How do these Natalists feel about the African continent?
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
251 points (95.3% liked)
Political Memes
7773 readers
2141 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
The problem with declining population is the huge bubble pop you get when the population is mostly elderly people and few workers.
Right, but this can be resolved with immigration.
Or robots.
That's not a solution, that's just outsourcing the childbirth
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.
I think their point is that you then have to rely on other populations to breed workers for you which in the long term is not sustainable.
I could be wrong though. I'm a soft anti-natalist myself, but I do think an aging population is going to cause problems.
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.
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.
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
You're right that immigration brings complexity, it always has. But what you’re describing isn’t a reason to reject immigration. It’s a reason to invest in integration, civic education, and community infrastructure, the very things that made past waves of immigration ultimately successful. The challenges Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants posed didn’t prove immigration was a failure, they proved that assimilation is a process, not a plug-and-play switch. And they eventually helped redefine the idea of who counts as “American.” That doesn’t mean there weren’t tensions, but it does mean people changed, adapted, and became part of the whole.
What I hear in your argument is a belief that culture is static, and that outsiders are always permanent outsiders. That’s a dangerously pessimistic view of human beings. It treats people as incapable of growth, and societies as too fragile to absorb change. But that’s not how culture works, not unless you let fear do the steering.
And yes, importing labor from poorer countries can create tension, especially if the host society is structured in a way that stratifies opportunity. But then the issue isn’t immigration, it’s inequality. The problem isn't that “the poors” look different. It’s that we’re failing to create systems where they can become something else.
Extremist sentiment is rising in Europe not because immigrants are inherently dangerous, but because politicians and media figures are stoking fear and resentment instead of investing in cohesion. We've seen this movie before. It never ends well.
I know immigrants aren't the issue, I'm not saying they are, I'm saying the host countries should fix their issues without relying on them. I'm not anti immigration, I'm just pro natalism, substituting locals for immigrants won't work
I hear that you’re not anti-immigrant and that your focus is on encouraging higher birthrates among the existing population. That’s a valid position. But I’m still unclear on something: you say “substituting locals for immigrants won’t work”, but what does that mean, practically?
We’re already seeing immigrants and their children working in essential industries, serving in the military, paying taxes, starting businesses, and contributing culturally and economically in every measurable way. In that sense, it is working, not as a perfect system, but as a very real and ongoing contribution to national strength.
So if your point is that we also need pro-natal policies, that’s great, many countries are trying that too. But that doesn’t invalidate immigration as part of the solution. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
If you believe immigration “won’t work,” can you explain specifically what metric or outcome you’re pointing to? Otherwise, it feels like the disagreement isn’t about whether it works, but about whether we’re emotionally comfortable with who is coming in.
Outsourcing is a solution.
If the original goal (as stated) is maintaining sustainable population levels, not really, since that implies maintaining the same population level, just outsourcing part of the childbirth (and potentially raising and education)
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.
This is Asia we're talking about. The land of robots. They'll be fine.
I mean you're presupposing that it's important to convince immigrants to learn the language. Maybe multiculturualism is okay actually
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?
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.
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.
You’ve made a very vague statement without any substance, sorry. “People in power” are not the reason a person who does not speak the language spoken in an office finds it difficult to get a job in that office. Language barriers make communication (and therefore collaboration) difficult or even impossible. It is no one’s fault that language barriers exist but immigrants without the necessary language skills are at a disadvantage.
If there’s anyone to blame, it’s the people in power in the home country of the immigrants who created the conditions where immigration into such a disadvantaged situation is preferable to remaining at home.
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.
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.
Most people don't want to learn another language they want to do other stuff.
Example: me, I want to do other stuff.
They aren't exclusive.
I learn languages without actualy putting in effort, just fucking expose yourself.
Also, that's fucking rude, this is their country and their culture, you should respect them.
I don't even respect my own culture.
Mine's let me down a lot lately.
But other cultures, I'm a guest.
No one chooses to exist, so you could argue we're captives regardless of where we are. Not guests.
But yeah, I'm not moving anywhere that speaks a different language anyway if I can avoid it. Sounds like too much of an impediment and risk, being unable to function in society that you don't speak the language in. You end up too vulnerable and dependent on strangers and I don't tend to trust people I don't know.
If you enjoy on an intrinsic level learning another language, fine. That certainly would explain why you "learn without putting in effort". Its not for me however. I have no desire. I'm far more interested in other things.
If you already know French, can you get an “in” immigration wise?
Yeah but no more of an “in” than knowing English. Immigration policy is controlled by the federal government which only cares if you know one of the two official languages of the country (or not).
Korea used to have 2 workers and 10 dependents. Now its 2 workers and 7 dependents. There are literally more workers per dependent. There's no bubble that will pop.
Where are your statistics? Do any cursory searching and you’ll find that South Korea is desperate for care workers. There’s a huge shortage.
The 6 kids on average for South Korea in the 1950's was from the Kurzgesagt video originally posted.
2 parents caring for 6 kids and 4 grandparents equals 10 dependents.
2 parents caring for 4 grandparents and 1 kid equals 5 dependents.
And then finally 1 kid caring for 2 parents and 4 grandparents. 1 worker and 6 dependents.
Holy [citation needed], Batman!
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.
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.
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
Seniors had care when there were less resources because families had 6 kids to raise. I showed that because children take up more resources than elderly that they not only wouldn't rot, but would have more care because the resources that went to children would go to them.
Yet we can have the resources to raise kids that cost even more? That makes no sense.
I literally mean there will be too many elderly for the slim workforce since many of these elderly won't have families to take care of them, y'know since nobody is having kids.
Your whole point relies on the elderly getting home are from family like a child would, but the problem is that most won't have those families and there simply won't be enough healthcare workers to fill the gap.
I can't begin to tackle that one. Jesus. You've certainly never had kids nor been old, I get that much.
I do both. I have a mother in law in a retirement center. I have 2 kids.
How many kids do you have?
Historically, this was made possible by unpaid care labor performed primarily by women and children.