General Financial Incentive To Improve Punjab Sex Ratio

[Sinister]

So european example tell us that human psyche is not for population growth.

Darwin would disagree

and so would most psychologists

 

[kds1980]

Darwin would disagree

and so would most psychologists

Darwin could be wrong.Bring him back and show him european birth rate statistics

 

[Sinister]

the innate drive of reproduction is present at the biological level a fact that even european statistics cannot disprove

we are naturally obsessed with growth and expansion as a species

like a cancer cell

 

[kds1980]

the innate drive of reproduction is present at the biological level a fact that even european statistics cannot disprove

Then why russia,germany,italy are facinng severe birth crisis.

Low Birth Rate is Russia’s Biggest Problem Says President Putin

Low Birth Rate is Russia’s Biggest Problem Says President Putin


By Gudrun Schultz

MOSCOW, Russia, May 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) –Plunging birth rates are the central factor in Russia’s “critical” population decline, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an annual address to the nation, reported the BBC today.

Russia’s falling birth rate is leading to a population crisis in the country, with an annual decline of 700,000 people. Increasing mortality rates and migration are also contributing factors, said President Putin.

In an effort to counteract the plummet in birth rates, President Putin announced a ten-year national programme designed to encourage women to have more children. An increase in childcare benefits to support young mothers would be a central element to the programme, especially for women having more than one child.

“We must, at least, stimulate the birth of a second child,” the president said.

Abortion rates in Russia are some of the highest in the world. Conservative estimates indicate 60% of all pregnancies end in abortion. LifeSiteNews reported in August that Russia’s abortion rates exceeded the national rate of birth for the first time in 2005.

The country’s population is estimated to be just under 143 million people.

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

 

[Sinister]

Then why russia,germany,italy are facinng severe birth crisis.

You just proved my point again by calling it a "crisis"
why do you and the majority of humanity view this as a crisis?

reason: because you have been fed this constant stream of info that leads you to believe that continuous growing population and consumption is good. but we all know that this growth ends somewhere.

and there lies your answer... these populations are finding equilibrium, be it through social or physical constraints created by the initial homosapien drive for over-expansion. its a natural negative feedback loop (the standard predator-prey relationship with albeit an extra social variable acting as the predator)

however, because of the capitalist mindset we neglect equilibrium because expansion is considered vital for sustenance when actually it is the polar extreme that throws everything off track and if we persist in being deluded that expanding societies will dominate we will end up as an extinct species.

now do you view low birth rate a good thing? or a bad thing? or are you all of sudden more or less uninterested in the question?

kds, you seem to have taken evolutionists far to lightly in you initial analysis

 

[kds1980]

You just proved my point again by calling it a "crisis"
why do you and the majority of humanity view this as a crisis?

reason: because you have been fed this constant stream of info that leads you to believe that continuous growing population and consumption is good. but we all know that this growth ends somewhere.

and there lies your answer... these populations are finding equilibrium, be it through social or physical constraints created by the initial homosapien drive for over-expansion. its a natural negative feedback loop (the standard predator-prey relationship with albeit an extra social variable acting as the predator)

however, because of the capitalist mindset we neglect equilibrium because expansion is considered vital for sustenance when actually it is the polar extreme that throws everything off track and if we persist in being deluded that expanding societies will dominate we will end up as an extinct species.

now do you view low birth rate a good thing? or a bad thing? or are you all of sudden more or less uninterested in the question?

kds, you seem to have taken evolutionists far to lightly in you initial analysis

Sinister i know you are damn good in theories.but this world is much more than theories.
If we beleive that homo sapiens are 1 race then it is good.But apart from this we have
language,culture ,religion race.Low birth rate from the point of view of these is called suicide of these.

