yeah, be a turbo nerd, don’t be socially competent (autism is a good start) and don’t care about romantic relationships. It’s all about the interpersonal aspects anyway.
I don’t have an accent. Not an Aussie accent. I wear the hat and duster cuz I had a friend from there got me started on them about a decade ago and I stick to them rather adamantly because I appreciate what they do so much the entire concept of regional reference bears nothing on my skin when the fiction is so greatly better than anything else remotely close
So, you know when you see a woman, and you speak with her like a normal person and form a connection? Nothing good comes of that.
Instead of doing that, convince yourself in your head that saying even two words is going to end in disaster and then play on your phone and awkwardly pretend they aren’t there until they go away.
It’s hard, but with enough practice it will become second nature. You’ve got this!
this is currently my meta. Just betting that the likelihood that i get raped and end up “being a father” is low enough that having a vasectomy or something would outweigh the potential cons.
Good news then! If you do get raped, it’s most likely to be by another man! No worries about fatherhood, just the pain, violation, and never feeling truly safe again.
As a male who just got snipped after 1 kid and still with her mother. My friends were asking me about if I found myself single and ended up with someone younger who wanted kids. I was actually shocked that was why they didn’t want to do it. We’re all in our 40s and have kids. Personally I have a hard time relating with women who are much younger and would be unlikely to get involved with someone who did want more kids. More importantly, I plan for a future with my partner, not some scenario where I end up single.
Overpopulation as a dogwhistle for racism is a conservative myth.
Overpopulation in a “I’d rather not turn Earth into Coruscant and so many of our climate and food/water issues would be easier to deal with if the global birth rate slowed voluntarily” is not.
We don’t need to make nearly this much trash; it’s just more profitable for shareholders. Not denying that some plastics are essential for medicine though.
The fear of overpopulation, of the poors overbreeding and overcrowding the rich is basically a given in all political elites. Basically part of the washington consensus.
Our current, below replacement birthrate, no matter how much they try to hide it, is not an accident.
i have a theory that the food shortage is a sort of example of the overpopulation at play.
The sheer fact that there are so many people in this one place, that we can produce too much food, and then not distribute it effectively, implies to me that there are simply too many people in one place for it to be effectively distributed. I.E. over populated.
that’s definitely a possibility as well. Regardless, if it were literally as simple as “just give food to people” then one would think it would already be done. I suppose this could be an evil capitalism moment, but honestly, i just don’t think that’s the whole story.
It’s not hard to imagine a room with 1000 people, and only 10 of those people distributing things at the wholesale level. There is inevitably going to be some amount of people that never get distributed to. It’s just a lot of people in one space.
If people in a city starve, it’s not because there are “too many people in one place” - it’s because the people who has control of the food distribution systems of that city chose to let them starve.
Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza… you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn’t serve their interests.
It has absolutely nothing to do with there being “too many people in one place.”
that’s the thing though, it’s not people in a city starving. It’s people across the world starving. I mean sure homeless people are starving and food security IS an issue in the states. But that’s also a macro level issue type deal.
Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza… you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn’t serve their interests.
It has absolutely nothing to do with there being “too many people in one place.”
yeah, no shit, that’s not what im talking about. You could argue an abusive mother not feeding their child one night is also proof against that claim.
My point is that currently, in our collective society, globally, i do not think that our system is capable of supporting the amount of people that exist, in a functional manner. For example, if there were less people in the israel/palestine region, and the rest of the middle east, since they seem to love proxy wars so much. There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine. These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes, gaza especially is done for this reason. Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth. Again, the Bengal famine, was in part, due to an increase in population, which was unsustainable. Ethiopian famine is actually a little bit different, seems to be both in part due to war, and drought, or just drought, but it seems like another significant factor at scale was the food being grown being sold to other parties. As well as political shenaniganry. Though this was also happening during a civil war. Probably also in part, due to well, people existing over top of eachother.
But yeah no, those were absolutely preventable. Just give them food. Then they won’t starve. It’s that simple.
