NationStates Jolt Archive

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

If so, how is it to be enforced?

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

No. If anything, there is a case for compulsory limits on the number of children.

The world does not have an underpopulation problem.

I probably won't take part in that, mainly because I only want to have sex because it feels good, I don't want to be forced to be a dad. Hell I don't even want to be a dad.

Bring that rule in and i'll willingly castrate myself.

The world does not have an underpopulation problem.
I can't believe somebody actually had to say that...

I can't believe somebody actually had to say that...

That much is obvious, but i'm trying to refrain on making premature judgements on whether or not this is another "oh noes white people are dying out" thread.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.
Proof?

Also, if they cannot recover, then you are already too late with your suggestion and have rendered this debate moot before you've even presented it.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners.
Proof?

There are a number of other negative effects as well.
Such as?

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?
No, there is not.

If so, how is it to be enforced?
It cannot be.

Thank you. Next issue?

i think compulsory sterilisation would be a better course of action

Nope. Why would it even matter?

Just no. There are far too many people anyway.

We already had this, in the guise of "abortion helps terrorists". It was crap then, it's still crap now.

A better solution would be to pay couples with desirable (white) genes money for every healthy kid that they have. Defective youngsters, because they are a drain on society, wouldn't be eligible.

A better solution would be to pay couples with desirable (white) genes money for every healthy kid that they have. Defective youngsters, because they are a drain on society, wouldn't be eligible.

and God knows that the NAACP, and The Gay Lesbian Alliance, and whatever other organization you have out there would be bitching about it.

Why don't we just make food out of undesirable children?

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.


Give them landed immagrant status or citizenship so they pay taxes.

and God knows that the NAACP, and The Gay Lesbian Alliance, and whatever other organization you have out there would be bitching about it.

I should hope so. It would be very racist and unfair.

AFAIK, there are some countries where you get social benefits by having a second child.

Anyway, europeans should worry. After all, they should not only protect their country, but also their culture. Too many imigrants, and with islam knocking on europe´s door, some countries may lose part of their culture.

AFAIK, there are some countries where you get social benefits by having a second child.

Anyway, europeans should worry. After all, they should not only protect their country, but also their culture. Too many imigrants, and with islam knocking on europe´s door, some countries may lose part of their culture.

Culture isn't a static proposition. It changes all the time. That same argument could be used against technology as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

If so, how is it to be enforced?

No. That would be horrible. I never want to have kids because that usually involves sex. Forcing women to become pregnant without them having any choice would be terrible.

Culture isn't a static proposition. It changes all the time. That same argument could be used against technology as well.

Which doesnt mean a culture shouldnt be protected.

I don't think the initial post was phrased in racist, religious, or color terms. Rather in social and cultural terms.

Demographics say that a reproduction rate of about 2.1 births per female is required to maintain a stable population level in the western world. I'm not too smart but given that two people are (usually) required in the process and that there will inevitably be some loss in the process, that seems like a reasonable number.

As for specific countries, a quick google will get you more data than you could ever imagine. For example, think of our friends in the frozen north, check the current value for Canada and I think you'll be quite surprised.

If the knee jerks stop, and you seriously think about the social and cultural consequences within a few more generations, there might be few more sober and thoughtful responses...

I don't think the initial post was phrased in racist, religious, or color terms. Rather in social and cultural terms.

Demographics say that a reproduction rate of about 2.1 births per female is required to maintain a stable population level in the western world. I'm not too smart but given that two people are (usually) required in the process and that there will inevitably be some loss in the process, that seems like a reasonable number.

As for specific countries, a quick google will get you more data than you could ever imagine. For example, think of our friends in the frozen north, check the current value for Canada and I think you'll be quite surprised.

If the knee jerks stop, and you seriously think about the social and cultural consequences within a few more generations, there might be few more sober and thoughtful responses...

Why does the population level need to be maintained?

I'm split 50/50. I'd be glad, because I could finally get laid. But half of me is defiant enough that I would probably leave the country or take measures to insure I'm always shooting blanks..

and God knows that the NAACP, and The Gay Lesbian Alliance, and whatever other organization you have out there would be bitching about it.

