peter Zeihan 2020

[S'task]

You know, ONE regulation, I see plenty of people agreeing on is food-health-safety control

Especially in-relation to China's surprisingly unregulated "wet market" which is in a Socialist Nation but allowed so much leeway in people buying and selling something that was already a possible health hazard years before

Sure.

But those can be terrible too. For instance, in many places in the US a person cannot just go a buy milk freshly milked from a cow from a farmer (AKA "Raw Millk"). Why? Food safety regulations that require all milk to go through certain processes before being sold. Likewise you see similar issues when it comes to other direct sales between farmers and customers, all of which drive money into corporate food processors.

Now, do some of those service public health? Sure. But you cannot just make such blanket assumptions.

 

[Prince Ire]

The amount of sheer stupid in this is mind-boggling... I just can't believe how stupid this... rant... is. It's like you've drunk enough cultist kool-aid that it's insane.

It isn't feminism or leftism that totaled birth rates, its simply cost. As the rich and corporations keep dodging taxes, things break down because civilization is always been expensive. As the rich and corporations try to cheat everyone else, the collapse of housing markets and other problems will continue.

As such, you need to find a way to make those costs either vanish or be inconsequential to get the birth rates up. You need to force corporations to completely revamp maternity leave with extreme prejudice. You need to make sure that the rich and corporations pay their taxes (even if it means going full Justinian the Great and torturing the rich to pay their dues). You need to ensure that the rich and corporations don't pull the 'turn a situation into a ticking time bomb and then bail out and thus avoid the consequences' BS.

That sort of thing.

Thus the constant 'closing of loopholes' for taxes, the idea of UBIs getting traction pretty much everywhere (to the point that some towns have become ginni pigs to get actual data on UBIs and the economy), so on and so forth. Hell, some people are going 'let's revive Huey Long's SHARE OUR WEALTH program!' (which, oddly enough, was a UBI before the name stuck)...

The problem is that those that aren't stupid in the US's leadership are trying to keep selling it but significant parts of the country can't wrap their heads around it (many of which, are oddly enough, Republican). Also, another system won't appear until someone simply conquers all of humanity with an iron fist because due to the situation the world is in right now and in the future if the system fails completely...

Ah of course, it's all the fault of the Rich whose taxes don't account for anywhere near the majority of revenue...and who oddly enough wind up contributing more when their horrifically unfair taxes (the progressive tax rate is an abortion of justice that only satisfies the moral whims of lefties) get slashed.

Big government did this. It has gotten steadily bigger and bigger (largely due to the Left's ill fated attempts to legislate away society's woes in the 1950s and 1960s) and has poked its unwelcome nose into everything. Over regulation has badly constrained the construction of housing, bloated social programmes demand higher taxes which makes purchasing a house all the more difficult, and mass immigration has driven demand through the roof.

I don't see how blaming the Rich for a problem they didn't create is going to fix this problem. The solution seems to be kicking the government out of places it isn't wanted and bring taxes down, not bloating the state even more, chasing away possible contributors to the economy, and pissing our wealth away on social programmes that don't seem to fucking work.

I haven't been drinking "koolaid." I've been sipping PG Tips.

Both of you are wrong, hence why birthrates are low in developed nations regardless of whether or not their taxes are high or low, have many regulations or few regulations, have generous maternity leave and child benefits or not, etc. Heck, just look at the US. Birthrates go down as income goes up. While economics does have some impact (hence why Hungary's child benefit program resulted in a small increase in birth rates), the primary reason birth rates are so low is cultural.

