/sci/ - Science & Math

nazi germany
amirite?

>>2501729
HIYOO.

Singapore had the most effective approach.

They didn't do forced policies like China, and their approach was based on development like many others.

They done this by campaigning and using posters to convince people. Furthermore they had fined people for having too much kids.

The most important part is that they encouraged educated people to have more kids than poor people. The result is more educated, more financially stable families.

Basically shit plummetted to where they now pay you 20k for having a second child. They are doing the exact opposite today because it worked too well.

pic related, typical poster from that era

>>2501736

how are massive gov't fines more ethical than what the US did? because the US was really damn effective until all these mexicans started everything up (somehow i don't think singapore's policies would stand up to the mexicans either)

sorry to post this here, but I can't start a thread, so I'm seeing if it works here.

Carry on.

Japan. It's as if the whole country's population just decided to stop having kids one day.

Technically Western Europes native population has already stopped expanding.

Deport the nonwhites and you will have achieved the goal of a stable or declining population.

>>2501749
Err, the US hasn't pursued a policy. mexican birth rates are on par with typical immigrant ones. It will drop in a generation.

Real and bigger fears were aimed at Irish and Italian immigrants once, if you seen the history.

Singapore's birthrate is like 1.3. Shit's lower than the US by 1. They had a pretty active campaign to lower it.

Educating women is the most effective way to slow down population growth. As women get more years of education, their fertility rates go down.

>>2501781

the US would be lower than singapore if you factored out the mexicans....either way, you don't seem to be defending the ethics of massive gov't fines or pretending those policies of singapore would work in any country that had significant third-world immigrant populations.

>>2501811
That's only because their education is really just womens studies (hate men studies) indoctrination, get rid of that and you won't be noticing this phenomenon.

>>2501814
That's wrong as fuck. White and black birthrates are at 2.1.

Singapore was third world like forty years ago. I'd say its super-effective when it started.

It wasn't just fines. It wasn't even mostly fines. They offered free shit to stop having kids, had promoted a two kid image, etc.

I'm not gonna finish this shit for you. Do it yourself fucktard. I already wrote enough population papers in highschool.

>>2501814
> if you factored out the mexicans
Do you realize that you could say "if you factored out the white people", and your statement would still be valid?

Bias much?

>>2501832

singapores solution was a massive increase in the country's affluence over a very short time period, wouldn't it be nice if every country could do the same?

>>2501832

> black birthrates are at 2.1

No. And you posting that just showed you don't know what you're typing.

Your papers must have been terrible.

The media would turn into a shitstorm if we tried something like Singapore's campaign in the US

>>2501850
this is dumber than turd orgy

white birth rate is ~2 per 1000
mexican birth rate >30 per 1000

math much?

>>2501866
[citation needed]

>>2501858
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/fertilityrate.htm

"when the country's total fertility rate was 2.1, the total fertility rate was 3.0 for Hispanics, 2.2 for African Americans, and the below replacement of 1.9 for Asian and Pacific Islanders."

fuck off Nazipunk

>>2501854
No they wouldn't. They basically tried it for Irish and Italian immigrants. They feared those immigrants would destroy Anglo-America.

>>2501858
Nope.avi

This wasn't solely responsible. They had intense government planning for economic development. Think of it as one giant corporation.

>>2501887

when the countries birthrate was 2.1? when was this 1950? it is currently around 15

>>2501922
Fertility birthrate does not equal birthrate. Birth-rate is a primitive method to gauge this shit.

Fertility rate's more useful. Lmfao in the 50's you thought it was lower.

I'm out of here.

>>2501887

just because singapore ran a few ads does not prove these ads or any other part of their campaign had any efficacy, because what is proven the world over is that when affluence rises birth rates decrease, and singapore had a meteoric rise in affluence

>>2501866
still waiting on that source Mr. Turd Orgy.

>>2501930

fertility is a bullshit statiscal lie to cover the racial discrepancies in ACTUAL BIRTHRATE.

the only stat that matters is how many kids are born, not some lib-tard fertility lies

>>2501887

Oh, I happily admit it appears you were actually closer then I initially thought although there is still a huge longterm difference between 2.2(I think it is closer to 2.3) and 2,1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

With enough black on black violence, maybe the black problem could resolve itself. We can only hope.

>>2501947
That case is true, but the drop in birthrates were before the great rise. The purpose and results of the campaign was for the purpose of development.

>>2501965

Fuck off stormfaggot. Making shit up doesn't count as arguing.

>>2501989
No there isn't. 2.1-2.2 are statistically irrelevant due to margins of error.

Again, fuck off stormfaggot.

>>2502025

Actually its not irrelevant in terms of longterm outcome, if you're going to argue that the readings have a +/- .1 margin of error you might as well argue that future population predictions are not possible considering 2.1 is the cutoff for demographic replacement.

