We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

Post by Diogenes »

Just saw an interesting post today with an equally interesting comment following it. It is an angle which I hadn't previously examined in detail. If it is correct (and it seems reasonably sound to me) then it bodes ill for the future of American and the Western world.

First a bit of the Article.



The welfare state’s dirty little secret is out

And it’s simple: with low birth rates, the young end up working to support the old, and then the state is likely to run out of money before their time comes to benefit.
The math doesn’t lie:

According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.


http://neoneocon.com/2010/05/24/the-wel ... ent-161722


Then the comment which is possibly more interesting.
Artfldgr Says:
May 24th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

Want to go back to where i explained how feminism is eugenics, and how open borders was to “hide the decline”?

i distinctly remember lots of people being offended and teling me the population isnt changing.

of course, we are also chaning demographically by intelligence, as the most intelligent women AND men no longer mate since women work, the smartest self extinct their family trees.

the whole of it is that we are living beings whose purpose is not what we want or think it should be, that is vanity.

bottom line… if you loko at the feminist leaders (all college bound women from the 1800s, and onward), you will find that they have exterminated the smartest family lines in favor of indescriminate rutting matting.. (which kind of makes the human selective woman into a, biatch of sorts)

but as i said… if you cant take the facts, then dont yell at me about the end results.

...


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Don't want to drink? I can't help that. All I can do is point out stuff.
Last edited by Diogenes on Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

And of course This:


Faber: Nations Will Print Money, Go Bust, Go to War…We Are Doomed

Image


Today the leading Austrian economic think tank, the Ludwig von Mises Institute held a conference at the University Club in Manhattan in which Marc Faber, famed contrarian investor and publisher of the “Gloom, Boom and Doom Report” gave his perspective on the financial crisis and his outlook for the future.
* Central banks will never tighten monetary policy again, merely print, print, print
* Bubbles used to be concentrated in 1 sector or region in the 19th century, but off of the gold standard this concentration has ended
* “The lifetime achievement of Greenspan and Bernanke is really that they created a bubble in everything…everywhere.”
* “Central banks love to see asset prices go up,” and their policy reflects their desperation to perpetuate this
* US housing bubble that Greenspan could not spot (even though he has recently spotted bubbles in Asia) stands in stark contrast to that of Hong Kong in 1997, where prices fell by 70%, yet none of the major developers went bankrupt; this was a result of a system not built on excessive debt like that of the US
* “You have to ask what they were smoking at the Federal Reserve,” during the housing bubble, as prices were increasing by 18% annually when interest rates started to steadily rise in 2004
* Over the last couple of years, when the gross increase in public debt has exceeded the gross decrease in private debt, markets have risen, whereas when private debt growth has outpaced public debt growth, markets have tanked
* The next 3-5 years will be highly volatile

http://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/0 ... re-doomed/

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

And this:


Dow Theorist Richard Russell: Sell Everything, You Won't Recognize America By The End Of The Year
Do your friends a favor. Tell them to "batten down the hatches" because there's a HARD RAIN coming. Tell them to get out of debt and sell anything they can sell (and don't need) in order to get liquid. Tell them that Richard Russell says that by the end of this year they won't recognize the country. They'll retort, "How the dickens does Russell know -- who told him?" Tell them the stock market told him.




http://www.businessinsider.com/dow-theo ... ear-2010-5

choff
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

I don't think the feminists are at all responsible for the declining birth rate. Rather, as Adam Smith pointed out, labour is a commodity that responds to supply and demand like everything else. Just look at a graph of unemployment going up and real wages going down over time, and you will see a corresponding decline in the birth rate. Kids are expensive, people have them when they can afford them.
CHoff

olivier
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Cherbourg, France

Post by olivier »

You may say whatever you like of the welfare state but please, do not blame it for the low birth rates.
Differences in fertility rates in Europe are best explained by the level of government support to day care (all kind: either non-profit or for profit, at home or in kindergarten,).Like it or not, a high level of support leads to a high fertility rate (2.0 in France, where government support to families existed way before the invention of socialism), a low level to low fertility (1.3 in Spain, Germany and Italy).
It is not really influenced by religion or culture (compare Italy and France) nor a matter of women's employment rate: Italy has the lowest women's employment rate and the lowest fertility rate in Europe.
Last edited by olivier on Fri May 28, 2010 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The socialists here in Europe have been doing a great job at making procreation undesireable. That is not a problem of the wellfare system itself, but of them discouraging it in media and elsewhere. It is "uncool" to have children.
The wellfare system has little to do with though, since foreigners that come to Austria love it and procreate like bunnies. Turkish families here usually have 8 children plus and when nature says "You are done woman, no more kids for you", they get in vitro fertilization.

