247
Republicans wanted fewer abortions and more births. They are getting the opposite
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
247 points (98.1% liked)
childfree
2419 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who knew that creating a bleak hostile world creates a mindset that you don't want to bring more life into this hellhole?
You know what would create a mentality of wanting to be a parent? Having food assistance. Having a stable job and ecconomy. Having a life where you don't worry about becoming homeless if one thing goes wrong while the president creates and deletes tarrifs on an hourly basis to manipulate the ecconomy for his own personal playtoy.
Imagine living in a world created for EVERYBODY to have a bright tomorrow. Not just 1%. Maybe then people would want to bring life into that world.
not for long!
The wealthy have been wriiting about eugenics since before this country was founded. And the wealthy arent having any problems having kids, in fact they are averaging higher than replacement unlike the rest of us
Cool. Let them farm, build, clean, and repair everything. Cause my nonexistent kids or their nonexistent descendants aren't going to do that.
Since your poverty of thought is so grand, I'll share with you what Kings did; The lesser rich become the new labor class. The children of lawyers and doctors will be who the truly wealthy pay to clean, build, and repair everything
The guy who wiped the king's ass was usually the son of a duke at least. It was considered a great honor to be 'The Groom of the Stool'.
And they only need us pitiful poor laborers until robotics advances a bit more.
I find it so funny when people use the threat "Ok well then I'll just die off and then who will empty your trash!"
It's not the barb you think it is...
Whatever. Not my monkeys, not my circus.
And shove your grandstanding where the sun doesn't shine.
The way we are heading within 30 years either your family will serve the ultra rich or they starve
And everyone like you pretending this is just a casual economic discussion and not an active existential threat is helping to bring that day closer
You think 'yeah stuff is weird now but it'll all work out in the end'
That's not what's happening here, we are well past the cusp of catastrophic social collapse, WELL past
I'm kinda glad that somebody else sees it that way too. I've been thinking it for a while now. I (for reasons i can't explain) believe that women can feel the future (somehow) and intuitively don't want to have children anymore. If i look around and ask anybody i know, very few people my age (20 - 30) say that they intend to ever have children.
Now, i agree with you that automation, and more importantly the end of growth will make workers largely superfluous. I suspect that instead of some kind of retirement or subsidy-based living, the rich actively try to kinda "terraform" the whole population by getting rid of the workers and only keeping everybody else, and i suspect that we're gonna see a population decline as steep as we saw an ascent during the last centuries:
Just in reverse, i.e. in 2200, we might have 1 billion people on earth again.
The reason will largely be unemployment (or rather underemployment - not earning enough to make a living) instead of a resource shortage (such as agricultural shortages).
I know this is a really difficult topic to discuss, and i'm trying to be careful while talking about it, but i'm kinda looking for somebody to talk to about this, so here goes some more thoughts:
Contrary to the 19th and 20th century where a labor shortage was a constant theme, in the next 200 years (assuming the population really does go down symmetrically) there'll be a labor excess, i.e. functional underemployment (i.e. wages being too low to sustain a proper living). Social spending like UBI (universal basic income) are really just a patchwork and leave the population at the whims of the government, which is why people don't like it so much, but still recognize its necessity. Long-term, matching labor supply and labor demand is the only meaningful way, i.e. drastically reducing labor supply.
I think you're right about women and birth rates, but I don't think it's anything mystical, rather it's just an unconscious perception
Like that eerie feeling you get when you feel a place 'isn't right', it's usually several red flags you don't even consciously know but your brain is saying 'Ok a lot of things here match with a bad thing that happened in the past, be careful'
And I feel our current and coming economic collapse is creating these subconscious red flags that women intuitively feel:
The necessities for life are more and more difficult to acquire, women's rights to healthcare is being attacked, and authoritarianism which is inherently misogynistic is on the rise
Honestly it just makes sense that women don't want to bring babies into this messed up world.
exactly. republicans are not pro-life. republicans are pro-wedge-issue because that's the only way they get votes from lower/middle class people.
It works and their owners love it.
Yeah but the rich elite don't want happy, hopeful people that are optimistic about the future. They want people that work for them because they have no choice. Slaves. They want your kids to be slaves. Zuckerberg's bunker needs tending by dumb people that just want steady food and water.
Always has been this way, the question is of the degree. We have been seeing a trend reversal for the last 40 years, and the fuckening is getting unbearable.
Socio-economic conditions result in the this headline but the leadership can't admit it since it would require some sort of response that would benefit the peasants.
The rich are finally getting their wish to completely crush all the lower classes and you're here telling us to imagine a world where the most wealthy aren't the most greedy and vicious...