4 ms·

South Korea is dying. It has the lowest birth rate in the world: ~0.78 children per woman. If you want to know what that means, take 100 people (50 men, 50 wome

by jmyeet 2y ago

South Korea is dying. It has the lowest birth rate in the world: ~0.78 children per woman. If you want to know what that means, take 100 people (50 men, 50 women). In 3 generations there are... 6 people. That's population collapse. Every developed nation is barreling towards this fate. It's what end stage capitalism and 5 chaebols-in-a-trenchcoat as a government looks like. The only thing preventing population collapse in the West is immigration. Any country that wants to maintain a particular ethnic majority is doomed. So why is South Korea like this? Because of the demands of work, the government being beholden to the chaebols, the demands on women to both work, have children and largely be responsible for raising them without work suffering. There's a vicious cycle of entrenched misogyny and women essentially opting out of this system (ie the 4B movement). Add all this up and you have a country that is bound for crisis after crisis. You cannot look at this current crisis without understanding the broader context. The endless pursuit of profits will quite literally destroy a country if you let it.

GuestFAUniverse 2y ago
To South Korea: thanks for all the fish... oh wait: cheap stuff... and goodbye. Problem is: what is NK doing with its army, when SK has practically died out? I mean, they could just procreate, wait and declare superior victory, instead of wasting resources on their army.
adamc 2y ago
If you correct for the replacement rate being 2.1, it's actually even worse than this... closer to 5 people.
xyst 2y ago
[flagged]
- jmyeet 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - gred 2y ago
    Your reference [1] seems very confused about what it's trying to say and where it's trying to go, at least in terms of linking abortion to white supremacy. In fact, the fight for abortion access is closely tied to white supremacy (see e.g. the eugenics movements of the 1920s and 1930s in the US).
  - samatman 2y ago
    Do you think Clarence Thomas would vote against Loving v. Virginia?
    - JetSpiegel 2y ago
      If you have a yacht and let him vacation on it, he'll do it!
      - samatman 2y ago
        What would he tell his wife?
        JetSpiegel 2y ago
        "Let me introduce you to the civil union law..." If he's smart, no-fault divorce would go first, so she couldn't say anything.
        mrguyorama 2y ago
        Probably the same thing most extreme conservative conspiracy theorists say to their wives when they do things that hurt them: Shut up and stay in the kitchen. JD Vance publicly called his wife okay for a not-white lady. I don't know why you think they respect their wives.
    - jmyeet 2y ago
      This all boils down to something called "substantive due process", which goes back to a 1905 case where a New York law restricting a baker's working hours was ruled unconstitutional because there was no public interest in what evolved into an implied right to privacy. Procedural due process asks the question "did the government follow proper procedure?" whereas substantive due process asks "does the government have an interest in this issue?" So this was a key pillar in Roe v. Wade as the Court (theN) ruled that the government has no interest in what a woman does with her own body for the first trimester. As such, laws against abortion were unconstitutional. Critics at the time said there were other ways to construct a legal framework to protection abortion access. Anyway, this implied right to privacy had all sorts of implications that the conservative judges don't like. Loving was based on both substantive due process and equal protection so it gets a little complicated. Furhter complicating this is the Respect for Marriage Act (2022), which codified things like interracial and gay marraige. But all sorts of rights we take for granted are built on substantive due process so as soon as the court dismantles that doctrine, the genie is out of the bottle. It's not that Thomas would necessarily vote to overturn Loving (particularly because of other complications mentioned above) but once you set the precedent, certain things become inevitable. Contraception is probably the next thing to be under attack, particularly because there is an effort to define contraception as an abortion, both from a political and legal POV. Mifepristone will almost certainly be outlawed. Don't be surprised if the oral contraceptive pill also ends up illegal in red states too.
logicchains 2y ago
It's not because of misogyny; women in North Korea have far fewer rights but still have much more kids. As did South Korean women 50 years ago when the culture was even more misogynistic.
Rapzid 2y ago
They are quite open to immigration now. If you've been recently you'd know they are practically begging people to move there and make babies.
- jajko 2y ago
  Any such country who is not doing it for the show but honestly trying would have to tear down most if not all cultural barriers. SK sounds like one of the last places for this to actually work. There is about 200 millions of africans and north of 500 millions of asians in extreme poverty who would give their left leg to move to modern democracy, if it would be feasible. Heck, they are dying by hundreds trying to cross rough seas like mediterranean. 'quite open to immigration' is most probably not what we should call it, if expectations are around 100% knowledge of language and very obscure culture and its rules right out of the box to be at least tolerated.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >begging people to move there and make babies. How much are they paying per child? I see references to roughly $20k over 8 years. That's not "begging", that's a pittance. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of food over those 8 years. Countries will get the babies they want when they incentivize the babies they want. Conservative politicians know this, though they have some pretty disgusting ideas about what those incentives should be. More stick than carrot IMO. I think a world where we force women back into having no options and no prospects and no freedom and no rights just so they will produce the right colored babies is pretty abhorrent.

