In general, I try not to discuss politics outside of appropriate spaces. And those spaces are usually small, confined, and located within areas where nobody close enough to punch one another. That’s not just a byproduct of having followed the news too closely for the past 10 years. I’ve just learned over the years that talking politics with random people is a quick way to make enemies, get angry, and generally lose what little faith in humanity you might have had.
There’s a time and a place to have political discussions. That time is almost never and that place is almost nowhere, unless you actively work in institutions that deal in such policies. You just have to be aware that certain discussions about certain issues are bound to get heated. And it’s next to impossible to change anyone’s mind about a particular position through these discussions.
However, in my personal experience, which I understand is limited, I’ve noticed there are a few hot-button topics that often double as red flags for certain people. It’s not that the topics themselves aren’t relevant. They usually are. But when certain people single them out as a major area of concern, it warrants a certain level of caution. Because many of those people may not be arguing in good faith.
There are many issues and topics like that. But one in particular, which has become relevant in multiple countries, has to do with falling birthrates. Now, in terms of the actual numbers, there is cause for concern. If you actually look up population trends in numerous countries, you’ll confirm that this is a global trend. And falling birthrates certainly do incur a host of social, political, and economic problems for any given society.
That being said, there’s a right way to approach this issue, as well a wrong/misguided/deeply disturbing way. The right way is more academic than political. You study the factors surrounding the trend. Analyze which of those factors are influenced by certain policies. Then, you take the appropriate prescriptive measures.
But that’s not the approach certain people make. I don’t want to name names, but most of these people are closely aligned with the conservative, right-wing, or reactionary part of the political spectrum. They also tend to be staunch traditionalists who argue society has deviated too much from the morals, values, and social norms we used to have. And addressing the problem of falling birthrates, along with a host of other problems, requires that society reverse that trend.
Now, the people making these points may very well be sincere. They may genuinely believe that people would be happier and more prosperous if they lived like we did in whatever nostalgic past era they idolize, whenever and wherever it might be.
However, in terms of the actual substance of this argument, it’s total bullshit.
And in terms of larger implications, it might even be a mask for a more nefarious agenda.
To understand why, it’s worth asking two important questions with respect to birthrates and those who obsess over it.
Question #1: Who benefits most directly from increasing birthrates?
Question #2: What other agenda does addressing this issue serve?
In the case of falling birthrates and ways to address it, there are certain policy prescriptions that tend to get emphasized over others. Those who like to frame declining birthrates as a serious issue tend not to talk much about the rising costs of childcare, housing, and food. They also tend not to talk much about the fact that wages, on a global scale, have remained relatively stagnant.
Instead, the reactionary crowd will highlight social issues like LGBTQ rights, declining marriage rates, feminism, and a lack of religious affiliation. Even if they touch on some of the economic issues, they won’t label them as a high priority. They’ll just frame women, teenagers, and sexual minorities as deviants or aberrations who are not contributing to society in a meaningful way.
They may claim they’re just concerned about the future of society. But in general, their concerns can often be boiled down to furthering draconian policies on women, workers, and young people. And the people and organizations who benefit are usually who you might expect.
Rich, well-connected business owners need a growing population to buy their products and/or get locked into their network of services.
Powerful, well-connected political organizations need a growing population to sustain the social and economic status quo that put them into power.
Religious organizations need a steady increase in population to ensure more adherents, which in turn means more influence and tax-free money for them.
The ones who don’t benefit are usually women who can’t access or afford family planning. It also negatively impacts LGBTQ+ communities because they’re denigrated for not contributing to the population/consumer/worker base. It also negatively effects workers who get stuck in cycles of poverty because they have too many kids that they cannot afford.
Again, this is not to say that falling birthrates aren’t an issue. There are certainly steps society can take to address this issue. And those steps will definitely vary from country to country. But for certain people of certain political leanings, it’s a cover for regressive, reactionary policies that benefit nobody except those who are already rich and powerful.
Be aware of that because, in most cases, serving the interests of those at the top of an imperfect system only hinders any efforts to address those imperfections.
Jack Fisher's Official Publishing Blog 
An Important Hypothetical Question To Consider (Before Any Debate)
I’ve been using the internet for a good chunk of my life. I’m old enough to remember the days of slow dial-up, AOL chatrooms, and messy Geocities websites. And while I don’t miss those days, there are certain elements of my internet experience that have remained fairly constant.
One of them has to do with debates. And if you’ve ever talked politics, comics, anime, or movies with anyone on any medium, you know how heated that can get.
Believe me, I know this as well as anyone. I still haven’t forgotten how heated some debates got on the old comic book message boards I used to frequent. Some want to say social media ruined discourse by making it too easy to engage in such debates. But I respectfully disagree.
This sort of tension between people always existed. Human beings have always had their share of strongly held opinions that they were debate, discuss, and defend far past the point of reason. It doesn’t matter how smart, educated, or well-informed they are. The passion with which they hold their views has always been strong. The internet and social media simply made it more prominent.
I’m bringing this up for two reasons. For one, I see a lot of debates and arguments online, especially in comments sections and on social media. I freely admit that I engage in some of that discourse. It’s rarely productive. And I’ve yet to meet anyone who has been convinced to change their position on something based on a point someone made in a Facebook comment.
Second, I live in the United States of America and this year happens to be an election year. Debates about politics, issues, and policies are bound to get more heated. And that’ll only escalate the closer we get to Election Day on November 5, 2024. I fully expect to see plenty of discourse that will make me lose my faith in democracy, the future, and humanity in general.
For those reasons, and plenty others I don’t care to articulate, I want to present a simple hypothetical to anyone seeking to debate others in any capacity on any issue, be it political or otherwise. It’s not a thought experiment. It’s just a simple perspective that I hope provides greater context into the nature of discourse. It goes like this.
What I just described is situation that I hope adds context to the what, why, and how of debating others. Because if you approach this hypothetical in good faith, it puts you in a difficult position. Either you admit you seek vindication and are willing to fight for it or you actively avoid the implication that your position is wrong.
Call it confirmation bias.
Call it cognitive dissonance.
Call it an impossible scenario that will never play out because there are too many issues that cannot be completely verified beyond any and all doubts.
If you’re honest with yourself, you know how you’ll react in that scenario. And if you’re honest about how most people operate in heated discourse, you’ll know how your opponent would react in this scenario.
However you feel about what I just presented, I only ask that you keep it in mind as you engage in further discourse moving forward.
Leave a comment
Filed under philosophy, political correctness, politics, Thought Experiment
Tagged as bias, cognitive dissonance, comments section, conservative, debate, democracy, democrat, discourse, Donald Trump, Election Day, hate speech, human psychology, internet comments, liberal, news, political debate, political discourse, politics, psychology, republican, sociology, the internet, Trump