[Verv]

Russosphere anti-natalists be on guard:

The Russian government on Monday backed “in principle” proposed legislation to outlaw propaganda that validates not having children, and to introduce administrative fines for its dissemination.

The legislation envisions restrictions on spreading “child-free ideology” through media, movies, advertising, and the internet. The draft bill defines it as the “refusal to have children” and provides for fines on those who promote such ideas.

While the government expressed support for the initiative “in principle,” it urged Russian legislators to further refine the bill. Specifically, it stated that the definition of the ideology as the “refusal to have children” must be clarified to ensure it doesn’t affect individuals whose “refusal” is motivated by religious beliefs or medical conditions. Victims of rape must be protected as well, the government stressed.

The legislation is expected to be introduced on Tuesday in the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, the State Duma. One of the bill’s sponsors, senior MP and member of the Duma’s education committee, Elvira Aitkulova, explained that the bill is designed to tackle the dissemination of child-free propaganda only, rather than personal lifestyle choices.

“The bill concerns propaganda – the targeted dissemination of information to promote a lifestyle without family and children,” Aitkulova told RIA Novosti.

“It is not about the right of everyone to choose in such personal matters, but about the effort to convince others, especially minors, of the superiority of a childless lifestyle,” she added.

RT

It won't push the total fertility rate much by itself but we can see how it may be a welcomed part of a comprehensive pro-TFR series of policies.

It at least serves the purpose of regime messaging.

[Unthinking Majority]

Or we could just let the people who don't want to have children not have children. These people and their genes will all go extinct anyways and the people who want to have kids will survive and pass on their ideology.

The cultures where anti-childbearing is prevalent, like Western societies, will go extinct rather swiftly and their ideology will follow them into the dustbin of history. Is modern Western culture a suicidal death-cult? Seems like it.

Or maybe when you give men and women the technology to control how many children they can have they just don't want enough to sustain their society?

[Verv]

Or we could just let the people who don't want to have children not have children. These people and their genes will all go extinct anyways and the people who want to have kids will survive and pass on their ideology.

Right, the Russians agree that this can be the personal choice, but they are just using the logic of Western liberals in their own way:

We need to actively signal our support for certain lifestyles in order to promote them.

Pride Month and LGBTQ+ promotion throughout the Western world is not even about forcing anyone to do anything, other than perhaps actively attempting to squeeze out of polite discussion any sort of opposition to the agenda.

You can assume the Russian policies are attempting to do something similar - part of a larger social engineering project.

Has it worked in the West? Yeah, we can look at the public opinion polls on this to see the results. It can likely work for other things, too.

After all, the Japanese once celebrated their domination over the Chinese and mocked maltreated British, Australian, and American POWs - this was just a regular part of their collective conscience, and it is quite unthinkable for us as modern people, even though it was quite normal for early modern Japanese people. That which is popular in a society is not necessarily reflective of truth.

The cultures where anti-childbearing is prevalent, like Western societies, will go extinct rather swiftly and their ideology will follow them into the dustbin of history. Is modern Western culture a suicidal death-cult? Seems like it.

Or maybe when you give men and women the technology to control how many children they can have they just don't want enough to sustain their society?

Yeah, I tend to agree with you on all this. But let me point this out...

There was a poll of women in Britain who were mothers, and most indicated that they would ideally have had 2 or 3 children, with a non-negligible amount wanting even more than three. But most of them had only 1 or 2 children. The argument was that career & financial considerations made it difficult to have children and sustain an enjoyable lifestyle, and thus if policies were reworked to reward fertility and allow women and families to maintain a good lifestyle that was competitive with their childless peers, they would be able to increase the total fertility rate as mothers who enjoyed having one and two children would be able to live out their dreams of having multiple children.

This view has become less popular, though, especially after Lee Kuan Yew blasted the South Korean policies aiming at rewarding child birth as ineffective and not addressing the problem. People just don't want to have kids, he argued.

