99

How do these Natalists feel about the African continent?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 week ago

Antinatalism what what - don't make fresh when plenty actual living kids need rescuing.

[-] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago

Adopt, don't ~~shop~~ breed!

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

I watched a video recently on how South Korea is pretty fucked because of their declining birth rate. 2.1 is fine by me.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

There is nothing bad about going back to a sustainable population level. The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly. When elderly die that frees up resources for the next generation making it even easier.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

The problem with declining population is the huge bubble pop you get when the population is mostly elderly people and few workers.

[-] blarghly@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Right, but this can be resolved with immigration.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Maybe in the west. Not in places like South Korea or Japan. Even if you got the populations to buy in to immigration 100%, you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.

English’s hegemony over the world makes immigration to non-English-speaking areas a huge problem. Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.

[-] Aoife@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

I mean you're presupposing that it's important to convince immigrants to learn the language. Maybe multiculturualism is okay actually

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Learning the local language is a survival skill. It doesn’t require forgetting your first language nor does it mean the end of your culture.

The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.

This implies that each of us is in charge of whether we are "second class" citizens or not. It's the people in power who control the social structure. They decide what "class" a person is. Immigrants are often attracted to their own communities not just for comfort and familiarity, but also for practical reasons. These communities step in where the government fails to. They help new arrivals find jobs, transport, and places to sleep/live. They enable people to have their basic needs met, in a country run by people who already think that poor immigrants aren't the same class/worthiness as they are.

It doesn't have to be this way. If the people in power gave a shit about the rest of us, if they truly wanted immigrants to thrive, they would build a social structure that actually enables that. Immigrant groups don't inherently limit their own economic opportunities - those limits are created by those who treat them as "less".

One last thing - to say that immigrants' "overall contribution to society" is "limited" by them being in their own communities, implies that any of the work done within those communities doesn't count as "contributing to society." It also implies that the jobs that are usually filled by immigrants, such as crop-picking and other agricultural work, are jobs that don't contribute enough to society. Yet I'd argue such people contribute more than many U.S.-born people I've met.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You’ve made a very vague statement without any substance, sorry. “People in power” are not the reason a person who does not speak the language spoken in an office finds it difficult to get a job in that office. Language barriers make communication (and therefore collaboration) difficult or even impossible. It is no one’s fault that language barriers exist but immigrants without the necessary language skills are at a disadvantage.

If there’s anyone to blame, it’s the people in power in the home country of the immigrants who created the conditions where immigration into such a disadvantaged situation is preferable to remaining at home.

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.

Do we? The languages aren't that hard, people learn languages all the time especially if they move.

Just make it a requirement for citizenship, offer classes, etc. I'm picking up 2 languages right now, 1 for work and 1 for my new home in Europe. The human brain does things.

Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.

Ok, so I actually speak some french (from school), and that's not about it not being English, it's just that French is a shit language to push for no reason.

Tell Quebec to switch to Spanish, everyone will be happier.

[-] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

Most people don't want to learn another language they want to do other stuff.

Example: me, I want to do other stuff.

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

If you already know French, can you get an “in” immigration wise?

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah but no more of an “in” than knowing English. Immigration policy is controlled by the federal government which only cares if you know one of the two official languages of the country (or not).

[-] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago

That's not a solution, that's just outsourcing the childbirth

[-] blarghly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Outsourcing is a solution.

[-] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

If the original goal (as stated) is maintaining sustainable population levels, not really, since that implies maintaining the same population level, just outsourcing part of the childbirth (and potentially raising and education)

[-] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Immigration isn’t ‘outsourcing childbirth’, it’s investing in the future of our country. People who come here, build lives, and raise families contribute just as much to our communities as anyone born here. Their children are American in every meaningful way. That’s not a loophole, that’s the foundation of our nation. If we start drawing lines around who counts as a 'real' solution based on origin, we’re moving away from what has always made America strong.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly

Holy [citation needed], Batman!

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Cost to raise 1 child is $350k including college.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-240000/

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

Average nursing home cost is $120k/yr and people live on average 2 years in a nursing home.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2945440/

2 parents working

6 kids = $2.1m 4 grandparents = $960k

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

So you're comparing the cost of 18 years' worth of child-rearing (or 22 years' worth including college) to an up-to-$120k per year cost of supporting an elderly person, and aren't even bothering to consider anything but the last two years?

In what fantasy world is $15,900/year ($350k/22 years) somehow more than the annual cost of living for a senior citizen—even a healthy and independent one‽

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 week ago

The mean age of decedents was 83.3

That mean they on average, were put into the nursing house at 81yo. Do you think people retire at 80yo or what?

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Until then they require less resources than a child. They don't need $15k a year in public resources for schooling.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

True, but the lack of productive workers and the thinned tax base will crash the country while it all balances out. Only way to make a smooth transition is to slaughter the elderly, which is largely what will happen, just not on purpose.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 0 points 1 week ago
[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The video ignores the other side of the economic cost: the number of workers needed to support raising a child.

It costs more to raise a child than to care for elderly. Without child care costs there is a surplus to care for elderly.

Claiming South Korea is doomed because right now population growth is .8x is as ridiculous as those claiming South Korea was doomed in 1950 because at 6x population growth, everyone would starve in 50 years. Populations grow and contract to match their environment.

When the population has decreased to sustainable levels, individuals will have the free resources to raise children again.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

The thing that colors babies is melanin

[-] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

And a lot of other things if you paint them with it

[-] perishthethought@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a policy paradigm or personal value that promotes the reproduction of human life as an important objective of humanity and therefore advocates a high birthrate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism

[-] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The 14 Words: The New Generation.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
99 points (97.1% liked)

Political Memes

7852 readers
2182 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS