I mean, just look at 300 years ago in real life; plenty of religious & political groups that existed back then don’t exist now. And plenty of the ones that do exist now didn’t exist then. We don’t live in some Eternal Now where every faction that presently exists will exist forever and no new ones will ever arise. Like Tamerlane said earlier, you can’t preserve a culture in amber.
Got it. I took that to be where they think we are headed globally, which I don’t buy. If that’s where the US is headed, it will fall from its central position in the world economy and common culture, and be replaced on the global stage by a new liberal powerhouse.
Maybe. Or maybe China will win.
No problem, as I said, I thought we were talking past each other.
China’s strengths stems from those liberal reforms that they have undergone, especially economically. And they have severe weaknesses that stem from their illiberalism, too.
I would like to see humans move into space eventually, in which case the population can rise again. But while we are limited to one planet, a gradual fall in population would be best. Cratering birth rates will not lead to that result. And concentrated as they are in the most liberal societies, and the most wealthy and liberal people within those societies, I consider them one of the threats to the future alongside climate change, pandemics etc.
This is how I feel too. I don’t expect anything to last forever: if the time traveller came from 1000 years in the future and told us a whole new bunch of countries and cultures had evolved, hopefully some of them on space colonies, I wouldn’t be upset. But seeing an otherwise successful and vibrant culture effectively commit suicide over a few generations, as that video suggests will happen to South Korea, would be very sad.
In this scenario, most likely none of us here have any descendants. That’s kind of the point. They won’t have a choice, there just won’t be enough people left to maintain any traditions.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting liberalism would be the only system, just that it would still exist somewhere in this hypothetical future.
You know this splintering is kind of famously a characteristic of the (far) left? I’ve spent years arguing against illiberalism and the mainstreaming of purging people for not being sufficiently pure. Basically given up at this point. 
I think you are much too confident. Having advantages in many circumstances does not mean liberalism will win every societal conflict, military or otherwise. If the US continues on its path of becoming illiberal and insular, then the even more illiberal China will take over as superpower.
This, basically.
You’re worried about the rise of the far-right, but not worried enough to support reducing immigration in order to prevent it?
I think we all want a similar outcome here: the survival of liberal, pluralistic societies where everyone can have a decent standard of living and a high degree of freedom. If possible, the voluntary spread of these ideas to more of the world. We just disagree on how best to accomplish that.
Or healthier women are more likely to have kids, and also to live longer.
Relevant to this topic, this looks like a promising way to make egg freezing easier and extend fertility for women in the future. Potentially it could also make IVF a less onerous process, if the technique continues to improve:
The problem isn’t that women aren’t living a long time, it’s that during those long lives they aren’t having sufficient children to maintain a steady population. You apparently only need to give birth to one child to get the effect, which is not sufficient to increase the birthrate overall.
Nothing wrong with men living longer, too. Especially since the increase noted in the study still would not make the average man’s lifespan as long as the average woman’s. It would help men catch up.
As a species, we don’t have cratering birth rates, we are still in “population growth” territory.
I would prefer we research how to make immigration socially smoother than to research how to increase the birth rate. I agree there’s a problem, but
- i don’t think increasing the native birth rate fixes it
- i don’t think increasing the restrictions on the movement of humans is desirable
Why would giving the right wing what it wants make it less powerful?
First, I know of few who are in favor of having no regulation or control of immigration, certainly not me.
But, no, supporting immigration reform, which I do, does not satisfy the far right, and is not what they are looking for. Appeasement, or even trying to co-opt their issues, will increase their power not diminish their popularity. (My understanding of the dynamic in the UK is that the Tories have been losing votes to the far right and their tactic of taking on their talking points only results in more losses to them. True?)
The demand is not reasoned immigration reform with pathways to citizenship. The appeal is simple blaming any and all problems on the currently most convenient other.