Let me show you something
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0519/p01s04-woeu.htmlhave done. But Putin insists that only ethnic Russians - about 25 million remain stranded i

Some say that Russia must open its doors to immigrants, as many Western countries n former Soviet countries - will be eligible for easy entry. Polls show large majorities remain hostile to the idea of mass immigration of non-Slavs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is very clear that they don't want non slav's to enter russia.They don't beleive in
1 human race .Now do you beleive that a country with 12% land resource but only 2.5% population is good for this world.It is not.These countries could easily solve their problem of low birth rate with allowing immigration from india,china etc.But not even a single country is interested in it.

Sinister no community in this world want's to loose its culture,religion,language.

This world is now very unevenly balaced demographically.

 

[kds1980]

Btw sinister just read the end page of my thread' poor sikhs turban".A sikh from new zealand and dr.khalsa ji too beleive that sikhs should have more kids

 

[Astroboy]

You just proved my point again by calling it a "crisis"
why do you and the majority of humanity view this as a crisis?

reason: because you have been fed this constant stream of info that leads you to believe that continuous growing population and consumption is good. but we all know that this growth ends somewhere.

kds, you seem to have taken evolutionists far to lightly in you initial analysis

Sinister Ji,


Refrain from putting others into a 'corner'.
It amounts to personal attack.
(Also read my comments on page 2)

~ namjap ~

 

[Sinister]

Sinister Ji,


Refrain from putting others into a 'corner'.
It amounts to personal attack.
(Also read my comments on page 2)

~ namjap ~

so we cannot discuss population growth on this thread that deals extensively with demographics?

I am conducting a thought experiment in social philosophy that ties in with sexual ratio disparity and my initial hypothesis that this may be a natural social process. The idea that we should not veiw population growth as an absolute beneficial process is essential to this utilitarian argument that i raised.

isn't the enitre idea of debate to learn? and corner anothers arguments and reveal contradictions?

and kds loves my input as much as i love his input

 

[Astroboy]

Now that I have your attention, you may proceed as usual. Carry on with your wonderful details.

~ namjap ~

 

[Sinister]

Now that I have your attention, you may proceed as usual. Carry on with your wonderful details.

~ namjap ~

excellent

where do we go from here though?

I guess I will reiterate:

these populations are finding equilibrium, be it through social or physical constraints created by the initial homosapien drive for over-expansion. its a natural negative feedback loop (the standard predator-prey relationship with albeit an extra social variable acting as the predator)


cheers

 

[clarkejoey]

these populations are finding equilibrium, be it through social or physical constraints created by the initial homosapien drive for over-expansion. its a natural negative feedback loop (the standard predator-prey relationship with albeit an extra social variable acting as the predator)

Opinion: western societies - i have european societies in mind - have ceased to be socially-thinking communities, and are now, individual-thinking individuals.

• I'm hot, so i air-condition, and the heck with the ozone;
• My SUV is comfortable, so the heck with my country's fuel reserves;
• I want to feel good, so i eat food that makes me ill, and buy drugs that hide the illness (and the heck with side effects);
• I want to see the world/enrich myself/further my career, so no children for me - and the heck with my community's future;

Opinion again: rampant societal atheism is behind it, or rather institutionalised "secular humanism".

• there's nothing after death, there's no definitive moral right, so why produce another biological unit?

Not sure i'd call it equilibrium though. Backlash perhaps?

 

[kds1980]

these populations are finding equilibrium, be it through social or physical constraints created by the initial homosapien drive for over-expansion. its a natural negative feedback loop (the standard predator-prey relationship with albeit an extra social variable acting as the predator)

Opinion: western societies - i have european societies in mind - have ceased to be socially-thinking communities, and are now, individual-thinking individuals.

• I'm hot, so i air-condition, and the heck with the ozone;
• My SUV is comfortable, so the heck with my country's fuel reserves;
• I want to feel good, so i eat food that makes me ill, and buy drugs that hide the illness (and the heck with side effects);
• I want to see the world/enrich myself/further my career, so no children for me - and the heck with my community's future;

Opinion again: rampant societal atheism is behind it, or rather institutionalised "secular humanism".

