash, sex is fun, babies aren't and those don't go together..........

[/incoherent rant]

See, the problem that I have with this person is ethnocentrism. Considering that the population of the Earth is still rising and alarmingly, his argument is not at the preservation of humanity, but the preservation of his oh, so precious 'western society'. The problem with this is the misconception that it's in danger because pale people aren't breeding as fast. Boo freakin' hoo. Society and culture have less to do with genetics and more to do with geography, technology and societal evolution. The OP doesn't really fear the decline of western society, he fears the decline of WHITE western society.

See, the problem that I have with this person is ethnocentrism. Considering that the population of the Earth is still rising and alarmingly, his argument is not at the preservation of humanity, but the preservation of his oh, so precious 'western society'. The problem with this is the misconception that it's in danger because pale people aren't breeding as fast. Boo freakin' hoo. Society and culture have less to do with genetics and more to do with geography, technology and societal evolution. The OP doesn't really fear the decline of western society, he fears the decline of WHITE western society.

yeah. I get that, my incoherent rant was from something completely different that happened about 5 minutes ago........sorry.

See, the problem that I have with this person is ethnocentrism. Considering that the population of the Earth is still rising and alarmingly, his argument is not at the preservation of humanity, but the preservation of his oh, so precious 'western society'. The problem with this is the misconception that it's in danger because pale people aren't breeding as fast. Boo freakin' hoo. Society and culture have less to do with genetics and more to do with geography, technology and societal evolution. The OP doesn't really fear the decline of western society, he fears the decline of WHITE western society.

So do I. I LIKE White, Bourgeoise, Western society. Compared to either African or Oriental culture, its a ball.

And yeah... If anyone's read Malthus, there's an answer to why we aren't reaching replacement population. Money.

The problem with an increasingly older population is that they stay in the working feild for longer. That means that there are fewer jobs available to young people, and that the jobs there have less promotion opportunity. That means that younger people have significantly worse-paying jobs.

Now what does this have to do with children and replacement population? Simple: Malthus says that the rate limiting factor on the birth of children is the amount of money available (well, actually, Malthus says that the reason raising wages is inneffective is the increase in childbirth, but the logic works birth ways). So as long as young professionals are financially unable to afford children they will have fewer children at a later date.

The solution? Make raising children less financially stressful. Provide for daycare so that families can work enough to feed themselves. Socialize medicine so that the expensive prospect of another person's medical care doesn't hang over the family. Raise minimum wage so that the the lower class can afford more children.

That or just deal with falling population. I'm a big fan of this option. ;)

yeah. I get that, my incoherent rant was from something completely different that happened about 5 minutes ago........sorry.

My level of ire is rising. I'm sure I'll settle back into silliness soon enough. :)

So do I. I LIKE White, Bourgeoise, Western society. Compared to either African or Oriental culture, its a ball.

Not really... if you are one of the lucky ones, life is a ball anywhere. And yet, every nation has deaths from starvation, too.

So do I. I LIKE White, Bourgeoise, Western society. Compared to either African or Oriental culture, its a ball.

That's just it. It's not the society that's in danger, it's just the skintone. :p

Not really... if you are one of the lucky ones, life is a ball anywhere. And yet, every nation has deaths from starvation, too.

Yes. Yes it is. Middle England is neither work centred, a la Japan, nor feckless. I can pretty much live how I wnat.

See, the problem that I have with this person is ethnocentrism. Considering that the population of the Earth is still rising and alarmingly, his argument is not at the preservation of humanity, but the preservation of his oh, so precious 'western society'. The problem with this is the misconception that it's in danger because pale people aren't breeding as fast. Boo freakin' hoo. Society and culture have less to do with genetics and more to do with geography, technology and societal evolution. The OP doesn't really fear the decline of western society, he fears the decline of WHITE western society.

I think the funniest thing about him is that "Western culture" in its current form is what is encouraging a lifestyle that isn't centered around a family and children. By turning back societal developments to enforce population growth, he's attacking what he's attempting to "save". His claims that it's "liberal propaganda" that's responsible is just a way of fooling himself into believing that society doesn't change, people just try to fool you into thinking it does.

And yeah... If anyone's read Malthus, there's an answer to why we aren't reaching replacement population. Money.

