Given the nature of life, a population will grow until just beyond it is limited by something like a resource shortage or predation/disease.
This limit will then provide selective pressure on the population, creating a population that is better at its mitigation. Eventually the population might reach such fitness that something else becomes the limiting factor.
The limiting factor, naturally, prevents unfit individuals from reproducing. In nature this often takes the form of individuals not reaching the reproductive age i.e. dying children.
On the contrary; if the otherwise unfit receive aid and benefits while the otherwise fit need to overcome the limitations on their own strength, there is selective pressure to being dependent, called disgenics. The behaviours that do well in such an environment, called degeneracy, are adaptations rather than a cause; However, tendency towards these behaviours may be a product of past disgenics. To which extent and with what clauses benefits and safety-nets can be employed is up for debate, but there should be no debate that the price for careless implementation is disgenics.
National socialists promote birthrates, which is good if you want selective pressure. Some promote eugenics, where those with the desired traits receive benefits, which is fine but the idea of eugenics alone doesn't provide a limiting factor on your population. There's also proposable policies ranging from fines to euthanisation of those with undesired traits, but personally I'm not yet sure if I'm willing to grant the government those powers.
So what environmental or social factor limits a National Socialist population, if the jews are sucessfully uprooted? I have some suspicion that the prospersous Germany was thriving because it had not yet reached any limits after shaking off the jewish shackles. If they'd had another few decades surely something would give out under the growing population; Food, housing, support for the elderly, or something else where my very limited imagination does not strech.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 270C2A09603CD2C8B2E236F99C9FAA8C-51217.jpg (50.0 KB, 500x468, birdcharity.jpg)
Populations are limited by space and resources. A system that lets the good prosper and the failures ruin themselves fatally helps evolution. Once we into space, space and resources are non-issues and we can settle where we damn well please.
Right now, benefits should not go to those unwilling to work. It should go to working families that want to raise a child but cant afford to let the mother quit her job to raise it solo.
Bad systems can be fixed and should be fixed.
We live under a corrupt system that rewards the weak and complacent while punishing the good.
Right now, benefits should not go to those unwilling to work. It should go to working families that want to raise a child but cant afford to let the mother quit her job to raise it solo.
Bad systems can be fixed and should be fixed.
We live under a corrupt system that rewards the weak and complacent while punishing the good.
>>254519
>So what environmental or social factor limits a National Socialist population,
Lebensraum ;)
>So what environmental or social factor limits a National Socialist population,
Lebensraum ;)
>>254521
>Once we into space, space and resources are non-issues and we can settle where we damn well please.
I think getting into space properly will still take quite a while and society will get distracted by sustenance and housing problems in the meantime.
>benefits should go to working families
What will you do with the unfit who turn into beggars, thiefs, or are starving in the streets? If you incarcerate them for their theft or whatever, what will you do with their children? The historical answer has been orphanages, but that seems a bit disgenic too...
>Once we into space, space and resources are non-issues and we can settle where we damn well please.
I think getting into space properly will still take quite a while and society will get distracted by sustenance and housing problems in the meantime.
>benefits should go to working families
What will you do with the unfit who turn into beggars, thiefs, or are starving in the streets? If you incarcerate them for their theft or whatever, what will you do with their children? The historical answer has been orphanages, but that seems a bit disgenic too...
>>254519
>If they'd had another few decades surely something would give out under the growing population; Food, housing, support for the elderly, or something else
Not necessarily, these things are in shortage now because the focus of our societies is net economic growth at any cost, rather than on prosperity for the people. National Socialism was uniquely attuned to what its population needed to prosper. Growth stimulus policies would have been ended long before any shortage of these necessities cropped up and the population would have been self aware enough to police itself as with practically any other period in human history.
Disgenics via technological advancement would be the most likely, as it is with any first world society. Eventually the population hits a critical mass of defects and it collapses in on itself when technological progress can no longer mitigate them, or is kept from mitigating them. It's what happens to a society when it has the means to counter the long term negative effects of advanced society on human physiology, but not the will to use them. It's what's happening to us, right now, like the Romans using lead in their aqueducts.
