Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France's baby bust

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 263 posts

Re: France's baby bust

#221

Post by fakedang »

anovikov wrote: post #149
barry-cotter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Industrial Revolution was why they were able to colonise the world. Being much, much more productive means you can afford a lot more bullets/cannon/artillery/small arms and you need less of your population as a share growing food. Europeans were better at war than anyone else because Europe was always at war somewhere. It was geographically fragmented enough that any one power becoming hegemonic never happened ag…

Conquest went in 3 main stages. Spain and Portugal did it first, long before Industrial revolution (which Spain had much much later and only halfway, and Portugal never had at all). They did it because they could: finishing reconquest of their territories from Arabs in the late XV century, they only saw foreign expansion as continuation of the same trend: Christendom acquires more land from the infidels, with divine…

Why is the French Empire the most ridiculous of them all? France was the most powerful and most feared European kingdom at the time. It was natural they start colonizing to exert influence against rivals abroad, when they had a coast and a navy, lest they end up like the truest useless empire (Austria and the HRE).

Re: France's baby bust

#222

Post by rayiner »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #136
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me which country is the one with the hijab ban in schools? Is it america or is it France? And you want to tell me you’re not having a religious conflict over there?

I have issue making sense of your reply to my comment. I don’t see how it’s against anything I said. As I wrote: "a significant part of the population is still strongly against any kind of religion". All religious signs are banned in schools not only the hijab. France views religion as strictly a private matter which has no place at all in the public sphere. That’s not a religious conflict just widely incompatible wi…

You don’t think the French ban on hijab has anything to do with religion? You think it’s just a coincidence and has nothing to do with the fact that Christianity happens not to generally require outwardly visible symbols of membership in a religious community, unlike Islam, Shikhism, Orthodox Judaism, etc.?

Re: France's baby bust

#223

Post by rayiner »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #199
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me which country is the one with the hijab ban in schools? Is it america or is it France? And you want to tell me you’re not having a religious conflict over there?

Do you truly believe that hijabs and only hijabs (or maybe other Islamic symbols) are banned? Because if so I've got some good news for you - all overt religious symbols are treated equally.

And it’s so convenient that it so happens that Christianity emphasizes one’s personal relationship with god and generally doesn’t require or encourage wearing overt religious symbols.

Re: France's baby bust

#224

Post by reducesuffering »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #148
izacus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see some citation for that since most of the ultra conservative countries around the world are failing states both economically and societally. Everything from Iran, Iraq to European Hungaries to US bible belt states, you can pretty much directly map failure to fringe conservatism.

I'll bite. I have extensive first-hand culture experience (travel, friends, dating) with people from Indonesia, India, and China (PRC). I would broadly categorise all three as very socially conservative -- relative to other G7-level developed, liberal countries. Economics: China: Life in a mid- to mega-size city is already pretty good. Yes, it isn't 50K EUR per year, but 10K EUR per year is solid middle class. India…

> Family structures are incredibly deep and supportive -- way deeper than most highly-advanced countries.

As long as you bend the knee to all of your family's beliefs. God forbid you're gay, irreligious or different religion, date someone of another caste/religion, etc...

Re: France's baby bust

#225

Post by rayiner »

slaw wrote: post #210
rayiner wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not inaccurate. Soon as you step outside a major city, the majority of Americans go to church weekly. The percentage of Americans who pray daily is comparable to Iran: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-l...

Study from 8 years ago. No longer true.

You think a seismic shift in those numbers happened in the last year? 81% of Americans still say they believe in god: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393737/belief-god-dips-new-low..... It’s down only 6 percentage points since 2013.

Re: France's baby bust

#226

Post by rayiner »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #203
rayiner wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what, if not religion, is driving abortion law in Germany, which has a 12-week limit and restrictions such as waiting periods which were illegal in the US under Roe ? It seems to me like the reason Germany doesn’t have a religiously charged debate on abortion is that no major party is pushing for abortion to 24 weeks or even later like in America.

