Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60

Thread: Fertility rates and its affects both personal and national

  1. #41
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mischak View Post
    Conde-Agudelo said the risks of short and long birth intervals held true for both developing and developed nations, showing up in U.S. studies and in research from Europe, Africa and Latin America.
    But complications caused by premature births aren't nearly equivalent.

    Like several people already stated, 2-3 children per woman is perfectly acceptable to maintain a population.
    Which is not enough to ensure the prosperity or even survival of the nation.

  2. #42
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,380
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    Instead of ridicule mothers with exceptionally large, healthy families deserve celebration.
    Even though the example you provided might be different, this is in general true!
    Families of 6-8 are already ridiculed in Germany. However, comparing to NS Germany we have things like the Mother's Cross

    And still the birthrate came never over 2.5.

    Quote Originally Posted by mischak View Post
    Like several people already stated, 2-3 children per woman is perfectly acceptable to maintain a population.
    There is a difference if we are talking about today's society or a future society which will be Germanic again.
    Today, it is simply a fact that many women don't have 2-3 children, but more like around 1, another fact is, that our societies compete with the foreign parasites we have within our borders.
    In 20 years, more than one third of the new borns in Germany will be born to muslims, at that time in some cities 50% of all people under 25 of age will be foreigners.
    And since our women have such a low birthrate it is not even neccessary that the others have extremly high ones, e.g. Turks have 2.2 that's not too high, but compared to 1.3 it is enough to make us a minority in a few generations.
    Of course the first thing is to try to get as many women as possible to have more children, then it has not to be 6-8 or whatnot, and maybe 3 will be sufficient, but if that is not possible? I agree that we don't need birthmachines, and that they are nothing to be desired, but logically what is the conclusion then? We are talking about avarages here anyway, so isn't it logical that if some have low birthrates, some need to have higher ones, so that we are actually reaching the proposed 2-3?
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    There is no intrinsic connection between technological development and low birth rates.
    Could you mention a scientific source in support of such a claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    Thus, everybody should accept the fact that European nations need as high birth rates as possible.
    Sure: traditionalistic, collectivist, hyperethnocentric Asians/Middle-Easterners ousted by hyper-individualistic Germanics by a governmental stroke of the pen...

  4. #44
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vingolf View Post
    Could you mention a scientific source in support of such a claim?
    The birth rate in the Third Reich rose from 14.7 in 1933 to 19.7 in 1938.
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

    Sure: traditionalistic, collectivist, hyperethnocentric Asians/Middle-Easterners ousted by hyper-individualistic Germanics by a governmental stroke of the pen...
    ?

  5. #45
    Senior Member SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    Modern states aren't legitimate.
    For what reason? (I am not a supporter of any modern state, but I want to see the reasoning behind this.)

    The birth rate in the Third Reich rose from 14.7 in 1933 to 19.7 in 1938.
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
    The problem is that the Third Reich lasted no longer than 11 years if my memory serves me well. For those figures to be of any merit, they'd have to be over a much longer span of time. Advanced economies that have lasted longer show a steady birth rate decline as their living standards and technology increase.

    ?
    I think what Vingolf means is that a) we are faced with an entirely different cultural/racial mentality, perhaps one which Europids ought not even assimilate (indeed, it is the reverse that is occuring; East Asians are seeking to emulate us, and not vice-versa) and b) that this will require major long-term adjustment, perhaps to an extent that is not even feasible.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SineNomine View Post
    For what reason? (I am not a supporter of any modern state, but I want to see the reasoning behind this.)
    Because they are multiculturalist and thus don't genuinely reflect the healthy, national will of the people.

    The problem is that the Third Reich lasted no longer than 11 years if my memory serves me well. For those figures to be of any merit, they'd have to be over a much longer span of time. Advanced economies that have lasted longer show a steady birth rate decline as their living standards and technology increase.
    There are substantial differences in the fertility of European countries. For instance, in Iceland 1.93 children are born per woman. Public policy has a clear impact on fertility.

    Regardless of how developed economy harms the family the state should still strive to increase fertility anyway.
    I think what Vingolf means is that a) we are faced with an entirely different cultural/racial mentality, perhaps one which Europids ought not even assimilate (indeed, it is the reverse that is occuring; East Asians are seeking to emulate us, and not vice-versa) and b) that this will require major long-term adjustment, perhaps to an extent that is not even feasible.
    I don't see how East Asians relate to this discussion.

  7. #47
    Account Disabled on Request
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 28th, 2009 @ 03:48 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Bruenn
    Location
    europe
    Gender
    Posts
    4,145
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    What's the point of "our" mothers having high child birth rates? In countries already full of Turks & Pakistanis etc etc?

    Isn't it dumb to use wombs to out-compete leaky immigration policies??

