Sydney's migrant mums keeping Australia fertile

D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
You responded in barely a minute. So fuck off with that BS. You read nothing. If you did you'd have paused for thought before replying.

The goal of society as a whole should be to limit the damage and burden that stupid actions place upon it. Have more kids than you can afford is a stupid action, for the parents, the state and for the unfortunate children brought up in poverty and with increasingly little chance of being able to escape from it in an ever more demanding world that favours knowledge and money over everything else. If people fall on hard times, then yes I think it's correct and proper for the state and society to step and assist where necessary, however, I don't think society or the state as a whole should curtail the idea of state benefits as a lifestyle choice. Sorry if that grinds your gears, but Children aren't a right, they're a privilege you have to earn and do good by them.
9 minutes actually, more than enough time to read the article. Sorry I'm a faster reader than you, blame your parents if you want.

You still aren't answering my questions, just entertaining hypotheticals. This thread has progressed from immigrant birth rates, to the mentally deficient, to welfare queens and stupid/lazy people so at least we're making progress.

Who precisely is proving to be a drain on society and can that be predicted accurately through genetics when controlled for other factors and confounders?

How much are they costing us and what is their overall impact on the economy?

How do we prevent such people from reproducing?

What systems in place can one put to curtail "undesirable" traits and who gets to hold that power of decision?
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,816
4,617
710
theconclave.net
9 minutes actually, more than enough time to read the article. Sorry I'm a faster reader than you, blame your parents if you want.
You didn't read it, that's still abundantly clear.

You still aren't answering my questions, just entertaining hypotheticals.
I absolutely have. You just don't like the answer. Also, I'm not the one dealing in hypotheticals. The only one talking about welfare queens and sterilizing the poor is you with your self insert 'So you're saying?' jump to conclusions Cathy Newman mindset. You clearly can't think beyond your own self-interest and aren't able to weigh up the long-term projection we are on as a species. Our end goal if any human endeavour is worth a damn is to work towards getting ourselves of this extinction event before we destroy the planet and explore the stars, and unfortunately from a cost-benefit analysis more children born into poverty and deprivation is unlikely to get us there.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,280
501
215
Economics is the science for sociopaths.

Why don't you answer the question yourself?
When a species breeds past its environment's carrying capacity, no legislation, no participation trophy or make feel good trinket can fight the ultimate outcome.

You think the state should aid all regardless of its limits. The state has limits it is not omnipotent it cant help all.

Humanity has exceeded the capacity of the earth without technological revolution.

Even a fraction of the population experiencing long term exponential growth is unsustainable. You may say help them all but we physically cant long term.

You may say children shouldnt die of cancer, but right now some must die of cancer. Saying we should stop all from dying, we just should, is just as naive at present it cant be done.

Thats the problem with care based morality. A baby is thrown out a window of a tall building and they jump after it to catch it ignoring the reality of gravity.

That is the problem of your argument it feels good but ignores physical reality and it would have the same outcome as jumping out a 50th floor window to catch a falling baby... gravity, reality does not care about feelings.

All the Right wing white supermacist are going to hate this story.
Actually I hear even these say they like seeing other countries fail to prove their point. Alternatively they claim to be open to reason and if such countries succeed would be happy to be proven wrong.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,047
2,217
240
All the Right wing white supermacist are going to hate this story.
Guess who will hate it even more?
The EU and leftists all over the western world forced a big gamble on people that no one was asked if they want to take by importing a very conservative ideology in hopes of keeping numbers up, labor cheap and the economy going while hoping they will have integrated before they get the numerical and vote advantage, this is all it comes down to and no matter what happens over the next generation it will be this generations leftists that did that.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
That is the problem of your argument it feels good but ignores physical reality and it would have the same outcome as jumping out a 50th floor window to catch a falling baby... gravity, reality does not care about feelings.
No, my argument is sterilization is off the table. That's all it has ever been.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,280
501
215
No, my argument is sterilization is off the table. That's all it has ever been.
You said the state must help all children. Which means provide financially for them regardless of reality, or the financial limits of the state. If some large cult grows to millions and is successful, and says breed and breed have 20-30 children each couple... you say we must provide for them all, regardless.