The problem with an increasingly older population is that they stay in the working feild for longer. That means that there are fewer jobs available to young people, and that the jobs there have less promotion opportunity. That means that younger people have significantly worse-paying jobs.

Now what does this have to do with children and replacement population? Simple: Malthus says that the rate limiting factor on the birth of children is the amount of money available (well, actually, Malthus says that the reason raising wages is inneffective is the increase in childbirth, but the logic works birth ways). So as long as young professionals are financially unable to afford children they will have fewer children at a later date.

The solution? Make raising children less financially stressful. Provide for daycare so that families can work enough to feed themselves. Socialize medicine so that the expensive prospect of another person's medical care doesn't hang over the family. Raise minimum wage so that the the lower class can afford more children.

That or just deal with falling population. I'm a big fan of this option. ;)


We could kill old people. Works pretty well in Logan's Run. :)

That's just it. It's not the society that's in danger, it's just the skintone. :p

Population increase. Population decrease.

Just give me an unlimited supply of mud, and the spare parts to make a cannon that fires potatoes.

[/Channeling LG]

Yes. Yes it is. Middle England is neither work centred, a la Japan, nor feckless. I can pretty much live how I wnat.

Talking as someone who spent decades in 'middle' England... no. It's not as extreme a divide as one sees in the US (thank socialised medicine, I say)... but there is still a growing class divide.

We could kill old people. Works pretty well in Logan's Run. :)

Senior Citizens to the left? ;)

We could eat them too! We'll call it...

Soylent Green!

:D

I think the funniest thing about him is that "Western culture" in its current form is what is encouraging a lifestyle that isn't centered around a family and children. By turning back societal developments to enforce population growth, he's attacking what he's attempting to "save". His claims that it's "liberal propaganda" that's responsible is just a way of fooling himself into believing that society doesn't change, people just try to fool you into thinking it does.

Anyone else think the OP was basically trolling? We aren't seeing much of an argument from him/her/shem/fle/tan/them/it.

Well said.

Western Civilization in general, and Europe in particular, had better wake up to the facts of life (no pun intended). Groups that don't reproduce have no future.

Population increase. Population decrease.

Just give me an unlimited supply of mud, and the spare parts to make a cannon that fires potatoes.

[/Channeling LG]

Those are the things worth preserving. :)

Senior Citizens to the left? ;)

We could eat them too! We'll call it...

Soylent Green!

:D

[Commercial] "Here at Soylent Green, we know people. People are what make our product so darn tasty and nutritious. Yes, at all stages of production, we involve people. So remember Soylent green. Soylent Green is People." :D

Well said.

Western Civilization in general, and Europe in particular, had better wake up to the facts of life (no pun intended). Groups that don't reproduce have no future.

Then it's a self-correcting problem, isn't it?

Because people migrate from one country to another. From a poor one to a rich one, in hopes of a better life. And they, since they're less "corrupted" by the propaganda have three, four, or whatever the number of children more than your average western couple. As the number of foreigners increase and locals decrease, their culture will influence more the west. In the end, we will go extinct and will only be remembered in history books...

That's the way the world and civilization goes. Anything trying to prevent that is simply slowing down the inevitable.

Population increase. Population decrease.

Population goes up. population goes down. Population goes up. Population goes down (ad ini=finitum)

[/Homer]

Well said.

Western Civilization in general, and Europe in particular, had better wake up to the facts of life (no pun intended). Groups that don't reproduce have no future.

Well that's alright then. With some of the highest teenage pregnancy rates... well, ever probably, I'd say certainly the UK is safe. At least, safe from the point of view that human beings existing constitues a safe future. Never mind that they'll all be thick-as-two-short-ones chavs with orange skin.

(Link to CIA's World Factbook - fertility rates. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html )

Thanks to liberal propaganda.

I stopped reading right here.

Never say this if you want to make yourself appear even a bit credible or sane.

Why would you say that fertility rates are the only affect on population growth?

You need to include birth/death rates and the fact that

You are a biased SOB who blames the world's ills on your opponent.

So take your blubbering and alarm-sounding somoewhere else.

Something definitely needs to be done. Of course, the government's way of dealing with falling birth rates is by letting more (Usually muslim) immigrants in. Then they wonder why our cities and big towns are turning into complete shitholes. I'd like to see a government that's willing to do whatever is necessary to reverse this trend. The gender equality question is a red herring anyway because if muslims gain a majority in a western country, there will be even less equality than anyone here could ever dream of.

