[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Use REPORTS. Posting 'Mods pls' achieves nothing.
Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

_113374327_global_…

Anonymous 57855

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

>Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.


>Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.


>They are two of 23 countries - which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea - expected to see their population more than halve.


>"That is jaw-dropping," Prof Christopher Murray told me.


Why is it jaw-dropping? Children are bad. Children don't let you sleep, relax, enjoy your leisure time in peace. Most women don't want to waste their lives over children when they can live much better. It's normal that the vast majority of women would stop having something that's objectively bad.

Anonymous 57856

>inb4 but I want to have children

As the article states:

>Why are fertility rates falling?


>It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.


>Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.


The vast majority of women doesn't want children.

Anonymous 57857

>>57855
Italy and Japan both treat wives/mothers like family servants (not stereotyping, I've lived with families in both). With higher education levels increasing, no wonder women are opting out. Ask women from these countries and it won't be that hard to understand.

Anonymous 57858

>>57855
>Why is it jaw-dropping?
Because GDP (not economic prosperity) correlates with population. The idea of there being a massive population decrease associates with a far weaker economy, job scarcity and less luxuries. Most anti-natalist assume a massive drop off in population won't associate with severely changing economic conditions. Hope you enjoy working until you're 90.

>It's normal that the vast majority of women would stop having something that's objectively bad.

All women start as children, are you implying all women are "objectively bad"? If not, then that means children go from being objectively bad to something not bad.

Anonymous 57865

>>57858
>Because GDP (not economic prosperity) correlates with population
Not at all. Sweden with 5 million people has a much higher GDP then Zimbabwe with its 200 million people.

>The idea of there being a massive population decrease associates with a far weaker economy, job scarcity and less luxuries.

[citation needed]
Also a massive population increase at women's expense precludes from enjoying all those jobs and luxuries, so your point is moot here.

>All women start as children, are you implying all women are "objectively bad"? If not, then that means children go from being objectively bad to something not bad.

Women are not children, women are self-sufficient adults. Of course children stop being bad when they stop being children and start being adults. The condition of being a child is objectively bad because it's a condition that forces other to waste their time on you, while the condition of being adult is not because you are responsible for yourself and women aren't forced to waste their time on you.

Anonymous 57866

>>57857
Oh it's beyond those two. 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

Anonymous 57867

>>57866
Yeah, probably similar values in other countries too. The ones growing are probably countries where women have no education, birth control, or choice in the matter.

Anonymous 57868

>>57865
>Not at all. Sweden with 5 million people has a much higher GDP then Zimbabwe with its 200 million people.
You misunderstand. A Sweden with 5 million people has a higher GDP then a Sweden with 4 million. For the citation on such a notion, as as a citation on
>[citation needed]
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/17/c_137985540.htm
>economic stagnation in Italy is associated with record high unemployment rates and a generally weak labour market
>However, Japan has a special employment system for women, the elderly and foreigners, which treats them differently from regular employees. The existence of such cheap labor force has become the reason for many enterprises to depress wages or refuse to raise wages, making salary increases hopeless for employees, or even causing lower wages. Stagnant incomes, in turn, depress consumption, exacerbating the squeeze.
Enjoy your depressed wages.

>Also a massive population increase at women's expense precludes from enjoying all those jobs and luxuries, so your point is moot here.

You make it sound as if women aren't benefiting from it right now at this time.

>The condition of being a child is objectively bad because it's a condition that forces other to waste their time on you, while the condition of being adult is not because you are responsible for yourself and women aren't forced to waste their time on you.

In that case, are the elderly "objectively bad" too? Thus dooming you to be "objectively bad" someday? Since the only measure for being "good" is independence.

>>57867
You are correct, with Africa, India and China being shining examples of exploding populations, which will eventually overrun the weaker ones and replace their population, and thus, their culture.

Anonymous 57870

>>57868
>xinhua.net
No chinese propaganda please.

>Enjoy your depressed wages.

Still better than no wages tbh. And the problem lies here:
>However, Japan has a special employment system for women, the elderly and foreigners, which treats them differently from regular employees.
Give them the same rights as regular workers. Women are not second-rate workers.

