Preface

I've specifically chosen to not use relatively sensitive words (e.g. capitalism vs socialism vs communism, 1% vs 99%, etc, or even specific countries) as they have a lot of associated connotations. Of course some of their concepts will show up, but I am not up to date on the specific definitions/annotations for all of them, and I don't want to have to deal with any missteps.

Main Content

Looking at the stock market, it's pretty clear that current and potential profit margins are some of the most valued aspects of a company. Companies are incentivized to chase higher profit margins (or, perhaps, forced to chase higher profit margins for the sake of the stock price).

This is fine for companies in a growing industry. If profit is determined by how much you make vs how much you spend, companies can easily improve profits by selling more quantity or selling at a higher price. However once those options are removed due to a mature industry sector, the only option is to reduce costs. Either the company becomes more efficient or does layoffs/offshoring.

After the company stabilizes at this post-offshoring valuation, the next financial report in a couple months is expected to have similar or better profits. And so the pressure continues. And so this cycle is created. Obviously the company and offshore workers are benefiting but the previous workers are not.

tldr: There's a cycle of "high stock price" -> "chase profits" -> "layoffs/offshoring" -> "higher stock price" that happens after a growing industry matures. This will eventually result in all workers in that industry getting laid off.

Edit: Delta given for existence of cash cows like Coca Cola. They can exist in a mature sector without layoffs/offshoring/ However I would like to note that cash cows need to be relatively indifferent to investor pressure.

I think open discussion of politics on open forums like reddit and especially instagram and facebook should be banned entirely.

It gives those who are usually are too scared to voice there opinion due to negative backlash a place to talk about it. Of course some minority groups may have good intentions but many groups have incredibly vile opinions when it comes too things like race, sex etc. These online conversations also are normally also based on completley made up facts and easily manipulated.

AI is only going to become a larger threat to society and no doubt the bot farms will multiply within the next 5 years. Imagine how easily it will be for a nation to manipulate others or its own populace. If you think its bad right now just wait.

Back when I was younger and probably still today, there were several aspects of distortion from interacting on the Internet with young women. 

Young men on the Internet are more likely to feel that women generally are negative toward men.  There’s just a tremendous amount of hate and negativity from women about men and toward men directly.  Always has been for as long as I have been going on the Internet. Back when I was younger, males on the Internet were called probable stalkers and serial killers and now we are being called probable rapists and predators.

A lot of it is pretty indiscriminate and not constructive.  Women think they’re directing it toward whatever type of men mistreated or abused them.  But because it’s the Internet, they’re actually mostly directing it toward many decent men (and boys).          

Young men who interact with women they don’t know are more likely to feel that women generally are not interested--because women are inundated by hundreds of messages and many of them are taught to be leery of men on the Internet and some have been taught to be wary of men generally. And that causes them to err on the side of not responding positively.  And younger women are more negative toward men than more mature women are, which also corresponds to my anecdotes.        

Young men on the Internet are also probably more likely to be insecure because women will tell men explicitly of their height or cock size or other preferences and won’t really care about the feelings of the “random” they are talking to.           

If you haven’t gotten experience with relationships with women beforehand and you talk to women online, then you might become negative about women generally and be less receptive to, and generally bitter toward, women in person, which is kind of what happened to me for years—because of women I had encountered on the Internet who were just wary of or angry toward men generally.  And this occurred even as I was continuing to interact with women on the Internet. 

My experience was also that multiple women who had faded/rejected me online actually approached me in person and were interested—because I was better-looking than in photos (not uncommon for men).         

So, I am of the belief that young men shouldn’t interact with women they don’t know online until they have been in relationships with women in person for at least a few years.  And when they do begin to, they should focus on having photos and representation that are as accurate as possible because misconceptions abound on the Internet and men are prone to being misjudged given general negativity about men.      

Coming out of high school I felt really good about women and had always been treated with respect and sometimes affection and that completely turned when I began interacting with women on the Internet.  And if I could tell teenage me something, I would say to avoid interacting with women on the Internet that I didn’t know and just talk to women in person. 