Here's the relevant question and your answer as a reminder:
Do you think it is the responsibility for the state to care for every child born into poverty?
If the alternatives are to let them die or to forcefully sterilize people then yes.
Your idea that we are forced to provide, guess what when you people provide vast aid to other countries and their population grows exponentially, eventually they outgrow your capacity to give, and famine and starvation occurs with children starving in the streets and dying before the age of five.

You believe we are obligated to help all, but reality says we can't, not long term if there's exponential growth.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
You said the state must help all children. Which means provide financially for them regardless of reality, or the financial limits of the state. If some large cult grows to millions and is successful, and says breed and breed have 20-30 children each couple... you say we must provide for them all, regardless.

Here's the relevant question and your answer as a reminder:

Your idea that we are forced to provide, guess what when you people provide vast aid to other countries and their population grows exponentially, eventually they outgrow your capacity to give, and famine and starvation occurs with children starving in the streets and dying before the age of five.

You believe we are obligated to help all, but reality says we can't, not long term if there's exponential growth.
I support that stance now because we aren't dealing with such a ridiculous hypothetical of 20-30 kids per couple. Obviously once you're starving on an island, your dog is no longer man's best friend and you might think twice about eating Steve's dead body.

You wrote earlier about a car going over a cliff. Would going after the mentally retarded or genetically stupid people even make a difference? What is the statistical relevance of that couple you originally posted about? In totality, what are they and others like them costing us?

Or is this idealism versus.... what is happening pragmatically?
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,280
501
215
I support that stance now because we aren't dealing with such a ridiculous hypothetical of 20-30 kids per couple. Obviously once you're starving on an island, your dog is no longer man's best friend and you might think twice about eating Steve's dead body.

You wrote earlier about a car going over a cliff. Would going after the mentally retarded or genetically stupid people even make a difference? What is the statistical relevance of that couple you originally posted about? In totality, what are they and others like them costing us?

Or is this idealism versus.... what is happening pragmatically?
As I clearly stated that is an extreme example. The point is intelligence has a scale it goes from extreme handicap to extreme brilliance(which can also bring its own set of issues). There are those that say we are all equal in intelligence, and intelligence differences are just a social construct. Someone with Down Syndrome can revolutionize physics and do other ridiculously intellectually challenging tasks.

There are also those who deny the genetics of intelligence. That think two people of 60 IQ are just as likely as two of 160 IQ to birth a child of significantly above average intelligence.

What happens with socialist policies is that as they become more and more generous they create a ticking time bomb. The population grows and grows, and when the caring government reaches its limits it collapses, mass starvation and death is not out of the question.

Also, the fact that lower intellect people reproduce more wouldn't be much of an issue if it weren't for the fact that they become the will of the nation. Not only can they vote to steer the nation towards collapse, but they can also be steered by those that deny reality into mass theft and mass murder of the successful, higher iq minorities. I mean when you claim we are all of equal capacity and it is only evil and discrimination that results in differences in success, you spur hatred.

Denying differences in capacity and blaming it all on rampant discrimination and evil, that is the real hate speech.
I support that stance now because we aren't dealing with such a ridiculous hypothetical of 20-30 kids per couple. Obviously once you're starving on an island, your dog is no longer man's best friend and you might think twice about eating Steve's dead body.
BTW, we are not dealing with that on a large scale true, but dozen+ families exist, the current system incentivizes and provides for them. Whatever tendency to have more kids emerges cultural or genetic would experience positive selective pressure in the current environment. If the incentives or positive pressure continues it leads to system destruction given time.

While the analogy is distasteful to say the least, we can look at what happens to a body when even a very tiny minority of the cells breaks free from reproduction regulation and experiences ample resource provision from the rest of the body. Even a tiny number inclined to vigorous reproduction if they are given unfettered resources quickly destroy the entire system within a few generations.

 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,606
1,716
1,035
Overpopulation control squarely falls under the "it's nice to want things" category.

That may be in the moral code of a few countries, but everyone else will go until the wheels fall off.
 
