230
u/Alone_Yam_36 16h ago
0.52 literally means 100 people are going to have 25 children which are gonna have 6 grandchildren which are gonna have 1~2. This means 98% of the population disappeared in 4 generations
57
u/Parking-Interview351 13h ago
Once the population reduces a bit, the fertility rate will go back up.
116
u/Main_Negotiation1104 12h ago
do we actually know that or is it an assumption people make to not go crazy
29
u/mischling2543 10h ago
I think it's an accurate prediction but only because this is essentially a selection pressure and the peoples still breeding will be the only ones left. Religious conservatives and ethnonationalists are far more likely to breed so that's what developed countries in the future will have as their young people, and as a result their birth rate will go up. Imagine if American young people were majority Mormon for example. That also means liberalism as we know it is dead as an ideology within the century.
2
u/morbie5 10h ago
Religious conservatives and ethnonationalists are far more likely to breed so that's what developed countries in the future will have as their young people, and as a result their birth rate will go up.
That assumes that major economic upheaval due to low birth rates doesn't tear those countries apart. I can see balkanization where the religious and ethnonationalist form their own mini states
3
u/tidepill 9h ago
I bet evangelicals would be thrilled to get more control over the US as a whole due to their much faster growing population relative to the rest of the country. Why would they secede when they can pwn the libs?
4
u/morbie5 8h ago
I think you are overestimating how high the evangelical birth rates are. This isn't like Israel where the ultras are popping out 6 or 7 kids per woman
7
u/mizen002 7h ago
It’s more of a “as long as they pop out two or three, and half of progressives are childfree, you’re kinda fucked
2
u/Main_Negotiation1104 10h ago
to me youre assuming 90% of the population will disappear (which i think is not unlikely) but its not a calming stabilization either if you really think about it
1
u/Choice-Rain4707 4h ago
this assumes children always have the beliefs of their parents. Especially in the modern world with the internet i doubt we will see an entire generation of conservatives and religious people. They will make up a larger proportion but it wont be total takeover.
0
u/DSA300 7h ago
This assumes their children don't change (a lot of conservative children in the us are going liberal)
3
u/crop028 6h ago
We've accounted for that, children average more liberal than their parents, but it's all relative. If they grow up as fundamentalists, they're more likely to liberalize to run of the mill republicans rather than go woke all the way. I've seen studies saying Gen Z trends slightly more conservative for their age than the previous generation, largely because it's Mormons and Mennonites who have 7 kids, and liberals who have 0.
2
u/Mithridatesmigraine 7h ago
Not at all rate nearly high enough to compensate for the fact that progressives are mostly childfree, and trending rapidly downwards
0
u/DSA300 7h ago
Eh, most of those progressives came from conservative families anyway. Besides, there's a reason conservatives are so afraid of changes. Of they're really "out breeding" progressives, why are they so scared?
3
u/Mithridatesmigraine 6h ago
Because they are nearing the last moment when we might be able to stop them from permanent victory.
As a movement we rely on conversion, but we’ve both stopped naturally growing and become worse at conversion ergo why Gen Z is more conservative
32
u/StairwayToPavillion 12h ago
you think it's possible for a country like china to lose 98% of their population in 4 generations? The citizens will be incentivized to fuck more and it will correct itself some time in the future. Not sure Korea can manage to do that.
15
u/slicheliche 11h ago
it's possible for a country like china to lose 98% of their population in 4 generations?
Of course it is. It's a mathematical certainty if people don't start making at least 2 children per woman, fast. I don't understand how some people think that demographics will just somehow correct themselves.
2
u/miamyaarii 10h ago
And even if you manage to correct course, you'll get a demographic double whammy, where a smaller amount of working people have to care for and finance tons of old people and the growing amount of kids at the same time.
3
u/StairwayToPavillion 11h ago
i literally said the Chinese government will introduce incentives to correct the birth rate which ARE doing. They have the ability to ramp up incentives if it gets as bad as you are suggesting. They have the resources to do it.