• there's nothing after death, there's no definitive moral right, so why produce another biological unit?

Not sure i'd call it equilibrium though. Backlash perhaps?

Its interesting that you are blaming social atheism.Sinister your turn refute the statement of clarke

 

[kds1980]

excellent

where do we go from here though?

I guess I will reiterate:

these populations are finding equilibrium, be it through social or physical constraints created by the initial homosapien drive for over-expansion. its a natural negative feedback loop (the standard predator-prey relationship with albeit an extra social variable acting as the predator)


cheers

Sinister i still want toknow your views about population from the point of view of religion,culture,race,ethinicity,language.

Take the example of parsis they never cared about the population as a result the population of parsis which was 1,20000 at the start of century is now reduced to 70,000.while it should have been at least .5 million .on the other hand look at islam
they are always interested in population increase net reult 58 countries,1.3 billion population and lot of rights in countries where they are in minority.

conclusion if you don't care about your population then your religion,race,language,ethnicity is going to die

 

[Sinister]

Hello clarkjoey,

Well your post was more a less a hit-job on atheism than anything else of value to the debate. I have read my fair share of extraterrestrial assertions but your post tops my list. Let me address it nonetheless (because ignorance should not no go unpunished):

Opinion: western societies - i have european societies in mind - have ceased to be socially-thinking communities, and are now, individual-thinking individuals.

First off that’s not an opinion it’s a cognitive/analytical prejudiced assertion.

Really Europe has become non-socially thinking? Id like some proof of that.

No such thing as an “individual-thinking individual”. We are a social species that fundamentally believe in cooperation and group formation with an inclusive/exclusive collective consciousness. The Malthusian view of war of each against all is rather erroneous and an outdated social theory (I think you know that as well), even amongst animals this behaviour is not seen. Even animals show clear signs of group formation and cooperation. The behaviour of reciprocity is innate and the reciprocity theory holds ground today in science and social theory.

And if European society had become “non-socially thinking communities” they would have long collapsed. No one would pay taxes, follow the laws or enforce the laws. Which is not case.

• I'm hot, so i air-condition, and the heck with the ozone;
• My SUV is comfortable, so the heck with my country's fuel reserves;
• I want to feel good, so i eat food that makes me ill, and buy drugs that hide the illness (and the heck with side effects);
• I want to see the world/enrich myself/further my career, so no children for me - and the heck with my community's future;

Do you seriously believe everything you just wrote above? ..lol if you do then you are in desperate need of a re-education and re-examination of your “opinions” (and that’s my opinion). I am an agnostic and my thought process lies absolutely nowhere along these lines.

Opinion again: rampant societal atheism is behind it, or rather institutionalised secular humanism.

Question:
Why are the most atheist and secular communities the most conscious of environmental standards? Why do they work the hardest in preserving and limiting ecological footprint?
Scandinavia
Denmark
Germany
Switzerland
Japan

Again all I see is flawed logic. If atheism is truly individualistic as you claim it to be these countries would not be signing environmental accords because the citizenry would not care of the “commons”. The fact is these countries are the most aware and are taking the greatest steps to reduce harmful pollutants. This is living proof that secular humanism is more in tune with the environment than first meets the eye.

“Rampant societal atheism” lol you make it sound like a disease. When the fact is, it’s the agent for cure…. by bringing balance and equilibrium to our system.

“institutionalized secular humanism” : I’d love to hear an example of such an institution because under your previous definition you said atheism is synonymous to individual against individual. Now a few sentences away you lay claim to the existence of “institutionalized secular humanism”.

How can atheists make an institution if they are, in your own words, “individual thinking individuals”?

Again you possess flawed logic, which according to my “opinion” must be rectified.

• there's nothing after death, there's no definitive moral right, so why produce another biological unit?

“No definitive moral right”… so an atheist is devoid of all morality? Rather interesting and polar assertions you have…and if you don’t mind me asking….which school of thought does your hate filled opinion stem from?