Right, and their bitching would be wrong. Paying whites to have white children should be totally allowed in a good, capitalist society.

I'm split 50/50. I'd be glad, because I could finally get laid. But half of me is defiant enough that I would probably leave the country or take measures to insure I'm always shooting blanks..

I'd start arranging secret vasectomies, and would make millions.

Right, and their bitching would be wrong. Paying whites to have white children should be totally allowed in a good, capitalist society.

The ACLU et al. are always wrong.

As for specific countries, a quick google will get you more data than you could ever imagine. For example, think of our friends in the frozen north, check the current value for Canada and I think you'll be quite surprised.
Our overall birthrate is low, very low...but we make up for it with immigration. Or had been until post 911 hysteria tightened immigration laws. Point being however, that either you feel that the (presently) majority of Canadians who are of white, European descent should continue to remain the majority by forcing them to have more children and immigrants just 'won't do'....or you have simply overlooked the fact that forced births are not needed and we could rather up immigration levels instead.

So...not considering other options? Or being racist. Hmmmm....

Why does the population level need to be maintained?

Because if it doesn't, social order in those countries collapses. Generally speaking, social order is a good, because it's a crucial element of what makes life into the good life. Ergo, keeping the population more or less stable is crucial to maintaining the trappings of civilization, which for everyone but anarcho-capitalists, hippies, and eco-freaks is considered an unmitigated good.

Because if it doesn't, social order in those countries collapses. Generally speaking, social order is a good, because it's a crucial element of what makes life into the good life. Ergo, keeping the population more or less stable is crucial to maintaining the trappings of civilization, which for everyone but anarcho-capitalists, hippies, and eco-freaks is considered an unmitigated good.

Because breeding is always the answer, and immigrants are all evil.

Personally, I hate children. Loud, obnoxious things. I'd consider it an infringement on my civil rights if the government told me I had to have them.

The problem is too many kids in many parts of the world. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20070112.aspx We need to reduce the number of young kids in those countries.

Because breeding is always the answer, and immigrants are all evil.

And how, pray tell, did you infer that from my post? All I said is that population stability is crucial for social stability; I never said anything about how that population stability is maintained.

I will say that huge infusions of immigrants who subsequently do not assimilate is not good, but I would think that anybody who looks at France today would know that. I will also say that we need to avoid creating a double-standard here: the more post-modern liberals on the board sometimes skirt the line of saying that every culture is intrinsicly valuable so long as said culture isn't white, Anglicized, commercial, and Christian. But I never said, on this post or any other, anything to the effect of keeping out our "little brown brothers", or anything else so demeaning to fundamental human dignity.

I'm not too smart but given that two people are (usually) required in the process and that there will inevitably be some loss in the process...

Actually, one man could impregnate many women so men should be allowed multiple wives. Of course having and raising kids takes a lot of time so women should be forced back into the home and let men do the real work. ;)

And how, pray tell, did you infer that from my post? All I said is that population stability is crucial for social stability; I never said anything about how that population stability is maintained.

Xenophobialand


Gee I wonder.

Because if it doesn't, social order in those countries collapses. Generally speaking, social order is a good, because it's a crucial element of what makes life into the good life. Ergo, keeping the population more or less stable is crucial to maintaining the trappings of civilization, which for everyone but anarcho-capitalists, hippies, and eco-freaks is considered an unmitigated good.

That doesn't follow at all. The smaller the society, the easier it would be to keep order. Thus letting the population fall would ultimately be a good thing.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

If so, how is it to be enforced?

best thing for the planet is fewer people.

now we need to convince the third world to reduce their numbers to ZPG.

This desire for more people to have a constantly growing economy is a weakness of capitalism, capitalism relies to much on population growth to sustain itself(bigger market = more profit). Where this fails is the planet is finite, as are it's resources and it's ability to sustain us, there is an end point/breaking point where it will all collapse. We are quite likely past the point population wise that the planet can support in equal comfort. I don't know what the future will hold but I'll predict that capitalism as we know it will be gone, to be replaced by a more egalitarian system.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

Let's call it what it is, please: legally-enforced rape.