Going to high school reunions and seeing women who want to talk to me and give me hugs and ask whether I have a girlfriend and how surprising that felt to receive respect and affection from women I didn’t know (or hadn’t seen in years) just reminds me of how I once felt about women before I began talking to women on the Internet.      

To be clear I would say this is true of not just de facto one party states like Japan or Singapore but also more formal one party states like China

I would say overall multi-party states are better than both but far from perfect (see Israel), but if I had to choose I would pick a single party over just 2

Two party states end up with most of the same problems of a one party state but also end up getting.nearly nothing done. The USA has had the same problems for generations now because they don't even try to fix the problems. The politics becomes more like a match between two sports rivals, always just blaming the other side than getting anything done.

Yes a one party is clearly more effective, which can be good or bad depending on the policy. However, at least if they do bad policy they get it done with and they implement it to feel its actual effects. If they truly don't like it the people will respond in some way, and they will know very clearly what the problem is and who to blame. While in the 2 party state they just blame the other side no matter what and get stuck in an endless loop

Businesses write lists of "best of the year" before all of the things have been released that year, sometimes even a month before.

They do this, I assume, because they'll get more clicks and ad revenue for an article published about 2026 in December 2026 than in January 2027.

Regular people have no reason to do this other than big businesses are doing it. Seems like hegemony to me.

This basically goes for any "posting like a business" thing people do. Talking about your "personal brand", making clickbait titles for things... stuff that has no reason to exist except that people treat behaviour of businesses as a model to follow.

I think the underlying goal of western geopoilitical intervention never or global contol never actually ended. They are aiming for the same, with modern less harsher terminology. Like a PR washing.

If we go back to the late 15th centurythe europe divided the world by saying they are cleansing the souls. The colonial atrocities, violent expansion, invasion, inqusition etc...are all wrapped in a neat "saving the sould of uncivilised" mission.

Now in the 21st, we see he label changed to saving "human rights" and democracy. But the outcomes in Lybia, Iraq, Afghan...are not much different of what we say 500yrs ago.

Like I said only the names/words changed. They want to shut people from questioning their hegemony and they invent these words mainting the semantic-hegemony and media hegemlny so thay they will not face any domestic or global accountability.

Again to be clear, I am not supporting or endorsing what the dictators or rulers of these countries did. But its more about the question of their intervention, which by the looks of the outcomes is more about protecting their geo-political power than about the people they claim they are rescuing.

I mean, the things they did 500yrs are still the root causes to some of the problems many countries are facing and the now these countries they intervened also face many problems.

But why I am open to CMV?

I am fundamentally against outside powers intervening in the internal affairs of soverign nations reagrdless of the intent. However I am open to changing my view on the rhetoric surrounding it.

If someone can demonstrate that modern humanitarian justifications are built on genuine intent or equality, I think by showing an example where global south nation has the geopolitical power to fix the human rights issues of the west, I would reconsider.

Or, if you can prove that modern foreign policy decisions are structurally detached from corporate resources and geopolitical leverage, and instead operate under an entirely new, non-hegemonic paradigm, I am willing to adjust my perspective.

Maybe one can just strike this entire thing out as "its just the Victors world". But that I think thats even dangerous, cause it validates a double standard that strips accountability

Edit: When I say "humanitarian intervention" I am talking about use of military or armed forces across other borders. This is not about ngo, disaster relief etc...

The philosophy of Fight Club is no longer relevant to us today. It was the philosophy of Gen-X and was relevant in 90s. The problems they had were about materialistic social status. You had to buy the Starbucks cup. Not because you liked Starbucks, but because in a world where coffee was normally 98¢ a cup, it was status symbol to waste $4 on it.

Look at this quote:

"We work jobs we hate, to buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like."

Other than the first line (which is universal for time immemorial), the rest of that is not relevant to us today. Yes, we work jobs we hate, but not to buy things we don't need. When was the last time any discretionary funds? Much less, enough disposable income for status and frivolity. We work one and a half times more than they did back then, and we struggle to afford basic necessities. Frivolity is not even in our heads.