If Western culture doesn't do what is neccesary for survival - ban child-killing and preservatives, tries to focus people to care about their families more than for their jobs and having an easy life - it will die out. Third world countries that have increased population will take over Europe and US. After all, it is already happening.

Tell you what. Go have 20 kids to make up for those of use who want fewer.

*Waves his mighty phallic superiority around in public*

*Gets arrested by those with mightier phallic superiority*

A little girl and a little boy are playing out in the yard. The little boy suggests they should play doctor.

Both of them drop their drawers, and the little boy points out his penis. "I'm a boy, because I have a penis, and that makes me better than girls."

The little girl points to her vagina. "I'm a girl because I have a vagina. And with one of THESE, I can get as many of THOSE as I want."

;)

If feminism prevents overpopulation, I'm all for it. We need to spread it to the rest of the world.

Hear, hear!

I could just as easily blame those right wingers and conservatives always trying to block immigration for limiting the west's population.

A little girl and a little boy are playing out in the yard. The little boy suggests they should play doctor.

Both of them drop their drawers, and the little boy points out his penis. "I'm a boy, because I have a penis, and that makes me better than girls."

The little girl points to her vagina. "I'm a girl because I have a vagina. And with one of THESE, I can get as many of THOSE as I want."

;)

Has this turned into a dirty jokes thread? Because that would be a big improvement over the OP.

LMAO i can see it now, ad campaigns on tv say "surgeon generals warning: HAVE MORE SEX"

LMAO i can see it now, ad campaigns on tv say "surgeon generals warning: HAVE MORE UNSAFE SEX"
Fixed. ;)

I could just as easily blame those right wingers and conservatives always trying to block immigration for limiting the west's population.

Does moving your geographical location change your outlook and culture? Even after years of living in your new country/culture, you - and your children, grandchildren etc. - need not have absorbed your new country's culture; in this case, may not _be_ 'western' (however you define it), just live there. One of the qualities of multiculturalism is that it encourages this tendency.

I'm not trying to fight you, but I don't think you're making a very well thought out point.

Does moving your geographical location change your outlook and culture? Even after years of living in your new country/culture, you - and your children, grandchildren etc. - need not have absorbed your new country's culture; in this case, may not _be_ 'western' (however you define it), just live there. One of the qualities of multiculturalism is that it encourages this tendency.

I'm not trying to fight you, but I don't think you're making a very well thought out point.

Many studies on immigrants have shown that for most, assimilation is a three generation process, assuming that the immigrants aren't shunned by the country they've moved to. Immigrants who don't know the language rarely learn it beyond the rudimentary level. Their children generally live between worlds, as it were, with ties to the home country and their new home, and the grandchildren often wind up fully assimilated, and many times lose the ability to speak in their family's native tongue.

Something definitely needs to be done. Of course, the government's way of dealing with falling birth rates is by letting more (Usually muslim) immigrants in. Then they wonder why our cities and big towns are turning into complete shitholes.

You're really a one-note piano, aren't you. Blame the Muslims, Muslims are evil, Muslims are to blame for your shitty hometown being even shittier than you're used to, blah blah blah.

I'd like to see a government that's willing to do whatever is necessary to reverse this trend.

Whatever is necessary? What if eliminating civil rights is necessary to do that, what if mass slaughter or genocide is necessary? Would you still be in favor of it? I think you would.

People like you are a greater threat than 1 billion Muslims. You like to talk about immigrants, and Muslims, as being like cancers or viruses. But it's you that's the virus. You're already a 'part' of our 'society' and you try, try and try to infect others with your monotonous rhetoric of hatred and scapegoating.

Does moving your geographical location change your outlook and culture? Even after years of living in your new country/culture, you - and your children, grandchildren etc. - need not have absorbed your new country's culture; in this case, may not _be_ 'western' (however you define it), just live there. One of the qualities of multiculturalism is that it encourages this tendency.

I'm not trying to fight you, but I don't think you're making a very well thought out point.

Think for a moment, if your culture really dissapear, or if your culture do not project itself outwards.

