@Techtalk2030 it depends on how they will implemented, if they work for us, or if we will have to work for them (I'm not talking about robot rebellion) Also, I see us as part of the animal kingdom, very curios beings but still animals, and for this reason I think that if the fertility rate drops like what it's happening right now, then there is a problem than must be resolved
@@mangolemon4117 You can't just have kids. You actually have to raise them in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. You have to be morally perfect as Jesus commands. You have to wait until marriage before having children. Very few people do these things today.✝
I live in Germany as a foreigner. A few months ago I went to a concert with a native friend. The singer sang an unpublished song of him. It was in German and my friend explained it to me. The song was about the singer's life situation. It tells that he was unmarried and childless despite he is in his mid-30s but he should not worry because living the moment is more important. Something like that... and that song, my friends, that song summarises the mindset that Western Europeans, men and women, are currently at.
Well, some people don’t really have a choice. I have plenty of friends at that age who want a family but they have not found a partner. I think people delude themselves if they think people just choose to not get kids because “kids bad”. Most people are still normies who want normie things, but circumstances do not allow for that to happen; I.e cost of living, no family support structure, work taking too much of your energy…
It's not merely economic. It is ethnic revanchism. And they are a captive voting block, basically ballot slaves. They have to either support the managerial revolution or else any sane faction that gets in power would be sending them back. Or at the very least requiring them to pay the same rent as everyone else
my bold prediction... manager class will be wiped out in near future, they will be appointed as the scape goats. all those mba graduates and trained managers
Arguably not as bad as Germany giving increased childcare benefits to families for every additional kid. You might think this is a good policy, but the increased benefits only motivate unemployed people to have more kids, while more well-off Germans (who have less time and invest more money into their children) remain mostly childless. It's just another accelerating factor in our demographic and economic downfall.
@@submarineautist I knew about people who abuse the benefits system. Benefits for children can be good if the family is working and is investigated before hand.
@CharlesIsMyName and what's your source to claim this is done by a significant enough number of households to make a difference to the budget in terms of GDP vs. expenditure? also adding more emojis doesn't add emphases
They can't solve it because they don't want to. If you're a manager your there because you do a good job at getting people to work harder for less money so that more money can be moved to the top. There is a guy in Seattle who gave up his million $ salary and only took $100K and used the rest of the money to increase the pay to everyone who worked for him; over 10 years his employes had 23 kids that they all said they wouldn't have had if they didn't have the pay increase so that they could afford a decent place to live and pay off their debts and be happy about having a family. I don't know of any other managers who would give up 90% of their income so that other people could be happy having families.
Clear like a day. But many idiots will still find other reasons just not to tell the truth.Of all people that i know and met in my life only rich ones have 3+ kids. So there must be some strange connection :D Everyone talks about it but elites dosen't want to share and make life affordable.
Not everyone understands that the greatest of kings rode by their soldiers. Loyalty is earned, and that should work both ways. And a person only needs so much. Past a certain point, you know you're being greedy. Not everyone knows they should probably do something about it.
this is a product of corporate law more than anything. there is only fudiciary duty to increase shareholder price. i dont think america has *any* law or regulation requiring a company's governing body to balance the interest of their workers at all... e: corporate law is slowly being modified/expanded to include other "stakeholders," but everyone just calls it woke.
@@KaosNova2 I think Ukraine is already doomed. Even if most of the Ukrainian young adults who left their country come back to Ukraine (it is far from being certain), the numerous dead soldiers will not come back. And before the war, the demographic situation of Ukraine was already dramatic... No European country can afford a high intensity war any longer!
I will say, as an American male, I was shocked the first time I went to Europe and realized many didn’t have relationships with the opposite sex; how many single people there was. Little did I know, I would witness the same within two decades in the U.S. as well.
@@Lilla88able A good chunk of the continent besides the Baltics, some of the Balkans, Finland, and Sweden. I went to Vrije University for a year and travelled as much as possible.
As a swede it feels like it's over. No one at my age that i know value familiy and self sacrifice. Mind you i am not a saint. I certainly have fallen for this hedonist stuff myself. But as Kaiser says, there is no long term satisfaction in it. I just don't know how to go about life during all this chaos.
I was in your situation and it was a few simple things that helped me. I learned how to to automotive repair and became skilled enough to make a good income. Then I met a religious woman and came to know God through her. Now we have a family and I feel fully satisfied with my life.
@@willfink1995 omg stop with your God thing. He isn't real and you can't just build up a society on an idea just because it has some utility to it. This "noble lie" thing doesn't work in the Information Age, nor would it be moral for it to do so.
I am the same but decided to have kids because I'm counter culture like that. Seriously, having kids is counter culture nowadays. Having all the gadgets and traveling is nice, but you ultimately get bored of it, but having all of that while having kids at the same time is a real flex. Another thing I love about having kids is this. When I was a kid I always dreamed of meeting an alien who is completely unfamiliar with our world, and then I would be the one who shows him our world and how we do things. Never met an alien, but in a way, kids are kind of like that alien. They don't know anything about the world, and showing them even some mundane things impresses them and allows you to experience a part of their joy. Heck, they get impressed by an interesting cloud formation, and they transfer some of that excitement to me automatically.
I posted this in the main thread already, but your comment was so though-provoking, I felt it warranted copying and pasting my comment again in your thread... "I am so happy to have found this, and to have identified with the same feelings as many the people in the comments. I have felt so alone, and wondering if I was crazy in seeing the downfall of society all around me. I was never able to parse it as thoroughly as this book/video, but I definitely consider myself an "enemy of Leviathan" and was able to deduce on my own that, since it has repurposed (for its own needs) all the avenues through which culture and knowledge are crafted or informed, the only way to harm such a system is for people to universally realize its existence and reject its tenets en masse at precisely the same time, or to study complex systems and asymmetrical conflict so that a group of actors might possibly cause enough of a disturbance that it would become a self-sustaining / cascading failure. The system is as brilliant as it is terrible, because it harnesses the irrationalities and vices of the human mind in order to power itself. It derives power by tethering its own needs to our irrational desires. In such a way, we become like red blood cells, carrying around oxygen for the major organs, when we as humans transact in the state's optionality tokens (money) to obtain our base-desires, beyond what is needed for survival, which are benefiting the organs of the state."
@@sbk2207 I wouldn't say educated population decline is only correlational with urbanisation and industrialisation. Wdym stop blaming someone the managerial elite are the ones who've led the urbanisation and industrialisation they have quite literally designed the causes of the fertility decrease. Population decline is a massive problem Long term. And sorry id rather not live for 200 years just to be an office worker
the whole 'elites do this' and 'elites do that' is just a tinfoil hattery. Have you tried organazing big events? That's nearly f*cking impossible. Also, poeple having fewer children in cities is not 20-21st century thing, it's been documented in 17-18th centuries as well. But then somehow we made to 8 billions. Another angle of this non-sence: if there's not enough people, who's going to buy stuff elites are producing (by owning factories and services)? We have companies complaining that 'millenials killed *insert_name_here* industry', so orchestrating population decline is a shot in one's knee. Doesn't sound too smart
We don't owe shareholders a cheap workforce just because they want us to. After the Bubonic Plague, European peasants had a lot more bargaining power and rights improved, why shouldnt this happen again?
This is why the big shots keep importing labor. They know damn well that the opulence of the rich depends on the supply of the poor, and will get more poors one way or another.
The whole episode describes how the modern world is currently suffering from the same syndrome that every dynasty of China suffered from-excessive bureaucracy, so pervasive that it permeates every facet of life.
@@scallamander4899 Excessive bureaucracy, the kind that regulates anything and everything to the point that any action taken requires a dozen permissions from people and institutions that have no clue about the matter they are issuing a permit for. The kind that we have nowadays. And inequality is connected to excessive bureaucracy because only those with abundant resourses can afford to jump through all the hoops imposed on them or pay the necessery bribe to avoid said hoops altogether. Elites fight each other to get a turn bribing the system not to dismatle it. Every organizational structure is highly prone to corruption, the more complex and expansive an administrative aparatus is the more prone to corruption it becomes and said corruption becomes more and more expensive.
thats true. it always happens to every state. it is the same pattern everywhere. government officials become parasitic entity that eats up the state it was supposed to server
It should be noted that the concept of a managerial elite was proposed earlier by James Burnham in his book titled The Managerial Revolution, which describes the transition from WWII to the Cold War, and the US-led shift to managerialism. Francis refines those ideas further with the benefit of extra hindsight. Oswald Spengler from an even earlier time predicted managerialism in The Decline of the West.
3:22, it's important to remember that some of these green painted countries did lose population but they've supplemented their population decline with immigration. If you looked at their native population growth, most would be negative
May have negative growth EVEN with immigration, and the immigration is not that deep yet and .mostly economical , meaning if these countries have large economic disaster, it will just be multiplied because the immigrants will start going home , causing another disaster by itself.
It's not as simple as that, though it has its importance. Developed countries are very urbanized, which has its own productivity sub-culture: people spend their time working hard for money and status during their productive years, which covers their fertile years (for women at least), leaving no time to have children... The only solution is to give up on this race (more easily said than done)
Would have to drastically decrease immigration first. Many western countries are building like crazy to keep up with housing demands but the immigration volumes pretty much cancels it out anyways. Basically building houses for the migrants and leaving the natives in the dust.
@@jahmalbaptiste9915bro most of the time it actually is that simple. Most older people in my family have been trying to hold off on having a family more and more until they financially secure themselves and a few have given up because the cost of just taking care of themselves let alone a family has gotten harder.
its actually the opposite, housing is cheap, but if everybody is single, then the construction industry ofc builds many smaller apartments for singles instead bigger apartments for families. There is actually a corellation between cheap housing and low fertility. People just dont want to have children for another reason, the reason for low fertility is not that housing is too expensive. Especially with the low birthrates housing on the land is basically for free, but young people want to live in the city for better mate opportunity. But woman are working now, so more workers, means lower money per worker plus there are fewer families, which are the main consumers, so less consumers, means lesser money for workers too. People can simply not afford families, but its not bc housing is too expensive, bc if people actually wanted to started families significantly more the construction industry would simply insantly shift to family sized apartments. Woman work now, but they dont want to spend their money on family, so that money is missing for family plus our horrible pension systems which take away from already the small money male workers make given to old people, deeply amoral. One thing is for sure, this wont be sustainable, very soon, maybe even already next 20 years everything will break down, bc the entertainment is growing insanely fast for men. Next year GTA 6 which demographers will probably notice. In germany you basically already get everything for free, free schooling, free housing, free food, free everything and people dont have more children. Many dont know that east germany actually has the oldest population on earth, but its hidden bc germany united. So before germany was united east germany was socialistic and renting was cheap and birthrates were higher than east capitalistic germany, but imo its not only about the amount of children which predicts society fall but also the quality a society can provide for the children, so eventhough east socialistic germany had more babies, western children population was superior in its total quality. Fertility goes up with more money for men, but goes down for woman with more money. So woman work now and woman want a man who has more money, less men fall under the minimum requirtements for a family. Result is people live in single apartments instead of houses or family apartments. Hope it makes sense?
@@jahmalbaptiste9915 It is that simple. Of course, you could argue endlessly about why a decent life is so unaffordable for young people, but it doesn't take away from the essential fact.
The sad part is that it will hurt them badly in the long run. And even if they still keep it up, nearly everywhere on earth is suffering from some form of demographic change/collapse. It is a solution that cannot hope to help the country in the long run.
Greed makes it too expensive to have children...then the same greedy people cry that they don't have enough desperate people to exploit and buy their products.
It's self fulfilling like that yes. It's why they import so many workers, but disregard their cultural norms and how they can and will take over for their own benefit. Basically letting a fox in hoping it lays eggs.
That's a stupid statement. Without infinite growth the system brakes and money has no value. If you actually think that the elites want to break their system you are delulu.
Yeah it's not a crisis to be solved, it's a weapon they are successfully using in their favor. Expecting that this is a mistake that will simply be solved if they have more competence is a fatal error
He said it’s the best most materially efficient system, but human life is not fundamentally materialist at the extremes, which includes what we live for, die for, and create new lives for. Therefore no, you’re misrepresenting what was said.
@@knightoffailure1869 so he did basically say that after all. Not to mention capitalism isn't the most materially efficient system, it has the innate tendency of overproduction, hence it supposed to waste a ton of resources.
@@ФедяКрюков-в6ь "isn't the most materially efficient system" but far better than everything else. Oh wait, that's the definition of 'most'. The reason you gave is really for the argument "capitalism isn't perfect". With that, I agree. But capitalism also rewards reducing waste, so it is self correcting on your point.
@@mariushusejacobsen3221 it is the only economic system you experienced and understood (at least vaguely), so I doubt your opinion is unbiased. And no, capitalism does not reward reducing waste. The only thing capitalism is rewarding is increasing profits. Reducing waste is rarely comes hand to hand with increasing profits, you know, you basically has to enforce the ecological programs onto businesses by governmental force, which is a direct opposite to capitalism per se.
The women’s literacy plays a pivotal role in deter mining a region’s population size. It is already a fact that women’s literacy is a deciding factor for marital age and pregnancy thereafter. The second most important and independent factor that emerged as a population size predictor is insurance scheme utilization. . The overarching argument, which won’t surprise any of you, is that, “higher female literacy is a reliable predictor of lower fertility and improved prosperity. Once countries urbanize and citizens become wealthier, fertility declines everywhere. The most important factor is women’s education. Already today, an Ethiopian woman with secondary education has on average only 1.6 children, compared to a woman with no education who has 6 children.
marriage consensus age should be lowered to historical norms. most of the women historically had their first kid at the age of 13-14. they will not have time for bs when they have kids to take care of.
central asia and kazakhstan specifically is outlier and disproves this theory. women in kazakhstan have close to 100% literacy and above 80% college degree rates
It's not difficult to persuade educated women to have kids. Wanting kids is built in at a biological level. You just have to remove the reasons why women choose not to have children. And after all, educated women's children are more likely to survive to adulthood, more likely to be physically healthy on all measures, more likely to be educated themselves, and more likely to be economically prosperous and also high-yielding taxpayers. All you have to do is get rid of the barriers that make having kids such a disastrous life choice for most women that women go against their biological imperatives to avoid it.
It kinda is. Paying lipservice to the idea of having kids then doing nothing about it and prioritizing everything else is basically the same as just not wanting kids outright.
@@rampage241 Well, women in theory can have children even without a partner trough sperm banks but for men, if you just can't find a partner, there is really nothing you can do to have kids even if you want them.
Your perception of the world around you seems to be far from reality. If you actually understood the actual factors that affect the real world you might start being able to address the issues
If corpos and the gov want me to defend them, they need to provide incentives: land, property, gold, assurances, and privileges for my family. Without these, im not defending shit and I expect to be paid in advance.
The only way the state could attempt to solve demographics "from about" aka through top-down government action, is not through giving people money, but time. The main reason people in large modern cities don't have kids is not a lack of funds but a lack of free time, since both parents usually work and extended families naturally break down in industrial societies. So we either turn back the clock to the 1950s, where a housewife isn't working and the man earns a double wage, or we create a massive daycare system, where kids can stay for up to a whole workweek straight. I don't see any other solutions.
They would use that time to play video games and watch porn. The way you solve this is by having someone in the room with them who says "maybe you should stop playing video games and watching porn". And the government can't do that. Only the people in your life can do that. But we have outsourced all decisions to the government, so people don't know how to do this anymore. Go have conversations with older women, whose children are adults but aren't having children, and ask them how they feel about this. They will say they feel horrible, but they don't know what to do. "What can I do?" They feel completely disempowered to act in any way. So instead they spend all their money on their own distractions (instead of video games and porn, stuff like traveling or concerts), so that they never have to think about these problems they have no idea how to solve. Atheists will say that religion and a belief in the afterlife is a response to death anxiety, keeping you from thinking about the problem. Well, the modern entertainment complex is a response to life anxiety.