One of the great insights of cultural history has been that Marx was mistaken about the nature of social classes. He believed class and class behavior was based solely on economic interests. He was wrong. Social class is both constructed and performative, hence why the same social classes will sometimes act quite differently across cultures. In the present age of globalism, class culture is one of those things that has become increasingly globalized. Why are birthrates so low across developed nations? Because of the globalized sense of what it means to be a member of the Modern Middle Class. Humans are conformists, and generally stick to class expectations in are behavior. We even tend to rebel against expectations in ways that conform to what are culture expects a rebel to behave like. And the Modern Middle Class class expectation in regards to procreation is to only have 0-1 children. This can be seen in studies which indicate professional women want to have more children than they actually end up having. They want more children. They can afford more children. And yet they don't, because humans conform to class expectations even when doing so makes them unhappy. And the expectation of a Modern Middle Class woman (and to a degree man) is to have few if any children. Want to increase birthrates? Change Middle Class cultural norms in regards to number of children on a global scale, even if only to 2-3 children in order to get to replacement level. How to go about doing this? I don't know. It may not even be possible. But expecting economics to solve the problem on its own simply isn't going to work.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

...human beings are also genetically programmed to procreate as all animals are. Them not procreating is unnatural and has likely been induced by outside factors, such as it being made harder to start a family these days. There are other reasons that pile on top of this, but they merely add to the pre-existing problem; they are not the root cause.

Besides, class isn't nearly as important as some people crack it up to be. In fact I wish the word would drop out of political vernacular as class based politics has done woefully little good.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@Prince Ire
@Lord Sovereign
You know, ironically this reminds me of a Social Studies sort of class I took, the kind usually to attract Far Left types

It was explained there that one strange but weirdly logical thing was that Poor Families have a LOT of kids even if they can’t afford them

The logic was that at least one of them will survive and grow up and be able to financially take care of the family

And maybe they could put the rest of the children to work somewhere

 

[bullethead]

Here's what Peter himself has to say about the amount of kids and factors influencing that:

• The ratio of four children to three young adults to two mature adults to one revered elder has more or less held true since the dawn of human civilization: 4:3:2:1. But today many countries are closer to 1:2:2:1, signifying both rapid aging and shrinking of the population.

These shifts are a by-product of industrialization. The Industrial Revolution brought us concrete and steel and electricity and reliable food production and long-haul transport—the building blocks of urbanization.

That’s changed the fundamental structure of how we live:

• On the farm, children are free labor, and everyone loves free things. In an urban apartment, children are luxury goods, and not everyone can afford more than one. If that.
• On the farm, the extended family works together, and a larger brood leads directly to greater economic and physical security. In the city, families scatter; large numbers are a boon only during holidays and on moving day.
• On the farm, we married young—typically during to just after high school—because agricultural work requires a strong back. In the city, we put off marriage until after university because a more technically inclined economy requires a more technically inclined workforce.
• On the farm, most technology of relevance relates to land, water, leaf, and hoof. In the city, technology is a world of its own—much of which is designed to help us live easier, longer, more leisurely lives.
• On the farm, we marry young, work young, and die young. In the city, we marry old, work old, and die old.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Here's what Peter himself has to say about the amount of kids and factors influencing that:

Universities.....say, what if kids learned cheaper and faster via online education and homeschooling that is sorta more focused on each individual than a huge mass of people whom the teachers or professors can’t all talk to

Public School takes up much of a kids time and I doubt it’s always super effective or likely to teach kids stuff they’ll actually use for work and may even miss out on lots of stuff regarding economics taught by dudes like Adam Smith and so on

 

[bullethead]

Honestly, I don't think that online education by itself will do much of anything to incentivize having (more) kids. I think that would require a combination of tax incentives, cultural shifts, and broader adoption of teleworking in addition to cheaper, more flexible, certification oriented online education. Remember, for urban/suburban populations, each kid is an additional cost in terms of money, time, and inconveniences - in order to make the populace want to have more kids, you have to drop all the costs as much as you can.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Honestly, I don't think that online education by itself will do much of anything to incentivize having (more) kids. I think that would require a combination of tax incentives, cultural shifts, and broader adoption of teleworking in addition to cheaper, more flexible, certification oriented online education. Remember, for urban/suburban populations, each kid is an additional cost in terms of money, time, and inconveniences - in order to make the populace want to have more kids, you have to drop all the costs as much as you can.

