Thats a fair point. I would suppose that mass consumerism has at its core the feeling of "lacking" or "not enough". It must have a cause, and the effect is the need to then fill that void. Especislly when there is clearly no need for it, and in some cases, physically destructive. When considering the waste produced it make one wonder why when demand when met, supply isnt then stopped.

I suppose it could be argued that the times were different and therefore the mortality of it wasnt questioned. That or those who approved of such things had the capacity, and the persuasion to encourage it. I would say all opinions should be considered otherwise there is no room for growth.

The reality is that there are couples who married who "get tired" of having sex; much as there are notable men and women historically, who in practice may have never married, and actually found other endeavors, such as life, career or intellectual pursuits more satisfying (Newton and Adam Smith immediately come to mind). — IvoryBlackBishop

We are talking past each other. I am talking about society as a group, and you keep bringing up individual situations, of which there is of course and endless number. I don´t know what your mental block is, but you seem unable to look at the big picture.

And what's your point, and how would the number of birth rates have anything to do with it? Whether or not the USA's population number stayed the same, or dropped by 1/2, it would be a different "society" regardless. — IvoryBlackBishop

The birth rate is everything. A society with below replacement birth rates will disappear. And a society that replaces its population with an alien one will change into something different. I am just stating an obvious fact, not some hypothesis.

So hypothetically, if China lost 1 person per year, and assuming that the rate continued fixed at this with never fluctuating.

Then, China's population should be nonexisting in about... err... 2,000,000,000 years from now... lmao...

So hypothetically, if China lost 1 person per year, and assuming that the rate continued fixed at this with never fluctuating.

Then, China's population should be nonexisting in about... err... 2,000,000,000 years from now... lmao... — IvoryBlackBishop

I have no idea what you are prattling about. Can you write in comprehensible English?

How long will it actually take, in theory, for the population of China, India, Europe, etc to disappear, assuming that it "stays" at whatever birth rate your referencing ad infinitum, and doesn't fluctuate at all, which I believe is very unlikely to happen in practice, as opposed to abstract theory.

How long will it actually take, in theory, for the population of China, India, Europe, etc to disappear, assuming that it "stays" at whatever birth rate your referencing ad infinitum, and doesn't fluctuate at all, which I believe is very unlikely to happen in practice, as opposed to abstract theory. — IvoryBlackBishop

Couple of generations, depending on how low the birthrate actually is, You really should familiarize yourself with some basic demographic facts.

But problems begin way before that, with a decreasing young population having to support an increasing old population. Pension and medical systems get stretched to the breaking point. This is a very real life pressing concern in i,e, Italy and Japan. You seem to be blissfully unaware of that

Couple of generations, depending on how low the birthrate actually is, You really should familiarize yourself with some basic demographic facts.
[/quote]
How low "is" the birthrate actually, and likely to fluctuate.

You're talking about fantasy scenarios which simply aren't.

But problems begin way before that, with a decreasing young population having to support an increasing old population. Pension and medical systems get stretched to the breaking point. This is a very real life pressing concern in i,e, Italy and Japan. You seem to be blissfully unaware of that

And? How does that fit into the entire spectrum of spending, in theory and In practice?

How low "is" the birthrate actually, and likely to fluctuate.
You're talking about fantasy scenarios which simply aren't. — IvoryBlackBishop

You can look up the birth rates, for example 1.3 in Italy and 1.5 in Japan. This and the accompanying problems are very real.
As I said, demography is destiny.

You can look up the birth rates, for example 1.3 in Italy and 1.5 in Japan. This and the accompanying problems are very real.
[/quote]
And... how long would that take for the population to "disappear", assuming that it stays fixed at this rate and never fluctuates?

As I said, demography is destiny.

Still dodging the point as ever, I see?

And... how long would that take for the population to "disappear", assuming that it stays fixed at this rate and never fluctuates? — IvoryBlackBishop

It is a math question. It does not very long, and obviously society is drastically impacted long before the whole population actually "disappears". You can play around with an online population calculator like this, if you want: http://ilkkah.com/population-calculator/

I really do not know what your mental block is here. It is not like I am stating anything controversial.

It is a math question. It does not very long, and obviously society is drastically impacted long before the whole population actually "disappears". You can play around with an online population calculator like this, if you want: http://ilkkah.com/population-calculator/ — Nobeernolife

Either give me an estimate on how long, or please stop wasting time.