Education system is the problem, you have to study until 23-30 to be able to start into the labor force. Then you need to be succesful in your career and find a willing woman to have children, who are also using their prime fertility age studying and subsequently working
This person gets it. Time is the main issue, not money. But it's not even just time, but the fact that someone has to sacrifice their life to raise the kids right, and no one is willing to do that now. I expect that even if women had the time, they wouldn't want to raise kids anyway. You see, in the past men used to be expendable meat bags used as cannon fodder in wars, while women used to be the incubators. Nowadays, women have a choice in not being an incubator, but men still have to fight wars when things go south. This ain't fair, and it won't last forever. Just like Ukrainian men are expected to sacrifice their lives for the country in battle, so should women be expected to sacrifice theirs for the good of the country. This experiment is proving to be a disaster and is nothing more than some empathy malfunction, where men decided that being nice is more important than anything else.
The 1950's were already deep into this problem, the negative associated trends largely started in the 1920's, the birthrate started to downtrend even long before that. What is lacking is strong social institutions and motivation.
Well, I have to appreciate your effort about this topic. Most of the "managerial elites" do not want to solve this problems so they don't do anything rational and problem solving nowadays. Hats off for you and yor work !
@@tomorrowneverdies567 The economy needs young people to fund the welfare system, less young people = less workers while the number of retirees increases due to higher life expectancy which requires higher taxes on the smaller group of workers in order to sustain itself. It's not rocket science lol
@@misaka3468 so it is not underfertility which is the problem is it? The problem is fertility below a threshold, for example 0.5. Why? Because it leads to the high dependency ratio (fraction of pensioners divided by working age people) that you described. Iceland has 0.3 million people, but its pensioners are wealthier than the pensioners of Germany, which has 84 million. Or the pensioners of China. Less people also means less strain on the environment. "less young people = less workers while the number of retirees increases" - no, it does not increase. The number of retirees also decreases. So our conversation again revolves around the dependency ratio.
@@indi_prime simplification of the issue & excuses. What I find that a lot of people find oftentimes very different excuses as to why they don't want to have children but it all comes down to "I need to achieve first this VERY important goal first, and then I MIGHT have a child, maybe even two". Some girls I talked to don't want to have children at all, but when talked with later, say they would want 2 children, so not only people don't really feel like they want kids, they are confused about this area, and it seems no guy even talked to them about this, and that's some girls that are approaching their 30s. So, like a plant in your house that stays in the far corner that you forgot to water because you have so many things to do and it started drying up and dying, something similar happened to the "children" area in peoples lives, it got neglected. People love to find excuses as to why everyone stopped having children as it is the easiest topic to talk about and people have great imaginations, but everyone is different and excuse they find is also different. You could also analyze for weeks why you didn't water your plant and come up with 30 different excuses/explanations. But at the end of the day, all it would took to make your plant come to life again is just to water it. Also, I said to some girl that I want 4 kids and she asked me "what for?" and I'm like confused because I focus so much on the question of "how" and what I need to do to do this, like not with the question of "what I will do with them" like what?? Anyways it's a fascinating topic. Also I despise our current definition of "smart": like if you get a degree and you talk smart things and have no children you are smart? I don't get the titles "smart people don't have children anymore" like if you can't even have a child how smart are you really? Like what?? I would consider again if I am really that smart if I can't even have a child. That excludes obviously people that tried to have children but can't biologically. completely just a reflection of the information that got into my head, not even an opinion and I am not trying to force anyone to change how they think or act, so take it as that
Poeple want to be part of a tribe, tradition, culture and believe in something higher than consumption that can make them happy. You are right, people feel dispirited, even though world is more safe and richer than ever. The push for female participation in work force and stigmatising womens role as home-maker has created a culture where men and women compete with each other rather than compliment each other. In this scenario, its not rare to see, people have given up the idea of legacy, children and prioritize short term happiness.
When more and more people cannot afford to purchase a humble home we are regressing, not progressing. Rent is also rapidly becoming unaffordable. With the next round of layoffs, there will be more people living in vehicles and tents. Believe the evidence before your eyes and not what your encouraged to believe.
Thats why women should have jobs like social worker, teacher, nurse, HR Lady, or Mathematician/Physicist. Jobs that seem to compliment women. Girlboss shit dont really seem to work very well for women. It just aint a job that rewards them beyond the ego.
People prioritize short term pleasures because the long term pleasures are unlikely to show up. Many wasted years in college on the promise that if they sacrificed youthful pleasures, they would get lots more pleasure beibg a corporate bigshot in their 30s. When?that did not happen, why bother?
Well, a couple of years ago, he observed a positive correlation between the social status of women and fertility rates: at similar rates of economic development, the more "feminist" a society is, the more children its women seem to have. Of course, differences were slight, but they were still quite noticeable: Western Europe had, and continues to have, slightly higher fertility rates than similarly developped East Asian nations (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, some parts of China, countries that are notoriously patriarchal), and more patriarchal Germany, Italy, Spain, had slightly lower fertility rates than France, the UK, or Scandinavian countries (the archetypally feminist countries in Europe, according to Todd). Eastern Europe wouldn't offer as good a comparison, not only because it was a bit behind economically, but also because one doesn't know how much of an influence Soviet Socialism & the post-Soviet depression had on the population's worldview. More recently, he now observes that all of these anthropological differences seem to account for nothing: even more feminist countries seem to align themselves with more patriarchal countries on the subject of fertility rates, and start to experience a demographic downfall. He seems nowadays to take a broader view of things, to subordinate, you could say, his demographic & anthropological findings and insights to broader, even if a bit vague, metaphysical considerations. His two most recent books are in this vein: "Où en sont-elles ? Un esquisse de l'histoire des femmes" (2022) and "La défaite de l'Occident" (2024). The first one was translated as "Lineages of the Feminine: An Outline of the History of Women" (2023); the second has not been translated yet, although you might find some summaries about it online ("The Defeat of the West"). In "Lineages of the Feminine" he revises a couple of his anthropological findings about the status of women in some European countries, and places the history of feminism in the greater context of the history of women in Western societies. First irony he notices: feminism arose in societies that were already relatively feminist to begin with, and continues its subsequent revolutions in those same countries. To put it another way, it is only because those societies gave women a relatively large freedom of thought and expression, that some women could publicly express their need for even greater freedoms and rights. You could radicalize his thought by saying that, feminism does not arise and flourish in countries where women are truly oppressed, but only in countries where they are already quite independent and free. Quite a paradox. A second insight he has is that he thinks we are in the midst of a general anthropological revolution the like of which humanity has rarely experienced: a sort of "matriarchal" revolution, where Western countries are slowly evolving into "matri-dominated" societies. Women are generally better educated than men, and in some sectors in France, women are absolutely dominating the game: they now form the great majority of judges; 71 % of judges are women and it's expected to rise even further in the future. So, some positions and careers that were associated with men because of their masculine connotations (Law, Order, Justice, Authority, Power) are now dominated by women. And, of course, he notices that infamous trend of women who explicitly refuse to marry down the social ladder, because they must at all cost catch a man who makes at least as much as them. Women are now more and better educated than men; they start to enter, if not dominate, traditionally masculine professions; and they refuse to do what men have pretty much always done when they couldn't find a woman at their level, that is, to choose someone who makes much less than them... What could go wrong? Todd doesn't phrase it this way of course, but you can see that he almost makes the connection. Some food for thought. I recommend you get the two "Lineages": "Lineages of Modernity: A History of Humanity from the Stone Age to Homo Americanus" (2019) and "Lineages of the Feminine: An Outline of the History of Women" (2023). They are quite well-written and provide good summaries of his general anthropological research; unfortunately, his older books, which are his most fascinating and mind-bending, have not been translated into English yet (such a shame!), but they've been translated into German and Spanish, I think. So, if you read German or Spanish, go for them, definitely.
@@derfelcadarn8230 so whats the solution then, from all this and this video and generally, with this sphere of content surrounding this issue. Ive always gotten the answer about some sort of religeous type returning to a reinforcing of strong social institutions etc. But it just seems more or less to revolve around the role of women, which were prevalent in these religouse times and these social institutions. Do we bar women from jobs so they forced to go get married and have children? Like?? It seems that the autonomy of a group of people has to be rrstricted in one way or another.
@@toppedtop5787 A genetic funnel? Also, the problem with concluding that institutions will henceforth be feminine, is that the current feminine dominance is the result of policies that sometimes aren't even a hundred years old. In civilization terms, it is a literal flash in the pan. For all we know, it might not require anything as radical as a religious figure or a genetic funnel to solve.
Because ultimately the "fix" requires abandoning almost every ideological stance adopted for the last 150 years. Lie of Progress, women being the same as men, corporatism, urbanization, materialism, etc.
Urbanization is not an ideology. It just happens because the cities are where the jobs, education and protection are. This has been true since the Babylonian empire.
02:28 According to a Dutch census report from the 1970's (the last official census of the European Netherlands) the demographers were actually worried about population decline and lowering fertility numbers. When I went to school a few decades ago we also learned about "vergrijzing" as a major demographic and social issue that affected the economy. One of the most successful lies that anti-natalists have spread is that nobody was aware of or even cared about the demographic decline until the 2020's. but people have been reporting on it as far back as the 1890's. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt spoke about how the legacy of the Western world would be for nothing if "the race" wouldn't produce any descendants in a speech he gave to the French in Paris.
The reason Europeans were so successful abroad was because of the massive baby boom during the industrial revolution. I assume that's what he meant. America's backbone at the time was the Western Europeans from the migration waves, so it was in his geopolitical interest to maintain this relationship.
That my favorite part, gaslighting on demand. I wouldn't do that. Just like they wil lsaid we will help us. O.K. how many vacations have you been going. Why don't we teach money and law in school. No it is to teach to be a good worker, ooo, I see.
Nah China,Japan and South Korea aren't ruled by the tribe and liberal elites and they have the same problem. Just a larger social/religious breakdown similar to the Bronze Age Collapse or Fall of Rome.
A couple days ago I listened to a podcast made by my country's public broadcaster. In it, they discussed the renewed threat of terrorism, from disparate domestic sources (despite the fact that there has been no such terrorism). To their credit they didn't ascribe it to 'far right thugs' but said it was 'extremism' that uniquely came from all over, fostered by social media. They constantly listed the problem as 'disinformation, misinformation, misinterpretation, etc.' without actually saying anything at all. Just the implicit 'I decide what's true and what's false.', 'I decide what is legitimate to care about and what's not.', etc. Using examples of communities simply reacting to crimes as somehow 'misinformation' without elaborating. They are much more concerned with people taking things into their own hands or coming to their own conclusions, which they interpret as an attack on their authority, than actually running society properly (rather they are clearly running it into the ground and people are merely noticing or discussing things outside of what's set on the stage for them to talk about at a given moment). Social media is a huge problem because it effectively means normal people can report what's happening in the world directly with video or share their thoughts independent of managerial-controlled media regurgitations. And the 'disinformation' potential is led more so by the same people complaining about it, as they attempt to control or create narratives through whatever means they can online, including more frequently regulation so that they can censor information. That's what talking about this topic is really leading up to. Even in its very censored and distorted form, on the internet information and thought is still too free for their liking. Expansion of powers and invasiveness with the excuse of 'counterterrorism' has been happening for a while, but it seems there's a new push, centred on the internet and questioning of authority. Sometimes other excuses are given but it's basically in the same vein. Despite the nominal tolerance of 'marginal identities' and impotence when it comes to foreign migrants, there is obviously a strong line of homogenisation in the order of our world, and genuinely departing from being the uniform consumer causes issues.
Disagree with you.The recent riots where the unfortunate deaths of the babies were falsely ascribed to “Muslim Immigrants “is a classic example where “misinformation “is not only real but dangerous.The killer ultimately turned out to be a different but by that time the people were already aroused….Unless the vast majority of people have the basic decency to wait and verify their “information “ we will live hopelessly.
Note that being highly skilled is not necessary to be in the managerial elite. To the contrary, the more inept the more likely the aristocrats will want the person in charge of things. To be in the managerial elite one must be simply a more distant aristocrat. At its heart, it is a nepotistic edifice reaching into the hoi polloi only as necessary to "uplift" a new aristocratic neophyte. This is why every major disaster since 1900 in the US was presided over by an Ivy League graduate. Usually a lawyer or B school grad at that. In corporations, one sees it in the DEI and nepotism in corporations, but make no mistake, unless it is a new tech company, YOU need not apply regardless of skills.
They don't have kids and many of them express beliefs very similar to older doomsday cults. Increasingly said elite also is very ethnically and culturally distinct from the population, there is little chance of them having a road to Damascus moment, and even if they did it would probably not be in a stable way just like their current policies.
Dude it's MUCH simpler... On a farm children = free labor, in the city children = expenses all the way through college, that's all you need to know, everything else is a rationalization
Your analysis does not account for the fact that evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews in the same socioeconomic surrounding have children over replacement rate, and others do not. His ideological/philosophical analysis tracks more accurately with truth on the ground than your economic one. It does matter whether or not you buy into the hedonist, consumerist, scientistic paradigm after all.
Farm children do not automatically equal free labour and in European cities the government generally covers education and healthcare costs all the way through college.
Only one thing I disagree with in this video "Having children isn't hard! Just neglect them!" I do think having an ideology beyond self fulfillment would increase fertility rates.
The obsession with treatment of children has itself raised the bar of parenthood to an intimidating extent. Ultimately anyone can be a parent, views to the contrary reek of death cultism and contribute tk extinction.
@@jgw9990 "The children yearn for the mines." Its good that people treat children seriously, Ideally respecting the sanctity of life shouldn't end after the child is born.
@whitewall2253 That's all well and good. The birth rate is still below replacement, perhaps adults yearn for extinction. Most are ignorant of just how much bloodshed there will be if things continue on this path, there will eventually be a "correction" which people will not enjoy. And mines? Really? The laws against child labour were designed to keep them from heavy industry and death, now they keep them out of air conditioned offices (oh the horror).
People should take children seriously. One of the first signs that people are taking children seriously is when young people look around at corporations wanting peons to underpay and nations begging for plebs to over-tax and deciding that a loving parent isn't going to inflict that paradigm on their kids. If nations and employers can't offer better, they can go without their future factory-fodder.
@@jgw9990 as a Mexican third worlder, i kinda disagree. A lot of our issues (like extreme violence and apathy regarding bad lifr quality) come from poor parenting and disfunctional households that perpetuate negative cultural norms. I suppose it is the same in places like Africa or the Middle East.
The managerial elites don't have any ideology therefore they are not against the use of force as stated in the video. They will and have used force (yugoslavia, iraq etc etc) externally and if they feel necessary they will do so internally but currently they have near total control over information and propaganda is good enough not to need the use of force.
For those in doubt about retirement homes - I've been to the *good* ones. The ones where you only get in either because you had a lot of money or someone with money cared a lot about you. And it's still heartbreaking. It's hard to watch. We've just separated the pain of aging from our view - and might have made it into one of the worst fates imagineable.
The overwhelming majority of people in elder care facilites have grown children who either don't have the will or the TIME to care for a dependent parent, and sometimes not even to visit... So we come back to low wages and (time-)explotative workplace arrangements...
@@radioandroid-bx5un the vast majority of people who claim not to have time are just whiny. Especially those without children. You strike me as very whiny.
The problem is as well that old people die too late and put big pressure on their families. Old people used to die from a heart attack at 70 and now you have demented big children who need constant care till 90. It’s a nee complicated situation
@@kyliepechler employment agencies do that, they even do it with race openly, and the companies themselves who don't do that have hiring quotas and hire males only after their female quota is filled There is a famous case of a guy who did research on this, he sent the same resumes to companies but once as a male and the second time as a female, I don't remember the exact number but the disparity was crazy, female job seekers are way more likely to recieve a response In my own experience, I have applied to Tim Hortons and McDonald's multiple times and have gotten no response, my sister when she applied to Tim's and McDonald's she got the job interview the first time applying, just go to any Tim hortons and see yourself, it's 90 percent females working there It's not because men don't wanna work in Tim's it's just that if they hire men to do the nice air conditioning jobs, who will clean the gutters?
Grew up hearing girls complaining about everyone telling them to have kids, and how they'll never ever do it. Thing is, they never could say who was telling them not to have kids. It was a fad on tumblr for the longest time, almost like how teenage white girls call themselves "queer", saying they'll be childless was an act of petty rebellion. I figured they'd grow out of it. I guess they didn't.
