If you want to support the show all you have to do is subscribe - it massively helps me in keeping the show on the road and get more great guests so we can dive into the topics that you want to hear about. Thank you for your support!
"The results of this study indicate that the dark triad personality traits of Machiavellianism and psychopathy are strongly associated with anti-natalist views." Also, claiming that all living creatures and millions of years of evolution is idiocratic, whilst assuming your views that are quite niche are somewhat the smart ones seems quite unlikely just on the basis of statistics. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2021.1946026#abstract
Paul Morland’s basic analysis is correct. Unfortunately he sees the fundamental point of government is to maintain the elderly’s pensions through sacrificing younger peoples’ lives to paying ever-higher taxes and being mostly caregivers.
There's a balance to be had there - elderly has been paying into and working on building the systems that the young people benefit from all their lives, certain amount of gratitude and care in their older years is justified. Having said all that the system that no longer works for the young people isn't sustainable either. I don't think the current tension between the old and the young is inevitable, I see it more as unwise political choices that knocked the scales off balance.
Discuss the demand and cost of synthetic nitrate fertilizer on the cost of food, and the demand and cost of natural gas in order to synthesize nitrates, and the infrastructure requirements for gas extraction, purification, and transport. What happens to the cost of labor if food prices are high due to the price of fertilizer combined with transportation costs for food? If labor costs are high, what effect does this have on the cost of housing? A railroad system is a network. For it to be worthwhile, it has to run 24/7, requiring workers to be on-the-job on weekends, overnight, and in multiple shifts starting at 6:00 in the morning and continuing until 10:00 in the evening. In the late 1800's, networks would have been limited to railroads, water utilities, and in some cases sewer systems. Right at the turn to 1900, electric utilities are added, along with simple telephony. Nearly immediately afterwards, energy supplies are augmented by oil, particularly to power internal combustion engines. Now it is necessary to run wells, pipelines, oil refineries, and storage tank farms. By the 1920's media networks start to form using radio, and by the 1930's the commercial aviation network starts to form with airliners. This is augmented in the 1950's with the television network, and then in the 1990's by the Internet, and then in the 2000s by the wireless data/smart phone network. Each of these networks is dependent on all of the former networks for their existence. Each of these networks operates 24/7, creating an increasing percentage of the workforce as additional networks are layered on top of each other. To what degree is the labor force handcuffed to these networks, with it's 'middle income' productivity levels?
Negative growth can be a good thing. For example, for Serbia, where I live. If we didn't have that for the last thirty years, as well as immigration, we would have 50% unemployment. We wouldn't have anything to eat, like in Africa. Now we even bring people from abroad India, Bangladesh, Nepal to work.
Even if someone wanted to attempt de-education of women - there's no way of turning back the time to before smartphone. I find the argument about more education convincing - more level education, right now we lean into 'girl boss' lifestyle often pushed by the culture and education system. What if we also spent as much time on motherhood and meaning that children bring to huge majority of people?
I've heard that I sound Irish before, but Finnish is new! I'll take it though - I have a soft spot for Nordic countries, haven't been to Finland in years now, but I went on a solo holiday in northern Sweden several years ago. My partner's grandmother was Swedish so my son does have some Scandinavian routes, but that's as 'Finnish' or not-Finish rather as it goes for me. 😅
Reversing the fertility trend will take a great change in culture. I don't know exactly what, yet, but here are a couple of possibilities. Groups with high fertility often have a "great chain of being" view of life. The people alive now are just the latest images of a thing that has a long existence and a story: the clan, perhaps. Māori in NZ lay great emphasis on whakapapa, genealogy ("fa-ka-pa-pa", all short unstressed syllables). When groups meet on formal occasions the delegated speakers recite their whakapapa and link it to that of the people whom they are meeting. These occasions happen on a weekly basis, more or less, so everyone knows their whakapapa. Māori have above-replacement fertility. Non-Polynesian New Zealanders do not. Kazakhs also know their genealogy back seven generations, so that they can avoid accidentally marrying cousins. Kazakhs also have above-replacement fertility despite being only moderately religious. Since our culture doesn't have any of that - who knows the names of their great-grandparents? All eight of them? - we might need a different approach. The thing I thought of is to give multiple-parenthood high social status, so that a mother or father of four has higher status than a surgeon or a professor. If that happens, children would naturally be integrated into adult life, so that every office has a creche and playroom next door for the children of employees, and every downtown street has playgrounds and other facilities for children every hundred metres or so, and taking time out during the working day to play with your kids is expected and normal. Housing for young families would not be a stumbling block--laws would change so that having children was the easy path in life. And so on. That this sounds weird is an indicator of how anti-child our society has become. We shall get what we deserve.