If you'd like to make a case for raping people, you go right ahead with that.


If so, how is it to be enforced?
Same way most rapes are, I would imagine. You use physical force or threats to make people submit to your assault. You can also drug them if you're so cowardly that you can't even face a conscious victim.

Let's call it what it is, please: legally-enforced rape.

If you'd like to make a case for raping people, you go right ahead with that.


Same way most rapes are, I would imagine. You use physical force or threats to make people submit to your assault. You can also drug them if you're so cowardly that you can't even face a conscious victim.

Absolutely correct. Aside from that, I think we all know that the problem in this world is OVERPOPULATION! If you look at statistics that show future population rates, I wonder if the world can sustain such a large population.

There is no way to enforce childbearing. Just for the hell of it, let's say there is rape to raise the population (idiotic and backwards as that is). Any woman who was forced to go through this would likely do something to self abort if she was unable to get an abortion.

The whole idea of forced reproduction is ludicrous. We need a SMALLER population!

Xenophobialand


Gee I wonder.

So rather than actually look at the content of my postings over the last four years or so, as well as the several times I've explained the beginnings of my nation name, or heck, even actually looking at my nation's page, you just assumed that a guy named Xenophobialand posting on an immigration thread must be a bigot?


That doesn't follow at all. The smaller the society, the easier it would be to keep order. Thus letting the population fall would ultimately be a good thing.

Seeing as how modern society depends upon social and economic processes that require a set minimum of people and preferably more, it does follow. Keeping order is not a function of population; it's a function of how well society meets the needs of the people combined with the citizen's acceptance of said society as the sole user of legitmate force. Meeting society's needs, however, translates into large number of workers to produce goods, more to distribute them, more to sell them, more to train the sellers, more to build and service the infrastructure necessary for the workers and transportation, etc. You forget that primitive communist societies only worked because everyone was equally poor, not because everyone was equally happy. Our lots today are staunchly preferable to those small communities of hinteryear, and they allow for far more social acceptance and acquiescence to legitmate state power than they did then.

Secondly, I think you're being way too Malthusian in your assessment of population. Malthus never bothered to factor in the leaps of productivity that labor-saving devices modern science allows in his population equations, labor-saving devices that, I might add, allow us to make less impact than we did in yesteryear, not more.

A growing population is good for economic/technological/social growth, but at the same time its impact is gradually reduced by growing productivity; a high birth rate is no longer needed when machines are installed that can do the work of 10 men for a human labor input of one (in other words, one person can manufacture a machine that replaces 10 in another industry).

However, a large population is good because it creates a larger and more efficient market; ideally, the goal should be to keep the population growing for as long as possible, and then once it begins to slow try to keep the rate at replacement.

That doesn't follow at all. The smaller the society, the easier it would be to keep order. Thus letting the population fall would ultimately be a good thing.

Order is not always a good thing, especially in this case when a falling population will bring stagnation and decay. Ideally, population should always be growing, just like the economy; of course, if productivity can grow at a sufficiently fast rate to replace the shrinking labor force, then the population can fall or it can hover at replacement.

The most ideal situation is a growing population, growing productivity, and a growing economy.

Sure, population growth in developed countries is slowing down, but the people are also getting fatter. So, it evens out.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

If so, how is it to be enforced?


Compulsory reproduction?

....


I like! :D


http://www.nbadraft.net/actor/borat.jpg

Sure, population growth in developed countries is slowing down, but the people are also getting fatter. So, it evens out.

For some reason, I don't think that's a good thing.:p

Even so, sentient robots would make this a lot easier. The population growth needed for the economy could be fully managed by the market, and the humans could be free to have or not have children at will without any negative economic effects. I wonder if it would be possible for robots to have children...I'm thinking of ways for that to be possible, but robotic sex still produces some significant technical challenges.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

If so, how is it to be enforced?

That'd be a great way for me to get some. Unfortunately, it's utter crap.

There's nothing as romantic as a soldier encouraging you by prodding your bum with a bayonet while you're copulating.

There's nothing as romantic as a soldier encouraging you by prodding your bum with a bayonet while you're copulating.