If you are to argue that our people need to have more kids to survive, the socialists here will emmediately come with the fascism club! "You must not promote having kids, because that is what the Nazis did!!"

olivier
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Cherbourg, France

Post by olivier »

The Austrian way of life or the fresh air of the Alps must be boosting the birth rate within the Turkish families. 8)
To be serious, it is true that immigrants have more kids. In France, the increase in fertility due to immigrants accounts for .1 of the 2.0 fertility rate. No big deal.
Having said that, the largest population of immigrants in France comes from Algeria. Algeria's fertility rate (1.8 ) is lower than that of France(2.0). The same for Turkey (1.9).
There are many clichés about demography and immigration. Never forget how immigration was beneficial to the USA and made it the country with the highest population growth rate in the world, far beyond China or India. This was true in the 19th century, and even more so in the 20th.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The issue is that the people that immigrate to Austria from Turkey usually come from rural and poor areas like Anatolia. Since Austria does not have a more selective immigration policy as the US has (something I have been promoting), we get... well lets say we get those that are less educated (and more religiously fanatic) than the average population in Turkey. These elements are those that have the most children in Turkey as well.
I suspect that the same is true for France as well.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

choff wrote:I don't think the feminists are at all responsible for the declining birth rate. Rather, as Adam Smith pointed out, labour is a commodity that responds to supply and demand like everything else. Just look at a graph of unemployment going up and real wages going down over time, and you will see a corresponding decline in the birth rate. Kids are expensive, people have them when they can afford them.

Not sure if you read the comment all the way through, but I think the man's point is, that is how we do things now. That is not how we used to do things. At the beginning of the 20th century, folks didn't plan to have or not have kids. They simply did what they did, and the kids happened.

The man's point seems to be that Feminism changed this. The notion that people could CHOOSE to have children made it possible for the more sensible people to inadvertently atrophy their family line, while the reckless and irresponsible are not affected at all.

Did you ever see the movie "Idiocracy"? The premise of the movie is sort of what the fellow is getting at.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:The socialists here in Europe have been doing a great job at making procreation undesireable. That is not a problem of the wellfare system itself, but of them discouraging it in media and elsewhere. It is "uncool" to have children.
The wellfare system has little to do with though, since foreigners that come to Austria love it and procreate like bunnies. Turkish families here usually have 8 children plus and when nature says "You are done woman, no more kids for you", they get in vitro fertilization.

If you are to argue that our people need to have more kids to survive, the socialists here will emmediately come with the fascism club! "You must not promote having kids, because that is what the Nazis did!!"

That admonition is not specific to the Nazis. It has always been Catholic Doctrine, probably because the Church rightfully recognized that population is power, and the more adherents, the more influence.

That dynamic has not changed yet. Those who's population is increasing will eventually attain the upper hand, while those who's population is declining will eventually become absorbed or pushed out, and you are right about how Media and the intelligentsia are constantly discouraging the normal nuclear family. Feminism, Promiscuity, Abortion, Gay acceptance, Euthanasia, Hatred of Religion, etc. Everything seems to be pushing in the direction of death, and the absence of life. (So does their fiscal policies.)

As Reagan said: "That is so foolish, only an intellectual would believe it." Poor people cannot afford such ridiculous indulgences. They have children and create families. Europeans have forgotten what it takes to survive.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

That dynamic has not changed yet. Those who's population is increasing will eventually attain the upper hand, while those who's population is declining will eventually become absorbed or pushed out, and you are right about how Media and the intelligentsia are constantly discouraging the normal nuclear family.
I am in agreement with that.
Feminism, Promiscuity, Abortion, Gay acceptance, Euthanasia, Hatred of Religion, etc. Everything seems to be pushing in the direction of death, and the absence of life. (So does their fiscal policies.)
You are sounding like a texan priest here. I cant agree with that, at least not completely.
There is a reason why I hate religion. Among other things, the catholics caused lots of pain in my country, also to my family.
I also KNOW that it is wrong. Why should I like/defend something that is built on false data?

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
That dynamic has not changed yet. Those who's population is increasing will eventually attain the upper hand, while those who's population is declining will eventually become absorbed or pushed out, and you are right about how Media and the intelligentsia are constantly discouraging the normal nuclear family.
I am in agreement with that.
Feminism, Promiscuity, Abortion, Gay acceptance, Euthanasia, Hatred of Religion, etc. Everything seems to be pushing in the direction of death, and the absence of life. (So does their fiscal policies.)

You are sounding like a texan priest here. I cant agree with that, at least not completely.
A Texan Priest Huh? :) Did you never go to a church where they warned you constantly that all the stuff which is happening now was going to happen? It was a constant theme in every church that I've been to. (Methodist, Church of God, Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, Several flavors of Baptist) The consistency was that the forces of darkness behave in certain ways, and those ways are predictable. Blood, Death, Pestilence, Mockery of all things good, twisted and unnatural acts, hatred of God and Religion, debauchery, foolishness, etc.

