What will happen now that there's a global fertility crisis? Will capitalism eventually collapse? Different measures have been tried all over the world but there have been no results, isn't this a really worrying situation?
>>2379887It won't help with fertility rates. Everyone has tried, nobody achieved anything out of it (except improving quality of life for mothers and kids, but that's not a "fertility rate").
In fact, the only one example in history of somebody managing to raise fertility rates were Nazis who banned contraceptions and abortions completely. Like, you either make a theocracy with gazillion uncared for kids or make a state that cares about it's people (and have low fertility rates)
>>2379782>a woman having kids is literally enslavement!!!What level of nihilism + feminism is this?
All ancestors of all living things have had children in case (You) didn't know
>>2379726>>2379747 is correct, governments around the world are already moving to pull back on women's rights, especially abortion rights. They tried the good cop by giving some money and other niceties for having children - still a negligible amount compared to what raising a kid takes - and it didn't work. Now they're trying the bad cop, but it won't work either. May just make things worse since women will start avoiding relationships out of fear on a mass scale.
Sure, markets made it much worse than it could have been, but the problem may be more fundamental than that. We may just be moving from an animalistic existence to more conscious existence, a huge part of this is the fact that zoomers drink very little compared to previous generations. There is no reason to believe that the problem could be sorted out at all, reality doesn't quite work like that, we're not entitled to things working out. We may not need things to work out either since human-like AI may be here in a few decades' time, an existence that can be controlled as much as we can control computers is vastly superior to one that's as uncontrollable as ours. A blood vessel could pop in your brain at any moment, you're done, and it's always been like that.
>>2381174The Soviet Union lost millions of people because of WW2, no shit. And the population density was already low before the war at like 20 people per square mile.
USSR population 1950: 180 million
NATO 1950: 380 million
>>2381427>The Soviet Union lost millions of people because of WW2, no shit.This was before WWII retard. Read more. And the abortion ban was lifted after WWII, but was still heavily restricted and discouraged.
>And the population density was already low before the war at like 20 people per square mile. This is kind of disingenuous. If you stop to think for a second you would realize that the USSR had vast swathes of uninhabitable or inaccessible lands in Siberia and Central Asia that makes population density incredibly low.
>>2381814cont.
also you're moving the goalposts, the original argument is about the soviets being very fixated on demographics and birth rates. Their reason for being fixated on it is kind of irrelevant. But suffice it to say that birth rates were already falling in the 1920s in beginning of the Soviet Union and so demography worried soviet planners from the get go.
Unique IPs: 31