That's a beautiful double entendre.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

No, the world could do with a population decline, or else we'll eat everything.

No, the world could do with a population decline, or else we'll eat everything.

Actually, we're able to produce more food on a lot less land than we used to...productive growth in agriculture is the highest of any industry in the entire world and has reduced the amount of cultivated land at the same time that production has taken off.

The problem is, of course, the places where population is growing fastest aren't the places that have seen those productivity gains. They are eating their countryside and turning it to desert while we dump milk down the drain and turn grain in to fuel because of subsidies and waste...

especially in this case when a falling population will bring stagnation and decay.

Why?

Actually, we're able to produce more food on a lot less land than we used to...productive growth in agriculture is the highest of any industry in the entire world and has reduced the amount of cultivated land at the same time that production has taken off.

The problem is not scarcity of food.

The problem is that we are systematically destroying the capability of the Earth to support our present lifestyles... certainly if the five billion or so people who are denied those lifestyles ever attain them. Either we can get rid of those lifestyles (not a bad idea, but highly unlikely) or we can reduce population.

Why?

Primarily because an aging, stagnant population tends to be less likely to change or improve itself. Throughout history, it has been primarily the young that have produced many of the great social changes, especially those that have improved our lives significantly; there have been older reformers and theorists behind these changes, but the people that actually put them in to action and accept them are the young.

In a society without population growth, or even worse a negative growth rate, there would be fewer and fewer young people around to develop and press for change, resulting in a society that eventually stagnates entirely and begins to decay. And, of course, there's the practical reason that growing populations are harder for a state to control and restrict; the constant desire to grow and expand enables people to circumvent state control and achieve more personal freedom.

I mean, compare a person who was born in the 1940's with one born in the 1980's; they are in most cases significantly different in their political attitudes and social mores, and generally that difference is for the worse.

Actually, we're able to produce more food on a lot less land than we used to...productive growth in agriculture is the highest of any industry in the entire world and has reduced the amount of cultivated land at the same time that production has taken off.
True, but eventually the land will become tired and unfarmable. This can't last forever.

I also wasn't just talking about food, I mean all resources. It would take another seven Earths' worth of resources to support a western lifestyle for everyone (think China).

In a society without population growth, or even worse a negative growth rate, there would be fewer and fewer young people around to develop and press for change, resulting in a society that eventually stagnates entirely and begins to decay.

There would be fewer, sure, but there wouldn't be none. I see no reason why this implies stagnation.

And, of course, there's the practical reason that growing populations are harder for a state to control and restrict; the constant desire to grow and expand enables people to circumvent state control and achieve more personal freedom.

No, the constant drive towards growth has always been a useful tool of control. It is the foundation of scarcity, and control over scarce resources is probably the most effective weapon of power.

Almost as importantly, large, complicated societies lack the kinds of social bonds that permit smaller societies to exist with minimal regulation.

I mean, compare a person who was born in the 1940's with one born in the 1980's; they are in most cases significantly different in their political attitudes and social mores, and generally that difference is for the worse.

You would need to make a comparison with a society with a lower population growth rate for this argument to be effective.

Primarily because an aging, stagnant population tends to be less likely to change or improve itself. Throughout history, it has been primarily the young that have produced many of the great social changes, especially those that have improved our lives significantly; there have been older reformers and theorists behind these changes, but the people that actually put them in to action and accept them are the young.

In a society without population growth, or even worse a negative growth rate, there would be fewer and fewer young people around to develop and press for change, resulting in a society that eventually stagnates entirely and begins to decay. And, of course, there's the practical reason that growing populations are harder for a state to control and restrict; the constant desire to grow and expand enables people to circumvent state control and achieve more personal freedom.

I mean, compare a person who was born in the 1940's with one born in the 1980's; they are in most cases significantly different in their political attitudes and social mores, and generally that difference is for the worse.

very simple math here, what you are proposing infinite growth this is a physical impossibility. We already have more people then the planet can sustain on an equal basis. If we continue as we are economic collapse is unavoidable.

Your fear of state control is irrational, the people and the state are the same entity; the people, the state, the planet are one. Any idea you have of every man/woman being completely independent and free isn't reality you're political beliefs are right out of the 1950's. We are all linked, we are one, resistance is futile.