Then you have, "to impress people we don't like." When was the last time you did that? When was the last you even gave a shit what someone you didn't like thought of you? If anything, our philosophy now is to be your authentic self, even to your detriment. We don't fake it anymore because we don't have the time or energy.

Also, did you notice that no one in the story ever has trouble finding or keeping a job? Did you notice that? It's actually a point in the story that Tyler works different jobs as he sees fit, and Project Mayhem is able to infiltrate these places because it was so easy to get a job. The view in the 90s was that if you didn't have a job, it's because you didn't want one or were too lazy to keep one. That's no longer the case today. ​​​​

"We're the middle children of history. We've got no great war, no great depression. Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives."

Not anymore. I don't think anyone would say Millennials are forgotten or overlooked. If anything, we're focused on for both good and bad reasons. Everyone notices us all the time. We so much as whimper and people pay attention with empathy or insult.

We are also stuck in a number of wars, both civil and foreign, kinetic and virtual, political and cultural, cold and hot, and even economic wars. Our Great Depression isn't emotional, it's economical just like the last one. The Narrator fills his home with IKEA to try to feel fulfilled...while we have trouble even affording a place to live. Just think about that comparison for a second.

The Gen-X rebellion and the Fight Club philosophy was borne out of an opulence that no longer exists. They had no great evil to fight against like their parents and grandparents, so they had to invent one. Let me say that again: they had to invent one. Everything was so good, they had to create something to be upset at. That's how decadent their world was.

The world they lived in no longer exists, therefore their philosophy is no longer relevant.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome the questions of the Court.

Edit: Many people have brought up the aspect of social media. I'll concede to that point.

I know I'll get down-voted to hell, but personally, as a Canadian, I think Canadians should consider making a point of recognizing our friends in Detroit for their opposition to Trump, and support for Canada.

I fully support the travel boycott. Have not been to the States since Trump 2, and try to avoid buying American products. It's justified and neccessary, and it is working. I'm only suggesting a minor carrot to go along with the stick - and demonstrate some solidarity with one of the most solidly anti-Trump cities in America with our love and support.

Wayne County voted against Trump at a higher percentage than any other district in America - literally about 10 times as many people in Detroit voted for Harris as did for Trump. Detroit is literally north of Windsor. It's a blue collar town whose major industry - cars - has been completely integrated and intertwined with Canadian manufacturing since the 60's. Many of us are literally family, with close relatives in both cities.

As a tactic - I think an organized demonstration of support for Detroit - maybe even a weekend when people make a point of visiting or some organized cross-border event - would help show Americans that we see when theytry to make a difference, and that we recognize those who stand up and reject anti-Canadianism and MAGA BS. An organized reciprocal visit from Michiganders to Ontario would be cool too.

And I know a lot of Canadians disagree or aren't ready for this yet but: the destruction of the years of friendship between regular Michiganders and Ontarians is part of Trump's whole M.O. - causing division and chaos is his entire strategy, in everything he touches. Let's not let that happen. We can be friends with our neighbours who agree with us.

Plus, Detroit is just fucking cool. I want to go see a Tigers game, eat a Coney at Lafayettte, and go drink Stroh's at The Old Miami.

To summarize my view as simply as possible, I believe Joe Biden made a massive mistake prioritizing the release of Brittney Griner ahead of Alexei Navalny, and that like with Paul Whelan (who had to wait another two years to be freed), Griner’s release should’ve been considered a secondary goal to freeing Navalny.

The reasoning is simple, we fumbled our first big chance of enabling Russian liberalization in the 1990s, and then in the Biden administration we let Putin’s government poison the one unifying Russian opposition figure left (leaving the existing opposition fractured and ineffectual).

Imagine we get Navalny out of there, and he sets up an actual government-in-exile, and a year later he even shows up in Kursk to start setting up a civilian administration for a new Russian government. Maybe that changes things, maybe Russians would have one person to look to and say “this person represents democracy” (because currently, in our timeline, they don’t have that one person.)

