3 ms·

It's hard not to read this: > Birth rates are near or below replacement in all but the world’s poorest countries As "Too many of the wrong kind of people are

It's hard not to read this: > Birth rates are near or below replacement in all but the world’s poorest countries As "Too many of the wrong kind of people are being born. How can we get more of the right kind?" The entire underlying premise of the article is that the population should continue to grow forever or human progress is doomed. But that's not proven. And even if it were, I don't like "eugenics, but for nationalities instead of genetics" as the answer.

happytoexplain 2y ago
It is hard not to consider that possibility. But it should be easy not to read it that way - i.e. to give the benefit of the doubt that people can consider this a problem without being evil.
- knodi123 2y ago
  I don't consider their fundamental premise sound, that if the poor countries are fecund and the rich countries are not, that it will automatically lead to the end of worldwide technological innovation. As I see things, it's a fact that, 1.) Immigration exists and is good, and 2.) it doesn't take very many years of education to turn someone from a disadvantaged background into a scientifically savvy modern person. If the author of this article merely forgot that, then that's quite an oversight. But you're right, it was uncharitable of me to assume he didn't forget, and actually thinks that either 1) or 2) are false. So I retract my cynicism and replace it with constructive criticism.
lm28469 2y ago
It's not about "kind" it's about wealth. Migrants coming to the west have vastly inferior fertility as their peers who stayed in their home country I see how your take fits in the current "polarise everything" craze but the bigger issue imho is that our modern way of life is actively destroying itself, consumerism is toxic to itself
- knodi123 2y ago
  > the current "polarise everything" craze Don't think of it as a craze. Think of it more like, America just had a president that referred to many poor countries as "shitholes" and tried to block immigration from them. And as someone who has people they care deeply about who are immigrants from those countries, I have an increased sensitivity to certain dogwhistles which *absolutely* are being blown by some people. If I accidentally hear that dog whistle where the person only meant to discuss wealth, I hope you can understand why.

happytoexplain 2y ago

It is hard not to consider that possibility. But it should be easy not to read it that way - i.e. to give the benefit of the doubt that people can consider this a problem without being evil.

knodi123 2y ago
I don't consider their fundamental premise sound, that if the poor countries are fecund and the rich countries are not, that it will automatically lead to the end of worldwide technological innovation. As I see things, it's a fact that, 1.) Immigration exists and is good, and 2.) it doesn't take very many years of education to turn someone from a disadvantaged background into a scientifically savvy modern person. If the author of this article merely forgot that, then that's quite an oversight. But you're right, it was uncharitable of me to assume he didn't forget, and actually thinks that either 1) or 2) are false. So I retract my cynicism and replace it with constructive criticism.

lm28469 2y ago

It's not about "kind" it's about wealth. Migrants coming to the west have vastly inferior fertility as their peers who stayed in their home country I see how your take fits in the current "polarise everything" craze but the bigger issue imho is that our modern way of life is actively destroying itself, consumerism is toxic to itself

knodi123 2y ago
> the current "polarise everything" craze Don't think of it as a craze. Think of it more like, America just had a president that referred to many poor countries as "shitholes" and tried to block immigration from them. And as someone who has people they care deeply about who are immigrants from those countries, I have an increased sensitivity to certain dogwhistles which *absolutely* are being blown by some people. If I accidentally hear that dog whistle where the person only meant to discuss wealth, I hope you can understand why.