I think he is somewhat wrong. I think, of course, people prefer to party hard and enjoy themselves irresponsibly than taking on greater responsibility, even if that new responsibility is highly rewarding and brings their happiness to a different level. Ultimately, the reason why people tend to not have kids and remain single partiers is the same reason why people prefer to have fun by drinking beer and going to the club than by training to run a marathon: empty pleasures are immediately gratifying and low investment.

People probably have to be pushed into the right decision, and then rewarded for doing it.

My suggestion is quite simple:

Every person when they turn 30 gets a 1% tax on them if they are childless, which goes up by 1% per year up until age 40 where it maxes out at 10%. If they have one child, the tax is cut in half. If they ahve two children, the tax is removed.

All profits from these taxes are given as cash benefits to people who have children, proprotional to the amount of kids they have.

Also, new retirement ages:

0 children = 75, 50% of benefits
1 child = 70, 100%
2 children - 65, 100% benefits
3 children - 63,
4 children - 61,
5 children - 59,
6 children - 57
7+ children - 55

The logic being that creating 7 taxpaying produces 700% as many retirement fund taxes for the state as having a single child. Your 7 children are paying the retirement benefits of many people at once. The state will be able to afford this.

We also can simply observe: this is not discrimination against the childless - it is rewarding those who provide children because everybody knows we are facing a real catastrophe with the age pyramid in terms of national retirement funds and healthcare.

The tax burden is really just the same for everyone. It's just that everyone has to help pay for the future taxpayers (the 10% tax), and everyone has to contribute to the national pension & healthcare funds...

The amount of private wealth invested in a child excluding even healthcare is something like $300,000+ even in a poorer economy like South Korea. That works out to something like $16,000 a year per child. Giving each parent a $1,000 a month only begins to clear the material cost of 300,000 USD over 18 years. You'd have to give them something like $3,000 a month to make up for that. Even if we are literally paying a family of 4 $5,000 a month to just exist, we are not covering the real cost to those parents.

Paying 10% of your income on top of your normal taxes to remain childless and have maximized personal time is a tiny sacrifice compared to parenting one child, let alone two or more.

[Rugoz]

So instead of wasting young people as cannon fodder and/or forcing them to emigrate to the West, the Russian "government" decided to introduce more Nazi propaganda.



I predict this will have zero effect.

Or we could just let the people who don't want to have children not have children. These people and their genes will all go extinct anyways and the people who want to have kids will survive and pass on their ideology.

I didn't know people have kids because of their ideology.

The cultures where anti-childbearing is prevalent, like Western societies, will go extinct rather swiftly and their ideology will follow them into the dustbin of history. Is modern Western culture a suicidal death-cult? Seems like it.

Happens everywhere except in parts of Africa.

[Yaqum]

[Deutschmania]

Right, the Russians agree that this can be the personal choice, but they are just using the logic of Western liberals in their own way:

We need to actively signal our support for certain lifestyles in order to promote them.

Pride Month and LGBTQ+ promotion throughout the Western world is not even about forcing anyone to do anything, other than perhaps actively attempting to squeeze out of polite discussion any sort of opposition to the agenda.

You can assume the Russian policies are attempting to do something similar - part of a larger social engineering project.

Has it worked in the West? Yeah, we can look at the public opinion polls on this to see the results. It can likely work for other things, too.

After all, the Japanese once celebrated their domination over the Chinese and mocked maltreated British, Australian, and American POWs - this was just a regular part of their collective conscience, and it is quite unthinkable for us as modern people, even though it was quite normal for early modern Japanese people. That which is popular in a society is not necessarily reflective of truth.



Yeah, I tend to agree with you on all this. But let me point this out...

