5 ms·

Immigration is a poor substitute for having families, and mass migration is a guaranteed headache. A host population can absorb a trickle, it cannot absorb a de

Immigration is a poor substitute for having families, and mass migration is a guaranteed headache. A host population can absorb a trickle, it cannot absorb a deluge, in which case, what's the point? You're only playing a game of managed extinction in cooperation with your country's new settlers. "Before we go, here's how you operate the light switches..." And even then, that assumes that the replacement population won't absorb the same self-destructive features of the host culture that produced the demographic decline in the first place. Where consumerism is high, procreation is low, as children and parenthood are antithetical to the ethos of consumption. This ethos infects and corrupts every domain of the culture and conspires against families by creating a mutually enabling thicket of disincentives, consumerizing and commoditizing everything, including sexual intercourse and sexual relations, in general. Contraception and sterile "sex" are paradigmatic of consumerism. Perhaps it is not an accident that Dante places the practitioners of such a lifestyle in the same circle of Hell as usurers: the former take something fecund and renders it sterile, while the latter take something sterile and pretend to render it fecund.

lkrubner 3y ago
"in which case, what's the point?" I cannot imagine what system of ethics you are operating from that you would have to ask this question. The point, always, is to provide the best possible life to the greatest number of people, without regard to where those people come from. My goal in life is to maximize human happiness, I do not care what nation a person is from. Unless I'm misreading your words, or you chose your words clumsily, you seem to want a system that works for some set of people but not another set of people. But I'm curious, one what basis would you chose one set of people, and then why would you care about them at all, rather than care about some other group? If you're not going to care about the happiness of all people, then it seems to me you should be consistent and not care about anyone's happiness. But if you honestly care about one group, but not some other group, I'm curious on what basis you chose the group that you care about? And do you really care about them? "You're only playing a game of managed extinction in cooperation with your country's new settlers" I think you meant to write "One generation has apparently found it is possible to maximize their happiness without having children, and now gratefully receives help from new arrivals so as to take care of them during old age, as they have no children to care for them."
- morsch 3y ago
  I cannot imagine what system of ethics you are operating from that you would have to ask this question Catholic (-ish) ultra right wing nationalism, would be my guess. Surprisingly popular in some places. You can pretty much read stuff like that in the newspaper and, to a degree, on billboards.
- savingsPossible 3y ago
  Your reply was too interesting not to try to answer :) > I'm curious on what basis you chose the group that you care about? And do you really care about them? I have two answers for this 1) It is not that, say, I care more about the danish than the syrian. It is that I find sad that a culture would decide to implode, no matter what culture it is. This works on a set of assumptions, all of which might be false, but are justifiable (it seems to me) if not correct (for that is harder to predict) * Receiving a big influx of immigrants that are 20 years or older * Having them and their descendants compose the bulk of your population after a certain year (say, 2070) * Those 2 points significantly affect the makeup of a culture And moral weights: * That the existence of a culture itself has moral weight comparable to the well-being of individuals --- 2) There is also the perhaps more immediate issue: If indeed immigrants make the largest part of the population of a country when you are old and need help, can you *really* keep them from voting in a pattern that reduces your ability to get help? For example, from taxing your accumulated wealth now that you are no longer working, or to cut your benefits. This fear is not unreasonable, and one might be saddened of the (apparent) shortsighedness of not addressing it. Or angry (if one thinks this will happen) that the current middle class and poor of the european country are being sold out by the rich of that country -- they get more labour today, and to live confortably in their old age. Again it is a matter of weights, you can think that the increase in welfare for the immigrants in question outweights (or even far outweights) these costs and risks (one is a cost only if you value the culture independently of the people, another is a cost only in a probabilistic sense). But neither is absurd on the face of it, and it seems reasonable to be sad that "a culture is doing this to itself". -------------- The point here is to establish a degree of reasonableness to the other side, so that both sides can start to reconcile their values rather than dismiss them, not to state which side is right (a thing that I frankly do not know)
wkat4242 3y ago
> Where consumerism is high, procreation is low, as children and parenthood are antithetical to the ethos of consumption. This ethos infects and corrupts every domain of the culture and conspires against families by creating a mutually enabling thicket of disincentives, consumerizing and commoditizing everything, including sexual intercourse and sexual relations, in general. Contraception and sterile "sex" are paradigmatic of consumerism. I have to disagree here. Having more money to spend on consumer items is not the only reason to not want kids. For me it's not about money but about time. I don't want to waste time raising kids that I could have used pursuing interesting opportunities to enrich myself. Which are usually not things that make me financially richer either. And also, I just don't want them. There is no attraction to fatherhood for me. But I would not call myself consumerist at all. I don't buy that much stuff, don't have a car, only a $100 second-hand TV, buy a new phone once every 4 years or so... But I do have a really interesting life. I learn new things every day, constantly move my horizons. I couldn't do that if I were tied down with a family. Many of my friends do have them but if we want to go on a weekend away we have to plan it months in advance because they have to find a common path between all the birthday parties, judo competitions and dance performances of their offspring. I can just do whatever I want on a whim. And once people become parents their sex life becomes pretty much null and void too. There is definitely a correlation between high standards of living and smaller families yes. But I don't think this is because people want to spend more. It's just that they don't really need a big family for "pension" reasons, don't usually care about religious directives anymore (think the big catholic labourer families of old) and want their life to be more than about having kids. Women don't just want to be a baby machine anymore. It takes a toll on their bodies too. And I think it's good. For environmental reasons our population should be stable, not growing rapidly. 2 children per couple is perfect.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Don’t think of consumerism as consumer products. Think of it as “consumption”, rather than creation. A focus on consuming and experiencing things in the world, not building them - of which a family with children is a prime example.
  - 3y ago

