It is required for a culture to have at least a 2.1 birth rate in order to be sustained. Theoretically it's 2.0 but you need extra because of people who die before reproducing etc.
We know that higher standards of living equals lower birthrate. But low birthrate equals a non-sustainable culture.
Let's assume an ideal scenario where all non-Europeans were relocated to their proper countries. We now have a 100% ethnic European population with high living standard and low unemployment rates. However, the birth rate is now around 1.6 meaning that the culture is not sustainable.
How can you increase birthrates in a culture that is highly industrious and employed with no motives to expand family? The only thing we know works is lower living standard and anxiety/insecurity of the future (we then have more kids for security).
Can humans even sustain a population in an advanced society? There are no examples of this in history. Is this a paradox that will doom human civilization?
High living standards = low birth rates = decay of culture
Low living standards = war/corruption/famine = decay of culture
White conservatives have above replacement level birthrates
Mason Ross
Since the offspring of conservative often can be liberal the total birthrate is still not 2.1
Otherwise conservatives would literally out-breed liberals
Ethan Watson
they are outbreeding white liberals and that is how birthrates work so
Dominic Clark
I thought the number of liberals have increased the past decade?
And no, birth rates does not apply to political groups since it's not a genetic trait
Nicholas Parker
White liberals aren't reproducing white conservatives have a above replacement level birthrate
Samuel Martin
Look, these TFR numbers are very tricky. If you have 2.1 white TFR It doesn't mean a sustainable white culture. For example, college educated or post-graduate white women have way more lower TFR like 1.2 or 0.5 (in Germany, not a joke) meanwhile the white "trash" unskilled women have 3 or 4 children. So the quality of a white society could decrease with 2.1 TFR level.
Austin Ortiz
Well actually being conservative or liberal is (largely) genetically determined.
But I don't see why a culture can't sustain for a time with declining rates as long as there is no migration. A lower population would be better.
The fact is that birth rates have plummeted not just because of "modernization" but because of culture destroying feminism combined with environmental pollutants that are obliterating testosterone and sperm. At the current rate, no western men will be capable of producing children in 40 years.
If we had strict patriarchy with a ban on all estrogenic and test reducing chemicals then we would have no problem. With such low test and mind altering drugs along with tyrannical feminism it's literally impossible to sustain your culture. Most western men probably aren't even capable of comprehending their own doom they're so chemically feminized.
Leo Hughes
>How can you increase birthrates in a culture that is highly industrious and employed with no motives to expand family? You give them incentives. Money for every 2 children produced would increase birthrates as shown in the late 1930s
Joseph Price
Sounds very familiar to Swedens welfare system..
Liam Sanders
Give gibs for more than 1 child
Christian Cooper
Chem femmed
Charles Russell
It is yes, except your system is for everybody who is there, whereas the system from the 1930s was for the citizens of that country, and back then, they were white.
Matthew Cox
Nationalism
Gabriel Gray
why is culture unsustainable when population < 2.0??
Explain this or kill yourself for setting a false premise
Matthew Mitchell
Because then population would steady decrease forever
learn math
Christian Moore
population decreasing doesn't affect culture. People will still be able to pass on their ideas and culture to their children even if their population decreases.
You make a link that isn't there. I agree that population decreasing is bad if it gets too far but don't make that link
Jacob Miller
If the population is constantly decreasing you will eventually not have any population left
hence the culture is not sustainable
Parker Foster
Obviously the decrease won't be continuous over generations. Do you really think white people will just watch how their towns get smaller and smaller year after year and do nothing about it?
Camden Ward
Look at rural Japan. The west will be no different.
Bentley Bailey
>Obviously the decrease won't be continuous over generations
then BR > 2.0
Dylan Hughes
I see several solutions. 1. euthanise the old 2. Find a way to create a selfsustaining security net you showe the poor and old into. Mesoamericans let even their most brittle old ones work in the gardens in intervalls so that every member of the community could be fed. This must not include medical aid which is the responsibility of the family. 3. Invest into unnatural procreation, how the vatspawn will be integrated into society without issues is a tricky question though.
Nathan Collins
When the liberals all die out without having many if any children, then only conservatives remain whose larger child count will mean more conservatives in future generations.
Nolan Morgan
conservatism is not genetic, there will always be people on the liberal spectrum
Maybe, just maybe, the birthrate is low in these countries because taxes are high and wages are low and you don't need children to exist as an elderly person anymore. Land prices are high. Jobs are hard to find.
Once the population naturally declines to a certain level, it will probably stabilize with more people choosing to have 3 or more kids when given the opportunity. So maybe because of a post-war boom around the world combined with sudden industrialization, there are currently too many people in developed countries. Once the population lowers slightly, birthrates will stabilize.
You have no leg to stand on, assuming that it will decline forever.
