Author Topic: Current populations  (Read 2579 times)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Current populations
« on: July 16, 2017, 03:24:22 PM »
I've read a few interesting articles lately, and they've made some decent points.

Mostly, about how religious zealots (Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons and other Christian sects) really focus on pumping out as many children as they can.

Whilst secular peeps sit there responsibly and decide to just have two or three children.

My question is are we facing a backlash in the next generation or two? Maybe not in the States, but in Europe?

Democracy is the best system possible but I see it returning us to the 1600s if the churchophiles *censored* out more kids then the reasonable people.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2017, 04:30:16 PM »
You're going to have to better explain your point, as it is difficult to understand what you are talking about.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2017, 04:47:38 PM »
Sure.

We all admire democracy.

Religious zealots demand that people crap out as many children as they possibly can. And they do.

Secularists are wary about carbon footprints and the like. So they use birth control and only have one or two or at most three children.

In a couple of decades, that's going to come and bite us in the ass. Zealots will far outnumber rational people.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2017, 05:53:39 PM »
Your premise is faulty - at least in the first world religious observance and birth rates are both on the decline.

Your assumption that people choose to have fewer children because of carbon footprints is complete nonsense. That may be a rationalization that some choose to make but it's not a significant reason.

No idea what any of this has to do with democracy specifically.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2017, 06:16:45 PM »
General idea was, if you have zealots pumping out ten kids, and you have rational people having 2 or 3 kids, the zealots will be in a position to impose their bullshti on the general population in a generation or two.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2017, 06:19:47 PM »
That assumes zealotry is hereditary. Somewhat flawed since all "rational" people descended from people who we'd consider zealots.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2017, 09:42:44 PM »
I've read a few interesting articles lately, and they've made some decent points.

Mostly, about how religious zealots (Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons and other Christian sects) really focus on pumping out as many children as they can.

Whilst secular peeps sit there responsibly and decide to just have two or three children.

My question is are we facing a backlash in the next generation or two? Maybe not in the States, but in Europe?

This isn't NEW news. This is stuff people like Rush Limbaugh has been playing up since the early 1990's in regards to why movements like "the Feminazi's" were ultimately doomed, because most of their strongest proponents were not having children of their own. Meaning that they'd eventually grow old and die, and have no "legacy" of their own to perpetuate their beliefs.  The thing he overlooked then, was that they'd ensconced themselves within the education system, they didn't need to pop out children of their own. They'd simply convert "the children of the unbelievers" once they entered the educational institutions they were in.

So far, they seem to be doing a decent enough job of getting converts, even if the converts are placing their own spin on things, as most converts tend to do.

Of course in the meantime, many of those faith groups are moving leftward over time as well.

But yeah, the Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and the other more "fundamentalist" Christian Faiths are interesting outliers all the same. The Catholic Church itself has tended to show high birth rates as well, but that's normally been attributed to the high number of legal and illegal immigrants alike present within the United States. Their non-immigrant birth-rate is closer to the national average IIRC.

The Mormons just get to be the unique outlier for having higher than average levels of education, higher than average levels of income, and higher than average family sizes. Where typically large family sizes among other faith groups tends to correlate to both low education and low income.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2017, 10:14:21 PM »
I've read a few interesting articles lately, and they've made some decent points.

Mostly, about how religious zealots (Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons and other Christian sects) really focus on pumping out as many children as they can.

Whilst secular peeps sit there responsibly and decide to just have two or three children.

My question is are we facing a backlash in the next generation or two? Maybe not in the States, but in Europe?

Democracy is the best system possible but I see it returning us to the 1600s if the churchophiles *censored* out more kids then the reasonable people.

The Mormon population in the USA hasn't grown in comparison to the rest of the country in a few decades.

Orthodox Jews have always had more kids, but then they have a high dropout rate.

It only gets out of control when you combine fecundity with polygamy.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2017, 06:45:09 AM »
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2500019-155/christianity-shrinking-in-us-mormon-numbers

Big take away, aside from being within the realm of sampling error(they could be declining faster, or actually growing). That the LDS numbers are holding steady as a percentile 1.6%/1.7% in a growing population base while practically every other Christian denomination is in considerable decline

This is even mentioned in the article to some degree.

Quote
The 0.1 percentage-point slip is seen as statistically insignificant, given the fact that fewer than 700 LDS were among the 35,071 surveyed by Pew.