Not sure i'd call it equilibrium though. Backlash perhaps?

Hypothetically If it were backlash what societal force would it be “backlashing” against and why?

 

[Sinister]

kds

i will post something in the days to come in regards to the parsis example and where I stand on race culture and what not.

running low on time
cheers
and talk to u soon

 

[clarkejoey]

Thanks, Sinister. I'm not even going to try to take you on. I am obviously not in your intellectual category.

Only, i wouldn't want you to think i'm a hater. I hate neither atheists/agnostics nor the isms themselves.

 

[Sinister]

I wish to go back and re-examine this discussion in more detail in order to address your conclusions:

You questioned:

So does it means that final demographic victory belongs to traditional religions like islam and others?

You really “hit the nail head on” with that question:

Lets dissect this question:
“Demographic victory”:
is a term that should never be used so loosely.

What do you define as demographic victory? Or what constitutes a demographic victory?
So this question is intrinsically diverse on many levels…let me show you.

Nationality, ethnicity and religion are all non-fixed artificially constructed ideologies that show mobility via group formation and cultural diffusion. The inclusive/exclusive nature of group consciousness contributes both to spread and demise of an ideology.

Also note that no ideological school of thought is ever fixed in time and space.

The problem I have with much of what you are saying is the fact that you are treating humanity and its cultural diversity as a sub-species category…which is not the case. You are applying traditional Darwinian thought to where it is not applicable.

The reason muslim population = 8 times higher than sikh population.

And Sikhs should counter this by setting up an assembly line of babies?
Do you ever read what you initially write and break out into laughter? I can’t believe how primitive this logic is … it’s the same logic used by an amoeba.
“God” forbid we win them ideologically through spiritual development, lets just make our women pump out more kids. If you want to go that far: The hell with women, they take to long, we’ll just grow our mindless “little-Sikhs-to-be” in test-tubes. I can see your vision now, millions of little kds clones running about voting on whatever you tell them to vote on. The only problem is people are individuals and if the ideology isn’t sound and doesn’t resonate at the proper frequency we can kiss this strategy goodbye as well.

conclusion if you don't care about your population then your religion,race,language,ethnicity is going to die

Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves and jump to unruly conclusions. Religion, language and yes-even culture are all panhuman traits that can be adopted through influence and spread in an entirely different manner.

Think of Islam and how it spread or how Sikhism spread…it didn’t sprawl from an adam and eve character and through succession of progeny but rather diffused through cultures altering them in significant ways.

Religious ideology and orientation can travel from human to human and is not fixed to birth. What you talk of is this notion of purity of race (along the lines of Adolph Hitler). Hitler also believed that ideology should be preserved amongst his pure race and should grow through indigenous population growth (but ironically this is how ideologies FAIL).

Or look at Hellenic culture and how it spread during the time of Alexander. Although the greeks were few in number, compared to the eastern kingdoms, there ideologies were adopted and embraced because they were inclusive, practical and feasible.

So we must get off this notion that the only way religion is spread is through giving birth to more children. Sikhism can very much increase influence without even a shred of indigenous Punjabi population growth. Your belief that we should have a “population race” is extremely dangerous and harmful.

So your conclusion as stated here:

Sinister i know you are damn good in theories.but this world is much more than theories.
If we beleive that homo sapiens are 1 race then it is good.But apart from this we have
language,culture ,religion race.Low birth rate from the point of view of these is called suicide of these.

is false.

Look at agnosticism…its spread quite rapidly after the enlightenment… in many European countries 50-60% of the populace are now atheist/agnostics. These numbers continue to increase around the world.

So “Demographic Victory” (using your own words) belongs to the ideology that promotes inclusiveness, practicality and adaptability. Humanism holds all these close to its heart thus I believe victory shall be theirs… not Islam’s.

 

[kds1980]

Lets dissect this question:
“Demographic victory”:
is a term that should never be used so loosely.

