Fertility decline has been an ongoing trend in the western world. This fact has delighted many westerners, as a recent NYTimes OP-Ed helps to illustrate. In the article entitled “Bye Bye, Baby”, authors Michael S. Teitelbaum and Jay M. Winter tout the benefits of population decline. I wanted to take the time to respond to the op-ed and, in doing so, hopefully bring to light some of the pitfalls of the anti-natalist perspectives so many in the west have taken in their rush to welcome population decline:
NEARLY half of all people now live in countries where women, on average, give birth to fewer than 2.1 babies — the number generally required to replace both parents — over their lifetimes. This is true in Melbourne and Moscow, São Paulo and Seoul, Tehran and Tokyo. It is not limited to the West, or to rich countries; it is happening in places as diverse as Armenia, Bhutan, El Salvador, Poland and Qatar.
Indeed, sub-replacement fertility has spread across the planet. A quick check of statistics indicates that 115 countries (out of the 224 for which fertility rates were estimated) maintain fertility rates south of 2.1.
Though this sub-replacement fertility trend is not limited to wealthy western nations, it is certainly most prevalent in them. The only wealthy western nation with a recorded fertility rate north of 2.1 is Israel. The list of nations below that threshold is dominated by advanced East Asian and European states.
In reality, slower population growth creates enormous possibilities for human flourishing. In an era of irreversible climate change and the lingering threat from nuclear weapons, it is simply not the case that population equals power, as so many leaders have believed throughout history. Lower fertility isn’t entirely a function of rising prosperity and secularism; it is nearly universal.
The authors are not entirely incorrect here. Slower population growth does create enormous possibility for other forms of progress. Demographers and economists have long been well aware of this reality and have even gone as far to coin a term for it: the demographic dividend.
What is the demographic dividend? The term refers to the short-term benefits nations get due to sudden declines in fertility rates (fewer children being born to each woman). These declines create a positive effect because they work to reduce the dependency ratio, which measures the ratio of dependents (children and older individuals of retirement age) against the number of productive workers (generally citizens in the 18-59 age range). When high fertility rates begin a sudden decline, the number of dependents (children in this case) goes down relative to the number of productive, working age citizens.
This is good at first, because suddenly you’re left with unusually large masses of working age people (products of the last high fertility generation that had many children) who are themselves having few children (thus leading to fewer dependents). Because they are not having as many children as their parents did and are therefore devoting less of their time, resources and energy to family formation, they can be highly productive and spend more. This oversupply of working-age labor relative to dependents can do wonders for economic growth. China’s remarkable run of economic progress over the course of the last several decades has largely been due to this.
This demographic dividend is great… for a while. The problem is that eventually that unusually large mass of working age citizens begins to age and leave the working age demographic. Their productivity declines, and in time they become dependents themselves. The fact that they had few children now begins to work against them, as there are not enough working age citizens to pick up the slack and maintain the productivity they once had.
As a result of this, the dependency ratio climbs back up again. Productivity declines, economic growth stalls, and other issues (e.g. high social welfare expenditures, higher costs of labor, low tax revenues, etc) creep up.
China was able to take advantage of the demographic dividend for the past 40-50 years. That dividend is about to run out, and it may do so before China is able to catch the west’s level of economic prosperity. This means that China may be forced to face the same severe demographic issues that the west is facing without the benefit of having achieved western wealth and prosperity. The same potential pitfall faces Brazil and other nations that have seen fertility declines and are beginning to take (or try to take) advantage of the demographic dividend.
It is one thing to talk about the “enormous possibilities” created by population aging and decline, but to do so without a serious consideration of the price that must be paid is to be rather disingenuous. Population decline almost certainly has the potential to create more problems than it solves, especially for nations that do not have western levels of affluence.
Since the authors are celebrating the rise of sub-replacement fertility in some relatively poor, non-western nations, let’s explore that angle a bit more with a comparison. We’ll consider two countries with sub-replacement fertility: Armenia and Canada.