The nation's adult population rose from 227 million to 245 million between 2007 and 2014. If the survey's conclusion is correct, that would mean the number of adult Mormons in America increased from 3.86 million to 3.92 million last year.

So still growing, just not by leaps and bounds.

Quote
• Mainline Protestant denominations continue a long slide in membership, but the world's largest Christian faith, the Catholic Church, also is losing members in a big way. (Previous studies were mixed on that.) Overall, 46.5 percent of U.S. adults now say they're Protestant (evangelicals included), down from 51.3 percent in 2007. Catholics comprised 20.8 percent of adult Americans last year, down from 23.9 percent in 2007.

• Among Protestants, evangelicals and historically black churches saw the smallest erosion in membership. Evangelicals as a share of the U.S. population fell less than 1 percentage point to 25.4 percent. The share of those affiliated with black churches fell less than half a percentage point to 6.5 percent.

And going by the LDS numbers any shift of more than 0.2% towards the negative should mean actual decline in the raw membership number, rather than just a decline in the "population share."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2017, 08:04:14 AM »
Another thing to remember, and this something that practically everybody likes to either forget, or never knew in the first place, is that historically speaking, the current trend in the US towards "unaffiliated/none" is actually pretty close to baseline for the United States since its founding. This is a cycle that at least according to groups like the Smithsonian, has been ongoing since there has been a United States of America.

People will "find a religion (denomination)" for a time(typically about a decade), then they'll drift off towards unaffiliated/non-denominational for a generation or so. Then another round of religious fervor will sweep the nation as people "rediscover" their piety and they'll suddenly find themselves aligning with a particular denomination once more, before things settle down once again and people drift away (from specific denominations) once again.

The first such "Awakening" happened shortly before the American Revolution, the next one happened about about 40 years later, during a time period well known to Mormons in particular, as it was ostensibly to basis for "Joseph Smith's First Prayer." It seems to have generally been running on about a 50 year cycle since then, so about every 2nd or 3rd generation or so. (1860's saw the Civil War, which was largely the result of both Abolitionist (religious) rhetoric, as well as "discovered" pro-slavery (religious) rhetoric from the South; 1910's saw prohibition and a number of other "Reform efforts" usually championed by (women's) religious organizations)

20th Century American is a bit of an aberration in that we had "the Red Scare" and as those nasty, dirty, scheming and murderous Communists were Atheists by law. There was a fair bit of faux-Piety that went on throughout the Cold War on American shores at least(starting in the 1950's). But it is very much apparent to even a casual observer that the last such "peak"/conclusion of that "awakening cycle" in the United States evidently hit during the 1980's, making for a previously unseen 70-ish year interval; or alternately, "a 30-year peak" running from the 1950's through to the 1980's.

So if things hold to the established pattern, the major faith groups should be reaching bottom in the next few years, and they'll begin to ascend once more after that.  Of course, if "the cold war hangover" persists, it might take a bit longer, particularly given current sentiments and resentments.. As well as longer life expectancies in general. The 70-year cycle may be the "new normal" in that regard, in which case the religious groups have another 20 years to make it through before things really pick back up for them.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2017, 09:52:46 AM »
I think the scarier thing related to this issue is the gross gender imbalance in certain high population countries because of sex selected abortions and abandonment.  Just having a lot of kids is no where near as dangerous as creating a large population of males with no real prospects for marriage or success in life.  Whether they turn that internally or externally, you can almost certainly expect a rise in militarism and aggression in certain large and powerful countries.  I think an expansionist China, which honestly seems just over the horizon the way they are acting now, makes any worry about extremist birthrates seem much less concerning.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2017, 12:22:43 PM »
I think the scarier thing related to this issue is the gross gender imbalance in certain high population countries because of sex selected abortions and abandonment.  Just having a lot of kids is no where near as dangerous as creating a large population of males with no real prospects for marriage or success in life.  Whether they turn that internally or externally, you can almost certainly expect a rise in militarism and aggression in certain large and powerful countries.  I think an expansionist China, which honestly seems just over the horizon the way they are acting now, makes any worry about extremist birthrates seem much less concerning.

