Meet the ‘elite’ couples breeding to save mankind
With global birth rates in free fall, Silicon Valley’s ‘pronatalists’ are aiming to halt the decline – by having as many babies as possible

At the beginning of March, Aria Babu quit her job at a think tank to dedicate herself to something most people have never heard of. Having worked in public policy for several years, the 26-year-old Londoner had come to an alarming realisation about the future of the UK, the world – and the human species.

‘It became clear to me that people wanted more children than they were having,’ Babu says. ‘Considering this is such a massive part of people’s lives, the fact that they were not able to fulfil this want was clearly indicative that something was wrong.’

The new focus of Babu’s career is a philosophy known as pronatalism, literally meaning pro-birth. Its core tenet is deceptively simple: our future depends on having enough children, and yet life in developed countries has become hostile to this basic biological imperative. Linked to the subcultures of rationalism and ‘effective altruism’ (EA), and bolstered by declining birth rates, it has been gaining currency in Silicon Valley and the wider tech industry – especially its more conservative corners.

‘I’ve been in various text threads with technology entrepreneurs who share that view… there are really smart people that have real concern around this,’ says Ben Lamm, a Texas biotech entrepreneur whose company Colossal is developing artificial wombs and other reproductive tech (or ‘reprotech’) that could boost future fertility.

‘We are quite familiar with the pronatalist movement and are supporters of it,’ says Jake Kozloski, the Miami-based co-founder of an AI matchmaking service called Keeper, which aims to address the ‘fertility crisis fueled by a marriage crisis’ by helping clients find the other parent of their future children.

‘I encourage people who are responsible and smart and conscientious to have children, because they’re going to make the future better,’ says Diana Fleischman, a pronatalist psychology professor at the University of New Mexico and consultant for an embryo-selection start-up (she is currently pregnant with her second child).

Easily the most famous person to espouse pronatalist ideas is Elon Musk, the galaxy’s richest human being, who has had 10 children with three different women. ‘If people don’t have more children, civilisation is going to crumble. Mark my words,’ Musk told a business summit in December 2021. He has described population collapse as ‘the biggest danger’ to humanity (exceeding climate change) and warned that Japan, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, ‘will eventually cease to exist’.

In an Insider article last November that helped bring the movement to wider attention, 23andMe co-founder Linda Avey acknowledged its influence on the Texan tech scene, while the managing director of an exclusive retreat, Dialog, co-founded by arch-conservative investor and PayPal pioneer Peter Thiel, said population decline was a frequent topic there.

Babu, who hopes to join or create a pronatalist organisation in the UK, says it is still ‘niche’ here but gaining ground on both the ‘swashbuckling intellectual Right’ and the more family-focused and Blue-Labour-tinged segments of the Left.

At the centre of it all are Simone and Malcolm Collins, two 30-something American entrepreneurs turned philosophers – and parents – who say they are only the most outspoken proponents of a belief that many prefer to keep private. In 2021 they founded a ‘non-denominational’ campaign group called Pronatalist.org, under the umbrella of their non-profit Pragmatist Foundation. Buoyed by a $482,000 (£385,000) donation from Jaan Tallinn, an Estonian tech billionaire who funds many rationalist and EA organisations, it is now lobbying governments, meeting business leaders, and seeking partnerships with reprotech companies and fertility clinics.

The Collinses did not coin the word ‘pronatalism’, which has long been used (along with ‘natalism’) to describe government policies aimed at increasing birth rates, or mainstream pro-birth positions such as that of the Catholic Church. Its opposite is ‘anti-natalism’, the idea that it is wrong to bring a new person into the world if they are unlikely to have a good life. Lyman Stone, a natalist demographer and research fellow at the US’s Institute for Family Studies, has described the Collinses’ philosophy as ‘a very unusual subculture’ compared to millions of everyday natalists. Yet it is their version – a secular, paradoxically unorthodox reconstruction of arguably the most traditional view on earth, driven by alarm about a looming population catastrophe – that is prospering among the tech elite.

‘I don’t think it’s appealing to Silicon Valley people,’ Malcolm tells me on a long call from his home in Pennsylvania. ‘It’s more like, anyone who is familiar with modern science and familiar with the statistics is aware that this is an issue, and they are focused on it. The reason why you see Silicon Valley people disproportionately being drawn to this is they’re obsessed with data enough, and wealthy enough, to be looking at things – and who also have enough wealth and power that they’re not afraid of being cancelled.’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffamily%2Flife%2Fpronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley%2F

Some fun reading for Rev.

