How do you solve the problem of birth rates being inversely correlated with the amount of education women receive?

>>81802654 (OP)
Abolish foids voting right. Simple as.

>>81802654 (OP)
>Don't want women to get a degree in African Lesbian Transgender Studies.
>YOU LITERALLY HATE WOMEN

>>81802654 (OP)
Countries with a fertility rate of >6+ childen also have a child mortality rate of >60%.

>>81802730
Fake news. You are quoting like 19th century data
First there are no countries with >6 TFR in 2025
Example of country with a >5 TFR
>Democratic Republic of the Congo
>TFR 5.90
>population 96 millions
>the probability that a child will survive past age five 91 percent
>Life expectancy 61.83 years
>he adult survival rate (75 percent of 15-year olds surviving until age 60)

By not educating women? Its literally that simple. It won't happen though because women have been told its a good thing and men simp for them. Also half the workforce would be lost, which while being an incredible thing for the average person it also means that people with 100 billion dollars might only make 50 billion dollars so it will never be allowed to happen.

>>81802654 (OP)
The problem will solve itself. Countries that give their women rights will naturally die out, and countries that don't will continue to grow and expand until they overtake the dying countries.

>>81802840
>25 percent of the pop doesnt even get to live a full adult life
>10% gets wiped out at birth
Thats pretty bad man.

>>81802654 (OP)
The first world already solves it with immigrants, but third world is fucked.

>>81802654 (OP)
>hate women
do you think children should vote? if not you must hate children

>>81802654 (OP)
corporatist fascism

>>81802654 (OP)
This is a good thing. The human population is simply too large. All of humanity should be better educated so that everyone stops having kids.

>>81802654 (OP)
Notice they always go off of 1950 onward and never prior to that? They never look at all the women's freedoms and rights given from 1854 to 1949? They just mischievous start in 1950? Also note they never want to get into the weeds of why it drops so quickly in the 1960s onward? Gen X should have been just as big or bigger than Baby Boomers if only for how much changed due to the sexual revolution, and yet, it just keeps declining.

Almost like what is going on has nothing to do with the education of women, and everything to do with the drugs we gave them...

>>81802871
Nah, having a lot of people ultimately does not matter anymore for taking over countries. If a country gets advanced enough to actually threaten the existing world powers, they would have had to technologically advance enough to stop being so fucking retarded, which will result in fewer kids. The US is not in danger of being subjugated by Nigeria.

>>81802704
the problem is men's rights though. we should have never given men rights.

>>81802654 (OP)
Put them back to being barefoot and pregnant.
Back to single breadwinner families too.

>>81802880
Infant mortality is 4.5% in Congo.

Higher education also takesa lot of time. People probably think it's because of the personality changes of education, but often you simply can't have kids before 30 when you go to college.
Maybe college should start after you have kids.

>>81804091
True, I worded it wrong. Infant mortality is counted separately however (Up to one year) from the 5 year stat. >>81802840
>the probability that a child will survive past age five 91 percent
So I guess out of 100 kids born, 5 (4.5 rounded up) will die before they hit one year, of the remaining 95 almost 10 percent will do so detract another 9.
25% of the the 86 wont live a full life, most probably dying when they're young because of work accidents, risky youthful behavior and war/terrorism if we are going by the standard formula, leaving 65 people out of the original 100.
That is pretty bad if you want to run a country.

>>81802654 (OP)
Evolution only becomes a "problem" for leftists when it flies in the face of their ideology.

>>81805341
>of the remaining 95 almost 10 percent will do so detract another 9
*will die before 5 so...
>if we are going by the standard formula
And even if we dont and somehow assume they all kick the bucket at 53 because of malaria its still bad ofcourse.
I think a civil war would only raise those numbers however, the second congo civil war caused 5 or 6 million excess deaths iirc.

The future of humanity is talibanism
Sad but true, women do not have the ability to see anything greater than themselves

>>81805422
>The future of humanity is talibanism
Do you have a dedicated, zealous fighting force armed and financed by a nearby nuclear superpower(Pakistan)? Can you offer wives, a monthly salary and loot to your combatants?
Do you even have combatants? A network? Do you have anything at all?

The gynocratic ashkenazi elite has everything I listed and they didn't capture your women, your women picked them over you. Your own women are literally your enemies who volunteered against you.

>>81805341
>>81805406
They might combine infant and child mortality into one and if you take that number (7.6%), and then use the 75% adult rate you come at 69% which is just a bit higher, but not too far off.

I wonder how accurate these figures are, a lot of african people know these censuses arent conducted properly and claim regions in their own countries will inflate numbers so they can get more political influence on the national level.

I think think this is a false correlation. Doesn't Iran and Palestine have a very high rate of both female education and fertility? I think it's more to do with western whore culture than the fault of education. Possibly also economic systems like how the west just accepts debt slavery for their degrees that pushes up the age of financial stability, but mainly the whore culture.

>>81803262
The US is already subjugated by Mexigeria and Mexigerians.