I think you're missing something about "sticky lifestyles." Basically, as an adult, you want to obtain and afford the lifestyle your parents gave you, at the very least. If you grew up middle class or higher, as most people did (80%), that lifestyle is becoming increasingly less affordable. So you chase degrees, certifications, etc., all of these things that are required in the system of technocracy, in order to attempt to afford it. This inevitably delays families forming and child rearing. Having a family and raising children is not all that expensive *if you temper your lifestyle*, which means buying a smaller house and living in a bad part of the city or a more rural area. Beginning with the millennials, succeeding generations will have a lower standard of living than their parents.
Stop dolling out pensions atall, why should young fertile people fund the retirement via taxation of people who were in the prime of their lives in the late 20th century?
@@PeruvianPotatountil 50 years ago that was the job of their children to look after them in old age. Now it’s the duty of all young collectively to care for old people whether they contributed anything to society or not and regardless if they had any children to support the future
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 I mean at least just let other family members give pensions out to their elderly and I hate to say it but let the childless fend for themselves.
I find it funny all of this is being said but no one is asking the woman question. Or even asking the principal reason why marriages fails or whom that principal initiator is.
@@duvetboa because ppl are not allowed to say bluntly and frankly what they have to say. you have to make "women question" references when you want to say lets put women back into house keeping and ban them from education
When I scroll through comments I think costs is still the biggest forefront issue people see when they think about kids. I personally have no ability to even get my own apartment. Let alone an actual house for my kids. I think its wrong for people to give up their personality and lives completely for kids. I think parents should be willing to give way and let go of some things. Sacrificing is needed for your kid. But I think its very unhealthy to make a child EVERYTHING. You see it with some stay at home moms. They dont know what to do with themselves when their kids are all grown up. But I feel like now people have no idea how to cut back while also having a kid. Some peoples joys such as traveling and being active would be destoryed by having a kid. Our quality of life is in decline and I think its harder for people to give up on the lifestyles their grandparents and paretns had and how they grew up. Tbh I dont think many people are even qualified to have a kid and most people throughout history have never been good parents I think. The more people I meet the more this is confirmed. Divorce rates and fatherless children are pretty high here in the US. If people dont want kids I dont think they should have them for the childs sanity. Ive seen a few kids with drug addicts as parents and think they would have been better off not being here. Edit: I like the bit about people not seeing the long term of their lives past 40. There is a lot on social media of people acknowledging this. Most of them seem so depressed and have such nihlism that they genuinely can't imagine getting that old. Their lives just keep getting worse thanks to declining living standards. I doubt many of them even want to think about the future because, in their experience, it just gets worse. You can see it with how so many people hate getting older now. They are shocked when their 25th or 30th birthday shows up. They arent happy to have made it anither year. I don't know anyone over 20 who is happy to be so old.
Disagreed. We are entering a new age... An age of AI and automation... Countries like India and China with a ridiculously high population, will also need to provide a huge amount of resources to meet the basic requirements/necessities for so many people. Large populations of the uneducated, unproductive poor, will soon be seen as a liability, as industry and manufacturing is taken over by automation. It is a real possibility, for eugenics and selective breeding to once again enter the limelight as it once was in days of old...
what an insane premise! irregardless of the impending failure of ai (the tech sectors latest monument to Lying), do you know anything of the eugenics you speak of? of its immense failures, of the complete lack of basis in anything rational or real? Do not pin your hopes on such ideas. Read Brave New World. That is the world you are advocating for.
The reason is simple: the more you are intelligent the less you are happy, the less you are intelligent the more you are happy. Modern society has created masses of depressed people because the intrensical nonsense of existence is being common knowledge nowadays. What populations have high fertility rates? Poor, savages, criminals, most of the times.
IQ has gone down over the last century, we aren't happier, such simplistic models have absolutely no value at all even if you can pick up some correlations if you stare hard enough for the specifics to all fudge.
I don’t think the “demographic crisis” is a real crisis. This is the natural progression. We don’t need more people than we have already. The only downside is the economy will get smaller. Why do people think that the number should go up forever?
As Kaiser said towards the start there's too much conformity in universities, among the intellectual elite, and it would be nice if we had stronger representation of dissenting (right/conservative) views.
I'm with the aristocratic utensil: the problem is left/right is an outdated notion. To put this in perspective, the term originated from the national assembly where the right represented the more cautious members of the revolution who still sympathized with some traditions or at least thought it too early to get rid of them, while the more left you went, the closer you got to the more radical Jacobins who were bent on changing all society according to their "enlightenment" ideals as fast as possible. The only problem? The National Assembly was, by its very nature, a radical concession to the left as it took its power at the expense of the king and traditional modes of authority. By participating at all, the right acknowledged the legitimacy and underlying ideology that enabled the left. In a similar manner, even if we had more "right/conservative" voices in our academic institutions, the most they could achieve is slowing this down so long as they think and understand according to the same standards of liberalism (yes, even classical liberalism), democracy, equality, etc., that got us to this point in the first place. The answer? Moving past liberalism as the given mindset. This can be done either by embracing traditional hierarchy or modifying what we have now so that arbitrary "fairness/equality" is not the highest goal, but stability, function, and societal cohesion. My solution would be a constitutional monarchy with the democratic elements checked by Heinlen's idea of someone earning the right to vote or hold public office through hard and at times potentially dangerous work coupled with proper civic education (IE knowing how the government actually works beyond president/supreme court/legislature). Such standards would rein in uninformed voting, the tyranny of the mob, and the proclivity of said mob to hand power over to eloquent managers and "experts." Meanwhile, the presidency would be reduced back to its original capacity, handling the signing or vetoing of laws, managing diplomatic and military affairs, and having the power of executive order reigned in back to picking staff at the White House before being transferred to a monarchial role of a set period (I'm thinking 20 years). From there, the holder would transfer power to an inheritor chosen from several candidates who'd proven themselves through handling lesser offices, and then becoming an advisor to said successor. This would keep executive power out of the hands of party politics, as well as eliminate the opportunity for bribery and mindsets like "I can start a bunch of crap then hand it over to my successor" or "I can't do anything this term because it might keep me from getting reelected." In this reformed system, about ten potential candidates could be picked by the monarch at about the ten-year point of his reign from members of his own family, and based on their performance in military/diplomatic or other tasks relating to the executive branch's role, congress could then narrow it down to three prospective candidates after about five or seven years, and the monarch can then pick one from among them and slowly relinquish his powers until his term is up, ensuring stability and a smooth transfer of power. That's my line of thinking, but that's only one of many that may have to be explored on a country-by-country basis.
@@morgant.dulaman8733 I don’t think the “left/right” division is outdated. If you prefer dividing people into liberals and conservatives or if you prefer “fairness/equality” vs “stability/social cohesion”, it amounts to the same difference. You’ve given a very elaborate description of a “constitutional monarchy” but since it’s based on a limited electorate, it seems closer to a right-wing authoritarian dictatorship. What are you going to do with dissent? You want stability. If the universities are full of people devoted to liberalism, that would be very destabilizing. Are you going use the police or the military to enforce this system? In my comment, I’m saying people should be free to assess and evaluate the consequences of decisions rather than be constrained by dogma, like what KaiserBauch is doing in this video or Thomas Sowell in “Social Justice Fallacies”. You oppose the “tyranny of the mob” handing power over to “eloquent managers or experts”, and yet you propose that monarchical advisors be “chosen from several candidates who'd proven themselves through the handling of lesser offices.” So there would be some criteria for expertise. Which brings us back to the problem we are facing today. We have a managerial class who have a lot of technical expertise but it is expertise that is useful for solving certain kinds of problems and not others. You’ve given us a potential political system. But what about the economy? What about society? Are you going to limit rewards to those who have “earned the right to vote” or will there be a system of social welfare?
Teaching people to think will cause them on average to move leftward politically. It's like how making people actually read the bible is a leading cause of atheism. Some things just seem more and more untenable the more you think about them.
@@tealkerberus748 Hardly. People on the left tend to create societies that are more focused on the distribution of wealth than on the creation of wealth. Academics tend to move leftward politically because universities are full of idealists. Idealists believe they can fashion the behavior of people or of societies however they see fit. They are not concerned with how people might react to changes to government policies in the real world. Teaching people to think should not predispose them to move very far one way or another. They would simply be better at assessing the impact of policy on behavior. I think social goals are moral and ideological questions.
Current demographic issues is not a Western society's problem. It hasn't either relation with religion or political system. It is about people getting older than never before and retaining/phagocytizing resources that historically were made available for the young cohorts.
Another problem is that resources are gathering in hands of fewer and fewer people so they have million times more than they need and others have none. Huge problem is also that people are smarter and have acces to information ,knows who owns what what amounts is stolem by politicians, how much profits companies make and so on. So they see how fooled they are and gives up working, makes crimes and don't see any future how to improve their lifes, because hard work dosen't pays off most of the times.
@@MrVaidas82 What you say might be partially true, but is not a complete new phenomenon. On the contrary, it's been this way most of human history, and it never triggered demographic issues like we're experiencing now world-wide. So, nope. What you say can't be the key reason. If you want to find the cause of an exceptional consequence, look for the exceptional cause.
@@joanvallve7647 In human history there's never been internet and countries where 98 percent of pupulation can read and write. Dumbest of population in those countries are much more smarter than average joe 300 years or more ago. There are many countries with non educated people and guess what ? They don' have demographic problems :) Of course 90 percent warm climate saves them, you can't multiply indefinately when there is no snow and cold proof roof over your head and suplies of food.
Man, it's just not worth it. I decided to opt out and be a hermit. I reject almost everything that society thinks I'm supposed to do. Family, career, materialism... I'll rather have a quiet day reading a book or playing a game in the shade, with a cool drink in hand. Doesn't take much to maintain this lifestyle. You just have to get used to being guilt tripped by people jealous of your peace.
@@irembal6011 My family doesn't have to provide for me, I have income and savings, I just don't make it my primary occupation. If you mean what am I going to do when I'm old and alone... I used to work in geriatrics, I've seen plenty of older people that were institutionalized even if they had huge families. Everybody is busy with their own lives, chasing after money, status etc.
well, another factor for us millennials having little to no children is that we and the following generations are at the short end of the stick. our parents got most things handed on a silver plate, while we are getting the stale leftovers in terms of financial freedom and work life balance. and im not just talking about pointless consumerism. children are not just a commitment, but also a big responsibility. to put it in to perspective, our parents belong to one of the most selfish generations in existence. phrases like millennials are so lazy and or helpless is quite infuriating, considering how much higher our educational requirements and knowledge are compared to what my parents needed to know back then, and yet we make significantly less in comparison. let alone the poor working conditions. with actual struggles do we really want to create offspring that will potentially have to deal with even worse things? also putting all managerial elites in to the same basked is not appropriate. the american government during the 40s-80s was the main reason why our parents and grandparents enjoyed one of the, if not the most prosperous time in existence. heavily regulating the economy in favor of the worker made america the super power that it is now. at least whats left of it. however, during the last 30-40 years this empire is slowly starting to crumble, simply because of the liberal lie. the education system got butchered in favor for mindless worker drones, which leads to people voting and supporting buffoons. and the trickle down regulations have benefited no one but the rich people. in poor countries many children mean financial freedom because of the labor. however, in "rich" countries many children can potentially mean bankruptcy.
American dream enjoyed by the American people were because of the exploitation of the world by the American government.It was an illegal prosperity to begin with….Now the chickens are coming home
Honestly, I think it's much easier than you think. Most people who want kids would be willing to have more kids if logistics and finances would work out. No country on earth allocates big houses to big families, for example. Or consider that DINKs get more of societies resources than couples with a stay at home parent.
@@shamicentertainment1262I believe there was a correlation found that higher income men have more children on average, in the U.S. Look it up and make of it what you will.
Yeah but remote work is a thing now. Many jobs don’t need to be inside big office buildings, and while plenty of work isn’t totally remote with a day or two they expect you to show up in the office, that’s still less need of office space. Plenty of factories aren’t in the middle of Pittsburgh or Philadelphia anymore for environmental and traffic congestion reasons. In the coming years when it’s so easy to remotely work from home, and factories are moved less out of Midtown, what’s the point of building big office buildings anymore. Maybe commercial areas like malls, but even that isn’t as Neccessary, when people can just open their web browsers and order from online retailers.
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes Remote work is a recent thing. Maybe in the future things will even them selves out as technology allows us to become more independent from cities, but for now cities are a terrible environment to have kids, unless you have five where they end up looking after them selves but most have one or two.
@@SillyBillyOneHundreadMilly Plenty of appeal for remote work. You save resources by only commuting to work fewer days of the week. Even without a long commute, it still saves if you live in the cities. Less factories are wanted in the deep city anymore. Congestion sucks for getting the freight out in the deep city. It’s easier to handle the waste too when you’re not in the middle of the worst traffic congestion for trucks or even by rail. Now commercial zoning won’t change, but even that is questionable how much it’s needed when Malls are closing and online retail is trending.
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes Remote work is recent. Demographic decline has been happening since the 60's. Not to mention less than 35% of office work is remote, and remote work only works for office workers. 50% of all work is not office work. Not to mention that the biggest advantage that rural areas have, is that those who have their own farms tend to have a lot of kids because they become free labour. You can see that the most amount of new kids used to be born in farming communities before everyone started to move into cities.
@@SillyBillyOneHundreadMilly It goes beyond just free labor. It’s for the kids to have some work and learning work ethic too. I know because I have remote work. It’s not every day of the week. I still go into the physical office building in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania two or three days out of the week. But that’s still multiple days of resources saved on travel, regardless of me taking a bus or driving. And all those weeks of saved expenses add up.
The absolute mental gymnastics people will go through to explain birthrate decline without touching on affordability of housing and income inequality is amazing. It's simple: if your family didn't establish generational wealth, you cannot afford a home to raise children. And even if you can, you're raising the next generation of serfs for the ownership class. If you want children, make life less miserable.
@PeruvianPotato Or perhaps another way to look at it: it's less about whether or not someone is "poor" and more about inequality in the society. If there's 1 guy who buys up all the housing, forces both men and women to work full time, and constantly erodes their standard of living, do you really think the people will reproduce? We're seeing g the worst levels of inequality our species has ever encountered and it's suffocating and eliminating huge swaths of genetic information. For the sake of the ponzi scheme we call capitalism.
Ask South Koreans why they are not reproducing, and the answer is always economics. Many such examples exist - it’s ubiquitous. I don’t think the bureaucratic/technocratic management of post-Bretton Woods Western hegemony and neoliberal economics are the problem - it is the extractive and austerity abuses of Western economic imperialism and neoliberal economics themselves that are the problem. The defense of neoliberal capitalism has lost legitimacy - the solution requires system reform to egalitarian economics, and democratic socialism.
The issue is the monetary systems (especially capitalism) It is too expensive to support oneself let alone a family. The way it’s set most families need two incomes. The wages are meager, the cost of living high, cost of childcare, etc. The elite are worried that not enough slaves are breeding to keep their system going.
The answer is quite simple, the current modern cultural paradigm, hyper competitive capitalism focused solely in production, extreme individualism, lack of tight communities, etc., is utterly incompatible with human biological reproductive cycles, we have tried to deny for far too long that we are at a fundamental level animals and just like any animal which is taken out of their optimal environment we just stop reproducing like we are doing it. We didnt evolve to live in this quasi cyberpuck overcrowded dystopia working and commuting half of a day, every single day for decades and thus it is only natural that maladaptive behaviours will appear, like the refusal to reproduce.
@@BackstabberDD believe it or not, the idea of the 15 minute cities and even the commie blocks were way more family friendly than American Suburbia and American downtowns. Those housing models basically were self-contained villages within larger cities, places that could become thigh communities because you don't need to leave beyond commuting and yet again, massive subterranean Metro systems to move people left the surface to be enjoyed for pure human centric activities but no, we decided that everybody needs a car and has to drive 10 miles to get basic groceries, filling our most of our cities land area with concrete and asphalt wastelands for cars instead of just walking to the market in middle of the green area between buildings where kids have place to play 5 minutes from home, young couples can just hang around in benches and get to develop their relationships into future families organically without needing to expend a small fortune just to date and hang around.
