Its also associated entirely with the rise of "comfort" levels.
People used to just pop kids out and fuck it, just make it work. They'd live with 5 kids despite barely affording to live with none. Kids would do something to help ends meet and sacrifices were abound.
Now people need a certain level of security and comfort before they consider kids and then only the amount they are certain they can handle. Its one reason why poorer people have more kids, because their level of comfort is so low that another kid won't make it any worse.
A lot of this is easily correlated with feminism, such as their demands to be let into work making the family wealth level plummet and need for external help in raising children skyrocket.
So even if women were worth something and cared about starting families, 1st world nations would still struggle to some extent. Look at Japan which has less feminism related problems (not zero, but not the same level as America/Europe) but still can't breed because of their work/money concerns.
Yeah, it's a comfort level thing. In a non-globalized world, I wouldn't be concerned about smaller family sizes or declining birth rates, but the problem is that the globo homo empire demands constant economic growth, meaning that they will do whatever it takes to sustain the growth demand, even if it means importing low IQ third worlders to replace the current population.
The economies put in place are dependent on increasing populations to sustain them, so even though smaller population sizes might be a good thing in terms of reducing pollution and maintaining structural capacity, the globo homo world order treats it as a disaster and the average person readily accepts the globo homo agenda.
While a lot of the talk for "constant growth" is entirely made up nonsense designed to take from us, there is an amount that is needed to keep up with those aforementioned comfort levels.
Society has too many needs and provisions that are more available (that need an entire supply chain and production to provide) than ages past, and we aren't breeding at a level to fully stock all of those with capable people. We progressed way too fast into technology for even a highly breeding society to keep up.
I don't think smaller population sizes are capable without either small land area (meaning supply chains are smaller and cross pollination is more possible) or a lot of regression out of technological offerings (which no one is going to do on a large scale willingly).
So we still need to pump our birth rates up to catch up to simply being able to reach those levels without importing Pajeets and Mexicans, but we aren't anywhere close to that.
As someone who works in IT, I keep preaching the mantra that technology was a mistake but everyone still thinks I'm saying it in jest. In the meantime the evidence for the truth of my belief simply continues stacking up.
Things are a lot more expensive now though, relatively speaking. I think that needs to be a consideration. You could easily feed three kids and pay a mortgage off of one income thirty years ago.
Its not wrong to take consideration. Its probably smart even. But like most things in life, people take "proper prep and consideration" as an excuse to never actually act.
Wherein before BC and other factors, people just dealt with their 5+ pop outs. And you'd be surprised at what you can make work when you don't have any other options.
Even the comparison to how cheap things were years ago are at least partially people making excuses so they never have to try. I'm raising 2 (soon 3) kids in one of the most expensive states in a house we just bought with two mid-level incomes. Something that should be impossible if you listened to most people talking about how it "used to be."
Its also associated entirely with the rise of "comfort" levels.
People used to just pop kids out and fuck it, just make it work. They'd live with 5 kids despite barely affording to live with none. Kids would do something to help ends meet and sacrifices were abound.
Now people need a certain level of security and comfort before they consider kids and then only the amount they are certain they can handle. Its one reason why poorer people have more kids, because their level of comfort is so low that another kid won't make it any worse.
A lot of this is easily correlated with feminism, such as their demands to be let into work making the family wealth level plummet and need for external help in raising children skyrocket.
So even if women were worth something and cared about starting families, 1st world nations would still struggle to some extent. Look at Japan which has less feminism related problems (not zero, but not the same level as America/Europe) but still can't breed because of their work/money concerns.
Yeah, it's a comfort level thing. In a non-globalized world, I wouldn't be concerned about smaller family sizes or declining birth rates, but the problem is that the globo homo empire demands constant economic growth, meaning that they will do whatever it takes to sustain the growth demand, even if it means importing low IQ third worlders to replace the current population. The economies put in place are dependent on increasing populations to sustain them, so even though smaller population sizes might be a good thing in terms of reducing pollution and maintaining structural capacity, the globo homo world order treats it as a disaster and the average person readily accepts the globo homo agenda.
While a lot of the talk for "constant growth" is entirely made up nonsense designed to take from us, there is an amount that is needed to keep up with those aforementioned comfort levels.
Society has too many needs and provisions that are more available (that need an entire supply chain and production to provide) than ages past, and we aren't breeding at a level to fully stock all of those with capable people. We progressed way too fast into technology for even a highly breeding society to keep up.
I don't think smaller population sizes are capable without either small land area (meaning supply chains are smaller and cross pollination is more possible) or a lot of regression out of technological offerings (which no one is going to do on a large scale willingly).
So we still need to pump our birth rates up to catch up to simply being able to reach those levels without importing Pajeets and Mexicans, but we aren't anywhere close to that.
As someone who works in IT, I keep preaching the mantra that technology was a mistake but everyone still thinks I'm saying it in jest. In the meantime the evidence for the truth of my belief simply continues stacking up.
Nah, it's containers
Things are a lot more expensive now though, relatively speaking. I think that needs to be a consideration. You could easily feed three kids and pay a mortgage off of one income thirty years ago.
Its not wrong to take consideration. Its probably smart even. But like most things in life, people take "proper prep and consideration" as an excuse to never actually act.
Wherein before BC and other factors, people just dealt with their 5+ pop outs. And you'd be surprised at what you can make work when you don't have any other options.
Even the comparison to how cheap things were years ago are at least partially people making excuses so they never have to try. I'm raising 2 (soon 3) kids in one of the most expensive states in a house we just bought with two mid-level incomes. Something that should be impossible if you listened to most people talking about how it "used to be."