I live in Latinamerica, yet I am here, in a forum sponsored by an anglo writer, that is basically english speaking, speaking in english with you. I eat in McDonalds, I own two Mitsubishi cars, I enjoy watching "Friends", "Lost", and other USA shows that expand the USA ideas and values. And let's just keep movies out of it, that are a perfect reflection of the western culture expanding towards other countries, and everybody watches them.

Your culture is not going to survive a social down exactly like it was before it, but it is not going to dissapear neither. Although most inmigrants are not perfectly "western" by your standards, lots and lots of people mix their own culture with yours, making them both richer as the process advances.

It is an interchange, not an imposing thing. You already talk english, we already talk spanish. Lots of people down here talk english too, Why people up there cannot talk spanish too? Why cannot we talk a bit of "spanglish" from time to time?

Same with muslims in Europe, replacing said "spanish" with "arab" or whatever word you find fitting.

Many studies on immigrants have shown that for most, assimilation is a three generation process, assuming that the immigrants aren't shunned by the country they've moved to. Immigrants who don't know the language rarely learn it beyond the rudimentary level. Their children generally live between worlds, as it were, with ties to the home country and their new home, and the grandchildren often wind up fully assimilated, and many times lose the ability to speak in their family's native tongue.

Assimilation is a big word, and a bigger concept that begs some questions :) It would be interesting to examine, in parallel, the changes to the country over the 3 generations as well as the changes to the family units we're talking about.

Societies change over time, just like individuals do; society shapes us, obviously, but over the course of our lives, we also shape society. The country that embraces immigration will develop differently from the country that tries to clamp down on it, or limit it, even though all 3 countries might start by coming from the same culture, yes?

Which countries were being looked at in the many studies, over what time, and what proportion was the immigration level at? Is there a 'ceiling' to the amount of immigration a country of a certain size can assimilate? Does the country's government position on immigration have an effect on 'assimilation' and the rate of change in the country's societal values?

I was never all that interested in sociology (went the psychology route instead :) ), to tell you the truth, but those are the positions and questions I'd start with if I was thinking about it all.

I don't know, but I find now a truly cultural diversity everywhere.

As I speak,, I am using an IBM computer in my office, with an Oster coffemaker by my side, dressed with brazilian pants, colombian blouse, and a Zara sweater. My shoes are italian, my bag is Louis Vouitton from France, I have a yanomami collar and earrings, and inside my bag I have an Umberto Eco novel.

My car is japanese, most of the porcelain things in my home are chinese. My cell phone is Siemens, and probably I am going to Wendy's for lunch today. LAst night I drank half a bottle of german wine, and watched CNN, Fox News, Sony and HBO before falling asleep.

I see shows of every culture every turn I make, so I cannot see what's the fuss about "replacing" and "dissapearing" cultures.

Welcome to the melting pot.

Population growth slows as economies develop. As India, China, and the rest of Asia develop their population growth rates will slow, level off, and eventually decline. As the economies of Africa and the Middle East grow and develop, their populations will eventually level off and decline.

The West won't die out, it is just the first to reach its point of decline. Economc growth not only solves population problems but also raises the living standards of those populations...it's really a panacea for world poverty and overpopulation. Frankly, I'm happy Western population growth is slowing...it's a sign that we are so wealthy, healthy and so advanced that we don't need to have large families in order to keep ourselves fed and at least some of our children alive to adulthood.

Has this turned into a dirty jokes thread? Because that would be a big improvement over the OP.

I was distracted by the thought of phallic superiority.

I was distracted by the thought of phallic superiority.

That's a sentence that can't come up very often.

More wars!
War is shit.

Population growth slows as economies develop. As India, China, and the rest of Asia develop their population growth rates will slow, level off, and eventually decline. As the economies of Africa and the Middle East grow and develop, their populations will eventually level off and decline.

The West won't die out, it is just the first to reach its point of decline. Economc growth not only solves population problems but also raises the living standards of those populations...it's really a panacea for world poverty and overpopulation. Frankly, I'm happy Western population growth is slowing...it's a sign that we are so wealthy, healthy and so advanced that we don't need to have large families in order to keep ourselves fed and at least some of our children alive to adulthood.

QFT.

That's a sentence that can't come up very often.

You're making it very hard to take this thread seriously. Come on, give a working stiff a break. How long is this going to last?