@@carlosdgutierrez6570 Yep, blame the car. In fact back at the turn of the century, the 20th, a consortium or cabal of companies colluded to get rid of public transit systems and install buses then, later to build road networks so to sell cars . All planned in America, which did permeate the rest of the world !
Nothing stops the Gypsies. In any country, in any religion, in any economy - they always have many children. While everyone suffers from 100500 problems, the Gypsies just do what they have been doing for centuries. I fear, despise and respect them for this at the same time.
In the developed world costs are the reason because people that have seen what prosperity looks like but can't get there don't want to have kids that will not be able to prosper.
What's your take on this crisis being worse in non-western countries like China, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, etc? If anything they are more traditional and have strict social roles, and yet...
About modern secular psychology: I remember Whatifalthist talking about how modernity thinks mental health is purely individual, whereas it is actually [at least partially] collective.
@@stegosandrosos1291 “I dislike the person who said that therefore it’s wrong” If you need another example, in the climax of Falling Down, the main character says (when a cop tells him he’s [mentally] sick) that he’s not sick, it’s the city itself that’s sick, while he goes into a tirade of all the problems that are present.
@@jwil4286 Fair enough! I agree it's lazy and lame to attack the source of an idea rather than engage with the idea itself. Still, you should be made aware that Whatifalthist has a bad reputation for good reason.
20:03 What a beautiful observation. The socialists cannot induce even the most fundamental, most in-built naturally occurring behavior. Yes. In fact socialism is woefully anti-social. The natural state of being for people is to form communities, and for individuals to maintain a good social standing within the community. People who are anti-social will be outcast. But with the social government there is no more need for social behavior. People can indulge in all the anti-social behavior they want and can simply use the government to take other people's resources by force.
There is no natural state. Countries are wildly different. All socialist block countries and the USSR had replacement fertility rates. It was after the collapse and the free market shock therapy that the demographic future was destroyed and went to hell. Please don't tell me you believe modern europe is socialist. It's not at all. Not in the traditional socialist patriarchal conservative Soviet style. It's progressive liberalism that would be considered bourgeois and decadent by the Soviets who also were ascetic considering the history of the region since Orthodox Nations come from a very specific type of Christianity that sees money negatively and an ascetic life as a virtue and mortification and suffering as part of existence. At the apex of the Orthodox tradition under the Czar the fertility rates were ridiculously high. Over 10 kids per woman. Before the Nazis above 4. Only after the collapse of the USSR they fell abruptly and never recovered since. For all the hate of tradsoc, all the countries of the Soviet bloc had enough children
I don't see people voluntarily deciding not to have children as an inherently bad thing, even if it leads to population decline. My main issue with dropping birth rates (here in the US), is that it seems to be a reaction to an affordability crisis that is restricting people from making the choice to have kids. The average person in the US starts life $60k in debt for a college degree with questionable employment value. We're also at a point where it's almost impossible to find a micro-apartment under $2,000 USD/month near a major job center. Just to qualify for a $2000/mo 1BR apartment, you'll need to make $72k+/year. And of course, in order to build a savings buffer to protect against layoffs, rent hikes, and save for a downpayment/marriage, you really should be making over $100k. This minimum salary might absurdly high if you live in a developing country, but it's worth remembering that most developing countries like India have reasonably decent apartments under $200/month, and denser settlement patterns that allow for frequent transit. Even if the bus is not as comfortable as having your own car, it's a ten-fold cheaper, and gets you almost anywhere. The US doesn't have many ways for people to cover their basic needs cheaply. Even the trailer park in my rural Maine town has units going for over $400k. I don't think going childless an issue of greed/entitlement. Most people my age would be fine with putting a quarter of their income towards a tiny s***box if it offered freedom and wasn't in a dangerous area. Alas, the median post-grad income for all careers is only $55k. This means the average person can't actually afford to move out from their parents' home, and are at the mercy of the job prospects of where said parents chose to live. If your parents hold different values, or your relationship with them is less than optimal, this can be pretty demoralizing, and puts a damper on your motivation, whether it be in dating or your career. While guys have a bit more flexibility in when they marry, women lose their fertility after 35-45, and IVF is expensive, and has a low success rate. Just like their male peers, young women in their fertility years don't have the financial security to marry a guy their age. Women have to date older, or "date rich" to raise a family. It doesn't necessarily mean women are "gold diggers", since for Gen Z, only about a quarter of people will ever have their finances in order, unless something dramatic changes about how the economy works (and not a socialist state with more bureaucracy). This has led to a politically polarized "every group for themselves" mentality because the economy literally isn't designed to give everyone a stable life. This is in large part due to the bureaucratic society you've discussed, as bulls*** jobs dilute the purchasing power of people with essential jobs. People who work as teachers, nurses, construction workers have to compete with the incomes of salespeople, advertisers, and to own a home. Needless to say, with social Literally over a quarter of the US economy has been taken up by the zero-sum game of trying to persuade other people to buy stuff.
This video explains a lot of questions that were in my head. I'll have to watch it several times to understand and remember everything because it's gold.
Look at the fertility difference between East and West Germany between 1970 and 1990. They figured it out with certain pro-family policies and we could easily afford the same in most Western European countries. Women would be able to study, work, and do all kinds of girl-boss activities, while still being a mother of two or more children. It's a shame that Germany didn't just implement this after reunification.
don't you think demographics would fix itself if we were to stop immigration? I mean, population declines, housing and the very thing gets cheaper, it's easier to have kids, we are back to normal, no?
no, because look at South Korea. Urbanization and managerism is making it impossible. People are giving up basic human traditions. They barely have any immigrants. And they trach their kids to become K Pop Stans.
That's the Japan solution. What happened was that the population focused on the big cities. Resulting in high prices in the cities where everyone was at and low prices in the rural areas where no one seems to want to live.
@danielhall271 Japan had an export-focused economy with the banking and informational sector (which is exclusively located in big cities) being the bloodline of the economy. In that case regardless of what you do, even with population growth, people would still move to big cities. If you have a diversified economy where there are options other than office job that wouldn't happen
I also think it’s very draining to raise a child in a highly specialized and competitive society. Throughout whole history you yourself knew everything you needed to teach the child, and in takes a couple of years. Now your offspring needs to achieve it’s maximum mental capacity in order to have an average lifestyle and not be a fast food worker. Because why would you want to be one when media shows you how better other people are living than you?
I am 58 years old, I am an engineer of electronics and I've read a ton of books of various kinds. Not only from my profession. I've read a lot of serious books on psychology, management, economy, sociology, medicine, art, theology, etc. From that perspective, I can say this is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen in the sense of informativeness and insight into the functioning of the world. It is painfully long and difficult to follow but the data it provides are pure GOLD! Congratulations! Kind regards from Croatia!
I said to a friend when he told me his daughter was getting married that he must be looking forward to grandchildren. He looked at me with horror and said that she had an exciting career ahead and could think about children later.
Your children are not dolls. How mentally weak one must be to be "horrified" that their daughter would smartly prioritize building self sufficiency than being entirely dependent on a man.
@@duvetboa You are missing the point, people naturally look forward to seeing their legacy continued, the person in question was more interested in their child furthering their career. The op never even implied this was a bad thing, the only mentally weak one is the person trying to spin a random story as some repressive appeal.
The only thing that could motivate people to fight for a hedonistic society would be money or service benefits because if they treat soldiering like just another profession then the military becomes just another employer. Not to mention the fact that most people who would willingly join the armed forces tend to be the outcasts of said society. In germany there is also this thing called "constitutional patriotism", where you dont actually fight for the country but rather the liberal-democratic order that governs it so dogmatism can also play a role to some extent. However these "constitutional patriots" are really just glorified firefighters in camo and not suitable for anything beyond peacekeeping missions.
LESSON: If you let the Managerial Class destroy your faith in a religion and traditional values, you are "toast." The last sentence is enlightening, "debt will be their downfall." It will be your downfall as well. Don't let them destroy our life.
The reason for the decline is simply the fact that children are an expensive luxury in todays society. That's not going to change, regardless of how the country is governed or whether women are working or not. Communist countries had record female employment and still sustainable population metrics. Make children cheaper and you'll solve the problem. I suspect, there are many people, though, who would rather keep their money than to invest it in other peoples children via taxes.
It's simple maths. I live paycheck to paycheck, it's irresponsible to have children that I can't afford to raise. You can deal with loneliness, but not with unpaid bills...
"Managerial elit" as a ruling class is a simple tricky narrative of the real "elit" which is a very small super-super-rich bankers who owns (through simple and complicated legal structures) 80% of the total wealth of the Western World.
There is always an elite caste, humans are hierarchical and stuff needs to be organised to be done, egalitarianism has been helpful to the current elite as it justified their displacement of elites based on sentiment and bonds of loyalty to people, place, God, the King and oaths. They replaced it with a meritocratic system with a more static class system than feudalism, one in which they rule by exception, "for my friends; everything, for my enemies; the law".
@@hkonhelgesen There is always going to be an unequal distribution of power, and thus elites. No society has ever been or will ever be hierarchically flat.
They're not trying to solve the demographic crisis...
Exactly, they are trying to extinguish certain demographics and promote others. Kind of like ethnic cleansing
Exactly. They are creating it.
Exactly. Its all going according to plan
Demographic crisis?
They are trying to create demographic crisis.
Expecting elites to fix demographics is like asking a tapeworm to solve hunger.
What if you kill the tape worm and eat it?
@@twrecks6279it solves the issue but it turns the clock backwards
@@twrecks6279there ya go! Thinking outside the box
☝️best analogy of 2024
Actually laughed
The dopamine rush of feeling superior because I'm studying the collapse of the western status quo (and I'm doing absolutely nothing about it)
The dopamine rush of seeing a new KaiserBauch video
@@mrguire5192 yes, indeed
It's even better when you are not western yourself
Will population collapse matter if we get to a world where everything is automated by AI and robotics?
@Techtalk2030 it depends on how they will implemented, if they work for us, or if we will have to work for them (I'm not talking about robot rebellion)
Also, I see us as part of the animal kingdom, very curios beings but still animals, and for this reason I think that if the fertility rate drops like what it's happening right now, then there is a problem than must be resolved
I take care of old people for a living. Even the people with children have no one to care for them. It’s all depressing.
Yes, no mention of this. Having kids is not a guarantee of a blissful old age.
@@mangolemon4117 You can't just have kids. You actually have to raise them in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. You have to be morally perfect as Jesus commands. You have to wait until marriage before having children. Very few people do these things today.✝
@@MiguelDLewis admonition, not abomination!
@@billTO That was definitely autocorrect lol thanks
Because people have no time sadly. You need to work with 2, so everyone is exhausted after work.
I live in Germany as a foreigner. A few months ago I went to a concert with a native friend. The singer sang an unpublished song of him. It was in German and my friend explained it to me. The song was about the singer's life situation. It tells that he was unmarried and childless despite he is in his mid-30s but he should not worry because living the moment is more important. Something like that... and that song, my friends, that song summarises the mindset that Western Europeans, men and women, are currently at.
This needs significantly more likes
Ah do you speak German ?
Bist du türke ?
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky Ja, ich bin Türke. Ich spreche Deutsch, allerdings noch nicht perfekt.
Well, some people don’t really have a choice. I have plenty of friends at that age who want a family but they have not found a partner. I think people delude themselves if they think people just choose to not get kids because “kids bad”. Most people are still normies who want normie things, but circumstances do not allow for that to happen; I.e cost of living, no family support structure, work taking too much of your energy…
for F's sake, even the men are cat ladies ....
Doomer playlist before bed 💀
🚬
Didn't expect to see another one of my favorite youtubers here.
Ah ça ira !
Will the Ukraine Sally into Kursk work ?
History Legends confirmed based
Seems the managerial class and mass immigration go hand in hand. Cheaper workers (to manage) and more consumers (to buy).
It's not merely economic. It is ethnic revanchism. And they are a captive voting block, basically ballot slaves. They have to either support the managerial revolution or else any sane faction that gets in power would be sending them back. Or at the very least requiring them to pay the same rent as everyone else
I'd say European Imperialism and mass immigration go hand in hand. The managerial class is just profiting off of it.
And also more docile voters.
Nah, you have the same managerial class with the same or worse demographic problems in ZERO immigration Japan...
The managerial class wants more scab union labor. Their prime directive is line go up next fiscal quarter.
The managerial class doesn't want you to say "F*ck it, we balling"
The managerial class subscribes to loxism as a philosophy
@@stevencooper4422 so glad to see loxism making it to the mainstream.
The billionaire class who bribes the politicians you mean
The deep state looks for Puppet Rulers whom they can control and depose at will. Hmmm Joe and Kamala 😮...
my bold prediction... manager class will be wiped out in near future, they will be appointed as the scape goats. all those mba graduates and trained managers
In the UK we don't allow child benefits for more than two children, but we give money to households with up to four wives. The UK is done for.
Arguably not as bad as Germany giving increased childcare benefits to families for every additional kid. You might think this is a good policy, but the increased benefits only motivate unemployed people to have more kids, while more well-off Germans (who have less time and invest more money into their children) remain mostly childless. It's just another accelerating factor in our demographic and economic downfall.
its not legal to marry twice so wtf you on💀
@@submarineautist I knew about people who abuse the benefits system. Benefits for children can be good if the family is working and is investigated before hand.
@@RafaquaQuetta No but a woman can be entitled to single person benefits even if she is in an unoffical polygamous marriage.
So wtf you on?😂😂😂😂💀💀💀💀
@CharlesIsMyName and what's your source to claim this is done by a significant enough number of households to make a difference to the budget in terms of GDP vs. expenditure? also adding more emojis doesn't add emphases
They can't solve it because they don't want to. If you're a manager your there because you do a good job at getting people to work harder for less money so that more money can be moved to the top. There is a guy in Seattle who gave up his million $ salary and only took $100K and used the rest of the money to increase the pay to everyone who worked for him; over 10 years his employes had 23 kids that they all said they wouldn't have had if they didn't have the pay increase so that they could afford a decent place to live and pay off their debts and be happy about having a family. I don't know of any other managers who would give up 90% of their income so that other people could be happy having families.
Clear like a day. But many idiots will still find other reasons just not to tell the truth.Of all people that i know and met in my life only rich ones have 3+ kids. So there must be some strange connection :D Everyone talks about it but elites dosen't want to share and make life affordable.
Not everyone understands that the greatest of kings rode by their soldiers. Loyalty is earned, and that should work both ways. And a person only needs so much. Past a certain point, you know you're being greedy. Not everyone knows they should probably do something about it.
@@elijahford3696Id say they know it’s greed, but they simply don’t care about other people until they’re the one being oppressed
this is a product of corporate law more than anything. there is only fudiciary duty to increase shareholder price. i dont think america has *any* law or regulation requiring a company's governing body to balance the interest of their workers at all...
e: corporate law is slowly being modified/expanded to include other "stakeholders," but everyone just calls it woke.
South Korean population pyramid is such a depressing image
its a pyramid scheme lol
@@kek2d639
Inverted pyramid*
You should see Ukraines Pyramid
Now that country is DOOMED
@@Miami1991Ukraine isn’t necessarily doomed. If you mean stuck being a smaller country than in 1991. Otherwise, those who left might come back
@@KaosNova2 I think Ukraine is already doomed. Even if most of the Ukrainian young adults who left their country come back to Ukraine (it is far from being certain), the numerous dead soldiers will not come back.
And before the war, the demographic situation of Ukraine was already dramatic...
No European country can afford a high intensity war any longer!
I will say, as an American male, I was shocked the first time I went to Europe and realized many didn’t have relationships with the opposite sex; how many single people there was. Little did I know, I would witness the same within two decades in the U.S. as well.
Social media ensured everywhere is the same.
Where have you been in Europe? North vs. South is different on that matter. (Although birth rate is falling everywhere )
it's sooooooooooooooooo easy to divorce . there needs to be endless education especially if a child is involved
@@Lilla88able A good chunk of the continent besides the Baltics, some of the Balkans, Finland, and Sweden. I went to Vrije University for a year and travelled as much as possible.