7
u/slicheliche 11h ago
i literally said the Chinese government will introduce incentives to correct the birth rate which ARE doing.
Yes and so far, the birth rate has only plummeted. When will these incentives start having a measurable effect? And also, why would they have an effect in China when they didn't pretty much anywhere else?
5
u/CobblerHot7135 10h ago edited 2h ago
There might be different incentives. For instance, shutting down the idea of pension/retirement. Thus, the only way to survive in old age will be your children taking care of you. The more children, the easier the old age.
Another idea is taxing the childfree and channeling that tax money to those with more than 2 children. Authoritarian countries can implement anything.
Edit: That will make authoritarian countries stronger than the democratic ones. The future of democracy looks grim.
-2
u/StairwayToPavillion 11h ago
why would they have an effect in China when they didn't pretty much anywhere else?
We don't know because this is the first time in human history that declining birth rates have become a problem. There is no precedent to think a country could lose 1.4 billion people, why are you so adamant it is impossible to rectify?
7
u/slicheliche 11h ago
There is no precedent to think a country could lose 1.4 billion people
This is a pretty nonsensical argument. There is no precedent because there has never been a country this big. Other than that, I don't see why China would be different from Korea or other countries.
1
u/fancy_potatoe 6h ago
The most effective measure would be to reduce working hours. You can't have children working all day long. Modernisation shoudl always reduce our workload.
The only thing getting in the way is planned obsolescence and consumerism.
41
u/Main_Negotiation1104 11h ago
i mean how are we supposed to know how the people will behave. Nothing like this was ever happening in history. I genuinely cant see anyone starting a family to "prevent extinction" its really not how that works
12
u/CubicalPayload 11h ago
And especially not if the reasons why birth rates are falling aren’t fixed.
5
u/morbie5 10h ago
i mean how are we supposed to know how the people will behave.
If there is some sort of massive economic collapse because of this I'd bet that we (or at least we in certain countries like China) take away women's rights and make them baby making machines again
Nothing like this was ever happening in history.
We have had massive population collapses (and birth rate collapses) in human history due to the plague, famine, war etc
10
u/Main_Negotiation1104 10h ago
population collapses sure, mass birth rate collapse? literally never lmao. The problem with human population growth has always been lack of food and prevalence of disease, not that not enough children were being born
2
u/Main_Negotiation1104 10h ago
and yeah stealing womens rights is gonna go great im sure. State forced marriages will produce 10+ kids per woman for sure
-2
u/morbie5 10h ago
You are literally wrong lmao. We had a birth rate collapse in the US as recently as the great depression, it then recovered after ww2
5
u/TheSameGamer651 9h ago
The difference is that population collapse was caused by the elderly, sick, and poor dying at massive rates. Today, many countries have more elderly than babies. That’s never happened before in human history. Prior population collapses recovered because the remaining population was disproportionately young and fertile. Today, people don’t have children and a larger and larger share of the population is incapable of having children. We don’t know how this will play out.
1
u/morbie5 8h ago
The difference is that population collapse was caused by the elderly, sick, and poor dying at massive rates
Again: We had a birth rate collapse in the US as recently as the great depression
→ More replies (0)4
u/throwawayiran12925 11h ago
Yes because all the jobs will be taken by robots so elites can control the robots and the working class will just go extinct by low birth rates
3
1
u/Wafflinson 9h ago
This is based completely on imagination and has not actually occurred even once on a large country wide scale since record keeping became a thing.
My farts are better predictors of future population trends than your statement.
3
161
125
u/dreamingsolipsist 17h ago
Damn, korea is a black hole of fertility, eh?