There was a poll of women in Britain who were mothers, and most indicated that they would ideally have had 2 or 3 children, with a non-negligible amount wanting even more than three. But most of them had only 1 or 2 children. The argument was that career & financial considerations made it difficult to have children and sustain an enjoyable lifestyle, and thus if policies were reworked to reward fertility and allow women and families to maintain a good lifestyle that was competitive with their childless peers, they would be able to increase the total fertility rate as mothers who enjoyed having one and two children would be able to live out their dreams of having multiple children.

This view has become less popular, though, especially after Lee Kuan Yew blasted the South Korean policies aiming at rewarding child birth as ineffective and not addressing the problem. People just don't want to have kids, he argued.

I think he is somewhat wrong. I think, of course, people prefer to party hard and enjoy themselves irresponsibly than taking on greater responsibility, even if that new responsibility is highly rewarding and brings their happiness to a different level. Ultimately, the reason why people tend to not have kids and remain single partiers is the same reason why people prefer to have fun by drinking beer and going to the club than by training to run a marathon: empty pleasures are immediately gratifying and low investment.

People probably have to be pushed into the right decision, and then rewarded for doing it.

My suggestion is quite simple:

Every person when they turn 30 gets a 1% tax on them if they are childless, which goes up by 1% per year up until age 40 where it maxes out at 10%. If they have one child, the tax is cut in half. If they ahve two children, the tax is removed.

All profits from these taxes are given as cash benefits to people who have children, proprotional to the amount of kids they have.

Also, new retirement ages:

0 children = 75, 50% of benefits
1 child = 70, 100%
2 children - 65, 100% benefits
3 children - 63,
4 children - 61,
5 children - 59,
6 children - 57
7+ children - 55

The logic being that creating 7 taxpaying produces 700% as many retirement fund taxes for the state as having a single child. Your 7 children are paying the retirement benefits of many people at once. The state will be able to afford this.

We also can simply observe: this is not discrimination against the childless - it is rewarding those who provide children because everybody knows we are facing a real catastrophe with the age pyramid in terms of national retirement funds and healthcare.

The tax burden is really just the same for everyone. It's just that everyone has to help pay for the future taxpayers (the 10% tax), and everyone has to contribute to the national pension & healthcare funds...

The amount of private wealth invested in a child excluding even healthcare is something like $300,000+ even in a poorer economy like South Korea. That works out to something like $16,000 a year per child. Giving each parent a $1,000 a month only begins to clear the material cost of 300,000 USD over 18 years. You'd have to give them something like $3,000 a month to make up for that. Even if we are literally paying a family of 4 $5,000 a month to just exist, we are not covering the real cost to those parents.

Paying 10% of your income on top of your normal taxes to remain childless and have maximized personal time is a tiny sacrifice compared to parenting one child, let alone two or more.

I feel that at least it is good that the Kremlin is making exceptions for religious and medical reasons . For not only will there be those with a vocational calling that might involve celibacy , but also because there could be some who might choose to not bear children , due to eugenics concerns . For instance , in addition to my being asexually inclined , I have a family history of possible congenital disorders , such as for just some examples ,Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease , and Fragile X Syndrome , that I wouldn't want to risk passing on to any future generations . So I would best require genetic screening , before I potentially spread my seed around . Really though , what Russia is trying to do to encourage a boost in the birthrate , is not unprecedented . For instance , in addition to the Third Reich giving out the Cross of Honour of the German Mother , the Soviet Union did similarly , as referenced in the short video below . Plus , even the liberal , Kamala Harris , has proposed a tax credit for couples whom have children . And , as for restricting free expression , it is not essentially different from similar past measures against the LGBT+ community asserting itself . My only special personal concern might be if someone such as myself , only Russian , were to express how they are asexual , and then be charged with " promoting an untraditional lifestyle " . Like this is simply my natural inclination , in terms of sexual orientation . I wouldn't ever encourage other people to forego sexual relations . And as I have mentioned elsewhere , if after getting the all clear , from a genetic screening , the government were to demand that I contribute a semen sample , I wouldn't have any problem with that .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-child-tax-credit-6000-dnc-what-to-know/ , https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/europe/russia-lgbtq-propaganda-law-signed-by-putin-intl/index.html

[Deutschmania]

I didn't know people have kids because of their ideology.

