I don't know, I would be OK with banning Simulated for it but it's not my forum. You realize that naming one very small pseudo state doesn't prove that non-whites birthrates are all falling don't you?

life expectancy now is the single variable that defines wealth? So the USA is the poorest western country in the world?

Birth control is a big factor everywhere fertility rate went down, when coupled with women education.

Birth control is what allows women to decide what their life is going to be. It has been an incredible invention. Why do you dismiss it?

Or it is like you don't want to admit that there is a strong correlation between freedom and emancipation and some very bad social outcomes? It's possible to be intellectually honest and admit that freedom has a price.

No price is too big for freedom for me so I cheerish birth control. But i guess that people on the radical left, with their deep despise of individualism and freedom, go on tilt every time something that liberates human beings is coupled with bad aggregate social outcomes.

I don't because i love freedom.

Tldr: women are free now. This is very good for them. It's bad for fertility rates. Women individual happyness though should be the only thing that matter.

What form of birth control are you in favor of that this "radical left" you blather about is against?

And? What's the next sentence after this one? What would you propose we do about this or do you only love freedom for men?

jalfrezi is going full negationist on birth control effects on society. He is not against birth control. But he is against admitting that it's widespread use is not pareto efficient

you have to admit that low fertility rates are the price to pay for women freedom.

all birth rates are falling everywhere in the world if you look at 50y ago.

They are falling but still very high only in Africa.

They are close to replacement level , or lower, everywhere else in the world.

And the worst cases are in Asia and some eastern european countries. And Puerto Rico.

Saying that falling birth rates is an issue only for white rich countries is insane racism

are Japan and South Korea white? Or I have to think that people talk about fertility rates without knowing anything at all about it and it's only by ignorance that they say it's only a white country problem?

I do not think people are this ignorant in this forum. So it's done willingly, so it's racism

lol

I was arguing that there are other factors in declining fertility rates, against your pal Simulated's view (and yours apparently too) that only birth control matters.

The rest of your gibberish post misrepresents my opinions horribly, so **** off.

At least they are only hinting at solutions and not right out saying we may need to forcefully breed women in the future.

And at least they aren't selling the difference in birthrates between the middle east and the US as another reason to hate Muslims, although I'd imagine that's in there somewhere too.

lol I literally only answered this simulated guy posts to say I disagree, but now he is "my pal".

Yes there are hundreds of factors in play in the decrease of fertility rate.

my solution as I argued in another thread for rich countries Is immigration.

Full AGI is like us. And while part of what we do is figure out how and the most efficient way to do things, the other part is deciding what needs done. Like us, to qualify as AGI it would need to do both. But we don’t need that for full automation. That is, we don’t need it to click the “Build a House” button; we just need it to build the house when we click the button.

I’m not claiming natural resources are free and infinite. But the amount of a resource isn’t the same as the supply of it. In the modern age, it’s technology that both defines what a resource is and determines the supply of it. Take oil for example. It’s been around forever but it didn’t qualify as a resource until technology found a use for it. And it’s technology that determines the supply of it by both finding more efficient means of getting to it (oil exploration) and more efficient means of using it (fuel injection vs carburetors). So while the amount of oil hasn’t changed the effective supply of it – through the implementation of technology – continues to increase.

Your parents did you a great disservice by teaching you how to insult people instead of how to think. I make a factual observation about the world and point out that if a certain trend continues permanently humanity is doomed and somehow that makes me a racist?

Its funny because your insult implies that you see no threat to humanity with low fertility rates among whites because brown people will make up the slack. You want to see a racist, go look in the mirror.

LMAO. I don't assume a problem for white society is a problem for humanity. I'm also curious what you want to do about this problem?

It is not only a problem for white countries, do you acknowledge that? do you understand that countries like china, south korea and japan have lower fertility than france, denmark and the USA? even if you only check white fertility rate in those western societies?

SO this is first and foremost an asian problem. And those 3 countries decided, for various reason, not to fix it through immigration.

So, what do i want to do for fertility rate? allowing for decent immigration in western countries, as i said already. That is more than enough for now.

If the problem persists or exacerbate, we will see some real damages to japan, s korea, china in the next 20-30 years. We will also see what they will do to fix it, what will work and what won't work. We don't have to commit to any strategy right now. We can wait and see because other people will have to deal with it before we do.

Unfortunately the solution that comes to mind to any economist (= incentives) doesn't seem to solve the problem (yes, i admit that sounds incredible). But fertility rate are really low even in countries with a very good welfare system for families. Maybe incredibly bigger incentives could have some effect.

But what if they are not enough? then i don't know. But technology is changing really fast. And this problem isn't extremely relevant yet (except perhaps for singapore? but they are small so their solutions could be non replicable at scale).

Technology could provide in vitro childbirth for the whole duration of pregnancy for example. Or many other things (robots as discussed that decrease the need for humans).

But that's too far off in the future to make proper plans. For now a trickling of immigration would be enough (0.2/0.3% of population per year).

It's funny because you're too stupid to see how you're dunking on yourself.

Why is a declining population a bad thing?

I think it's pretty clear cut that lower birth rates are an improvement for people living in a country as long as they're able to contract out for labor demands.

If there ever comes a point where there's a critical shortage of people we can start commercially raising children where the 'parent company' gets some piece of their income tax as a return on their investment. Child rearing like anything else can be broken down to a science even if it isn't a precise science. This is not that disimilar from the business model of a lot of churches where their payoff comes in the form of tithes of parishioners except that it enshrines it in law to avoid the freeloading issue.

But more realistically the problem the world is faced with is one of too many people. Or at least too many in order to sustainably maintain an 'optimal' quality of life. If you could prune the reproductive habits of the least capable and/or poorest segments of the working class you'd be a generation or two away from what would look an awful lot like a utopia compared to what we're dealing with today.

In and of itself it's not. But in conjunction with social benefits Western democracies provide, we need an exponentially growing base of young people paying into the system to compensate for an aging population getting more back out of the system than they paid in.

You may want to check your math there...

Whereabouts?

Start with Baby Boomers and see if that leads anywhere.

I'm not sure I want to solve the problem. I don't want humanity to cease to be, but I know it will someday. Not breeding enough isn't a bad way to go compared to other ways we could come by our demise. As long as its a decision of humanity I am okay not solving it.

But if we did nothing, evolution could solve it for us. People with a little or no desire to have children might be culled from the gene pool over time leaving the world populated with people who desire lots of children.

To solve it, we just need to manipulate men and women(but mostly women) to have more babies. The masses aren't hard to manipulate which is our weakness. If an AI ever wants to get rid of humanity, I don't think they will do it through violent means. I think they will just manipulate us into breeding less and just wait till we all die off. It will take longer but won't torch the planet or put the AI as risk of being shut down after a failed attempt.

They appear to be making out okay:



source:https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-paid-what-yo/