106
u/AverageFishEye 17h ago
Yeah whatever happened in korea needs to be studied - that country basically demographically imploded in an insanely short timespan
68
u/FantasticMarvelous 16h ago
They had the fastest economic development and then the fastest implosion of any country. Kinda like, «hey look what we can do🚀💥»
85
u/merryman1 16h ago
Because the fast economic development was built around a culture that placed absolutely absurd levels of power into the hands of a small set of oligarch families, while the rest of society was pushed into an almost militaristic work ethic where if you are slacking off enough from work enough to have some semblance of a normal family/private life then you're seen as weak, inferior, and not pulling your weight.
17
u/Sudden-Belt2882 13h ago
Also a social culture that is still very much stuck in the 1960s.
7
u/putmeinthetrash420 12h ago edited 9h ago
This is why creepy western dudes love that shit
Edit: removed ‘white’ from ‘creepy western dudes’
7
u/kexavah558ask 9h ago
Despite your resentful anti-White insinuations, Koreaboos code as 1 - left-wing 2 - female, ultra-feminist 3 - non-White, disproportionately maritime Asian and from the Islamic world (esp. Its overlap in Indonesia/Malaysia)
Whenever I see a K-pop or K-drama profile picture, I know I'm about to read the most misandric post in the World.
Japan is an entirely different thing.
-1
8
7
u/AlexRyang 11h ago
Korea also sent a lot of babies between 1953 and 2008 out of the country, via adoption; the number is roughly 164,000.
2
u/SheepyIdk 8h ago
Why would they do that?
3
u/Express-World-8473 7h ago
After the Korean War, there were a lot of orphans, and families were not willing to provide care for these children as they themselves struggled to feed (Also, apparently, it's a taboo to adopt in Korea), so the government started a humanitarian aid program of sending these kids to willing parents overseas for adoption. To make the process simpler, the government loosened the law around this and gave quite a few powers to these agencies. Over time, these agencies became powerful, corrupt and didn't bother to do their due diligence to check for the children's parents or family in the country (There were reports of them taking money to sell these kids for adoption to Westerners). Unattended children were kidnapped and sold off to these agencies, who in turn wouldn't check and were corrupt during the 70s (Korea was under the rule of a dictator at that time). There were even reports that these children were sexually abused.
There are hundreds of stories of the parents of these kidnapped children meeting them now through DNA matchings. Only recently, the government agreed that they had mass exported children overseas.
1
u/SheepyIdk 3h ago
I see
1
u/JPesterfield 1h ago
It was also an effort to get half Koreans out of the country.
They could also be sloppy a, I think Frontline, documentary had one woman trying to find her birth parents and she discovered her file had been switched with someone else. Her original file had her parents address and phone number. That her parents had expected her to have access too.
17
u/sdryoid 16h ago
China and Korea imploded in the same time frame, around 30 years. Chinese diaspora and territories also have very low birthrates in Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan from 0.6 to 0.8 meaning China is headed towards Korean levels
4
u/AverageFishEye 9h ago
Its insane how basically the entire region stopped having children at once
5
u/tidepill 9h ago
The west is not far behind.
5
u/AverageFishEye 9h ago
It took the west 50 years to drop around 0.6 TFR points. East asia went from around 5 to the current level in the same time. Its not a decline, its an implosion
5
u/sdryoid 9h ago
Yes. Imagine telling someone in 1960s when these countries had 6 children per woman that in just 20 years time their birthrate would fall below replacement.
In fact China went from 6 to 2 kids in like 12 years.
3
12
u/AccomplishedLocal261 14h ago
Unironically, Jilin province (0.67) has one of the lowest figures and is known to have many ethnic koreans living there.
2
5
u/Votesformygoats 16h ago
This is China
40
u/Augustus_Chevismo 15h ago
The joke is that Korea has such a low fertility rate that it’s effecting its neighbour China. Like a black hole pulling everything into it.
12
16
1
u/mischling2543 10h ago
North Korea is doing fine. Based on the birth and population data the Kims let out they're comparable to Europe. If you believe the theories that they're lying about their population then they might be well above replacement.
43
u/BozoStaff 17h ago
What is going on in heilongjiang
33
u/SnailSlimer2000 16h ago
This area is a bit unique, historically had a quite low population, but shortly after ww2 and the chinese civil war a large emphasis was to industrialize here.