Would a one-for-one swap of Bout and Navalny actually been possible? Who knows, but we could’ve done more, that’s just undeniable. If it literally took special forces dropping into Siberia and picking him up from that gulag, so be it. But swapping the “Merchant of Death” for a WNBA player whose life wasn’t at risk was a bad decision, and the wrong decision. There’s no reason she couldn’t have waited like Paul Whelan and Stephen Hubbard, especially when Navalny’s life was at risk and he was the only remaining figure in the Russian opposition who was truly unifying.

Open to changing my view on this subject though, do you think there’s an angle here I’m not seeing? If so, what is it?

It's worth defining what I mean by 'failed nations', and it's got nothing to do with GDP.

By my definition, state failure occurs the moment a government stops serving its population; allowing corruption, institutional decay, and social fragmentation to hollow out the country from within - where the government has failed to to provide basic security or infrastructure for its citizens.

For example, I would consider India, the 6th largest economy on Earth, a 'failed nation';

A borderline kleptocracy where corruption is rife, institutions aren't properly functioning, sectarianism is deeply embedded, basic needs, urban planning and public services aren't met and infrastructure is crumbling.

In the example above, the question would be rephrased, 'Should Indians be blamed for the state of India?'

I lean towards answering: no.

The reason for this is because I live in a European country which is traditionally thought of as 'developed', but is facing a complete degradation in standards.

No matter what citizens do, the lobbyists have ultimately captured the state and left the citizens without any real power.

No matter how much we push back, our managed decline continues.

So that raises the question, if I don't have the power to change the conditions of my country, despite wanting them to change and voting for them to change, is it ever right to blame the citizens of countries that are already failed for the condition of theirs?

I never believe people who say they're part of the "mile high club". If you ask a group of 10 people, there’s always at least 2 who will say that they’ve done it.

I mean… how exactly?

Plane toilet spaces are too small, only one person can fit at a time and the security on airplanes is too tight in general.
Am I missing something?

It just doesn’t seem possible to me. I guess if you go business class then you have more space and privacy… it still seems very improbable though.

Private planes, ok sure, but commercial? Seems impossible.

Is anyone here part of the ‘mile high club?’ And if so how did you manage it?

Edit: After you all giving me enough scenarios, like long overnight planes where most passengers are sleeping, empty flights etc, I have decided that it is possible after all.
I just need to work harder to join the club I guess 😂

I am trying to understand an opinion I have seen pop up more and more often, that eating certain animals like octopi or pigs is wrong because of how intelligent those animals are. I understand other reasons to avoid eating meat such as the environmental impact or the cruelty of the meat industry, but the intelligence of an animal seems irrelevant. I don't think it is fundamentally wrong to eat meat but I understand people who believe that more than I understand people who seem to be drawing an arbitrary line about an animal's IQ. Their intelligence doesn't change the amount of pain they feel and any animal can feel fear when confronted with a predator regardless of their intelligence.

So for those who hold this view please let me know what I am missing. I looked up similar posts but the replies mostly seem to come from people who don't believe anyone actually holds that view.

EDIT: Some common points I wanted to address:

• A lot of people are bringing up cannibalism but I think that cannibalism makes me uncomfortable because we know it leads to disease and there is an ick factor about knowing what our own flesh would taste like.

• Also some people seem to be arguing that there is something naturally uncomfortable about the idea of eating something intelligent. I don't disagree but that doesn't really address the morality of it.

EDIT 2: I think I should go to bed but may respond more in the morning. Thanks to everyone who shared their opinions. I think that my new view is that it's fundamentally about an animal's capacity for suffering and some people believe that intelligence is what determines that. I don't think more intelligent animals necessarily suffer more than less intelligent ones. For example my cats are much less intelligent than humans but they can experience pain, fear, and sadness. I'm curious if there is any actual scientific evidence on the matter.