I'm an atheist and I think that murder is bad despite not believing in the religious sanctity of life. I'd have trouble with full-term abortions of healthy, viable babies. It doesn't seem unreasonable that other people would have a lower comfort limit, again even without religion.

You don’t think that “comfort limit” has anything to do with Christianity?

If you want to see what atheists do when they’re not bound by the cultural hangover of an abrahamic religion, look at population control efforts in Asia. The Chinese correctly observed that, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth.

Re: France's baby bust

#227

Post by anovikov »

fakedang wrote: post #221
anovikov wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conquest went in 3 main stages. Spain and Portugal did it first, long before Industrial revolution (which Spain had much much later and only halfway, and Portugal never had at all). They did it because they could: finishing reconquest of their territories from Arabs in the late XV century, they only saw foreign expansion as continuation of the same trend: Christendom acquires more land from the infidels, with divine…

Why is the French Empire the most ridiculous of them all? France was the most powerful and most feared European kingdom at the time. It was natural they start colonizing to exert influence against rivals abroad, when they had a coast and a navy, lest they end up like the truest useless empire (Austria and the HRE).

Because they failed to either enrich themselves through robbing the colonies, or develop the colonies, or bring the culture there (ok people in Cote d'Ivoire indeed, eat baguettes and quiches but it looks more like a sad joke than like France).

Compare to the British colonies and dominions: brought British culture and legal system (even to territories where local population always dominated), developed them economically, and yes, robbed them too, making good profit.

French system, for comparison, was an utter failure. Only benefit it provided was a good network of anchorages and coal bunkers for the French Navy.

Re: France's baby bust

#228

Post by pharke »

jtbayly wrote: post #80
pharke wrote: post #51

Blaming the Catholic church specifically for high birth rates is a misstep especially since the author compares to England which has a long and varied history with Protestantism. The argument should be reframed around religiosity in general or he should show data for England that indicates a difference in fertility during the periods of stronger and weaker Catholic influence in England.

He never says the high birth rate is because of the Roman Catholic Church. Every place in Europe was deeply religious and had high birth rates at that time, regardless of the religion. He only blames secularization for the decline in birth rate. It just happens that the rapid secularization happened fastest where the Roman Catholic Church was strongest.

> I argue that the diminished sway of the Catholic Church, nearly 30 years before the French Revolution, was the key driver of the fertility decline

> ...the Catholic Church, threatened by the spread of the Protestant Reformation, took ‘be fruitful and multiply’ seriously and the purpose of marriage became explicitly multiplicative

> The decline of Catholicism, and fertility, in eighteenth-century France turned it from a demographic powerhouse – the China of Europe – to merely a first-rank European power among several

Re: France's baby bust

#229

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

rayiner wrote: post #223
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you truly believe that hijabs and only hijabs (or maybe other Islamic symbols) are banned? Because if so I've got some good news for you - all overt religious symbols are treated equally.

And it’s so convenient that it so happens that Christianity emphasizes one’s personal relationship with god and generally doesn’t require or encourage wearing overt religious symbols.

Only the ones that integrate well with modern society. There are tv shows that point out the antiquated ways of the Amish such as how they teach their kids and dress their women and their older children's struggles to adjust in broader society, for example.

Re: France's baby bust

#230

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

rayiner wrote: post #226
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an atheist and I think that murder is bad despite not believing in the religious sanctity of life. I'd have trouble with full-term abortions of healthy, viable babies. It doesn't seem unreasonable that other people would have a lower comfort limit, again even without religion.

You don’t think that “comfort limit” has anything to do with Christianity? If you want to see what atheists do when they’re not bound by the cultural hangover of an abrahamic religion, look at population control efforts in Asia. The Chinese correctly observed that, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth.

> from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth.

Except there is. You want the same protections applied to you, even if you're unconscious or otherwise unable to protest. Pretty much the only broadly supportable position is that killing a viable person is murder and no more or less supportable than them killing you.

Post reply on HN