"give multiple-parenthood high social status, so that a mother or father of four has higher status than a surgeon or a professor" Sorry to disappoint you, but that can never be achieved in modern societies. Status is something that individuals and social groups have to adapt to, not something they can manipulate from their position. Just like house prices. You mostly have no power to change the house prices in the town, county or country you live in.
@@patcartier8171 I would say this is already beginning, wouldn’t you? I’m 34 years old and we have three children. The people we look up to the most all have at least five children. It could be because we are Catholic and our community prizes sacrifice and openness to life.
@@derek4412 High social status in a community is not high social status plain and simple. And I doubt very much that even among the Catholics a father or mother of six has a higher social status than a surgeon or a professor. Among the Amish, maybe.
@@patcartier8171 A surgeon with only two kids would not even exist within Catholic circles, but point taken. "High status" in a pluralistic society is going to be reduced to making money, in that case. Under this paradigm, would you say a divorced surgeon with two grown children he never sees is of a higher social status than a retired junior high teacher with a wife and four kids? Because in my mind, someone that has a dumpster fire personal situation is going to have a hard time having friends/community and happiness, and thus be "low status".
@@patcartier8171 Black people and brown people will have higher status if that's the case since whites cannot physically BIRTH more than 3 kids. Perhaps slave plantations saved the black race with the breeding practices since they have the strongest genes. Sorry but white people will be extinct and cannot catch up black and brown people who 've been breeding 7+ kids for centuries
If you want to support the show all you have to do is subscribe - it massively helps me in keeping the show on the road and get more great guests so we can dive into the topics that you want to hear about. Thank you for your support!
The wolves are panicking because the sheeps won’t breed
The Untold joy of Parenthood ? - for goodness sake; have they been watching too many Disney movies.
Watching Disney movies? Some people manage to live it.
I often say that the Idiocracy will continue to breed. Good luck motivating the smart people to have some kids.
"The results of this study indicate that the dark triad personality traits of Machiavellianism and psychopathy are strongly associated with anti-natalist views."
Also, claiming that all living creatures and millions of years of evolution is idiocratic, whilst assuming your views that are quite niche are somewhat the smart ones seems quite unlikely just on the basis of statistics.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2021.1946026#abstract
@@WisdomRebellion Well, maybe Machiavelli had as point?
When was the last time principled businesses weren't crushed by Machiavellian megacorps?
Best wishes for your family, the birth and your new baby, Kat! I hope it all goes well for you all.
Thank you so much, we can't wait to meet the new addition to the family.
@@WisdomRebellion Cannot reverse it. The world is going to be black and brown. No more whites. LOL
Paul Morland’s basic analysis is correct.
Unfortunately he sees the fundamental point of government is to maintain the elderly’s pensions through sacrificing younger peoples’ lives to paying ever-higher taxes and being mostly caregivers.
There's a balance to be had there - elderly has been paying into and working on building the systems that the young people benefit from all their lives, certain amount of gratitude and care in their older years is justified.
Having said all that the system that no longer works for the young people isn't sustainable either.
I don't think the current tension between the old and the young is inevitable, I see it more as unwise political choices that knocked the scales off balance.
How can we speed up the Population Collapse?
Thank you so much for bringing light to this fundamental issue.
Discuss the demand and cost of synthetic nitrate fertilizer on the cost of food, and the demand and cost of natural gas in order to synthesize nitrates, and the infrastructure requirements for gas extraction, purification, and transport. What happens to the cost of labor if food prices are high due to the price of fertilizer combined with transportation costs for food? If labor costs are high, what effect does this have on the cost of housing?
A railroad system is a network. For it to be worthwhile, it has to run 24/7, requiring workers to be on-the-job on weekends, overnight, and in multiple shifts starting at 6:00 in the morning and continuing until 10:00 in the evening. In the late 1800's, networks would have been limited to railroads, water utilities, and in some cases sewer systems. Right at the turn to 1900, electric utilities are added, along with simple telephony. Nearly immediately afterwards, energy supplies are augmented by oil, particularly to power internal combustion engines. Now it is necessary to run wells, pipelines, oil refineries, and storage tank farms. By the 1920's media networks start to form using radio, and by the 1930's the commercial aviation network starts to form with airliners. This is augmented in the 1950's with the television network, and then in the 1990's by the Internet, and then in the 2000s by the wireless data/smart phone network. Each of these networks is dependent on all of the former networks for their existence. Each of these networks operates 24/7, creating an increasing percentage of the workforce as additional networks are layered on top of each other. To what degree is the labor force handcuffed to these networks, with it's 'middle income' productivity levels?