lkrubner 3y ago

"in which case, what's the point?" I cannot imagine what system of ethics you are operating from that you would have to ask this question. The point, always, is to provide the best possible life to the greatest number of people, without regard to where those people come from. My goal in life is to maximize human happiness, I do not care what nation a person is from. Unless I'm misreading your words, or you chose your words clumsily, you seem to want a system that works for some set of people but not another set of people. But I'm curious, one what basis would you chose one set of people, and then why would you care about them at all, rather than care about some other group? If you're not going to care about the happiness of all people, then it seems to me you should be consistent and not care about anyone's happiness. But if you honestly care about one group, but not some other group, I'm curious on what basis you chose the group that you care about? And do you really care about them? "You're only playing a game of managed extinction in cooperation with your country's new settlers" I think you meant to write "One generation has apparently found it is possible to maximize their happiness without having children, and now gratefully receives help from new arrivals so as to take care of them during old age, as they have no children to care for them."

morsch 3y ago
I cannot imagine what system of ethics you are operating from that you would have to ask this question Catholic (-ish) ultra right wing nationalism, would be my guess. Surprisingly popular in some places. You can pretty much read stuff like that in the newspaper and, to a degree, on billboards.
savingsPossible 3y ago
Your reply was too interesting not to try to answer :) > I'm curious on what basis you chose the group that you care about? And do you really care about them? I have two answers for this 1) It is not that, say, I care more about the danish than the syrian. It is that I find sad that a culture would decide to implode, no matter what culture it is. This works on a set of assumptions, all of which might be false, but are justifiable (it seems to me) if not correct (for that is harder to predict) * Receiving a big influx of immigrants that are 20 years or older * Having them and their descendants compose the bulk of your population after a certain year (say, 2070) * Those 2 points significantly affect the makeup of a culture And moral weights: * That the existence of a culture itself has moral weight comparable to the well-being of individuals --- 2) There is also the perhaps more immediate issue: If indeed immigrants make the largest part of the population of a country when you are old and need help, can you *really* keep them from voting in a pattern that reduces your ability to get help? For example, from taxing your accumulated wealth now that you are no longer working, or to cut your benefits. This fear is not unreasonable, and one might be saddened of the (apparent) shortsighedness of not addressing it. Or angry (if one thinks this will happen) that the current middle class and poor of the european country are being sold out by the rich of that country -- they get more labour today, and to live confortably in their old age. Again it is a matter of weights, you can think that the increase in welfare for the immigrants in question outweights (or even far outweights) these costs and risks (one is a cost only if you value the culture independently of the people, another is a cost only in a probabilistic sense). But neither is absurd on the face of it, and it seems reasonable to be sad that "a culture is doing this to itself". -------------- The point here is to establish a degree of reasonableness to the other side, so that both sides can start to reconcile their values rather than dismiss them, not to state which side is right (a thing that I frankly do not know)

wkat4242 3y ago

> Where consumerism is high, procreation is low, as children and parenthood are antithetical to the ethos of consumption. This ethos infects and corrupts every domain of the culture and conspires against families by creating a mutually enabling thicket of disincentives, consumerizing and commoditizing everything, including sexual intercourse and sexual relations, in general. Contraception and sterile "sex" are paradigmatic of consumerism. I have to disagree here. Having more money to spend on consumer items is not the only reason to not want kids. For me it's not about money but about time. I don't want to waste time raising kids that I could have used pursuing interesting opportunities to enrich myself. Which are usually not things that make me financially richer either. And also, I just don't want them. There is no attraction to fatherhood for me. But I would not call myself consumerist at all. I don't buy that much stuff, don't have a car, only a $100 second-hand TV, buy a new phone once every 4 years or so... But I do have a really interesting life. I learn new things every day, constantly move my horizons. I couldn't do that if I were tied down with a family. Many of my friends do have them but if we want to go on a weekend away we have to plan it months in advance because they have to find a common path between all the birthday parties, judo competitions and dance performances of their offspring. I can just do whatever I want on a whim. And once people become parents their sex life becomes pretty much null and void too. There is definitely a correlation between high standards of living and smaller families yes. But I don't think this is because people want to spend more. It's just that they don't really need a big family for "pension" reasons, don't usually care about religious directives anymore (think the big catholic labourer families of old) and want their life to be more than about having kids. Women don't just want to be a baby machine anymore. It takes a toll on their bodies too. And I think it's good. For environmental reasons our population should be stable, not growing rapidly. 2 children per couple is perfect.

keiferski 3y ago
Don’t think of consumerism as consumer products. Think of it as “consumption”, rather than creation. A focus on consuming and experiencing things in the world, not building them - of which a family with children is a prime example.
- 3y ago