this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
267 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7972 readers
1708 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

How do these Natalists feel about the African continent?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 69 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Antinatalism what what - don't make fresh when plenty actual living kids need rescuing.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 weeks ago

Adopt, don't ~~shop~~ breed!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I watched a video recently on how South Korea is pretty fucked because of their declining birth rate. 2.1 is fine by me.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

There is nothing bad about going back to a sustainable population level. The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly. When elderly die that frees up resources for the next generation making it even easier.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

The problem with declining population is the huge bubble pop you get when the population is mostly elderly people and few workers.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Right, but this can be resolved with immigration.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

That's not a solution, that's just outsourcing the childbirth

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Immigration isn’t ‘outsourcing childbirth’, it’s investing in the future of our country. People who come here, build lives, and raise families contribute just as much to our communities as anyone born here. Their children are American in every meaningful way. That’s not a loophole, that’s the foundation of our nation. If we start drawing lines around who counts as a 'real' solution based on origin, we’re moving away from what has always made America strong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Immigration as a solution to population decline is absolutely outsourcing and pretty much cultural suicide.
There are a lot of naive answers to this thread... Do people not realise that countries with higher birth rates are precisely the ones where people have the opposite worldview of secular, liberal low-birthrate countries? I don't know if I'm coming across xenophobic, it's just that I don't think people in the "first world" actually know how most "third worlders" actually are. You are not keeping, say, gay marriage rights unopposed for long if you're mass importing latin americans raised by devout evangelicals and muslim middle easterners. I see Germany and France already having some public demonstrations of muslim protest over progressive laws, for example.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It’s not xenophobic to be concerned about cultural change, but it is misguided to assume that culture is a fixed object that only flows in one direction. America, and much of the West, has always been shaped by the beliefs, values, and adaptations of immigrants. People change, adapt, and contribute in complex ways. Immigrants don’t arrive with a USB stick labeled 'final values.' They raise kids here. Their kids go to school here. They vote here. And yes, they bring different perspectives, but so did Irish Catholics, Italian immigrants, and Vietnamese refugees. The melting pot doesn’t mean erasure, it means evolution."

Also, beware of confusing correlation with cause: conservative religious values exist in all societies, not just 'third world' ones. We’ve got plenty of evangelical pushback on rights from people born and raised here too. If we’re going to have a conversation about values, let’s do it honestly and not use fear of ‘the other’ as a smokescreen for deeper social anxieties.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I'm not "othering" developing countries, I'm just stating a fact that the culture over here in the third world is way more conservative.
And the context now is not the same as the American immigration experience, and I wouldn't even necessarily say that it worked out well over there. It's cool to look at Irish and Italian immigrants right now, but then they were living in ghettos with raging criminality and the civil unrest caused by this ended up with e.g. the prohibition and Al Capone. These were the population bases that most resisted changes like implementation of divorce, abortion and gay marriage, as well.
But then the culture wasn't even that different (protestant vs catholic), the american population wasn't in decline, etc. Now it's ultra developed, secular countries with an aging population, inviting immigrants from majority religious countries with thousand-year clashes with the local culture, to substitute their own working class. It's just a recipe for disaster, with "the poors" being people that look, speak and believe completely alien to the local richer class, it's really no wonder there is growing extremist sentiment in Europe

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Maybe in the west. Not in places like South Korea or Japan. Even if you got the populations to buy in to immigration 100%, you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.

English’s hegemony over the world makes immigration to non-English-speaking areas a huge problem. Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean you're presupposing that it's important to convince immigrants to learn the language. Maybe multiculturualism is okay actually

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Learning the local language is a survival skill. It doesn’t require forgetting your first language nor does it mean the end of your culture.

The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The issue is that groups of immigrants can form enclaves where they speak their own language but not the local language. This has the effect of making them “second class” and limiting both their economic opportunities and their overall contribution to society.

This implies that each of us is in charge of whether we are "second class" citizens or not. It's the people in power who control the social structure. They decide what "class" a person is. Immigrants are often attracted to their own communities not just for comfort and familiarity, but also for practical reasons. These communities step in where the government fails to. They help new arrivals find jobs, transport, and places to sleep/live. They enable people to have their basic needs met, in a country run by people who already think that poor immigrants aren't the same class/worthiness as they are.

It doesn't have to be this way. If the people in power gave a shit about the rest of us, if they truly wanted immigrants to thrive, they would build a social structure that actually enables that. Immigrant groups don't inherently limit their own economic opportunities - those limits are created by those who treat them as "less".

One last thing - to say that immigrants' "overall contribution to society" is "limited" by them being in their own communities, implies that any of the work done within those communities doesn't count as "contributing to society." It also implies that the jobs that are usually filled by immigrants, such as crop-picking and other agricultural work, are jobs that don't contribute enough to society. Yet I'd argue such people contribute more than many U.S.-born people I've met.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

If your population is declining and immigrants aren't even learning the language, it's not "multiculturalism", it's just handing the country over to another culture. Taking into account that progressive values are correlated with lower birthrates, and "regressive" ones are related to higher birthrates, are you comfortable with the consequences of this transition?
Are you sure that things like women's rights are going to stay the same in the long term by substituting the secular population with people raised with religious values associated with high birth rates, like indians, middle easterners, africans and so on? Are you sure material conditions will remain the same by substituting the working class with immigrants from countries with poor education systems, fresh off large scale political instability?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

you’ve got an impossible task convincing immigrants to learn the language.

