Basic math. If your birthrate stabilizes below replacement level then you go extinct because each generation is smaller than the one before. The only way you don't go extinct is if your birthrate over the long haul is at or above replacement level.
Do I need to seriously believe that there is possible to extinct for humanity because of some people are not willing to make children? Are there any chances for this to happen before heat death of the Universe if to extrapolate Japan's birth trend to all human population?
No, because not all parts of humanity are equally averse to having children. So as long as it is physically possible for people to have kids and survive until adulthood, natural selection will eventually reassert itself. Things could get dicey for a while until then, though?
If global fertility rate becomes that like Japan, we'll have a halving of the population every generation. This leads to a global population of 78 million after 10 generations. Also a miserable population because each person needs to support two elderly people while before it was two people supporting one elderly. That's a 4x increase in work.
But what if we adjust the figure to take into account those percent Japanese who want children but cannot afford them? When the population begins to "extinct" because of those who can but do not want to reproduce, those who want to but cannot now will be able to do it.
Also the overbearing burden to support the elderly with a smaller younger population will apply to every generation (barring temporary baby booms) since each generation will be smaller than the previous one.
I think the end result will be that elderly won't be supported anymore. But let to work until they die. Cultures can change, assisted suicide or simply not keeping people alive past certain point might come reality.
I said they obviously will stabilize. They always do. Everything always does. At a certain point the population is just so low that having children becomes highly advantageous again. There's very very few biological system where the entire population just dies out from lack of reproduction (despite all other resources to do so being available).
On the other hand: there is absolutely 0 evidence to suggest that the population wouldn't stabilize. There are sub populations of humans that already have stabilized populations, this is true throughout the animal kingdom. If it's just preferences to not have kids, then those people will see their genetic line stopped and the people with preferences to have kids will see their genes dominate. If it's environmental, then our path will look a lot like that of other animals experiencing environmental shifts: certainly tough, but if you can adapt fast enough you'll be ok.
Right now, the main reason people don't have kids who want them is finances. The likely outcome here looks like the economy will winnow as a consequence until having kids becomes a positive financial decision (and that might mean going back as far as subsistence living in a worst case scenario). Regardless, the population will stabilize short of an asteroid or other catastrophe.
There's not a single precedent ever for what you suggest. The population stabilizing is the default for all of nature.
Your argument about sub populations can be just as easily applied to humans as a whole. Perhaps humans will be replaced by another species.
If you look at nature more coarsely, you don’t see population stabilization. Instead you see speciation and extinction due to random and constant changes. Perhaps there will be an environmental event that we would otherwise survive that will do us in because of our low population.
He said that in the context of sanctions, and which did end up shutting it down long before it was blown up. It only appears to be a threat of destruction retroactively because it was later blown up. There were no articles claiming he was threatening to blow it up at the time. Everyone knew the context was with regards to sanctions at the time.
You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. But that never happened.
You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context.
> Lol. Here's the video.[0] The 'context' you're arguing for was a question posed to someone else. The question she asked to Biden--the immediate context for his comment--clearly strengthens the argument that this was a threat against the pipeline.
> The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point.
I don't even know where to start with this one.
> And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently,
Listen to the lady in the video above. Why's she so flabbergasted after Biden's answer? How does her follow-up question make sense if she thought he was talking about sanctions?
> otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up.
> Why's she so flabbergasted after Biden's answer? How does her follow-up question make sense if she thought he was talking about sanctions?
She just asked how Biden would do it, since the pipeline was within Germany‘s control. And he answered: „We will be able to do it.“
He did not identify who „we“ is and how it‘s done. „We“ could be the US and Germany together, it could be the western World or it could be the US alone. If it were the US alone it could be done by imposing sanctions on that particular pipeline and it could be done by putting diplomatic or economic pressure on Germany (many ways to do that) and it could be done by putting sanctions on companies that interact with the pipeline and so on. It could also be done by using force, but that is merely one of many options and I believe that Biden at that time didn‘t even know how himself. He made a strong assertion in order to take control of the situation and he did.
Yes. We can continue to hold reservations but that can be considered evidence. It is akin to someone getting killed and someone else prior saying they would kill that person. It doesn't mean they actually did it, but it is suspicion and motive that should lead to further investigations. That Germany and other countries aren't looking into it can also be considered circumstantial evidence.
It‘s not evidence because the pipeline wasn‘t that important anymore. They also looked into it. And finally any of them could have done it themselves as well. Nothing points to the US specifically.
For the US such an operation would have a huge amount of risk and they have to gain nothing until the war is over and even after that very little or nothing. (Potentially they can sell their gas - but others as well.) So why do it?
On the other hand, Germany had to gain a bit (shutting down the voices calling for it being opened) and Russia had to gain a lot (sowing distrust within NATO; forcing a change from NS1 to the remaining NS2; as a show of power and a threat; making a strategic change impossible to shut down future opposition within the power structure of Russia) or just to complete their shift to trade with China now instead. The NS2 project was already dead.)
The US runs no risk at all in doing something like this.
They've been doing war and killing innocents ("collateral damage", sorry...) for decades, all in the name of some doubtful "freedom and democracy", and what has happened to them? Nothing whatsoever.
Your original claim, which was an opinion stated in the form of a fact, was that it is a Nothing Burger.
Stating one's opinions on social media is generally fine, but stating them in the form of facts is dangerous in that it can cause other agents in the system to have incorrect state, which can have very serious causal consequences, up to and including death, which most people claim to be "a big deal".
It is counterintuitive to think in this way, but many useful things are counterintuitive.
Except that some of the ethnic groups (Asian Americans) that are being discriminated against by this policy were also discriminated against by redlining back then.
This is priceless. Unfortunately the owners of that shithole most likely do not give a flying fuck about what he says and are laughing all their way to the bank.