What do you define as demographic victory? Or what constitutes a demographic victory?
So this question is intrinsically diverse on many levels…let me show you.

Nationality, ethnicity and religion are all non-fixed artificially constructed ideologies that show mobility via group formation and cultural diffusion. The inclusive/exclusive nature of group consciousness contributes both to spread and demise of an ideology.

Also note that no ideological school of thought is ever fixed in time and space.

The problem I have with much of what you are saying is the fact that you are treating humanity and its cultural diversity as a sub-species category…which is not the case. You are applying traditional Darwinian thought to where it is not applicable.

Sinister you are taking humans just as superior species of animals which is not the case.
Demographic victory means The religion,race ethnicity that will be in power.many wars in this world occured due to these and in the end some religions,races overpowers the others.You are completely ignoring the power of votebank which is the main factor in deciding that who will be in power.

And Sikhs should counter this by setting up an assembly line of babies?
Do you ever read what you initially write and break out into laughter? I can’t believe how primitive this logic is … it’s the same logic used by an amoeba.
“God” forbid we win them ideologically through spiritual development, lets just make our women pump out more kids. If you want to go that far: The hell with women, they take to long, we’ll just grow our mindless “little-Sikhs-to-be” in test-tubes. I can see your vision now, millions of little kds clones running about voting on whatever you tell them to vote on. The only problem is people are individuals and if the ideology isn’t sound and doesn’t resonate at the proper frequency we can kiss this strategy goodbye as well.

Sinister your this reply is just comical 3 days ago i was having a discussion with dr.khalsa that it is not possible for sikhs to have more babies. I already told you to read the page 3 of thread "is it possible for poor sikhs to wear turban" I always advocated that sikhism should spread to other communities.

Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves and jump to unruly conclusions. Religion, language and yes-even culture are all panhuman traits that can be adopted through influence and spread in an entirely different manner.

Think of Islam and how it spread or how Sikhism spread…it didn’t sprawl from an adam and eve character and through succession of progeny but rather diffused through cultures altering them in significant ways.

Very good question but just read islamic history and how islam spread.Islam is spread by sword,missionaries,and their attituide that death for apostasy.Is it not surprising that where islam went minorities just vanished.Very few parsis are left in iran no budhdhists iin afghanistan,pakistan.The ancestors of 0.5 billion were hindu's and budhdhists.How many ancestors of hindu's were muslims?Also islam never allowed other ideologies to spread.

So we must get off this notion that the only way religion is spread is through giving birth to more children. Sikhism can very much increase influence without even a shred of indigenous Punjabi population growth. Your belief that we should have a “population race” is extremely dangerous and harmful

Show me my single post where i said that only way to spread religion is population growth.i am always for inclusive sikhism than punjabified sikhism.

Originally Posted by kds1980
Sinister i know you are damn good in theories.but this world is much more than theories.
If we beleive that homo sapiens are 1 race then it is good.But apart from this we have
language,culture ,religion race.Low birth rate from the point of view of these is called suicide of these.

Let me clarify my this statement.For many people ethnicity,race is more important than religion.In the case of religion and language could be spread to others.but ethnicity,race is genetical which is not possible to spread.As i stated earlier is it good for this world that countries like russia,australia,canada hold more than 20% land with 3% of population.Will these countries allow massmigration from over populated asia.No never beacaue their race and ethnicity. will loose power to migrants

Look at agnosticism…its spread quite rapidly after the enlightenment… in many European countries 50-60% of the populace are now atheist/agnostics. These numbers continue to increase around the world.

Most of these are badly struggling with their birth rate.There culture,ethnicity,race will become extinct or they become minorities in own countries in other 200-300 years.

