Birth rates are failing worldwide and it’s because every country has some moronic dickhead making people’s lives miserable for some idiotic reason or another while in reality it’s all just for money but not to misunderstand it’s not for us it’s so they can get more and more and more and more money.
I wonder why everybody is still voting for right wing asshats that very much like to mingle with corporate power.
Well, falling birth rates is actually a good thing. It’s sustainable. It’s necessary. But I enjoyed the rest of your rant.
Don’t look at what Putin says. Look at what he does. He is killing russians fast and rapidly lowering the birthrate with a cohesive policy of enshittification.
Ecological overshoot, of which climate change is a major component of puts the worlds food supply at risk on a growing planet now at 8.2B and growing. World leaders know it’s crunch time soon. That is why the whole world is rearming and armies are marching.
Russian wants fewer mouths to feed and wants Ukraines rich chernozem soils as having a breadbasket under your control will be a strategic resource on a very hungry planet.
Edit: This is a shitpost.
Edit 2: It’s also why they are antix vax, and anti quarrentine. Trick people into wiping out as many as possible through disease, so you don’t have to do it through less palatable means.
A shitpost? That’s the most accurate assessment I’ve seen in a while.
Unvarnished truth, even partial truth, is undeniably provocative and low effort, thus a shitpost. Lies are always more convoluted and palatable.
So when birth rates were falling in every developed country ever since the post-WW2 boom, it was because Europe and the US all had moronic dickheads as leaders?
Yes.
Oh really? And not because in highly urbanized and developed countries it makes more sense to invest time and money into better education and family life for fewer children?
I elect this guy as president of earth. This guy gets it.
The war he started sure seems like a great idea if the idea is to maintain a healthy population level. Why does anybody listen to what politicians or business says? Isn’t population reduction a good thing for the environment, surely that must be among our most pressing concerns right now?
Remember, the minimum age of a soldier can be as low as zero.
Below a certain age, they’re technically more a projectile
Or a sandbag.
Or an MRE.
Trump heard it and said I’m in.
What a nobel concept.
“Breed the children before we kill them in the battlefield”.
Trump and Epstein were ahead of the curve
Industrialized raping of children. Wow.
Removed by mod
Meatwave supply failing.
Unless you have something like a WW1->22 year gap->WW2 situation, it’s not going to be a factor. You cannot convert infants into soldiers that quickly. Plus, raising kids consumes resources, near-term. If he managed to get every single child-bearing-age woman in Russia pregnant this year, Russia might have a lot more human capital down the line, but until the kids are in the workforce, they’re a resource drain, not a source of more resources. He probably doesn’t need more of a drain on resources in the war.
He can maybe try to start to shape Europe for conflict a couple of decades down the line, but even then, it won’t be this war, and he probably won’t be alive to see it. The man is 73.
If the teenagers have kids early, he can send the teenage father to war, and the death of the father will not have any effect on the birth rate.
You might get more births, but the problem is that it’s hard to both be a mother and be going through education, and you are putting a lot of your economic output at stake if you aren’t educating your females, because they’re half of your population.
I’d still do it in a society if there were no other working options to maintain a population, but I think that it’s liable to be very costly.
I’d be a lot more willing to (a) try to structure society to encourage births immediately post-education and (b) to shift more childrearing responsibility onto the state and have situations where there’s a greater ratio of children to adults in childrearing, like more of a daycare/boarding school type structure on steroids.
Those are going to have their own drawbacks. Sparta separated mothers from children at a pretty young age and had the state raise them. Israel’s kibbutzim movement tried communal childrearing, but it failed.
There’s obviously going to be risks inherent in reducing the role of the family structure.
But trying to roll things back…
You have to ask whether those risks rise to the very substantial portion of your GDP that you’re liable to be risking if you wind up seriously clobbering female education. We did used to have much higher fertility rates, younger mothers, larger families. So we know that we can very probably achieve higher birthrates that way if you roll things back. But we also used to have a much-less-educated female population, didn’t have that output. It’s not at all clear to me that you can achieve the fertility via that route without also sacrificing the education and the attendant economic output. If you blow something like half of your economic output on this and it turns out that you didn’t need to do so to bring demographics back into a sustainable state, it’ll be a lifetime before you can restructure society to get that output back.
Honest question: does teen marriage equate to more teen fucking?
Marriage generally lowers the amount of fucking.
You’re telling me…
I’m going to guess that it does, at least in Russia.
Catholicchurch has plenty of power there and they can pretty heavily push agenda for getting children as soon as you’re married. And, I’d guess, at the same time government can pinky promise all kinds of support for young families (financial, daycare, healthcare…).So, assuming they push this trough, it might have some kind of effect for the population decline. Obviously it’ll take quite some time until effects are seen on workforce, but in statistics that can show up (at least in theory) pretty quickly.
Catholic church has power in Russia? Whatever you’re smoking, you need to lay off it.
My bad, I meant whatever flavour of religion is popular over there has plenty of power (at least as long it aligns with Putin and friends).
The Orthodox church is still fairly weak after having been obliterated by the Soviets
Eh, the patriarch is buddy-buddy with Pu, plus there’s yet another personal ‘spiritual advisor’. The church isn’t shy about advocating for whatever the government’s course is, including the war. Land and large sums of money are given to the church to build church buildings every few blocks and on parklands. The Ministry of Defence had a humongous cathedral built on the outskirts of Moscow. Pu and the clique stop just short of pronouncing Russia an Orthodox country, probably only because Muslims constitute a large portion of the populace.
Note also that Christianity was never really ‘obliterated’ in the USSR. Firstly, Stalin himself did a 180 during WW2 when he needed to unite the people against Germany, and the religion was used in propaganda as one such unifying sentiment among others. Then, people migrating in large masses from the rural areas never stopped worshipping: I’ve known some folks born before the WW2, who living in the city kept a whole array of icons and spent time praying each morning. Basically, the church bounced back pretty well.