Aye, human civilization is crumbling before our eyes due to disappearing humanity.

Human babies are now nearly as rare as hairy-nosed wombats.

Bubblecar said:

Aye, human civilization is crumbling before our eyes due to disappearing humanity.

Human babies are now nearly as rare as hairy-nosed wombats.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Aye, human civilization is crumbling before our eyes due to disappearing humanity.

Human babies are now nearly as rare as hairy-nosed wombats.

They look a bit like rejected Thunderbird puppets.

PF will have to update his enemies list.

dv said:

Meet the ‘elite’ couples breeding to save mankind
With global birth rates in free fall, Silicon Valley’s ‘pronatalists’ are aiming to halt the decline – by having as many babies as possible

At the beginning of March, Aria Babu quit her job at a think tank to dedicate herself to something most people have never heard of. Having worked in public policy for several years, the 26-year-old Londoner had come to an alarming realisation about the future of the UK, the world – and the human species.

‘It became clear to me that people wanted more children than they were having,’ Babu says. ‘Considering this is such a massive part of people’s lives, the fact that they were not able to fulfil this want was clearly indicative that something was wrong.’

The new focus of Babu’s career is a philosophy known as pronatalism, literally meaning pro-birth. Its core tenet is deceptively simple: our future depends on having enough children, and yet life in developed countries has become hostile to this basic biological imperative. Linked to the subcultures of rationalism and ‘effective altruism’ (EA), and bolstered by declining birth rates, it has been gaining currency in Silicon Valley and the wider tech industry – especially its more conservative corners.

‘I’ve been in various text threads with technology entrepreneurs who share that view… there are really smart people that have real concern around this,’ says Ben Lamm, a Texas biotech entrepreneur whose company Colossal is developing artificial wombs and other reproductive tech (or ‘reprotech’) that could boost future fertility.

‘We are quite familiar with the pronatalist movement and are supporters of it,’ says Jake Kozloski, the Miami-based co-founder of an AI matchmaking service called Keeper, which aims to address the ‘fertility crisis fueled by a marriage crisis’ by helping clients find the other parent of their future children.

‘I encourage people who are responsible and smart and conscientious to have children, because they’re going to make the future better,’ says Diana Fleischman, a pronatalist psychology professor at the University of New Mexico and consultant for an embryo-selection start-up (she is currently pregnant with her second child).

Easily the most famous person to espouse pronatalist ideas is Elon Musk, the galaxy’s richest human being, who has had 10 children with three different women. ‘If people don’t have more children, civilisation is going to crumble. Mark my words,’ Musk told a business summit in December 2021. He has described population collapse as ‘the biggest danger’ to humanity (exceeding climate change) and warned that Japan, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, ‘will eventually cease to exist’.

In an Insider article last November that helped bring the movement to wider attention, 23andMe co-founder Linda Avey acknowledged its influence on the Texan tech scene, while the managing director of an exclusive retreat, Dialog, co-founded by arch-conservative investor and PayPal pioneer Peter Thiel, said population decline was a frequent topic there.

Babu, who hopes to join or create a pronatalist organisation in the UK, says it is still ‘niche’ here but gaining ground on both the ‘swashbuckling intellectual Right’ and the more family-focused and Blue-Labour-tinged segments of the Left.

At the centre of it all are Simone and Malcolm Collins, two 30-something American entrepreneurs turned philosophers – and parents – who say they are only the most outspoken proponents of a belief that many prefer to keep private. In 2021 they founded a ‘non-denominational’ campaign group called Pronatalist.org, under the umbrella of their non-profit Pragmatist Foundation. Buoyed by a $482,000 (£385,000) donation from Jaan Tallinn, an Estonian tech billionaire who funds many rationalist and EA organisations, it is now lobbying governments, meeting business leaders, and seeking partnerships with reprotech companies and fertility clinics.

The Collinses did not coin the word ‘pronatalism’, which has long been used (along with ‘natalism’) to describe government policies aimed at increasing birth rates, or mainstream pro-birth positions such as that of the Catholic Church. Its opposite is ‘anti-natalism’, the idea that it is wrong to bring a new person into the world if they are unlikely to have a good life. Lyman Stone, a natalist demographer and research fellow at the US’s Institute for Family Studies, has described the Collinses’ philosophy as ‘a very unusual subculture’ compared to millions of everyday natalists. Yet it is their version – a secular, paradoxically unorthodox reconstruction of arguably the most traditional view on earth, driven by alarm about a looming population catastrophe – that is prospering among the tech elite.