There would be fewer, sure, but there wouldn't be none. I see no reason why this implies stagnation.

Because there wouldn't be as many young people in society. Young people tend to be more idealistic and less willing to conform to social norms, and as they shrink in number, the ability of them to make changes falls as well. We would not have been able to achieve many of the social reforms in the past few centuries if it were not for the activism of young people.

No, the constant drive towards growth has always been a useful tool of control. It is the foundation of scarcity, and scarcity has always been the most useful tool of power.

Stagnation also produces scarcity, but with the added discontent that comes from having falling living standards. At least growth offers the opportunity for change and improvement, while stagnation slows change and prevents improvement from occurring. There are perils to growth, but properly managed growth does avert some of the more serious ones and keeps many of its advantages.

Almost as importantly, large, complicated societies lack the kinds of social bonds that permit smaller societies to exist with minimal regulation.

But isn't it also plausible that a large population could function in terms of smaller societies if centralization as abandoned in favor of a more localized social structure? By breaking up the large population in to smaller groups, you could conceivably achieve the benefits of a smaller population while retaining the advantages of a larger one.


You would need to make a comparison with a society with a lower population growth rate for this argument to be effective.

The Soviet Union. Its population stagnated starting in the early 1970's, and that played a role in the rise of a geriatric, Stalin-era Party leadership which resisted necessary reforms and led to stagnation of social and economic conditions in the country. There were fewer and fewer children being born, and of those that were, few were capable of rising to positions of power in the government. (This was due primarily to the biases existent in the system, especially the ethnocentrism of the Russian party leaders, many of whom retained their strong Stalinist-era and even Czarist bias against non-Russians).


Now, this may be a product of the system moreso than population, but they are both related.

True, but eventually the land will become tired and unfarmable. This can't last forever.

I also wasn't just talking about food, I mean all resources. It would take another seven Earths' worth of resources to support a western lifestyle for everyone (think China).

This was what I was talking about when I spoke about being overly Malthusian.

Vetalia's point is (I think) correct: it isn't a matter of creating more resources so much as its a matter of increasing the productive value of resources we already have. If farmlands in Africa and China had the same rate of production of food goods per unit of land that the United States had, we could probably feed the present world population four or five times times the daily minimum requirement of 1600 calories. The same is equally true with most if not all of the current consumer products we have. The whole idea that we are going to run out of available resources applies only to rare commodities like oil and only if we continue wasteful current productive practices. They are not inevitable, and the best way to solve the problem is not to kill off surplus population. It's to alter current social practices and material productive forces to reduce waste.

very simple math here, what you are proposing infinite growth this is a physical impossibility. We already have more people then the planet can sustain on an equal basis. If we continue as we are economic collapse is unavoidable.

Infinite extensive growth is impossible. Intensive growth, or making things better and more efficiently, is not; if I can increase production by 3% per year with almost zero change in resource consumption due to higher efficiency, I am effectively growing without consuming more resources. That potential is nearly boundless, and produces many of the same benefits of extensive growth without anywhere near the same damages.

For example, we use only half as much energy to produce the same amount of GDP in 2006 as we did in 1970, using the same energy sources; that's about 1.1% per year (2.1% per year from 1970-1986), and if our economy had grown at that rate we would be using no more energy now than we did then despite having a real GDP between 50% and 100% larger than it was in 1970.

Your fear of state control is irrational, the people and the state are the same entity; the people, the state, the planet are one. Any idea you have of every man/woman being completely independent and free isn't reality you're political beliefs are right out of the 1950's. We are all linked, we are one, resistance is futile.

State control is dangerous. There's a world of difference between regulation and repression; stagnation tends to produce the latter rather than the former for the simple reason that people are unhappy when they see their living standards fall. As a result, the state feels the need to consolidate its control rather than address the unhappiness of its citizens, with the result being repression, poverty, and suffering.

But isn't it also plausible that a large population could function in terms of smaller societies if centralization as abandoned in favor of a more localized social structure? By breaking up the large population in to smaller groups, you could conceivably achieve the benefits of a smaller population while retaining the advantages of a larger one.


