Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real deal is no one wants to admit that melanin deficient people, like others, have been in a life and death struggle with Mother Nature. But having succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, exported their surplus population in colonies throughout the world. [See: 15th through 20th centuries]
In the process, they brought with them their superior technology and science to those cultures who had abandoned or forgotten or otherwise did not have it. Along with the good, came the bad. Money Madness. Usury. Conquest. Pandemics. All in the search for new lands, raw materials and new markets. Was it a “good thing” for all concerned? Open to interpretation, depending on the cost versus benefit for the individual concerned.
Now, as the ‘other peoples’ are starting to swell their ranks, they now wish to export their surplus population into the areas of the melanin deficient people. This is not entirely benign, since a large number of these people subscribe to a philosophy that is akin to mad dog mass murder and mayhem under the guise of religious zealotry.
To compound this situation, Socialism is genocidal. When people are persuaded to believe that their security in old age will be based on “taxing other people’s children,” they forego the hassle and expense of a large family, or even having children - which was the traditional means of old-age security for millennia. When this childless behavior is wide spread, the burgeoning pensioner population becomes a huge burden on the shrinking taxpayer base. Not Good!
What is the solution?
[] Accept that socialist nations will be overrun by the surplus population of their non-socialist neighbors, who are not compatible with their culture, language, skill or education level in the hope that they and their children will support the pensioners?
[] Selectively accept immigrants who would be a benefit to the host country?
[] Out reproduce the non-socialist nations to maintain a balance?
[] Abolish socialism?
[] Abandon the elderly?
[] Your ideas here . . .
To summarize your post, Europeans colonized and the descendants of these colonizers have settled and are moving towards a potentially new economic system is democratic socialism. They are also opening their borders to Middle Eastern, most notably Muslim, immigrants who's culture could be violent towards Westerners.
You make a claim out of nowhere here. That socialism is genocidal. I'm assuming you're saying it's a self inflicted genocide by 1) depleting a need for large families and 2) opening it's borders. Well, the latter is unrelated and the former is more to do with industrialization and not an actual economic system.
To summarize your post, Europeans colonized and the descendants of these colonizers have settled and are moving towards a potentially new economic system is democratic socialism. They are also opening their borders to Middle Eastern, most notably Muslim, immigrants who's culture could be violent towards Westerners.
You make a claim out of nowhere here. That socialism is genocidal. I'm assuming you're saying it's a self inflicted genocide by 1) depleting a need for large families and 2) opening it's borders. Well, the latter is unrelated and the former is more to do with industrialization and not an actual economic system.
Socialism IS genocidal, an ideology based on “taxing other people’s children,” while preventing or discouraging their birth.
It is no coincidence that socialist countries are suffering reduced birthrates - even depopulating, rich or poor.
Socialism will have killed itself off in another generation, or be supplanted by the invaders from non-socialist countries.
Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
Birthrate per woman; 1960; 2014
Sweden: 2.2;1.9
Norway: 2.9; 1.8
Denmark: 2.6;1.7
Finland: 2.7; 1.8
Russian Federation: 2.5; 1.7
Ukraine: 2.2; 1.5 (wuh woh)
Cuba: 4.2; 1.6 (Impressive result of socialism)
United States: 3.7, 1.9 (USA is more and more socialist)
Mexico: 6.8; 2.2 (exporting their surplus, eh?)
The ageing of Europe, also known as the greying of Europe, is a demographic phenomenon in Europe characterized by a decrease in fertility, a decrease in mortality rate, and a higher life expectancy among European populations.
. . . .
A common argument heard, is that having children is SO EXPENSIVE, that no one can afford big families. But for some strange reason, poor countries, especially non-socialist countries, keep having more and more children!
IMHO, Socialism (collectivism) destroys the natural order, that for centuries led families to have as many children as possible, to insure their own prosperity and security in old age. Once people were misled to assume that “government” would take care of them (using other people’s money and children), they felt that they could avoid the bother and expense of a large family. Now, that the decrease in fertility has reduced the population, the disproportionate number of elderly and infirm will become an even greater burden upon the remaining tax payers. In short, socialism is running out of “other people’s money” and “other people’s children.” This does not bode well for the socialist nations.
In short, Socialism is genocidal, and Europe has lost the BioWar.
What fate will befall the elderly and infirm, one can only speculate.
Neither am I. It's hypocritical to avoid specific terms where it comes to a race or ethnicity, unless there is some inferior motive in this.
A white man is a white man. Albino is albino. I have seen negroid albinos. Nothing offensive in both terms, unless one wants to get offended.