>You make it sound as if women aren't benefiting from it right now at this time

Are they? Everywhere they are being pressured to give up their freedom and be a slave to their kids. There is no benefit in being a slave.

>In that case, are the elderly "objectively bad" too?

If they are unable to be independent, yes. That's why people dump them in care homes and don't want to deal with them. Oh, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I condone such behavior. It's horrible. The elderly deserve more compassion than children do, the elderly should never be abandoned. I will never abandon my parents. But I understand the reasons why people behave like that, and that's why I plan to be independent until the end.

That said not all elderly grow old bad, while all children are bad. An elderly person can live alone, if their conditions are good. Would you agree to a woman leaving a 5 year old alone for a month so she can relax?

China's population is declining too, btw. So are India's and Africa's in the long run. They're only behind in the race but still on the same track.

Anonymous 57873

>>57870
There should be 24/7/365 cheap daycares where women can dump children for any length of time of their choosing. Want a week for yourself? Dump your child here and come pick them up when you're back. Rich women in the past didn't raise their children, they had wetnurses and nannies do the raising for them so I don't see where that fetish comes from.

>>57872

You mean intergenerational families? My family was like that, it wasn't happy at all. My time and space was never respected. I hated it. Glad I left, I love having a space all for myself where nobody can enter without my permission.

Anonymous 57874

>>57855

>They are two of 23 countries - which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea - expected to see their population more than halve.

Don't worry, we'll fill the void with immigrants. Jesus christ

Anonymous 57875

>>57874
I hate it to break it to you but these projections include immigrants.

Anonymous 57876

>>57870
>Still better than no wages tbh.
Correct, objectively worse than higher wages as well.
>Give them the same rights as regular workers. Women are not second-rate workers.
That's what the government policy does.

>Are they? Everywhere they are being pressured to give up their freedom and be a slave to their kids. There is no benefit in being a slave.

Pressured =/= forced. The fact you have a choice at all speaks of the luxury you are allowed to experience at the moment. Sorry your feelings are hurt whenever you feel "pressured".

>Oh, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I condone such behavior. It's horrible.

No it's not. Criminals are objectively bad too, and they get horrible treatment. Why shouldn't the "objectively bad" elderly also get horrible treatment? They're bad, they should be treated badly.

>The elderly deserve more compassion than children do, the elderly should never be abandoned.

Why? They're "objectively bad", just like you will be one day.

> I will never abandon my parents.

If they're "objectively bad" the correct thing to do is abandon them.

>Would you agree to a woman leaving a 5 year old alone for a month so she can relax?

Sure. Children are "objectively bad", that means bad things should happen to them. What other conclusion can you reach? That you should only do "good things" for "objectively bad" children?

Anonymous 57877

>>57874
The article goes into detail that even the countries sending immigrants will have population declines. Then, first world countries will have to fight each other for immigrant populations as well.

Anonymous 57878

>>57855
This has absolutely nothing to do with women having children. This is corporations desperately trying to create propaganda to justify importing cheap foreign labor to keep paid wages down.
The narrative they're creating is
>WE NEED MORE WORKERS TO KEEP UP WITH THE MASSIVE GROWING JOB MARKET!!! LOOK AT OUR POPULATION DECLINE, THIS ISN'T SUSTAINABLE!
When in reality it's simply companies not wanting to pay more for the same amount of labor.

Anonymous 57879

>>57878
The cheap labor markets are also experiencing shrinking population, bar Sub-Saharan Africa.

Anonymous 57882

>>57876
Women who have children don't get higher wages, in fact women who have children are excluded from plenty of jobs as employers know children eat up a woman's time.

>That's what the government policy does.

>treats them differently from regular employees
Pick one.

>Pressured =/= forced.

You know if left unchecked those who hate women will end up doing the latter.

>The rest of your post

Are you asking for pure logic here or my personal feelings? My feelings are dictated by my personal experiences and interests, so it's influenced by emotions, not pure logic.

