Hey Funk, let's talk demographics.

[Ishmael]

This post you made in the Transgender thread is the launching point for this thread.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=85170818&postcount=278

I am fascinated how few people want to see what is clear as day to me: the ending of the White Reign of the planet. They are making you crumble and most of y'all don't even care. Civilizations come and go of course. It is interesting watching the decline of people who won't even fight back.

First of all I'm not disputing your statement. It's just that the subject is a hell of a lot more complicated.

Let's set the bar first. For those that aren't aware the fertility rate of any nation determines whether it's growing or dying. A fertility rate of 2.1 is zero population growth. Above that the nation is growing, below that it's dying.

Virtually every industrialized nation on the face of the earth has a fertility rate below 2.1. That includes China, Japan, Korea (even the North ironically, but that discussion is for later). Brazil and Chile are below 2.1. Mexico and Argentina are above but trending down. India and Indonesia are also above but trending down. Even Iran is below the replacement birth rate.

The point is that it isn't just whites. (The black population in the US isn't growing either.) It's an equal opportunity phenomena. It seems that the more the government provides in the form of social safety nets, the lower the fertility rate.

So where is all the world population growth taking place? Well, it's occurring in every shit hole no one in their right mind would ever want to visit. Cultures, not race but cultures, that no one would ever want in the governmental drivers seat.They are ignorant, tribal, and brutal.

There is nothing that I can see worth of celebration in the numbers.

Ishmael

 

[Rightguide]

The meek shall inherit the world.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

I am in, and will respond later when I am at home and at a compute

Hilarious placeholder for now, courtesy of Bill Nye the Science guy's new show. Released to coincide with science marches.

https://youtu.be/46h-LfNWPn8

A great video on multicultural bisexual orgies, proving that conversion therapy is excellent for heteros...

 

[hashtag46]

Wow excellent idea for a thread.
You two always deliver.

Looking forward to reading people's (on both sides of the artifficial R-L spectrum) comments tonight.

 

[Disgustipated]

It's not an R-L issue, ya dope.

 

[hashtag46]

It's not an R-L issue, ya dope.

That's not at all what I was getting at, you schmuck.

 

[Disgustipated]

My bad - I was being artifficial.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

White reign is a misnomer anyway.

The "white" world's path to dominance came from a new idea, commercialism and the nation-state that replaced the Agrarian Empire model (Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood). In this idea, race is not the main factor, but the adoption of the idea. With commercial activity comes affluence which improves living conditions which reduces the compelling drive to have many children since so many die before reaching maturity in high-tax Agrarian societies (where the tax was about keeping the subjects in poverty in order for the ruling class to engage in the only wealth-creating activity that they knew, conquest of new territory and new subjects).

Ishmael has made a salient point in that every race that puts commerce first, experiences a decline in birth rates. Those that remain of an Agrarian-Tribal mindset have to breed prolifically and have to "conquer" new wealth.

On a related note, I read this yesterday, it was linked to at HotAir.com, you might find it interesting in the light of my remarks in this post:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-United...f-a-political-revolution/answer/Sam-Harris-90

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And now, for a little humor...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-NcUhqXoAAWz0_.jpg:large

...

 

[Ishmael]

White reign is a misnomer anyway.

The "white" world's path to dominance came from a new idea, commercialism and the nation-state that replaced the Agrarian Empire model (Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood). In this idea, race is not the main factor, but the adoption of the idea. With commercial activity comes affluence which improves living conditions which reduces the compelling drive to have many children since so many die before reaching maturity in high-tax Agrarian societies (where the tax was about keeping the subjects in poverty in order for the ruling class to engage in the only wealth-creating activity that they knew, conquest of new territory and new subjects).

Ishmael has made a salient point in that every race that puts commerce first, experiences a decline in birth rates. Those that remain of an Agrarian-Tribal mindset have to breed prolifically and have to "conquer" new wealth.

On a related note, I read this yesterday, it was linked to at HotAir.com, you might find it interesting in the light of my remarks in this post:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-United...f-a-political-revolution/answer/Sam-Harris-90

From the article you linked.

These factors combine to prevent women from using birth control and they “hedge” their losses of children by having a lot of them (too many actually even accounting for early deaths).

We're back to what I call the "Coyote Effect."

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh yeah, I remember that!

 

[Rightguide]

White reign is a misnomer anyway.

The "white" world's path to dominance came from a new idea, commercialism and the nation-state that replaced the Agrarian Empire model (Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood). In this idea, race is not the main factor, but the adoption of the idea. With commercial activity comes affluence which improves living conditions which reduces the compelling drive to have many children since so many die before reaching maturity in high-tax Agrarian societies (where the tax was about keeping the subjects in poverty in order for the ruling class to engage in the only wealth-creating activity that they knew, conquest of new territory and new subjects).

Ishmael has made a salient point in that every race that puts commerce first, experiences a decline in birth rates. Those that remain of an Agrarian-Tribal mindset have to breed prolifically and have to "conquer" new wealth.

On a related note, I read this yesterday, it was linked to at HotAir.com, you might find it interesting in the light of my remarks in this post:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-United...f-a-political-revolution/answer/Sam-Harris-90

I think it has less to do with industrialization than it does economics, declining morality, and plain old greed, people not wanting or needing a family to share their life with.