China has mostly cleared that point now, the "initial surge" of the "1 child only boys" are now in their mid-late 30's. Not particularly viable combat troop fodder at this point, if they were going to do something on that front, they would have done so already. That, and they're taking measures to address that imbalance now, although the proverbial cows have long since fled the barn. Those men just have to wait about 20 years to get their shot at some prime 16 to 18 YO Chinese women. Which is its own kind of creepy.

The situation in Islamic areas is another matter, but their gender imbalance isn't nearly so pronounced, although they also have polygamy in play which complicates things on that front.

That said, if the Chinese economy hits the skids and starts sinking, they may incite some local wars nearby to spur economic activity in the form of using those wars as a money sink.

However, looking at what they're doing at present, it looks to me like they're going for the alleged "other option" that was initially proposed to JFK back in the 1960's. That being going for a hard-core science and technology push and getting into the space colonization business. Because the reality is, there really are only two historically viable long-term "sinks" for excess economic activity, or for spurring it when a lack is present. And that is either colonialism, or militarism.

Which isn't to say the two haven't  mixed heavily in the past.  :-\

But their push into space is hopefully a good sign, just so long as they don't decide to cut back on such efforts, at which point its time to worry.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2017, 01:40:40 PM »
Not sure what you're looking at.  China's gender imbalance persists to this day and is one of, if not the steepest in the world.  The fact that it has been running so long as to have the leading edge be in its 30's makes that problem worse not better.  You're thinking of warriors, not a culture of war, when you imply that only the 18-25 year olds are relevant.

And in fact, what are we seeing from China?  Rapid construction of military bases, including building and staffing fake islands in the South China sea.  Increased aggression with Hong Kong, and even early breaches of the two governments system.  Increased aggression with internal dissidents and "parts" of China that really aren't.  Increasing hostility to US military forces.

By "other option" you mean heavily pursuing first world technologies that can be turned to the production of ever more sophisticated weapons, I agree.  They have been doing that for at least 20 years, with resulting massive  jumps forward in their military tech.  Meanwhile, during the same time period they have been aggressively pursuing green techs and they still have the worst pollution problem in the world, seems oddly discordant doesn't it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2017, 03:12:00 PM »
By "other option" you mean heavily pursuing first world technologies that can be turned to the production of ever more sophisticated weapons, I agree.  They have been doing that for at least 20 years, with resulting massive  jumps forward in their military tech.  Meanwhile, during the same time period they have been aggressively pursuing green techs and they still have the worst pollution problem in the world, seems oddly discordant doesn't it.

From the perspective of a space program, heavy investment in Solar power and associated technologies make sense. The wind power investments are a little weird, aside from it having the related issue of being "an intermittent source." Although that's less of an issue in space, so long as your equipment isn't operating in a planetary shadow. So once again, battery tech is relevant even in space. Doubly so if you're looking as colonies on the Moon, or even Mars(where wind power is a slightly relevant option, albeit a strange one to pursue near the onset of colonization).

Not going to deny the relevant techs also happen to be "dual use" as the United States has already more than amply demonstrated exactly that already.

As to the current posturing and other activities on the part of China, much of that is "for domestic consumption" but also realpolitik in that those steps help protect their own national interests after a fashion. They want a buffer, and will go to great lengths to ensure that buffer continues to exist. The South China Sea is further complicated by the oil reserves that are believed to be waiting for exploration within, so that goes back to "strategic national interests" (energy) as well as "buffer."

Of course, with the 1st World Nations freaked out about CO2 and looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, and with the hard turn to anti-nuclear after what happened at Fukushima in particular, having a solid lock on the production and IP rights of most of "the renewable options" puts them in a strong bargaining position with the west. I never accused them of being stupid, they're actually being quite smart about it.

You get into how they've lured most of the "1st world" tech sector into off-shoring the vast majority of the component production and assembly plants in China as well and they're in a very "healthy" position to ensure that their interests are our interests too. DOD may be reasonably insulated from supply disruptions due to war with China, but they're still going to get hammered when "the market" discovers those DOD suppliers are practically "the only game in town" for those parts/materials should China and its immediate area (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan) become a no-go trade zone for civilian traffic without military escorts.

This isn't even getting into the raw materials "rare earths" side of the market either, where they've basically run the other operations out of business by outproducing and undercutting them(helped by the fact they don't have the same restrictive environmental regs and review processes to contend with).