It is wrong. Ethically. Morally. As a practical solution to the problems of today. It is a recipe for a failing economy going forward. And on a most self interested note: they never stop at the first “other”; history and the facts of today give me great confidence that my family is on the list for actions against. Maybe eventually yours too.
There is no successful track record of government policy initiatives significantly increasing birthrates. You can fantasize that new technology will extend the window of child bearing enough to make a huge difference but that technology is not an option today or as an affordable and available one very widely in any near term future.
Even with significant productivity increases a vibrant growing economy requires young adults. Some are so afraid of those who are different, so resistant to showing mutual respect and tolerance, that they’d rather attack them and futilely preach the need for people like them to have more babies or risk being replaced, than work on the more solvable problems of increasing housing availability, and intelligent immigration reform.
The workable solution is clear. How to win the battle to implement it over a path to economic stagnation and sequentially targeting the other of the moment, I don’t know.
Rather, I’d say it’s endemic to the human population. The Right has been doing it, just in a different fashion. Look at all the posters on this board (a small sample) who not even 10-16 years ago identified as Republicans who got left behind as the Right hit the accelerator into ever more intolerant, small minded, obstructionist policies. Or the Tea Party, the ousting of so-called RINOs, etc. IMHO, the difference between the two is that the left, when it splinters, tends to be able to still cooperate with each other over shared values (there’s that phrase again!) if rather inefficiently.
When the Right in the US splinters, it Purges anyone who won’t submit to the new normal.
Now, if the absolute worst elements of the Right gain dominance (note I don’t say the biggest, or most popular, but some of the loudest) then yes, we’re going to have an increase in the birthrate (back to topic) because women’s autonomy of bodily choice is going to be very limited. I do wonder, in states that have already banned abortion, how much more effort there’s going to be on contraception, beyond just not being able to find a reliable provider - especially with things like Planned Parenthood being forced out.
It will probably push down the average age of the mother at the time of their first child as well.
Note, I still think that on this and some other subjects, we’re going the boiled frog route, it won’t likely be sudden or soon, but I’m a bit less certain about that than I was before Trump went crazy on tariffs, even if he keeps see-sawing on it.
Because 90% of the reason Europeans are voting for far right parties is that they want less immigration, and mainstream parties aren’t giving them what they want. Take away that one issue from them, and those parties would lose the majority of their support.
I think we already have a good idea of that: limit immigration to high skilled, more elite immigrants who tend to have more liberal views. Favour immigrants from culturally similar countries. Limit the numbers from any one country, to aid integration. Build enough homes, services and infrastructure to handle the rising population.
But if one of your major goals is to help poor people from poor countries have a better life, that won’t satisfy you.
The Tories’ policy was the worst of all worlds. During their 14 years in power they repeatedly promised to cut immigration to below 100,000 a year, thus validating their voters’ desires. And they repeatedly failed to achieve it. Eventually, after leaving the EU, they actually had the power to keep their promise, and instead, they raised net migration to 900,000 in one year, the highest level in all of history. Voters aren’t so stupid they don’t notice parties blatantly doing the opposite of what they promised. Neither pro- nor anti- immigration voters were happy with this track record, hence the Tories’ recent crushing defeat at the polls.
AFAIK only in Denmark did mainstream parties take the issue seriously, and reduce and reform immigration. And it worked: the far right party has lost much of its support.
I just can’t understand why European politicians, and apparently all of you, are so wedded to high and unselective immigration - against the democratically expressed wishes of the people - that you’re prepared to risk the rise of in some cases literal neo-Nazi parties. It was the same with Trump’s election. The left refused to compromise on their preferred social policies, which made me think they were just fear mongering when they said Trump was a threat to democracy. But nope, he really is doing awful shit. It makes no sense.
Tell it to the big green lady.
Those are some successful tactics. We can continue working on improving this. Because we need more immigration, as well as more popular immigration. I really think this is an easier nut to crack than increasing the birth rate.