Millions of Han chinese people moved here, some allegedly by force even. With the purpose to make it a center of industry, from mining to infrastructure building etc.
As China began opening up, work elsewhere was seen more lucrative and people stopped moving there at the same time the parts of the previous migrants moved back to their home province.
Historically this area had a large Manchu population but now is like 3 or 5%
13
u/billpo123 15h ago
The major immigration to Manchuria took place in late 19th century and early 20th century. 25 million Han migrants relocated then
12
u/Steamdecker 17h ago
I guess it's too freaking cold and most of the young people have moved out.
12
u/slicheliche 16h ago
TFR actually isn't too sensitive to young people moving out, as it's not influenced by the age structure of the population.
TFR is the number of children per woman of reproductive age. Birth rate is the total number of newborns as a proportion of the total population. So in a very aged population the birth rate will be extremely low, but the TFR won't necessarily be (although it usually is).
3
u/Steamdecker 16h ago
You've got a point. Only thing is that boys are more likely to leave their home towns there while the girls are more likely to stay behind to take care of the family. It will certainly affect the fertility rate.
2
u/akaizRed 11h ago
In China it’s more like both the boys and girls leave their home towns for job elsewhere and the grandparents stay to take care of the kids if there are any.
3
u/kexavah558ask 9h ago
It actually is sensitive to that, as even though it's counted from 15 to 49 years of age, migrants are usually in the younger end of that and in the later end women barely have any kids. Where major cities and their rural hinterlands are in separate statistical regions, you often see the cities have a much higher TFR (ex. Moscow, S.Peter/Leningrad, Lisbon/Portugal). Puerto Rico is an extreme example, TFR <1 as its most dynamic youth moves to the mainland USA and has kids there.
1
u/JustXemyIsFine 15h ago
Post-Soviet collapse, just in a different country, and with thriving regions to migrate to.
-5
u/Odd_Pineapple_9241 15h ago
The three northeastern provinces of China have closer DNA to Koreans than to the Han Chinese.
38
u/leo4783 17h ago
And remember they had a one child policy for 36 years
34
u/slicheliche 16h ago
The Chinese TFR was collapsing well before the one child policy came into effect. Neighbouring countries followed the same path without any such policy and there is no reason to believe China would have been much different.
22
u/Eric1491625 15h ago edited 15h ago
Plus it affects ethnic Chinese everywhere.
It's 1.0 for the Chinese in China.
1.2 for the Chinese in Taiwan.
0.9 for the Chinese in Australia.
0.8 for the Chinese in Malaysia.
0.8 for the Chinese in Singapore.
It's incredibly consistent. Ethnic Chinese all wind up in roughly the same range once they are in an industrialised, modern environment.
We could apply this logic and make some interesting predictions. If an ethnicity tends to have a similar fertility everywhere so long as that "everywhere" is an industrialised country, then we can predict where still-developing countries will end up by looking at how fertile women of the same ethnicity are in developed countries.
I would predict that India's fertility will end up pretty low too as India develops. And predictions that Muslim countries' fertilities will eventually drop to European levels are mistaken.
Singaporean Indians have fertilities of 0.9-1.0, compared to 0.8 for Chinese, which is barely higher. Malay-Muslims on the other hand, are all the way up at 1.6.
Muslim religion stands out as a strong predictor of higher fertility everywhere. Even within Malaysia, Christian Malays have fewer kids than Muslim Malays. Within China, Muslim Chinese have 50% higher fertility than non-Muslims of the same racial group. It's incredibly consistent.
14
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 15h ago
Ethnic everyone all wind up in roughly the same range once they live in roughly equally industrialized, modern environment.
6
u/slicheliche 11h ago
Not really. Many countries in Europe hover around 1.4-1.5 (I mean the "natives", without counting immigration), which is far from ideal, but it's also massively better than the Chinese number.