Last edited:

norinrad

Member
Aug 13, 2009
7,552
13
675
It's time to tax the 18-45 crowd in Australia, tax them heavily, that will surely keep them away from partying and becoming baby factories to save Australia from it's demise. Right guys?
 

A.M_Light

Neo Member
Jun 23, 2017
17
3
100
When a species breeds past its environment's carrying capacity, no legislation, no participation trophy or make feel good trinket can fight the ultimate outcome.

You think the state should aid all regardless of its limits. The state has limits it is not omnipotent it cant help all.

Humanity has exceeded the capacity of the earth without technological revolution.

Even a fraction of the population experiencing long term exponential growth is unsustainable. You may say help them all but we physically cant long term.

You may say children shouldnt die of cancer, but right now some must die of cancer. Saying we should stop all from dying, we just should, is just as naive at present it cant be done.

Thats the problem with care based morality. A baby is thrown out a window of a tall building and they jump after it to catch it ignoring the reality of gravity.

That is the problem of your argument it feels good but ignores physical reality and it would have the same outcome as jumping out a 50th floor window to catch a falling baby... gravity, reality does not care about feelings.



Actually I hear even these say they like seeing other countries fail to prove their point. Alternatively they claim to be open to reason and if such countries succeed would be happy to be proven wrong.
Guess who will hate it even more?
The EU and leftists all over the western world forced a big gamble on people that no one was asked if they want to take by importing a very conservative ideology in hopes of keeping numbers up, labor cheap and the economy going while hoping they will have integrated before they get the numerical and vote advantage, this is all it comes down to and no matter what happens over the next generation it will be this generations leftists that did that.
Listen I am the first one to tell you that most poor countries are poor mainly because of how overpopulated they’re especially among the poorest . But in this case 3 to 4 children per family don’t seem unreasonable for a rich country like Australia to have.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,280
501
215
But in this case 3 to 4 children per family don’t seem unreasonable for a rich country like Australia to have.
A few families doing so right now don't amount to much, but there is no amount of finite wealth that can support exponential growth long term.

Yet unless you change the incentives any family that has genetic or cultural tendencies, for excess reproduction, that they pass on generation upon generation is at an advantage, and will experience positive selective pressure. The tendency will not end on its own, if incentives persist, if it is beneficial and more successful in terms of reproduction compared to more conservative reproductive strategies.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,156
4,419
560
No facts, no sources, nothing but an appeal to emotion. What is the end argument here? To sterilize low IQ people and welfare queens?
Personally, I think we should start using the excess breeding of the poor as a way to bring them out of poverty and as a sustainable source of protein for the masses.

Unchecked population growth is a burden we need to cull. It is a huge contributor to global warming and the largest cause of poverty.
 

frogx

Neo Member
Dec 16, 2018
111
49
150
Unchecked population growth is a burden we need to cull.
It's the Chinese and Indians that make up the majority of world population though.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,280
501
215
Why Australians can't have more babies ?
Too poor to afford food, too rich to qualify for help-cnn
I assume in many cases is that they want to provide a good environment for the kids and can't afford to provide that for them with the high taxes. But wouldn't surprise me if some of these woke countries have essentially legislated away any way for them to provide for family if they are middle class, by denying aid unless ultra poor despite prohibitive cost of living.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,156
4,419
560
It's the Chinese and Indians that make up the majority of world population though.
China is already working at culling their growth rate. they had 1 child policy for years and now are still limited to 2.
 

Composer

Member
Oct 2, 2015
524
149
250
Personally, I think we should start using the excess breeding of the poor as a way to bring them out of poverty and as a sustainable source of protein for the masses.

Unchecked population growth is a burden we need to cull. It is a huge contributor to global warming and the largest cause of poverty.
I agree. We should fund more Planned Parenthoods.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,201
910
240
I honestly hate overpopulation.

Even where I live, congestion is everywhere. It's a non-stop movement of people day in and night out. I still can't see how all this population growth is good for the environment.

More people = more cars = more pollution.
It’s not. Environmentalists are leftist cowards. We the environmentalists now. Stop immigration, save the earth!