@@callspreadzero854 here it's not like this, you can see very 'mixed' groups of people, by age, sex etc. All together
As a swede it feels like it's over. No one at my age that i know value familiy and self sacrifice. Mind you i am not a saint. I certainly have fallen for this hedonist stuff myself. But as Kaiser says, there is no long term satisfaction in it. I just don't know how to go about life during all this chaos.
I was in your situation and it was a few simple things that helped me. I learned how to to automotive repair and became skilled enough to make a good income. Then I met a religious woman and came to know God through her. Now we have a family and I feel fully satisfied with my life.
Don't repeat my mistake. Find a Christian woman and start a family.
@@willfink1995 omg stop with your God thing. He isn't real and you can't just build up a society on an idea just because it has some utility to it. This "noble lie" thing doesn't work in the Information Age, nor would it be moral for it to do so.
I am the same but decided to have kids because I'm counter culture like that. Seriously, having kids is counter culture nowadays. Having all the gadgets and traveling is nice, but you ultimately get bored of it, but having all of that while having kids at the same time is a real flex.
Another thing I love about having kids is this. When I was a kid I always dreamed of meeting an alien who is completely unfamiliar with our world, and then I would be the one who shows him our world and how we do things.
Never met an alien, but in a way, kids are kind of like that alien. They don't know anything about the world, and showing them even some mundane things impresses them and allows you to experience a part of their joy. Heck, they get impressed by an interesting cloud formation, and they transfer some of that excitement to me automatically.
I posted this in the main thread already, but your comment was so though-provoking, I felt it warranted copying and pasting my comment again in your thread... "I am so happy to have found this, and to have identified with the same feelings as many the people in the comments. I have felt so alone, and wondering if I was crazy in seeing the downfall of society all around me. I was never able to parse it as thoroughly as this book/video, but I definitely consider myself an "enemy of Leviathan" and was able to deduce on my own that, since it has repurposed (for its own needs) all the avenues through which culture and knowledge are crafted or informed, the only way to harm such a system is for people to universally realize its existence and reject its tenets en masse at precisely the same time, or to study complex systems and asymmetrical conflict so that a group of actors might possibly cause enough of a disturbance that it would become a self-sustaining / cascading failure. The system is as brilliant as it is terrible, because it harnesses the irrationalities and vices of the human mind in order to power itself. It derives power by tethering its own needs to our irrational desires. In such a way, we become like red blood cells, carrying around oxygen for the major organs, when we as humans transact in the state's optionality tokens (money) to obtain our base-desires, beyond what is needed for survival, which are benefiting the organs of the state."
"they can't” no, rather "they don't want to" and to take it a step further, "they design it"
It's both. They don't want to but even if they did they can't do it.
@@sbk2207Anti-aging technologies is bullshit.
@@sbk2207 I wouldn't say educated population decline is only correlational with urbanisation and industrialisation. Wdym stop blaming someone the managerial elite are the ones who've led the urbanisation and industrialisation they have quite literally designed the causes of the fertility decrease. Population decline is a massive problem Long term. And sorry id rather not live for 200 years just to be an office worker
the whole 'elites do this' and 'elites do that' is just a tinfoil hattery. Have you tried organazing big events? That's nearly f*cking impossible. Also, poeple having fewer children in cities is not 20-21st century thing, it's been documented in 17-18th centuries as well. But then somehow we made to 8 billions.
Another angle of this non-sence: if there's not enough people, who's going to buy stuff elites are producing (by owning factories and services)? We have companies complaining that 'millenials killed *insert_name_here* industry', so orchestrating population decline is a shot in one's knee. Doesn't sound too smart
Elites worked hard to achieve what we have today.
We don't owe shareholders a cheap workforce just because they want us to. After the Bubonic Plague, European peasants had a lot more bargaining power and rights improved, why shouldnt this happen again?
Thank you, senater Palp boy.
It is exactly what rick fear. It is why the rich fight for immigration. Together with political left. Who want imported docile quality voters.
@@hkonhelgesen this is what happens when you only know one language and don't learn money and law.
I sympathise 80%, but don't forget the price the peasantry paid for that.
This is why the big shots keep importing labor. They know damn well that the opulence of the rich depends on the supply of the poor, and will get more poors one way or another.
The whole episode describes how the modern world is currently suffering from the same syndrome that every dynasty of China suffered from-excessive bureaucracy, so pervasive that it permeates every facet of life.
How old are they.
Yep, China has been running in smaller circles for 2000 years. The whole human race is running in a large circle.
Bureaucracy, bad as it is, is sadly not the reason for societal decline. Rising inequality and elite infighting is more important to study.
@@scallamander4899 Excessive bureaucracy, the kind that regulates anything and everything to the point that any action taken requires a dozen permissions from people and institutions that have no clue about the matter they are issuing a permit for. The kind that we have nowadays. And inequality is connected to excessive bureaucracy because only those with abundant resourses can afford to jump through all the hoops imposed on them or pay the necessery bribe to avoid said hoops altogether. Elites fight each other to get a turn bribing the system not to dismatle it. Every organizational structure is highly prone to corruption, the more complex and expansive an administrative aparatus is the more prone to corruption it becomes and said corruption becomes more and more expensive.
thats true. it always happens to every state. it is the same pattern everywhere. government officials become parasitic entity that eats up the state it was supposed to server
It should be noted that the concept of a managerial elite was proposed earlier by James Burnham in his book titled The Managerial Revolution, which describes the transition from WWII to the Cold War, and the US-led shift to managerialism. Francis refines those ideas further with the benefit of extra hindsight. Oswald Spengler from an even earlier time predicted managerialism in The Decline of the West.
@@nERVEcenter117 you mean the Jews
Managerialism dates further back than that in reality it was the managerial class behind the american and french revolutions
@@pretty7995 Burnham was wrong. Besides I think you want to say Jews.....
3:22, it's important to remember that some of these green painted countries did lose population but they've supplemented their population decline with immigration. If you looked at their native population growth, most would be negative
😢
May have negative growth EVEN with immigration, and the immigration is not that deep yet and .mostly economical , meaning if these countries have large economic disaster, it will just be multiplied because the immigrants will start going home , causing another disaster by itself.
You are right especially comparing Native Americans and colonists.
Birds don't breed without nest.
Humans don't breed without house...
Lower the economic costs for housing...
It's not as simple as that, though it has its importance. Developed countries are very urbanized, which has its own productivity sub-culture: people spend their time working hard for money and status during their productive years, which covers their fertile years (for women at least), leaving no time to have children... The only solution is to give up on this race (more easily said than done)
Would have to drastically decrease immigration first. Many western countries are building like crazy to keep up with housing demands but the immigration volumes pretty much cancels it out anyways. Basically building houses for the migrants and leaving the natives in the dust.
@@jahmalbaptiste9915bro most of the time it actually is that simple. Most older people in my family have been trying to hold off on having a family more and more until they financially secure themselves and a few have given up because the cost of just taking care of themselves let alone a family has gotten harder.
its actually the opposite, housing is cheap, but if everybody is single, then the construction industry ofc builds many smaller apartments for singles instead bigger apartments for families. There is actually a corellation between cheap housing and low fertility. People just dont want to have children for another reason, the reason for low fertility is not that housing is too expensive. Especially with the low birthrates housing on the land is basically for free, but young people want to live in the city for better mate opportunity.
But woman are working now, so more workers, means lower money per worker plus there are fewer families, which are the main consumers, so less consumers, means lesser money for workers too. People can simply not afford families, but its not bc housing is too expensive, bc if people actually wanted to started families significantly more the construction industry would simply insantly shift to family sized apartments.
Woman work now, but they dont want to spend their money on family, so that money is missing for family plus our horrible pension systems which take away from already the small money male workers make given to old people, deeply amoral.
One thing is for sure, this wont be sustainable, very soon, maybe even already next 20 years everything will break down, bc the entertainment is growing insanely fast for men.
Next year GTA 6 which demographers will probably notice. In germany you basically already get everything for free, free schooling, free housing, free food, free everything and people dont have more children.
Many dont know that east germany actually has the oldest population on earth, but its hidden bc germany united. So before germany was united east germany was socialistic and renting was cheap and birthrates were higher than east capitalistic germany, but imo its not only about the amount of children which predicts society fall but also the quality a society can provide for the children, so eventhough east socialistic germany had more babies, western children population was superior in its total quality.
Fertility goes up with more money for men, but goes down for woman with more money. So woman work now and woman want a man who has more money, less men fall under the minimum requirtements for a family. Result is people live in single apartments instead of houses or family apartments.
Hope it makes sense?
@@jahmalbaptiste9915 It is that simple. Of course, you could argue endlessly about why a decent life is so unaffordable for young people, but it doesn't take away from the essential fact.
The ruling class doesn't need demographics, immigration printer go BRRRRRRRR.
Immigration doesn't solve demographic collapse it only compounds on top of the problem.
The sad part is that it will hurt them badly in the long run. And even if they still keep it up, nearly everywhere on earth is suffering from some form of demographic change/collapse. It is a solution that cannot hope to help the country in the long run.
That mass importation policy is a long-term disaster for all.
It will change the outlook of a nation culturally and ethnically.
@@Boababa-fn3mrhow do?
Greed makes it too expensive to have children...then the same greedy people cry that they don't have enough desperate people to exploit and buy their products.
It's self fulfilling like that yes. It's why they import so many workers, but disregard their cultural norms and how they can and will take over for their own benefit. Basically letting a fox in hoping it lays eggs.
Solve? Why would they want to solve the crisis they're the ones that cause and uphold it.
Riiiight, across the whole planet with vaaaaastly different policies put in place but its the elites that are responsible
That's a stupid statement. Without infinite growth the system brakes and money has no value. If you actually think that the elites want to break their system you are delulu.
Yeah it's not a crisis to be solved, it's a weapon they are successfully using in their favor. Expecting that this is a mistake that will simply be solved if they have more competence is a fatal error
You do realise population collapses have happened through out human history?
@@andrelockridge9109never because of the lack of willingness to have children
This Video: Capitalism can't save us.
Also This Video: Capitalism is still the best system, though.
100%
He said it’s the best most materially efficient system, but human life is not fundamentally materialist at the extremes, which includes what we live for, die for, and create new lives for. Therefore no, you’re misrepresenting what was said.
@@knightoffailure1869 so he did basically say that after all. Not to mention capitalism isn't the most materially efficient system, it has the innate tendency of overproduction, hence it supposed to waste a ton of resources.
@@ФедяКрюков-в6ь "isn't the most materially efficient system" but far better than everything else. Oh wait, that's the definition of 'most'.
The reason you gave is really for the argument "capitalism isn't perfect". With that, I agree. But capitalism also rewards reducing waste, so it is self correcting on your point.
@@mariushusejacobsen3221 it is the only economic system you experienced and understood (at least vaguely), so I doubt your opinion is unbiased. And no, capitalism does not reward reducing waste. The only thing capitalism is rewarding is increasing profits. Reducing waste is rarely comes hand to hand with increasing profits, you know, you basically has to enforce the ecological programs onto businesses by governmental force, which is a direct opposite to capitalism per se.
The women’s literacy plays a pivotal role in deter mining a region’s population size.
It is already a fact that women’s literacy is a deciding factor for marital age and pregnancy thereafter. The second most important and independent factor that emerged as a population size predictor is insurance scheme utilization.
. The overarching argument, which won’t surprise any of you, is that, “higher female literacy is a reliable predictor of lower fertility and improved prosperity.
Once countries urbanize and citizens become wealthier, fertility declines everywhere.
The most important factor is women’s education. Already today, an Ethiopian woman with secondary education has on average only 1.6 children, compared to a woman with no education who has 6 children.
Yup. And nobody likes to hear this fact either 😂
marriage consensus age should be lowered to historical norms. most of the women historically had their first kid at the age of 13-14. they will not have time for bs when they have kids to take care of.
central asia and kazakhstan specifically is outlier and disproves this theory. women in kazakhstan have close to 100% literacy and above 80% college degree rates
It's not difficult to persuade educated women to have kids. Wanting kids is built in at a biological level. You just have to remove the reasons why women choose not to have children.
And after all, educated women's children are more likely to survive to adulthood, more likely to be physically healthy on all measures, more likely to be educated themselves, and more likely to be economically prosperous and also high-yielding taxpayers.
All you have to do is get rid of the barriers that make having kids such a disastrous life choice for most women that women go against their biological imperatives to avoid it.
@@tealkerberus748 it's difficult.
Childlessness is not a choice for a lot of people tho.
It kinda is. Paying lipservice to the idea of having kids then doing nothing about it and prioritizing everything else is basically the same as just not wanting kids outright.
Quite literally I still get responses from angry people regarding my pro-natalist comments in this one ABC community post
@@rampage241 Well, women in theory can have children even without a partner trough sperm banks but for men, if you just can't find a partner, there is really nothing you can do to have kids even if you want them.
US Vice presidential candidate JD Vance said we are ruled by childless cat ladies and the media is trashing him. Politics aside, he had a point.
honestly a lot of our problems come down to cluster b personalities
We are not ruled by childless women though.
If they used one ounce of their authoritiarianism towards actually doing it and not gaslighting their populations into seeing it as okay they could.
Your perception of the world around you seems to be far from reality.
If you actually understood the actual factors that affect the real world you might start being able to address the issues
na, it'd be easier to spin up the cloning vats than to fix the underlying structural issues.
@@kv4648 "STOP BEING RIGHT MIYOG"
where do you see the authoritarianism?
I thought it super obvious he was talking bs
Management classes are basically middle men between the Rich and the poor..
If corpos and the gov want me to defend them, they need to provide incentives: land, property, gold, assurances, and privileges for my family. Without these, im not defending shit and I expect to be paid in advance.
Bingo.
The only way the state could attempt to solve demographics "from about" aka through top-down government action, is not through giving people money, but time.
The main reason people in large modern cities don't have kids is not a lack of funds but a lack of free time, since both parents usually work and extended families naturally break down in industrial societies.
So we either turn back the clock to the 1950s, where a housewife isn't working and the man earns a double wage, or we create a massive daycare system, where kids can stay for up to a whole workweek straight.
I don't see any other solutions.
They would use that time to play video games and watch porn.
The way you solve this is by having someone in the room with them who says "maybe you should stop playing video games and watching porn". And the government can't do that. Only the people in your life can do that. But we have outsourced all decisions to the government, so people don't know how to do this anymore. Go have conversations with older women, whose children are adults but aren't having children, and ask them how they feel about this. They will say they feel horrible, but they don't know what to do. "What can I do?" They feel completely disempowered to act in any way. So instead they spend all their money on their own distractions (instead of video games and porn, stuff like traveling or concerts), so that they never have to think about these problems they have no idea how to solve.
Atheists will say that religion and a belief in the afterlife is a response to death anxiety, keeping you from thinking about the problem. Well, the modern entertainment complex is a response to life anxiety.
Education system is the problem, you have to study until 23-30 to be able to start into the labor force. Then you need to be succesful in your career and find a willing woman to have children, who are also using their prime fertility age studying and subsequently working
And daycare system is just another tentacle of leviathan. Outsourcing child rearing to the state/private sector.
This person gets it. Time is the main issue, not money. But it's not even just time, but the fact that someone has to sacrifice their life to raise the kids right, and no one is willing to do that now. I expect that even if women had the time, they wouldn't want to raise kids anyway.
You see, in the past men used to be expendable meat bags used as cannon fodder in wars, while women used to be the incubators. Nowadays, women have a choice in not being an incubator, but men still have to fight wars when things go south.
This ain't fair, and it won't last forever. Just like Ukrainian men are expected to sacrifice their lives for the country in battle, so should women be expected to sacrifice theirs for the good of the country. This experiment is proving to be a disaster and is nothing more than some empathy malfunction, where men decided that being nice is more important than anything else.
The 1950's were already deep into this problem, the negative associated trends largely started in the 1920's, the birthrate started to downtrend even long before that. What is lacking is strong social institutions and motivation.
Well, I have to appreciate your effort about this topic. Most of the "managerial elites" do not want to solve this problems so they don't do anything rational and problem solving nowadays. Hats off for you and yor work !