You're making it very hard to take this thread seriously. Come on, give a working stiff a break. How long is this going to last?

I've got a lot of staying power.

You're making it very hard to take this thread seriously. Come on, give a working stiff a break. How long is this going to last?

Depends from human to human, with practice a man go on for a long time.

I think the OP might have also forgot that the stay-at-home mom is a luxury and hardly a historical precedent. Pretty much from the dawn of man to the 19th century, women had to work in order to support their families; even if they worked at home, they didn't have time to be with their kids all the time and they had to teach the kids how to do household work in order to survive and keep their farm functioning, especially when the father went off to war or to work the fields.

Only the very wealthy had the luxury of having only one parent work; now that our society has broadened that luxury to pretty much anyone with a livable income it has become much more common.

Lets see, all of the top countries have low qualities of living, poor economys, bad or no health care, and corrupt dictatorship style governments. I'd rather have less children then live in a fucked up country.

I could just as easily blame those right wingers and conservatives always trying to block immigration for limiting the west's population.

We don't need a large population. There is no necessity for population increase at present.

We don't need a large population. There is no necessity for population increase at present.

Productivity and technology growth are providing the same benefits as population growth did in the past. Even so, people aren't going to die out. Our population growth rate will level out to replacement and probably stay there, and at worst would decline to a somewhat lower level until economic reality forces it to level out.

Now, once we expand permanently in to space the population will probably take off again as new places are discovered and settled. Earth's population will probably remain constant but might have gains to replace those who leave.

(Link to CIA's World Factbook - fertility rates. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html )

Thanks to liberal propaganda.

Today, it is like scientists and intellectuals are trying their best to destroy the population of West.

Before, it was like this - A guy meets a girl. They act foolish and sleep together, and you get a baby as a result. They, of course, marry, have few more children and live together. Man goes to work, woman stays home and looks after the children. As it was, during the entire history of mankind.

Then, the organisations to "liberate women" came. You don't have to stay home, you can go to work, you can be equal as the men!

Ok, but who will then take care of the children? Men?

No, you don't have to have children at all! Why to ruin your own life just to have some little buggers that will take away 20 years of your prime time in life?

Yes, who cares about children or future of our very species, I only care for my big fat butt.

-----

So, women got same rights as the men, they go and work, everything.

Then happened - you got protection of getting children. Heavens forbid (Oh yes, sorry, I forgot I'm not allowed to use any terms that can be associated with religion in the liberal culture, because everyone knows religion is backwards. But that's for another thread.) you get those nasty little buggers that only want to screw your life out. Use protection - anti-baby pills, condoms, whatever.

Hell, even if you don't do that, you can always go to a "doctor" and have him KILL the child. Who cares about it, huh?

That's how it went. Women are not to have children, don't waste your life on them! Waste your life having fun, who cares about future generations? I'll be long dead then so I won't have to worry about them, I'll just enjoy my own life.

So, population growth came to a halt, over time. Then it started to decline. It takes 2.1 children per women to keep the humanity alive. In some of European countries it's way lower (Italy 1.28 for example...). Not a single European country has 2.1 or more children per women. US has 2.09. (Close to maintaining it, but still falling down. It has it that high only because of latin-americans and other minorities with many children.)

Now, governments of all the european countries are shaking their heads, trying to figure out what to do. It is too late already. Women will never give up the luxury of this life now. Money women receive for having children (by government) simply won't do it. They (And to be honest - men too.) have simply decided not to have any children.

I talked to a friend of mine and his wife. They only have one child. When I asked them why, they said "Well, it's much easier to take care of one child than of more of them. And this way, we can focus more money on ourselves, going to vacations and buying stuff from e-bay and stores.".

Why am I saying this? I don't know. I know this will have no effect whatsoever, but I decided to say it anyway. I'm sure many people here know about it, but many others simply don't care.

Now, you can go and flame me in this thread, for being a backward and a freak, and then go happy to your own life, until (for some 50 years) you realise government has decided to stop giving pension to old people since majority of your nation is supposed to get it, and you end up broke and old. You'll forget about this thread, but will remember how stupid you were back then.

If Western culture doesn't do what is neccesary for survival - ban child-killing and preservatives, tries to focus people to care about their families more than for their jobs and having an easy life - it will die out. Third world countries that have increased population will take over Europe and US. After all, it is already happening.