‘I don’t think it’s appealing to Silicon Valley people,’ Malcolm tells me on a long call from his home in Pennsylvania. ‘It’s more like, anyone who is familiar with modern science and familiar with the statistics is aware that this is an issue, and they are focused on it. The reason why you see Silicon Valley people disproportionately being drawn to this is they’re obsessed with data enough, and wealthy enough, to be looking at things – and who also have enough wealth and power that they’re not afraid of being cancelled.’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffamily%2Flife%2Fpronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley%2F

Some fun reading for Rev.

You could get more stupid that that if you tried. Jesus!

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Meet the ‘elite’ couples breeding to save mankind
With global birth rates in free fall, Silicon Valley’s ‘pronatalists’ are aiming to halt the decline – by having as many babies as possible

At the beginning of March, Aria Babu quit her job at a think tank to dedicate herself to something most people have never heard of. Having worked in public policy for several years, the 26-year-old Londoner had come to an alarming realisation about the future of the UK, the world – and the human species.

‘It became clear to me that people wanted more children than they were having,’ Babu says. ‘Considering this is such a massive part of people’s lives, the fact that they were not able to fulfil this want was clearly indicative that something was wrong.’

The new focus of Babu’s career is a philosophy known as pronatalism, literally meaning pro-birth. Its core tenet is deceptively simple: our future depends on having enough children, and yet life in developed countries has become hostile to this basic biological imperative. Linked to the subcultures of rationalism and ‘effective altruism’ (EA), and bolstered by declining birth rates, it has been gaining currency in Silicon Valley and the wider tech industry – especially its more conservative corners.

‘I’ve been in various text threads with technology entrepreneurs who share that view… there are really smart people that have real concern around this,’ says Ben Lamm, a Texas biotech entrepreneur whose company Colossal is developing artificial wombs and other reproductive tech (or ‘reprotech’) that could boost future fertility.

‘We are quite familiar with the pronatalist movement and are supporters of it,’ says Jake Kozloski, the Miami-based co-founder of an AI matchmaking service called Keeper, which aims to address the ‘fertility crisis fueled by a marriage crisis’ by helping clients find the other parent of their future children.

‘I encourage people who are responsible and smart and conscientious to have children, because they’re going to make the future better,’ says Diana Fleischman, a pronatalist psychology professor at the University of New Mexico and consultant for an embryo-selection start-up (she is currently pregnant with her second child).

Easily the most famous person to espouse pronatalist ideas is Elon Musk, the galaxy’s richest human being, who has had 10 children with three different women. ‘If people don’t have more children, civilisation is going to crumble. Mark my words,’ Musk told a business summit in December 2021. He has described population collapse as ‘the biggest danger’ to humanity (exceeding climate change) and warned that Japan, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, ‘will eventually cease to exist’.

In an Insider article last November that helped bring the movement to wider attention, 23andMe co-founder Linda Avey acknowledged its influence on the Texan tech scene, while the managing director of an exclusive retreat, Dialog, co-founded by arch-conservative investor and PayPal pioneer Peter Thiel, said population decline was a frequent topic there.

Babu, who hopes to join or create a pronatalist organisation in the UK, says it is still ‘niche’ here but gaining ground on both the ‘swashbuckling intellectual Right’ and the more family-focused and Blue-Labour-tinged segments of the Left.

At the centre of it all are Simone and Malcolm Collins, two 30-something American entrepreneurs turned philosophers – and parents – who say they are only the most outspoken proponents of a belief that many prefer to keep private. In 2021 they founded a ‘non-denominational’ campaign group called Pronatalist.org, under the umbrella of their non-profit Pragmatist Foundation. Buoyed by a $482,000 (£385,000) donation from Jaan Tallinn, an Estonian tech billionaire who funds many rationalist and EA organisations, it is now lobbying governments, meeting business leaders, and seeking partnerships with reprotech companies and fertility clinics.