Too many factors in play to make War with China something anyone that's sane is likely to pursue. It may get frighteningly close to shooting at some point, but I don't think anyone (aside from NK) is crazy enough to start a shooting war with China, and China doesn't want one either, at least, not until they have a solid foothold in space, but that's likely to be decades away at present.

China's current interest is in being a regional power, and being "the deciding factor" in what happens within what it considers "its sphere of influence." It's going to push the boundaries constantly over time, as they have every reason to expect the United States will gradually cede ground to them over time on that front, so long as we're reasonably certain our existing trade relations will remain largely status quo. They know this, we know this, even if we don't want to acknowledge it. So long as they don't disrupt our trade relationships with China's neighbors. They'll be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they don't push their neighbors too far on any given issue.

Once they're in space, and have a "solid foot hold" established up there, what they do is anybody's ball game. But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd expect close relations with the Philippines is on their agenda, probably so they can potentially pursue "more exotic options"(space elevator) without directly hazarding themselves.

I think they're playing a longer term game than us, and in some respects, I think the Communist Party in China is trying to "one up the capitalists" by mirroring a certain Chinese Emperor in ages long past. Global military super-power status is all well and good, but that goal is just so, well, terrestrial. Why try for that, and have to play a never ending game of "keeping up with the Joneses" and deal with the other expectations, responsibilities, and liabilities that such status entails(as well as the inherent instability of such a multi-polar scenario) when you can just secure your corner of the world, and focus your resources on dominating the solar system before anyone else can get there while you get someone else to expend their own resources on "global stability?" (and if you can get them to spend a little more on that particular undertaking from time to time while profiting on it yourself....)

Instead of sending hundreds/thousands of ships out to explore the oceans of the world and set up colonies in distant (occupied) lands on earth. They're going to see about sending thousands of people into space and colonizing that before anyone else does. Then once everyone else does get up there, you already hold the "prime real estate" so their undertakings will be that much more expensive, and potentially also result in their purchasing of resources and expertise you've developed in the interim. Even better, since you've potentially developed your "space infrastructure" already by that point, they're going to have a VERY hard time trying to compete with you while you're potentially able to start exploiting a near exponential growth curve on your own space manufacturing capabilities.

They're not wanting a war, what they're doing is trying to keep the lid on domestic unrest for the time being until the other nations of the world realize there is a new space race underway, at which point they can rally their people around that objective. NASA's a shadow of its former self, as is just about every other national space program out there at this point. SpaceX and BlueOrigin don't have the resources to compete against the national treasury of China. Heck, the United States Government would have to make some hard choices in order to try to compete with China's treasury at the moment.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 03:16:56 PM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2017, 03:58:19 PM »
DJ, your concern about "them" overbreeding compared with "us" is an old one. It was a serious concern in English aristocratic circles around the turn of the century, for instance, and there was much talk of how to go about curtailing the lower classes from breeding out of the fear that eventually the upper classes would simply be overwhelmed. The discussion even went in the direction of eugenics and sterilization, which incidentally was never put into practice in the UK even though it actually was in the U.S.! The result of all this talk (and in the case of America of what little action they put into practice) was precisely...nothing. There was actually no reality to the scared elite worrying about their inferiors overwhelming them numerically. Not only was their premise numerically faulty, but it also belied an incorrect understanding of how the class division comes about and is maintained. They treated it like the upper classes and the lower classes were different genetic strains competing with each other, whereas in fact the 'economics' of how different social strata emerge have nothing to do with the literal tribal size of each. Maybe 50,000 years ago it did, but not now.

I won't even address the issue of whether you can plausibly group "religious" groups together as if they are some kind of united front, or whether it's plausible to discuss them as if they're political/social opponents vying for public space, or whether it even makes sense to describe their membership as being governed entirely by their birthrate, as if they're the Borg and create new drones at a rapid rate that will eventually engulf everything around them. That entire set of difficulties is beyond the scope of this thread to address, but I'll just mention that they're there and don't seem to be part of your premise.

