BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 25^th, 2012 at 3:30pm:

can i answer?

you might think the idea sounds a bit extreme, but it is already happening in parts of Australia to Australian babies without parental permission or knowledge already.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 25^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:


You have the worse case of BO that the mods have come across this century. It's as simple as that.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 25^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Frances wrote on Jul 25^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:


Exactly. This doesn't actually solve the problem. These immigrants would eventually become "citizens" or "permanent residents" and then we'd have to support them too.

Not only is the idea that we should cut off the phalluses of one group of people racist, but it doesn't solve the problem. It's not going to increase the birth rates of those already living here. It's just a fear of being swamped by foreigners who are different.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 25^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:


Surely everyone has a right to sexual pleasure and reproduction? Why should we deny sexual pleasure and reproduction to people who are glad to participate in this form of recreation as opposed to those who are afraid of popping out too many babies? Whose fault is it really?

If someone commits a crime, do you punish someone else? If the aging population crisis was a national crime (let's assume that for argument's sake) and the people already living here were the ones abstaining from procreation and therefore guilty of it, then you'd punish them and not the immigrants.

Punishing someone else for your own "sin" is silly. What kind of society is that? You punish someone else so you can go on sinning? Ridiculous. If our politicians want us to have more babies they should reward us for that. Our politicians should be flogged for not doing enough about our aging population. Blame the politicians, not the immigrants.

I think the higher birth rates among immigrants have a lot to do with the fact that many of them come from patriarchal societies, whereas our one is more feminist. Couples influenced by feminism are less likely to have kids than those influenced by a patriarchal society. Women who value their own careers are less likely to have kids than ones willing to stay at home and raise a family.

Soren wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 11:07pm:


I've been getting the impression lately that birth rates tend to be higher among those who follow a strict religious ideology, for example, Middle Eastern Muslims, ultra-Orthodox and haredi Jews and American fundamentalist Christians. It's fairly obvious why I think. Religious fundamentalists or followers of strict ideology are more interested than most other people in "doing their duty" (so to speak). These people are less interested in finding their "individuality." Instead, they find themselves in their religion.

Dating, marriage and family become a lot simpler. Normally, a man and woman going into a heterosexual relationship will have lots of things to negotiate: whether to have kids, who does the household chores, who goes to work, who stays at home to look after the kids, how much sex you want.

If you have a religion, your local rabbi/Rebbe, imam or pastor will tell you what you're supposed to do instead of you having to negotiate it with your spouse. You take responsibility for fewer choices and pride yourself on "doing your duty."

When it comes to birth rates, the problem in a liberal, secular and democratic society is that you have too many options and people want different things. More importantly, people are free to desire many different things. This can lead to confusion, conflict and indecision when trying to relate to others. Religion can help eliminate some of this confusion, conflict and indecision.

To put it another way, if birth rates are important, then a liberal, secular democracy is not an effective system in maintaining satisfactory birth rates (a stable population requires 2.1 babies per woman). Something needs to be added to drive that birth rate. I am certainly not saying we should ditch our secularism and democracy. We just need a supplement.

Religious fundamentalism seems to have been fairly successful in creating little communal baby booms, so if you want to stimulate population growth, religious fundamentalism is one way of doing it. Although I'm not very comfortable with the ethics of converting people to a religion for the sake of increasing birth rates, as they say, the means sometimes justifies the end. Based on what I've read, believing that you're doing it for your ancestors, for Jesus or Allah is enough motivation to do the deed.

Nationalism is another way of achieving the same goal. As they say, do it for your country. But again, nationalism can be just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism, like any sort of extremism -- especially when it becomes jingoism.

Source(s):
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28567/461566.aspx
http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/faith-equals-fertility
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2010/05/shall-fundamentalists-inherit-earth....
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/berger/2011/06/29/why-do-godders-have-so-...

freediver wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:01am:



When an established country has to import people to provide for its aging population, that is a sure sign that the locals had lost faith in themselves, their country and its future some time ago - they can't or won't want to leave it to their own children.
Australia, for example, with a population of 22 million, shouldn't need to have such a massive immigration program. We have plenty of other resources but not enough little Australians.

There is a push for life-prevention at every turn: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, gay marriage. And then we import loads of people to fill the shortfall due to all the anti-life madness. The same people keep saying that this is the greatest country, yet thy do not want to bear children and to bring them up in it.
Crazy.

immigrants get older too some day. it sounds to me like the proposal that we use immigration to 'fix' the 'problem' of an aging population is an infinite pyramid scheme.

omg gdp growth will take a .5% of w/e hit