Negative growth can be a good thing. For example, for Serbia, where I live. If we didn't have that for the last thirty years, as well as immigration, we would have 50% unemployment. We wouldn't have anything to eat, like in Africa. Now we even bring people from abroad India, Bangladesh, Nepal to work.
Man the Sonic painting is so fine.
It is very fine indeed, thank you. 😊
Historically, the way to prevent exploding birth arates is by educating females, yet its a mystery as how to increase birth rates.
Even if someone wanted to attempt de-education of women - there's no way of turning back the time to before smartphone.
I find the argument about more education convincing - more level education, right now we lean into 'girl boss' lifestyle often pushed by the culture and education system.
What if we also spent as much time on motherhood and meaning that children bring to huge majority of people?
Kat, you look and sound Finnish :D
I've heard that I sound Irish before, but Finnish is new! I'll take it though - I have a soft spot for Nordic countries, haven't been to Finland in years now, but I went on a solo holiday in northern Sweden several years ago. My partner's grandmother was Swedish so my son does have some Scandinavian routes, but that's as 'Finnish' or not-Finish rather as it goes for me. 😅
Reversing the fertility trend will take a great change in culture. I don't know exactly what, yet, but here are a couple of possibilities.
Groups with high fertility often have a "great chain of being" view of life. The people alive now are just the latest images of a thing that has a long existence and a story: the clan, perhaps.
Māori in NZ lay great emphasis on whakapapa, genealogy ("fa-ka-pa-pa", all short unstressed syllables). When groups meet on formal occasions the delegated speakers recite their whakapapa and link it to that of the people whom they are meeting. These occasions happen on a weekly basis, more or less, so everyone knows their whakapapa. Māori have above-replacement fertility. Non-Polynesian New Zealanders do not.
Kazakhs also know their genealogy back seven generations, so that they can avoid accidentally marrying cousins. Kazakhs also have above-replacement fertility despite being only moderately religious.
Since our culture doesn't have any of that - who knows the names of their great-grandparents? All eight of them? - we might need a different approach.
The thing I thought of is to give multiple-parenthood high social status, so that a mother or father of four has higher status than a surgeon or a professor. If that happens, children would naturally be integrated into adult life, so that every office has a creche and playroom next door for the children of employees, and every downtown street has playgrounds and other facilities for children every hundred metres or so, and taking time out during the working day to play with your kids is expected and normal. Housing for young families would not be a stumbling block--laws would change so that having children was the easy path in life. And so on.
That this sounds weird is an indicator of how anti-child our society has become. We shall get what we deserve.
"give multiple-parenthood high social status, so that a mother or father of four has higher status than a surgeon or a professor" Sorry to disappoint you, but that can never be achieved in modern societies. Status is something that individuals and social groups have to adapt to, not something they can manipulate from their position. Just like house prices. You mostly have no power to change the house prices in the town, county or country you live in.
@@patcartier8171 I would say this is already beginning, wouldn’t you? I’m 34 years old and we have three children. The people we look up to the most all have at least five children. It could be because we are Catholic and our community prizes sacrifice and openness to life.
@@derek4412 High social status in a community is not high social status plain and simple. And I doubt very much that even among the Catholics a father or mother of six has a higher social status than a surgeon or a professor. Among the Amish, maybe.
@@patcartier8171 A surgeon with only two kids would not even exist within Catholic circles, but point taken. "High status" in a pluralistic society is going to be reduced to making money, in that case. Under this paradigm, would you say a divorced surgeon with two grown children he never sees is of a higher social status than a retired junior high teacher with a wife and four kids? Because in my mind, someone that has a dumpster fire personal situation is going to have a hard time having friends/community and happiness, and thus be "low status".
@@patcartier8171 Black people and brown people will have higher status if that's the case since whites cannot physically BIRTH more than 3 kids. Perhaps slave plantations saved the black race with the breeding practices since they have the strongest genes. Sorry but white people will be extinct and cannot catch up black and brown people who 've been breeding 7+ kids for centuries