partial_accumen

So what happens if you let the elderly fall off that cliff? How will society look then?

The elderly will starve to death or die from neglect significantly shortening their lives. That’s the physical effects. I can’t imagine the psychological effect of middle aged adult sacrificing everything to try to keep their extended family alive and having to choose who gets to eat or get care. Alternatively, the government has to make these choices, but the result is the same. This most of an entire generation will die in poverty, or malnourished, or from neglect.

Do you just not understand how governments and societies work to feed and care for their elderly?

Moron.

Yep, we’re done talking when you can’t use adult words anymore and your resort to name calling. People that do what you’re doing don’t usually do it to one person. I looked at your post history and see you’re toxic in many of your conversations frequently resorting to name calling when someone disagrees with you. This is especially true when someone is correcting your uninformed opinions. You do you, I suppose, but I won’t see it anymore you’ll be doing it on my blocklist. See ya!

My bold claim was saying that Denmark chose the side of Western imperialism and now will have to suffer the expected consequences of it?

Are you trying to say your claim isn’t a negative thing? In all accepted parsing of the English language, I don’t know any other reasonable conclusion from your statement.

Since it is negative, you’re implying there was a better choice. So what was your implied better choice?

And I never said they made a mistake?

Oh? Then are you now clarifying that Denmark made the right choice?

But what Soviet aggression could they have had if they had been Soviets themselves, for instance?

Look at the history of Soviet actions in Poland, Lithunaina, Lativa, and Estonia for your answer.

You don’t need to answer. I think I’ve seen enough to lose hope in your posting in good faith.

they cozied up to the big baddy like the rest of Europe did, and now we’re alone, solely at their mercy.

In 1945 Denmark was liberated from Nazi occupation by the British. Britain itself was in no shape to rebuild continental Europe after itself suffering from the Blitz and toward the end of the war repeated V-1 buzzbomb attacks. The USA was the untouched ally that helped rebuild Europe with the Marshal plan. Up until trump, the USA was a good ally to Europe even in modern times especially against Soviet aggression. To say the Danes made a mistake “cozying up” to the USA is to deny actual history and reality. There was no better great power ally to Europe during the post-war years.

And I don’t have to provide better alternatives for something that could’ve happened in a different version of history

Yes you do when you’re saying the Danes made a mistake. Otherwise your criticism and your argument are empty if you can’t say what they should have done instead.

You know, you argue like the troll user UniversalMonk. You make a bold claim divorced from reality, then when challenged with facts you handwave away any parts that completely invalidate your original claim. Is this a coincidence or do you need to cycle out to a new alt again?

What I’m saying is pointing to the old vs young imbalance is disingenuous because ANY system that attempts to limit population growth will experience the same “sudden change”.

You’re treating this as a binary situation “growth” or “decline” but its not nearly that simple. The important factors are the amount of growth or decline and at the rate that is the problem with China’s implementation.

We shouldn’t discount all systems that want to limit population growth like this because ones with better metrics could actually work.

No one is suggesting that.

And as we’ve seen, this program DID WORK. It lowered population. Just not in socially healthy ways.

…and…

It’s just not logical to complain that if you have less of a growing population that your elderly population outnumbers them. That’s LITERALLY THE PURPOSE OF POPULATION CONTROL.

That is empty logic, because it follows the letter of the goal* while entirely violating the spirit of it. Using that same logic we could fix global climate change just by murdering every human on the planet. See? It “DID WORK”. Climate change fixed, but like China’s situation, the cure is worse than the disease because in fixing climate change this way would mean there would be no humans around to benefit from the fix. But hey, it “DID WORK”, right?

Of course the elderly from before will outnumber them - you weren’t controlling their population!

Again, binary thinking. A complete stable system is okay if the elderly outnumber the young by a small consistent percentage over time. That isn’t what is happening in China. They are falling off a demographic cliff! Both match your statement of fewer young to elderly, but one is a sustainable controlled decline and the other is a crisis!

In the absence of God, Europe could’ve been a continent of commies and maybe some fraternity, solidarity and class conscience would have been built amongst these ever-warring nations, maybe?

That sounds like a cop out answer to your comment above. You’re criticizing Denmark of allying with the USA. What was their better ally? Here’s your chance to back up your claims.

Are you suggesting Denmark would have been better served joining the Soviet Union, which were the closest “commies” around them?

It should be obvious that if you suddenly cut population growth you’d end up with this elderly vs young imbalance eventually as the generations that reproduced freely age out.

The problem is they did it too quickly. There’s a huge number of aging people that won’t be producing anything, but they will be consuming in their old age. The amount they consume will be far greater than the younger, smaller, population can produce. Additional, the young must produce goods and services for themselves to live their own lives.

This additional preasure on the younger generation is already also reducing birth rates accelorating this demographic crisis to a worse degree. The young aren’t having kids in any significant numbers so there won’t be enough to support the current young when they get old.

This is part of the adjustment as things reach equilibrium.

That is a massive understatement for what will be the hell that the aging population will encounter when they go unfed or uncared for when they need it the most and have no option to do for themselves.

Ideally you’d have a 2 child policy to actually replace parents 1:1 with kids. But the point is, this imbalance was bound to happen regardless and you really won’t see equilibrium until every person alive was born under the restricted policy.

2 child policy would still result in population decline. Equal replacement rate is 2.1. Some kids will die before having kids of their own. Others will grow to adulthood and choose not to have kids. So you’ll need some sets of parents to have more than 2 kids themselves to make up for these shortfalls.

This is still too early to call it a failed experiment. It’s right at the most crucial part.

The “soft landing” point was a couple of decades ago probably back in the late 80s or mid 90s. Its going to be brutal in the future for China.

we burned bridges around the world by cozying up to the biggest murderer in the land,

I’ll be the first to say the USA is a shitshow right now, but if you were to go back in time, which other nation would you have the Danes “cozy up to”?

Lets say both countries are successful with automation. I think you’re missing the bigger point of the working population collapse. Robots don’t pay taxes.

They have all of the manufacturing infrastructure and investing heavily into robotics and low maintenance systems. So I really dont understand such a stupid political move.

If you want to see what the future holds for a nation in that position, look no further than Japan. Its already facing the same demographic crisis, already trying to lean heavily into robots and automation. Japan also holds the same strong xenophobic stance to immigration, which would be the other way to address a falling birth rate. It’s not looking good for Japan on this front. South Korea is not too far behind Japan. With the USA going to war with its immigrants, we’ll be experiencing the same problem ourselves in another 20 to 40 years.

i said i felt bad for the women who the anti abortion people affect, but my friend corrected me and said i meant “people who get pregnant”,

I think you could make a sound argument that anti-abortion people also negatively affect people that can’t get pregnant in a number of ways. One of the prime targets of anti-abortion people is the organization Planned Parenthood. While Planned Parenthood does offer abortion services, they also offer many healthcare related services around other health concerns.

• Planned Parenthood offers services for Menopausal women, who obviously can’t get pregnant
• Planned Parenthood also offers gender affirming hormone therapy for people that need it

So both of these groups are clearly people that can’t get pregnant, but are also negatively affected when anti-abortion people’s actions lead to a shut down of a local clinic serving these populations.

In this case, I’m a spaceflight fan, so I like talking about the topic. Also, I don’t do it for this specific poster, its clear they didn’t even read the article or understand it, but for other that may be thinking the same vague question (because of a flawed premise) that this poster did.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Brazil to send up their own satellites with rockets that are already capable

I’m assuming you mean “rockets that are already capable” from other nations? Brazil already does this.

than to waste time, money, energy and

Brazil isn’t wasting any money. This is a South Korean company launching a South Korean satellite from Brazil. In fact, Brazil is benefiting financially, which could, to your original point, feed more people because they have the money from these launches.

hurt the environment by trying to launch their own?

Funny enough, launching from places like Brazil is actually less environmentally damaging than launching from the USA, China, or Russia because this Brazilian launch site is on the equator, meaning less fuel is needed to launch from here than other nations with spaceflight programs. This geography is why Europe’s launch site is also pretty close by in French Guiana.

So if your concern is less environment impact, you would want MORE of the worlds rockets to come from here.

I’m not saying Brazil doesn’t need to launch a satellite, I’m saying they don’t need their own rocket program.

As already stated, this isn’t a Brazilian rocket, nor a Brazilian rocket program.

I already addressed that. There are more problems that humanity needs to solve that spaceflight can address.

I like a California roll, and I like that its all veg and grain, so I’ll choose it when thats what I’m looking for, but there are many other rolls I like more. The avocado isn’t a selling point except that its not meat or dairy and there are times I’d don’t want to eat either of those.

Guac is still “meh” for me. Again, I’ll eat it if its there, but I don’t seek it out.

Guac is still “meh” for me. Again, I’ll eat it if its there, but I don’t seek it out.

They don’t need more.

How do you know? Feeding people isn’t the only problem facing humanity, and its not only problem spaceflight can address.

Spaceflight helps feed people.

Why Satellite Imagery is a Game-Changer for Agriculture

another source

So no, then. Because even if they were told that (and I don’t doubt you that happens), that recruit knows they’re talking to a uniformed US military recruiter and is actively engaging they are discussing joining the US military. They also know the US military has a long history of fighting hot wars. Any possible recruit the recruiters are talking to grew up with 14 years of Afghanistan war on the news.

This is nothing like being told you’re going to be a body guard of an oil company exec or pop star engaging in civilian activities in another country, which is how it sounds like these folks were sold on joining.

You must be fun at parties…

The guy at no time said US was the same as Russia. He simply said the shitty tactics in recruitment by lies is similar.

If he (and consequently you) are going to be vague about your definition of your definition of the word “tactics”, then you’re going to elicit a response that can assume the worst. The tactics specifically called out here in the article are about Russian operatives employing locals in another nation to recruit front line fighters under false pretenses in yet another nation. Thats a tactic. That’s the prime differentiator as to why this article is news.

He simply said the shitty tactics in recruitment by lies is similar.

Nothing about those tactics is similar to the way the US operates. Then you have this poster making a statement which can largely read they are accusing the USA of the same thing. It doesn’t help that the person you’re talking about is a “.ml” user whose lemmy instance has a long history of defending Russia.

Military recruiters in the states lie all the time about work, benefits, and so on to young people and then when they get shipped out to wherever.

Then OP needed say THAT, instead of his vague statement. Military recruiters aren’t lying they are recruiters nor are they lying they’re recruiting for the armed forces to fight wars.

Young people these days…

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re young.