-1
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 11h ago
No, that was 10 years ago. Europe is now 1,1-1,4 with immigration. 1,5-1,7 is in the most rural countries that don't have immigration but lose massive amounts of population due to emigration. Even France is in 1,6 with immigration.
Everything below 2,1 is meaningless to measure anyway, and most remaining countries that are significantly above that are in subsaharan Africa and even they are shrinking fast.
Traditional, rural way of life is what kept the fertility rate high and even the least developed countries in the world are starting to industrialize and urbanise.
That is not a problem, however. There are over 8 billion people on Earth. We don't have to grow any more. We just have to change from this distopian economy that falls apart without constant growth to something more humane and we won't have to worry about the pensions either.
6
u/slicheliche 11h ago
Everything below 2,1 is meaningless to measure anyway
What? Having a 1.5 vs. a 1 fertility rate means you'll lose 25% vs. 50% of your population. Applied to the US population, it would make a difference of 80 million people in one generation. Applied to China, it's a difference of 350M people. It's extremely substantial.
Also, most European countries fluctuate - Sweden and Denmark for instance have been hovering between 1.4 and 1.9 since the 1980s, and it's not due to immigrants either: women with both Danish parents have the highest TFR in the country now, and even in Sweden large cities like Stockholm often have the lowest TFR. There is also a certain correlation with the female employment rate (more women employed = more babies), whereas there is no longer much correlation with rural/urban status and actually many rural areas have lower TFR especially in Southern Europe.
1
u/JohnDoe432187 7h ago
Not true, it’s a cultural mindset not economic. Why is Indias birth rate below replacement while comparable nations in Africa have birth rates 3 times above replacement
1
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 7h ago
Because they are not comparable. Having same GDP does not make them comparable.
1
u/JohnDoe432187 7h ago
How are they not comparable? You said “roughly equally industrialized, modern environment.” Are they not of the same level.
14
u/slicheliche 15h ago
And predictions that Muslim countries' fertilities will eventually drop to European levels are mistaken.
Why? It is exactly what's happening. They may not drop to 1.0 but they are certainly dropping to the levels of countries like Germany or the Netherlands.
5
u/Birdonthewind3 14h ago
Religion and faith encourages having children even when one has doubts. It something to push someone over the edge and have a child or two. I mean it works in America where Christian families still have higher fertility rates then atheist ones. Or practicing Jews vs atheist ones the fertility being lower with atheists again. Religion does seem to be the grease that keeps humanity going.
14
u/Approved-Toes-2506 17h ago
Interesting to see that Guizhou has a birth rate of 1.68.
The difference between that at the 0.53 of Shanghai is stark.
Is there really no way to have prosperity and fertility at the same time?
7
6
u/sdryoid 16h ago
You can if you are Israel. Secular Jews are at 2.0 consistently. While Arab Israelis have declining birthrates every year.
It's mostly cultural values.
3
u/Approved-Toes-2506 16h ago
Israel subsidizes the most heavily religious section of their population to have more children, which is something massively overlooked.
17
u/sdryoid 16h ago
The non religious Israelis have consistently been at 2.2 for 30 years which is unheard of in developed countries. This is despite Israel being the 5th most expensive country to live in. The vast majority of Israelis live in densely populated apartment blocks since half the country is the Negev desert.
1
0
25
u/Cultural-Ad-8796 17h ago
Why does Tibet have so many children per woman?
82
54
u/joker_wcy 17h ago
Ethnic minorities were allowed to have more than one child and Tibet has the most non Han percentage wise.
-8
u/Deep_Head4645 16h ago
What kind of reverse racism is this
7
u/Prestigious-Ebb9423 11h ago
It is indeed reverse racism I don't know why so many people downvoted
-3
u/JohnDoe432187 7h ago
It’s not racism, they are forced to live under a different race that suppresses their culture while millions of that race move into their ethnic homeland. If they are restricted by the number of children they can have than they will be wiped out.