Anonymous 57884

>>57880
Why is my family not valid? Do you think families that don't fit your view just don't exist?

Anonymous 57885

>>57879
This aspect isn't relevant to my point, because you can still important labor from cheap labor markets no matter that market's population size or population growth at any point.

But I'll go deeper into your point, as I understand it, Africa and India still have growing populations, China seems like it could be slowing down but it's had extreme incentives to only have 1 child and they still have a growing population of over a billion. There fact economists and corporations care about this is solely because of the desire to keep labor costs as cheap as possible.

Anonymous 57886

>>57882
>>57882
>My feelings are dictated by my personal experiences and interests, so it's influenced by emotions, not pure logic.
>throws around the term "objectively bad"
Pick one and only one

Anonymous 57887

>>57886
Nah I'll pick two.

Anonymous 57888

>>57887
Then I assume you don't understand what "objectively" means?

Anonymous 57889

>>57875
So we will have less population including immigrants, but how much of that small population will be immigrants? A country could use to have 5 million and 20% were immigrants and decline into 1 million people but from that million 70% are now immigrants. If immigrant families with only two kids keep coming, immigrant population will keep growing despite following the same rates of fertility than natives.

>Then, first world countries will have to fight each other for immigrant populations as well.

Maybe some upper politicians will do this, but the native population won't like the idea very much. No body is asking for more immigrants right now and no one will do in the future, I think.

Anonymous 57891

>>57877
^ this post should also appear here >>57889

Anonymous 57892

>>57888
Reading comprehension, what is that. Given that people (women included) enjoy being free and having leisure time, anything that erodes that time is objectively bad. That's your pure, cold, hard logic. When you translate that to my personal feelings, that statement holds true for all children, not so for all elderly. Comprende?

Anonymous 57894

>>57890
I am not being unfair. Families that live together and aren't happy because they don't support each other as they don't respect someone's independence are plenty. Take your pitiful attempt at propaganda somewhere else.

Anonymous 57896

>>57895
I think propaganda families are bad because they are propaganda, thus a lie. The 1950s say hello.

Anonymous 57899

>>57898
>Not talking about propaganda families
Uh-uh.

Anonymous 57901

>>57889
Better to die as a free woman than live as a slave tbh.

Anonymous 57903

>>57900
Who's afraid? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so bad? I already answered you, learn to read.

Anonymous 57904

>>57902
Yes, lots of people love spending time with other adults but not with children.

Anonymous 57907

>>57905
OK dude. Don't try to use that as propaganda now though, you'll only create more unhappy families like mine.

>>57906

Nowhere as many as those who hate spending time with children because the numbers don't match up.

Anonymous 57909

>>57908
You use your eyes, and learn to read.

Anonymous 57913

>Prof Murray says: "I find people laugh it off; they can't imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.

Why would people think that?

Anonymous 57914

>>57912
You're not the boss of me. Looks like your family didn't educate you very well.

Anonymous 57916

I hate myself for being racists (I'm not even white). But the fact that there will be less and less white/asians and more and more blacks/Indians upsets me.

Anonymous 57917

>The researchers warn against undoing the progress on women's education and access to contraception.

>Prof Stein Emil Vollset said: "Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations, but must not compromise efforts to enhance women's reproductive health or progress on women's rights."


This reminds of Communist Romania. Ceaucescu wanted more babies so he made both abortion and birth control illegal. There was a slight up in the birth rate initially, but it soon slumped back to pre-BC ban levels because women simply stopped having sex. Extra kids were dumped in orphanages were they were abused and are still outcasts to this day, kids that were kept in the family were made to grow up rebels to the regime.

Anonymous 57918

>>57915
How you formed a bullshit question doesn't mean anything to me. I already answered. Deal or deal.

Anonymous 57919

>>57914
Of course their family didn't education them well, a dysfunctional family(the father or the mother or often both) is going to teach nothing but bad lessons.

