[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1627370860532.png ( 403.54 KB , 511x533 , boomer.png )

 No.404565

>With widespread, sustained declines in fertility, the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 – about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study. Improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility

>The modelling research uses data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 to project future global, regional, and national population. Using novel methods for forecasting mortality, fertility, and migration, the researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington's School of Medicine estimate that by 2100, 183 of 195 countries will have total fertility rates (TFR), which represent the average number of children a woman delivers over her lifetime, below replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. This means that in these countries populations will decline unless low fertility is compensated by immigration.


How will this effect politics? Will declining population lower the overall profit rate of capitalism? Will capitalism's ability to generate ever higher profits finally crap the bed when there aren't ever larger amounts of people for porky to use as workers and
>>

 No.404581

assuming this is true then basically yes.
Rate of profit line will go down and red until the next baby boom.
Sorel actually theorized having a 'birth strike' where people would collectively agree to stop having kids as basically a humanity wide mass suicide against capitalism.
>>

 No.404582

>>404581
absolutely based
>>

 No.404583

File: 1627372002060.jpg ( 166.62 KB , 612x505 , anprim my face.jpg )

>10 billion people in 2064
>he doesn't know
>>

 No.404594

>>404565
Declining population was great for 14th century proles, as there was little people to work and a lot of work to be done, so the standard of living increased for a few decades.
>>

 No.404596

>>404594
You should start with yourself
>>

 No.404598

>>404565
Good.
I'm not in favor of draconian population control but the people who think that it's fine to let humanity to grow to the planet's maximum possible capacity are retards. I don't want to live in a world where there's a human every three feet. I want unspoiled landscapes, I want nature to thrive, I want biodiversity, I want empty space. Obviously capitalism is a bigger threat to the environment than population growth, but it would be good to keep humanity at about the level it is now.
>>

 No.404603

>>404596
i am just talking about declining population due to lower birth rates

i didn't mean kiling people or being happy massive death is gonna happen due to environmental collapse
>>

 No.404610

>>404565
>This means that in these countries populations will decline unless low fertility is compensated by immigration.
IOW, this is why immigration is a good thing, and unless we increase quotas, we won't be able to compete with China.
Going to research funding of IHME, and probably not going to be surprised at who the grants come from.
>>

 No.405080

>>404565
Low TFR is the result of decline of capitalism. Rich folks breed like crazy. As capitalism gets increasingly damaged by China's socialism, TFR will rise to above 2.1 across the world.
>>

 No.405163

>>404565
>population goes up
malthusians: OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT EUGENICS
>population goes down
malthusians: OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT EUGENICS

Human society could easily handle 10 billion more or 6 billion fewer people, if it gradually transitioned into such a state. It would fuck with capitalism's need for growth and expanding the army of labor to produce more surplus value as the rate of profit goes down, but in a time span that long capitalism has much bigger problems than population
>>

 No.405167

Just restructure how society is organized to create a better system and likewise humanity will find a new way to organize itself in such a manner that people can keep having kids
>>

 No.405171

File: 1627406049920.png ( 3.74 MB , 2048x1536 , getinthecube.png )

>>

 No.405173

File: 1627406156271-0.png ( 65.92 KB , 1000x743 , 1033027.png )

File: 1627406156272-1.png ( 60.56 KB , 1000x743 , 1033074.png )

>>405080
>Low TFR is the result of decline of capitalism
the opposite is true
(inb4 muh postwar rebound: 1. it wasn't that big, 2. it started declining before neoliberalism hit.)
>>

 No.405186

>>404581
>a humanity wide mass suicide against capitalism.
You wouldn't even need to do mass suicide though. A long enough period of population decline should be enough to ruin capitalism since it shrinks the market, meaning that if you want to sell more shit you need the average person to buy more shit, meaning economic growth requires wage growth and that would collapse profit. Not like that alone would do it obviously, you'd still have to fight a revolution but this strategy in principle could be enough to precipitate a crisis fatal to capitalism as an economic engine. You'd then have to deal with the capitalist class waging more overt class war trying to force people to reproduce.
>>

 No.405202

>Yippie I get neo-Kaynesianism from the same underlying forces that caused the Reneisance boom which in practice means we kicked the can down for our great-grandchildren instead dealing with the capitalist shitshow ourselves!
Here's your socialism bro
>>

 No.405213

>>405202
as we know, the end of the renaissance and the collapse of keynesianism gave us actually existing socialism which lasted until recently, when we came to live under actually existing communism
>>

 No.405254

>>405213
>Collapse of Kaynesianism gave us AES
???
AES died 10 years after Kaynesianism was killed.
>>

