Doesnt Depopulation of a Continent, means migration flow

[Dan232]

Which means welfare state. Which screws everybody up? Isnt it better to encourage normal marriage, get kids and help society out rather than destroying it?

Think this started from Liberal Depopulation ideology from the 1970s?

People would argue high population makes food shortage and that food is linear ( which would be liberal argument for depopulation. Because a poor world would suck ) which is argument for why 3rd world continent isnt doing well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Early_history

But let me know your view. I heard the first one as a right wing argument online

[BUM-DRILLER]

I think Occam’s Razor applies here.

Less people = less complications.

If it’s about control, then a smaller population would be easier to manage.

[GenericDungeonSlime]

I genuinely can't understand the argument being made in the OP, but...

 Isnt it better to encourage normal marriage, get kids and help society out rather than destroying it?

Yes, this is objectively the best and most moral decision to make. Stable households produce better outcomes for children almost entirely across the board. I don't know how anyone could look at the modern landscape in regards to family formation and consider it anything but a horror story and cautionary tale.

[Dan232]

At 1/22/22 12:59 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote: I think Occam’s Razor applies here.

Less people = less complications.

If it’s about control, then a smaller population would be easier to manage.

Cant there be a middle way, where there is enough people to sustain it on a cultural influence level with lack of infighting but not too much where it creates problems of food shortage?

[BUM-DRILLER]

At 1/22/22 01:09 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: I genuinely can't understand the argument being made in the OP, but...

I can’t speak for OP either. But he may be trying to be vague on purpose because of [REDACTED] but anyway

Yes, this is objectively the best and most moral decision to make. Stable households produce better outcomes for children almost entirely across the board. I don't know how anyone could look at the modern landscape in regards to family formation and consider it anything but a horror story and cautionary tale.

A-fucking-men

At 1/22/22 01:17 PM, Dan232 wrote: Cant there be a middle way, where there is enough people to sustain it on a cultural influence level with lack of infighting but not too much where it creates problems of food shortage?

I simply don’t believe there is such a thing as too many people. The world is fucking yuuuuuge. You can easily fit every human being shoulder-to-shoulder on Madagascar. You can fit every human being comfortably across all six habitable continents in the density of a Dallas suburb.

But who is to say we can’t terraform Antarctica? Or dig underground? Or build space stations? Or drain the oceans, shoot the water onto Mars, and have a planet 40% land instead of 30% land?

This whole “controlled population” and “don’t reproduce!” shit makes me mad because it just does not have to be this way. If we can shut down the whole planet for two weeks for a cough, we can make a dent in at least one of the suggestions above.

[DamnedByFate]

At 1/22/22 12:50 PM, Dan232 wrote: Which means welfare state. Which screws everybody up? Isnt it better to encourage normal marriage, get kids and help society out rather than destroying it?

Three non-sequiturs in one sentence. Is this a new record?

[Gario]

depopulation isn't a liberal idea, it's just basic ecofascism (which isn't related to liberalism)

it's bad

also the basic family unit or whatever does nothing to stave depopulation off, nor does welfare have anything to do with the topic

the op seems pretty confused about the whole thing, but yes, depopulation is bad

[Curtains-Joe]

Minimum change = minimal disruption.

[GenericDungeonSlime]

At 1/22/22 02:05 PM, Curta1nsJoe wrote: Minimum change = minimal disruption.

If only this were an enforceable political principle.

[SuperiorGhostgamer]

At 1/22/22 12:50 PM, Dan232 wrote: Which means welfare state. Which screws everybody up? Isnt it better to encourage normal marriage, get kids and help society out rather than destroying it?

Think this started from Liberal Depopulation ideology from the 1970s?

People would argue high population makes food shortage and that food is linear ( which would be liberal argument for depopulation. Because a poor world would suck ) which is argument for why 3rd world continent isnt doing well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Early_history

But let me know your view. I heard the first one as a right wing argument online

malthusian is just way to broad. Yes the land can only support so much people but what he doesn't account for is our ability to Improve the land.

[OffColorMem0rY]

I do not think it makes sense to see food and resources as the only factor that holds a population to be maxed at a certain amount. The growth of food and resources is more consistent than the production of human beings. There are more factors that influence the destruction of human life than the destruction of objects. Migration does not have a big influence on population increase when immigrants coming into a country die faster due to socioeconomic and environmental factors than citizens who had relatives living in the country for decades, or centuries; the most privileged will usually survive much longer than the lesser privileged. The lesser privileged will perpetually be in a cycle of destruction in a capitalist society. Capitalism inherently benefits the privileged and the interest of the wealthiest individuals. I interpret the military industrial complex to be the most consistent and powerful factor in decreasing the population in modern countries. As long as it is profitable, human life will be sacrificed for monetary gain. This influences world superpowers the most. I do not think it matters who runs the government; I care about who controls the fruits of war. I think it is the ultimate factor of destruction in this world.