I like this point, very good.

But it has much chance of happening as pigs flying.

Infinite extensive growth is impossible. Intensive growth, or making things better and more efficiently, is not; if I can increase production by 3% per year with almost zero change in resource consumption due to higher efficiency, I am effectively growing without consuming more resources. That potential is nearly boundless, and produces many of the same benefits of extensive growth without anywhere near the same damages.


as long as you're not talking about infinite population growth. Production growth could be sustained only until everyone on the planet has equality, after that then even that has to level off.


State control is dangerous. There's a world of difference between regulation and repression; stagnation tends to produce the latter rather than the former for the simple reason that people are unhappy when they see their living standards fall. As a result, the state feels the need to consolidate its control rather than address the unhappiness of its citizens, with the result being repression, poverty, and suffering.

I don't believe state control goes hand in hand with repression. Repression disappears with an educated populace, ignorance is the cause of repression and poverty.

the best way to solve the problem is not to kill off surplus population.

Of course not. I don't think anyone has proposed that on this thread.

Because there wouldn't be as many young people in society. Young people tend to be more idealistic and less willing to conform to social norms, and as they shrink in number, the ability of them to make changes falls as well. We would not have been able to achieve many of the social reforms in the past few centuries if it were not for the activism of young people.

Young people have never been united behind these goals, and the young supporters of change have never been powerful enough, in and of themselves, to bring any change about.

That has always taken broader support, and while radical activism can indeed provide the foundation for such support, this hardly needs a large young population.

Stagnation also produces scarcity,

Population stagnation? Hardly.

Economic stagnation? Perhaps, but only when there is no beneficial counterpart to economic growth... and that is really a discussion for another thread.

At least growth offers the opportunity for change and improvement, while stagnation slows change and prevents improvement from occurring.

This is not a purely either-or choice: universal stagnation or universal growth.

I am in favor of social improvement and reform, but I am not in favor of increased population growth.

But isn't it also plausible that a large population could function in terms of smaller societies if centralization as abandoned in favor of a more localized social structure? By breaking up the large population in to smaller groups, you could conceivably achieve the benefits of a smaller population while retaining the advantages of a larger one.

Not when the nature of the economy, in terms of global trade and externalities, requires some more centralized arrangements.

The Soviet Union. Its population stagnated starting in the early 1970's, and that played a role in the rise of a geriatric, Stalin-era Party leadership which resisted necessary reforms and led to stagnation of social and economic conditions in the country.

A process which ultimately led to its collapse; hardly an example of staticity.

the people and the state are the same entity

Since when?

the world is overpopulated, so its good that the pop is going down in some places.

Since when?

the state whether a hunter gatherer group of 30 or a nation of millions are collection of individuals, the two are not separable the state does not exist without the permission of the individuals. This is the way it's always has been and always will be.

Young people have never been united behind these goals, and the young supporters of change have never been powerful enough, in and of themselves, to bring any change about.

That has always taken broader support, and while radical activism can indeed provide the foundation for such support, this hardly needs a large young population.

True. However, a society without a sizable young population is not likely to achieve these kinds of changes.

Population stagnation? Hardly.

Economic stagnation? Perhaps, but only when there is no beneficial counterpart to economic growth... and that is really a discussion for another thread.

Population stagnation does produce economic stagnation in the absence of sufficient productivity growth; generally, this does not happen often in developed economies, but it is possible. If productivity is not growing, or is not growing fast enough to accomodate a shrinking labor force, the economy will stagnate and decline. Either way, it will produce declining living standards (both in terms of material losses and declines in the quality of services like healthcare or education) and public discontent.

This is not a purely either-or choice: universal stagnation or universal growth.

I am in favor of social improvement and reform, but I am not in favor of increased population growth.

I support intensive growth and a stable or slightly increasing population; in fact, demographic balance would likely be the most desirable situation. A youth bulge is as equally, or even more, dangerous as an aging or declining population. The Middle East has taught us this lesson very well.

Not when the nature of the economy, in terms of global trade and externalities, requires some more centralized arrangements.