Both have very low fertility rates of around 1.6 children per woman. Both must confront the problems associated with this reality: decreased labor supply, higher labor costs, high entitlement and social welfare expenses, decreased tax revenue and so on. Which of these nations is better equipped to deal with these issues?
Canada is a very wealthy nation by global standards and is well known as such. Many people are anxious to emigrate to Canada, and Canadians are therefore fortunate enough to be able to supplement their labor force with educated migrants from poorer nations across the globe. Though this creates its fair share of issues, it does have the benefit of allowing Canada to fairly easily mitigate the costs associated with the low fertility of its domestic population that could otherwise have the potential to severely cripple the Canadian economy. Canada’s wealth also allows it to do all of this while still sustaining many of the social services its people have come to rely on and consider essential to the well-being of the citizenry. This affluence gives the Canadians more room for error when decreased tax revenues and other pitfalls associated with declining fertility appear.
But what of Armenia?
Armenia is not a wealthy country and cannot count on a steady supply of talented foreign migrants anxious to make it home. Many will say that this is a good thing, but that reality also limits Armenia’s ability to deal with the increased labor costs, decreased labor supply, lower tax revenue and higher social expenditures associated with its below replacement fertility rate. The fact that many of Armenia’s best and brightest young people (the kind of people the nation would need in order to have any hope of making any significant socio-economic improvement) are migrating to nations like Canada and the UK only further complicates matters by exacerbating the issues described above relating to the labor supply.
For wealthy nations like Canada, sub-replacement fertility and population aging are smaller issues than they could be. The most serious and potentially devastating impacts of population decline are mitigated in these nations by their affluence and their ability to draw on more fecund global population pools to offset their domestic demographic declines. For nations like Armenia, however, sub-replacement fertility represents a vastly more dangerous prospect. The phenomenon creates substantial problems that these nations are often ill-equipped to deal with, especially when combined with high rates of migration of their best and brightest to nations like Canada (who, again, count on the arrival of said talent to offset their own demographic issues).
Sub-replacement fertility can represent an insurmountable roadblock for nations like Armenia on the path to western levels of prosperity: they may have a shot at benefiting from short-term demographic dividends, but they do not come anywhere near western levels of wealth as a result of said trends (read: they get old before they get rich) and when the window for the dividend ends and dependency ratios creep back up (halting economic growth), they are left stagnant and unable to close the still massive socio-economic gap between themselves and the western nations they hope to emulate.
Is it responsible to promote the spread of sub-replacement fertility in nations that are really not prepared to deal with the consequences that may come with it and could potentially be doomed to eternal socio-economic inferiority by it?
Rapidly declining fertility — especially if rates go very low — does pose challenges. Yet it also can provide substantial benefits that have received less attention.
First, as noted, fertility decline is associated nearly everywhere with greater rights and opportunities for women. The deferral of marriage and the reduction of births to two, one or none across so much of the world — and, again, in countries that are still far from rich — are broadly consistent with the higher educational attainment and career aspirations of young women. It is no surprise that the hand-wringers over fertility decline are usually men.
These authors do themselves no favors in the credibility department by equating legitimate concerns about sub-replacement fertility to useless, irrational misogyny. The fact is that sub-replacement fertility is an issue. A society in which the reduction of births declines to “one or none” is not a sustainable one. That’s not misogyny, it is fact.
There is also another issue touched on here, one that a couple of users in the article’s comments section astutely pointed out:
Also of interest is quality of childraising. What portion of declining fertility is from single parent households, parents of poverty, parents of low educational attainment and parents of substance abuse.
Lower fertility is not a problem if the children are properly raised. But if they are not, we are setting up a long term problem.
—
Generally lower birthrates are correlated with higher education, higher earning and generally a better quality of life. Upscale, if you will. The implications of this study appear to be that the burden of the educated and affluent, in terms of support of the poor, development of technology and advancement of the human condition in general, will increasingly fall to a smaller and smaller group.
This is good why, again?
This is an issue that again raises questions about the sustainability and positivity of sub-replacement fertility as a norm in many parts of the world. As the authors of the article noted, lower fertility is correlated with higher education. The better educated and professionally successful women are, the fewer children they have. Is this a good thing?