Eugenics, cultural discipline, a majority belief in pragmatism over sentimentalism, these things would slow or prevent it, but you'll never see this happen due to how we're wired as animals. Deep down, all of us value the other members of our tribe because there is safety in numbers, which can only be overridden by an imminent threat. Long term disgenics is a bit further down the line to be considered imminent.
>If they'd had another few decades surely something would give out under the growing population; Food, housing, support for the elderly, or something else
Not necessarily, these things are in shortage now because the focus of our societies is net economic growth at any cost, rather than on prosperity for the people. National Socialism was uniquely attuned to what its population needed to prosper. Growth stimulus policies would have been ended long before any shortage of these necessities cropped up and the population would have been self aware enough to police itself as with practically any other period in human history.
Disgenics via technological advancement would be the most likely, as it is with any first world society. Eventually the population hits a critical mass of defects and it collapses in on itself when technological progress can no longer mitigate them, or is kept from mitigating them. It's what happens to a society when it has the means to counter the long term negative effects of advanced society on human physiology, but not the will to use them. It's what's happening to us, right now, like the Romans using lead in their aqueducts.
Eugenics, cultural discipline, a majority belief in pragmatism over sentimentalism, these things would slow or prevent it, but you'll never see this happen due to how we're wired as animals. Deep down, all of us value the other members of our tribe because there is safety in numbers, which can only be overridden by an imminent threat. Long term disgenics is a bit further down the line to be considered imminent.
>>254519
>So what environmental or social factor limits a National Socialist population
War
NatSoc is an expansive ideology.
Funny enough, hitler himself was worried about this issue, he knew either perpetual war or perpetual expansion was necessary in order to maintain a stable population.
He, however, did not directly address the problem on his book so if national socialism takes over the world, it would be up to natsocs to figure that out.
>So what environmental or social factor limits a National Socialist population
War
NatSoc is an expansive ideology.
Funny enough, hitler himself was worried about this issue, he knew either perpetual war or perpetual expansion was necessary in order to maintain a stable population.
He, however, did not directly address the problem on his book so if national socialism takes over the world, it would be up to natsocs to figure that out.
God. After lurking on 4/pol/ for so long, threads like this seem unimaginable sweet and refreshing. So much fucking difference.
>>254519
Eventually population growth will need to stop, that being once there are no more resources to accommodate such population. That is, however, unlikely to ever happen under a NatSoc society due to the expansive nature os National Socialism.
Think about it, once the population has reached peak in its own lands, why not take away with the less desirable and the land they occupy and then reoccupy said lands? Technology is an ally in such endeavour that permits settlement in otherwise inhabitable places by proper civilisations (around the equator or close to the poles as examples).
Now imagine the proposed scenario: all lands north of Cancer and south of Capricorn are totally occupied, Tropical lands are totally maximised in food production, what comes next? The last frontier of course, spacial colonisation is a clear answer to the environmental factor of population growth.
With that said, the question becomes not whether there are conditions to limitless and unrestricted population growth, but whether or not such growth is even desired in the first place. Is it morally acceptable that nature is to be either replaced or extremely changed to support civilizacional settlement when it was that same nature that moulded said civilisation? Is it acceptable to have even the most brutish of individuals to have an offspring? What which point does civilizacional value diverge from individual value? And possibly the most important of all; what is it for? Is it the chasing of eternal life? Is it a civilisation-wide quest to have a larger population so that a genius emerges and finds the meaning of life? Is it the need to various of said geniuses to always be taught and complete each other's thesis? Maybe it's the need to discover the truth about the universe? Maybe all of it?
Without will there isn't a reason to exist a way. So, what is the will for such population growth? The answer to this question inherently changes the answer to the former.
Eventually population growth will need to stop, that being once there are no more resources to accommodate such population. That is, however, unlikely to ever happen under a NatSoc society due to the expansive nature os National Socialism.