The funny thing was, that is what is happening now. It is no accident that this stuff so closely aligns with religious descriptions of evil. Now you can chose to believe in the supernatural, or you can perceive a pattern at work here. I repeatedly refer to the invisible hand of economics having a moral equivalent, that for the lack of a better term, we can call the hand of "God." In actuality, the consequences are the typical results of this sort of behavior, and it just appears as though there is a mind at work behind the scenes. I think the pioneers of religious thought stumbled upon either by accident or clever thinking, a methodology for convincing the public to live lives that are better for everyone. They discovered that the public is more than willing to accept notions of Deities, and can be cowed into silence if they should ever try to challenge the ideas.

Till now.

Unfortunately, those who have become bright enough and free enough to challenge the theory of "God", haven't become bright enough to realize that the rules of "God" are the lynchpins which hold civilization together.

Break the rules, and the consequences are inevitable. Whether they be from God or from a human genetic chain reaction, will make no difference to the victims.

Skipjack wrote: There is a reason why I hate religion. Among other things, the catholics caused lots of pain in my country, also to my family.

The Catholics, at one time, were the most powerful religious population on the planet, and still today wield great influence. They did a lot of things that were later considered to be wrong. I hate to go down this road, but others have pointed to the Protestant Reformation as the trigger for the age of enlightenment. Maybe, Maybe not. In any case, the Catholics have done, and are still doing much good in the world. Objectively, it very likely overbalances those things which they did which were wrong.
Skipjack wrote: I also KNOW that it is wrong. Why should I like/defend something that is built on false data?
Because it works, and it is better than the alternative. It is human nature to look for patterns in things. My family and I were never particularly religious. For me, church was an occasional thing. For years, I believed what they told me, but I always pondered religious stuff that didn't make sense. Eventually, I concluded that it cannot possibly work that way, so I decided to ponder how it actually does work. I've come up with answers that make sense to me, and so I operate in accordance with my working hypothesis. Religion acts as a curb against individualistic selfish impulses by pitting human urge against human fear in each individual person. By setting people up as their own guardian they insure that most people's baser nature has some sort of check.

If secular fear alone was used (as in people will punish you for killing someone) then the mind responds, "But only if I get caught!" It leaves open the idea of killing as long as one can get away with it. With an omnipresent "God" watching you all the time, you can never get away with it, so you put the idea out of your mind, Which benefits you (something can go wrong) and benefits the community in which you live. (fewer people are getting murdered. One of them might be you! :) )

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

choff wrote:I don't think the feminists are at all responsible for the declining birth rate. Rather, as Adam Smith pointed out, labour is a commodity that responds to supply and demand like everything else. Just look at a graph of unemployment going up and real wages going down over time, and you will see a corresponding decline in the birth rate. Kids are expensive, people have them when they can afford them.
It is not quite as clear as that.

The poor and the rich have kids. The middle class dies out.

I have a family of 4

#1 - boy - still finding himself
#2 - boy - Off to Russia to teach English for a year
#3 - boy - 4th year (Sept) EE
#4 - girl - 2nd year (Sept) Chem Engr

Not too shabby. If everyone followed my example..... we'd have too many engineers.

I must say that school is way too expensive. and except for labs - unnecessary.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Gay acceptance,
I don't know how this makes any difference. As in so what? You are eliminating some families where the wife and kids are just a cover. Seems like that would improve families. BTW birthrates are in decline in almost every country in the world.

Darwin says - there will be a tendency from today's population for the genetics to drift to women who in good economic circumstances are willing to take the budget hit and have more kids.

There was a science-fact article in Analog about 25 or 35 years ago that predicted the demographic collapse (i.e. only the poor and rich can afford children).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
Gay acceptance,
I don't know how this makes any difference. As in so what? You are eliminating some families where the wife and kids are just a cover.
I think the gay slang term is "beard." You don't know how this makes any difference? Surely there must have been SOME reason why the bible condemns this behavior, and why society has affirmed this condemnation throughout history?

It's about death.

MSimon wrote: Seems like that would improve families. BTW birthrates are in decline in almost every country in the world.
Well, China has actively been forcing it down. Many third world countries have declining populations due to killings and diseases, so the birth rate would have to suffer as a result. Russia is suffering from a more severe case of what ails Western Europeans, and many Arab countries are taking advantage of the idiotic liberal immigration policies in Europe, and are pulling out of their home countries.

MSimon wrote: Darwin says - there will be a tendency from today's population for the genetics to drift to women who in good economic circumstances are willing to take the budget hit and have more kids.

Or those who have more kids because other people are paying for the care and upkeep thereof. Thank you Uncle Sam! No wonder the middle class can't afford kids. They have to pay subsidies to the poor class having kids.
MSimon wrote: There was a science-fact article in Analog about 25 or 35 years ago that predicted the demographic collapse (i.e. only the poor and rich can afford children).
The poor aren't paying their own bills, and they will have kids whether they can afford them or not. This is why I have been a persistent advocate of this draconian idea.

If the STATE pays for your childbirth, you will be reverseably sterilized. So will the father.

This is exactly what we ought to do, and it's exactly what we should have been doing all along, but it's never going to happen. Perhaps when times get hard enough and people start to hurt to the point of despair, then maybe they will think a little more clearly.

Post Reply