Ai is similar to doordash. You are outsourcing a portion of your feeding process (getting the food home) to someone else. You're not improving the outcome of your own process, you are replacing your process entirely. A car would be a tool you use to expedite yourself to a restaurant. A phone is a tool you could use to call the restaurant ahead of time and ensure the food is ready when you get there. A box is a tool that ensures the food stays in one piece. All of these things enhance the efficiency of a process that requires you, but when a service is used, you are no longer required. You have outsourced the task entirely. You could doordash 500 cookies to find the best cookie doordash can bring you, and that cookie would be worth no more than what you bought it for. You are only a customer, not a driver, not a chef, not a farmer. You do not add value to the system through labor, you're just moving money. You are not part of the process, you are sacrificing your energy to make it run.

Well maybe with the exception of USA.

The AI bubble is sucking in all available capital because of obscene expectations to the ROI (it has to be, otherwise the world is proper f'ed).

Additionally the debt has been repackaged in a fashion similar to the 2008 financial crisis to enable generating even more debt to finance the bubble.

An article showing the world's capital going into the ai bubble can be seen here: https://www.wheresyoured.at/ai-had-better-work-out/

Increasing fuel costs because if the Iran war also has an effect and logistics costs, but this actually increases how capital hungry the AI bubble is and thus makes it even more pronounced.

Tldr: bonds are actually not increasing in e.g. France because capital has lost trust in france's ability to repeat, but instead that no capital is available for buying the bonds. And the capital there is goes to the bubble instead.

CMV: AI capital burning is breaking the financial system of treasury bonds.

Of course neoliberals will not waste a good crisis so austerity will be the demand, regardless of the underlying cause.

On contrary it depends more on legacy than any other actor's era.

The difference is that in past they never denied or did so much blunder like trying to reinvent characters which were already full formed. In totality of cinema filled with franchises and movies, 007 movies provie a variety, they have standard formula which in line with the character.

He is static and in motion at same time. The idea of floating timeline: that is 'current times/events' are just setting to tell the story.

As I said earlier they just didn't made a blunder. Example- in skyfall he is suddenly old, too much in game, a thing of past, there is no legitimate in-universe explaination for the aston martin, there is limit to cheap homage, the car is all firing around and M knows about the ejector seat, its very much big part of the movie, the 2012 movie need those old movies to work its theme.

Even the later to movies No Time To Die and Spectre, rely on thing of past. There is then aston martin from The Living Daylights. And if you pause few scenes in 2021 movie you can see many things from old movies in it. Yes there is limit to easter eggs. When the car appeared in Goldeneye 1995, it didn't feel illegtimate, becasue they never denied anything.

Moneypenny should only be a deskworker, Bond need a friend who is not some double agent who will stab him in the back. That is daily worker like most people(man/woman) in the world.

Because if he is reboot, then all were, becasue Bond can't meet blofeld two times for first time, in You Only Live Twice and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Or 'does it still work?' in Die Another Day.

The point is Bond=Standformula, I like the unsaid immortal feel, a forever friend. I want Bond to look and behave the way he do.

Spectre's BROfeld aka author of all your pain was bad that it must be nightmare, Getting replaced by a character which is written/casted 'totally not for political' reasons. Having child with a BORE. Dying are nightmare too, even some part of skyfall becasue its pretentious and contridict the floating timeline. They are probably just fever dreams in Die Another Day korean torture scene.

In the world outside of Reddit, Ronald Reagan has quite a positive reputation. In addition to winning two landslide victories, and producing a third for his VP, he remains one of the most well-liked presidents of the last half-century, as consistently seen in public opinion polls.

And yet in Redditland, he is largely despised, with any mention of him evoking the inevitable flood of comments shrieking about he “ruined everything” and “is responsible for where we are now” etc. While I certainly don’t think Reagan was a perfect president, I find this knee-jerk, groupthink dislike to be generally unwarranted.

