3 ms·

This is how political ideology often gains ground: First, an initially outrageous idea is introduced. Over time, this idea is gradually normalized, becoming mo

This is how political ideology often gains ground: First, an initially outrageous idea is introduced. Over time, this idea is gradually normalized, becoming more acceptable. Eventually, it’s implemented with the support of hidden allies who were quietly aligned all along."

mu53 2y ago
It is still unlikely that this will go anywhere Birthrate issues in east asia come down to short term rewards vs long term rewards. Income/leisure/career vs national security/sustaining ethnic identity. This fixes nothing and helps no one
- stonesthrowaway 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think planned is far to strong a word. I think that instead, it is simply a byproduct of the cultural adoption of hedonism (which places happiness above other human goals) and consumerism (Which places material acquisition as the primary means to achieve ones goals). Hedonism and consumerism are pushed by a broad by swath of interests, from industry to government, so there is no need for a grand conspiracy.
    - stonesthrowaway 2y ago
      > I think planned is far to strong a word. It's not. There were literal campaigns across the world to limit childbirth. > I think that instead, it is simply a byproduct of the cultural adoption of hedonism (which places happiness above other human goals) and consumerism (Which places material acquisition as the primary means to achieve ones goals). All culture is planned. > Hedonism and consumerism are pushed by a broad by swath of interests, from industry to government, so there is no need for a grand conspiracy. It's not a "conspiracy". It was open government policy. All over the world. China's 1 child policy being the most prominent and heavy handed approach. But governments around the world implemented a 2 child policy. https://mothership.sg/2018/05/singapore-stop-at-two-children-campaign-successful/ https://mothership.sg/2018/05/singapore-stop-at-two-children... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy In the US, we didn't even have to implement such government because of media control over the masses. The "native" US birth rate has been below replacement since the late 1960s. Thanks to media conditioning. To show you how easily people are manipulated, people now think everything they disagree with is a "conspiracy theory" because the media told them to.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        While yes, I agree that governments tried to control population, I disagree that this is the outcome they were looking for, and disagree that planned government policy is largely responsible for the current situation. To break that down. I agree people would be a fool to think that governments don't have population objectives and act on them. The part I disagree with is: 1) What those objectives were. No government wanted to create a population bubble. 2) The impact of government reproductive policy relative to popular culture. I think these impacts are tiny in comparison to (other) economic policies, and general culture outside of the government. 3) The idea that policy on population size is treated as an end in of itself, versus a means to achieving other policy goals, such as economics and stability.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
That may be true, but that does not mean this is a case of that.

mu53 2y ago

It is still unlikely that this will go anywhere Birthrate issues in east asia come down to short term rewards vs long term rewards. Income/leisure/career vs national security/sustaining ethnic identity. This fixes nothing and helps no one

stonesthrowaway 2y ago
[flagged]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think planned is far to strong a word. I think that instead, it is simply a byproduct of the cultural adoption of hedonism (which places happiness above other human goals) and consumerism (Which places material acquisition as the primary means to achieve ones goals). Hedonism and consumerism are pushed by a broad by swath of interests, from industry to government, so there is no need for a grand conspiracy.
  - stonesthrowaway 2y ago
    > I think planned is far to strong a word. It's not. There were literal campaigns across the world to limit childbirth. > I think that instead, it is simply a byproduct of the cultural adoption of hedonism (which places happiness above other human goals) and consumerism (Which places material acquisition as the primary means to achieve ones goals). All culture is planned. > Hedonism and consumerism are pushed by a broad by swath of interests, from industry to government, so there is no need for a grand conspiracy. It's not a "conspiracy". It was open government policy. All over the world. China's 1 child policy being the most prominent and heavy handed approach. But governments around the world implemented a 2 child policy. https://mothership.sg/2018/05/singapore-stop-at-two-children-campaign-successful/ https://mothership.sg/2018/05/singapore-stop-at-two-children... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy In the US, we didn't even have to implement such government because of media control over the masses. The "native" US birth rate has been below replacement since the late 1960s. Thanks to media conditioning. To show you how easily people are manipulated, people now think everything they disagree with is a "conspiracy theory" because the media told them to.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      While yes, I agree that governments tried to control population, I disagree that this is the outcome they were looking for, and disagree that planned government policy is largely responsible for the current situation. To break that down. I agree people would be a fool to think that governments don't have population objectives and act on them. The part I disagree with is: 1) What those objectives were. No government wanted to create a population bubble. 2) The impact of government reproductive policy relative to popular culture. I think these impacts are tiny in comparison to (other) economic policies, and general culture outside of the government. 3) The idea that policy on population size is treated as an end in of itself, versus a means to achieving other policy goals, such as economics and stability.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That may be true, but that does not mean this is a case of that.