You must not have ever heard of Quiverfull , and the related Mandatory Marriage Movement , as critiqued by my one cousin , whom is a Neo-Calvinist, in his blogs linked below . Consider yourself lucky then , as a number of Christian fundamentalists are teaching that it is necessary to be married and have an unlimited number of children , in order to be within the will of God , and stay in His good graces .

https://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/search/label/Mandatory%20Marriage%20Movement , https://otrmin.wordpress.com/?s=Quiverfull

[Verv]

I feel that at least it is good that the Kremlin is making exceptions for religious and medical reasons . For not only will there be those with a vocational calling that might involve celibacy , but also because there could be some who might choose to not bear children , due to eugenics concerns . For instance , in addition to my being asexually inclined , I have a family history of possible congenital disorders , such as for just some examples ,Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease , and Fragile X Syndrome , that I wouldn't want to risk passing on to any future generations . So I would best require genetic screening , before I potentially spread my seed around . Really though , what Russia is trying to do to encourage a boost in the birthrate , is not unprecedented . For instance , in addition to the Third Reich giving out the Cross of Honour of the German Mother , the Soviet Union did similarly , as referenced in the short video below . Plus , even the liberal , Kamala Harris , has proposed a tax credit for couples whom have children . And , as for restricting free expression , it is not essentially different from similar past measures against the LGBT+ community asserting itself . My only special personal concern might be if someone such as myself , only Russian , were to express how they are asexual , and then be charged with " promoting an untraditional lifestyle " . Like this is simply my natural inclination , in terms of sexual orientation . I wouldn't ever encourage other people to forego sexual relations . And as I have mentioned elsewhere , if after getting the all clear , from a genetic screening , the government were to demand that I contribute a semen sample , I wouldn't have any problem with that .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-child-tax-credit-6000-dnc-what-to-know/ , https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/europe/russia-lgbtq-propaganda-law-signed-by-putin-intl/index.html

I actually think that you are missing the point of the Russians here because they already stated in the above article that

“It is not about the right of everyone to choose in such personal matters, but about the effort to convince others, especially minors, of the superiority of a childless lifestyle,” she added.

I think everyone should take her word at her value.

It's odd to suggest that Russia actually wants dysgenic people and the mentally unwell who are truly traumatized at the thought of having kids from reproducing to be out there procreating. I think it's just about nudging the country towards reproductivity.

I guess if it's not, we will eventually see that to be the case. But until it is, why not just take the text at face value.

[Negotiator]

We are living on a finite planet with finite resources. Less people means more wealth available to share per person.

We have no realistic prospect on another earthlike planet any time soon.

And unsurprisingly already the growth rates are leveling out everywhere, even in developing countries. Very likely in a couple decades mankind will shrink a bit overall.

That said, if you want more children, you have to plain and simple pay for them. As long as children are a de facto poverty trap, people will avoid said trap.

[Deutschmania]

We are living on a finite planet with finite resources. Less people means more wealth available to share per person.

We have no realistic prospect on another earthlike planet any time soon.

And unsurprisingly already the growth rates are leveling out everywhere, even in developing countries. Very likely in a couple decades mankind will shrink a bit overall.

That said, if you want more children, you have to plain and simple pay for them. As long as children are a de facto poverty trap, people will avoid said trap.

The crucial question should be why is there such a disproportionate rate of distribution of resources ? Why is it that a select few are enabled to hoard material wealth , while the many are left in want of the basic necessities of life ? I just feel that we all deserve , and should be able to do better than the current inefficient economic system . We need to society that serves to affirm the worth of each and every person , and fulfills human need rather than supplies insatiable personal greed .