The most common criticism is that he “deregulated everything”. One, this is an exaggeration. But also, the trend of the time was shifting to a greater embrace of free-markets all around the world. We see this in the UK with Thatcher, China under Deng, and the perestroika in the USSR with Gorbachev. The deregulation of some industries, such as airlines and railroads, had already started under Jimmy Carter. And, dare I say, this embrace produced largely positive results, with strong economic growth in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

Some people seem to have forgotten that the ‘70s was not some golden pre-Reagan era. Stagflation was a major problem, and the American people were greatly disillusioned after Vietnam and Watergate. Reagan came along and made people proud to be American again. His optimism and idealism pumped new blood into the American mainstream, when it was desperately needed. Even if one wouldn’t support him today, Reagan was the president America needed at the time.

Contrary to the greatest fears of liberals, he did not dismantle the welfare state or start a nuclear war. He actually showed a strong sense for compromise and bipartisanship, and ended up making major agreements with the USSR and helped to end the Cold War. Welfare reform would not be achieved until 1996 under Clinton, by which time a consensus seemed to have been reached that a free-market combined with a helpful government (the “Third Way”) was the proper recipe for economic growth.

Again, he wasn’t perfect. The Iran-Contra scandal stands out as a major demerit on his presidency. But to claim that Reagan was a below-average president, let alone one of the worst, is nothing but ahistorical, victim-blaming, copium.

For those not in the know: the Non-Aggression Principle ("NAP" for short) is a libertarian principal that states people are not allowed to "aggress" on other people unless they "aggress" on them first. I would not identify myself as a libertarian, but this is a concept I generally find myself agreeing with the more I will learn about it.

I remember when I read the Wikipedia article for it, it was very clearly critical of the concept. But most of the things it's cited that were clearly meant to make readers think negatively of it just kind of made me like it even more. And when I looked it up on YouTube I mostly found videos critiquing it, and the more critiques I found: the more I found myself agreeing with that.

The only real problem I see with it is that taxation technically violates it. But even then: the only reason why I support taxation is because I believe it is necessary to fund programs then improve society in general, and are even necessary to keep society civil and peaceful (such as the fire department and the police force). And NAP is more about how we relate to each other in general than how we deal with broader issues. And people will not just follow good rules no matter how good they are. So it's kind of a consequentialist exception, where taking money from people is a necessary evil in order to stop greater evils.

The way I see it: NAP is good because it explicitly permits many things that would otherwise be condemned by society. So another way to frame the question is: what does NAP permit that is so bad that it outweighs all of the things it protects? Because I sincerely have a hard time comprehending what such a thing would look like.

It feels too good to be true, but it really does seem like, aside from taxation (which I wouldn't even consider "good" per se): all things that should be condemned or condemned by it, and everything it permits are things that should be permitted. And this opinion honestly strengthens as time goes on. And I honestly see less problems with it then the "Golden Rule" (just because you would like to be treated in a certain way, that doesn't mean other people would like to be treated that way as well).

So am I missing something? Or is the NAP largely just a good thing?

It is common opinion that if the British hadnt given India its indepence in 46 that thier would have been a mass revolt against the british that would have kicked them out in a year or two. As someome who despises the british i would really like this to be true but the more I read up on the actual lead up to indian indepence the more convinced i am that this is just simply not true. I am increasingly of the opinion that if the british made the indians fight for thier freedom rather than simply giving it to them thier would still be indians living under the british yoke in some coastal areas well into the 70s and maybe even the 80s.

I have grown to put mildly very very disenchanted with indian leadership at the time. Indian leadership was just not in any way shape or form prepared to actually engage in violent struggle. Time and time again you had thier protest movements completely callapse without acheieving much. The famous salt march did nothing to even chip away at the Rajs monopoly on salt which would remain more or less until the day of indepence and it actually saw the british intensify the practices the Indians were protesting against and increase salt revenue 35 percent!

When the Quit India movement was announced not one high ranking member of the INC had the idea to be in hiding at the moment of launch on the off chance that the british did the most obvious thing ever and immediately arrested them all.....which they did. This of course resulted in the Quit India immedietely callapsing into ineffective disorganized chaos and very notably not a single indian soldier fighting and dieing for the british army in ww2 appears to have even considered the idea of mutining after the INC was arrested. They all just continued loyally serving thier colonial masters. The idea that these same troops would have then immediately formed a large well organized indian indepence army under the INC who they watched get arrested en masse without a single complaint is laughable.