It is very discouraging to see someone with a presumably functional brain make an argument like this. Back in the 80s this could be written of as simple ignorance - but not today, when we have the information available at our fingertips.
There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine.
So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?
These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes
Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”
Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth.
No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.
So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?
the only people who liked colonialism were the colonizers. Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.
Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”
a little bit, 90% of the time colonialism turns into a war, is because the people being colonized, would prefer to not be colonized. You know, on account of the colonialism. I don’t know if you understand what colonialism is, but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun, and claiming that it’s my home now, and that everybody in that home now works me. Seems rather territorial by nature to me.
No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.
i’m not, colonialism was pretty explicitly a part of the reason as well. I don’t know if your eyes just glazed over at every instance of me saying “in part” or something, but i was being pretty explicit about it.
Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.
You have, so far, made absolutely no case that “overpopulation” was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.
It seems to me that you think a community becomes “overpopulated” as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I’ve ever seen when it comes to this myth.
but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun
You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?
You have, so far, made absolutely no case that “overpopulation” was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.
so far your entire argument is that not having enough food to feed people is a food issue, which is very true. But there is also another variable here. The people, the amount of people consuming the food being produced can lead to a food shortage. Lets say you as a small country grow a lot of food, but export the majority of it, because money. And let’s say you have a food shortage, hey wait a minute this sounds familiar. Yes you can just look at it as if it’s just a food/distribution issue, and that’s definitely one way of looking at it, but i think it’s also reasonable to consider where the food is going, and why.
It seems to me that you think a community becomes “overpopulated” as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I’ve ever seen when it comes to this myth.
it seems to me you are aggressively simplifying my argument, i’m just using the term overpopulation to describe the situation in which there are too many people involved in something, for it to be an equitable trade. I feel like given the context that it’s pretty reasonable.
You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?
no, not really, i’ve also never claimed to know anything. I’ve also never claimed this to be the reason why it’s happening. Perhaps you have some sort of knowledge in the subject matter, i don’t know!
“There’s too many people on earth” is a eugenicists talking point by affluent westerners. It’s a short slippery slope from there to completely dehumanizing humans born in nations deemed “lesser than”
Anti intellectuals, jingoists, gun fetishists, imperialists and right wingers are objectively worse that everyone else who’s not any of these things. This has nothing to do with me specifically.
As someone who was single and looking on dating apps a year ago I wish they did. Would have made my job easier since I don’t want kids and not everyone puts that on there. I was extremely upfront about being a loser gamer (I play league) that doesn’t want kids. You’d be surprised about the amount of people who still contacted me based on looks alone and didn’t bother to read the bio.
I was extremely upfront cause I know who I am and what I want and I’m not hiding it. Take me or leave me. Turns out It worked and I found my fiancee that way.
Same here. I’m dude who was very upfront in his bio about being an asexual nerd and I still got booty called by plenty of women who seemed surprised when I told them I was ace. And it’s not even like I’m hot. That’s not just low self esteem talking, I’m so generic looking people literally struggle to describe me and I think it’s hilarious. I’m pretty sure a lot of people (men and women) are just lonely and playing the numbers game hoping something works at this point.
Don’t mind me, my trans ass is just over here laughing about how “concerned” the GOP is about trans kids’ fertility while lighting a fire under the ass of cis adults (which you may have noticed greatly outnumber trans children!) to get themselves permanently sterilized.
Also they love to make it a pain in the ass to bank genetic material. Like, if they covered that in health insurance a lot of trans people would just in case
Won’t this potentially contribute to an increasing population of people supportive of, or otherwise apathetic about, abortion restrictions, supposing those taking this course are largely against abortion restrictions?
No. This will lead to population collapse. It does not matter what policies/laws you have if you literally run out of people that can sustain the society with their… wait for it… work!
Support for abortion is not a genetic trait, and seeing firsthand the effects of criminalizing abortion is a quick road to being militantly supportive of it.
Support for abortion isn’t a genetic trait, but religious parents tend to raise religious kids due to environmental factors.