So “Demographic Victory” (using your own words) belongs to the ideology that promotes inclusiveness, practicality and adaptability. Humanism holds all these close to its heart thus I believe victory shall be theirs… not Islam’

Islamic countries will not even allow humanism to spread.Most of the ex muslims who criticies islam are on the run.Their birth rate is much faster than other communities
They will migrate to other countries and will impose their religion on others not vice versa.
The recent survey indicated that 36% of british muslims beleive that anybody who leaves islam should be punished with death.Now the question is why british muslims are turning to fanaticism rather than turning to humanism

 

[kds1980]

Here is very good article for you on birth rate
06/22/00 - Birth rates up? Yes, but - Part 1 & 2
Will liberals become extinct?

By Steve Sailer

The new report from the National Center for Health Statistics on births in 1998 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/00news/00news/nrbrth98.htm] sheds light on a long-term but daunting problem facing well-educated peoples with progressive social attitudes: they tend to die out. They don't reproduce enough. This trend is reaching crisis status in Western Europe, especially in Mediterranean nations like Italy, where the average number of babies per woman has fallen below 1.2. (Demographers believe 2.1 children per woman are needed to maintain a stable population.)

In the English-speaking world, the white population is imploding at a more leisurely pace. For example, non-Hispanic white Americans are only slowly extinguishing themselves, as shown by their 1998 total fertility rate of 1.84. This is a mere one-eighth too low to prevent eventual … uh … well, the technical term is "race suicide." In fact, much publicity has recently been given to the report’s showing that white women's fertility was almost 3% higher in 1998 over 1995.

Yet the number of babies per white woman remains lower than in 1990, the final year of the previous economic boom. How far white fertility will fall during the next downturn is unknowable. And even less certain is when, if ever, it will rise back to replacement levels.

Yet, there are big variations in fertility among whites. And that has dire implications for liberals. The much higher birth rate seen in both Israel and the U.S. of Orthodox Jews compared to more secular Jews may be the best-known example. (In polite society today, only Jews are allowed to publicly discuss fertility differences and their implications for demographic self-preservation.) The European Jews who founded the Jewish State were so pervasively leftist that Menachem Begin's rightwing Likud Party lost Israel's first eight general elections. But Likud has become highly competitive over the last quarter of a century in large partly because of the much bigger families of the North African and Middle Eastern Jews who make up its base.

Something similar is at work in the USA. Our most liberal state, Vermont (which is represented in Congress by Socialist Bernie Sanders), has the lowest birthrate at only 1.57 babies per woman. In contrast, our most socially conservative state, Mormon-dominated Utah, has the highest fertility at 2.71. That's 73% more babies per woman. At this rate, if Utah and Vermont had equal populations today and there was no migration in or out of either state, in two generations there would be three times more children in Utah than in Vermont.

And the effective gap is actually even greater because highly educated feminists tend to wait longer to have the few babies they do manage to squeeze out. Thus, the average generation is several years longer in Vermont than in Utah.

Social liberals fight their suicidal tendency by recruiting via subsidizing secular (but not religious) education; cultural propaganda; and demonization of social conservatives. But another solution that Democrat politicians have enthusiastically pursued is importing liberal voters from abroad.

Thus, for example, we witnessed the Clinton Administration's enormous rush to turn resident aliens into voting citizens just before the 1996 election. Mass immigration benefits the Democrats both because immigrants tend to vote Democrat, and because immigrants tend to have more kids than native-born Americans. In 1998, one out of every five new babies was the child of a woman born outside the USA. These days, fewer than 60% of new babies born in America have white mothers. And in California, the 900-pound gorilla of the Electoral College, only 34% of newborns are white.

Although East Asians tend to have moderate-sized families, the fecundity of women of Mexican descent (3.2 babies per woman) is 80% higher than the non-Hispanic white norm (and 48% higher than the African-American average of 2.24). And since Mexican-women generally give birth at younger ages than do white women, the effective fertility ratio of Mexicans to whites is around two to one.

Sponsoring mass immigration is thus likely to be a winning strategy politically for Democrats…for a while. But sophisticated, NPR-listening white liberals may eventually find that – at least in terms of the environment, economic equality, education levels etc. - heavy Third World influxes are pushing America in directions they don't want it to go.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]