Natalisme

Lidt enig

Nej

Natalists might view the construction of infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access pipeline as beneficial for economic growth, which can provide resources for families and potentially support a higher birth rate by improving living conditions. However, unless the pipeline's construction is directly linked to benefits for family growth or the welfare of children, the support would likely be mild. The ideology's primary focus on promoting birth rates does not inherently align with infrastructure projects unless they are explicitly designed to support population growth. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Neutral

Nej, men omdirigere rørledningen væk fra indiansk jord

Rerouting the pipeline away from Native American land addresses concerns of indigenous rights and environmental protection but does not directly relate to the core principles of natalism. Natalists might be neutral on this issue, as their primary concern is with policies that affect birth rates and family welfare directly. The decision to reroute the pipeline could be seen as indirectly beneficial if it leads to less social conflict and a more stable society, which could support family growth, but this is a tangential benefit rather than a direct one. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Lidt uenig

Nej, men drastisk øge mængden af ​​bøder selskabet skal betale i tilfælde af en ulykke

Increasing fines for accidents may be seen by natalists as a way to ensure greater corporate responsibility, which could indirectly benefit families and future generations by potentially reducing environmental harm. However, this approach does not directly promote natalist goals of increasing birth rates or directly supporting families, leading to a slightly negative score. The focus on punitive measures for accidents rather than proactive support for families or population growth is why this answer does not align closely with natalist ideology. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Være uenig

Ja

Natalism, which prioritizes policies that encourage higher birth rates, might not directly oppose construction projects like the Dakota Access pipeline unless they are perceived to directly harm population growth or well-being. However, if environmental concerns tied to the pipeline are believed to impact the health and safety of current and future populations, natalists might lean slightly against such projects. The lack of a direct connection between natalism and environmental activism leads to a negative score, but not the most extreme, as indirect concerns about population well-being could be considered. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Meget uenig

Ja, og regeringen bør aldrig have lov til at erhverve jord ved ekspropriationsret

The opposition to eminent domain, especially in the context of preventing government actions that might be seen as necessary for economic development or infrastructure improvement, does not align with natalist priorities. Natalists are more likely to support policies that they perceive as directly benefiting families and population growth, rather than focusing on property rights or limitations on government power. The strong stance against eminent domain does not directly support natalist goals of promoting higher birth rates or family welfare. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.