Worldwide Baby Bust

More people doesn’t make the nation richer.

I conclude that the population decline is a consequence of feminism :face_with_hand_over_mouth:. Apparently raising and nurturing future generations are seconded behind individual desires :-1:

1 Like



I do not know what feminism means, but it certainly does not appear what it is made out to be. Is not making baby feminism? And what is a biological male playing women sport?


A consequence.

What is a women sport?

I meant a sport in which participants are expected to be a woman.

The differences arise on how to determine who is a woman?

That is not feminism. That is LGBT :slight_smile:

A man can impregnate many women.
However, a woman can only be impregnated once every 10 months.
So a woman control the number of babies to be born.
With feminism, women have rights, have career and be financially independent. Some women don’t want the responsibility of nurturing the next generations, so they decide not to have babies. Men can’t give births so even if they want to take care of the next generations, they can’t if women refused to give births. The invention of contraceptives and birth control pills are one of the worse inventions we ever made.

Feminism has destroyed the futures of human beings.

I bet you get push back on that one.
But I agree that the pill is the most significant invention in the 20th century. It has definitely slowed down population growth in the developed world. The other significant thing is education of women. The more education the less babies. Population growth can’t continue forever. The world can only handle a finite number of people.

1 Like

foeticide is also a contributor of population decline in the USA.

When pills to abort a pregnancy were not discovered, people still died in a large number in wars, famine, pandemic, natural calamities, and due to lesser longevity. So, there was always a need to compensate declining population by having babies in larger number.

More kids = more trouble.

The person who coined the word “population bomb” was a faculty at Stanford. California had these delusional and misguided intellectuals and professors even then (1960s)

1 Like

hasn’t it liberated women to have more education and successful career?

What good is an education and career if children do not get to see their mothers and are raised by someone else?

1 Like


Not sure what is your point?

Allow me to map a sequence of events… I make it sequential for easy understanding… ignore feedback loops…

Feminism > rights > education + career > don’t want to be a mother > pills > make the dream of not being a mother more real > population decline

Feminism > rights > education + career > don’t want to be a mother > pills > make the dream of not being a mother more real > population decline + maladjusted children

Fixed it for you.

1 Like

what the actual F?


right? but it does make sense. If people on this board have this attitude, then having kids is truly a bad deal for more than half the populationof the world, and a baby bust seems inevitable.


Depression plus dust bowl equals major suck even if you don’t have kids.