 No.405259

File: 1627409934557.mp4 ( 1017.16 KB , 404x720 , laughingwaterfowl.mp4 )

>>405213
>actually existing socialism
rofl
>>

 No.405283

>>405254
that's the point
>>

 No.405299

>>404598
Madness
It should be reduced gradually to 2 billion and be maintained at that level
>>

 No.405306

File: 1627412069134.png ( 474.58 KB , 680x474 , F8hIAON.png )

Natalists BTFO
>>

 No.405312

How will this effect politics?
>Childfree tax, minor subsidies for ma/paternity
>Free(or almost) housing if you have at least a kid with your highschool sweetheart
>Anti-reproductive rights being favored by the elite, even "progressives".
>Ages of consent dropped to <=15 with the pretext of sex positivity
>Abortion bad, contraceptives shunned.
>Reclaiming womanhood IDPOL, the patriarchy wants you to be a butch anti-breeder sheep consumer. Own the patriarchy by breeding. Prove you can breed AND work to those sexists.
>Lots of unfortunate events(diseases, shortages, woopsie mass prescriptions…) to purge the retirees
>Extreme sexualizing of everything, including politics. Same old fucks but pretending to be playboys/thots
>Reproductive imperialism where imperialists demand tough Anti-reproductive rights laws and limits on contraception
>while keeping their cultural supremacy by turning these countries into wife/husband exporters.
>Mail order partners for everyone. Climate disasters and good old subversion keep the global south dependent, fertile(if shorter lived) and producing cheap labor.
>>

 No.405419

>>404610
>IOW, this is why immigration is a good thing, and unless we increase quotas, we won't be able to compete with China.
If no country can sustain its own population, then what country will be the net emigration country?
>>

 No.405423

>>405167
>Just restructure how society is organized to create a better system and likewise humanity will find a new way to organize itself in such a manner that people can keep having kids
Hmm… Reminds me of something… Can't just put my finger on it. I'm pretty sure that it was around for like 30 years after WW2. Hmm… What could it be?
>>

 No.405584

>>405312
>Reclaiming womanhood IDPOL, the patriarchy wants you to be a butch anti-breeder sheep consumer. Own the patriarchy by breeding. Prove you can breed AND work to those sexists.
wrong, a resurgence of tradwaifus is more likely. Working for women was never popular, only among middle and upper middle class white women with fulfilling careers in media, consulting, etc. Not working class women forced into low wage wage-slavery to augment their husband's decimated blue collar wages. 30-50% of women would easily prefer being housewives if economics allowed
>>

 No.407294

>>404565
Those who buck this trend will inherit the Earth.
>>

 No.407299

>>404565
Do these numbers assume a constant or diminishing death rate? Seems pretty optimistic especially because of serious ecological consequences of current industrial and agricultural production methods. I expect that the population will peak sooner than this.
>>

 No.407319

File: 1627492056095.mp4 ( 1017.14 KB , 404x720 , laughingwaterfowl.mp4 )

>>405259
>no sound
hmm does my version work?
>>

 No.407359

No, the bourgeoisie are openly announcing their intention to exterminate us.
>>

 No.407382

>>404565

The rate of profit is expected to reach 0 by ~2050 because the contradictions of capitalism. Rising age and declining fertility is one of the factors that will result in capitalism's contradictions becoming too much. At that point, the elite oligrachs will become overlords and we will live in a feudal society. serfs living on our trillionaire master's lands. Income inequality will have reached a point where the 1% own 99% of the world's wealth.
>>

 No.407410

I remember reading a PEW research that found that earth can sustain around 10 billion
>>

 No.407518

>>407382
>2050
Where did you get that from? From what I've heard based on calculations the rate of profit will hit zero in like 2180.
>>

 No.408109

>>404581
Rate of profit is tied to the individual level of consumption and the cost of production of items to be consumed.

If the population drops, the rate of consumption remains static. Because the amount an individual consumes will remain more or less the same regardless of overall population size. You will still eat, have clothes, live in a house, and want luxuries regardless of how big you town/city is.

If the population drops then the rate of production can either drop or rise depending on the level of automation in primary and secondary industries.

If there is a low level of automation then the cost of production will remain static, because while there will be fewer workers , they will be less demand for products , so the workload and pay of a worker will remain more or less the same.

But if there is a moderate to high level of automation then the cost of production could remain static or perhaps even fall. Since machines don't need to be paid as much as workers (high initial cost / life of machine is less than the cost of wages)

In the first scenario of a roughly static rate consumption and production costs then profits will remain static. falling demand is met with an equal fall in demand resulting in no change.

