4 ms·
If normies don't procreate, then the non-normies will – e.g. high TFR ultra-conservative religious minorities such as the Amish, ultra-Orthodox Jews, traditiona
by skissane 1y ago
If normies don't procreate, then the non-normies will – e.g. high TFR ultra-conservative religious minorities such as the Amish, ultra-Orthodox Jews, traditionalist Catholics, quiverfull Evangelicals, Salafists, Velayat-e Faqih Shi'a, etc
You may eventually find that the normies dwindle and begin to die out, while the non-normies grow and spread and spread – those non-normies may eventually become the new normies
- rayiner 1y agoMore resources for my kids.
- saagarjha 1y agoYou mean more work for them to support all the retirees.
- rayiner 1y agoAssumes that someone will support the retirees. Especially in multi-ethnic societies like the U.S., you’ll have a majority non-white working population with a majority white retired population. The lack of affinity between the groups will make it much easier to sharply cut retirement benefits.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoThe largest voter bloc will be old people, or soon to be old people. They don’t need affinity for each other, just themselves.
- skissane 1y agoMy mother turns 76 this year, and she’s still practising medicine - she no longer has a permanent position, but she’ll work two weeks as a locum in one place, take a few weeks off, spend another couple of weeks as a locum somewhere else, etc. In my grandparents’ generation, people often retired in their 50s and had another 30-40 years left to live. If you don’t stop working until more than half way through your 70s, you might only have another 10-15 years of life left to financially support instead of 30-40, which makes it more likely you’ll be able to do so with your own accumulated retirement savings instead of having to rely on the taxpayer
- rsynnott 1y agoThat's to some extent a weird doctor thing, not a general thing (doctors seem to often have difficulty fully retiring). It was never normal for the average person to retire in their 50s, however it is also not normal for someone in their mid 70s to still be working. You're talking about major outliers in both cases.
- skissane 1y agoIt isn’t just doctors, my father isn’t a doctor (chemistry degree + MBA => pharmaceutical company executive) and I’m not sure if he’s worked this year, but he was definitely working last year (when he was 74/75). And a big reason why he’s cut back on working is his partner has dementia and she’s now deteriorated to the point he can’t really leave her at home alone any more. And his dad was a tax accountant, and he had “trouble fully retiring” too. He retired from his job at a mining company, then started an unpaid job doing accounting for a charity. Then he retired from that, but still did the accounting for his church for a few more years thereafter. Yes, he wasn’t getting paid, but that was his choice, I’m sure he could have done the same work for somebody else and gotten paid for it. If I’m still alive and healthy in my 70s, I imagine I may well follow both my parents’ examples and still be working too-having a job can be good for your health
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- saagarjha 1y agoI think there are plenty of reasons why retirement benefits might be cut that don’t require shoehorning some sort of ethnic conflict into the conversation.
- rayiner 1y agoEthnic conflict wouldn’t be required. But ethnic factionalism is one of the most potent political forces in every society, I predict it will play a role in justifying cuts to benefits for the elderly.
- saagarjha 1y agoYes, but your whole thing is predicting that everything is ethnic factionalism. Of course everything is everything if you look at it at a macro level but there are a lot of other ways that we might cut retirement benefits, and I think if you look at current challenges they are mostly not ethnic at all.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoGood thing the aging white population isn't doing their darndest to alienate the younger non-white population right as they are aging out.
- scripturial 1y agoInteresting hypothesis, I’ve not heard it before. It would suggest that atheists and nominal/non practicing religious people would decrease in number over time (whereas in the pre industrialized world everyone was incentivized to have children because they help run the farm/family business) If true, it would suggest a future where the world is much more religious, or a world that somehow deindustrialized.
- conception 1y agoIt’s the plot to the movie Idiocracy as well.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mensetmanusman 1y agoThis has already been shown to be happening right now.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoSome say this has already happened several times over.
- Murfalo 1y agoEvolutionary memetics at work!
- seangrogg 1y agoThat's how societies evolve. If you want your "normies" to perpetuate or even eclipse your "non-normies" you need to give said normies the tools to actually want to propagate that into the future.
- wozniacki 1y agoThis. This needs to be repeated early and repeated often no matter what non-abnormal ideology you subscribe to. In as many words. If you consider yourself a kind, decent & some what enlightened person and you do not procreate, in all likelihood the unkind or less kind people will do the procreating on your behalf. Mind you I did not even use the word tolerant which implies some measure of altruism; I'm merely saying kind & decent. I do not know why people much older than us do not repeat this mantra more often. I do not understand what could belie such intransigence. What is so offensive about saying that line? Say it early say it often.
- ip26 1y agoThis feels like such a commonly missed point. Any “enlightened” movement with a notion of not having kids will by definition extinguish itself in one generation. I don’t see this as meaning ultra-traditionalists are bound to inherit- I think it’s more likely the discourse would revert to the mean, aka the centrists. But it also applies at the national level. If country A consistently makes having kids miserable, then in the long arc of time, the way of life in country B (which makes family life great) will win out.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago> But it also applies at the national level. If country A consistently makes having kids miserable, then in the long arc of time, the way of life in country B (which makes family life great) will win out. Country C which simply reduces the ability for women to not have kids will win out over county B, since country B is extremely unlikely. Even the Scandinavian countries can’t come close to being country B with a sufficiently large total fertility rate that beats country C.
- rsynnott 1y ago> Country C which simply reduces the ability for women to not have kids will win out over county B Counterpoint: Country C is presumably a totalitarian nightmare, which historically tend not to prosper.
- skissane 1y agoA century or so ago, most Western countries were "Country C" – certainly in comparison to what they are today. Did that make them totalitarian nightmares? A lot of people would describe 1920s/1930s Russia as a "totalitarian nightmare"; but would they use that language to describe the US or the UK in the same time period?
- rsynnott 1y agoSo in the UK and US, in general, yes, it was absolutely terrible by current standards, but they were, by and large, getting better, and slowly figuring out that maybe the state should stay out of peoples’ private lives. You know who was really backsliding on this topic around then? I’ll give you a hint; think stupid moustaches.
- Johanx64 1y agoI'd posit that the people that don't procreate aren't and can't even be called normies. They are outliers. One-offs. Selected out within generation. Where's the "normy-ism" in that? It just don't even make sense.