Did you skip the “but more seriously” part and everything that came after right after I said “Sanders”? 🤔 Because I’m saying exactly what you’re saying.
Also, you can vote for Sanders so he keeps his position in the Senate so it’s actually not false that people need to vote for him.
Sanders
But more seriously, vote everywhere for the most progressive people possible and vote strategically to get the most progressive person realistically electable when needed.
And then you get a drought that lasts longer than your infrastructure is able to handle and you’re still fucked
The Guardian has reported previously that 1,000 pages of internal documents obtained by freedom of information requests showed that early on in the investigation the province’s department of environment and public health units began eagerly exploring the possibility of environmental causes alongside their federal counterparts. But by mid-2021, New Brunswick appeared to have halted the probe with little explanation.
Yuuup
They called the police and were told to keep the money since there’s no crime.
There was a story on Reddit from a soldier, his squad ended up in a fight with rugby players in a bar in Australia and after the fight they had a drink together and when a soldier told the players they were pretty brave to start fighting people in the army, they replied “the only people we fear is women who play rugby because they’re completely crazy”.
But the original is the cycle that precedes the remake! 😱
Two separate elections, he’s got power in France but at the European level people just voted for another party, so he’s started the election process in France to let people decide if they want the party in power in France to reflect the choice they just made at the European level.
Because the calculation has been made, he will lose more votes from people who support Israel than people who support Palestine because the first ones don’t mind the alternative which will support Israel even more and the second ones will be in deep shit if Trump gets elected so they have no choice.
If you go check a waterfall in the dry season and expect it to be pouring water like it was monsoon season, you deserve to be disappointed.
But that’s exactly what I showed isn’t true with rich vs poor! Rich people can afford not to work or to pay someone to take care of their kids yet they have smaller families than poorer people who need both parents to work and less than poor people where only one parent works.
Also, birthrate isn’t any higher in places where there’s social programs to help people with that either. Heck, in Canada the parents get a year of parental leave, in Quebec specifically there’s super cheap kindergarten since the 90s as well and the birthrate is one of the lowest in the world.
I’m not saying I want to live in a world where women are forced to have kids, I want to make people understand that they’re trying to find tons of excuses why people don’t have kids but the reason is simply that when people are actually given the choice to have them or not, the people who actually want to have kids don’t have enough to renew the population and that won’t change no matter how “easy” we try to make it. Having kids is a huge responsibility and people realize that they have other things they want to do with their lives.
Because .7z was a pain in the ass back in the day while .rar just worked.
Data shows it’s not the case otherwise rich people would have way more kids instead of being poor people that have the higher fertility rate.
Also birth rate goes down with improvement to women rights, not up. If there was less misogyny in South Korea people wouldn’t have more kids than they do at the moment.
You think the world wasn’t misogynistic when people were having 10+ kids in the 18th and 19th century?
Look at long term trends, it’s not a 30 years thing, 100 years ago Finland was getting close to being under minimum required to renew its population.
When women get rights, people get education and people have access to birth control, they stop having kids, the situation in the world at the moment only adds more reasons but even in a perfect world people wouldn’t have enough kids to renew the population.
Artificial wombs are science fiction, the reality we live in is that babies need a mother and women don’t want enough kids to renew our population when they’re actually given the choice.
It’s nice to dream, but let’s face the fact that we’re probably heading in a direction where human population will eventually be going down and is predicted to peak at this end of this century.
How come the stats are the same everywhere and numbers have been going down since way before the economy became an issue? Was the economy an issue in the 60s? Because people keep saying “back then you could raise a family on a single income!” but the birthrate was still going down!
It’s funny how education, women rights and access to birth control are a much better indication of fertility levels than the economy, it’s as if the economy doesn’t have as much of a role in it and people are blaming it because that’s the issue they’re facing at the moment while ignoring that poor people have more kids than rich people.
Korea has that issue but the issue is the same everywhere and global population is predicted to start dropping by the end of the century, it won’t just be an economic issue at this point.
One is science fiction, the other is the reality we live in.
But the system has changed quite a lot during the last century yet birth rate has been going down even when things were going better.
Hell, you see it extremely well in Canada, the second the pill becomes available, fertility starts dropping. That’s in the 60s, people were still able to afford to raise a family with a single income.
It’s extremely short-sighted to just look at today to make an opinion.
https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/472322/natalite-france/
Downward trend
Longer term
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033137/fertility-rate-france-1800-2020/
Downward trend
Replacement rate is 2.1, not 2
Nice for congressional representatives, did you take a look at their age? Average is 58 and 64 in the Senate, median is 58 and 65 respectively from what I’m finding. They’re not people who are making the choice to have or not have kids right now.
It’s a general “you”, I’m not talking about you as a person specifically.