High Weirdness in the Himalayas

[Fat Cat]

It boils down to "might makes right".

Populations moved in, fucked up the local populations, and took over. This is SOP during homo sapiens history. As far as other hominids? Homo Sapiens were flat out more adaptable to more conditions and circumstances

The neanderthal were stable for 100000s of thousands of years but didn't fuck up the world like us.

Exactly. Which is why the idea of laying down and thinking of England while the Turd World moves in is beyond stupid, it's suicidal.

[nafod]

It boils down to "might makes right".

Populations moved in, fucked up the local populations, and took over. This is SOP during homo sapiens history. As far as other hominids? Homo Sapiens were flat out more adaptable to more conditions and circumstances

The neanderthal were stable for 100000s of thousands of years but didn't fuck up the world like us.

Exactly. Which is why the idea of laying down and thinking of England while the Turd World moves in is beyond stupid, it's suicidal.

The solution is breeding, Fats. How many kids have you had so far?

[Fat Cat]

Spoken like a true rabbit, imagining quantity could ever be preferable to quality. I'm not here to churn out yeast.

[nafod]

Spoken like a true rabbit, imagining quantity could ever be preferable to quality. I'm not here to churn out yeast.

Who are going to be the soldiers, sailors, police, meat packing plant workers, fast food servers, etc., of the future? They will be needed, and immigrants will fill the slots left vacant by whites having children at below replacement rate.

[Fat Cat]

Spoken like a true rabbit, imagining quantity could ever be preferable to quality. I'm not here to churn out yeast.

Who are going to be the soldiers, sailors, police, meat packing plant workers, fast food servers, etc., of the future?

Your kids.

[nafod]

Spoken like a true rabbit...

[Bennyonesix1]

Spoken like a true rabbit, imagining quantity could ever be preferable to quality. I'm not here to churn out yeast.

Who are going to be the soldiers, sailors, police, meat packing plant workers, fast food servers, etc., of the future? They will be needed, and immigrants will fill the slots left vacant by whites having children at below replacement rate.

Really curious as to your thoughts about why whites and every other racial group rapidly drops to below replacement when they wmigrate to US? And ortho jews and amish and mennonites aren't races.

[nafod]

Spoken like a true rabbit, imagining quantity could ever be preferable to quality. I'm not here to churn out yeast.

Who are going to be the soldiers, sailors, police, meat packing plant workers, fast food servers, etc., of the future? They will be needed, and immigrants will fill the slots left vacant by whites having children at below replacement rate.

Really curious as to your thoughts about why whites and every other racial group rapidly drops to below replacement when they wmigrate to US? And ortho jews and amish and mennonites aren't races.

The best way to reduce the number of kids people have, is to raise their standard of living.

[Bennyonesix1]

Sententious and non-responsive as usual.

What's the mechanism?

Are you actually satisfied with that kind of answer?

So you just note the first comfy correlation and then move on irl?

[nafod]

Fluoridation of the water?

[Bennyonesix1]

Fluoridation of the water?

Yet another regime loyalist afraid to even discuss let alone defend the ruling ideology.

It's all so tiresome.

[nafod]

[SubClaw]

Spoken like a true rabbit, imagining quantity could ever be preferable to quality. I'm not here to churn out yeast.

Who are going to be the soldiers, sailors, police, meat packing plant workers, fast food servers, etc., of the future? They will be needed, and immigrants will fill the slots left vacant by whites having children at below replacement rate.

[Bennyonesix1]

Double

[Bennyonesix1]

What it shows to me is that there are three sections. Which might very well have similar characteristics of more explanatory power. A group at the very very lowest GDP (with various values) of very high TFR and a group of very high GDP states with collapsing TFR. It looks like the middle section has a slight positive relation between GDP and TFR.

And it is a snapshot. You'd have to show GDP of each country over time and the relative change of TfR to show that GDP itself is correlated to TFR in the way we're discussing it.

But let's assume the correlation is there. And that it is strong. What's the mechanism? Which is what you know I've been asking all along.

I'm also curious how you explain what looks like the majority of the poorest countries being mostly in the same TFR band as the wealthier ones.