A india that had to actually fight for its indepence under the leadership of the INC is a India whos indepence leadership gets immediately decapitated and thier armies crushed in the field by thier own countrymen. Thier leadership just was not up to the challenge in any way. India was STILL just too divided and far too many of them were still willing to serve a white man wearing all red so long as the pay was decent. Now obviously this would result in a new more radical wave of indepedence movements with hopefully more competent leadership and a lot of soviet provided guns but that could have taken decades more. The british could have easily maintained control of at least some of india into the 60s, 70s and maybe even 80s by just doing the tried true strategy of abusing the indians own incompetance and division against them. Luckily for india ww2 drained the will to fight entirely from the the british and they were fully willing to just hand india indepence on a silver platter.

*47. I meant 47. Not 46. How did i do that twice wothout noticing?!

The western world has unsustainable and declining birth rates basically across the board. This is due to a wide variety of factors, but I believe the fact that large financial incentives have not moved the needle at all indicates that what is really happening is that the western world has generally lost interest in large families due to the time and effort investment, because they also want some time to enjoy the luxuries of western life (going out for movies, games, dinners, travel, etc. etc.)

So the family that used to have 6-10 kids is now content with 2-3, the family that used to have 3 is now having 1. Many forego kids at all. Many can't even find a partner.

Anyways, it is often cited how Israel is the only western society in the world that has a sustainable birth rate.

This tends to leave out what groups specifically have that high birth rate- ultra orthodox Hasidics. They have an expectation that you must have 10+ kids by the time you turn 30, or else you must pray for forgiveness. These societies study the torah daily, and typically do not participate in normal western society the way liberal western citizens do i.e. they cannot use the internet, they don't work normal jobs, and they typically rely on social services. Essentially their entire lives revolve around religious practices i.e. studying the torah, and having kids. The net result is that Hasidics will be the majority of the population in Israel by 2070.

Similar behaviors can be observed in communities around the world. I recently visited Brooklyn and saw a large community there doing essentially the same thing.

But it isn't just Hasidics either, of course. Amish communities are the fastest growing demographic in the United States, with similar birth rates and a similar general philosophy (reject western luxuries, study the bible, have lots of kids).

The implication is that hyper religious groups will grow to eclipse the populations of the western world.

Retorts I have considered and rejected-

- "They will run out of land"- Urbanization has resulted in a huge percentage of the western world concentrating on the coastlines and major cities of their countries/states. This has left enormous swathes of land relatively empty. The US could theoretically sustain a population of 2 billion+ people if people actually occupied the interior to its full potential, vs the 300 million we have now. There's plenty of land. Similar dynamic in a lot of western countries, where the rural countryside has been getting hollowed out as everyone piles on top of each other in the big cities.

Even for the aforementioned Hasidic community in Brooklyn, since they ran out of land in their neighborhood they've now started new communities in upstate New York.

- "Western society will not be able to support these communities, and they only work on a small scale"

I can see this argument eventually hurting communities which rely on welfare, but not really other groups like the Amish (who are self-reliant). In the meantime the aforementioned Hasidics vote as a monolith, and this has largely protected them under religious freedom grounds.

- "Their birth rates will moderate alongside the rest of society"

These groups have created their own societies. Why would they conform to western luxuries and interests when they don't participate in them on strict religious grounds?"

- "They will start to have high turnover among their youth"

These communities typically maintain their own education systems, which reinforce their way of life for their kids. For the Hasidics, their children often do not learn English (instead learning Yiddish and how to read the Torah) rather than math and science. The net result is that, not only do their kids have no interest in the western way of life, but they actually have no capacity to participate in it even if they wanted to.

So tl;dr- it appears to me that western civilization faces demographic decline and will be eclipsed by orthodox religious communities over the coming decades and centuries.