I just wanted to point out what I mentioned first, which is that the concern you're expressing is a variant of an old-school aristocratic concern about being defeated by one's inferiors by the numbers game rather than in the intellectual forum. Maybe the better course would be to find some way of viewing these people other than as supposed opponents that need defeating. The left/right politics is best left out of how we see each other as people, especially in terms of the different cultures that co-exist within America. It may be the current fashion to highlight everyone's differences and to pronounce how little people have in common, but I think the better way is to try to stop seeing people who are different as being "them" and as being obstacles to achieving uniformity of opinion. Uniformity isn't always a good thing!
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 04:02:53 PM by Fenring »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2017, 04:06:26 PM »
The discussion even went in the direction of eugenics and sterilization, which incidentally was never put into practice in the UK even though it actually was in the U.S.! The result of all this talk (and in the case of America of what little action they put into practice) was precisely...nothing. There was actually no reality to the scared elite worrying about their inferiors overwhelming them numerically. Not only was their premise numerically faulty, but it also belied an incorrect understanding of how the class division comes about and is maintained. They treated it like the upper classes and the lower classes were different genetic strains competing with each other, whereas in fact the 'economics' of how different social strata emerge have nothing to do with the literal tribal size of each. Maybe 50,000 years ago it did, but not now.

Two things, you're forgetting Nazi Germany, although obviously, they weren't the UK or the United States. They DID implement those eugenics programs that the Americans and Brits were only talking about.

As to implementation in the United States. Arguably, it can be claimed that effort is still ongoing, considering some of the prominent people credited with the creation of Planned Parenthood incidentally were often vocal proponents of Eugenics efforts prior to such things becoming uncouth to speak about openly in public after WW2.

As to "the economic validity" of their position. Perspective helps on this, and 50,000 years ago is overly optimistic, and simplistic. Really, the 19th Century was the "tipping point" where mobility became easily available to the wealthy and the commoner alike, both in terms of moving their physical person, as well as the transportation of physical goods.  Which isn't even to reliable mention communication over great distances. Prior to the 19th Century they were essentially correct, but the Steam engine, and subsequently, the internal combustion engine, changed "the economics of geography" to such a point that WHO started to matter less than the WHAT.

So for later 19th Century types, it was a valid enough position to stake, as the full extent of the paradigm shift they'd experienced over that century hadn't yet begun to fully register for them, never mind anyone else. Now the KKK members who were still spouting that stuff during the 1950's and 1960's....
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 04:12:39 PM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2017, 04:25:50 PM »
As to "the economic validity" of their position. Perspective helps on this, and 50,000 years ago is overly optimistic, and simplistic. Really, the 19th Century was the "tipping point" where mobility became easily available to the wealthy and the commoner alike, both in terms of moving their physical person, as well as the transportation of physical goods.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing, but just to clarify, I was addressing the issue of whether economic classes were determined based on the quantity of population each had on their side. By 'economics' I refer to how each ends up on their respective side in the class struggle. To argue that greater numbers 'wins' the class war is essentially to speak of revolution, violent or otherwise. But even as recently as the late 1700's we can easily see that social revolutions come about as a result of shifting economic power, not of numerically defeating the other side in population size. And the shifting power, in turn, is almost certainly a result of technology and the capability of merchants and bankers to accumulate enough power to contest the wealth of the hereditary aristocrats. Regardless of the minutiae here, my point is that to speak of being overtaken by the lower classes (or in this case, religious classes) as a result of population growth from birth rate is probably something that has been irrelevant for a LONG time. Maybe in competing tribes thousands of years ago whichever had more babies would 'win' but recorded history seems to suggest that victory comes through other means.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2017, 04:44:13 PM »
As to "the economic validity" of their position. Perspective helps on this, and 50,000 years ago is overly optimistic, and simplistic. Really, the 19th Century was the "tipping point" where mobility became easily available to the wealthy and the commoner alike, both in terms of moving their physical person, as well as the transportation of physical goods.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing, but just to clarify, I was addressing the issue of whether economic classes were determined based on the quantity of population each had on their side. By 'economics' I refer to how each ends up on their respective side in the class struggle. To argue that greater numbers 'wins' the class war is essentially to speak of revolution, violent or otherwise. But even as recently as the late 1700's we can easily see that social revolutions come about as a result of shifting economic power, not of numerically defeating the other side in population size. And the shifting power, in turn, is almost certainly a result of technology and the capability of merchants and bankers to accumulate enough power to contest the wealth of the hereditary aristocrats. Regardless of the minutiae here, my point is that to speak of being overtaken by the lower classes (or in this case, religious classes) as a result of population growth from birth rate is probably something that has been irrelevant for a LONG time. Maybe in competing tribes thousands of years ago whichever had more babies would 'win' but recorded history seems to suggest that victory comes through other means.