In the second scenario where the individual rate of consumption remains the same, but the cost of production remains static or falls could result in the rate of profit could remaining static or even rising.
>>

 No.409041

>>405163
>Human society could easily handle 10 billion more or 6 billion fewer people, if it gradually transitioned into such a state.
Only with a massive social change, which many nations are completely unwilling to make or even tolerate.
More people on top of each other would require massive improvements to mental healthcare, empathy, social awareness and so on.

It's not enough to just feed the hungry.
You also have to make them happy enough, which includes convincing them that their black/trans/autistic/male/Australian neighbor isn't out to get them, that bans on expressions of freedom of speech like shouting n-words in the middle of the night are socially desirable and so on.

Right now, a great deal of the world is moving away from this direction.
It may require a sort of "nation selection", where based and redpilled nations go down in flames, while cucked and bluepilled ones create good times.
>>

 No.409066

we unironically wont need females by 2050

also idgaf tbh if we have less good if we have more also good but not the current shit
>>

 No.409099

>>409066
>we unironically wont need females by 2050
Would be nice, but almost all plans that go this far into the future turn out to be completely off the target.

Even if you are a misogynist, it's still a good idea to support women's right in this case, because many women don't want to be pregnant and would love to be able to get a child from a pod that does the pregnancy for them.
>>

 No.409114

>>409099
why would you breed woman? they're biological dead end (once we have the device)
>>

 No.409126

>>409114
bold of you to assume artifical insemination is impossible but artificial gestation is possible. if men want to eliminate all women and women want to eliminate all men then maybe we should just start breeding enbies to save the human species
>>

 No.409127

>>409126
at the end of the day women are too stupid to run anything, they're breeding machines, thus replacing them with the device is only logical

maybe reactionaries that love that traditional lifestyle can find some island, we will build a wall for free for them

based national reserve
>>

 No.409129

>>409114
Because we don't have the device yet and supporting intermediate solutions is more likely to end up giving us the final solution than not supporting them.
There are many women who want to "stop being women" when it comes to reproduction.

Going against rights of women has a chance of boosting the status of gender essentialist retards like fascists or TERFs.
If those take over, artificial gestation will be declared degeneracy/misogyny, because it erases the "nature" of women and replaces it with jewish/patriarchal machinery.
>>

 No.409130

>>409127
>at the end of the day women are too stupid to run anything, they're breeding machines
this really shiggied my diggies
>>

 No.409144

>>409114
even if you can gestate people in a pod, you still need to maintain the biological ability to reproduce "naturally", for several reasons.
Reason number one: is political, so that controlling the gestation pods doesn't turn into a key for power.
Reason number two: long term contingency to still be able to survive as a species in case your technology breaks.
Reason number three: technically you are a life form if you can't reproduce, you would just be like a biological drone that the gestation pod produces to do pod maintenance and repair, this isn't just some theoretical problem, but over a long time there would be a evolutionary selection process acting on gestation pods to reshape humans into a tool that maximizes pod survival and pod reproduction.
>>

 No.409149

>>409144
>technically you are a life form if you can't reproduce
technically you are not a life form if you can't reproduce
>>

 No.409163

>>409144
>over a long time there would be a evolutionary selection process acting on gestation pods to reshape humans into a tool that maximizes pod survival and pod reproduction
Nothing wrong with that.
>Reason number two: long term contingency to still be able to survive as a species in case your technology breaks.
Only if you can survive the technology breaking and breaking so hard you can't rebuild it.
If it broke down this hard today, within a single year, population could easily fall to single digit percentages of current within just a single year.
It wouldn't be humanity surviving, but more like just the human animal not going extinct. And you personally would almost certainly not be among survivors.
>Reason number one: is political, so that controlling the gestation pods doesn't turn into a key for power.
This one depends on how hard would they be to monopolize.
If they were so optimized that a prepper boomer could buy one on amazon, install it in his prep shed and run it off a chinese solar panel, trying to control them would be futile.
>>

 No.409216

>>409127
>at the end of the day women are too stupid to run anything
Misogyny is cool and all, but let's not turn this rape into a murder.