Plus this is assuming that it continues that way ad infinitum, when in reality that hasn't been the case historically.

Much as how "nationwide" or "global" population is just one of many ways of measuring things, and obviously doesn't take into account population within the context of smaller communities, and so on and so forth.

Either give me an estimate on how long, or please stop wasting time. Plus this is assuming that it continues that way ad infinitum, when in reality that hasn't been the case historically. — IvoryBlackBishop

Not infinitum; very rapidly indeed, seeing that human life span is about 80 years. And yes, this has been happening before, and is happening now. Use the calculator site that I referenced to see how the math works out.

Much as how "nationwide" or "global" population is just one of many ways of measuring things, and obviously doesn't take into account population within the context of smaller communities, and so on and so forth. — IvoryBlackBishop

What the heck are you talking about? For better or worse, we live in nation states, and the national birthrate determines what happens to them. And yes, of course, there are differences between communities; i.e. the orthodox Jews in Israel with their massive birth rates produce the children that the secular Jews do not produce, In the same way that muslim immigrants produce the children in Europe that the native Europeans do not produce, which will turn Europe into an islamic continent within the century.

Of course things can change, but if you bet on that you would have to explain why you expect change.

What the heck are you talking about? For better or worse, we live in nation states, and the national birthrate determines what happens to them. And yes, of course, there are differences between communities; i.e. the orthodox Jews in Israel with their massive birth rates produce the children that the secular Jews do not produce, In the same way that muslim immigrants produce the children in Europe that the native Europeans do not produce,

Which will turn Europe into an islamic continent within the century

Prove this please. What you're saying is fallacious, and it's just one of potentially many ways of measuring or framing demographics and trends.

If your equating birth rates with turning into an "Islamic" or any other continent, this is fallacious, for example, India used to be a "British" territory, despite people of Indian descent being the "majority" demographic.

Much as how high-level scientists or engineers, or people with such as level of intelligence (e.x. Bill Gates) are a statistical "minority" as well, but this hasn't stopped you from using or buying their computers.

So you haven't substantiated your conclusion, much as the reality is that in times past where infant mortality rate was higher than today, people tended to have more children, partly for this or other pragmatic reasons.

Prove this please. What you're saying is fallacious, and it's just one of potentially many ways of measuring or framing demographics and trends. — IvoryBlackBishop

It is simple and obvious demographics (below replacement birth rates by one group vs astronomic birth rates by another), and is not exactly a secret. I.e. the official statistics bureau of the German goverment admits this.
By the way, have you ever wondered, why "Mohammed" is today the most frequent name for new born boys in both the UK, France, and Sweden? How do you think that happened?

If your equating birth rates with turning into an "Islamic" or any other continent, this is fallacious, for example, India used to be a "British" territory, despite people of Indian descent being the "majority" demographic. — IvoryBlackBishop

I do not know what your argument is here, and neither do you apparently. India was British colony, yes, but what does that have to do with birth rates? A more relevant example would be how e.g. the population of Kosovo turned from Greek Orthodox to muslim. Hint: Not by mass conversion.

I haven't found anything akin to an "one-size fits all" view, howevr here are some of the aggregate views and "wisdom of the crowd" on the subject. — IvoryBlackBishop

What is the question you're seeking an answer to? How would you put it, exactly?

It seems perhaps you're trying to answer a question like this one: "Which is the best sort of sexual practice for all people in all times and places: strict monogamy, strict polygamy, or unregulated promiscuity?"

Is there some reason to expect that there is a "one-size fits all" answer to your question?


Your discussion seems perhaps to overlook the fact that many people in formal monogamous relationships (within and without the institution of marriage) are more or less promiscuous beyond the formal boundaries of their monogamous relationship. Perhaps we should treat this as a sort of hybrid case. Likewise, there is another sort of hybrid case in which people in formal polygamous relationships are more or less promiscuous beyond the formal boundaries of their polygamous relationships.

In some cases one member of a formal monogamous relationship has one or more additional stable and committed long-term sexual relationships. In at least some such cases, we might count this as a sort of hybrid of monogamy and polygamy. In at least some of those cases, one or more members of this web of relationships is also promiscuous beyond the boundaries of the web.