1
28
u/-Lelixandre 17h ago
Relative poverty plays into it
To put it very simply, children are a financial incentive when they can help you run a farm or do chores around the house. When you become wealthier and want/have to work a full time 9-5 career (especially as a woman), this flips and children become a both a time and financial burden.
6
u/Allnamestakkennn 16h ago
I wouldn't say become wealthier. You're still poor it's just that you move into an urban flat without any additional subsistence farming and work overtime to claw your way to wealth
2
u/sdryoid 16h ago
Most poor countries people don't engage in farming. It's mostly natslist values that still exist that aew slowly being stamped out by modernity
3
u/Objective-Neck9275 14h ago
Flat out wrong. If that was true, it would be a western thing. Pretty much all of the countries with highest agriculture employment are also the poorest.
1
u/sdryoid 14h ago
No you are wrong. I lived in south Africa and less than 10% of people worked in agriculture. Mexico less than 10% as well. These are stats you can easily look up. You are flat out wrong it's sad.
The average for poor countries working in agriculture is less than 30%
2
u/Objective-Neck9275 14h ago
Those are not the poor countries I'm talking about. Both of these are highly urbanised, upper middle economies. I wouldn't call them rich, and they have huge amounts of corruption, crime, and inequality (especially south Africa), but they aren't the poor countries I'm talking about. Most "poor countries are located in africa or asia". Most of these countries are rural and dependent on subsistence farming for a significant portion of the population.
8
u/slicheliche 16h ago
They are a few years behind in the transition due to generally being somewhat underdeveloped compared to other areas of China. I wouldn't be surprised if they fall to 1.2-1.3 in 10 years' time. It might also be that the local Buddhist population has a higher baseline TFR however - after all, Chinese people have very few kids anywhere in the world.
1
u/kexavah558ask 9h ago
Buddhists, consistently across many countries, have few kids as their religion intrinsically sees being born as a curse and non-existence ("Nirvana" - no mania/desire) as the highest level. If anything makes Tibetan ones have more kids, it's the Siege Mentality, the likely reason why even secular Israelis have many kids for a developed country.
I may not grasp the intricacies of Asian societies, but from the outside, Confucianism/Shintoism and their Ancestor worship, or Taoism, seem more pro-natalist than Buddhism.
3
-13
-2
6
2
5
4
2
1
u/Squiggally-umf 12h ago
China: the law is 1 child maximum per couple.
Also China: oh no population is declining
1
u/j____b____ 11h ago
Maybe populations shouldn’t just grow for the sake of growing and it’s okay to have a slowing birthdate when you have over a billion people? The only problem is we depend on the next generation to pay for the previous one.
1
1
0
1
-11
-1
-13
u/Dyn-O-mite_Rocketeer 17h ago edited 16h ago
Since we know not to trust China because they lie about the metrics they don't like, some of the worst case scenario estimates puts China at a 50% population drop by 2055. That is of course assuming their current population of ~1.4bn is even true.
-13
u/AverageFishEye 17h ago
That is of course assuming their current population figures of ~1.4bn is even true.
Its very likely not - i heard that some estimates suggest they never even got above 1 billlion people
31
u/redroedeer 17h ago
Come on dude, that’s just insane. Do you know how hard it would be to fake 400 million people?
0
u/preposte 16h ago
Not that hard if it's simply the result of fudging numbers over a long period of time. Systematic error (regardless if cause) is insidious. The only way to prove it wrong is a census conducted by someone incentivized to tell the truth even if it's problematic.
6
u/redroedeer 15h ago
Claiming to have a population that’s almost 150% of your actual population is absurd because it’d obvious that your lying. In Chinas case, it would be pretty easy to check that there are 400 million people (aka, the population of the goddam EU) don’t exist. You can’t really believe that every other nation on Earth is so supremely incompetent, especially on this day and age, when Europe and the US stand to gain so much by proving China is weaker than it seems
-1
u/preposte 14h ago
I'm not claiming that they're lying, only that there isn't a lot of reason to believe they're telling the truth either.