I don’t think it’ll just be financial costs

Would YOU want to put up with some kid making tantrums or nearly eating crayons or arguing with you or insisting that you be there for him

Hell, having that kid could mean less time for other things, including non-essentials

Parental love does NOT necessarily come naturally to a person, much less always enough to overpower every other desire

 

[bullethead]

Would YOU want to put up with some kid making tantrums or nearly eating crayons or arguing with you or insisting that you be there for him

That's why I included "inconveniences" in the various costs that need to be reduced.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

The biggest single factor in reducing birth rates is the rise of cheap, effective, available, birth control.

Sex has been a human recreational activity since before we had the written word. This often led to unplanned children. The invention of the latex condom and birth control pill drastically reduced the number of accidental pregnancies.

Our grandparents were adults in a time where the most effective birth control method was timing and pulling out. Our parents came to adulthood in a time when the condom could be bought from the vending machine in a gas station restroom and where birth control pills were both cheap and plentiful.

Taking children from simply being an accepted consequence of having sex to a planned part of life is the largest single factor in the drastic change in birth rates.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

That's why I included "inconveniences" in the various costs that need to be reduced.

I’m guessing everybody has to hire a nanny then

 

[Bear Ribs]

Culturally I think just changing the narrative on TV and movies would go a long way to improving childbirth rates.

When's the last time a baby wasn't portrayed as a horrifying nightmarish slobbergoblin that screams 24/7 and produces infinite filthy diapers and vomit?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Culturally I think just changing the narrative on TV and movies would go a long way to improving childbirth rates.

When's the last time a baby wasn't portrayed as a horrifying nightmarish slobbergoblin that screams 24/7 and produces infinite filthy diapers and vomit?

You mean Grimdark/Grimderp stuff aren’t always realistic? Being extremely cynical about free markets(but being extremely idealistic towards government intervention is okay)and free speech and free transactions isn’t being realistic about stuff either?

 

[Bear Ribs]

You mean Grimdark/Grimderp stuff aren’t always realistic? Being extremely cynical about free markets(but being extremely idealistic towards government intervention is okay)and free speech and free transactions isn’t being realistic about stuff either?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't mean that as snark, I genuinely can't tell what you mean.

 

[Floridaman]

The biggest single factor in reducing birth rates is the rise of cheap, effective, available, birth control.

Sex has been a human recreational activity since before we had the written word. This often led to unplanned children. The invention of the latex condom and birth control pill drastically reduced the number of accidental pregnancies.

Our grandparents were adults in a time where the most effective birth control method was timing and pulling out. Our parents came to adulthood in a time when the condom could be bought from the vending machine in a gas station restroom and where birth control pills were both cheap and plentiful.

Taking children from simply being an accepted consequence of having sex to a planned part of life is the largest single factor in the drastic change in birth rates.

to be honest culture is why I think America was able to blunt the effects somewhat. The American idea of success is 2 kids a dog, 2 cars, a spouse, and a house with a white picket fence. I think that may be why in the developed world excluding France America is amongst the only with a replacement rate population growth.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't mean that as snark, I genuinely can't tell what you mean.

I mean that people at times like to think of fiction as either "satire" or some sort of reflection of real-life social realities, including ones that sorta make out how a Free Market will lead to a Megacorp that will destroy said Free Market

So they also take seriously the idea of kids being a YUGE burden to even have, even money aside

Or how "Freedom of Opportunity" is worthless because people are free to be racists and there's a YUGE number of hillbilly neonate's everywhere

Having kids is a horrible societal mysogynistic expectation that chains women to homes and their sexist husbands

Taking fiction as social commentaries and NOT really checking if it's true or not thoroughly can be a problem

 

[Bear Ribs]