The Collinses did not coin the word ‘pronatalism’, which has long been used (along with ‘natalism’) to describe government policies aimed at increasing birth rates, or mainstream pro-birth positions such as that of the Catholic Church. Its opposite is ‘anti-natalism’, the idea that it is wrong to bring a new person into the world if they are unlikely to have a good life. Lyman Stone, a natalist demographer and research fellow at the US’s Institute for Family Studies, has described the Collinses’ philosophy as ‘a very unusual subculture’ compared to millions of everyday natalists. Yet it is their version – a secular, paradoxically unorthodox reconstruction of arguably the most traditional view on earth, driven by alarm about a looming population catastrophe – that is prospering among the tech elite.

‘I don’t think it’s appealing to Silicon Valley people,’ Malcolm tells me on a long call from his home in Pennsylvania. ‘It’s more like, anyone who is familiar with modern science and familiar with the statistics is aware that this is an issue, and they are focused on it. The reason why you see Silicon Valley people disproportionately being drawn to this is they’re obsessed with data enough, and wealthy enough, to be looking at things – and who also have enough wealth and power that they’re not afraid of being cancelled.’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffamily%2Flife%2Fpronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley%2F

Some fun reading for Rev.

You could get more stupid that that if you tried. Jesus!

hold my beer :)

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Meet the ‘elite’ couples breeding to save mankind
With global birth rates in free fall, Silicon Valley’s ‘pronatalists’ are aiming to halt the decline – by having as many babies as possible

At the beginning of March, Aria Babu quit her job at a think tank to dedicate herself to something most people have never heard of. Having worked in public policy for several years, the 26-year-old Londoner had come to an alarming realisation about the future of the UK, the world – and the human species.

‘It became clear to me that people wanted more children than they were having,’ Babu says. ‘Considering this is such a massive part of people’s lives, the fact that they were not able to fulfil this want was clearly indicative that something was wrong.’

The new focus of Babu’s career is a philosophy known as pronatalism, literally meaning pro-birth. Its core tenet is deceptively simple: our future depends on having enough children, and yet life in developed countries has become hostile to this basic biological imperative. Linked to the subcultures of rationalism and ‘effective altruism’ (EA), and bolstered by declining birth rates, it has been gaining currency in Silicon Valley and the wider tech industry – especially its more conservative corners.

‘I’ve been in various text threads with technology entrepreneurs who share that view… there are really smart people that have real concern around this,’ says Ben Lamm, a Texas biotech entrepreneur whose company Colossal is developing artificial wombs and other reproductive tech (or ‘reprotech’) that could boost future fertility.

‘We are quite familiar with the pronatalist movement and are supporters of it,’ says Jake Kozloski, the Miami-based co-founder of an AI matchmaking service called Keeper, which aims to address the ‘fertility crisis fueled by a marriage crisis’ by helping clients find the other parent of their future children.

‘I encourage people who are responsible and smart and conscientious to have children, because they’re going to make the future better,’ says Diana Fleischman, a pronatalist psychology professor at the University of New Mexico and consultant for an embryo-selection start-up (she is currently pregnant with her second child).

Easily the most famous person to espouse pronatalist ideas is Elon Musk, the galaxy’s richest human being, who has had 10 children with three different women. ‘If people don’t have more children, civilisation is going to crumble. Mark my words,’ Musk told a business summit in December 2021. He has described population collapse as ‘the biggest danger’ to humanity (exceeding climate change) and warned that Japan, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, ‘will eventually cease to exist’.

In an Insider article last November that helped bring the movement to wider attention, 23andMe co-founder Linda Avey acknowledged its influence on the Texan tech scene, while the managing director of an exclusive retreat, Dialog, co-founded by arch-conservative investor and PayPal pioneer Peter Thiel, said population decline was a frequent topic there.

Babu, who hopes to join or create a pronatalist organisation in the UK, says it is still ‘niche’ here but gaining ground on both the ‘swashbuckling intellectual Right’ and the more family-focused and Blue-Labour-tinged segments of the Left.

At the centre of it all are Simone and Malcolm Collins, two 30-something American entrepreneurs turned philosophers – and parents – who say they are only the most outspoken proponents of a belief that many prefer to keep private. In 2021 they founded a ‘non-denominational’ campaign group called Pronatalist.org, under the umbrella of their non-profit Pragmatist Foundation. Buoyed by a $482,000 (£385,000) donation from Jaan Tallinn, an Estonian tech billionaire who funds many rationalist and EA organisations, it is now lobbying governments, meeting business leaders, and seeking partnerships with reprotech companies and fertility clinics.

