Comments by "" (@umwha) on "China's Real Population Numbers are Shocking (Demographic Collapse is More Advanced than we Thought)" video.

@Ericshadowblade increasing political power for people with more kids is not necessary, because each of your kids will be able to vote. Therefore, you are creating more individuals who you can raise to vote however you want. Therefore, the more kids you have already increased political power.
8
@ having lots of kids does not necessarily mean you invested in the future society. Take a look at migrant populations in Britain for instance. First generation migrant, who are Indian Pakistani or Islamic have many many many children. And have little investment in the country, and maintain our citizenship, visit our home countries, regularly, and for marriages that are outside English law,. Look at the black population, which has a high fertility rate, and low economic, and cultural contribution, and high crime. More kids do not necessarily have anything to do with a persons intentions or ability to invest in that society.
8
@farmtech-vn9ew I understand his principle. I would suggest limiting suffrage to indigenous people only, and on a localised level to people who have lived in their district for a long time and intends to keep living there.
4
59:16 one reflection about your views that I would like to offer you, is you don’t seem to hold any belief in the importance indigenous populations. Or the idea that any population claim to their ancestral land should matter you praised the multicultural idea of diasporas, holding a greater authenticity of their culture than the people who remained in their homeland, and this is a good thing because playing jazz with other cultures leads to improvements. however, I am skeptical about how beneficial cultures being transient are. If you are transient, then your values are transient, your investment in your surroundings are transient. If you are not in your homeland, then you have little reason to invest in your current residence, because if this boat starts to sink, you can just move.promiscuity of nationality, with no lasting relationship
3
@MidlifeCrisisJoe I agree that hostility to indiginous populations, the amount of kids people have and their investment in the future are 3 seperate metrics. Seperate but related. In tbe populations I mentioned, they have high hostility, high fertility and low investment in the countries future. Investment in their future yes sometimes but not in the future of this society.
2
38:00 - 'Invest heavily in wombs'. NO. Why is that an easier alternative than like, restore basic family values? You may be able to factory produce babies that have never felt a human touch in it's developmental stage (That will definitely have consequences) but those drones will still need to live in families. Also, China already genoicded its female infants a generation ago. When we have artificial wombs, I think it's a real possibility China will make females go extinct. What are they needed for anymore? A nation of only males is the sort of anti-human idea that would appeal to the autistic fascit minded CCP. No women to fight over, no sexual outlets, less medical needs, less old people. With only males you will have no families. The transition from human civilization to drone-hive will be complete if the state looks towards artificial wombs rather than family. Remember, Communits have already tried their best to eliminate the family.
2
@Planeet-Long There you go. If you have many kids then you have replicated yourself genetically, and you shaped their environments - so their votes and their every-day influence has stemmed from your own.
1