|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 23, 2011 13:57:34 GMT -5
I know that The Demographic Winter is hardly a "new" documentary, but I just saw it in a sociology class and want to know what you people think.
Now, I haven't had the opportunity to read any criticism of it yet, but right now I think it raises a few good points. (And they have data. Lots of it.) Of course, most of the parts I agreed with, I already knew. (Mostly, that modern civilization is doomed (why is it always doomed?) and that it's all the Baby Boomers' fault. Thanks a lot, guys.)
Just an FYI for those of you who haven't seen it and are under the impression that it's racist: the one line that a lot of detractors use to say that was taken out of context. I know that one person says that "if this keeps up, certain kinds of human beings will go extinct" but he's not referring to white people. He's talking about liberals and secularists. Their demise would not exactly be something that religious conservatives would lament.
And there lies why I want your opinions. After being reasonably-good for 90% of its length, the documentary then goes headlong into "the only way that the demographic winter will stop is if we return to patriarchy and religious fundamentalism" and this is not portrayed as a good thing.
So, is there any truth behind what The Demographic Winter is saying? 'Cause I want to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Fishcake on Nov 23, 2011 14:39:54 GMT -5
I haven't seen the documentary yet but have read their Q&A and it appears this documentary is built on a flawed premise: that population is falling below optimum numbers. In actual fact, it would have some way to go to fall into the optimum population range. Since the industrial revolution, our numbers have shot out of control (as has our resource consumption).
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 23, 2011 16:01:06 GMT -5
They aren't talking about total population. They are talking about replacement fertility (that is, about 2 children per woman) not being achieved. It actually is true that the populations of most developed countries (except the USA) are aging.
The only thing about this that scares me is the idea that patriarchy and authoritarianism were all but universal before last century because people who believe in it can indoctrinate more children than those who do not, meaning that natural selection causes belief in such reactionary attitudes to increase in the population, until they purge or persecute everybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 23, 2011 16:05:16 GMT -5
The only thing about this that scares me is the idea that patriarchy and authoritarianism were all but universal before last century because people who believe in it can indoctrinate more children than those who do not, meaning that natural selection causes belief in such reactionary attitudes to increase in the population, until they purge or persecute everybody else. And this is why education is important. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Nov 23, 2011 16:17:28 GMT -5
The only thing about this that scares me is the idea that patriarchy and authoritarianism were all but universal before last century because people who believe in it can indoctrinate more children than those who do not, meaning that natural selection causes belief in such reactionary attitudes to increase in the population, until they purge or persecute everybody else. That's utter bullshit. Patriarchy and authoritarianism haven't been nearly universal for most of human history. The earliest humans lived in egalitarian bands and it wasn't until after the advent of agriculture that you get ascribed societies and archaic states that could remotely be called authoritarian. So that's roughly 10,000 years ago. Even then not all cultures moved away from bands. |
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 23, 2011 16:29:27 GMT -5
Can it be watched on youtube?
|
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Nov 23, 2011 19:57:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 23, 2011 20:00:01 GMT -5
Stupid underdeveloped countries... can't control their population.
Stupid pope, saying we shouldn't send contraceptives...
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 24, 2011 2:22:59 GMT -5
The main concept is right to a degree, developed countries are having a problem with negative population growth, However, I cant help but see this as essentially a good thing. Countries like japan which have suffered from negative population growth for a while are desperately trying to push for incentives to have more children, but to my knowledge its not working well.
Honestly, in my opinion we really could do with significantly less people on this planet, even in the populated countries. While the problem of a much smaller working class looking after a large retired population is a problem, in my books it is a much smaller problem than the 3rd world countries population explosions and resource scarcity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Nov 25, 2011 2:31:46 GMT -5
The demographic change to older people in a population decline is a temporary problem that has to be dealt with at some time or another. When the "ideal" age distribution is one where population is growing, it can't be sustained forever. Anyone who has ever taken paid attention in microbiology knows this. Trying to encourage popping out more babies only pushes the problem back, and will just make it worse when that time comes. It's better that people stop having babies because they're expensive than for a high death rate to become the limiting factor on population.
|
|