Think carefully about who we want raising our children: those with higher levels of education and more professional success (and the financial resources that come with that) are generally considered to be more ideal providers of homes for children than those with low levels of education, limited finances and limited professional success. When we think of an ideal environment for children to come up in, we imagine one in which they will have the benefit of growing up with the wisdom and knowledge of well educated, informed parents to guide them and the resources to enjoy all that they’ll need to be successful (money for youth sports, summer camps, quality education, a safe neighborhood, etc). It is the educated woman that is most capable of providing all of this, and yet we see here that it is these women (and their equally well-educated partners) who are in fact having the fewest children.
Is it responsible to promote the spread of sub-replacement fertility if we understand that it will lead to fewer children being born to those who we consider most capable of proper childrearing? Do we want to outsource an increasingly larger share of our childrearing efforts to those who may lack the education and financial resources to do it properly? Keep in mind that this increasing separation of high education and professional achievement from fertility (which, as the authors note, is a natural result of the growing sub-replacement fertility trend) may well create future generations that are less well-adjusted and less well provisioned on average as they grow into adulthood, and perhaps less able to make the great technological and social advances we will need to make in the future in order to create a greener, safer, more equitable world.
Are those who cheer for sub-replacement fertility alright with this outcome? The concept of an “Idiocracy” seemed like a mere satirical comedy at one point, but we could very well be heading in precisely that direction if caution is not taken.
Third, by enhancing the employment and career experiences of young adults, lower fertility can also bring about greater social and political stability. High-fertility societies commonly produce large numbers of young adults who have trouble finding productive employment — many experts have attributed everything from terrorism to the Arab Spring to this “youthquake” of disaffected young adults in the Middle East and North Africa — but this begins to change 20 to 30 years after fertility rates start to decline.
By then, young adults are no longer in great surplus relative to labor market demand; their relative economic value for employers begins to rise and their economic and career prospects improve. Over time, this should facilitate marriage and family formation.
And what if those young adults are being forced to support a much larger older generation above them? The authors are quite right to note the dangers of “youthquakes”, but they again neglect to note the side effects of the solution they promote. When the supply of young adults relative to labor dries up, it is usually accompanied by a massive increase in the number of dependents. These dependents are expensive, and it is the relatively small generation of young adults that will be called on to support them.
Wealthy nations can soften this blow a bit by importing intelligent young people from elsewhere, but even then the price must be paid. For poorer nations, the consequences are far more severe.
The comments on the NYTimes Op-Ed are even more optimistic about the prospects of declining fertility:
I am not an economist, but given that in so many countries we have been unable for years to employ everyone who is already here and needs employment, and that possibly the gravest problem humanity faces is the overconsumption of resources and overproduction of toxic waste products that are destroying our world — I’d say that a falling human population is the best news I’ve heard in some time.
—
In fact, despite falling fertility rates, the increasing population is something we should still be worried about. Due to population momentum, the population is going to continue to grow by more than a billion people, and that is a problem because of global warming – the earth’s resources are not infinite. Even though fertility rates are declining almost everywhere, there is still a large unmet need for contraception in the remaining countries with high birthrates such as Niger. Those who care about the health of the planet and its people should celebrate falling birthrates, and hope that the human population peaks soon.
These comments indicate where much of the enthusiasm for population decline comes from: the belief that it will save the planet. This belief is based on the assumption that smaller populations with lower fertility rates do better by planet Earth than larger, more fertile populaces.
The problem here is that there is no strong evidence of such a correlation between population size (or growth) and environmental harm. The nations that pollute the most, consume the most and contribute the most to global greenhouse gas emissions are not the largest or most fertile. They are usually the relatively small, relatively infertile nations of the affluent west. Wealthy western Canadians and Australians are not particularly numerous and do not tend to be particularly fecund, but they have more cars, buy more things, travel more often, eat (and waste) more food and use more electricity than their peers in places like Mozambique, Ghana, Uganda or Yemen.
Looking at a country’s total carbon emissions doesn’t tell the full story of a country’s contribution to global warming.