[STOLEN QUOTE] Does the thinking that entire world is insane makes me insane? [/STOLEN QUOTE]
OH NOES WE'RE NOT BEING PERFECTLY MORAL TO THE WAYS OF ONE SPECIFIC RELIGION! THE END IS NIGH!

Dude, shut up. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Western Civilization is not "dying" due to people actually being open-minded, tolorant, and liberal. Nay, I daresay it is flourishing more than ever! It's the liberals that bring you art, literature, and all that jazz, you know. It's the liberals that bring all the technology you enjoy now. That computer you're typing at? Invented by liberals. Fact is, liberalism and progressivism has always been the only true sensible way to face the future.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, we've managed to, in essence, stabilize our population. We don't have to worry about overpopulating here, as other countries do. I'd say that's a nice bonus.

(And please forgive the rant. I've just been subjected to a speech by Tom damned Tancredo and am in a particularly liberal mood.)

But what does this have to do with liberal thinking? Conservatives live selfish lifestyles.

[QUOTE=Xerexopolis;11636393Then, the organisations to "liberate women" came. You don't have to stay home, you can go to work, you can be equal as the men!

Ok, but who will then take care of the children? Men?
[/QUOTE]

Tell ya' what-- when you (or I, or any other male on this board, for that matter) get pregnant and have 9 months of pregnancy to look forward to, then you will be qualified to tell other people that they should "stop being selfish and have babies for the good of mankind." After you've had morning sickness for weeks because the condom broke, or you've spent 72 hours in labour because you thought condoms were "unnatural" and chose not to use one, then you'll be in a position to share a valid opinion on the merit (or lack thereof) of abortion. And when you've built a machine that can regress you to an embryonic state, genetically modify you to be a female, and then displace you through time to the uterus of a woman in the 19th or early 20th century so that you can be born and grow up and be raised in a culture where you're expected to be 'barefoot and pregnant' as soon as you're 16, you can't vote, and it's legal for your husband to beat you with a switch so long as it's no wider than his thumb, then you can preach about how awful 'women's lib' is.

Until then, shutthef**kup. Our gender disenfranchised women since time out of memory, we swelled the population to unsustainable levels by treating their bodies like property (while we ourselves would *never* have tolerated such an imposition), and now a few whiney buggers want to pine for the 'good old days?' If I was a woman I'd be sorely tempted to castrate you with a sheet of sandpaper.

I've got a lot of staying power.

Strapons don't count.

A western society where people are forced to have children they don't want isn't a society worth saving.

Quoted because in my opinion, this wins the thread.


In my opinion, the best parts of Western culture don't come from the specific moral code of the religion the OP often appears to subscribe to (a religion that like the immigrants he hates so much, is middle eastern in origin), but from their earlier pagan past, and from the later Enlightenment period thinking.

How would Western Culture be "saved" if it transformed itself into something decidedly anti-western?

Meh, you people are too easy. :cool:

I just came to this forum (after being permabanned on another, of course) so I wanted to make a trolling thread (being the attention whore I am, I needed some, well, attention), and this seemed like a good idea. I basically copy-pasted the OP from another forum and made few replies that were in the same spirit, and then watched back and enjoyed the show. :p

Well I had my fun. :D

Meh, you people are too easy. :cool:

I just came to this forum (after being permabanned on another, of course) so I wanted to make a trolling thread (being the attention whore I am, I needed some, well, attention), and this seemed like a good idea. I basically copy-pasted the OP from another forum and made few replies that were in the same spirit, and then watched back and enjoyed the show. :p

Well I had my fun. :D

Good for you. :rolleyes:

Meh, you people are too easy. :cool:

I just came to this forum (after being permabanned on another, of course) so I wanted to make a trolling thread (being the attention whore I am, I needed some, well, attention), and this seemed like a good idea. I basically copy-pasted the OP from another forum and made few replies that were in the same spirit, and then watched back and enjoyed the show. :p

Well I had my fun. :D

Weakling. :p

Meh, you people are too easy. :cool:

I just came to this forum (after being permabanned on another, of course) so I wanted to make a trolling thread (being the attention whore I am, I needed some, well, attention), and this seemed like a good idea. I basically copy-pasted the OP from another forum and made few replies that were in the same spirit, and then watched back and enjoyed the show. :p

Well I had my fun. :D

On a scale of one to Jesussaves, that was rubbish.