Also, why specifically did Russia experience demographic collapse and suffer TFR collapse at the same time? And here again I mean what is the mechanism?

Btw thanks for the guffaw when I looked at the very top left dot.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

There is another axis on that graph

I can't really describe it more that 'putting your eggs in few baskets'. In third world countries? Kids and babies die. Kids and babies have died in huge percentages up until the 'modern age of medicine'.

So in Niger, you, as a woman, might have 8 kids, with 2 reaching adulthood. In the US you might have 2 kids, with 2 reaching adulthood.

Where it gets odd is in those countries who have some religious component saying the practicioners have to have more and more kids. This can be seen in the "Quiverfull" movement among the political Pentecostals in the US.

[Bennyonesix1]

There is another axis on that graph

I can't really describe it more that 'putting your eggs in few baskets'. In third world countries? Kids and babies die. Kids and babies have died in huge percentages up until the 'modern age of medicine'.

So in Niger, you, as a woman, might have 8 kids, with 2 reaching adulthood. In the US you might have 2 kids, with 2 reaching adulthood.

Where it gets odd is in those countries who have some religious component saying the practicioners have to have more and more kids. This can be seen in the "Quiverfull" movement among the political Pentecostals in the US.

It's obviously a multi-faceted problem, and those are all good points.

In a larger sense, I think the question is: how do different groups of people view children? And then you gotta ask if that can change and to what extent it can change and what causes rhe change.

And of course this is effected by things like geography, race, religion, ideology and economic system.

I'd take issue with the description of "odd" for those groups who view the purpose of children primarily as non-economic. Either in the sense of just not thinking about cost-benefit or having some specific non-economic purpose in mind. That seems to have been the default position in history for the majority.

To me, it seems that the TFR drops when a civilization reaches a certain point of internal logical development and continues to drop as the civilization follows that development further on. That point being a level of abstract self-understanding at which the purpose of the civilization is lost.

And I think we see that TFR declines with the extent of adoption of the dominant civilization of today.

Whatever the answer, I think attributing it to "standard of living" or "having more money" or being in a locale with a "higher gdp" is silly.

[nafod]

In high gdp countries, most people work off from the farm, they don't need the child labor, social safety nets mean you don't have to live with your kids, etc.

Theories behind this include:

People earning more have a higher opportunity cost if they focus on childbirth and parenting rather than their continued career[10]

Women who can economically sustain themselves have less incentive to become married.[10]

Higher-income parents value quality over quantity and so spend their resources on fewer children.[10]

B16, have you seen Idiocracy?

[Bennyonesix1]

In high gdp countries, most people work off from the farm, they don't need the child labor, social safety nets mean you don't have to live with your kids, etc.

Theories behind this include:

People earning more have a higher opportunity cost if they focus on childbirth and parenting rather than their continued career[10]

Women who can economically sustain themselves have less incentive to become married.[10]

Higher-income parents value quality over quantity and so spend their resources on fewer children.[10]

B16, have you seen Idiocracy?

Yep. It was funny. I remember thinking he had the phenomenon correct but the mechanism wrong but I don't remember exactly why. I saw it when it came out. IQs are definitely dropping. All you have to do is read some books written in the 1890's to 1920's. Even the modal popular history book is impressive and eloquent.

[Bennyonesix1]

In high gdp countries, most people work off from the farm, they don't need the child labor, social safety nets mean you don't have to live with your kids, etc.

Theories behind this include:

People earning more have a higher opportunity cost if they focus on childbirth and parenting rather than their continued career[10]

Women who can economically sustain themselves have less incentive to become married.[10]

Higher-income parents value quality over quantity and so spend their resources on fewer children.[10]

B16, have you seen Idiocracy?

To me those reasons read like symptoms of societal collapse. People living in an economic region and not a civilization. Though, to be fair I read a scholar on China argue that is the very definition of civilization.

Yep I saw Idiocracy. It was funny. I remember thinking he had the phenomenon correct but the mechanism wrong but I don't remember exactly why. I saw it once when it came out. IQs are definitely dropping. All you have to do is read some books written in the 1890's to 1920's. Even the modal popular history book is impressive and eloquent.