China, for example, is the world “leader” in total emissions (6018m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide) since it overtook the US (5903) in 2007. But all that really tells you is that China is a fast-developing country with a lot of people.
A more useful measurement is carbon emissions per capita (person). Under that measurement, the average American is responsible for 19.8 tonnes per person, and the average Chinese citizen clocks in at 4.6 tonnes.
Examining CO2 per capita around the world also shows us the gulf between the developed world’s responsibility for climate change and that of the developing world. While Australia is on 20.6 tonnes per person (partly because of its reliance on CO2-intensive coal) and the UK is half that at 9.7 (explained in part by relatively CO2-light gas power stations), India is on a mere 1.2. Poorer African nations such as Kenya are on an order magnitude less again – the average Kenyan has a footprint of just 0.3 tonnes (a figure that’s likely to drop even lower with the country’s surge in wind power).
This is why it is folly to assume that one can save the planet by merely decreasing the number of humans on it. You can’t assume that a smaller number of people are going to consume or pollute less.
Everyone is very quick to acknowledge the downsides of population growth, but they’re much slower to recognize the equally acute danger posed by rapid aging and decline. There could be a heavy price paid for that ignorance if we are not cautious.
Read Next: Demographic Ruin Is Upon Us
Islam is our only answer
Yeah, if you want to return to middle ages. Islam is the cancer of humanity.
As for the article. During the middle ages, black plague killed up to 90% of population of some european contries, and yet they didn’t vanish. Nor will our civilization fall due to low fertility rates.
If labor is ever to have value again, we’ll need that. After the Black Death decimated European peasantry, the value of the labor that the survivors could provide rose accordingly. Same thing with post-WWII: the death and destruction of all competitive industry led to American domination, which then led to complacency and laziness while those demolished nations (demolished physically and/or ideologically (by marxism)) recovered and began competing.
True. Our civilization may not completely vanish, but it will be a shell of what it currently is; much like the societies affected by the plague. The Dark Ages lasted a very, very long time by human standards.
Because they were killed by plague yet civilization and morality itself remained strong, aggressive and patriarchal if civilization however is old and weak enough it cant escape grasp of death either way
Looking back at history we can, in fact see much more examples of how great civilization fallen and overtaken by poorer more aggressive nations in the very similar manner we see today.
Roman empire, Arab empire, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Ottoman empire ect. All had signs of dying civilizations we see today what is happening to our civilization. Women get equal “rights”,indifference to religion, welfare state, family unit breakdown, divorces, moral breakdown, loose sexual morality, low fertility, effeminacy, multiculturalism and poorer, more aggressive, violent and patriarchal civilization alongside,
infiltrating and conquering richer and modern civilization and pushing it off its throne
It makes perfect sense that these nations were strongly religious ones as religions motivates to conquer and subjugate.
as egalitarian and weak civilizations cease to exist aggressive, patriarchal and fanatical civilizations continue to dominate.Strong dominates the weak.
Second your perspective is warped by new age movements its hard not to notice poo in your thinking. Only technology becomes outdated and useless not culture and morality, if this was true we wouldnt get these lifespans of civilizations.
Third If islam is cancer of humanity it wouldnt represent countries with highest fertility rates and main values like power, desire to subjugate, religion ect. of its members.
the purpose of cancer is to spread and kill a host along with itself, while Islam aims to become host itself.
Now I wouldnt say values of wester civilization is cancer, western civilization is dying anyway as factors like low fertility rates, high divorce rates, feminism ect. shows. Factors like a welfare state, women rights, indifference to religion, materialism and other are not cancer nor human advancements of some kind, they are just proven, time and again to be mere symptoms of dying and decaying civilization
Sir John Glubb should be featured on the ROK
No, they just became pushovers for the more powerful and prolific countries for hundreds of years and even some of those little nations dissapeared…
I’ll pass.
Piss on that
I’d rather die a non-Muslim than live as a Muslim slave.
I want to see Mecca obliterated!