The Collinses did not coin the word ‘pronatalism’, which has long been used (along with ‘natalism’) to describe government policies aimed at increasing birth rates, or mainstream pro-birth positions such as that of the Catholic Church. Its opposite is ‘anti-natalism’, the idea that it is wrong to bring a new person into the world if they are unlikely to have a good life. Lyman Stone, a natalist demographer and research fellow at the US’s Institute for Family Studies, has described the Collinses’ philosophy as ‘a very unusual subculture’ compared to millions of everyday natalists. Yet it is their version – a secular, paradoxically unorthodox reconstruction of arguably the most traditional view on earth, driven by alarm about a looming population catastrophe – that is prospering among the tech elite.

‘I don’t think it’s appealing to Silicon Valley people,’ Malcolm tells me on a long call from his home in Pennsylvania. ‘It’s more like, anyone who is familiar with modern science and familiar with the statistics is aware that this is an issue, and they are focused on it. The reason why you see Silicon Valley people disproportionately being drawn to this is they’re obsessed with data enough, and wealthy enough, to be looking at things – and who also have enough wealth and power that they’re not afraid of being cancelled.’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ffamily%2Flife%2Fpronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley%2F

Some fun reading for Rev.

You could get more stupid that that if you tried. Jesus!

Needs a NOT in there somewhere, but you know what I mean. Overwhelmed by the fuck-wittedness of it all.

  said:

Meet the ‘elite’ couples breeding to save mankind
With global birth rates in free fall, Silicon Valley’s ‘pron

All right stop it right there¡

Dunno why people still listen to Musk, but OK. His philosophy is more people are good, as long as they agree with fucked up, right wing, bigoted policies 🖕🏻

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

I read long ago that well educated people usually have no more than two children whereas uneducated people can’t seem to stop making babies.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

Oh dear.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

Being in a poor country with a shitty safety net is correlated with high birth rate and these things can be “ inherited” in that it’s correlated from parents to offspring, though not necessarily related to genetics. Might be best to work towards having no poor countries with shitty safety nets.

I wonder whether the kids will also be nearsighted pronatalist parsnips.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

Being in a poor country with a shitty safety net is correlated with high birth rate and these things can be “ inherited” in that it’s correlated from parents to offspring, though not necessarily related to genetics. Might be best to work towards having no poor countries with shitty safety nets.

I wonder whether the kids will also be nearsighted pronatalist parsnips.

I’m pretty sure these pronatalist people are not from shitty safety net countries though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

Being in a poor country with a shitty safety net is correlated with high birth rate and these things can be “ inherited” in that it’s correlated from parents to offspring, though not necessarily related to genetics. Might be best to work towards having no poor countries with shitty safety nets.

I wonder whether the kids will also be nearsighted pronatalist parsnips.

I’m pretty sure these pronatalist people are not from shitty safety net countries though.

They literally say

Silicon Valley

at the top there so

… you’re wrong¡

Speaking of eugenics, here’s one for the origin of species¡

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/dating/unvaccinated-australians-form-singles-groups-to-keep-the-bloodline-pure/news-story/24078910813933f963a6aa5bf9c2d8ca

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Some fun reading for Rev.”

Didn’t find it that much fun.

I do think the undeniable fact that those who breed in the greatest number will breed in the greatest number is a real problem for reaching and maintaining a sustainable human population.

I wonder how much this tendency is inherited.

Being in a poor country with a shitty safety net is correlated with high birth rate and these things can be “ inherited” in that it’s correlated from parents to offspring, though not necessarily related to genetics. Might be best to work towards having no poor countries with shitty safety nets.

I wonder whether the kids will also be nearsighted pronatalist parsnips.

I’m pretty sure these pronatalist people are not from shitty safety net countries though.

Ummm, USA? Its got pretty shitty safety-nets.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Being in a poor country with a shitty safety net is correlated with high birth rate and these things can be “ inherited” in that it’s correlated from parents to offspring, though not necessarily related to genetics. Might be best to work towards having no poor countries with shitty safety nets.

I wonder whether the kids will also be nearsighted pronatalist parsnips.

I’m pretty sure these pronatalist people are not from shitty safety net countries though.

Ummm, USA? Its got pretty shitty safety-nets.