We might further distinguish all those hybrid cases I've mentioned into those in which the "external" relationships occur with the knowledge and consent of all parties to the formal (monogamous, polygamous, or hybrid monogamous-polygamous) relationship; and those in which the "external" promiscuity occurs without the knowledge and consent of all parties to the formal (monogamous, polygamous, or hybrid monogamous-polygamous) relationship.


I see no reason to suppose that any one of these arrangements is best for all people at all times in all circumstances. It's quite common, and potentially healthy and satisfying, for people to go through periods of promiscuity, monogamy, and abstinence. Each of these lifestyle choices has potential benefits that may appeal to different people at different points in the course of life.

If you're not sure which might be best for you, why not give them each a try until you're satisfied?

From a moral point of view, matters of health, compassion, and consent are of central importance. Take precautions to avoid transmission of STDs. Take precautions not to abuse yourself or others. Avoid deceiving or misleading others: What are the norms and expectations involved in a monogamous or polygamous relationship? If you enter a such a relationship and break or change the rules without the knowledge and consent of all relevant parties, it's likely something's gone wrong.

The commitment you make by entering some forms of relationship, exemplified by marriage, should also count for something. That's one reason it may be advisable to get some experience in sexual relationships, including long-term monogamous relationships, before you make the most serious and durable commitments.

At the same time, "hooking up" is something of an adolescent rite of passage for young men and women (ideally with the notion that they will eventually 'mature' into a serious, adult relationship), and the other extreme, such as advocating strict virginity or abstinence until marriage would come across as 19th century Victorian puritanism. — IvoryBlackBishop

Promiscuous sexual exploration is something like a rite of passage, or at any rate a valuable life experience, for many people in a wide range of cultural contexts. That doesn't mean that it's necessary or preferable for all people in all times and places.

I'm not sure how you could do better than to use your own judgment about what's right for you in such matters. As we've each suggested at the outset, there is no reason to suppose there is a single "correct" custom, decision, or practice along these lines.

Of course, using good judgment requires you to understand your circumstances. If it's common in your neck of the woods for fathers, uncles, or cousins to stuff you in an oven if they suspect you of promiscuity, that might give you an incentive to refrain from such activity. Of course I find such practices, and the attitudes that accompany such practices, absolutely abominable.

Likewise, other conflicting views on the topic exist - for example, if one were to pursue "hooking up" as a lifestyle choice, many would object to this, claiming that it is "using" each other, or often more specifically a woman. — IvoryBlackBishop

There's no reason to assume that people who "hook up" are just "using each other". Sometimes people hook up and treat each other like tools for sexual gratification and ego-inflation. Other times people hook up and treat each other with genuine affection and care. It seems to me the attitude, emotion, and intention you bring to the exchange is what counts in this regard.

I agree with your suggestion: It seems sexist and confused to suppose that women are not or should not be promiscuous like men, or to suppose that women do not "use" men like men "use" women.

It is simple and obvious demographics (below replacement birth rates by one group vs astronomic birth rates by another), and is not exactly a secret. I.e. the official statistics bureau of the German goverment admits this.
By the way, have you ever wondered, why "Mohammed" is today the most frequent name for new born boys in both the UK, France, and Sweden? How do you think that happened?
[/quote]
And this matters... why exactly?

"Most people" who go to college only have a bare minimum bachelor's degree education tailored primarily for the IQ 100 demographic to begin with; why would a demographic in regards to "most people" have any bearing on the intellectual achievements of, say a high-level scientist or inventor with an IQ of 150?

"Most people" are not computer programmers or scientists; Bill Gates is an entrepreneur who made a fortune through innovation in the computer industry; in some cases, being a "minority" demographic in one (non-mutually exclusive) area or another can potentially be an advantage or have" more influence" than being in the "majority".

I do not know what your argument is here, and neither do you apparently. India was British colony, yes, but what does that have to do with birth rates? A more relevant example would be how e.g. the population of Kosovo turned from Greek Orthodox to muslim. Hint: Not by mass conversion.

Your point fails, and defining the "nation" on the basis of ethnic traits, based solely on one of potentially infinite ways of "framing" or measuring the population demographics on the bases of to begin with is fallacious.

Obviously, for example, "population or ethnicity" did not affect whether or not India was a "British colony:, much as how "whites" or "European people" are a "minority worldwide" anyway, compared to India and China, but this isn't automatically "bad", nor does it in anyway detract from whatever political or economic prowess Americans or Europeans are presumed to have.