Muslim nations now have the same birthrate as western nations but with only 1/10 of the economic output. Muslim nations will crater with much greater force than the west.
still better then waht we have here in the west
As the carbon emissions data demonstrates, developing nations are the ones whose consumption is increasing whilst modernized nations are relatively static. So whatever tech advances we make must be in proportion to the global growth in order to accommodate the growing demand otherwise someone is going to be shortchanged.
The west is fucked. All of the ideals and goals of the Regressives (I refuse to call them Progressives) inevitably lead to depopulation.
They want depopulation, seriously. They consider humans to be a plague on this planet. If they can accomplish that without killing anyone, they keep their hands clean.
It’s all so stupid. As a race of beings, we’re literally only a decade of state-funded development away from becoming a species that spreads out to it’s own solar system and lives on other planetary bodies than it’s home planet. But the “progressives” would rather most of us die out.
That plan certainly decides who gets to “spread out,” doesn’t it?
It’s a systemic disorder, any society has a shelf life.
If you examine them closely, virtually every position progressives hold dear turn out to be negative for civilization as a whole.
but equality! empathy!
This is a great article. It’s such an important topic–one of many. And it’s great to see sociopolitical articles on RoK. These are the trends that effect men everywhere, and it’s up to men to take notice and make whatever changes are necessary to save themselves and those they choose to assist. Good shit, man.
Getting off this tired old whore of a planet called Mother Earth is a must if we to survive as a species. When Europe was over populated and tyrannical we headed to the “new world ” now we really need to head to the NEW WORLD.
Riding a fresh cock every week is more fun than child rearing. The way things are, all cards are in the hands of women and they are going to spend their fertile years looking for the biggest cock they can find, so yeah, if you think birth rates are low now, wait another 20 years.
As men, the ball is in our court. We are choosing to bang these sluts and encourage their slutty behavior. It is clear that women desire to please us, so we have to step up and change the game entirely if we want to save civilization.
Save civilization? Do you live in some cheap manga with giant robots?
Jealous of my giant robots?
Actually, yes.
Who is going to step up? Men? Modern men? They’re all going to organize as one big, cohesive red pill group? Not likely in our lifetimes. This failing social experiment will reach it’s horrible, grinding conclusion before that happens. This civilization may be thrown on the ash heap of history, and a new and hopefully better one will replace it over time. This process will take several human generations, and will be very painful on the people who live through it.
You might be right, but it doesn’t take many to change the course of civilization. If enough men stand up and fight, then we will see a dramatic shift. Remember, the United States was founded by less than half of men supporting a break from England.
I disagree. It takes quite a bit to change the course of civilization, particularly a modern civilization where everyone is really comfortable and lazy, like the USA. Quite a bit indeed.
The US Revolutionary War was not some easy victory that happened overnight. It was the culmination of decades of combined collaboration between various men and nations, not to mention complex business interests..
Also, the US was not founded by militia patriots and the Founding Fathers, etc like the propaganda history reads. It was funded, i.e. founded by wealthy bankers, merchants, slave traders, etc.
At it’s ideological core, the US was founded on Liberalism, which had it’s roots in the Renaissance nearly 100 years earlier.
Historic examples cannot be plucked out of a specific time period and passed off as proof of a point. History is a long series of events which compound upon one another. Any change that we are talking about will take a VERY long time, likely more that an average human lifetime.
That being said Mark, perhaps you are correct in the sense that we should get started on it now. Every movement must start somewhere and somehow. Perhaps in this particularly oppressive climate ( for men), the incentive will be there for enough guys to get active and try to change things for the better.
Indeed. It will not be easy and I am not delusional about this.
I am very interested as to what information you used to find the facts that you did about the founding of america. Can you source a book or something of that nature?
*British Empire
This isn’t about stepping up. We as humans will always chose the shortest possible path to pleasure and will always try avoid pain. Any admonitions to “do the right thing” will fall on def ears for most people as 99% of humans simply do not possess that kind of integrity. Lydmil said “riding a fresh cock is way more fun then child rearing” – that is exactly right, but for guys avoiding a very expensive and painful punishment known as marriage is also a factor. We can’t expect to be put in conditions where raising a family becomes a burden to women and a dangerous liability to men and still continue to pretend things are A-OK. Both sexes are just acting in their self interest. That’s all.
