Millennials say no to kids, population 'replacement level' turns negative

It appears to be a very long term 'accident':

https://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812

 

Stonewall was, but his posts are being deleted.

 

I see the point you are trying to make, but I might respectfully argue that the flaw in your logic is the assumption that these future generations of young people will be working, self-sufficient, and paying in, rather than taking out in the form of welfare and the myriad of social programs.

I look around at younger folks today, the teens and twenty-somethings especially, and I do not have the same confidence you do.

 

I never put forth the argument that a child's IQ is the average of his parents' IQ. I merely stated that, on average, the IQ of Whites is far superior to that of blacks and Amerinds. Northern Asians are, in turn, slightly higher than Whites in terms of average IQ. See the World IQ map I posted above.

 

Lenin did, too. He made the first meaty contribution to Marxist theory in an attempt to save it from the march of reality.

I have no idea what Stalin and Mao thought, they don't strike me as intellectual men.

 

I don't think you have a real grip on what "long term" is, historically.

 

I would define 'long term' as the beginning of time until the European Whites entered the picture in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1600s. During that time blacks had failed to invent the wheel, build anything architecturally significant or construct a ship worthy of exploration.

 

Here are the 2017 Nobel Prize winners:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thequint.com/amp/story/news%2Fworld%2Fnobel-prize-winners-2017

Notice any similarities? Hopefully all of these men produced offspring..........

 

"Hey, Concord, let me prove your point."

Yes, European civilization of the last 500 or so years has been magnificent. Not because of white genes. Those white genes don't seem to have helped much in the millennia previous.

 

There is no such thing as white genes. There is only one human race genetically. Not several. If you were to go back to 1500 you might argue that Chinese genes were awesome and W Europe was genetically backwards.

 

Overpopulating the country is beyond stupid. How anyone could think this is a good idea needs to get their head out of their butts. Our healthcare is in shambles as it is. We can't even take care of the population we have now.

 

Interesting. So now you don't like people unless they have children.

Maybe you could just require people to reproduce and wrap their babies in flags.

The best thing anyone can do for this planet is to not have children. The great irony is that the children and grandchildren of the truly selfish - those who have no regard for the planet and therefore future generations - will pay the price of the selfishness and arrogance of their right-wing, crackpot grandparents, who denied the facts out of spite.

The grandchildren of the crackpot right will one day despise them for their selfishness and arrogance, while they struggle to survive the never-ending crises throughout the world.

If you think Europe and America are being invaded now, just wait until entire regions start running out of water. Wait until much of China runs out of water. The Himalayas are melting right now.

More people means more carbon in the atmosphere, more demand for limited supplies of food and water, more disease, more plagues, and more mass migrations.

 

This is a bit of an oversimplification. There is traceable genetic diversity that relates to distinguishable phenotype groups.

 

Dude, construction of Notre Dame Cathedral was begun in the 1100s.........get a grip on yourself.....

 

Is our healthcare more in shambles than it was one or two centuries ago?

Part of American strength is our incredible demographic success story. A century ago we were only a little bigger than Germany.

 

Kids are expensive, dude.

 

Gothic architecture is beautiful. The first artful architecture built by whites in nearly a millennia.

But Europeans in 1100 weren't particularly developed. I have a lot of respect for European culture of the Middle Ages, but it was nowhere close to the heights it would reach later in the millennia.

 

defining generations by what them waspy peeples do is raciss...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eath-in-united-states/?utm_term=.451c83695117

I've been a licensed healthcare professional for 30 years and if you think modern medicine is better just because we're in the 21st century, I've got a bridge to sell you. The article above is just one of many problems with today's healthcare.

 

I'm fully aware of the problems. Modern medicine is better. We are perfectly capable of choosing 20th or 19th century healthcare whenever we want.

The cost of medical care is predominately the cost of hiring people. Educated people, yes. But healthcare isn't setting some kind of demographic cap.

BUT, the standard of living we demand, which includes the ability to access incredibly expensive medical treatments and procedures, is part of what's driving our demographic decline.

 

If that doesn't make you consider me a marxist, whatever. I'm not too attached to the label. I just call myself whatever I think will make people understand what I think most accurately. I don't think that's accurate, but it also absolutely does not matter because labels are arbitrary.

I criticize traditional marxism from the viewpoint of anarchism and anarchism from the viewpoint of traditional marxism, throw in some french post-structuralism and just a dash of western esotericism and you basically understand what I think.

 

I recognize that I approach the problem from a singular standpoint.

I've gone through waves of intellectual development, in each of which I come to view the world in a completely different way. For about a year now (maybe a little longer) I've been obsessed with understanding history. I recognize Marx (and, really, Hegel) as a founder of this tradition. This has been especially informative in my own life. Before, I tended to see myself as primarily an observer of the world, "above" history. I've started to gain a sense of historical identity not based on my own philosophical beliefs.

At first it seemed like this might be debilitating, as though I was stuffing my intellect under historical reality. Instead, it helps me see more clearly where history's pivot points are.

So my political outlook is completely different. I don't particularly care what kind of government North American people have, as long as we get along.

 

Marx turning Hegel on his head changed everything, really, because it opened up dialectics to materialism and materialism to dialectics. Every modern worldview, in some way, has been shaped by that.

 

I fail to understand your logic. Incomes have stagnated and the price of everything is at all time highs. How can you ignore the financial reality that the system is forcing people to take out instead of pay in?

 

As someone who spent most of his adult life in school I suggest it changed very little for most people