They spend a lot of money for very little benefit so it’s a conundrum

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Being in a poor country with a shitty safety net is correlated with high birth rate and these things can be “ inherited” in that it’s correlated from parents to offspring, though not necessarily related to genetics. Might be best to work towards having no poor countries with shitty safety nets.

I wonder whether the kids will also be nearsighted pronatalist parsnips.

I’m pretty sure these pronatalist people are not from shitty safety net countries though.

Ummm, USA? Its got pretty shitty safety-nets.

OK, I shouldn’t have left out the “poor” bit.

Countries with unlimited government assistance are always inevitably doomed.

Just think in two years time you’ll power, water and every other bill you have will be much more expensive

How does Australia control its carbon output if its bringing in 650,000 ( or more) whilst shutting down its power generation? How do you water an extra 650,000 without building more dams ?

wookiemeister said:

Countries with unlimited government assistance are always inevitably doomed.

Just think in two years time you’ll power, water and every other bill you have will be much more expensive

How does Australia control its carbon output if its bringing in 650,000 ( or more) whilst shutting down its power generation? How do you water an extra 650,000 without building more dams ?

Ref on 650,000 a year?

I guess we’ll never know, since there are no countries with unlimited government assistance.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/western-sydney-fights-back-against-migrant-flood/

Type in 650,000 immigration Australia into a search engine

wookiemeister said:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/western-sydney-fights-back-against-migrant-flood/

Type in 650,000 immigration Australia into a search engine

First ref says that’s over two years.

wookiemeister said:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/western-sydney-fights-back-against-migrant-flood/

Type in 650,000 immigration Australia into a search engine

Anything to keep a wookie happy:

“The current net migration rate for Australia in 2023 is 5.173 per 1000 population, a 4.54% decline from 2022. The net migration rate for Australia in 2022 was 5.419 per 1000 population, a 4.34% decline from 2021.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/western-sydney-fights-back-against-migrant-flood/

Type in 650,000 immigration Australia into a search engine

First ref says that’s over two years.

Exactly as I said in my original post

You need to improve your gas lighting techniques

Even the most learned cannot tell me what a woman is, especially in this forum. It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

That’s the disconnect within the mind of the afflicted

Two opposed thoughts can exist in this kind of mind

Increased immigration

Decreased carbon output

Encouraging people to have less people to save the world

Increased immigration

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/western-sydney-fights-back-against-migrant-flood/

Type in 650,000 immigration Australia into a search engine

First ref says that’s over two years.

Exactly as I said in my original post

You need to improve your gas lighting techniques

Even the most learned cannot tell me what a woman is, especially in this forum. It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

A dictionary might help you.

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/western-sydney-fights-back-against-migrant-flood/

Type in 650,000 immigration Australia into a search engine

First ref says that’s over two years.

Exactly as I said in my original post

You need to improve your gas lighting techniques

Even the most learned cannot tell me what a woman is, especially in this forum. It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

Sorry I didn’t connect your 2 years prediction to the number. You’re still a moron.

It’s just so great when these threads are polluted by bullshit. Character-building.

wookiemeister said:

It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

this place should never be taken seriously

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

this place should never be taken seriously

Mentally stimulating but not seriously.

Tamb said:

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

this place should never be taken seriously

Mentally stimulating but not seriously.

But seriously, there is often stuff posted here that is worth taking seriously.

Not by wookie though, obviously.

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

It’s why I don’t take this place seriously

this place should never be taken seriously

Particularly when Wookie is around.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Arts said:

this place should never be taken seriously

Mentally stimulating but not seriously.

But seriously, there is often stuff posted here that is worth taking seriously.

Not by wookie though, obviously.

Yes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Arts said:

this place should never be taken seriously

Mentally stimulating but not seriously.

But seriously, there is often stuff posted here that is worth taking seriously.

Not by wookie though, obviously.

Two possible meanings. “Not stuff posted by wookie” or “not taken seriously by wookie”.

Both work.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Arts said:

this place should never be taken seriously

Mentally stimulating but not seriously.

But seriously, there is often stuff posted here that is worth taking seriously.

Not by wookie though, obviously.

anything I read here I use as only a springboard to finding the stuff out myself.. I wouldn’t repeat thing I heard here without confirming for myself the information… this place is like if Google and Bing had a baby.

https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-australias-net-migration-and-will-it-last-203155

Link

What these “elite” should better do is engage in a litte but of economic soecialisation. They should keep on working at their professions and making money. They should just use their money to pay someone else to have the kids. Then they should form some sort of semi-adoption compact where they fund the child’s education and upbringing, and maintain some sort of social connection with the child so they mix with and integrate with all the other “elite” children and join the right circles.