Quote for truth.
The smartest comment I have read so far on this topic.
Good article.
While declining fertility is not the only factor in our declining civilization, it is definitely a huge factor.
Meanwhile, we have whole movements dedicated to depopulating the world. Bill Gates himself has expressed interest in using vaccines to reduce the population. And when a billionaire says something like that, it should make you want to not vaccinate.
Meanwhile, feminists view having children as icky and inconvenient. Somehow, the biological imperative of the female is lost on them.
Fortunately, I get a sense that the current young generation is not listening to them. Nearly every young white couple I know is having children. And not just one or two, but three and sometimes more.
Children are hard work and a huge money pit. But they eventually grow up and if you raised them right, then they become workers. They build things or have more children themselves. If we are to save our civilization, we need to outbreed the feminists and the regressive Left. Fortunately, that isn’t too hard to do.
Canada has being able to address his problems with immigration but they have still the problem of population displacement. Canadians will become a minority among Muslims and Chinese.
canadians have been a minority for 100s of years. They have been since the British and french took over.
Ecologically, you have to slow the population decline until it can stabilize to a comfortable carrying capacity for earth to support. If the population declines too quick the species as a whole will not be able to recover and thus slip into extinction.
It is an overshoot which leads to collapse.
A famous case of this is the St. Matthew Island Deer population.
The population overshot the carrying capacity of the island and the rapid population decline couldn’t stabilize itself and declined further into extinction.
Something to definitely keep an eye on.
Fertility rates or birth rates?
The fertility rate for the United States is remarkably high for our level of development.
Yes, this is true. However, most of that boost in fertility comes from immigrants. the U.S. has more immigration (legal and illegal) than any other nation on earth, and those people who migrate here are from poorer, less developed areas on earth, so they reproduce. If you remove the immigrant reproduction, we’re at or below any european nation.
Red states and immigrants.
Sure was nice of them white folks in North America to build that there country for all them other folks to move to.
Not any more, we’re actually lower than France and the UK now thanks to the recession.
“It is no surprise that the hand-wringers over fertility decline are usually men.”
Shows you how stupid women (and lack of insight) generally are. Declining fertility rates are overall a bigger negative for women than for men. To name a few reasons:
1. Motherhood/the womb is one of the major reasons men stick up for women. Without it there is no/little incentive to do so.
2. Women rely heavily on the – welfare – state. Declining revenues (tax and otherwise) will effect them far more than men.
3. Men have a tendency to check out quite early i.e. they genereally don’t live very long after retirement. It is women that make up the bulk of the 65+ demographic.
Making babies is one of the few areas where women’s strengths reside. Take this away and females are walking nuisances to men..that bring occational vaginal pleasure.
Yeah, the nightmare scenario is a nation where the largest demographic is 50+ year old women who never reproduced and do not understand why the society they live in is crumbing around them, and keep asking for more from the state.
It makes you want to go to the future, find said women, shake them to their core, and say, “Because you didn’t make the kids to keep that world functioning, you stupid twat.”
“Yeah, the nightmare scenario is a nation where the largest demographic is 50+ year old women who never reproduced and do not understand why the society they live in is crumbing around them, and keep asking for more from the state.”
You took the words right out of my mouth. Can you imagine the nightmare that would exists in a society dominated by useless, old, childless women? The vindictive tone of it would be terribly oppressive for everyone, particularly all men and most attractive young women. Most modern old women have little to offer society. Their souls tend to be filled with anger, and misplaced resentment towards others for their own personal poor life decisions. Can you imagine the field day that politicians would have catering to this group of bitter old hags? These women would demand everything, and offer virtually nothing. A police state would be a certainty in this environment.
How dare you reduce women to mere broodmares?
Their dreams and self-fulfilment will fuel society!