How is underfertility a problem exactly?
@@tomorrowneverdies567 the system colapses because is based on infinite growth.
@@ClementeUsonTorner what system is going to collapse exactly?
And how is it based on infinite growth? And growth of what exactly?
@@tomorrowneverdies567 The economy needs young people to fund the welfare system, less young people = less workers while the number of retirees increases due to higher life expectancy which requires higher taxes on the smaller group of workers in order to sustain itself. It's not rocket science lol
@@misaka3468 so it is not underfertility which is the problem is it? The problem is fertility below a threshold, for example 0.5. Why? Because it leads to the high dependency ratio (fraction of pensioners divided by working age people) that you described.
Iceland has 0.3 million people, but its pensioners are wealthier than the pensioners of Germany, which has 84 million. Or the pensioners of China.
Less people also means less strain on the environment.
"less young people = less workers while the number of retirees increases" - no, it does not increase. The number of retirees also decreases. So our conversation again revolves around the dependency ratio.
The Natives of the UK have witnessed first hand this demographic shift and have had enough.
Have they decided to have more children?
As a half Brit half Swede I can confirm
@augustus4832 first it needs to be made safe for them, you don't have a problem with that right
First they conquer half the world and now they are complaining other people come to the UK.
@@indi_prime simplification of the issue & excuses. What I find that a lot of people find oftentimes very different excuses as to why they don't want to have children but it all comes down to "I need to achieve first this VERY important goal first, and then I MIGHT have a child, maybe even two". Some girls I talked to don't want to have children at all, but when talked with later, say they would want 2 children, so not only people don't really feel like they want kids, they are confused about this area, and it seems no guy even talked to them about this, and that's some girls that are approaching their 30s.
So, like a plant in your house that stays in the far corner that you forgot to water because you have so many things to do and it started drying up and dying, something similar happened to the "children" area in peoples lives, it got neglected.
People love to find excuses as to why everyone stopped having children as it is the easiest topic to talk about and people have great imaginations, but everyone is different and excuse they find is also different. You could also analyze for weeks why you didn't water your plant and come up with 30 different excuses/explanations. But at the end of the day, all it would took to make your plant come to life again is just to water it.
Also, I said to some girl that I want 4 kids and she asked me "what for?" and I'm like confused because I focus so much on the question of "how" and what I need to do to do this, like not with the question of "what I will do with them" like what?? Anyways it's a fascinating topic.
Also I despise our current definition of "smart": like if you get a degree and you talk smart things and have no children you are smart? I don't get the titles "smart people don't have children anymore" like if you can't even have a child how smart are you really? Like what?? I would consider again if I am really that smart if I can't even have a child. That excludes obviously people that tried to have children but can't biologically.
completely just a reflection of the information that got into my head, not even an opinion and I am not trying to force anyone to change how they think or act, so take it as that
The modern managerial class is also predicted by Atlas Shrugged. Including the response of the masses to opt out, lay flat, quiet quitting, etc.
Pretty much a blueprint when coupled with 1984.
Poeple want to be part of a tribe, tradition, culture and believe in something higher than consumption that can make them happy.
You are right, people feel dispirited, even though world is more safe and richer than ever.
The push for female participation in work force and stigmatising womens role as home-maker has created a culture where men and women compete with each other rather than compliment each other.
In this scenario, its not rare to see, people have given up the idea of legacy, children and prioritize short term happiness.
When more and more people cannot afford to purchase a humble home we are regressing, not progressing. Rent is also rapidly becoming unaffordable. With the next round of layoffs, there will be more people living in vehicles and tents. Believe the evidence before your eyes and not what your encouraged to believe.
Thats why women should have jobs like social worker, teacher, nurse, HR Lady, or Mathematician/Physicist. Jobs that seem to compliment women.
Girlboss shit dont really seem to work very well for women. It just aint a job that rewards them beyond the ego.
@@anshulkatare and it results in women becoming a crappy Version of themselves, and young men being shockingly unmanly
Prioritize nonsense.
People prioritize short term pleasures because the long term pleasures are unlikely to show up.
Many wasted years in college on the promise that if they sacrificed youthful pleasures, they would get lots more pleasure beibg a corporate bigshot in their 30s. When?that did not happen, why bother?
But what did Emmanuel Todd have to say about this?
Came here to ask the same.
We were robbed today.
Well, a couple of years ago, he observed a positive correlation between the social status of women and fertility rates: at similar rates of economic development, the more "feminist" a society is, the more children its women seem to have. Of course, differences were slight, but they were still quite noticeable: Western Europe had, and continues to have, slightly higher fertility rates than similarly developped East Asian nations (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, some parts of China, countries that are notoriously patriarchal), and more patriarchal Germany, Italy, Spain, had slightly lower fertility rates than France, the UK, or Scandinavian countries (the archetypally feminist countries in Europe, according to Todd). Eastern Europe wouldn't offer as good a comparison, not only because it was a bit behind economically, but also because one doesn't know how much of an influence Soviet Socialism & the post-Soviet depression had on the population's worldview.
More recently, he now observes that all of these anthropological differences seem to account for nothing: even more feminist countries seem to align themselves with more patriarchal countries on the subject of fertility rates, and start to experience a demographic downfall. He seems nowadays to take a broader view of things, to subordinate, you could say, his demographic & anthropological findings and insights to broader, even if a bit vague, metaphysical considerations. His two most recent books are in this vein: "Où en sont-elles ? Un esquisse de l'histoire des femmes" (2022) and "La défaite de l'Occident" (2024). The first one was translated as "Lineages of the Feminine: An Outline of the History of Women" (2023); the second has not been translated yet, although you might find some summaries about it online ("The Defeat of the West").
In "Lineages of the Feminine" he revises a couple of his anthropological findings about the status of women in some European countries, and places the history of feminism in the greater context of the history of women in Western societies. First irony he notices: feminism arose in societies that were already relatively feminist to begin with, and continues its subsequent revolutions in those same countries. To put it another way, it is only because those societies gave women a relatively large freedom of thought and expression, that some women could publicly express their need for even greater freedoms and rights. You could radicalize his thought by saying that, feminism does not arise and flourish in countries where women are truly oppressed, but only in countries where they are already quite independent and free. Quite a paradox. A second insight he has is that he thinks we are in the midst of a general anthropological revolution the like of which humanity has rarely experienced: a sort of "matriarchal" revolution, where Western countries are slowly evolving into "matri-dominated" societies. Women are generally better educated than men, and in some sectors in France, women are absolutely dominating the game: they now form the great majority of judges; 71 % of judges are women and it's expected to rise even further in the future. So, some positions and careers that were associated with men because of their masculine connotations (Law, Order, Justice, Authority, Power) are now dominated by women.
And, of course, he notices that infamous trend of women who explicitly refuse to marry down the social ladder, because they must at all cost catch a man who makes at least as much as them. Women are now more and better educated than men; they start to enter, if not dominate, traditionally masculine professions; and they refuse to do what men have pretty much always done when they couldn't find a woman at their level, that is, to choose someone who makes much less than them... What could go wrong? Todd doesn't phrase it this way of course, but you can see that he almost makes the connection.
Some food for thought. I recommend you get the two "Lineages": "Lineages of Modernity: A History of Humanity from the Stone Age to Homo Americanus" (2019) and "Lineages of the Feminine: An Outline of the History of Women" (2023). They are quite well-written and provide good summaries of his general anthropological research; unfortunately, his older books, which are his most fascinating and mind-bending, have not been translated into English yet (such a shame!), but they've been translated into German and Spanish, I think. So, if you read German or Spanish, go for them, definitely.
@@derfelcadarn8230 so whats the solution then, from all this and this video and generally, with this sphere of content surrounding this issue.
Ive always gotten the answer about some sort of religeous type returning to a reinforcing of strong social institutions etc. But it just seems more or less to revolve around the role of women, which were prevalent in these religouse times and these social institutions. Do we bar women from jobs so they forced to go get married and have children?
Like?? It seems that the autonomy of a group of people has to be rrstricted in one way or another.
@@toppedtop5787 A genetic funnel?
Also, the problem with concluding that institutions will henceforth be feminine, is that the current feminine dominance is the result of policies that sometimes aren't even a hundred years old. In civilization terms, it is a literal flash in the pan. For all we know, it might not require anything as radical as a religious figure or a genetic funnel to solve.
Can't solve it? They CREATED it.
Humans aren’t unsocial and management treats everyone like we’re ants.
Because ultimately the "fix" requires abandoning almost every ideological stance adopted for the last 150 years. Lie of Progress, women being the same as men, corporatism, urbanization, materialism, etc.
Urbanization is not an ideology. It just happens because the cities are where the jobs, education and protection are. This has been true since the Babylonian empire.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
For some reason i feel your "fix" involves authoritarianism, hurting standards of living or some policy based on vibes instead of evidence.
150 years?
The roots of all of this stems directly from the Enlightenment that started 340 years ago.
02:28 According to a Dutch census report from the 1970's (the last official census of the European Netherlands) the demographers were actually worried about population decline and lowering fertility numbers. When I went to school a few decades ago we also learned about "vergrijzing" as a major demographic and social issue that affected the economy.
One of the most successful lies that anti-natalists have spread is that nobody was aware of or even cared about the demographic decline until the 2020's. but people have been reporting on it as far back as the 1890's. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt spoke about how the legacy of the Western world would be for nothing if "the race" wouldn't produce any descendants in a speech he gave to the French in Paris.
They were concerned about it in France from the late 19th century at least. It was being linked with urbanisation quite early on.
The reason Europeans were so successful abroad was because of the massive baby boom during the industrial revolution.
I assume that's what he meant.
America's backbone at the time was the Western Europeans from the migration waves, so it was in his geopolitical interest to maintain this relationship.
@kv4648 even until the 50s European migrants did not outnumber native born Americans
France's birthrates started collapsing centuries ago
hey, babe, Kaiser's video came out, let's stop solving the demographic crisis for a second and watch it
Wait until you find out its intentional
Off course 😢 They get cheaper labour and destroy the West at the same time.. A true Win win to these people..
That my favorite part, gaslighting on demand. I wouldn't do that. Just like they wil lsaid we will help us. O.K. how many vacations have you been going. Why don't we teach money and law in school. No it is to teach to be a good worker, ooo, I see.
Nah China,Japan and South Korea aren't ruled by the tribe and liberal elites and they have the same problem. Just a larger social/religious breakdown similar to the Bronze Age Collapse or Fall of Rome.
A couple days ago I listened to a podcast made by my country's public broadcaster. In it, they discussed the renewed threat of terrorism, from disparate domestic sources (despite the fact that there has been no such terrorism). To their credit they didn't ascribe it to 'far right thugs' but said it was 'extremism' that uniquely came from all over, fostered by social media. They constantly listed the problem as 'disinformation, misinformation, misinterpretation, etc.' without actually saying anything at all. Just the implicit 'I decide what's true and what's false.', 'I decide what is legitimate to care about and what's not.', etc. Using examples of communities simply reacting to crimes as somehow 'misinformation' without elaborating. They are much more concerned with people taking things into their own hands or coming to their own conclusions, which they interpret as an attack on their authority, than actually running society properly (rather they are clearly running it into the ground and people are merely noticing or discussing things outside of what's set on the stage for them to talk about at a given moment).
Social media is a huge problem because it effectively means normal people can report what's happening in the world directly with video or share their thoughts independent of managerial-controlled media regurgitations. And the 'disinformation' potential is led more so by the same people complaining about it, as they attempt to control or create narratives through whatever means they can online, including more frequently regulation so that they can censor information. That's what talking about this topic is really leading up to. Even in its very censored and distorted form, on the internet information and thought is still too free for their liking.
Expansion of powers and invasiveness with the excuse of 'counterterrorism' has been happening for a while, but it seems there's a new push, centred on the internet and questioning of authority. Sometimes other excuses are given but it's basically in the same vein. Despite the nominal tolerance of 'marginal identities' and impotence when it comes to foreign migrants, there is obviously a strong line of homogenisation in the order of our world, and genuinely departing from being the uniform consumer causes issues.
Disagree with you.The recent riots where the unfortunate deaths of the babies were falsely ascribed to “Muslim Immigrants “is a classic example where “misinformation “is not only real but dangerous.The killer ultimately turned out to be a different but by that time the people were already aroused….Unless the vast majority of people have the basic decency to wait and verify their “information “ we will live hopelessly.
Note that being highly skilled is not necessary to be in the managerial elite. To the contrary, the more inept the more likely the aristocrats will want the person in charge of things. To be in the managerial elite one must be simply a more distant aristocrat. At its heart, it is a nepotistic edifice reaching into the hoi polloi only as necessary to "uplift" a new aristocratic neophyte. This is why every major disaster since 1900 in the US was presided over by an Ivy League graduate. Usually a lawyer or B school grad at that.
In corporations, one sees it in the DEI and nepotism in corporations, but make no mistake, unless it is a new tech company, YOU need not apply regardless of skills.
Why would they? It benefits them
It doesn't, the modern economic system is based on infinite growth. If the system brakes there is no benefit for the elites. Dumb statement.
The conspiratorial mind is a personal trait, it's not his fault (mostly)
They don't have kids and many of them express beliefs very similar to older doomsday cults. Increasingly said elite also is very ethnically and culturally distinct from the population, there is little chance of them having a road to Damascus moment, and even if they did it would probably not be in a stable way just like their current policies.
Why would the elites benefit from less workers available, therefore higher wages?
@@ClementeUsonTorner the elite will just import hordes from outside of Europe to keep their system alive
Dude it's MUCH simpler... On a farm children = free labor, in the city children = expenses all the way through college, that's all you need to know, everything else is a rationalization
Partly true but an urbanized west still had high birth rates until 1970 , and we have seen as an acceleration since 2007 and especially 2014
This is why I blame Nixon and his friends. So many bad policies to destroy the mass in 1970. You write a book about it.
Bingo….all these weirdos want it BOTH ways 😂
Your analysis does not account for the fact that evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews in the same socioeconomic surrounding have children over replacement rate, and others do not. His ideological/philosophical analysis tracks more accurately with truth on the ground than your economic one. It does matter whether or not you buy into the hedonist, consumerist, scientistic paradigm after all.
Farm children do not automatically equal free labour and in European cities the government generally covers education and healthcare costs all the way through college.
The managerial class is unable to use force???
You are confusing selective enforcement, with inability of using force.
They have other people to enforce for them
Only one thing I disagree with in this video
"Having children isn't hard! Just neglect them!"
I do think having an ideology beyond self fulfillment would increase fertility rates.
The obsession with treatment of children has itself raised the bar of parenthood to an intimidating extent. Ultimately anyone can be a parent, views to the contrary reek of death cultism and contribute tk extinction.
@@jgw9990 "The children yearn for the mines."
Its good that people treat children seriously, Ideally respecting the sanctity of life shouldn't end after the child is born.
@whitewall2253 That's all well and good. The birth rate is still below replacement, perhaps adults yearn for extinction. Most are ignorant of just how much bloodshed there will be if things continue on this path, there will eventually be a "correction" which people will not enjoy.
And mines? Really? The laws against child labour were designed to keep them from heavy industry and death, now they keep them out of air conditioned offices (oh the horror).
People should take children seriously. One of the first signs that people are taking children seriously is when young people look around at corporations wanting peons to underpay and nations begging for plebs to over-tax and deciding that a loving parent isn't going to inflict that paradigm on their kids. If nations and employers can't offer better, they can go without their future factory-fodder.
@@jgw9990 as a Mexican third worlder, i kinda disagree. A lot of our issues (like extreme violence and apathy regarding bad lifr quality) come from poor parenting and disfunctional households that perpetuate negative cultural norms.
I suppose it is the same in places like Africa or the Middle East.
The managerial elites don't have any ideology therefore they are not against the use of force as stated in the video. They will and have used force (yugoslavia, iraq etc etc) externally and if they feel necessary they will do so internally but currently they have near total control over information and propaganda is good enough not to need the use of force.
Current affairs in the UK and Ireland go against that thesis.
For those in doubt about retirement homes - I've been to the *good* ones. The ones where you only get in either because you had a lot of money or someone with money cared a lot about you.