    The thinking here is back-to-front.

  8. #48
    Senior Member SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    Because they are multiculturalist and thus don't genuinely reflect the healthy, national will of the people.
    To what extent is this true though? Indeed, states have long been indoctrinating the masses into accepting multiculturalism, to the point that it has become the will of the many to maintain it, or at least tolerate it.

    There are substantial differences in the fertility of European countries. For instance, in Iceland 1.93 children are born per woman. Public policy has a clear impact on fertility.
    Substantial to what extent? A variation between 1.4 and 2.7, for instance, is not significant when compared, for example, to the fertility rates of East Asians. Anyway, I don't disagree that public policy has an effect; the question here is what is the ideal target rate.

    Regardless of how developed economy harms the family the state should still strive to increase fertility anyway.
    I never said it harms it; rather, that families adapt to changes in their socioeconomic environment. Extremely large families are not optimal in technologically advanced societies. And so long as non-Europids have no intention of regressing, in order to compete Europids will have to both maintain high standards of their own and also move to an optimal birth rate (i.e. 2.1.) Breeding in extreme numbers just to outnumber Asians will get us nowhere, except lowering our standard of living. The ideal is to remove non-Europid elements, and focus on optimal birthrates, not to diminish ourselves to the level of non-Europids and engage in some sort of mutually destructive breeding race.

    I don't see how East Asians relate to this discussion.
    Because their birthrates are so high, and because they are currently undergoing the transition from agricultural to industrialized economies. A study of patterns in them is instructive in understanding that agricultural societies have fundamentally different demands to industrial or, even better, post-industrial ones. China is actively trying to reduce its birthrates for this very reason and to assay the consequences of its past blunders.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by OneEnglishNorman View Post
    What's the point of "our" mothers having high child birth rates? In countries already full of Turks & Pakistanis etc etc?

    Isn't it dumb to use wombs to out-compete leaky immigration policies??

    The thinking here is back-to-front.
    Eh, at least high birth rates keep us alive. Miscegenation is so rare that it has only a negligible decreasing effect on our population growth.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SineNomine View Post
    To what extent is this true though? Indeed, states have long been indoctrinating the masses into accepting multiculturalism, to the point that it has become the will of the many to maintain it, or at least tolerate it.
    The instinct to preservation is in our genes which determine the basic elements of the national character.

    Substantial to what extent? A variation between 1.4 and 2.7, for instance, is not significant when compared, for example, to the fertility rates of East Asians. Anyway, I don't disagree that public policy has an effect; the question here is what is the ideal target rate.
    East Asians (China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan) don't have high fertility rates.

    The difference between 1.4. and 2.7 is all the difference between prosperity and destruction on the long term. If there are some harmful consequences caused by high fertility there is plenty of time to consider them when the fertility has been raised to sufficient levels.

    For example, if the fertility rate was 5.0 children / woman all public spending on maternity benefits should be stopped to promote eugenic reproduction.

    I never said it harms it; rather, that families adapt to changes in their socioeconomic environment. Extremely large families are not optimal in technologically advanced societies.
    They are optimal to the nation.

    And so long as non-Europids have no intention of regressing, in order to compete Europids will have to both maintain high standards of their own and also move to an optimal birth rate (i.e. 2.1.) Breeding in extreme numbers just to outnumber Asians will get us nowhere, except lowering our standard of living. The ideal is to remove non-Europid elements, and focus on optimal birthrates, not to diminish ourselves to the level of non-Europids and engage in some sort of mutually destructive breeding race.
    I already provided the example of France and Germany in the 19th century. The French families certainly had a higher living standard than typical German families but what was the consequence of the disastrously low fertility to the French nation?

    A large number of children might diminish the resources of parents as individuals although even this is dubious because of the current levels of income and benefits.

    However, high fertility certainly increases GNP and consequently the might of the nation.

    Because their birthrates are so high, and because they are currently undergoing the transition from agricultural to industrialized economies. A study of patterns in them is instructive in understanding that agricultural societies have fundamentally different demands to industrial or, even better, post-industrial ones. China is actively trying to reduce its birthrates for this very reason and to assay the consequences of its past blunders.
    The reason of the one child policy is to guarantee that the Communist Party of China stays in power. They are trying to limit the number of dissidents in the Chinese society and make the system stable (stagnant).

    However, when European governments are genuinely supported by the people the case is different.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fertility Rates Climb Back Up in the Most Developed Countries
    By Verðandi in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, August 7th, 2009, 02:31 AM
  2. World Fertility Rates: Statistics
    By Bridie in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 03:22 AM
  3. Scientists Find DNA Region That Affects Europeans' Fertility
    By Todesritter in forum Medical & Behavioral Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 12:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •