fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4268 ]

[ SECRET POST #4268 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4268 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #611.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't understand how articles in the press can make it sound like both of these things are an issue simultaneously.

Is it just a big govt thing, that if populatiosn in "first world" countries don't continue to grow, they won't be able to service the greedy policies of subsidizing the rich and banks?

Personally I'm all for populations slowly declining; that's better than wars and plagues. Just learn how to take care of aging populations better, don't act like it's the end of the world if your country changes in time. Things have been changing forever and will continue to do so whatever hand wringing govt's do.

Also it's usually their own fault because of policies that hurt the average person in their twenties and makes them want to put off having kids, or move to a better place, etc.

And if it's really about "the white race" declining, then they can go to hell. I've had enough of that racist, imperialistic bullshit for a lifetime.

Either support policies and changes that help younger people have a steadier place in the economy and more time and less stress, or get used to people having fewer kids. Pick one, assholes.

Just learn how to take care of aging populations better,

The basic challenge of depopulation is that taking care of the elderly becomes increasingly expensive as there's more and more of them, and at the same time there's a smaller and smaller base of working adults with which to support them. That's the whole issue, it's not just a question of "figure it out". The demographics are difficult.

It's not an unsolvable problem but that's the basic issue.

Pay people more for the sorts of jobs that help old people survive and have a dignified life?

But obviously, govt seem to think jobs in "finance" and bullshit stuff that "grows the economy" are far more valuable.

I'm not saying you're wrong, that it's easy, but I do think there's too much of a blinkered reliance on growing the economy at all costs and with a lot of shady business practices that don't help anyone.

Looking after old people is at least a real thing. Yes, it's service economy but it's certainly a pretty important job and even if it took up a much larger percentage of the work force, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if it was well paid and provided a living, not poverty wages.

It's just the kind of thing that puts stress on an economy, even if you pay workers enough to ensure that everyone gets care. It's a distortion.

Another obvious solution here, of course, is immigration. But that's a whole nother story.

Well, I suppose. There are certainly a lot of distortions already, though. I don't think that's the one where we should draw the line.

Also: supporting policies and financial help for families to take care of their own elders for as long as it's reasonable would ease that. Child allowances can ease the burden of having children on poor people (in countries where they do this), and the same principles could ease the burdens on society and families with elders who need extra care but not full time nurse care. Just some thoughts.

On a environmental scale, fewer people living/being born high on the hog in a rich white westerner way is good for the planet. And as the global standard of living improves, more people get the chance to love like well-off white westerners, which is good for them individually in a lot of ways, but could be bad for the planet. But fewer people to hold down jobs means the economy slows and also there might not be enough young people to take care of all the old people while simultaneously doing other jobs. If anyone with more knowledge/brains than me wants to chime in please do.

An added note. Is Republican antagonism to women having anything remotely basic in choice or health care that's not a "preexisting condition" and obsession with controlling access to birth control actually related to wanting to increase the population, especially a poor, desperate population that can be convinced joining the military is their only or best choice?

It's not about abortion to me, since I do understand easily the issues many, man people have with that, in different nuances and situations, but if not abortion, then birth control should be pretty much a priority, right? since i does prevent abortions?

Is Republican antagonism to women having anything remotely basic in choice or health care that's not a "preexisting condition" and obsession with controlling access to birth control actually related to wanting to increase the population, especially a poor, desperate population that can be convinced joining the military is their only or best choice?

Not consciously, I don't think (for the most part, outside of fringe Quiverfull types). There's some overlap - conservatives are perhaps more likely to see a larger population as a good thing because they see the extra people as a labor force, as consumers, as soldiers, and so are less likely to worry about overpopulation - but mostly, they pursue those policies because they think they're morally, socially, ideologically right.

Does the disconnect between "against abortion but also against birth control" not cause issues, though? My siblings and I were raised starkly Republican but none of us are against birth control. Abortion is always going to be a much thornier issue politically and culturally in this country, I think--at least for another generation, no matter what you believe. It's very hot button. But being against birth control just seems...weird to me. It lowers abortions. If abortion = murder, then preventing abortion should be the top goal, not "prevent access to birth control because I don't happen to like it."

The logic is that birth control leads to premarital sex and other kinds of moral laxity, which are Wrong, and cannot be permitted.

Surely Murder Is Worse Than Premarital Naughty Times.

The idea is that they're both simply wrong. It's not a utilitarian argument, it's an argument about moral principles and a moralistic point of view on governance and society in general.

I find that depressing because governance is supposed to be somewhat practical, not a thought exercise. It's regular people who suffer when it's all just "that sounds good" in the idea of rich / powerful people without caring how it affects reality.

remember, it's only premarital sex if you get married afterwards.

Never Marital Sex

I suppose the whole shotgun wedding does have some appeal to some repubs, but I'm not sure the young men of this generation would go for that lol.

It's not just the girls who don't want to get married at 18 and have a lot of kids and a dead end job.

Having married / committed parents is definitely good for kids, but not at *any* cost.

I suppose the whole shotgun wedding does have some appeal to some repubs, but I'm not sure the young men of this generation would go for that lol. It's not just the girls who don't want to get married at 18 and have a lot of kids and a dead end job.

They only think they don't want it because they've been brainwashed by the godless lieberal Hollywood elite Communist cultural Marxist California college professor media out in Hollywood and New York.

It was called shotgun wedding for a reason... Even back in the day before the "lieberals" "he" probably didn't want to be there. Her daddy was just making the choice a little more...persuasive.

I mean, I'm not saying that it's a correct explanation, by any means

Some people believe that hormonal birth control causes abortions by preventing implantation rather than conception [insert argument about when pregnancy technically begins here], or causing a miscarriage should the woman get pregnant anyway. I vaguely remember the Duggars taking this position. Something about Michelle going on the pill after her first child, but getting pregnant anyway and having a miscarriage.

Then there is the belief that any sex without the potential for baby-makin' is sinful. So, no birth control for you!

Let's give them that as a hundred percent correct. There are still different sorts of birth control, right???

Again, if the belief is Abortion=Murder, then things that prevent abortion should be encouraged. That means...some sort of effective, safe birth control.

Or do we just give up and say "We're the new Catholic church now, and the Pope says have more babies."

I think part of it is that a good economic situation is considered to be one where there's growth. If the population is declining, that limits growth. So, people who benefit from strong growth don't want that to change. Also, if the economy is assured not to grow, that may mean a lot of things about our economic, social, and political systems and that's a hard pill to swallow. It would be a lot of work, detrimental to anyone who benefits from the status quo (which isn't just people in power), and it would be very hard to sell to the public. Of course continued population growth is unsustainable, but dealing with the effects of a population plateau or decline is hard work ...for people who are not me 'cause I'm not in charge. :P

I guess people don't like change.

I think it's about time people stop pretending the status quo is working. Or that endless growth is possible.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4268 ]

depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation

Re: depopulation vs overpopulation