this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
247 points (95.2% liked)

Political Memes

7916 readers
2317 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
 

How do these Natalists feel about the African continent?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 62 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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 42 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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 17 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

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

collapsed inline media

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Right, but this can be resolved with immigration.

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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.

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

I think their point is that you then have to rely on other populations to breed workers for you which in the long term is not sustainable.

I could be wrong though. I'm a soft anti-natalist myself, but I do think an aging population is going to cause problems.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theblips@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

If your population is declining and immigrants aren't even learning the language, it's not "multiculturalism", it's just handing the country over to another culture. Taking into account that progressive values are correlated with lower birthrates, and "regressive" ones are related to higher birthrates, are you comfortable with the consequences of this transition?
Are you sure that things like women's rights are going to stay the same in the long term by substituting the secular population with people raised with religious values associated with high birth rates, like indians, middle easterners, africans and so on? Are you sure material conditions will remain the same by substituting the working class with immigrants from countries with poor education systems, fresh off large scale political instability?

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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

Example: me, I want to do other stuff.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] peregrin5@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

This is Asia we're talking about. The land of robots. They'll be fine.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks 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).

[–] peregrin5@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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

Holy [citation needed], Batman!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If 10 dependents per 2 workers (6 kids, 4 elderly) didn't crash the country in 1950, then having more workers per dependent in 2040 won't either.

The only people who suffer from a population decline are the idle wealthy because their income comes from skimming profit from the workers.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

You keep bringing up the same point but do you plan on just letting seniors rot? We literally don't have the workers to care for the elderly AND run society. Demographic collapse is a real issue

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like a job for immigration.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago

Ideally, sure. SK would have to change a lot for that to work, and that does not happen in a hurry. As far as the US is concerned, :gestures_widely:

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

I too subscribe to Kurzgesagt!

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Europe is below 2 almost everywhere.