Think about it, once the population has reached peak in its own lands, why not take away with the less desirable and the land they occupy and then reoccupy said lands? Technology is an ally in such endeavour that permits settlement in otherwise inhabitable places by proper civilisations (around the equator or close to the poles as examples).
Now imagine the proposed scenario: all lands north of Cancer and south of Capricorn are totally occupied, Tropical lands are totally maximised in food production, what comes next? The last frontier of course, spacial colonisation is a clear answer to the environmental factor of population growth.
With that said, the question becomes not whether there are conditions to limitless and unrestricted population growth, but whether or not such growth is even desired in the first place. Is it morally acceptable that nature is to be either replaced or extremely changed to support civilizacional settlement when it was that same nature that moulded said civilisation? Is it acceptable to have even the most brutish of individuals to have an offspring? What which point does civilizacional value diverge from individual value? And possibly the most important of all; what is it for? Is it the chasing of eternal life? Is it a civilisation-wide quest to have a larger population so that a genius emerges and finds the meaning of life? Is it the need to various of said geniuses to always be taught and complete each other's thesis? Maybe it's the need to discover the truth about the universe? Maybe all of it?
Without will there isn't a reason to exist a way. So, what is the will for such population growth? The answer to this question inherently changes the answer to the former.
File (): 408ABBCDBD3E7E1D9C5D52513A9537AC-190493.jpg (186.0 KB, 960x480, Screenshot_2020-01-03-06-28-15.jpg)
>>254689
The creator's purpose is higher than mere knowledge acquisition or immortality. It is omniscience through distant civilizations and far off futures, and the power to create beauty and meaning. Breaking barriers, seeing past our existence's farthest reaches, and passing that torch on when our bonfires fade to ash - whether to our creations or our natural successors.
Our purpose is to surpass time, space, even reality through dank memes.
The creator's purpose is higher than mere knowledge acquisition or immortality. It is omniscience through distant civilizations and far off futures, and the power to create beauty and meaning. Breaking barriers, seeing past our existence's farthest reaches, and passing that torch on when our bonfires fade to ash - whether to our creations or our natural successors.
Our purpose is to surpass time, space, even reality through dank memes.
The goal of helping humanity reach eternity via memes has many fronts from which it may be approached. The artistic angle is by prpmoting beauty and righteousness in all its forms, and trying to break its meaning down in ways future beings will learn to understand. Showing beauty, for full context, may include dark or grotesque things such as the Cthulu mythos or real life degeneracy - without the dark, the light is invisible to an outsider.
The scientific angle is one of learning the nature of reality, to convey memes and send them. The religious angle is to help guide the masses into understanding their roles vaguely where teaching science may fail or frighten them. Culturally we must establish a social order of some fascistic stripe, and expel the red menace to secure it. Racially, we must secure the existence of our people of course. I think we have to enact tough love for a few decades, let the unfit die out and return to altruism when the impoverished minds and bodies of our people are fit to help again.
Never forget the ideals; never cuck on a belief in law and order because you broke a law or two in the past; never waver on the beauty of the ideal man and woman just because you may be gay or self conscious about where chad-nationalists place you on the totem pole; never resort to divide on behalf of our enemy over religion because you may believe differently.
We are in it together.
The scientific angle is one of learning the nature of reality, to convey memes and send them. The religious angle is to help guide the masses into understanding their roles vaguely where teaching science may fail or frighten them. Culturally we must establish a social order of some fascistic stripe, and expel the red menace to secure it. Racially, we must secure the existence of our people of course. I think we have to enact tough love for a few decades, let the unfit die out and return to altruism when the impoverished minds and bodies of our people are fit to help again.
Never forget the ideals; never cuck on a belief in law and order because you broke a law or two in the past; never waver on the beauty of the ideal man and woman just because you may be gay or self conscious about where chad-nationalists place you on the totem pole; never resort to divide on behalf of our enemy over religion because you may believe differently.
We are in it together.
>>254663
>which can only be overridden by an imminent threat.
interesting.
Though maybe if you have no trouble feeding your family to the point that it's an imminent threat, you don't have enough children. jk not sure if that'd work.
>>254689
>Without will there isn't a reason to exist a way.