I live in such a society, post-communist Bulgaria. The largest voting block are retirees, which of course are majority women, The PSP(Bulgarian Socialist Party) gets 62% of it’s votes from women (obviously aging women) because it offers the most in terms of gov. handouts while the young people are fleeing the country in search of whatever employment they could find. When you are young, unemployed and part of an upside down age pyramid, life gets interesting.
I pray my children won’t spend their adult lives in such a society, but it does look as though it could go that way.
You’re being sarcastic,,,right?
It is also the fault of men as a genre who, emascualted and betaized after two generations of feminism, refuse to use their logic and reason to see the world as it is and the obvious solution: ingesting the Red Pill.
Easier said than done, of course. Given the natural alphas and betas who have taken the Red Pill, most men living are still plugged betas.
Actually, if most living men ingested the Red Pill, there would be even less incentive to marry, settle and breed.
Worse is, of course, the MGTOW movement where the betas are refusing to marry and breed.
Men are also being poisioned off with the whole soy diet and soy crazes. Men of today have boobs and breast and fat under their nipples, regular men who are no even fat and often thin. I go to the gym I see men with 4% body fat and its all in their nipples. Why? They are being poisioned through birth control pills being dumped into the water system and the high soy diets.
MGTOW is not bad, they recognize the reality that the dating scene is shitty, and rather than lose all dignity to some fat entitled whore hey chose to focus on self development in other areas. Some still date but never willg et married. The most powerful thing a man can do is walk away. Always, he who cannot walk away is the actual beta. Because the person who doesn’t walk away is usually the loser in the relationship.
Its no different than how men deal with aggressive female dogs (bitch), if a dog is too aggressive you remove it from the breeding pool. MGTOW, are removing the worst women from the breeding pool by not mating period.
I liked your post for the second half, not the birth control conspiracy theory.
Its not a conspiracy theory its a medical fact.
This is true. And homo-sapiens aren’t the only species where our females annoy the fuck out of us outside of sex and babies. There was an incident where a Wild Bengal Tiger (real tiger) fucked a domesticated female zoo-tiger and killed her soon after. The real alphas out of any species don’t really like being around women outside of sex and impregnating them. A woman’s womb is an investment, regardless if the bitch is a psycho or not, a woman with good genes is an investment for any man. However, women en-masse are saying “this investment is being taken away,” we no longer need it the same way we did, and eventually men are going to fucking snap. Men are going to figure out, well… fuck you then, cunt. After that, who knows…
Yeah, I’m of the feeling this will eventually happen as well. Is there anything worse than young women who don’t put out? Like, bitch, why the fuck are you even out here? Why are you even alive? If a critical mass of men reach this kind of conclusion, well, who knows, like you said. But it does seem like the center cannot hold.
…and you wonder why some women choose not to have children, or choose to make it less of a priority?
Who would want to be saddled with someone like you for 18 years for heaven’s sake??? You are so damn hateful towards women!
I read your comments and you rarely contribute any reasonable solution to these real-world social issues. There are plenty of women who would be happy to experience a more traditional relationship, but there has to be respect, which you clearly have none.
Does integrity, respect, character mean anything to you?? You do realize that women are humans right? Meaning, they have dreams, feelings, hopes, weaknesses…they make mistakes…you know like you!
While they bemoan women not having enough children in this article, they point out in another article how a woman should be kicked to the curb when she’s no longer in her prime, noted in another article as 16-25. Sound like a secure demographic to trust your childbearing years to? Or another article stating that if a man is caught cheating, he should “shrug, smile, and walk away.” With catches like this, is it any wonder that women feel MORE secure supporting themselves and raising kids on their own? And as for the inevitable welfare reference, which they bring up time and time again, well those women had to have had kids with someone. Hmm. Where, exactly are the daddies? Did they cheat, get caught, shrug, smile and then walk away? Or can we just chalk them up as beta males.
It’s no accident that more educated women/couples understand how much it costs to properly raise and educate a child. They also understand that, in order to do that, time must be spent on the career. They shit all over their own points–from this article, to that one, to another. As a Buddhist, I couldn’t believe that another article uses the photo of a celibate Dalai Lama to sell the idea that meditation will get you more pussy.