I’m a nurture over nature guy, take any random poor child and give them a privileged upbringing and they’ll do just as well as the biological offspring of these “elites”. This “elite” breeding program smacks of relying on some supposed genetic superiority of rich people over poor people.

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Mentally stimulating but not seriously.

But seriously, there is often stuff posted here that is worth taking seriously.

Not by wookie though, obviously.

anything I read here I use as only a springboard to finding the stuff out myself.. I wouldn’t repeat thing I heard here without confirming for myself the information… this place is like if Google and Bing had a baby.

Yes, this,posts generally full of posters own biases etc.

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But seriously, there is often stuff posted here that is worth taking seriously.

Not by wookie though, obviously.

anything I read here I use as only a springboard to finding the stuff out myself.. I wouldn’t repeat thing I heard here without confirming for myself the information… this place is like if Google and Bing had a baby.

Yes, this,posts generally full of posters own biases etc.

Just like the real world then!

:)

party_pants said:

What these “elite” should better do is engage in a litte but of economic soecialisation. They should keep on working at their professions and making money. They should just use their money to pay someone else to have the kids. Then they should form some sort of semi-adoption compact where they fund the child’s education and upbringing, and maintain some sort of social connection with the child so they mix with and integrate with all the other “elite” children and join the right circles.

I’m a nurture over nature guy, take any random poor child and give them a privileged upbringing and they’ll do just as well as the biological offspring of these “elites”. This “elite” breeding program smacks of relying on some supposed genetic superiority of rich people over poor people.

Some children of privilege have the funds to fall into a social network of excess , drugs and topple into a troubled life. Some children who grow up without much opportunity and strive to better their lives and the struggle is the catylist for pushing themselves to achieve.

Having educators that can keep children engaged with learning and achieving is a better tool. Having better understandings of children at risk. Unfortunately children are at risk in wealthy households , middle class homes and those living in poverty or the edge of poverty.

Recreating an environment that starts to changes the reasons why children form teen gangs , would be an area of focus as well.

Having resources is important but guiding young people in good directions is a bigger skill set required.

party_pants said:

This “elite” breeding program smacks of relying on some supposed genetic superiority of rich people over poor people.

And fair enough too, since rich privileged fucks aren’t going to be quite as exposed to mutagenic materials through their work, as much as their slave labour would be ¡

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

This “elite” breeding program smacks of relying on some supposed genetic superiority of rich people over poor people.

And fair enough too, since rich privileged fucks aren’t going to be quite as exposed to mutagenic materials through their work, as much as their slave labour would be ¡

And parsnips are actually an aerodynamically streamlined shape.

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

What these “elite” should better do is engage in a litte but of economic soecialisation. They should keep on working at their professions and making money. They should just use their money to pay someone else to have the kids. Then they should form some sort of semi-adoption compact where they fund the child’s education and upbringing, and maintain some sort of social connection with the child so they mix with and integrate with all the other “elite” children and join the right circles.

I’m a nurture over nature guy, take any random poor child and give them a privileged upbringing and they’ll do just as well as the biological offspring of these “elites”. This “elite” breeding program smacks of relying on some supposed genetic superiority of rich people over poor people.

Some children of privilege have the funds to fall into a social network of excess , drugs and topple into a troubled life. Some children who grow up without much opportunity and strive to better their lives and the struggle is the catylist for pushing themselves to achieve.

Having educators that can keep children engaged with learning and achieving is a better tool. Having better understandings of children at risk. Unfortunately children are at risk in wealthy households , middle class homes and those living in poverty or the edge of poverty.

Recreating an environment that starts to changes the reasons why children form teen gangs , would be an area of focus as well.

Having resources is important but guiding young people in good directions is a bigger skill set required.

Yes, that’s all true too. Life is always more complicated in the real world than simple theories.

I guess the gist of my argument is that instead of having a breeding program to “save the nation”, these people should just redirect some of their energy (and resources) into better opportunities and education for all the rest of the kids.

