Paul Morland: The depopulation bomb | The Brendan O’Neill Show
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Demographer Paul Morland joins The Brendan O’Neill Show this week to talk about his new book, No One Left. Paul and Brendan discuss how the world is sleepwalking into demographic catastrophe, the culture war against the family and why immigration alone can’t solve our population crisis.
Order Brendan O’Neill’s A Heretic’s Manifesto now from:
🇬🇧 📕 Amazon UK:
www.amazon.co....
🇺🇸 📕 Amazon US:
www.amazon.com...
Support spiked:
www.spiked-onl...
Sign up to spiked’s newsletters:
www.spiked-onl...
There is a progressive fallacy that was hinted at here. It goes: In the past things worked out, therefore things will work out. Mechanization destroyed agricultural jobs, but at the same time factories pulled in farm hands and employed them. Then, the rise of the service industries created jobs while industry went overseas and domestic jobs were lost. All true, but that does not say anything about what happens next. In the US, there are millions of men who aren't even looking for work, and aren't counted on the unemployment rolls. Not everyone can 'learn to code' and change careers in middle age, and young men who would have been fit for factory jobs now have nowhere to go. So something new is going to come along to suit such men for employment? Just what is it? No one ever says. AI certainly offers them nothing. A man suited to be a lathe operator in a machine shop isn't going to become a systems engineer. A major fraction of out population has been professionally kneecapped, and just can't provide for children, much less have several. In this matter, optimism is folly.
We're all going to become "influencers".
Despite what was discussed, I still think AI may save the day in this respect. Soon a systems engineer won't be able to find a job as a systems engineer. The IT guy and the ex-lather operator can shift to the jobs only humans can do well, such as care work.
We can't afford kids were too busy paying for foreigners to have a free easy life!
🎯
Korea has no immigration no kids
And mass immigration won't help at all.
That was always just a bad argument from those who want to destroy Europe anyway.
He was bought up in Wembley, that's were I worked and met my partner. He is correct about the demographic change. It happened in the 1980's.
How about reducing the proportion of elderly? They are quite expensive to maintain.
It’s not a mystery, I’m a woman, I now have a choice about whether to be a parent and I decided not to for many reasons, like many, many, many other women. No incentives will change my mind although I do agree that anyone who does have kids should get more help/tax breaks.
This guy is so arrogant though and the type that only ever cares about what his kids have achieved instead of whether they’re decent people or not.
Bet his wife did most of the domestic and childcare work, and he's sanguine about his daughter's missed career opportunities compared with his son-in-laws.
@@annal2740 @LadyMarigoldWithers If he does most of the earn8ng then when did that stop being a fair partnership?
His daughters work, in part because of good maternity pay policies which he's a strong advocate of.
From what I can tell he takes more care that his children aren't presumtuously judgemental than your parents did.
@@GodsOwnPrototype Well, they did a better job teaching me spelling and grammar than your parents did.
I’m one of ten children, my dad was also one of ten (yes, we were Catholic). My paternal grandmother had 52 grandchildren, my own mum only 18.
I and my siblings all went to state schools, the 18 grandchildren were all privately educated. We never went on holiday but lived in a large house and my dad ran a successful business.
My mum was a district nurse and midwife when she married but, after having her 2nd child, became a full time housewife, cooking 2 meals every day, doing all her own washing, cleaning and even decorating.
Surely the fact that both parents now have to earn a wage to afford to own and maintain a decent house and lifestyle is a major factor in their having fewer children?
Granted, parents want to provide their children with ‘more’ and ‘better’ than previous generations, but I fail to see how any woman could have a large family and also work outside the home?
And cheaper ‘childcare’ is not the answer. Why would any woman want to have lots of children if she didn’t want to make looking after them (personally) her main role in life?
@@belson65 The country was in one hell of a mess before Maggie and she increased home ownership?
@janewatson8108 she increased home ownership but the rebound from that is that she caused an increase in homelessness and now her policies have led to people who work can no longer buy a house. If she had allowed councils to replace houses sold with new ones those bad effects would be nullified. Though that would mean that those that own wouldn't own a house that more than quadrupled in value and the rich landlords wouldn't be able to charge such extreme high rents. Thatcher did more harm than good..
Why does the woman need to be the housewife? Why can’t both men and women work less outside the home and both take care of their own children equally?
@@rosa9865 it’s a pretty unusual woman who doesn’t want to look after her own babies?
@@janewatson8108 why wouldn’t a man want to look after his own children?
Edit
What exactly is unfair about a new model where both men and women work less, equal and flexible hours so both men and women can take equally care over their own children? Why should the burden of childraising be solely on the woman? Why do women have to choose between career/ job and men don’t?
I wouldn’t want to live in a world where I can’t go to a female doctor or therapist. I don’t want to live in a world where basically all the politicians, scientists, etc are men. I don’t want to have children if that means my daughters only hopes, aspirations and ambitions should be motherhood and being a wive, leaving her extremely vulnerable for abuse.
I also see no issue with letting the human race die out. Why exactly does generation after generation of humans need to exist? Like what exactly is the end goal here?
Gee, this guy certainly has tickets on himself. We need to brush aside too much self congratulatory BS to get to any ideas.
I thought that 😂
Yes a bit, although it did establish his credentials on the topic & give some recent historical context.
The alternative to eugenics is dysgenics, and we can all see how that's turning out.
Glad i`m old and it won`t hit the fan till after i`ve carked it
I can say in the last week I saw two women, both with 5 children and one woman was obviously pregnant. They both were white and maybe around 30 at the most. It's totally great for some women to have as many as they want to handle and other women to have cats.
Infinity Moes isn’t going to solve the problem and bring a fair few worse ones with them
I thought this was Edward Dutton!
While I admire the positivity and optimism of both commentators, the impact on ecosystems/mammals/marinelife/insects will throw our environment into chaos. Regardless of climate change, the more humankind wins the more nature loses. Living in endless swathes of suburban wasteland as a wage slave with very little nature to enjoy doesn't sound like much fun to me. We are seeing John Calhoun's "behavioral sink" play out in real time.
Yes. Conservation is vital, but the eco-fanatics seem to desperately want the Thanos snap. The world's population is predicted to reach a peak of 10 billion by 2100.
"Working as a business consultant".:):):)
Demographic Transition Model.
90s A-Level Geography intensifies.
An hour long discussion about depopulation and not once did they mention the main cause of depopulation. Feminism.
It's not feminism per se. Iran is hardly feminist and yet their fertility has been low for a decade. Iran however does have a massively educated female population. That's the real culprit. The moment women enroll in higher education your fertility collapses.
It's a lack of existential imperitive, for most people that comes from grinding poverty which we've thankfully massively reduced - what we have is an evolutionary bottleneck to adjust for historically relative material wealth & security, which will balance out in 3 or 4 generations.
Rather extraordinary to listen to two men talk for an hour and not mention the people who do the bulk of the work of making babies: women. Apart from anything else, if we're going to make it near impossible for couples to survive on one income, we seem to be condemning women to doing two jobs - one outside the home and one in it. Studies show that women are still doing most of the domestic and childcare labour. If we want women to have more children, then men are going to have to step up. We'll need more feminism, not less. More free childcare, more flexible working policies, more maternity benefits. We need company structures that don't penalise women for taking time off to have a child, and reward men for not bothering. But hey, guys, don't mention any of that and just opine about 'people' having more children.
Just pay women to stay home and have kids. I'm all in favor of that. Let the state pay homemakers a full income.