1y ago

Putin is urging women to have as many as 8 children after so many Russians died in his war with Ukraine

www.businessinsider.com Putin is urging women to have as many as 8 children after so many Russians died in his war with Ukraine

Russia's birth rates have been falling for decades, and the war in Ukraine has made it worse.

 undefined

        Russian President Vladimir Putin is urging Russians to have more children. 
    "Large families must become the norm," Putin said in a speech Tuesday. 
    Russian birth rates are falling amid war in Ukraine and a deepening economic crisis.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is urging women to have as many as eight children as the number of dead Russian soldiers continues to rise in his war with Ukraine, worsening the country's population crisis.

Addressing the World Russian People's Council in Moscow on Tuesday, Putin said the country must return to a time when large families were the norm.

"Many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers, had seven, eight, or even more children," Putin said.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

264 comments

Adoption of new alternatives is not easy nor fast.
Try and give a call to your local waste water treatment plant and ask for a tour. Tell them you want to understand better what they are doing and how, what destination they give to muds, etc. You'll be surprised to know most countries sent those nutrient rich by-products to landfills for decades and only very recently the muds started to be valued.
And are you sure about that? Because I'd quicker point to population exodus from rural to city areas.
The discussion about cutting back on agricultural production is just starting. Too much goes to waste, when too many go without. The point is that by reducing production, resource management will be a forced point of action. Debateable but it is as valid as any other idea.
But like it or not, the human population will peak and stabilize at the 10 billion and we can sustain ourselves without burning the house down.
- Name one society that has ever managed significant decreases in production of anything to help the environment. We've found ways to lower the impact of increasing production, and we've even found ways to reduce the impact of current production. I can't think of a single instance of a society broadly adopting a reduction of goods and services for the environment.
  The fact is that, while there are many improvements to be made, every one of those improvements would work better with a lower population. There are also no realistic projections of humanity reaching a reasonable level of long term sustainability. We also have a long history of badly failing to reach projected sustainability targets. Ignoring a multiplicative factor that impacts sustainability in every area is just foolish.
  Yeah, we are projected to peak around 10b. 9b would be better though, or even 9.9b. 1b would have been fantastic, though probably still too high. But what happens when you get all the lifestyle and efficiency increases you dream of? How do you know that population trends won't shift? It doesn't take much. Just a +/-0.2 difference in children per family can have a profound impact in one direction or the other. You are gambling everything on an assumption that trends won't change. Trends always change.
  
  It never existed because it was never a problem.
  And the problem here is not to reduce for the sake of environment but for the sake of not wasting resources for production: energy, water, machinery, etc. Things that cost money that can not be recouped. Environmental impact is a very welcome off shoot.
  There are at least three possible scenarios to counter your position:
  nothing changes and current trend of population shrinking maintains
  everything gets better, standards of life improve and number of offspring decreases for increase of parental investment per child
  everything gets worse and either we kill ourselves or the planet does
  Numbers, statistics, projections, whatever argument we put on the table, boiled down, comes to these.
  
  You are both oversimplifying the reality and overcomplicating it at the same time. There are thousands of different aspects to sustainability, including many that we simply haven't identified yet. Modern farming methods that provide us such great yields are simultaneously robbing us of important nutrients that aren't being replenished in the soil. This has a knock on effect to meat and dairy as well. We are running out of fresh water for farming, residential, and industrial use. Forever chemicals are building up in the oceans, aquafers, soil, and air. Oceans and rivers are running out of fish. Noise pollution, light pollution, heat pollution, and just ordinary misplaced trash don't seem likely to abate any time soon. Good luck getting cooperation on any of these issues, when we can't even get people to wear masks in the middle of a plague.
  Every one of these aspects of sustainability will relate differently to your scenarios. In the end, we are left with the simple truth that every effort to address every one of these issues will be aided by a reduced population. Either reduced from where it is today, or reduced from whatever future predictions you want to work from. (I've been ignoring the fact that humanity has generally been pretty shit about accurately predicting the future, because those predictions are entirely irrelevant to my point).
  I'm not talking about culling the population, ethnic cleansing, forced sterilization, etc. People should be absolutely free to make their own family planning choices. But there are lots of ways to promote having fewer children without being coercive. Child free lifestyles should be more respected. Birth control should be more widely available. People should be more aware of the fragility of this planet, and the impact we have on it. Having one less kid than one would otherwise have is always going to blow away the impact of whatever other things we do to promote sustainability.
  
  But there are lots of ways to promote having fewer children without being coercive
  i don't believe you can do that without artificially selecting one part of the populace, but not another, or just having disproportionate impacts. even this comment was written in english, and even if it's well-intentioned, everyone who doesn't read english is not subject to the propaganda in it. by posting it on lemmy, you are also targeting lemmy and the broader fediverse as a demographic. so everyone who's not online is already immune to this propaganda.
  
  Your pushing the boundaries of "propaganda" pretty extensively there. Sure, technically it could apply, but then it applies to any political opinion communicated in any way by anyone, including you.
  Of course it won't be communicated equally. Neither will messages encouraging more children, something far more common from current governments. The right wing in this country (and others) explicitly encourages more "white Christian" children because of "replacement theory". That's far more sinister than suggesting that people in general should consider the impact before having more children.
  Nothing in reality is ever totally fair, just like no society is ever totally sustainable. A perpetual motion machine is only possible in an ideal world, and so is a sustainable society. We will only ever be able to approximate sustainability, and that will require contributions systemic and cultural changes. That means "propaganda", and it means that some demographics will cooperate more than others, meaning it won't be "fair" regardless of the approach.
  
  but you see how this is exactly what eugenicists would do, right? create propaganda to discourage undesirables from procreating and create ineffective propaganda for their preferred demographic group. the intention doesn't matter, to me. it's all eugenicist propaganda as far as I'm concerned.
  
  You just love that word, "propaganda", but where did "undesirables" come in? I never mentioned targeting anyone, or even running an information campaign at all. I'm pointing out the reality that fewer people would be better. You can't argue against that, so you make a bunch of ridiculous assumptions and attack those.
  I think that when this topic is discussed, people should be honest and rational about it. You clearly don't.
  
  fewer people would be better. You can’t argue against that
  yes, i can.
  
  Then I gotta wonder why you haven't. All you've claimed is that there are other options. All things being equal, a world with fewer people needs fewer resources. If we get the whole world on solar, that will still be true. If we get everyone to give up meat, it will still be true. If we stop polluting our waterways it will still be true. You have not argued against that, and you can't do so in any rational way.
  
  this is some ecofascist shit
  
  I think that when this topic is discussed, people should be honest and rational about it. You clearly don’t.
  i think calling your advocacy propaganda rubbed you the wrong way, and you can't see what i'm saying.
  
  I can see what your saying just fine. I'm not the one who's unhinged here.
  
  I never mentioned targeting anyone, or even running an information campaign at all.
  you ARE running an information campaign.
  
  No YOU are running an information campaign. Fuck this is getting dumb.
  
  I'm pointing out how quickly malthusianism becomes eugenics.
  
  Even as slippery slope arguments go, this is truly pathetic.
  
  are you suggesting I'm too vigilant against eugenicist propaganda? better than laying the groundwork for a genocide, I think.

264 comments