The first thing that decides who attains that "higher/highest tier" of society has a lot to do with access. The "Age of Sail" helped Europe considerably in that regard during the 15th Century onward. They were the most mobile, and thus they were the most prosperous. In the 19th Century, things turned to industry, and the Steam Engine gained a foothold in transportation and further increased the mobility(and by extension, access) of the Europeans. (however, it doesn't exclusively apply to mode of transportation, it also applies to goods and services, raw materials, etc.)

The second thing that decides outcomes in an area is weaponry, having the most advanced weaponry in the world does you no good if you have no access to where you need that weaponry to be. Which brings us to the next tier..

The third decisive item is population. All the access in the world does you no good if you cannot get anyone to go somewhere long enough to achieve anything. The more people you have available, the more likely you are to have the confluence of the appropriate skill sets and available bodies to make things happen. (Keep in mind, this also can, in some circumstances, result in Population trumping both Weaponry and Access. An entrenched population of sufficient size is going to present a difficult obstacle to overcome for any foe, regardless of how good their access is(vs population) or how good their weaponry is(again, vs population). The Korean War and the Iran - Iraq War of the 1980's provide examples of this, as do a number of other conflicts as well. "Human Waves" are often hard to overcome even with the equipment to do so. For that matter, Ghandhi also demonstrated this after a fashion, albeit not in warfare, his battlefield was economic and political rather than militaristic in nature. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2017, 05:51:57 PM »
TheDeamon,

I sort of thought you were thinking along the lines of nation vs nation and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the division amongst the classes within a given nation. The size of the population within a nation is more or less a wash in terms of how the social strata fall into place. The internal divisions have more to do with hereditary wealth, control of resources, and control/access to the money supply. Having a ton of children doesn't give a poor family any more access or ownership of the means of production, nor does the aggregate amount of children help an entire class, unless that class literally rises up and combats the aristocracy. So in terms of literal class warfare numbers could help, and yet I've so far never heard of a historical case where the aristocrats were overturned due to the literal superior numbers of the poor attacking them and winning militarily. The poor generally already have superior numbers and so their quantity of children isn't what tilts the scales in their favor.

In terms of internal divisions within a nation, the quantity of one vs the other is usually irrelevant. Jim Crow in the South wasn't going to win or lose in the mid 20th century based on whether they were outbreeding the North or not. The cultural shift and giant trends favoring the 'victory' of an ideology in our age have nothing to do with birthrate. The current wins being enjoyed by the left in areas like gay marriage can certainly not be attributed to the fact that gay people are outbreeding straight people! And this alone should be a good case in point why comparing birth rate is irrelevant to whether a cultural/ideological movement will gain traction or vanish in the modern world. Information flow is so quick now that the breeding of ideas is where the real money is. Defeating a 'competing culture' (even if we admit that such competition really exists) has literally nothing to do with whether that culture has more babies than you.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2017, 10:36:20 PM »
I sort of thought you were thinking along the lines of nation vs nation and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the division amongst the classes within a given nation. The size of the population within a nation is more or less a wash in terms of how the social strata fall into place. The internal divisions have more to do with hereditary wealth, control of resources, and control/access to the money supply. Having a ton of children doesn't give a poor family any more access or ownership of the means of production, nor does the aggregate amount of children help an entire class, unless that class literally rises up and combats the aristocracy. So in terms of literal class warfare numbers could help, and yet I've so far never heard of a historical case where the aristocrats were overturned due to the literal superior numbers of the poor attacking them and winning militarily. The poor generally already have superior numbers and so their quantity of children isn't what tilts the scales in their favor.

Broadly speaking, it's nation vs nation. But you're also ignoring the scope of history in that regard. Large nations were comparatively rare historically, and generally fairly short lived(because of access). It isn't an accident that the prime examples of larger more sustained cultural amalgamations tending to develop, and sustain themselves, along coastal regions and river systems, as water helped in the transportation of goods(or troops and people).

That comparative geographic isolation also tended to result in homogenization of the populations while also allowing some differentiation to have occurred between each isolated area.  Which then gives you the "racial differentiation" as well as the cultural influences/developments that are even more common.  In other words, historically, "national norms" were "racial/ethnic norms" so if the nation was doing well, then so was that particular racial/ethnic group.