In 1957 The American birth rate was double what it is today, well into a hundred years after the industrialization of the United States. I would suggest the decline might even be connected to declining industrialization, Government, and other factors that make it more difficult and costly to produce anything in America.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think it has less to do with industrialization than it does economics, declining morality, and plain old greed, people not wanting or needing a family to share their life with.

In 1957 The American birth rate was double what it is today, well into a hundred years after the industrialization of the United States. I would suggest the decline might even be connected to declining industrialization, Government, and other factors that make it more difficult and costly to produce anything in America.

In 1957, we were still experiencing the exuberance of winning the war (surviving) and an unnatural prosperity because we were not hampered by rebuilding and it was the tail end of "The Baby Boom" which was an artificial spike. It was like an economic bubble and eventually it burst as all bubbles do. It is improper, statistically speaking, to point to such a bubble and then argue from a grain, therefore, the beach...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... plain old greed, people not wanting or needing a family to share their life with.

...

Greed? Selfishness? Is this not a Progressive/Socialist argument?

Economically, since you brought it up, every dime not spent on a child is spent on alternative goods and services. It is not greed to want to live a life of stress-free leisure, but an actual benefit of the newer economic paradigm of commercialism. In fact, lower birth rates prevent the Malthusian future predicted in all those doomsday books published in the 70s that were required High School reading...

 

[Disgustipated]

I think it has less to do with industrialization than it does economics, declining morality, and plain old greed, people not wanting or needing a family to share their life with.

In 1957 The American birth rate was double what it is today, well into a hundred years after the industrialization of the United States. I would suggest the decline might even be connected to declining industrialization, Government, and other factors that make it more difficult and costly to produce anything in America.

By 1957 we figured some shit out that was born out of the hard work of those during the industrial revolution(s). You would think someone as old as you would know some shit. Damn, I hate being wrong.

 

[Rightguide]

Greed? Selfishness? Is this not a Progressive/Socialist argument?

Economically, since you brought it up, every dime not spent on a child is spent on alternative goods and services. It is not greed to want to live a life of stress-free leisure, but an actual benefit of the newer economic paradigm of commercialism. In fact, lower birth rates prevent the Malthusian future predicted in all those doomsday books published in the 70s that were required High School reading...

It's easier today to kill your progeny or even prevent conception in the first place, something that wasn't morally possible and didn't exist on the industrial scale it does today. I think it has a lot to do with declining economic opportunity and the decline in religion belief and the moral structure that encouraged childbearing and the supremacy of the family unit. According to the March of Dimes the average cost of childbirth is $8802.00 a far cry from the $31 cost of my grandfather's birth in 1920. It now costs $245,000 to raise a child to age 18, add that to a couple already looking at student loan debt of $100,000, add an ever job-starved economy and it isn't hard to understand declining birth rates in certain demographics.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Oh yeah, I remember that!

 

[hashtag46]

It's easier today to kill your progeny or even prevent conception in the first place, something that wasn't morally possible and didn't exist on the industrial scale it does today. I think it has a lot to do with
declining economic opportunity and the decline in religion belief and the moral structure that encouraged childbearing and the supremacy of the family unit. According to the March of Dimes the average cost of childbirth is $8802.00 a far cry from the $31 cost of my grandfather's birth in 1920. It now costs $245,000 to raise a child to age 18, add that to a couple already looking at student loan debt of $100,000, add an ever job-starved economy and it isn't hard to understand declining birth rates in certain demographics.

That makes sense to me as well.

And adding other reasons for the high natality in third world countries:
- I guess the fact that kids don't come with so many complications,
- but also lack of available contraception or abortion clinics (can you imagine setting up a sexual health clinic in a remote village that could barely running water or regular medical care… )

 

[Disgustipated]

Sexual help is just help, ya dope.

 

[KingOrfeo]

t seems that the more the government provides in the form of social safety nets, the lower the fertility rate.

It seems that the more generally prosperous a nation is, the lower the fertility rate; government safety nets are only a part of that prosperity, and as much a symptom as a cause (underdeveloped countries simply cannot afford much safety netting).

 

[KingOrfeo]

We're back to what I call the "Coyote Effect."

Ishmael

Is that where you run off a cliff, and don't start to fall until you notice it?

 

[Lancecastor]

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=85170818&postcount=278

At current change rates, it will take over a century for median wealth to equal that of whites in the USA.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/laurashin/files/2015/03/racial-wealth-gap1.jpg?width=960

If current trends persist, it will take 228 years for black families to accumulate the same amount of wealth as whites, according to a report released this week from the Corporation for Economic Development and the Institute for Policy Studies. For Latino families, it will take 84 years.

See:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/news/economy/blacks-white-wealth-gap/

 

[KingOrfeo]

In any case, the national cultures of the white-majority nations are not dying; all immigrants assimilate to them eventually, and most eventually intermarry with earlier-arriving families. A hundred years from now the population of the U.S. or France or Germany or the UK will be like the knife that has had three new blades and two new handles -- different from what it is now, perhaps even different in color, but still recognizably the same thing.

 

[Lancecastor]

Maybe Ish can bump this thread in 200 years when it's relevant.

Maybe by that time Luk will have gotten laid and LTR will have put the wedding dress away.

 

[Disgustipated]

And lace will still be living vicariously through those who.... Well... Anyone, really.