Which is why I addressed NatSocs ;)
But I wholly agree with you mostly; Population growth is a danger in itself
>expansive nature os National Socialism
even if you just take the fourteen words literally: engineering your utopia to be maximally-resistant to existental disaster, that doesn't mean maxxing out population.
- dense population is known to be vulnerable to plagues.
- healthy forests and oceans may be considered safer than centralized oxygen production.
- centralization of food/govmnt etc generally means single-point-of-failure.
>which can only be overridden by an imminent threat.
interesting.
Though maybe if you have no trouble feeding your family to the point that it's an imminent threat, you don't have enough children. jk not sure if that'd work.
>>254689
>Without will there isn't a reason to exist a way.
Which is why I addressed NatSocs ;)
But I wholly agree with you mostly; Population growth is a danger in itself
>expansive nature os National Socialism
even if you just take the fourteen words literally: engineering your utopia to be maximally-resistant to existental disaster, that doesn't mean maxxing out population.
- dense population is known to be vulnerable to plagues.
- healthy forests and oceans may be considered safer than centralized oxygen production.
- centralization of food/govmnt etc generally means single-point-of-failure.
>>254827
>Population growth is a danger in itself
Indeed, that's why there is a need to ask ourselves what is the purpose of a continued population growth. Maintenance of a stable non-growing population is the best way there is when trying to perpetuate a civilisation, but is that what the endgame is?
Maybe finding a way for society to endure through time is the objective after all and therefore it is indeed the best option to try and reach harmony within nature and approach a near-zero population growth.
But what if it isn't? What if our destiny lies itself in prolonged social (and consequentially biological) Darwinism, in a search for perfection (either physical and metaphysical)? If this is to be the case, then a larger population growth creating a larger sample of individuals is a better alternative.
That's what I've attempted to address with the 'will and reason' part.
>even if you just take the fourteen words literally
>We need to secure [...] a future...
There is already some thinking to do right here:
-What is this future supposed to be?
-Is existence the sole objective?
Those, for instance, are some questions that could be given some thought. That is only on the philosophical side of things, of course; if you were to limit the discussion only to physical aspects then I am with complete accordance to your points in the last paragraph, a healthy existence is superior to a parasitic one.
>Population growth is a danger in itself
Indeed, that's why there is a need to ask ourselves what is the purpose of a continued population growth. Maintenance of a stable non-growing population is the best way there is when trying to perpetuate a civilisation, but is that what the endgame is?
Maybe finding a way for society to endure through time is the objective after all and therefore it is indeed the best option to try and reach harmony within nature and approach a near-zero population growth.
But what if it isn't? What if our destiny lies itself in prolonged social (and consequentially biological) Darwinism, in a search for perfection (either physical and metaphysical)? If this is to be the case, then a larger population growth creating a larger sample of individuals is a better alternative.
That's what I've attempted to address with the 'will and reason' part.
>even if you just take the fourteen words literally
>We need to secure [...] a future...
There is already some thinking to do right here:
-What is this future supposed to be?
-Is existence the sole objective?
Those, for instance, are some questions that could be given some thought. That is only on the philosophical side of things, of course; if you were to limit the discussion only to physical aspects then I am with complete accordance to your points in the last paragraph, a healthy existence is superior to a parasitic one.
>>254871
To quote Galaxy MM88:
>but survival is neither good nor evil. It is the platform on which we live our lives. Picture a man's life as a painting. Each paints in shades of light and dark, just as he paints his life in shades of good and evil. But how can a man do good if he does not survive? How can he do evil? In order to good, you must survive.
To quote Galaxy MM88:
>but survival is neither good nor evil. It is the platform on which we live our lives. Picture a man's life as a painting. Each paints in shades of light and dark, just as he paints his life in shades of good and evil. But how can a man do good if he does not survive? How can he do evil? In order to good, you must survive.
File (): 8E318B252078F9092CA08F8D923F5841-747189.jpg (729.7 KB, 1494x2484, 589959.jpg)
16 replies | 3 files | 10 UUIDs | Archived