But now everyone will look up "melanin deficient people" and find likes of this:
Melanin theory is an ideology based on the properties of melanin, the primary determinant of skin color in humans.[1][2][3][4][5] Melanin theory argues that higher levels of melanin are directly correlated with increased intelligence, creativity, physical prowess and supernatural abilities.[1]
According to Bernard Ortiz De Montellano of Wayne State University, "The alleged properties of melanin, mostly unsupported, irrelevant, or distortions of the scientific literature, are (...) used to justify Afrocentric assertions. One of the most common is that humans evolved as blacks in Africa, and that whites are mutants (albinos, or melanin recessives)".[6][7] The melanin hypothesis was supported by Leonard Jeffries, who according to Time magazine, believes that "melanin, the dark skin pigment, gives blacks intellectual and physical superiority over whites" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory
So what exactly is that you are implying by "melanin deficient people"?
Socialism IS genocidal, an ideology based on “taxing other people’s children,” while preventing or discouraging their birth.
It is no coincidence that socialist countries are suffering reduced birthrates - even depopulating, rich or poor.
Socialism will have killed itself off in another generation, or be supplanted by the invaders from non-socialist countries.
Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
Birthrate per woman; 1960; 2014
Sweden: 2.2;1.9
Norway: 2.9; 1.8
Denmark: 2.6;1.7
Finland: 2.7; 1.8
Russian Federation: 2.5; 1.7
Ukraine: 2.2; 1.5 (wuh woh)
Cuba: 4.2; 1.6 (Impressive result of socialism)
United States: 3.7, 1.9 (USA is more and more socialist)
Mexico: 6.8; 2.2 (exporting their surplus, eh?)
The ageing of Europe, also known as the greying of Europe, is a demographic phenomenon in Europe characterized by a decrease in fertility, a decrease in mortality rate, and a higher life expectancy among European populations.
. . . .
A common argument heard, is that having children is SO EXPENSIVE, that no one can afford big families. But for some strange reason, poor countries, especially non-socialist countries, keep having more and more children!
IMHO, Socialism (collectivism) destroys the natural order, that for centuries led families to have as many children as possible, to insure their own prosperity and security in old age. Once people were misled to assume that “government” would take care of them (using other people’s money and children), they felt that they could avoid the bother and expense of a large family. Now, that the decrease in fertility has reduced the population, the disproportionate number of elderly and infirm will become an even greater burden upon the remaining tax payers. In short, socialism is running out of “other people’s money” and “other people’s children.” This does not bode well for the socialist nations.
In short, Socialism is genocidal, and Europe has lost the BioWar.
What fate will befall the elderly and infirm, one can only speculate.
And this is why this is just your opinion and not fact, and an extremely misguided one at that. Let's start with correlation doesn't equal causation. I mean seriously out of all of the reasons for falling birthrates you pick out socialism?
Then there is the fact that many people don't hold this selfish idea of having kids just for someone to take care of them in the future.
Then there is the fact that life expectancy has increased exponentially thinks to breakthroughs in medicine and healthcare and many people in the past were lucky to make it to an advanced age.
And this is why this is just your opinion and not fact, and an extremely misguided one at that. Let's start with correlation doesn't equal causation. I mean seriously out of all of the reasons for falling birthrates you pick out socialism?
It fits.
Can you find ONE socialist country, rich or poor, that has a RISING fertility rate? Greater than 2.0 children per female? And not due to an influx of immigrants, legal or illegal?
And can you find non-socialist countries, rich or poor, that have FALLING fertility rates? Below 2.0 children per female?
{Socialist being defined as any nation which has a COMPULSORY "social security" pension system.}
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
Then there is the fact that many people don't hold this selfish idea of having kids just for someone to take care of them in the future.
So it's NOT selfish for a government to compel "other people's children" to take care you YOU YOU YOU?
Having family care for family = selfish.
Having strangers compelled to care for you = not selfish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
Then there is the fact that life expectancy has increased exponentially thinks to breakthroughs in medicine and healthcare and many people in the past were lucky to make it to an advanced age.
Melanin theory is an ideology based on the properties of melanin,
So what exactly is that you are implying by "melanin deficient people"?
Had not been aware of "Melanin Theory" and did not base my post upon it.
Melanin deficient = People who are pale, due to geographical location and cooler climate, in order to absorb more Vitamin D. May include Europeans, Asians, and American Aborigines (ex: Inuit).
Returning to the original question: What is the solution?
<To the imbalance between depopulating socialist countries and overpopulating non-socialist countries>
[] Accept that socialist nations will be overrun by the surplus population of their non-socialist neighbors, who are not compatible with their culture, language, skill or education level in the hope that they and their children will support the pensioners?