And the heterogeneous US is in a better position to do this than homogeneous Denmark.
First, the European left also tends to be anti-immigrant. And second, the driver behind opposition to immigration is xenophobia, caving in on immigration will just encourage them to switch targets to people already there. Behavior that is rewarded is repeated.
And once the “enemy within” is purged, war. Because for xenophobes people existing who are not exactly like them is an intolerable offense. Immigration isn’t the point, hatred of the “Other” is.
I suspect it’s a horseshoe thing: I don’t really see the centre left or centre right doing this stuff.
I don’t think this is a good example. There has been a dramatic political realignment over the last couple of decades, from the parties mostly being separated by their fiscal policies, with poorer people supporting the Democrats and wealthier ones voting Republican, to the parties mostly being separated by their social policies, with the Dems being a coalition between well educated, socially liberal people, and various minority groups who hope to benefit from Dem policies. Meanwhile the GOP has become the party of the uneducated (hence why they have also become the party of conspiracy theorists), and absorbed much of the white working class.
Dopers strongly tend towards the ‘more educated, socially liberal’ group, so while the old GOP appealed to a small number of them on fiscal grounds, the new version is less likely to. Meanwhile, the lower educated, more socially conservative voters who feel excluded by the Dems are not visible on the board.
This is depressingly true. How plausible is it that the far-right could implement their other ideas, like limiting employment or education for women, or taking away the right to vote?
That’s what I was thinking of. We went to see it with our daughter last summer.
Yes. The US is much better set up to do this than any European country. Mostly you need to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration, and avoid depressing wages.
America also has the advantage that the oceans do a lot of the filtering for you: one doesn’t simply walk across the Atlantic, and small boats aren’t an option either. Needing to be able to afford a plane ticket limits who can come.
Well first of all I disagree that the rise of “in some cases literal neo-Nazi parties” has anything to do with any facts regarding immigrants. Facts are immaterial. Fear and wanting an easy target of blame is the selling point. And again the target will keep getting moved to the next other. It always does.
Second of all leadership is … leading … not following. It is inspiring us all to be better. It is helping voters realize that they already knew what you were explaining to them and why the right course of action is that. It is seeking power to accomplish actual goods, not just for the sake of having power.
But for myself? Because “I was a slave in Egypt.” From Deuteronomy sure but thinking of it more as I was cooking in advance for the Seder we are hosting Saturday night. I was also a passenger on The St Louis.
Because I see the strength that emerges from mere huddled masses.
And because I recognize the need: you hold up Denmark where pandering to xenophobia has kept the main stream Social Democrats dominant. But huh - despite free education through college, free medical care, subsidized child care from six months up, generous parental leave, and even a quarterly cash allowance per child, their fertility rate is way down there at 1.5, and dropping. They actually need immigration of young adults, ideally young adults who will have children.
I do? I see the center left attack the progressive left just about as much as the other way around.
For the love of all that’s ever been holy, why the fuck would you, or anyone else with multiple neurons at their disposal, want to?
Our survival as an ecosystem that still includes us depends on us ratcheting back our population significantly.
Global warming>? Too goddam much homo sap, and their activities
Loss of biodiversity>? Too goddam much homo sap, and their increasingly industrialized monocultural farming
Deforestation, plastic eddys in the ocean, holes in the ozone layer>? Too much goddam homo sap…
Peak oil, loss of energy resources sufficient to meet our future needs>? Too much goddam homo sap…
A huge percent of the last 100 years’ worth of well-intentioned attempts to modify human behavior to prevent negative impact on our world is basically because those things became an issue in the first place because>? Too much goddam homo sap.
Problem is, nobody sees any easy way of making birthrates decline enough to result in a population plummet sufficient to live within our needs that doesn’t involve nasty fights over who gets to have babies, and/or who gets to be exterminated to leave more opportunity for the rest of us.
Sudden rise in authoritarian governments worldwide>? Too much goddam…