And it's still heartbreaking. It's hard to watch. We've just separated the pain of aging from our view - and might have made it into one of the worst fates imagineable.
The overwhelming majority of people in elder care facilites have grown children who either don't have the will or the TIME to care for a dependent parent, and sometimes not even to visit... So we come back to low wages and (time-)explotative workplace arrangements...
@@radioandroid-bx5un the vast majority of people who claim not to have time are just whiny. Especially those without children.
You strike me as very whiny.
@@CultureCrossed64considering most spend hours on their phones each day. Unless you’re working 80 hours a week you can make time
The problem is as well that old people die too late and put big pressure on their families. Old people used to die from a heart attack at 70 and now you have demented big children who need constant care till 90. It’s a nee complicated situation
18:07 so this is basically the reason why I see 'hiring females only' in like 70% of the job postings
No. The quotas (real and de facto) are the reason. They can be sued. They need at least a token presence.
You've never seen that before.
@@duvetboa thanks for letting me know
Which country do you live in? In most Western countries it is illegal to put "hiring females only" in any job vacancy advertisement.
@@kyliepechler employment agencies do that, they even do it with race openly, and the companies themselves who don't do that have hiring quotas and hire males only after their female quota is filled
There is a famous case of a guy who did research on this, he sent the same resumes to companies but once as a male and the second time as a female, I don't remember the exact number but the disparity was crazy, female job seekers are way more likely to recieve a response
In my own experience, I have applied to Tim Hortons and McDonald's multiple times and have gotten no response, my sister when she applied to Tim's and McDonald's she got the job interview the first time applying, just go to any Tim hortons and see yourself, it's 90 percent females working there
It's not because men don't wanna work in Tim's it's just that if they hire men to do the nice air conditioning jobs, who will clean the gutters?
So much pushback in America regarding Vance's comments about childless cat ladies. He hit a nerve.
Grew up hearing girls complaining about everyone telling them to have kids, and how they'll never ever do it. Thing is, they never could say who was telling them not to have kids. It was a fad on tumblr for the longest time, almost like how teenage white girls call themselves "queer", saying they'll be childless was an act of petty rebellion. I figured they'd grow out of it.
I guess they didn't.
Part of it is because JD Vance is connected to Peter Thiel, he's a crypto tech bro
The matriarchy rumbles. The sewer side rate is going to be spiking in the next couple decades, people really aren't ready for it
Yeah sure he robbed people with fake scam. so no wonder he is a weird guy.
And he's running g against the penultimate child.less cat lady
It's very simple. The cause of a problem cannot be the solution to the problem.
I think you're missing something about "sticky lifestyles." Basically, as an adult, you want to obtain and afford the lifestyle your parents gave you, at the very least. If you grew up middle class or higher, as most people did (80%), that lifestyle is becoming increasingly less affordable. So you chase degrees, certifications, etc., all of these things that are required in the system of technocracy, in order to attempt to afford it. This inevitably delays families forming and child rearing.
Having a family and raising children is not all that expensive *if you temper your lifestyle*, which means buying a smaller house and living in a bad part of the city or a more rural area. Beginning with the millennials, succeeding generations will have a lower standard of living than their parents.
You want to solve low fertility rates. Stop giving pensions to people who dont have kids.
Stop dolling out pensions atall, why should young fertile people fund the retirement via taxation of people who were in the prime of their lives in the late 20th century?
i 100% agree
@@tommyhill7645Idk man, I kind of want to see my grandparents live their final years in peace. (Albeit, they live with other family members)
@@PeruvianPotatountil 50 years ago that was the job of their children to look after them in old age. Now it’s the duty of all young collectively to care for old people whether they contributed anything to society or not and regardless if they had any children to support the future
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 I mean at least just let other family members give pensions out to their elderly and I hate to say it but let the childless fend for themselves.
I find it funny all of this is being said but no one is asking the woman question. Or even asking the principal reason why marriages fails or whom that principal initiator is.
That sounds a little bit too anti-semitic
"the woman question" yeah this is the level of intellectualism I expected from a TH-cam comment section about demographics.
@@duvetboa because ppl are not allowed to say bluntly and frankly what they have to say. you have to make "women question" references when you want to say lets put women back into house keeping and ban them from education
You are absolutely right
@@duvetboanot an argument
When I scroll through comments I think costs is still the biggest forefront issue people see when they think about kids.
I personally have no ability to even get my own apartment. Let alone an actual house for my kids. I think its wrong for people to give up their personality and lives completely for kids. I think parents should be willing to give way and let go of some things. Sacrificing is needed for your kid. But I think its very unhealthy to make a child EVERYTHING. You see it with some stay at home moms. They dont know what to do with themselves when their kids are all grown up.
But I feel like now people have no idea how to cut back while also having a kid. Some peoples joys such as traveling and being active would be destoryed by having a kid. Our quality of life is in decline and I think its harder for people to give up on the lifestyles their grandparents and paretns had and how they grew up.
Tbh I dont think many people are even qualified to have a kid and most people throughout history have never been good parents I think. The more people I meet the more this is confirmed. Divorce rates and fatherless children are pretty high here in the US.
If people dont want kids I dont think they should have them for the childs sanity. Ive seen a few kids with drug addicts as parents and think they would have been better off not being here.
Edit: I like the bit about people not seeing the long term of their lives past 40. There is a lot on social media of people acknowledging this. Most of them seem so depressed and have such nihlism that they genuinely can't imagine getting that old. Their lives just keep getting worse thanks to declining living standards. I doubt many of them even want to think about the future because, in their experience, it just gets worse. You can see it with how so many people hate getting older now. They are shocked when their 25th or 30th birthday shows up. They arent happy to have made it anither year. I don't know anyone over 20 who is happy to be so old.
Crazy; I was at my absolute best at age 45 and am still firing but slower at 75 as are a lot of boomers !
Disagreed. We are entering a new age...
An age of AI and automation...
Countries like India and China with a ridiculously high population, will also need to provide a huge amount of resources to meet the basic requirements/necessities for so many people. Large populations of the uneducated, unproductive poor, will soon be seen as a liability, as industry and manufacturing is taken over by automation. It is a real possibility, for eugenics and selective breeding to once again enter the limelight as it once was in days of old...
what an insane premise! irregardless of the impending failure of ai (the tech sectors latest monument to Lying), do you know anything of the eugenics you speak of? of its immense failures, of the complete lack of basis in anything rational or real? Do not pin your hopes on such ideas.
Read Brave New World. That is the world you are advocating for.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Will population collapse matter if we get to a world where everything is automated by AI and robotics?
@@Techtalk2030It stops being a cause for new problems, but it remains as a factor that is relevant in discussions of culture.
Malicious incompetence
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that the elites of the world in 2024 are incompetent. I do not believe they are malicious either.
@@Techtalk2030 If the trend continues, humanity simply goes extinct ... even if it would be on first class.
The reason is simple: the more you are intelligent the less you are happy, the less you are intelligent the more you are happy. Modern society has created masses of depressed people because the intrensical nonsense of existence is being common knowledge nowadays. What populations have high fertility rates? Poor, savages, criminals, most of the times.
If the intelligence ideas and way of thinking is leading to your death and replacement are they truly intelligent?
IQ has gone down over the last century, we aren't happier, such simplistic models have absolutely no value at all even if you can pick up some correlations if you stare hard enough for the specifics to all fudge.
may be true, but we change that
I would say educated rather than intelligent. Especially Western college educated.
@@vorynrosethorn903he should have said knowledge instead of intelligence.
I don’t think the “demographic crisis” is a real crisis. This is the natural progression. We don’t need more people than we have already. The only downside is the economy will get smaller. Why do people think that the number should go up forever?
As Kaiser said towards the start there's too much conformity in universities, among the intellectual elite, and it would be nice if we had stronger representation of dissenting (right/conservative) views.
I'm with the aristocratic utensil: the problem is left/right is an outdated notion. To put this in perspective, the term originated from the national assembly where the right represented the more cautious members of the revolution who still sympathized with some traditions or at least thought it too early to get rid of them, while the more left you went, the closer you got to the more radical Jacobins who were bent on changing all society according to their "enlightenment" ideals as fast as possible.
The only problem? The National Assembly was, by its very nature, a radical concession to the left as it took its power at the expense of the king and traditional modes of authority. By participating at all, the right acknowledged the legitimacy and underlying ideology that enabled the left.
In a similar manner, even if we had more "right/conservative" voices in our academic institutions, the most they could achieve is slowing this down so long as they think and understand according to the same standards of liberalism (yes, even classical liberalism), democracy, equality, etc., that got us to this point in the first place.
The answer? Moving past liberalism as the given mindset. This can be done either by embracing traditional hierarchy or modifying what we have now so that arbitrary "fairness/equality" is not the highest goal, but stability, function, and societal cohesion. My solution would be a constitutional monarchy with the democratic elements checked by Heinlen's idea of someone earning the right to vote or hold public office through hard and at times potentially dangerous work coupled with proper civic education (IE knowing how the government actually works beyond president/supreme court/legislature). Such standards would rein in uninformed voting, the tyranny of the mob, and the proclivity of said mob to hand power over to eloquent managers and "experts."
Meanwhile, the presidency would be reduced back to its original capacity, handling the signing or vetoing of laws, managing diplomatic and military affairs, and having the power of executive order reigned in back to picking staff at the White House before being transferred to a monarchial role of a set period (I'm thinking 20 years). From there, the holder would transfer power to an inheritor chosen from several candidates who'd proven themselves through handling lesser offices, and then becoming an advisor to said successor. This would keep executive power out of the hands of party politics, as well as eliminate the opportunity for bribery and mindsets like "I can start a bunch of crap then hand it over to my successor" or "I can't do anything this term because it might keep me from getting reelected." In this reformed system, about ten potential candidates could be picked by the monarch at about the ten-year point of his reign from members of his own family, and based on their performance in military/diplomatic or other tasks relating to the executive branch's role, congress could then narrow it down to three prospective candidates after about five or seven years, and the monarch can then pick one from among them and slowly relinquish his powers until his term is up, ensuring stability and a smooth transfer of power.
That's my line of thinking, but that's only one of many that may have to be explored on a country-by-country basis.
@@morgant.dulaman8733 I don’t think the “left/right” division is outdated. If you prefer dividing people into liberals and conservatives or if you prefer “fairness/equality” vs “stability/social cohesion”, it amounts to the same difference. You’ve given a very elaborate description of a “constitutional monarchy” but since it’s based on a limited electorate, it seems closer to a right-wing authoritarian dictatorship. What are you going to do with dissent? You want stability. If the universities are full of people devoted to liberalism, that would be very destabilizing. Are you going use the police or the military to enforce this system? In my comment, I’m saying people should be free to assess and evaluate the consequences of decisions rather than be constrained by dogma, like what KaiserBauch is doing in this video or Thomas Sowell in “Social Justice Fallacies”. You oppose the “tyranny of the mob” handing power over to “eloquent managers or experts”, and yet you propose that monarchical advisors be “chosen from several candidates who'd proven themselves through the handling of lesser offices.” So there would be some criteria for expertise. Which brings us back to the problem we are facing today. We have a managerial class who have a lot of technical expertise but it is expertise that is useful for solving certain kinds of problems and not others. You’ve given us a potential political system. But what about the economy? What about society? Are you going to limit rewards to those who have “earned the right to vote” or will there be a system of social welfare?
Teaching people to think will cause them on average to move leftward politically. It's like how making people actually read the bible is a leading cause of atheism. Some things just seem more and more untenable the more you think about them.
@@tealkerberus748 Hardly. People on the left tend to create societies that are more focused on the distribution of wealth than on the creation of wealth. Academics tend to move leftward politically because universities are full of idealists. Idealists believe they can fashion the behavior of people or of societies however they see fit. They are not concerned with how people might react to changes to government policies in the real world. Teaching people to think should not predispose them to move very far one way or another. They would simply be better at assessing the impact of policy on behavior. I think social goals are moral and ideological questions.
The first thing to acknowledge is that the elites do not wish to “solve” this crisis.
Current demographic issues is not a Western society's problem. It hasn't either relation with religion or political system. It is about people getting older than never before and retaining/phagocytizing resources that historically were made available for the young cohorts.
Another problem is that resources are gathering in hands of fewer and fewer people so they have million times more than they need and others have none. Huge problem is also that people are smarter and have acces to information ,knows who owns what what amounts is stolem by politicians, how much profits companies make and so on. So they see how fooled they are and gives up working, makes crimes and don't see any future how to improve their lifes, because hard work dosen't pays off most of the times.
@@MrVaidas82 What you say might be partially true, but is not a complete new phenomenon. On the contrary, it's been this way most of human history, and it never triggered demographic issues like we're experiencing now world-wide. So, nope. What you say can't be the key reason. If you want to find the cause of an exceptional consequence, look for the exceptional cause.
@@joanvallve7647 In human history there's never been internet and countries where 98 percent of pupulation can read and write. Dumbest of population in those countries are much more smarter than average joe 300 years or more ago. There are many countries with non educated people and guess what ? They don' have demographic problems :) Of course 90 percent warm climate saves them, you can't multiply indefinately when there is no snow and cold proof roof over your head and suplies of food.
There is no demographics crisis. This is nature correcting to restore balance
It has nothing to do with nature
Depopulation is fine, with the numbers we have now we are not living sustainably, we have to continue to lower it.
Man, it's just not worth it. I decided to opt out and be a hermit. I reject almost everything that society thinks I'm supposed to do. Family, career, materialism... I'll rather have a quiet day reading a book or playing a game in the shade, with a cool drink in hand. Doesn't take much to maintain this lifestyle. You just have to get used to being guilt tripped by people jealous of your peace.
That's exactly what I'm doing. Can we be friends? 😄
Same. Cheers fellow hermit
What happens when your family can't provide you anymore
@@irembal6011 You die. It sounds scary until you take into account how difficult life is in old age even with all the care in the world.
@@irembal6011 My family doesn't have to provide for me, I have income and savings, I just don't make it my primary occupation. If you mean what am I going to do when I'm old and alone... I used to work in geriatrics, I've seen plenty of older people that were institutionalized even if they had huge families. Everybody is busy with their own lives, chasing after money, status etc.
yeah they never mention the destruction of nationalism
Feminism is our problem. Doesn't the Korean say all sunshine makes a desert
well, another factor for us millennials having little to no children is that we and the following generations are at the short end of the stick.
our parents got most things handed on a silver plate, while we are getting the stale leftovers in terms of financial freedom and work life balance.
and im not just talking about pointless consumerism.
children are not just a commitment, but also a big responsibility.
to put it in to perspective,
our parents belong to one of the most selfish generations in existence. phrases like millennials are so lazy and or helpless is quite infuriating, considering how much higher our educational requirements and knowledge are compared to what my parents needed to know back then, and yet we make significantly less in comparison. let alone the poor working conditions.
with actual struggles do we really want to create offspring that will potentially have to deal with even worse things?
also putting all managerial elites in to the same basked is not appropriate.
the american government during the 40s-80s was the main reason why our parents and grandparents enjoyed one of the, if not the most prosperous time in existence.
heavily regulating the economy in favor of the worker made america the super power that it is now.
at least whats left of it.
however, during the last 30-40 years this empire is slowly starting to crumble, simply because of the liberal lie.
the education system got butchered in favor for mindless worker drones, which leads to people voting and supporting buffoons.
and the trickle down regulations have benefited no one but the rich people.
in poor countries many children mean financial freedom because of the labor.
however, in "rich" countries many children can potentially mean bankruptcy.
American dream enjoyed by the American people were because of the exploitation of the world by the American government.It was an illegal prosperity to begin with….Now the chickens are coming home
Very well said.
Honestly, I think it's much easier than you think. Most people who want kids would be willing to have more kids if logistics and finances would work out. No country on earth allocates big houses to big families, for example. Or consider that DINKs get more of societies resources than couples with a stay at home parent.
If “it will work out”. That’s the thing. It doesn’t just work out on its own.
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes I agree that it doesn't happen by itself. It requires intentional policy changes.
Being wealthy doesn’t mean people have more kids.