What people who say that “population explosion is a phenomenon within itself” might not have considered is that most problems attributed to overpopulation are actually caused by political, social and economic conditions. The “overpopulation” movement is a disguise for the wealthy in their Malthusian attacks on the poor. Population is not the root cause of poverty in the Third World; it is a symptom. It is not population size that causes poverty, but rather economic and social conditions, including distribution of resources.

Thomas Malthus, the man who is more or less responsible for the myth of “overpopulation,” was a clergyman in the 1700s who made an unscientific observation—he proposed that while human population grew exponentially (2, 4, 16, 32…) production grows in a straight, linear line (1, 2, 3, 4…). He argued that humans would eventually outgrow the “carrying capacity” of the Earth. Malthus’ methods and research have been thoroughly debunked thousands of times by other scholars, as well as common sense, which shows that in reality people can produce many times what they consume through work, production and the development of technology. Despite this, the “overpopulation” myth continues today.

No one, even “cornucopianists,” believes that the resources of the planet Earth are unlimited. Usually the position they take is that there are more factors involved in the issue of overpopulation than simply the idea of too many people and not enough resources. The real problem is how those resources are distributed. This is the real problem–this class division among human beings and the uneven development of nations due to the global imperialist system.

The widespread ownership of land is also a major problem to be combated. As land is a natural product, it should not be a commodity to be bought and sold. If one person owns a huge plot of land, far more acreage than any single man—no matter how rich—should ever need to own, that complicates the possibility of building proper housing, schools, hospitals, etc. When the concept of land ownership is not in question, it becomes apparent that little land is actually needed to give most people comfortable living space. The figure below illustrates the land area per person in nations that the popular opinion labels as “overpopulated”. And this figure from the same source illustrates how land distribution factors into “overpopulation". Yes, there are cities that are overpopulated, crammed to the brim with people. However, the Earth is not overpopulated in area—most of the land area is empty. While the earth does have a finite number of resources and a finite area with which to cultivate those resources, again, most of it is political and economic, i.e., the world’s supply of crude oil running out due to the financial interests of those in charge of the oil companies, the lack of an alternative being developed due to capitalist interests holding back science, the crises of overproduction and waste due to the market, international conflicts and of course, poverty.

There is also the matter of pollution. Political and social writer Joseph Barter says that, “At the very least, human overpopulation and increasing industrial activity are causing the extinction of large numbers of other species, and could potentially lead to the biological death of the planet. This destruction began with the advent of modern technology several centuries ago, and accelerated tremendously with the advent of the petroleum age” (2).

The ecological harm caused by the increase of industry is not directly due to the number of people, but rather the methods with which these resources are produced. If more sensible and environmentally-friendly options were adopted by developed nations as well as developing ones, the carbon footprint of the average person and the pollution of the air, water and food could be drastically reduced.

Womens’ rights must also be a central issue when addressing the “population explosion.” As they become more empowered in the home and workplace, women have fewer children, as reproduction and homemaking is no longer considered their only purpose for existing. Phillip Longman, writer for Foreign Affairs, says that, “Today, the average woman in the world bears half as many children as did her counterpart in 1972” (3). Some blame the “explosion” in population for problems such as environmental degradation, the crises of overproduction and the widening gap between the rich and poor, but the problem is not so much overpopulation as it is distribution of resources. https://redphoenixnews.com/2009/03/01/the-myth-of-overpopulation/

[Deutschmania]

In an update to this story , it is expected that the legislation will be enacted soon .

Russian lawmakers on Tuesday voted to ban the advocacy of child-free lifestyles, in a move that is part of a broader effort by the Kremlin to reverse a falling birthrate and promote the country as a bastion of traditional values that is battling a decadent West.

The State Duma, or lower house of Parliament, unanimously approved a bill that would ban any form of “propaganda” promoting the “refusal to have children.” That would include material on the internet, in media outlets, in movies and in advertising that portrays child-free lifestyles as attractive.