>>81802654 (OP)
>>81802850
>>81802871
>>81803031
Btw it's equally negatively correlated with men's education
Not interested in growing the population if it'll just be infinity peasants (isn't that the reason you don't want infinity immigrants allegedly)

>>81805734
To be honest, you can already see that they're aiming to de-educate the general populace for the purpose of breeding more wage slaves by axing funding for public schools (in United States) and it not just being gendered only to women

>>81805734
Guess we gotta find the golden balance.
How much education is necessary to have a non peasant population, how big will the hit be on birth rate if men are educated and is it worth it if it means society can elevate itself, is there a difference between the drops in birthrate when males get educated vs when females get educated, is female education necessary to keep a comfortable burgher society, etcetc.

>>81805341
It doesn't matter because there is still a heavy selection pressure against women's rights. Unless leftist women begin pumping out babies, any society that promotes women's rights will experience population collapse or require an unassimilatable amount of foreign immigration.

>>81802654 (OP)
education = sex ed = less teen pregnancies

we need to bring back teen pregnancies desu

>>81805789
True but either scenario leads to hell on earth lol.
Deathrates will go up in the global south if western states cant support global trade or if these african nations (in this scenario) grow too big to support their populations themselves through granting access to healthcare and food.
In the 19th century congo had a child mortality rate in the 400s, it began dropping steadily when medicine got introduced after ww2 and even then it was still in the 300s for a long time.

>>81805862
I always laugh when I see a post like this. Women having rights leads to the death of whatever society permits it. If that's a good thing, whatever. One scenario, repeal of women's rights, leads to a more liberal and westernized society surviving while other ones that are far more aggressive will not be able to compete.

For the record, I support women's rights but I'm growing more skeptical because of information like this and the political attitudes of women. There is no reason that women can't have a high standard of living and also no public rights. On the other hand, if women have rights, it creates a guarantee that only the societies which are most aggressively anti-women will inherit the earth.

>>81802654 (OP)
Make society like The Giver where family units aren't biological and there are women who are specifically employed to give birth.

>>81805940
I think you severely misunderstand me, this is the second post from you that barely relates to what I said.
Laugh if you want, I permit you.

>>81805959
I apply it to the topic of the thread. If your post is irrelevant to OP (women's rights lowering birth rates) then OK. In context, I interpreted the posts
>>81802840
>>81802730
>>81805341
Being a critique of OP, arguing that the fertility advantage of less liberal nations (and less liberal social groups in liberal nations) is not as extreme as it seems. I argued that it doesn't make a difference how large the advantage is: >>81805789
But it could also be that you're just slightly critiquing the numbers but still agree with OP.

>>81802654 (OP)
what's the problem? lmao

8 billion humans is already a resounding success.
We really don't need more.
Any economy that designed around infinite growth deserves to collapse anyways.

>>81806024
I agree with op I suppose but I took the whole congolese fertility topic on it's own because often african fertility rates get misinterpreted and people think a woman pumping out 5 babies every 20 years means their populations quintuple as often, forgetting they die really fast too and even more when war breaks out, which is often.
Most african fertility rates have been getting lower over time as well. It's why western politicians are surprised when you take these babymakers out of their circumstances and the second generation doesnt pump out as many babies anymore.
And yes I agree with your assessment of the advantage not mattering at the end of the day. With >>81805862 I just wanted to add that living in a low fertility nation living through population collapse will lead to hell in earth while living in a high fertility population with low QOL and high death rates will also lead to hell on earth.
And then at the end I wanted to add that if the west collapses and is unable to contribute to the world system that a lot of african nations will plunge into chaos.
1 in 3 people in congo suffers from food insecurity and congo is as of now only supporting 20% of their total food need themselves. Im just saying that they will return to a very bad place themselves, and it wont even be their own fault. Well, unless its because they just grow too big even if the west is still kicking around.
So yeah I would agree with
>For the record, I support women's rights but I'm growing more skeptical because of information like this and the political attitudes of women.

>>81802654 (OP)
Make women property again
This isn't just a funny phrase, it's actually the answer.

>>81806225
Only a left winger would think it's a joke.

>>81805422
Most likely yes. Islam is on track to becoming the largest world religion around the year 2070.

>>81806185
Makes sense. I think that there is also not such a binary (although in those two options, but would be hell). It's possible to roll back women's "rights" to some degree without turning society into a congo. Remember that the society that gave women rights was one where they couldn't vote. I'm sure a compromise is possible.
>>81806225
>>81806232
Imagine the kinds of sociopathic people modern society creates today allowing families to control their daughters. Imagine a daughter being married off to immigrants for social clout on tik-tok. Society has "evolved past" not letting women have rights. It is too sociopathic and individualistic now to sustain traditional family structures without unimaginable barbarity which is why the problem of women's rights isn't as simple as making them property.

>>81805734
>equally negatively correlated with men's education
Not equally. You can actually see the same sort of inverse relationship between fertility and the percentage of male education time that female education time amounts to for a given society e.g. if men go to school for 12 year and women go to school for 6 years, that society would be at .5 on this chart.
If the relationship between female education and fertility were equal to the relationship between male education and fertility then you wouldn't be able to see this trend when looking at the proportion of female to male education time.

>>81805734
>>81806537
Forgot to include the chart.

>>81806504
>unimaginable barbarity
This is becoming more and more imaginable by the day.