Comments by "CaptainVanisher" (@captainvanisher988) on "The Unexpected Upsides of Population Decline" video.

@thievingpanda You can't pay native populations to have children. Hungary's fertility programs utterly failed and it's quite a myth going around that they've worked. Look at their fertility rates or even the crude birth rates. It went down to 1.4 per woman and after the policies it went to 1.55 and it's now falling again back down to 1.5 and in the near future probably even less. Paying can't solve the fertility crisis because the fertility crisis has nothing to do with material wealth and everything to do with spiritual bankruptcy and societal degeneration. Unless both materialism and feminism are reduced and completely rejected, nothing will change. The population will continue to collapse. So unless we revert back to the Christian patriarchal societies we used to be, we won't be saved. TLDR: Highly religious people are the only ones with above replacement level fertility rates in all western countries.
22
@sasi5841 High trust societies do NOT necessarily make people naive, docile or materialistic. All these things have to do with religion and patriarchal structure. You can have a high trust warrior society that is deeply religious. That's pretty much a bunch of medieval and ancient societies. Low-trust societies are just ripe for civil war and tribal warfare. If the native population loses in these wars, it signals the downfall of said society.
16
@ultrajorge What you're suggesting will only push retirement age later and increase mortality rates. It won't save the economy whatsoever. There are several steps that must be taken before we even come close to having a viable economy and fertility rate. From forcibly removing women from the workforce, to mass deportations, to arranged marriages, to the breakdown of materialism and degeneracy. All the steps that must be taken need insane cultural shifts which I could never picture us taking without a really bad event taking place (mass d3ath or huge wars). Trump for example is just a moderate, his cabinet picks are just a different establishment group, so not much will change nor will he enact the extreme policies that are needed to prevent a future collapse of the Us. So in my books unless some drastic cultural shift happens I don't see how societal collapse is preventable in any of the Western countries. TLDR: Childless or divorced men have absolutely no reason to be productive into their senior years. I barely have some desire now that is fed by the delusion that marriageable women still exist out there, I can't imagine myself still holding into it after that hope is dead due to the reality of the modern world. That and the fact that I would never fight a feminist and degenerate government that doesn't give 2 sh*ts about me.
7
@JellyAntz You can't only partially reject feminism. Feminism from the getgo is made with the purpose of the destruction of any and all patriarchal structures. Whether that's within the government, the family or the church. So you either remove it completely from the equation or you keep it as is. You choose.
5
@jamesgardner6499 And that's only for products. Plumbers, garbage men, electricians, construction workers, engineers etc will still be needed. AI is not even close to as good as people make it to be. I am in an engineering major that has a lot of programming and I am telling you it can't even correctly right lvl 2 programs.
3
@JSM-bb80u Really? Yet in Afghanistan it happened within days of Taliban rule. And not only for workforce, but universities and even highschools. Women can be removed in an instant from the workplace if male-lead government decides so. Arranged marriages can also happen quite easily. Obviously if you're saying that with our current culture, there is no way we'll achieve either of these, but I am mainly talking about after the collapse. I have very little hope that the populace will wake up and vote in a government that will enforce such important policies. Hence why I despise democracy, it's such an incredibly flawed system.
2
@JSM-bb80u Nope. Rome was revived by Christianity and survived another 1000 years until 1453 when Constantinople fell. But yes, the old pagan Rome died when its secular cycle came.
2
@JellyAntz How can you hold the values of someone you do not believe in? It's like me saying "I grew up under Stalin and even though I believe he was wrong in what he was saying, I still hold on his values". Growing up Catholic and becoming agnostic or atheist doesn't make any more knowledgeable in Christian theology than the reddit atheist on the street. I grew up "religiously' but not really, I grew up indifferent to religion. I was agnostic for a big chunk of my teenage years until I actually read and watched content about atheist, Christian and islamic theology. There is a reason why I came back to the one church that has continued since it's inception of the 1st century AD (the Eastern Orthodox church). And the funny thing is that I would be considered quite smart, a person atheists would deem unsuitable to "dumb Christian mythology". Christian core values cannot be taught without the church. Protestant heresies are heresies for a reason. But who knows, maybe a 21st century agnostic with no theological knowledge knows better than the apostles, the disciples of the apostles and the early church fathers:body-blue-raised-arms:
2
@JellyAntz Well I have been around theological creators for sometime now. The one has made by far the strongest argument is Jay Dyer and it's called the Transcendental Argument. It's an argument based on primal philosophy and logic. In simple terms, without a creator, non-physical things (like logic, constants, morals etc) cannot exist. It proves that there is a paradox on every single non-theological philosophy if you go deep into the base of said philosophy. So again. As a man of science as well, go look into him.