@@shamicentertainment1262I believe there was a correlation found that higher income men have more children on average, in the U.S. Look it up and make of it what you will.
Because they are of a certain tribe
No, believe it or not this problem is too large for even da jooooooz (as omnipotent and all-powerful as they are) to be behind it all
Shalom
🙄
Oy vey
Industrialisation is the reason why nobody is having kids. It's too expensive to have kids in an urban environment.
Yeah but remote work is a thing now. Many jobs don’t need to be inside big office buildings, and while plenty of work isn’t totally remote with a day or two they expect you to show up in the office, that’s still less need of office space. Plenty of factories aren’t in the middle of Pittsburgh or Philadelphia anymore for environmental and traffic congestion reasons. In the coming years when it’s so easy to remotely work from home, and factories are moved less out of Midtown, what’s the point of building big office buildings anymore. Maybe commercial areas like malls, but even that isn’t as Neccessary, when people can just open their web browsers and order from online retailers.
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes Remote work is a recent thing. Maybe in the future things will even them selves out as technology allows us to become more independent from cities, but for now cities are a terrible environment to have kids, unless you have five where they end up looking after them selves but most have one or two.
@@SillyBillyOneHundreadMilly Plenty of appeal for remote work. You save resources by only commuting to work fewer days of the week. Even without a long commute, it still saves if you live in the cities. Less factories are wanted in the deep city anymore. Congestion sucks for getting the freight out in the deep city. It’s easier to handle the waste too when you’re not in the middle of the worst traffic congestion for trucks or even by rail. Now commercial zoning won’t change, but even that is questionable how much it’s needed when Malls are closing and online retail is trending.
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes Remote work is recent. Demographic decline has been happening since the 60's. Not to mention less than 35% of office work is remote, and remote work only works for office workers. 50% of all work is not office work.
Not to mention that the biggest advantage that rural areas have, is that those who have their own farms tend to have a lot of kids because they become free labour. You can see that the most amount of new kids used to be born in farming communities before everyone started to move into cities.
@@SillyBillyOneHundreadMilly It goes beyond just free labor. It’s for the kids to have some work and learning work ethic too. I know because I have remote work. It’s not every day of the week. I still go into the physical office building in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania two or three days out of the week. But that’s still multiple days of resources saved on travel, regardless of me taking a bus or driving. And all those weeks of saved expenses add up.
The absolute mental gymnastics people will go through to explain birthrate decline without touching on affordability of housing and income inequality is amazing.
It's simple: if your family didn't establish generational wealth, you cannot afford a home to raise children. And even if you can, you're raising the next generation of serfs for the ownership class.
If you want children, make life less miserable.
Bingo
Why do poor families still have many children then? Yeah, this is rather inconvenient to your narrative
@@PeruvianPotato
Poor families have less access to contraceptives and sex education.
@PeruvianPotato Or perhaps another way to look at it: it's less about whether or not someone is "poor" and more about inequality in the society. If there's 1 guy who buys up all the housing, forces both men and women to work full time, and constantly erodes their standard of living, do you really think the people will reproduce? We're seeing g the worst levels of inequality our species has ever encountered and it's suffocating and eliminating huge swaths of genetic information. For the sake of the ponzi scheme we call capitalism.
@@That-Guy_ Still have more children though. If the explanation was primarily financial, then the richer people would have at least as many children.
Ask South Koreans why they are not reproducing, and the answer is always economics. Many such examples exist - it’s ubiquitous. I don’t think the bureaucratic/technocratic management of post-Bretton Woods Western hegemony and neoliberal economics are the problem - it is the extractive and austerity abuses of Western economic imperialism and neoliberal economics themselves that are the problem. The defense of neoliberal capitalism has lost legitimacy - the solution requires system reform to egalitarian economics, and democratic socialism.
The issue is the monetary systems (especially capitalism)
It is too expensive to support oneself let alone a family. The way it’s set most families need two incomes. The wages are meager, the cost of living high, cost of childcare, etc.
The elite are worried that not enough slaves are breeding to keep their system going.
So, move to Arizona and build yourself a house out of earth. Independance
@@linmal2242move to a desert a with a water crisis? The land is cheap for a reason. Bad place to be if shit hits the fan.
The answer is quite simple, the current modern cultural paradigm, hyper competitive capitalism focused solely in production, extreme individualism, lack of tight communities, etc., is utterly incompatible with human biological reproductive cycles, we have tried to deny for far too long that we are at a fundamental level animals and just like any animal which is taken out of their optimal environment we just stop reproducing like we are doing it.
We didnt evolve to live in this quasi cyberpuck overcrowded dystopia working and commuting half of a day, every single day for decades and thus it is only natural that maladaptive behaviours will appear, like the refusal to reproduce.
@@BackstabberDD believe it or not, the idea of the 15 minute cities and even the commie blocks were way more family friendly than American Suburbia and American downtowns.
Those housing models basically were self-contained villages within larger cities, places that could become thigh communities because you don't need to leave beyond commuting and yet again, massive subterranean Metro systems to move people left the surface to be enjoyed for pure human centric activities but no, we decided that everybody needs a car and has to drive 10 miles to get basic groceries, filling our most of our cities land area with concrete and asphalt wastelands for cars instead of just walking to the market in middle of the green area between buildings where kids have place to play 5 minutes from home, young couples can just hang around in benches and get to develop their relationships into future families organically without needing to expend a small fortune just to date and hang around.
@@carlosdgutierrez6570 Yep, blame the car. In fact back at the turn of the century, the 20th, a consortium or cabal of companies colluded to get rid of public transit systems and install buses then, later to build road networks so to sell cars . All planned in America, which did permeate the rest of the world !
The simplest answer why people don't have children is....Technology!
Nothing stops the Gypsies. In any country, in any religion, in any economy - they always have many children. While everyone suffers from 100500 problems, the Gypsies just do what they have been doing for centuries. I fear, despise and respect them for this at the same time.
😂 lame
But have you seen how most of them live?
COST and inability to purchase a home have nothing to do with human fertility. Take a look at the third world.
Africa still have high fertility. For the very last time. The rest of the 3. world have very low fertility. Because of poverty.
In the developed world costs are the reason because people that have seen what prosperity looks like but can't get there don't want to have kids that will not be able to prosper.
What's your take on this crisis being worse in non-western countries like China, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, etc? If anything they are more traditional and have strict social roles, and yet...
I don’t think it’s “worse” they just don’t hide it nor artificially change it with mass illegal immigration like The West.
I believe there is a video about Asian countries on exactly this question
Ultra urbanized extreme education societies
they work too much and dont have time to raise kids
@@rubenrobles6996 They don’t mask this with mass illegal immigration, the West also has that problem.
About modern secular psychology: I remember Whatifalthist talking about how modernity thinks mental health is purely individual, whereas it is actually [at least partially] collective.
Lol whatifalthist😂
@@stegosandrosos1291 “I dislike the person who said that therefore it’s wrong”
If you need another example, in the climax of Falling Down, the main character says (when a cop tells him he’s [mentally] sick) that he’s not sick, it’s the city itself that’s sick, while he goes into a tirade of all the problems that are present.
@@jwil4286I actually agree with this argument from Whatifalthist (not that he even invented it) and I also think he's a hack.
@@duvetboa he was just the first person I’d heard it from. Glad you can separate the person from the argument
@@jwil4286 Fair enough! I agree it's lazy and lame to attack the source of an idea rather than engage with the idea itself.
Still, you should be made aware that Whatifalthist has a bad reputation for good reason.
20:03 What a beautiful observation. The socialists cannot induce even the most fundamental, most in-built naturally occurring behavior. Yes. In fact socialism is woefully anti-social. The natural state of being for people is to form communities, and for individuals to maintain a good social standing within the community. People who are anti-social will be outcast. But with the social government there is no more need for social behavior. People can indulge in all the anti-social behavior they want and can simply use the government to take other people's resources by force.
There is no natural state. Countries are wildly different. All socialist block countries and the USSR had replacement fertility rates. It was after the collapse and the free market shock therapy that the demographic future was destroyed and went to hell. Please don't tell me you believe modern europe is socialist. It's not at all. Not in the traditional socialist patriarchal conservative Soviet style. It's progressive liberalism that would be considered bourgeois and decadent by the Soviets who also were ascetic considering the history of the region since Orthodox Nations come from a very specific type of Christianity that sees money negatively and an ascetic life as a virtue and mortification and suffering as part of existence. At the apex of the Orthodox tradition under the Czar the fertility rates were ridiculously high. Over 10 kids per woman. Before the Nazis above 4. Only after the collapse of the USSR they fell abruptly and never recovered since. For all the hate of tradsoc, all the countries of the Soviet bloc had enough children
I don't see people voluntarily deciding not to have children as an inherently bad thing, even if it leads to population decline. My main issue with dropping birth rates (here in the US), is that it seems to be a reaction to an affordability crisis that is restricting people from making the choice to have kids.
The average person in the US starts life $60k in debt for a college degree with questionable employment value. We're also at a point where it's almost impossible to find a micro-apartment under $2,000 USD/month near a major job center. Just to qualify for a $2000/mo 1BR apartment, you'll need to make $72k+/year. And of course, in order to build a savings buffer to protect against layoffs, rent hikes, and save for a downpayment/marriage, you really should be making over $100k.
This minimum salary might absurdly high if you live in a developing country, but it's worth remembering that most developing countries like India have reasonably decent apartments under $200/month, and denser settlement patterns that allow for frequent transit. Even if the bus is not as comfortable as having your own car, it's a ten-fold cheaper, and gets you almost anywhere. The US doesn't have many ways for people to cover their basic needs cheaply. Even the trailer park in my rural Maine town has units going for over $400k. I don't think going childless an issue of greed/entitlement. Most people my age would be fine with putting a quarter of their income towards a tiny s***box if it offered freedom and wasn't in a dangerous area.
Alas, the median post-grad income for all careers is only $55k. This means the average person can't actually afford to move out from their parents' home, and are at the mercy of the job prospects of where said parents chose to live. If your parents hold different values, or your relationship with them is less than optimal, this can be pretty demoralizing, and puts a damper on your motivation, whether it be in dating or your career.
While guys have a bit more flexibility in when they marry, women lose their fertility after 35-45, and IVF is expensive, and has a low success rate. Just like their male peers, young women in their fertility years don't have the financial security to marry a guy their age. Women have to date older, or "date rich" to raise a family. It doesn't necessarily mean women are "gold diggers", since for Gen Z, only about a quarter of people will ever have their finances in order, unless something dramatic changes about how the economy works (and not a socialist state with more bureaucracy).
This has led to a politically polarized "every group for themselves" mentality because the economy literally isn't designed to give everyone a stable life. This is in large part due to the bureaucratic society you've discussed, as bulls*** jobs dilute the purchasing power of people with essential jobs. People who work as teachers, nurses, construction workers have to compete with the incomes of salespeople, advertisers, and to own a home. Needless to say, with social
Literally over a quarter of the US economy has been taken up by the zero-sum game of trying to persuade other people to buy stuff.
This video explains a lot of questions that were in my head. I'll have to watch it several times to understand and remember everything because it's gold.
If the overturning of the Chevron doctrine is any indication, bureaucratic interference is starting to decrease.
Look at the fertility difference between East and West Germany between 1970 and 1990. They figured it out with certain pro-family policies and we could easily afford the same in most Western European countries. Women would be able to study, work, and do all kinds of girl-boss activities, while still being a mother of two or more children. It's a shame that Germany didn't just implement this after reunification.
Today they are introducing anti family policies. The state basically owns your children.
don't you think demographics would fix itself if we were to stop immigration? I mean, population declines, housing and the very thing gets cheaper, it's easier to have kids, we are back to normal, no?
no, because look at South Korea. Urbanization and managerism is making it impossible. People are giving up basic human traditions. They barely have any immigrants. And they trach their kids to become K Pop Stans.
That's the Japan solution. What happened was that the population focused on the big cities. Resulting in high prices in the cities where everyone was at and low prices in the rural areas where no one seems to want to live.
You think western people with all the vices of modern life would just have kids with less immigrants
It won't but if we they stop rich foreigners from buying up home properties. That might help
@danielhall271 Japan had an export-focused economy with the banking and informational sector (which is exclusively located in big cities) being the bloodline of the economy. In that case regardless of what you do, even with population growth, people would still move to big cities. If you have a diversified economy where there are options other than office job that wouldn't happen
I also think it’s very draining to raise a child in a highly specialized and competitive society. Throughout whole history you yourself knew everything you needed to teach the child, and in takes a couple of years. Now your offspring needs to achieve it’s maximum mental capacity in order to have an average lifestyle and not be a fast food worker. Because why would you want to be one when media shows you how better other people are living than you?
I am 58 years old, I am an engineer of electronics and I've read a ton of books of various kinds. Not only from my profession. I've read a lot of serious books on psychology, management, economy, sociology, medicine, art, theology, etc. From that perspective, I can say this is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen in the sense of informativeness and insight into the functioning of the world. It is painfully long and difficult to follow but the data it provides are pure GOLD! Congratulations!
Kind regards from Croatia!
I said to a friend when he told me his daughter was getting married that he must be looking forward to grandchildren. He looked at me with horror and said that she had an exciting career ahead and could think about children later.
Your children are not dolls. How mentally weak one must be to be "horrified" that their daughter would smartly prioritize building self sufficiency than being entirely dependent on a man.
@@duvetboa You are missing the point, people naturally look forward to seeing their legacy continued, the person in question was more interested in their child furthering their career. The op never even implied this was a bad thing, the only mentally weak one is the person trying to spin a random story as some repressive appeal.
The only thing that could motivate people to fight for a hedonistic society would be money or service benefits because if they treat soldiering like just another profession then the military becomes just another employer. Not to mention the fact that most people who would willingly join the armed forces tend to be the outcasts of said society.
In germany there is also this thing called "constitutional patriotism", where you dont actually fight for the country but rather the liberal-democratic order that governs it so dogmatism can also play a role to some extent. However these "constitutional patriots" are really just glorified firefighters in camo and not suitable for anything beyond peacekeeping missions.
LESSON: If you let the Managerial Class destroy your faith in a religion and traditional values, you are "toast." The last sentence is enlightening, "debt will be their downfall." It will be your downfall as well. Don't let them destroy our life.
The reason for the decline is simply the fact that children are an expensive luxury in todays society. That's not going to change, regardless of how the country is governed or whether women are working or not. Communist countries had record female employment and still sustainable population metrics. Make children cheaper and you'll solve the problem. I suspect, there are many people, though, who would rather keep their money than to invest it in other peoples children via taxes.
It's simple maths. I live paycheck to paycheck, it's irresponsible to have children that I can't afford to raise.
You can deal with loneliness, but not with unpaid bills...
They DO NOT want to pay anyone
"My grandparents were twice in Bulgaria" - KaiserBauch is a Bulgariophille confirmed!
Underrated comment
Solve it ? Why would they solve something they have done on purpose. They think humans are obsolete and have initiated the end game for humanity.
“Demographic Collapse” is a funny way to say “Intentional Genocide”
"Managerial elit" as a ruling class is a simple tricky narrative of the real "elit" which is a very small super-super-rich bankers who owns (through simple and complicated legal structures) 80% of the total wealth of the Western World.
If you want policymaking that considers and balances the most considerations possible, turn to politicians, not experts.
I... really hate how true this is.
@@CultureCrossed64 Trust me, so do I.
They will never turn away from their precious experts, it's too fundamental to their psychology
We need new elites.
We need no elites.
There is always an elite caste, humans are hierarchical and stuff needs to be organised to be done, egalitarianism has been helpful to the current elite as it justified their displacement of elites based on sentiment and bonds of loyalty to people, place, God, the King and oaths. They replaced it with a meritocratic system with a more static class system than feudalism, one in which they rule by exception, "for my friends; everything, for my enemies; the law".
@@hkonhelgesen Anarchism never works lmao. Just look at Haiti to see how your "ideal anarchist utopia" will go
@@hkonhelgesen There is always going to be an unequal distribution of power, and thus elites. No society has ever been or will ever be hierarchically flat.
@@hkonhelgesen this attitude is why we are so easily controlled
we need good elites, and we need to support them