Do we? The languages aren't that hard, people learn languages all the time especially if they move.

Just make it a requirement for citizenship, offer classes, etc. I'm picking up 2 languages right now, 1 for work and 1 for my new home in Europe. The human brain does things.

Quebec, for example, tries mightily to force immigrants to learn French and the results are quite ugly in Quebec politics.

Ok, so I actually speak some french (from school), and that's not about it not being English, it's just that French is a shit language to push for no reason.

Tell Quebec to switch to Spanish, everyone will be happier.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

True, but the lack of productive workers and the thinned tax base will crash the country while it all balances out. Only way to make a smooth transition is to slaughter the elderly, which is largely what will happen, just not on purpose.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

If 10 dependents per 2 workers (6 kids, 4 elderly) didn't crash the country in 1950, then having more workers per dependent in 2040 won't either.

The only people who suffer from a population decline are the idle wealthy because their income comes from skimming profit from the workers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

You keep bringing up the same point but do you plan on just letting seniors rot? We literally don't have the workers to care for the elderly AND run society. Demographic collapse is a real issue

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The cost for raising a child is greater than the cost for taking care of elderly

Holy [citation needed], Batman!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Cost to raise 1 child is $350k including college.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-240000/

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

Average nursing home cost is $120k/yr and people live on average 2 years in a nursing home.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2945440/

2 parents working

6 kids = $2.1m 4 grandparents = $960k

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So you're comparing the cost of 18 years' worth of child-rearing (or 22 years' worth including college) to an up-to-$120k per year cost of supporting an elderly person, and aren't even bothering to consider anything but the last two years?

In what fantasy world is $15,900/year ($350k/22 years) somehow more than the annual cost of living for a senior citizen—even a healthy and independent one‽

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Until a senior citizen needs to have nursing home care, they are independent. In-home care is far cheaper. They don't need the costs of 6 hours a day of schooling which cost $15k per child in taxes to pay for the teachers and infrastructure. (That $15k/year isn't part of the $350k cost quoted earlier because it's covered by taxes.)

https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics

You aren't making 3 meals a day for them because they do it themselves. You aren't paying for day care- until it's nursing home or in home care time. In many cases the elderly are providing the day care for children.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You aren't making 3 meals a day for them because they do it themselves.

They still have to pay for it, though! Don't even try to tell me that an elderly person's regular living expenses — food, housing, utilities, etc. — averages out to less than $15,900/year.

Are you just forgetting those exist? Are you trying to compare the total costs of raising a child, including all living expenses, to only the extra age-related costs of caring for an elderly person, not including living expenses? 'Cause it sure seems like that's what you're doing.

In many cases the elderly are providing the day care for children.

And if it's a multigenerational household where that's feasible on a daily basis because they live there, then they could even save on housing expenses too (maybe even brining down their living expenses to nearly equal to that of a child in the same household).

But we're talking averages, and that's not the average — neither living together, nor providing regular day care. On average in the US, elderly people live separately from their grandkids and only see them occasionally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The mean age of decedents was 83.3

That mean they on average, were put into the nursing house at 81yo. Do you think people retire at 80yo or what?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like a job for immigration.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Ideally, sure. SK would have to change a lot for that to work, and that does not happen in a hurry. As far as the US is concerned, :gestures_widely:

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I too subscribe to Kurzgesagt!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 weeks ago

Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a policy paradigm or personal value that promotes the reproduction of human life as an important objective of humanity and therefore advocates a high birthrate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The thing that colors babies is melanin

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

And a lot of other things if you paint them with it

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The 14 Words: The New Generation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

The old people here are going to have a fun little surprise when they realise the kids they didn't have aren't able to pay for their pension 😁

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That's not how a proper pension is structured, and given we've hard far more dependents per worker in modern history than is possible with a declining birth rate it'll be economically fine.

Old people cost less than kids.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm putting what money I save by not having kids into my retirement fund. Compound interest ftw. I'll hopefully be able to pay someone else's kid to take care of me if/when need be.

Bonus: I don't have to worry about navigating a child through the current American political environment. I'm worried enough about my elderly dog and normal-aged partner.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm also saving that money by having kids. But I'm also trying to spend my life facing hard things and enduring difficulty. Then when I no longer have the faculties to care for myself, I'll walk into the wilderness and become one with the landscape again. Seems more stylish than getting my ass wiped by someone else for years.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

My aunt is in her 70s and still traveling the world, very active. She's visiting Japan last I checked. She and her husband are signed up to move into assisted living in a few years, which seems a gentle way to start slowing down.

I hope I take after her and not grandma-on-the-other-side: surprise dementia in her, iirc, 60s. Didn't seem to bother her. Bothered the fuck out of everyone around her.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You don't understand, we have literally voted to lower the pensions right now. The oldies striked. Nobody cared. You can't strike to get a pension dummy, we're forcing you to keep working. Young people aren't striking.

I'll pay for my dad's needs. Not for the ones that didn't have kids.

That's because I do not give a fuck about the people that caused the aging population.

My kid needs my tax money instead.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Yeah you really don't want a large population of people with nothing to lose start realizing they've nothing to lose. Striking, in the modern world, doesn't exist. Picket lines and stopping work isn't striking. Blowing up police stations and openly killing government and corporate employees is striking.

All populations eventually get to that point if mistreated.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Block the troll ^ and don't engage

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Why? Because it's an uncomfortable truth?

What's your argument on why that's false?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›