2
@ziggytheassassin5835 didn't they set up Connor McGregor recently coinciding directly to the fact that he spoke out against the demographic diversification of Ireland and his desire to run for office?
2
@IbnRushd-mv3fp The housing market will eventually crash. That or they will continue import migrants so Blackrock can rent and sell their properties to the government for tax payer money.
1
@Jonathan-Shadow Muh material, muh more material, give me muh material. Money won't solve the fact that no one gets married and has children anymore. Christianity being replaced with materialism. Patriarchy being replaced by feminism. These are the main issues here. Not "muh material". Muh material is just part of the entire plan of the destruction of ours societies.
1
@JSM-bb80u Rome was at similar numbers prior to their collapse. Guess what happened afterwards? The Christian Romans spread Christianity and took over. The Roman Empire prior to its Christian transformation was highly atheistic, highly feminist and had low birth rates. Christianity in the early church was the prime example of patriarchy.
1
@JSM-bb80u The Russian Empire fell BECAUSE the communists won. It's not that the communists just popped up after the Russian Empire fell. Romans were religious (Roman paganism) and had religious values. At the end times of the empire most of the nobility had abandoned religion. Similar to here. The first nail in the coffin for Europe was the French revolution. Everything started to go downhill spiritually from that moment onwards. It seems like this is the century where we will reach our zenith before we collapse as a continent.
1
@JSM-bb80u That's actually so historically illiterate it's unfunny. The Eastern Roman Empire was the strongest empire in the world for centuries. When the "West Europe was backwards", the ERE was at its height. Up until the 4th crusade, the ERE was still one of the richest nations/empires. When we're talking about the middle ages. Besides a couple centuries where the Persians had a technological boom, Europe still lead the world by a lot. Whether it was through the HRE or the ERE or later on England and Spain.
1
@JellyAntz Your entire comment is bathed in hundreds of modern day myths. From myths on how feminism came to be. To myths on how the nuclear family works. Democracy wasn't something that made you 1st or 2nd class. Being able to inherit debt isn't what made you 1st or 2nd class. Women by pure statistical analysis were far happier under patriarchal structure. Now 1/3 unmarried and childless women over 35 are on anti depressants and anxiety medication. There are rebuttals on literally every single one of your points, but it'd take me at least 30 minutes and a big essay to even touch the tip. And in the end youtube will probably delete my reply. So instead, if you are actually interested in the accurate history of the feminist movement, I'd suggest you to read "Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation" by Rachel Wilson. Egalitarian democracy, the French revolution, feminism, marxism and many more were all movements with the goal of the dismantling and destruction of all the pillars of western civilization. And that's where I'll end this. It's up to you to do more research and educate yourself, I gave you some of the primary ideas and even a good source to start.
1
@JellyAntz Both of the arguments you made have been debunked by him in official debates with prominent atheist apologists like Matt Dillahaunty and the Comsic Atheist. The answers you drew come from a firm misunderstanding of the basis of the argument. If only the physical world exist as it can be proven, the constants then are what? You claim they are human fabrications. But that can easily be debunked because even if humans never existed, those constants would still be real. Same with the laws of logic. You can NOT observe the laws of logic in nature, that's just untrue. And if they were "human fabrications for practical mental applications" then they would not exist if humans didn't. And in order to take the position that they would not exist if humans didn't exist, you'd have to either accept nihilistic philosophies or phenomenalism which would contradict with most of the statements you made here. And that's the actual basis of the argument, it forces the philosophical opponent to resort to nihilistic thought to actually give an alternative. Something that most normal humans could never accept as a core philosophy. The only one that gave true intellectual push back to him in a debate of the transcendental argument was Dr Malpass but he still didn't manage to refute the argument. It was a quite insightful one though.
1
@bobbsurname3140 I will only say one thing: 🧃
1