Hell, even if you don't do that, you can always go to a "doctor" and have him KILL the child. Who cares about it, huh?

I ha-er, extremely dislike (gotta be PC ;) :D :p ) it when people say this. it assumes that a fetus is:

1) a child, thereby skipping the "infancy" stage
2) alive in the sense that we are (i.e., retaining consciousness) which we have no reason to believe that they are

On a scale of one to Jesussaves, that was rubbish.

I agree. Jesussaves is yet to be trumped.

Meh, you people are too easy. :cool:

I just came to this forum (after being permabanned on another, of course) so I wanted to make a trolling thread (being the attention whore I am, I needed some, well, attention), and this seemed like a good idea. I basically copy-pasted the OP from another forum and made few replies that were in the same spirit, and then watched back and enjoyed the show. :p

Well I had my fun. :D

Yes... we are 'easy'.

You plagarised someone else material, and failed to make any real points of your own - by your own admission.

I can appreciate that you might wish to be the centre of attention... but, if all you are doing is reposting stuff OTHER people wrote... I'm not sure how that does anything for you.

Next time (if the MOds let you stick around after admissions of plagarism and trolling), try to come up with an original idea of your own.

As it is, there is no point in me saying 'it was nice knowing you'... because we haven't known you... (just what you parroted), and... well, it has neither been 'nice' nor especially otherwise.

So - how about I bid you farewell with: "Now, that just happened".

I agree. Jesussaves is yet to be trumped.

HerPower pwnz Jesussaves.

HerPower pwnz Jesussaves.

Nah, Jesussaves just about made me piss myself with laughter. He's my master of puppets/trolls.

I was distracted by the thought of phallic superiority.
I distracted a Mod with my Mighty Phallic Superiority. I win the internets! :D

Shame Xerexopolis admitted his crime before Bottle had a go, though. That would've been worth watching.

Xerexopolis: Was that a serious post where it was stolen from, or was it another troll?

Yes... we are 'easy'.
You plagarised someone else material, and failed to make any real points of your own - by your own admission.
I can appreciate that you might wish to be the centre of attention... but, if all you are doing is reposting stuff OTHER people wrote... I'm not sure how that does anything for you.
Next time (if the MOds let you stick around after admissions of plagarism and trolling), try to come up with an original idea of your own.
As it is, there is no point in me saying 'it was nice knowing you'... because we haven't known you... (just what you parroted), and... well, it has neither been 'nice' nor especially otherwise.
So - how about I bid you farewell with: "Now, that just happened".

Yes, ok I did it all. Mea culpa. C'mon I was just trying to have some fun, what's the harm in that?

Shame Xerexopolis admitted his crime before Bottle had a go, though. That would've been worth watching.

Bleh, mostly likely this "Bottle" guy (I'm new here, so I don't know anyone) realised this is a troll thread (or maybe read the original version?)...

Xerexopolis: Was that a serious post where it was stolen from, or was it another troll?

That thread got deleted when it turned into a flamefest but I copy-pasted the post in a text document for future generations.

Yes, ok I did it all. Mea culpa. C'mon I was just trying to have some fun, what's the harm in that?Read up on the rules of this forum. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7699396&postcount=3)

Yes, ok I did it all. Mea culpa. C'mon I was just trying to have some fun, what's the harm in that?


1) It breaks the 'rules'... but, more importantly (to me)

2) It makes you just someone else's puppet. I place a lot more value in the ideas people HAVE (even if I disagree with the idea), than in the party-lines they regurgitate.

Nah, Jesussaves just about made me piss myself with laughter. He's my master of puppets/trolls.

I've only read a few threads of his, having been directed to them in threads similar to this, but truly he was a master of trollishness.

The UN Abassadorship came close, but he was really only thick as two shorts one and incredibly obnoxious. Jesussaves had a real class, and a sort of twisted humour (well, his stuff made me laugh) so he still wins it.

This is very amatuer stuff.

Meh, you people are too easy. :cool:

I just came to this forum (after being permabanned on another, of course) so I wanted to make a trolling thread (being the attention whore I am, I needed some, well, attention), and this seemed like a good idea. I basically copy-pasted the OP from another forum and made few replies that were in the same spirit, and then watched back and enjoyed the show. :p

Well I had my fun. :D


Good. Jesussaves still owns you, wanker.