[] Selectively accept immigrants who would be a benefit to the host country?
[] Out reproduce the non-socialist nations to maintain a balance?
[] Abolish socialism?
[] Abandon the elderly?
[] Your ideas here . . .
[quote=jetgraphics;47741193]It fits.
Can you find ONE socialist country, rich or poor, that has a RISING fertility rate? Greater than 2.0 children per female? And not due to an influx of immigrants, legal or illegal?
And can you find non-socialist countries, rich or poor, that have FALLING fertility rates? Below 2.0 children per female?
{Socialist being defined as any nation which has a COMPULSORY "social security" pension system.}[quote] Do you actually know what Socialism is? I am guessing you really don't. Otherwise you would know those countries with falling birthrates are not socialists.
It is not just any country that has a Social Security System. Just making up your own definition doesn't fly.
Quote:
So it's NOT selfish for a government to compel "other people's children" to take care you YOU YOU YOU?
Having family care for family = selfish.
Having strangers compelled to care for you = not selfish
You tried to make this argument on another sub forum here and fail to realize a third option, the person in need of care actually manages their finances well and procures a very good retirement fund where they will not be a financial burden on society or their children.
Quote:
And your point is?
Millions of people from past generations didn't live well into old age for their children to take care of them. So it was a moot point.
Socialism IS genocidal, an ideology based on “taxing other people’s children,” while preventing or discouraging their birth.
It is no coincidence that socialist countries are suffering reduced birthrates - even depopulating, rich or poor.
Socialism will have killed itself off in another generation, or be supplanted by the invaders from non-socialist countries.
Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
Birthrate per woman; 1960; 2014
Sweden: 2.2;1.9
Norway: 2.9; 1.8
Denmark: 2.6;1.7
Finland: 2.7; 1.8
Russian Federation: 2.5; 1.7
Ukraine: 2.2; 1.5 (wuh woh)
Cuba: 4.2; 1.6 (Impressive result of socialism)
United States: 3.7, 1.9 (USA is more and more socialist)
Mexico: 6.8; 2.2 (exporting their surplus, eh?)
The ageing of Europe, also known as the greying of Europe, is a demographic phenomenon in Europe characterized by a decrease in fertility, a decrease in mortality rate, and a higher life expectancy among European populations.
. . . .
A common argument heard, is that having children is SO EXPENSIVE, that no one can afford big families. But for some strange reason, poor countries, especially non-socialist countries, keep having more and more children!
IMHO, Socialism (collectivism) destroys the natural order, that for centuries led families to have as many children as possible, to insure their own prosperity and security in old age. Once people were misled to assume that “government” would take care of them (using other people’s money and children), they felt that they could avoid the bother and expense of a large family. Now, that the decrease in fertility has reduced the population, the disproportionate number of elderly and infirm will become an even greater burden upon the remaining tax payers. In short, socialism is running out of “other people’s money” and “other people’s children.” This does not bode well for the socialist nations.
In short, Socialism is genocidal, and Europe has lost the BioWar.
What fate will befall the elderly and infirm, one can only speculate.
No. You don't have a firm grasp on what socialism is. Socialism is not about "taxation." Taxation is nearly an afterthought in socialism. Socialism is about how you structure your economy; it's about socializing the means of production. The social democracies of Europe don't even actually do this. They socialize certain utilities, like healthcare or education, but the means of production are still private enterprises, who's only real public intervention is a union. So calling the social democracies 'socialist' is a pretty big stretch.
As for birth rates, there's usually more than one factor at play. Something far more relevant that economic system is economic potential. Industrialization lead to a decreased birth rate. Improvements in healthcare lead to a decrease in birthrate. Look at it this way, if infant mortality rate drops and there's no real economic reason to have a massive number of kids (farmhands are a thing of the past), what motivation is there for having kids beyond replacement value?
And let's consider why people might choose to not have kids? At least in the state, it's probably because they don't have time. From when they were kids, millennials were told repeatedly that their worth is measured in wealth. Success means economic success. If I don't have a good, well paying job by 30, I've failed. This was the view. So I and all the other millennials have to think about our careers and that just doesn't leave a lot of time for kids. And even married millennials are putting off having kids, mainly because of money. A dual income household today will usually have a net income comparable to what a single income household made in the 1970s. And the second they ask for a pay increase or to reduce working hours to 30, or even just actually 40 instead of the nominally 40 hour work week we currently have, their accused of being entitled or being a bunch of Bolsheviks. But that couldn't possibly be the problem...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