by jmyeet 2y ago

GuestFAUniverse 2y ago

To South Korea: thanks for all the fish... oh wait: cheap stuff... and goodbye. Problem is: what is NK doing with its army, when SK has practically died out? I mean, they could just procreate, wait and declare superior victory, instead of wasting resources on their army.

adamc 2y ago

If you correct for the replacement rate being 2.1, it's actually even worse than this... closer to 5 people.

xyst 2y ago

[flagged]

jmyeet 2y ago
[flagged]
- gred 2y ago
  Your reference [1] seems very confused about what it's trying to say and where it's trying to go, at least in terms of linking abortion to white supremacy. In fact, the fight for abortion access is closely tied to white supremacy (see e.g. the eugenics movements of the 1920s and 1930s in the US).
- samatman 2y ago
  Do you think Clarence Thomas would vote against Loving v. Virginia?
  - JetSpiegel 2y ago
    If you have a yacht and let him vacation on it, he'll do it!
    - samatman 2y ago
      What would he tell his wife?
      - JetSpiegel 2y ago
        "Let me introduce you to the civil union law..." If he's smart, no-fault divorce would go first, so she couldn't say anything.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        Probably the same thing most extreme conservative conspiracy theorists say to their wives when they do things that hurt them: Shut up and stay in the kitchen. JD Vance publicly called his wife okay for a not-white lady. I don't know why you think they respect their wives.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    This all boils down to something called "substantive due process", which goes back to a 1905 case where a New York law restricting a baker's working hours was ruled unconstitutional because there was no public interest in what evolved into an implied right to privacy. Procedural due process asks the question "did the government follow proper procedure?" whereas substantive due process asks "does the government have an interest in this issue?" So this was a key pillar in Roe v. Wade as the Court (theN) ruled that the government has no interest in what a woman does with her own body for the first trimester. As such, laws against abortion were unconstitutional. Critics at the time said there were other ways to construct a legal framework to protection abortion access. Anyway, this implied right to privacy had all sorts of implications that the conservative judges don't like. Loving was based on both substantive due process and equal protection so it gets a little complicated. Furhter complicating this is the Respect for Marriage Act (2022), which codified things like interracial and gay marraige. But all sorts of rights we take for granted are built on substantive due process so as soon as the court dismantles that doctrine, the genie is out of the bottle. It's not that Thomas would necessarily vote to overturn Loving (particularly because of other complications mentioned above) but once you set the precedent, certain things become inevitable. Contraception is probably the next thing to be under attack, particularly because there is an effort to define contraception as an abortion, both from a political and legal POV. Mifepristone will almost certainly be outlawed. Don't be surprised if the oral contraceptive pill also ends up illegal in red states too.

logicchains 2y ago

It's not because of misogyny; women in North Korea have far fewer rights but still have much more kids. As did South Korean women 50 years ago when the culture was even more misogynistic.

Rapzid 2y ago

They are quite open to immigration now. If you've been recently you'd know they are practically begging people to move there and make babies.

jajko 2y ago
Any such country who is not doing it for the show but honestly trying would have to tear down most if not all cultural barriers. SK sounds like one of the last places for this to actually work. There is about 200 millions of africans and north of 500 millions of asians in extreme poverty who would give their left leg to move to modern democracy, if it would be feasible. Heck, they are dying by hundreds trying to cross rough seas like mediterranean. 'quite open to immigration' is most probably not what we should call it, if expectations are around 100% knowledge of language and very obscure culture and its rules right out of the box to be at least tolerated.
mrguyorama 2y ago
>begging people to move there and make babies. How much are they paying per child? I see references to roughly $20k over 8 years. That's not "begging", that's a pittance. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of food over those 8 years. Countries will get the babies they want when they incentivize the babies they want. Conservative politicians know this, though they have some pretty disgusting ideas about what those incentives should be. More stick than carrot IMO. I think a world where we force women back into having no options and no prospects and no freedom and no rights just so they will produce the right colored babies is pretty abhorrent.