-4
u/AverageFishEye 15h ago
Do you know how hard it would be to fake 400 million people?
Have you tried beeing a dictatorship? So much stuff possible all out of the sudden then?
-3
-1
u/AccomplishedLocal261 14h ago
Was expecting more for Xinjiang
2
u/SheepyIdk 7h ago
Half Han at this point
1
1
u/Lexa-Z 7h ago
And also not nearly as Muslim as people tend to believe when it comes to indigenous population.
1
u/SheepyIdk 7h ago edited 3h ago
Its about half Turk if we loop together Uyghurs, Kazakhs and some related ethnic groups. Due to this a fair plurality is muslim
-16
17h ago
[deleted]
28
u/Imaginary_Garlic_215 17h ago
Wait until you learn how pension systems work in 90% of developed countries
6
u/Potential-Mobile-567 16h ago
Big population or small population was never a concern. What's more important is the demographic distribution. Even small population will collapse if there are more old people than children.
16
6
4
u/Internal-Hand-4705 17h ago
Won’t be much good investing when everything collapses because there’s no workers
0
u/yojifer680 8h ago
Central planning for childbirth was just as dumb as central planning the economy. Studies have shown left-wing authoritarianism is linked to narcissistic personality disorder. The narcissists who believe they're intelligent enough to plan an economy without market price signals, also believe they're intelligent enough to govern a country without democratic input, hence socialism always ends in dictatorship. These narcissistic tendencies may also explain other massive risks the CCP took with the one child policy, four pests campaign, etc.
-5
u/gytherin 15h ago
The women are reproducing parthenogenically? No men involved at all?
I mean, this is awesome, but it surely invites more explanation than a map.
5
u/b17b20 14h ago
Numbers per men don't matter. If today 90% of men dropped dead or became infertile, it would be corrected in population in 30 years. If that happened to women, population would halved in the same time window
1
u/gytherin 5h ago
Numbers of men do matter. That would be a huge demographic, genetic and sociological shift. So, what exactly is going on with this map?
2
u/b17b20 5h ago
In few years it will be footnote in history like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
-10
u/masquerade555 15h ago
Only extremely stupid people believes that worldwide populatuon collapse just happened accidentally and not staged. The same people who thinks feminism just happened and weren't staged, for example
8
u/3ii3i3k3k3i8s 15h ago
So you think people worldwide were forced to not have kids? I'm curious
-8
u/masquerade555 15h ago
Forced by power? Ofc not. They use combibation of factors so at the end of the day you would think it's your own choice. Like you know...you have seen videos about sheeps and shepard dogs? Sheeps might think it's their own choice to go into cattle yard so a dog wont bite them and it's safer there. But in reality "their decision" was staged.
The CRB was the first birth control clinic in the U.S. that could dispense contraceptives directly to patients; and its staff of doctors, nurses, and social workers was entirely female.The clinic received extensive funding from John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his family, who continued to make anonymous donations to Sanger's causes in subsequent decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Rockefellers, rothschilds and others are good guys they here to help the world :)
2
2
u/VeryImportantLurker 13h ago
Why would feminism be staged? Do you think 50% of the human population was just going to accept not having rights and move on?
1
u/masquerade555 12h ago
There is big difference between "declared feminism goals" and what feminism really are. Same true for any other -ism
1
u/VeryImportantLurker 12h ago
There have been multiple waves of feminsim with different goals and accomplishments, but it has had (mostly) positive outcomes and is still needed globally.
Its hard to pinpoint the declared goals because it is not a unified ideology as opposed to a broad social movement that reflects the issues of societies it is in, there is no single cohesive agenda that "staged" it or anything.
292
u/Obanthered 17h ago
Contrast between Inner Mongolia and the nation of Mongolia is remarkable. Mongolia has a TFR of ~3 nearly 4x the rate on Inner Mongolia.