Also, Bottle is a girl.

Wrong. The West is thriving and, if anything, is at least stable.

Wrong. The West is thriving and, if anything, is at least stable.

Seeing as how the US economy added over $80 billion to its GDP last quarter (in other words, the entire economy of Algeria) I'd say you're right. Most Western economies are booming or at least not shrinking, and some of the big ones like Japan are reviving.

The West and the rest of the world are booming.

Tell me, why is it in tradition? Big many years ago people lived all equal than some big evil men brought patriachy and started to opress the women? Or maybe because humans are meant to be that way, made by nature? Men were made stronger by nature (Men > Women in a 1v1 fight, like it or not.) because men went to hunt while women got berries and whatnot.
Of course in the rest of the animal kingdom it's the other way around. Men are useless except to make the babies, and the FEMALEs are the more important in the species. Just look at Lions for example.

Who wears the pants in that pride?

Seeing as how the US economy added over $80 billion to its GDP last quarter (in other words, the entire economy of Algeria) I'd say you're right. Most Western economies are booming or at least not shrinking, and some of the big ones like Japan are reviving.

The West and the rest of the world are booming.

Wait... the West... Japan... hmmm...

Wait... the West... Japan... hmmm...

I must concur. Japan is not the West.

Wait... the West... Japan... hmmm...

I consider Japan part of the West because it espouses pretty much all of the values other Western cultures believe and has the economic development characteristic of a modern, developed economy. The same is true of Taiwan and South Korea; once China develops and embraces democratic capitalism it will also be part of the West. India will also be a Western nation in a few decades.

I consider Japan part of the West because it espouses pretty much all of the values other Western cultures believe and has the economic development characteristic of a modern, developed economy. The same is true of Taiwan and South Korea; once China develops and embraces democratic capitalism it will also be part of the West. India will also be a Western nation in a few decades.
Well, it is West of north America...

Well, it is West of north America...

And Australia is east of Europe, but it is a Western country. :confused:

I consider Japan part of the West because it espouses pretty much all of the values other Western cultures believe
No, it doesn't.

And Australia is east of Europe, but it is a Western country. :confused:
Perhaps we should get another name to describe "western" civilization.

No, it doesn't.

Mostly, it does. It has a constitutional government, civil and political rights, and general acceptance of social and political differences. There are problems with xenophobia and other social issues, but they have weakened as Japan opens itself to the world.

Hello? (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/worldpop.2005.gif)

We should be glad our population's leveling off.

Mostly, it does. It has a constitutional government, civil and political rights, and general acceptance of social and political differences. There are problems with xenophobia and other social issues, but they have weakened as Japan opens itself to the world.
It is different enough from the west in its attitudes towards individual achievement and sexual crimes that I do not consider it Western.

We should be glad our population's leveling off.

Until space colonization and settlement other planets become viable, we should be very happy. Once those are hammered out, then it doesn't really matter for a while...that 9 billion could easily explode to 90 billion in a century and 900 billion the century after if that happens.

It is different enough from the west in its attitudes towards individual achievement and sexual crimes that I do not consider it Western.

But those attitudes are changing; we have to remember that Western sexual attitudes during much of our history were very bad and we had radically different viewpoints of individual achievement.

Japan's only been exposed to Western ideas since the mid-19th century and only truly democratic since the end of WWII; in many ways, they've been trying to accomplish what we did over 600 years in 60. The very fact that they have worked to embrace Western values is a strong argument for their inclusion in that group.

But those attitudes are changing; we have to remember that Western sexual attitudes during much of our history were very bad and we had radically different viewpoints of individual achievement.

Japan's only been exposed to Western ideas since the mid-19th century and only truly democratic since the end of WWII; in many ways, they've been trying to accomplish what we did over 600 years in 60. The very fact that they have worked to embrace Western values is a strong argument for their inclusion in that group.
You go ahead and do that. They are far to weird at the moment for me to include them.

You go ahead and do that. They are far to weird at the moment for me to include them.

Meh, "Western" is a relative term anyway. Still, I'd rather live in Japan (I'll agree that that hentai stuff is fucking weird) than Iran or Somalia anyday.