A small difference will result in huge differences 100 years into the future. This can be seen in the wiki link(black percentage of the US is predicted to remain constant while whites reduce and spics increase).

>>2502025

only a lib-tard would think that ACTUAL BIRTHRATES are made up, asfr pseudo science about fertility nonsense is real

inb4 libtard says how ACTUAL BIRTHRATES are racist

>>2502077
>readings have a +/- .1 margin of error you might as well argue that future population predictions are not possible considering 2.1 is the cutoff for demographic replacemen

Wtf am I reading. You think that margin of errors mean that you can't account for differences in the future?

.1 differences are hardly a great variation. Again, it can easily be margin of error. Neither is the fact that it remains the same number year to year.

Goddamnit, I hated arguing with stormfags on news. Don't bring it here.

>>2502118

you really believe in fertility over actual birth rate?

why don't you try defining fertility rates in real terms?

>>2502109

Are you a fucking troll? I said that birth-rates weren't as good measures compared to fertility. Birth-rates vary greatly due to population, natural disasters, diseases, and vary year to year. Fertility rate doesn't.

>>2502126

why shouldn't we count all factors that effect how the population changes in determining what public policy planning for the future should be?

>>2502132

stumped on this one?

answer is because the reality is too racist for libtards

>>2502118

uh, what I wrote is that you can't make population predictions if you take .1 to be your margin of error when it comes to a population currently at 2.1.

This is a correct statement, as 2 verses 2.2 100 years into the future will have significantly different population numbers.

Also as I suspected, blacks have a significantly higher birthrate.

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/79_PDF.pdf

>>2502147

its chump change compared to mexicans

>>2502127
Fertility rate: Average amount of children per woman in a lifetime.

Birthrates: Number of births in a year.

We can't count these factors because they are unstable and uncertain. If you wanna determine policy look at fertility.

>>2502147
Yes you can. You can easily determine x population would be within 5000-5500 range. You can't say x will equal 5000. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Nope. Look at it. 67 vs 60 for birth-rates. Hardly significant.

>>2502184

so now why don't you explain how fertility rate is measured, because birthrate is god damn simple

>>2502203

pro-tip: its a bunch of made up geusstimates to make liberal policies seem sensical

>>2502203
I just typed it out. Re-read the definition.

>>2502184

First, the white birthrate was 58, not 60.

Next, you must be really bad at math.

Differences compile over time.

Thats why the difference of .2 between 2 and 2.2 will huge significance inlongterm outcome.

The same goes for the difference between 58 and 67 in terms of birthrate.

>>2502222

what is actually measured? you haven't said what is actually measured

>>2502184

How do you quantify how much children an average women has in a lifetime, without waiting for the current generation to reach infertile age to have up to date policies? You could extrapolate that the current generation will be somewhat similar to the previous; but why not just use birthrates?
Birthrates seem so much simpler to gather, and less convoluted.

>>2502241
I just said average number of children per women in a lifetime.
>>2502234
.1 is statistically meager as I already said. And the difference between .1 is not significant at all. Its all within a pretty close range unless you are a fuktard.

For example, 2squared is about 8, 2.1squared is about 9. Not much difference.

With that said, those numbers aren't even permanent. Black fertility rate has been declining faster than all others so making predictions is useless.

>>2502272
Its typically a measure of the number of children within 15-44 ages. Its like taking the average birthrates over many years and extracting a solid number out of that.

>>2502284

fertility rate isn't based on actual measurements; its based on whatever the fuck the liberals feel like making their numbers look like to justify whatever policy they feel like expanding gov't for

>>2502302
scientists are liberals you asshat.

if you aren't a liberal just fuck off. you failed the IQ test, you're on the wrong board.

>>2502301

>and extracting a solid number out of that

i lol'd

reality just isn't solid enough for liberals they have to extract their imagination out of it.

>>2502307
U MAD

>>2502307

liberals are politicians, real scientists do not affiliate with political non-sense like partisan alliances

your on the whole wrong level, niglet

>>2502310
Fuck, shoulda known it was you.

>>2502345

this is the worst piece of samefagging drivel i've seen in a long time

Fertility rates are made up nonsense to support politcal policies

Birthrates are the actual scientific measurements to understand population dynamics

>>2502352
Not samefag, but that fag is the biggest troll from news. If that was him throughout this thread, I've been trolled hard rather than thinking I schooled a retard.

>>2502368

i pity the fool

It's not like we are overpopulated anyway. Our planet can support over double of what we have now. Probably even more.

My, it's getting awfully /new/ in here.

To any actual /sci/ducks in here, I suggest you stop feeding the trolls.