At present, it does. At the same time, however, global trade helps to dissolve the artificial borders between people and loosens central control over individuals, enabling them to make a wider variety of choices regarding their social structure.

A process which ultimately led to its collapse; hardly an example of staticity.

But it was static for nearly one and a half decades; the Russians even coined a specific term, "Brezhnev Stagnation", for the period of 1970-1984. In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union was motivated more by Gorbachev's attempt to resolve that stagnation and falling oil prices than the stagnation itself.

Had oil prices remained stable and Gorbachev not tried to reform, the system would likely have survived even longer than it did.

the state whether a hunter gatherer group of 30 or a nation of millions are collection of individuals, the two are not separable the state does not exist without the permission of the individuals. This is the way it's always has been and always will be.

If the state has the money and the weapons, it can exist whether the people like it or not.

a hunter gatherer group of 30

...almost never has anything even resembling a state.

I think you need to reconsider your definitions.

the state does not exist without the permission of the individuals.

The state has the power to crush resistance to its rule.

As the organ of political authority, it tends to hold a monopoly or a near-monopoly on the potential for coercive force... and because it enforces the property claims of the economic ruling class, it tends to have their support as well.

how about introducing a system of non-biological reproduction, like in Brave New World? grow all our children in vats, remove the possibility of random genetic variation, and make (non-reproductive) sex mandatory

how about introducing a system of non-biological reproduction, like in Brave New World? grow all our children in vats, remove the possibility of random genetic variation, and make (non-reproductive) sex mandatory

Did it seriously take this long to bring in Brave New World? What a bunch of epsilon semi-morons we've been.

If the state has the money and the weapons, it can exist whether the people like it or not.

it can't.

your not looking at the bigger picture. the state has weapons, who controls the weapons? the individuals.

Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the former East Germany socialist governments all fell because the individuals with the weapons would not turn on the people(the state), the power clique's ruling the countries were not the state, the state is the collection of individuals. All governments rule only with the permission of the people, tyrants and dictators control of the state is only temporary eventually they all fail without support of the people/state.

One question: With compulsory lovemaking can I have practice rounds before I try to go for the gold? :D

One question: With compulsory lovemaking can I have practice rounds before I try to go for the gold? :D

Orgy porgy.

Thinking of this idea makes me feel like I'm going to throw up. It'd be better for me to die or be killed than to have sex, especially if it were forced (which is the only way it could happen).

How about instead of compulsive reproduction, we have compulsive cloning! But not just for everyone, since most people are inferior to me. Instead, we should just pick two prototypes to clone for Western Hemisphere Supremacy In The Face Of Non-Whites: Me for the male, and we'll have a long and drawn-out auditioning process to select the suitable female (which should of course be sexually compatible with the prototype male so we can continue our glorious Western Culture even without relying on sexual reproduction in the traditional sense).

...almost never has anything even resembling a state.

I think you need to reconsider your definitions.


hunter gatherer groups have decision making process like any government, probably better, they are the basic state in it's simplest form.


The state has the power to crush resistance to its rule.

As the organ of political authority, it tends to hold a monopoly or a near-monopoly on the potential for coercive force... and because it enforces the property claims of the economic ruling class, it tends to have their support as well.

political authority only exists only as long as the people allow it to. Czarist Russia, Iron curtain governments,Ferdinand Marcos... all governments that make life intolerable for the individuals/state eventually get swept away.
Even communist China was nearly removed when it's people demanded a change, it has avoided/delayed it's removal by giving more personal freedoms.

If the Western World really feels that it has a shortage of young people brought up in Western culture, (which I personally wouldn't say is the case), then how's this for a compromise solution:

The state begins a program of building orphanages, enlists the services of as many of the nation's grandparents as it can (perhaps even draft them, they do tend to be the most patriotic members of society), and then begin to adopt the millions of orphaned and abandoned children from all around the world.

These children could be raised from a very early age with 'traditional values', or with whatever values the state wants to instill, good work ethic, religious piety, whatever...

And hey presto, although the end result of these 'factory orphanages' may not be ethnically European, culturally, they would be more "European" than the actual natives, and much more productive too.