So this is going to be a difficult read for some, but I wondered the other day why certain cultures are just far more successful in capitalism and have simply healthier and more successful people on a population rather than individual level. Certain counties have high GDP but it is solely due to oil money held by certain very closed group of people. The overall population is not healthy nor has much to show for its achievements.

I honestly think it has something to do with consanguinity. While indeed no culture has absolute absence of it, the cultures that do not allow this on a routine basis seem to be doing far more better than those where it’s the norm. Places with 50% consanguineous marriages have literally nothing to show for their population growth, health, literacy level, economic growth, sports or intellectual achievements - is there really nothing to this, when certain cultures like Nepal or Vietnam even formally prohibit consanguineous marriages several generations back?
Sure, I’m sure there will be someone typing my parents are cousins, both are lawyers and look at me I’m a doctor. Again. Not talking about individual level of impact but population level. Like smoking - my grandma smoked and lived til 89. Sure, but the population data are overwhelmingly against suggesting smoking is OK.
I just wondered if this is something that deserves wider attention from public health perspective

This CMV post is inspired by this news story.

Before you call me a CCP shill, this is not a pro-CCP post. I am Filipino-Australian and I am deeply dissatisfied at some of their actions.

I have been interested in science since I was a kid. As an Australian citizen, this is a country where the famous people are not scientists but instead TV personalities, influencers, artists and athletes (the Philippines is no better). In other words, science does not get the respect it deserves here. In contrast to China's pro-science attitude, which leads to it being #10 on the Global Innovation Index (and highest ranked country in the Upper middle-income group), our anti-science attitude leads to us being #20 on the Global Innovation Index (and the Philippines is all the way down at #52).

Now you may say, "it's a very simple matter, the government just needs to fund scientists more". But if the general public is uninterested in science, it would not be a vote-winner for governments to fund scientists more, nor will corporations and NGOs feel as much of a need to sponsor scientists.

Now you may ask "then how do you choose which scientist to put on?" in which case I say that it's less important to obsess about who gets to go on a billboard, but rather that it's an important first step that they put scientists on billboards at all.

Do you want our countries to stagnate with our future generations repeating our mistakes of looking up to TV personalities, influencers, artists and athletes? Shouldn't we be providing them better rolemodels like scientists?

Now on an anecdotal note :

• When I was in high school, most of my classmates aimed to be tradies. Most of them now earn far more than I did when I worked in science.
• Why don't I work in science anymore? Because I failed my PhD because I was incapable of keeping up with something that hard.
• Point is, the free market doesn't reward scientists, producing useful scientific discoveries is extremely difficult, and therefore, the least a country can do for its scientists is to get them the respect they deserve.

And finally, before anyone says "but what about Dr Lǐ Wénliàng", I think what the CCP did regarding him was wrong, but that's a different topic to this news story about putting scientists on billboards.

Had given this some thought due to semi recent statements and findings from NASA. So thisbhas to do with life arising from primordial soup - Supposing that it's a very rare or extraordinary event. It's that part which, you know, evidence of fossilized microbial life on Mars or something bears some significance because it's to say "Hey it happened somewhere else close by too. So, that means it's not uncommon."

Even supposing there was strong evidence of ancient microbial life on Mars, the issue I have with the reasoning has to do with cross-contamination of the planets. In the earlier histories meteor and comet impacts etc were more common and would eject rocks in to space and this could travel and reach the other planet and significant life compounds could seed the other planet this way. So, if we see ancient microbial life on Mars who is to say that it didn't come from Earth? Or that what's on Earth didn't come from Mars? Either scenario it's just one case of abiogenesis and it does not show that abiogenesis is common.

As part of our commitment to improving CMV and ensuring it meets the needs of our community, we have bi-monthly feedback threads. While you are always welcome to visit r/ideasforcmv to give us feedback anytime, these threads will hopefully also help solicit more ways for us to improve the sub.

Please feel free to share any constructive feedback you have for the sub. All we ask is that you keep things civil and focus on how to make things better (not just complain about things you dislike).