I mean that people at times like to think of fiction as either "satire" or some sort of reflection of real-life social realities, including ones that sorta make out how a Free Market will lead to a Megacorp that will destroy said Free Market

So they also take seriously the idea of kids being a YUGE burden to even have, even money aside

Or how "Freedom of Opportunity" is worthless because people are free to be racists and there's a YUGE number of hillbilly neonate's everywhere

Having kids is a horrible societal mysogynistic expectation that chains women to homes and their sexist husbands

Taking fiction as social commentaries and NOT really checking if it's true or not thoroughly can be a problem

I think it's less taking them as reality than taking your cultural cues from what they see people doing on TV. You see this applied to other things, f'rex you'll find that there's no cigarettes on TV presented as anything but vile and nasty aside from a handful of R-rated movies, and cigarettes are socially unacceptable today, whereas when cigarettes were socially accepted, say in the John Wayne era, everybody has one in their mouth in every scene. People take notice and what they watch influences them, if it didn't we wouldn't have ratings.

Back in the day a staple of TV was the DomCom, domestic comedy based on wacky families with kids. Family Ties was a popular show that gave Michael J. Fox his start, playing the greedy, yuppie child of a pair of hippies (he had a couple sisters too). Take a look at the top comedies up for release in 2020. All of 1 has kids being raised in it, the rest being either single people or couples without kids (and several that seem to involve sisters with each others husbands which I find off-putting.)

It's not a one-way street. Movies and TV are also influenced by society in a bit of feedback. But I think putting families, showing good times instead of just comedically making babies out to be eldrith abominations, would help influence society back and make families more socially acceptable.

'Course I have no idea how to do that. Something like a government funded program would go all ham-fisted and look like Captain Planet evangelizing except for families instead of the environment. There's also the issue that Democrats largely don't want families to exist because immigrants favor their party more so making sure the country needs an influx of people serves their needs. It's not an easy problem to solve without influential people in the right places and there don't seem to be any.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@Bear Ribs
Bit of a problem there, once they’re too used to a cynical cliche, they’ll probably be going on about how unrealistic and horrible that brighter take is

Yeah, not an easy thing to say the least

That said, I think even those immigrants or the countries they come from are gonna start getting into this mode of thinking that lessens population size and makes people miserable

Well, unless this’ referring to Muslim Nations that are far more Socially Conservative and may not exactly like Socialism/Communism much

 

[Prince Ire]

...human beings are also genetically programmed to procreate as all animals are. Them not procreating is unnatural and has likely been induced by outside factors, such as it being made harder to start a family these days. There are other reasons that pile on top of this, but they merely add to the pre-existing problem; they are not the root cause.

Besides, class isn't nearly as important as some people crack it up to be. In fact I wish the word would drop out of political vernacular as class based politics has done woefully little good.

I very much question the idea that its harder to start a family these days than it was, say, a hundred years ago. But even assuming that was true, why then is fertility rate inversely proportional to income in developed countries? Surely the wealthy who have more ability to start a family should be the ones having more kids, then?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I very much question the idea that its harder to start a family these days than it was, say, a hundred years ago. But even assuming that was true, why then is fertility rate inversely proportional to income in developed countries? Surely the wealthy who have more ability to start a family should be the ones having more kids, then?

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s Robots/Galactic Empire/Foundation series

Let’s just say, the “Spacers” had way safer and better living standards and way longer life expectancy

Their rate of reproduction was VERY low, they could reproduce just fine, they just did NOT and were rather extremely patient about having kids....didn’t like raising them too. Having kids was just some sort of optional duty for some long development plan

They were patient and extremely careful about it all, wouldn’t want a kid with deformities or to have so many kids that they deplete the environment

Yeah, Asimov was a Leftie but he weirdly enough he looked to sort of criticize stuff like Planned Parenthood in his works and how having things provided for them with little conflict, eventually kills society due to a lack of things like competitive spirit