Women are competent enough that in russia, where men have their careers ruined by the draft, there are more female managers than male ones.
>>

 No.409218

>>404598
Cringe Malthusian

You could fit 100 billion people on earth and still have plenty of open space. Read a fucking book
>>

 No.410371

>>409127
touch grass
>>

 No.410401

>>409127
>congrats! you've posted an outright misogynist remark.
Now go back to your beloved imageboard, fuckwad.
>>

 No.410410

>>409218
>humans only need to be supported by physical space, there are no resources that humans require, and if there were they wouldn't take up space
cringe lib who thinks a man is an island
>>

 No.410414

>artificial wombs will make women obsolete
>artificial sperm will make men obsolete
All of you dipshits are going to die off because you're too autistic to just breed like a normal person.
>>

 No.410518

>>405186
Capitalists would be very happy to reduce the human population. Why do you need labor when you own all of the stuff and your greatest threat is rebellion of the multitude? The people who own the world have not required accumulation of wealth for any reason for a long time. Every policy of the transnational oligarchy has been to reduce the growth rate intentionally, as much as they can without pushing people to revolt. Smaller capitalists might need the profit motive to "get ahead", but they never actually do accomplish much. Anyone who makes it in business was assigned to win by the oligarchy, with a few lucky winners permitted so long as their business remains inconsequential. You really think a petty capitalist like the MyPillow guy is an oligarch, or that tech companies with intel agency ties were really started in some dude's garage and built through sweat and toil?

Speaking of suicide, the attitude towards suicide in the discourse is designed to raise the rate of suicide as high as possible, again without triggering revolt. Anyone who fails the eugenics test is "life unworthy of life" and reminded of that. If they dare ask for help, the state and the society make damn sure they'll want to kill themselves out of pure fear. The only time the state will go far to prevent a suicide is to keep a necessary slave working, or if someone's suicide would be an escape from eugenist torture chambers. Can't have people suiciding for actual freedom, but the society pushes suicidality for the non-essential persons. The fact that very large swaths of the population aren't even considered fit to be exploited should destroy this Malthusian myth about capitalism, but it keeps rearing its ugly head every generation because young people are dumb. So yeah, go ahead and kill yourself, but it's not that big a deal to the owners of the world, and they promote the culture of death.
>>

 No.410525

>>405186
Anyway if they were really concerned about population growth, they have the means to procure human eggs and sperm, and enough fanatical followers who will attend to artificial insemination. New religious movements are designed to produce fanatics who are amenable to the new slavery, and they capture enough women who would be eager to breed the New Man. There is not a reason to do this though, as the objective is to break the existing population into this new slavery and spread the cults of new religious movements to become a default religion - hence the proliferation of flanderized eastern mysticism, the cult of shit like the law of attraction, and the social experiments in which more and more schoolchildren are tortured and broken into absolute terror slavery. I just read that 1 in 7 children are referred to special education today, which is far higher than anything I knew growing up. If you're sped, you're dead, and not a single person who passes through that doesn't end up suicidal and ready to die, broken and humiliated for the rest of their life.
>>

 No.410526

>>409144
Your brain on neo-Darwinism.
>>

 No.410581

>>410414
>nooo muh genes
>you are going to die off! i mean, not you personally, but your genes, because you'll die anyway, but YOUR GENES WILL DIE OFF!
All hail the Helix! For the Helix is the end of all means!
>>

 No.411020

>>410518
>The only time the state will go far to prevent a suicide is to keep a necessary slave working, or if someone's suicide would be an escape from eugenist torture chambers.
Actually, most often it is to keep the rest of the herd in check.
Like the suicide nets in china.
>>

 No.411131

First of all it's a good thing. The goal of humanity shouldn't be to just make more people. It's not a number's game. Quality over quantity. Secondly, automation will handle some of that surplus population, already computer programs are making many jobs obsolete. With climate change destroying arable land, more people just means more problems.

Actually I view this as being beneficial to porky. These people would have no place in the world, just as millions don't today. More superfluous people increases the odds of social unrest and threatens to destabilize porky's system.
>>

 No.411133

>>411131
>automation will handle some of that surplus population
some of the labor input deficit from that missing surplus population.
>>

 No.411135

No worries, I'll repopulate if shit goes awry for us instead of them
>>

 No.411581

Anyone calling for depopulation is a nazi who should slit their own wrists.
>>

 No.411589

>>411131
But we need more people to produce more and consume more. Forever!


That's it! We need a war, a big one!
>>

 No.412154

>>411581
That's either incomplete or angry cope.

Anyone who is calling for depopulation but isn't willing to be one of the "depopulated ones" may be a nazi.
But those who would be fine with being removed/prevented from reproducing/etc. as a part of this depopulation plan is not a nazi. Here, "prevented from reproducing" means "ensured to die with 0 children", not "sterilized now, after having 8 spawn".
>>

 No.412240

>>412154
tbf this depopulation is a result of having fewer children due to higher education of women
>>

 No.412629

>>412154
Nobody ever says it to include themselves.
I want billions more people on earth.
>>

 No.412969

>>412154
Not entirely true, plenty of them suffer from low self esteem and/or hate minorities enough that they are ready to be killed or castrated as long as "their race" takes over.

Unique IPs: 37

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome