bebotalk

they are far from egalitarian and won't be anywhere near that of Western levels anytime soon, and perhaps ever. however, fertility rates have been falling even before some recent reforms in the Middle East. Why do fewer people mean more innovation? Movies are art. Art doesn't depend on a big population for innovation.

A Westerner could live in a big Indian city without much issue. They'd get a job, providing they are a professional, with ease and there would generally be the same conveniences that exist in a large Western city. Rural India might be different, though i doubt the culture shock would be massive.

People are too blaze about AI's impact. Granted, a Terminator-esque scenario isn't likely. This doesn't mean that the ramifications of such cannot be accounted for. Or that we've never before created technology that can literally think for itself. People compare it to nuclear weapons. Yes, they are destructive but they've only ever been used twice in warfare and require human actions to launch. It's not the same imho.

I don't see the connection. There would have to be a mass disaster for the population to fall to those levels. And even with lower fertility/birth rates, it would take a long time for that to come to pass.

I think so, yes. She is just doing what he did. It fits imho with established content culture. ANd he'd have little right to complain.

Where did you learn this from? It depends on various factors, whether personal or cultural. Or situational. Some people don't like to be touched. Others don't mind. Others find it too impersonal. Depending on her own sensibiltiies, it's difficult to say in any broad or absolute sense that this can symbolise friendship.

For me, it's pretty simple. People are healthier and richer. It could be feminism or its perceived negative effects. I'm sceptical over claims that feminism is causing this, as whilst in the West women's rights are strong, there are hardly many female business leaders in the Middle East, India, or much of Asia. Women's rights are hardly entrenched there, but they too are reporting fertility/birth rate decreases. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JOR/jordan/birth-rate Jordan hardly has positive women's rights. But the incentives to have kids aren't as pressing. People were worse off a century ago but they still had more kids. For most of human history, birth rates were high due to higher child mortality and heightened poverty. Having lots of kids meant that on average more survived to adulthood, and could help the family with chores and overall tasks. More people working also meant more finances and this was important in agrarian societies. There was also no birth control, so the chance of pregnancy was high anytime a couple had sex. As people today, compared to 200 years ago, are healthier, have access to contraception, and are wealthier with less need for children as insurance, birth rates are falling. I'm no sociologist or economist, but I think it has to be deemed a factor here. Even in developing countries, people are more urbanised, and thus living on a farm or a rural village is lessened. This means then that due to increased urbanisation, there is less need to have six or more children helping extended family tend crops on family-owned fields. One thing that rich and poor countries have in common is rising average life expectancies, access to contraception, growth in incomes and living standards, and increased urbanisation.

Why would Earth be the only planet to produce humanoids? Furthermore, there's no reason why sapient life needs to be humanoid. Sapience is just the capacity to reason, question, have self-awareness, and contemplate. Is the development of tools required for this? who knows? It may not be an absolute requirement for all sapient life to evolve in the universe or multiverses, or parallel dimensions should multiverses or parallel universes exist. Maybe on some planet somewhere in the Milky Way, there is a species that resembles bottlenosed dolphins and lives in an ocean but is sapient. Maybe they faced millions of years of having to problem-solve by way of evading predators that they eventually became self-aware, overcame and defeated their predators, and were the dominant sapient species on their planet. As an aquatic species, they couldn't invent fire or use rocks as tools as hominids did on Earth. There is no feasible reason why bacteria or similar microorganisms couldn't be sapient. On Earth, this isn't known but it doesn't mean it's universal.

A refugee can be anybody. To assume they are necessarily bad people is cringe and irrational. People should pressure Scholz or Merkel when she was in office as to why refugees are being treated so leniently in the justice system.

Whoever wrote this is pretty unschooled in terms of contemporary geopolitics and trends. S/he is stuck in 19th-century thinking. Most migrants in the West at least since WW2 have been the "bad" economic migrants they mention. Economic pioneers as they put it don't exist - at least in the sense of German immigrants moving to the Midwest of the USA in the mid-19th century to create hamburgers, or people off the Netflix show Outlander. There aren't as many "wildernesses" out there left to conquer and tame, as there were back then. It has been governments in Europe and North America that have actively encouraged immigration, due to labour shortages amongst other reasons. This pattern has been true of Britain, France, Germany, the USA, Canada, etc. for decades. Many economic migrants have and do integrate - they learn the language and follow the general culture of the host country. Whilst there is some ghettoisation, this often comes from states that have poor integration policies. Moreover, people are free to live as they choose, generally, in liberal democracies. So if people wish to live in isolated communities, then that's their right. It's a black-and-white thing to say they are "bad" for doing so. Who can stop them, without violating the rights that are central to such countries' existence and morals? Economic migrants have contributed positively to various countries. This includes national cuisines - why is pizza big in the USA? Because Italians moved to big US cities such as NYC and settled. Curry is big in the UK for the same reason. Moreover, people within countries migrate to richer regions. Are they just as "bad"? If an ambitious person from rural Alabama moves to Atlanta, or NYC, or LA, is s/he "bad" since there are more opportunities in said cities? I'm sure such a thing, such as moving from the South to the West or New England, is common. The person admits this is a human thing - so then what's the issue? why deny people greater opportunities in other regions? Raising birth rates is possible, but the effects of such will take years or even decades to accomplish. We don't even know why birth rates are falling, and it's a global phenomenon. Blaming "feminism" or it is an easy and ideologically-driven way out. I suggest with this person, it's more of the latter. This person fails to recognise that birth rates and fertility rates are falling in countries that hardly are adherents of feminist values. Iran and Saudi Arabia are prominent examples. A country that legally mandates women to wear hijabs is hardly a bastion of gender equality, is it? The same is true of education levels or skills shortages. It takes time to train doctors or other highly-qualified professionals. If there are dire economic conditions, then this time taken for training to be conducted and training to take effect leads to further negative macroeconomic states. This "post" is based on a very black-and-white and frankly antiquated rationale. It labels all immigrants as "bad" and lacks critical nuance, and is a view from an ivory tower. I get the suspicion that some American conservative wrote this - they often tend to be anachronistic and hold hard refusals to see real details or the bigger picture. I wonder if the person who wrote this piece knows economic migrants. If so, then they might note the nuances involved. I get the feeling that s/he is probably some white, middle-aged, American from the South or Mid-West who lives in a very white community and is outraged from a very conservative/GOP angle.

I don't get your question. the OP asked it, ask him what he means by "justify". I don't think it's acceptable personally to hate migrants, since they often are just people moving to another country for a better life in whichever way. Is that wrong? they're still people.

My point is that his views on migrants will be tainted by his overall ideology. Immigration is a complex issue, but he clearly has his own ideals in the mix. The OP assumes he is representative of what most black Americans think. It's not. Not more than the Grand Wizard of the KKK is representative of most white Americans. He's taken what some person with extreme views is saying without seeing the context behind his ideology or worldview. You seem to have issues in seeing context. Is English your first language?

Well, given his views, one has to question his motivations and intentions in highlighting migrants. All emotions have value, but this doesn't mean that all expressions of emotions are valid. The fact he is a black supremacist means that his views will be invariably tainted by his ideology, which I do not support or value.

Seems like some pap some American conservative wrote. Full of half-truths and mis-steps. Birth rates are falling globally. And in countries that are more religious than the West. And also way less feminist or egalitarian. The X user who wrote this badly-constructed prose should ask him/herself why birth rates are falling in much of Africa, the Middle-East, and other cultures that value gender equality. Such as in Iran or Sudan, for instance. It also ignores that rich countries often want people from poorer countries to migrate, to fill jobs that natives don't want to do.

Men and women aren't social constructs. So then any trait that limits reproduction should be curbed. Does this mean those with disabilities aren't good?

People often question their formative belief systems. That's really a standard part of maturity, in psychological and emotional terms.

Which truth do they side with?

It's not justifiable to hate migrants. If people have issues with migrants, then blame governments. They allow migrants in, and formulate and implement policies on how to handle them.

Empty PR. Maybe he should stop smoking cigars, drinking booze and running Webcam porn businesses if he wants Islamic kudos.

I disagree. people often question what they're taught. Humans are not automatons. There are many Americans who were raised as politically conservative but ventured into other ideologies.

I said I conditioned myself. This is how people form views, from experience and reflection. If a person says they don't like Margherita pizza, then it's by experience and tasting. You assume and presume it's due to red pill or manosphere spaces, which is comical. Since it's entirely baseless and only on your own internal reasoning with nothing to support it. Conditioning means being socially influenced or pressured to believe a given thing. This isn't the case. As for making assumptions, they're not inherently bad. If it's based on some logic, reason, and induction, it's perfectly valid. Tigers are predators and aggressive, so it's safe to assume this will continue to be the case in the future. If a person sees a tiger in a forest in 2100 AD, then unless there is a massive evolution in decades to come, tigers then most likely be the same. The same is true of pretty women since human nature hasn't truly ever changed. People will still value looks, and those who are recipients of privilege and adulation will absorb it. So such a presumption, as it's inductive, is valid. There is the "problem of induction", but we exist as a species via inductive logic. Why then assume that if one sees a dark cloud and haze falling from it in the distance, which is moving closer to one's location by the second, it will rain soon? I reveal i have some dark thoughts. It's foolish to presume one is perfect. Are you perfect in everything you say and do? Spiritualist peple often have these idealistic and unrealistic parameters of life.

Judgment doesn't imply a value or moral appraisal.

GB News is the UK's Fox News. They have an agenda in their programming.

Nearly half of all habitatle land on Earth is used for agriculture. With more people, then more land is required. This puts pressure on habitats and land for other uses. Whilst the urban land use total might be low, people still need food. https://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/article/half-of-the-worlds-habitable-land-is-used-for-agriculture

This person is a racist black supremacist. So he has his own angle in the vid and his rhetoric here.