(Disclaimer: I am not advocating this, I just think it would be an incredibly interesting thing to happen.)

As probably stated above 50 times the world has an overpopulation problem

decision making process

Yeah... but not a state.

political authority only exists only as long as the people allow it to. Czarist Russia, Iron curtain governments,Ferdinand Marcos... all governments that make life intolerable for the individuals/state eventually get swept away.

All governments get swept away.

If the Western World really feels that it has a shortage of young people brought up in Western culture, (which I personally wouldn't say is the case), then how's this for a compromise solution:

The state begins a program of building orphanages, enlists the services of as many of the nation's grandparents as it can (perhaps even draft them, they do tend to be the most patriotic members of society), and then begin to adopt the millions of orphaned and abandoned children from all around the world.

These children could be raised from a very early age with 'traditional values', or with whatever values the state wants to instill, good work ethic, religious piety, whatever...

And hey presto, although the end result of these 'factory orphanages' may not be ethnically European, culturally, they would be more "European" than the actual natives, and much more productive too.

(Disclaimer: I am not advocating this, I just think it would be an incredibly interesting thing to happen.)

maybe we just have too many old people.

Yeah... but not a state.

definition of a state-a political community under one government. A hunter-gatherer community chooses to be one entity with a decision making process, a state. Being a simple society does not lessen their status.

definition of a state-a political community under one government. A hunter-gatherer community chooses to be one entity with a decision making process, a state. Being a simple society does not lessen their status.

Technically any human activity has "decision making process," that doesn't make any grouping of humans a state and government. Furthermore one could call anything "political," that doesn't make anything with a "political" edge a "state."

Simple societies do indeed precede the existence of the state, hence why bands, tribes, chiefdoms are called "Pre State Societies."

maybe we just have too many old people.

YOu're brilliant. If the small number of young working people cannot support all the retired people,then lets kill all the retired people.

Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the former East Germany socialist governments all fell because the individuals with the weapons would not turn on the people(the state), the power clique's ruling the countries were not the state, the state is the collection of individuals. All governments rule only with the permission of the people, tyrants and dictators control of the state is only temporary eventually they all fail without support of the people/state.

Well, yeah. That's what I mean. The only way the state rules is with the consent of the people; otherwise, it's not going to be around anymore.

I agree. The earths population is too large as it is. A better initiative for western nations too focus on is border control, and immigration reform. Socilaist Europe has been burdened for quite awhile, and things arent getting any easier. =/

No. If anything, there is a case for compulsory limits on the number of children.

The world does not have an underpopulation problem.

It's not the western nations causing the overpopulation.

maybe we just have too many old people.

Probably. That's why I always advocate that people should retire abroad, where there's more room, where there money will go further, where they will be safer, and where they will be better cared for. And so that we can get on with productive things back home.

According to many demographers, many western nations have a reproduction rate too low to sustain current population levels. Some apparently are reaching such a low rate that they may never be able to recover.

Given the massive immigration from the third world, this is already creating civil turmoil and excessive strain on many public services paid for by the ever decreasing pool of citizen tax-paying wage-earners. There are a number of other negative effects as well.

Is there a case for compulsory child bearing?

If so, how is it to be enforced?

I don't see why so many people have their underwear in a bunch about this. Even if such a thing were to occur, I could at least get laid once in my life.

Some great thoughts here! The fundamental problem to me is that extensive, rapid immigration "kills the goose that lays the golden eggs". Immigration almost always happens because people want to improve their lot in life. So they go where the perceived lot is better. So far so good.

If immigration takes place at a rate such that assimilation takes place without undue social stress, then both society and the immigrants benefit. If the immigrants do not, can not, or are not allowed to assimilate, then all they do is bring the life conditions they were trying to escape with them.

If the society they emigrate to is robust and growing, then it seems to me that even a considerable degree of cultural and social conflict can be managed. If the society is aging and shrinking, then it seems to me that the conflicts will much more difficult, if not impossible, to manage without great strife.

I think the only way you can get the birth rate back up is to make it very rewarding financially. However it is done, it will probably draw many women out of the work force. That is another possibly controversial thread, but I'm not going to post it!

Regards to All