You then layer in differences in materials and knowledge(/expertise/cultural mores) available in those areas, and you create scenarios where a society with access to bronze trumps one still using stones, but still falls to one that has progressed to iron or even early forms of steel. But it isn't just the weaponry, the farmer with a set of iron tools is likely to enjoy more productivity(and longer lasting tools--less time repairing/replacing them) than the guy with softer metals, or worse, the one still using stone implements. Likewise, that guy with an iron plow circa 1780 is going to look like a bumpkin compared to the a farm tractor from 1910, never mind 1940, 1980, or the monsters out there today.

However, from a less distanced perspective, a more casual observer would simply see that "Hey, the people in ____ are using steel tools while the people in ____ are using stones, or aren't even bothering with anything we recognize as agriculture/insert_thing_here."

This would have become particularly pronounced in the 19th century with industrialized nations, now often with steam ships at that, able to fairly reliably transport even "common people" over great distances over in ever shortening periods of time. (Although for the true commoner, it was either a one way trip, or a trip where the return leg would happen years later) But they'd still be coming from a place with all kinds of access, as well as the means to pay for things, and traveling to places that only recently obtained any meaningful form of access(and not by their own means at that), which also often translated into lack of ability to pay for things(so the access doesn't do much for them).

But the thing is, in the interim, it created a weird place where even the lowest of the (skilled) commoners venturing out into a new colonial(or frontier in the US) venture were in a different "class" altogether from the native populations they were often displacing. Which in turn perpetuated the racial/national image of "their kind" being "preeminent among mankind." This displacement of power via population thing goes a step further however: The United States itself is something of a poster child of this, it's basically exactly what the European colonists did to the Native Americans. It is almost exactly what happened in Haiti(Although there were some other circumstances in play there). It also is the story of almost every failed(or struggling as the 19th Century) European Colonial venture that existed, aside from the ones that just simply were inhospitable in the first place.

Basically, if there was a significant "native" population present, and colonization efforts failed to attain any kind of "significant ratio" for whatever reason, the venture failed. In the 19th Century, they probably weren't looking too hard at the economics of it(particularly when it presented arguments counter to their own agendas), they were more interested in the politics of it. And in the political sphere, there was an easy thing to point at, and that was the population disparities. Far easier to blame the failures of the hard working colonists on their simply being outnumbered by hundreds of thousands of godless(or at least, not Christian) savages rather than something else. So the "they're going to out breed us, then displace us" rhetoric fits within the agendas and views of many people in the time.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2017, 09:55:17 AM »
TheDeamon,

I have no idea what your reply was meant to rebut. I don't think you're talking about the same subject matter that I am. That's fine, although additionally I don't see how your point relates to OP.

Instead of looking at relative geographical location, technology, colonization efforts, etc, take a single nation, like England or France, and look at how the relative classes there evolved as a result of the political system (monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republic, etc.) and the economic state of affairs. The level of technology does matter too, but only insofar as it allows some class to develop the means to produce income that wasn't available to it before, thus allowing it to shift the relative balance of power away from hereditary wealth and royal-assigned stations. OP is about certain elements within a populace overtaking the other segments of the society, not about conquest abroad or international trade.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Current populations
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2017, 04:34:57 PM »
Instead of looking at relative geographical location, technology, colonization efforts, etc, take a single nation, like England or France, and look at how the relative classes there evolved as a result of the political system (monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republic, etc.) and the economic state of affairs. The level of technology does matter too, but only insofar as it allows some class to develop the means to produce income that wasn't available to it before, thus allowing it to shift the relative balance of power away from hereditary wealth and royal-assigned stations. OP is about certain elements within a populace overtaking the other segments of the society, not about conquest abroad or international trade.

I was speaking to the historical context in which people 100 years ago would have been looking at it, which would be through the world view of conquest. In that respect, their views were simply reflections of their time, which was the start of waning days of colonialism just before the slope really started to drop down the other side as it were. If you consider the American Revolution the "peak" for colonialism, then you could say they were essentially on a roller coaster and they were approaching the end of the relatively flat curve at the top of the first ramp starting to peer over the drop ahead while waiting for the rest of the train to clear the incline behind them.