I don’t think it with be a big enough difference to matter given how much more liberal people get over time, but it is possible this will happen a bit.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, as I wasn’t aiming to suggest it was a genetic trait. As another commenter indicated below, as well as another in this thread, I was asking in relation to the upbringing perspective.
Although I’m well aware upbringing isn’t brainwashing, and so even those anti-abortion parents couldn’t prevent their children from being for bodily autonomy, but I thought it worth asking about to see what others might think. If you read through some conservative leaning texts, some of them unambiguously talk about having children for the express purpose of perpetuating their beliefs, so at least some will view this trend as in their favor.
Also to be completely clear here: I’m pro-choice, and for bodily autonomy.
Yeah, coming from a deeply conservative community in the rural south I’m very familiar with the way parents there believe their children exist to be extensions of themselves.
Anyone under 60 who is anti-abortion only knows what it’s like to live in a post-Roe society, their stance is essentially theoretical and untested until now. When their friends and relatives start getting sick and dying from back alley abortions, miscarriages left untreated, or ectopic pregnancies there are going to be a lot of people singing a different tune.
Usually insurance policies will completely cover it because from their standpoint a vasectomy costs them a whole lot less money than childbirth. For them it’s cost saving and they only care about the money. When I got mine, my insurance covered it and I had basically the worst insurance in my area.
Greatly depends on the state. The ACA made coverage for female sterilization mandatory, though I believe some states have passed laws against this. A handful of states have laws requiring coverage for male sterilization, unfortunately mine was not one.
I have some nurses in my family and have a recommendation from a cousin that got one from a highly rated doctor. If it turns out too expensive I’ll check there.
People should be paying you to get a vasectomy. When I got mine (8 years ago now?) it was $800. It is the single most effective thing one can do for the environment, and is a real vote against these tyrannous governments oppressing people (women specifically in the case of banning abortion).
For women, sterilization is involved and dangerous. For men, it is a 5 minute procedure. Do it!
Start taking the steps!
Don’t forget that after you get it, you need to wait around 6 months before you’re sterile. Then, you need to get your sperm count checked. It is important, the vasectomy is not immediate sterilization.
It is not six months. I was told by my doctor it was roughly one month, 30 days, and that was the time frame in which I was tested for before and after.
It can, in some situations, take up to three months at the outside. But definitely not six.
I am glad it was short for you, but it varies in general. For some people it doesn’t take long. For others, it takes longer. For some, reconnection occurs so it is important to check again 1 year after the vasectomy.
15-20 ejaculations typically clear any remaining sperm, but again none of this is universal and it needs to be tested.
You absolutely do need to follow your doctor’s recommendations and get a sperm count done at the prescribed times. But just blithely saying “it takes six months” to people is going to set them up with the wrong idea.
I wonder what would happen if even just 50% of all women of child bearing age moved out of the states that added these abortion restrictions, that would basically destroy the states population in a few generations.
I wonder what the response would be…
Probably something terrible, and possibly illegal that would still somehow be permitted…
I am just a guy from Scandinavia looking at the US with complete disbelief that this shit happen in the west in this day and age.
To everyone fighting for this to be repealed I wish you all the best, and to all of those in favour of these restrictions, just stop voting, and go away.
I’m a fan of the concept of foot voting and think the fed should be responsible for ensuring their population is reasonably mobile.
Back when state governments were relatively new there was an interesting push and pull where people would move into and out of governed spaces depending on whether they offered more benefit than they took away. Many state projects had to resort to force (slavery, kidnapping, etc) to keep a population. Obviously there’s no real “outside” of governed spaces anymore, but it’s interesting to contemplate how that choice (or lack of) impacts statecraft and the state/citizen relationship.
The amount of electoral votes per state is adjusted based on its population, but they all get a minimum of 3. So, if enough people left, it would have some effect on the state’s voting power, but once you get to a certain threshold, the weight of each person’s vote actually starts to go up.
I wasn’t even thinking about that, a 50% reduction in women in child bearing age would absolutely ruin the future population growth of the state, and on an even more basic level, would mean that a lot of men would never find a partner in the state, so they would need to move to other states to find someone, which means even more population loss.