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

What these “elite” should better do is engage in a litte but of economic soecialisation. They should keep on working at their professions and making money. They should just use their money to pay someone else to have the kids. Then they should form some sort of semi-adoption compact where they fund the child’s education and upbringing, and maintain some sort of social connection with the child so they mix with and integrate with all the other “elite” children and join the right circles.

I’m a nurture over nature guy, take any random poor child and give them a privileged upbringing and they’ll do just as well as the biological offspring of these “elites”. This “elite” breeding program smacks of relying on some supposed genetic superiority of rich people over poor people.

Some children of privilege have the funds to fall into a social network of excess , drugs and topple into a troubled life. Some children who grow up without much opportunity and strive to better their lives and the struggle is the catylist for pushing themselves to achieve.

Having educators that can keep children engaged with learning and achieving is a better tool. Having better understandings of children at risk. Unfortunately children are at risk in wealthy households , middle class homes and those living in poverty or the edge of poverty.

Recreating an environment that starts to changes the reasons why children form teen gangs , would be an area of focus as well.

Having resources is important but guiding young people in good directions is a bigger skill set required.

Yes, that’s all true too. Life is always more complicated in the real world than simple theories.

I guess the gist of my argument is that instead of having a breeding program to “save the nation”, these people should just redirect some of their energy (and resources) into better opportunities and education for all the rest of the kids.

I did understand your points being made. I do wonder whether the fear is that there is a brain drain in genetics and are people starting to consider tinkering thoughtfully in having families aside from the typical current reasons.

Some academics devote their life to academia and may not factor in or even consider procreation as part of their story.

However, mentoring talent from all sections of society is an important consideration as well.

Another flipside of the coin is this ….should me have children similar to puppy mills , it is a bit more complicated having a family and completely knowing that you will cope well enough to provide for all of the children’s individual needs by adding more and more children.

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

Some children of privilege have the funds to fall into a social network of excess , drugs and topple into a troubled life. Some children who grow up without much opportunity and strive to better their lives and the struggle is the catylist for pushing themselves to achieve.

Having educators that can keep children engaged with learning and achieving is a better tool. Having better understandings of children at risk. Unfortunately children are at risk in wealthy households , middle class homes and those living in poverty or the edge of poverty.

Recreating an environment that starts to changes the reasons why children form teen gangs , would be an area of focus as well.

Having resources is important but guiding young people in good directions is a bigger skill set required.

Yes, that’s all true too. Life is always more complicated in the real world than simple theories.

I guess the gist of my argument is that instead of having a breeding program to “save the nation”, these people should just redirect some of their energy (and resources) into better opportunities and education for all the rest of the kids.

I did understand your points being made. I do wonder whether the fear is that there is a brain drain in genetics and are people starting to consider tinkering thoughtfully in having families aside from the typical current reasons.

Some academics devote their life to academia and may not factor in or even consider procreation as part of their story.

However, mentoring talent from all sections of society is an important consideration as well.

Another flipside of the coin is this ….should me have children similar to puppy mills , it is a bit more complicated having a family and completely knowing that you will cope well enough to provide for all of the children’s individual needs by adding more and more children.

My approach is more to see these things at a top level (whole society) viewpoint, rather than each child as an individual and what works best at that level.

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

Yes, that’s all true too. Life is always more complicated in the real world than simple theories.

I guess the gist of my argument is that instead of having a breeding program to “save the nation”, these people should just redirect some of their energy (and resources) into better opportunities and education for all the rest of the kids.

I did understand your points being made. I do wonder whether the fear is that there is a brain drain in genetics and are people starting to consider tinkering thoughtfully in having families aside from the typical current reasons.

Some academics devote their life to academia and may not factor in or even consider procreation as part of their story.

However, mentoring talent from all sections of society is an important consideration as well.

Another flipside of the coin is this ….should me have children similar to puppy mills , it is a bit more complicated having a family and completely knowing that you will cope well enough to provide for all of the children’s individual needs by adding more and more children.

My approach is more to see these things at a top level (whole society) viewpoint, rather than each child as an individual and what works best at that level.

Fair enough but that is how children and then adults fall through the cracks and the slippery slope of what happens and the roll on impacts to social fabric and social problems

Immigration is now over 300,000 people a year and it is planned to maintain this level. This is purely to the advantage of big business, governments and increasingly of homeowners. It does little for the poor or disadvantaged and absolutely nothing for the environment.

I wonder if people would change their minds if they had to look for accommodation, let alone noticed the never-ending assault on the environment.