Violators would be subjected to fines of up to about $4,000 for individuals and $50,000 for legal entities.

The bill has been broadly endorsed by the Kremlin and is expected to receive approval from the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Parliament, and then be signed into law by President Vladimir V. Putin.

In September, speaking about the proposed legislation, Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, called demography “one of the main challenges” for Russia.

“Everything that needs to be done to increase birthrates must be done,” Mr. Peskov said. “And everything that obstructs that must disappear from our lives.” New York Times

Meanwhile in the U.S.A.

Lydia Birk, 56, has held on to her favorite copy of “The Velveteen Rabbit” since her three children — now in their 20s and 30s — were young.

She loved being a stay-at-home mother, and filled her family’s home with books. (All of her children could read before they started school, Ms. Birk recalled with pride.) She hoped one day to be a “cool” grandma who would share her favorite stories with a new generation.

But none of her children want to have kids. And though that decision is “right for them,” Ms. Birk said, it still breaks her heart. “I don’t have young children anymore, and now I’m not going to have grandchildren,” she said. “So that part of my life is just over.”

Like Ms. Birk, a growing number of Gen Xers and baby boomers are facing the sometimes painful fact that they are never going to become grandparents. A little more than half of adults 50 and older had at least one grandchild in 2021, down from nearly 60 percent in 2014. Amid falling birthrates, more U.S. adults say they’re unlikely to ever have children for a variety of reasons, chief among them: They just don’t want to.

“That is a best and worst thing about having kids,” said Ms. Birk’s husband, John Birk Jr., 55. “You watch them make their own decisions, different from your own.”

Still, would-be grandparents like the Birks may experience a deep sense of longing and loss when their children opt out of parenthood, even if they understand at an intellectual level that their children do not “owe” them a family legacy, said Claire Bidwell Smith, a therapist based in Los Angeles and the author of “Conscious Grieving.” It doesn’t help that our society tends to paint grandchildren as a reward for aging. New York Times

[litwin]

Russosphere anti-natalists be on guard:




RT

It won't push the total fertility rate much by itself but we can see how it may be a welcomed part of a comprehensive pro-TFR series of policies.

It at least serves the purpose of regime messaging.

you fascist - imperialistic ulus is a joke, you (always lying Ivan) just proved it.


Moscow economy meltdown as runaway inflation sees 64% potato price rise



Ukrainian mother of 4 children sentenced to 14-years in prison for telling Moscow occupant - soldiers to “leave our country”.

https://x.com/GlasnostGone/status/18551 ... _&ref_url=
A court in Moscow has jailed 68-year-old paediatrician Nadezhda Buyanova for five and half years over critical comments she made about the invasion of Ukraine
https://x.com/francis_scarr/status/1856 ... _&ref_url=

any comments on this ?

[Verv]

So, I was curious about the case of Buyova, the Moscow pediatrician. I wanted full context. I went digging - here are the results from auto-translated websites:

She wrote a complaint against her local a resident who came to the reception with her seven-year-old son. The doctor drew attention to the nervous behavior of the boy. Mother replied that the child was experiencing after the death in Ukraine of his father, a member of the Russian army. After that, according to her mother, Buyanov called her deceased husband "a legitimate military target."

After the patient’s mother went to law enforcement, Buyanov was fired from her job, a criminal case was opened against her, and her apartment was searched.

Buyanova declaresthat she did not utter such words. Lawyer Cherdzhiev also claims that the child was not present at the doctor’s conversation with his mother.

Svoboda

So this is actually a case about great insensitivity that could theoretically constitute some form of harassment in some societies.

The already questionable nature of Russian democracy plus the sensitivty of the environment due to the war make this sort of understandable, I guess..?

I can't find anything concerning the Oksana Hladkykh situation. I also do not have anythin to say about the price of poatos in Russia, lol.

[Yaqum]