At some point the situation would be so critical that there would be no choice but to change the laws back, and even after that it would take a LONG time for people to get the confidence to move back.
Sorta, but that’s not the whole story. We have two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the senate, every state gets two senators. In the house, every state gets at least two representatives, plus some amount based on population - california has 52, for instance.
The original idea was to “make sure rural voices were heard”. In practice, it very much has been what you stated - if you’re educated but not rich enough to benefit from republican policies, you flee red states en masse, leaving mostly rich assholes and uneducated chucklefucks who are hurt most by the very people they elect. They then have a massively disproportionate effect on policy versus any joe schmoe in california.
Yeah any significant change in gender demographics of an area will cause problems. Too few men will cause some issues but our cultures have developed defenses around this problem thanks to cataclysmic wars happening every few generations. Too few women on the other hand will get real bad real fast especially since this will be a situation of existing misogyny driving women away. Some men will get real violent and those capable of living in either society will flee because they won’t get laid otherwise.
I bet they’d supercharge enforcement of the laws they’ve been testing - such as intercepting women leaving the state for suspected abortions, or parents suspected of taking children out of the state for gender affirming care
The laws are set up that you could basically set up roadblocks and force a fight through the system to leave the state… Keeping people from leaving is important if you want a fascist state, because they suck and only “true believers” wouldn’t consider moving
That’s why those laws are so terrifying… They don’t have to convict anyone, they can just be used to suppress movement
(Sarcasm) Don’t insult the west by lumping the US in with sane respectable nations. (/Sarcasm) The US is a third world country with some lipstick on at this point. We keep hoping to turn things around and put us back on course but. Damn is it exhausting.
I’m in the USA and we’re a garbage country. Don’t get me wrong, there are good areas and good people. But our broken system allows the craziest minority to have an outsized degree of power and they absolutely take advantage of it.
How a state like Wyoming, with fewer than a million people, can get as much say (in the senate) as my state of California is beyond me. We have almost 80x their population, yet they get an equal number of senators. I want a revolution that adjusts their voice to be proportional to their goddamned size.
Did you miss civics class? Having both a senate and a house was a compromise between the smaller and bigger states. Small states could have been railroaded by bigger states with strictly proportional representation. It’s almost like you’re repeating something you heard without thinking about it much…
It’s a stupid compromise to make. It might have made some sense at the time, when society expected them to behave as gentlemen with regard for their honor. Now a much smaller group gets to bully the rest of the country as a result.
There was a time and a reason for a lot of the old ways. We have the technology to make them irrelevant. That being said, I do feel there should be limitations in Federal decisions given the country is huge, and broad sweeping laws can negatively affect lower population areas.
We also have a bunch of basic life shit that absolutely should be Federally decided, and instead of letting people be people and live their lives, we apparently purposely try our hardest to go backwards right now. Many states are literally complicit in murdering women by law, and making it so people of different sexual or biological orientations are no longer people. How the fuck is it 2024 and women and others of various alignments are suddenly not people?
Did you know that the Supreme Court only exists because the “ultra rich” of the founding fathers’ time felt they didn’t have proper representation in government? This was their “check and balance” that let us become a nation.
Do we really need 50 states and territories in this era? If we must have them we could divide and merge based on population similar to the slate article. slate.com/…/if-every-u-s-state-had-the-same-popul…
I am too. There’s a reason I chose a lemmy host outside our borders.
(OK, it was mostly so the government has free reign to accidentally spy on my international traffic because FISA/PATRIOT act are just so cool and down to earth. /s)
You’d give those states all the electoral votes and senate seats, and they’d apply their laws at the federal level. I’m suspicious that’s their plan. Drive all the liberals out of these conservative states that were at risk of turning blue so they can take their policies federal.
Also if it’s mostly women leaving, that makes it easier to recruit men into armies if they are told it will help them get laid when there’s a huge imbalance. And easier to elect leaders who push male superiority ideas and that women should defer to men.
Add comment