>>57907
>you'll only create more unhappy families like mine.
They even said they had a bad one themselves.
People like this don't understand that it's not just about keeping a family together so they can be happy and healthy and encouraging men and women to act in good faith so that they can resolve minor issues sooner so they don't become bigger issues later. They also don't understand it's also about ensuring toxic men and women don't engage with relationships, children, and marriages what so ever to begin with. Obviously enforcing this by government and laws would be tyrannical, so I spend as much time just telling people like this –Please just avoid relationship all together and stay on birth control.–

Anonymous 57921

>>57917
I think it's the same in US. People blame abortions for the drop on the fertility rate, but they also dropped since abortion was legalized. I'm still pro-life though because the ends don't justify the means.

Anonymous 57924

>>57921
>I'm still pro-life
Why is an anti-woman person on a board for women?

Anonymous 57926

>>57923
You're the only one hating here, dude.

Anonymous 57929

>>57924
I dunno, but you're right, we should ban pro-choice "women".

Anonymous 57931

>>57929
Nah, we should ban pro-life anons.

>"women"

A woman stops being a woman the moment you don't like her political choices? Are you a tranny?

Anonymous 57932

>>57927
>news articles are hate

Anonymous 57934

>>57931
My experience says that trannies are far more rabid "pro-choice" than women, kinda like they want to fit in.

The "pro-choice" gang like you, on the other hand, aren't women because I don't even consider you people. I couldn't care less about what's between your legs.

Anonymous 57938

>>57934
Your experience is fabricated bullshit.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7290687/Study-claims-transgender-people-politically-conservative-views-straight-men.html

>I don't even consider you people

Now that is hateful. See? You're the one spewing hate here.

Anonymous 57939

mother.jpeg

Why would a "woman" hate children so much?

Anonymous 57940

>>57935
How are reported numbers hate against children and women who like to have children?

>>57939
Many reasons why women don't like children. They take too much time and money for one. Women want to spend their time differently than looking after kids.

Anonymous 57942

>>57938
>Worthen compared attitudes on liberal perspectives across different genders and orientations, defining liberalism as 'liberal ideology; law/policy support of those in poverty, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, and women; feminist identity.'

You do know that, just because you hate trannies you would be a conservative according to this survey, right?

Anonymous 57943

>>57938
>Now that is hateful. See? You're the one spewing hate here.
Actually >>57921 was my second post ITT, so I don't think I am who you think I am. In any case I think the answer was balanced with what you said and it's my personal opinion. If you don't want to see this kind of posts maybe a hugbox like Reddit would be a better place for you… It is even in the FAQ:

What should I expect from crystal.cafe?
We are a community open to discussing anything you want, or just for smalltalk and relaxed conversation or sharing images and jokes. With anonymity comes bluntness, so expect honest opinions and no coddling. If you are easily offended, this might not be the place for you, but all in all we aim to give users an experience as pleasant as possible without restricting or censoring speech.

Anonymous 57945

>>57941
>You use it in order to shame mothers
Where have I shamed mothers anon?
>as an excuse to hate children
Do you think a woman stating that something is bad for her is "hate"?

Anonymous 57946

>>57942
>you hate trannies
Quote me where I said 'I hate trannies', go on.

Anonymous 57947

>>57943
Are you >>57934? If so, you are who I think you are and you are the one spewing hate here.

Anonymous 57948

>>57925
You know I was going to write out a well thought out and probably far too lengthy response, but this will do instead.

You're right, it was kind of rude.
But it is isn't incoherent or wrong and I didn't make anything up. You said yourself and implied that your family was unhappy, creating unhappy families is obviously a bad thing. That even the imagery a happy family is propaganda. It obviously would make sense that unhappy and fake propaganda could lead to nothing good, this seems to be in line with your thought process.
I want to encourage the prevention of unhappy families too and based on your world view it seems this also applies to about 10 other posters in this thread alone.

I'd rather be responding to the nice threads I posted in last night, but the r/twoxchromosome posters take up the feed and make it a lot harder for me to find them.
Relationships with men involved are intrinsically evil and no one should engage with them. Can we move on now?

Anonymous 57950

>>57949
Well, the numbers say it is bad and a terrible life for the vast majority of women. You can't argue with numbers.

Anonymous Moderator 57952




[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]