None of this follows any sort of logic, whatsoever, and the current societal trends are so greatly against what they’re preaching that they have zero chance of turning the tide.
They didn’t have this board when I was dating, but I knew these guys when I met them–and turned around and went the other direction. We knew what they were about, and those of us who listened to that sick feeling we got just by meeting them didn’t have to endure their mind games, their ultimate lack of interest in who we were or what we were interested in (see article regarding the woman with the little Pom). This entire board is nothing more than a gathering place for the angry and irrevocably broken, and those of us who came on to try and understand this kind of pathology, only to come to the conclusion that they’re jerks. Plain and simple. Just like there are environmentalist jerks. Or hipster jerks. Or athlete jerks. Or jerks from any population. These guys want to continue to be that way, and this is a system they’re developing in order to justify their antisocial behavior.
Friendly reminder.
Remember site rules are not to reply to females. You will be banned along with the female. Like the one below.
Good looking out. I have a feeling that you may have been a hall monitor in school…
Some ROK men – like it or not – still value women to a degree, but want them to be more traditional. I know this because I read the articles and comments and so I know hope still exists in traces.
Other ROK men, are pretty much disgusted with women and seek to promote ways to hurt or manipulate them ( I think this is very cowardly and weak)…in fact it would be great if these men+the feminists who got us in this position were transported to a deserted island where they could duke out their radical, extremists views.
My comments are meant to influence the former (i.e., the ones who want to contribute to the solution rather than *whine* about the problem…you know, a man worthy to be a king).
Thanks, honestly I can understand jrabbit’s frustrations. There are a modicum of women who feel it’s unfair to pay for the sins of the fucked up majority. However, these women should know life is a game of averages. People whether in business, combat etc prepare themselves for the most likely scenario. I truly respect a handful of women in life, certain female relatives, mom included and a bunch of Phyllis Schlafley types. The women of my generation (on average) are hardly worthy of the respect that jrabbit is advocating. Deep down inside, she probably knows this too. At the end of the day, I don’t have problem getting pussy. We all want decent mates to be decent mothers/fathers, but the dark reality is, is that they’re about 1% of women in the West who possess these characteristics. I feel for jrabbit. I would advise her to listen to Mozart’s Requiem in D minor to get a sense of how we feel about modern women in Western Civilization.
This hits the nail on the head for me. I’ve met a few women that claim to want traditional relationships, but the problem is their past doesn’t exactly measure up to anything that could be considered traditional. You can’t fuck 10+ men and then wake up one morning and say, “Hey, I think I’ll give the whole traditional things a shot.” That shit just doesn’t fly. There’s an ample supply of men that would be more than willing to take on that kind of woman, but it certainly won’t be me.
I made this post a while ago, but it’s fitting and I’ll copy it here. It’s how I view the current odds of actually finding a good American woman
——Out of 50 million women between 18-30 years old,- only 15% will be attractive- down to 7.5 million.
Out of that 7.5 million 40% will have kids- down to 3 million.
Out of that 3 million 75% will check off a minimum of two of the following-
history of cheating on previous boyfriends
have more than 2 previous sex partners
social media attention whores
divorced
have financial issues that she has no hope of fixing on her own
have/had substance abuse or alcohol issues
bad childhood/poor family relations
on anti-depressants
have no homemaker skills whatsoever
terribly selfish
tattoos
minimal potential for being a good mother
Down to 750,000
Out of that 750,000, 50% will be in committed relationships- down to 375,000.
There are perhaps 375,000 women in the 18-30 age group that have potential to be really good committed partners…
375,000 women out of a possible 50,000,000.
1 out of every 133… not all of us are going to make it.—–
My personal experience reflects this perfectly. It’s impossible to meet a new woman without assuming she’s fucked up in some way. Without fail, this is proven correct, and I’m not searching in the clubs or bars either. Women in this country have hit rock bottom – and started to dig.
I agree with you 100%. I feel for the very small amount of women out there that truly do get it. It’s not easy to find this type of woman. Not easy at all. In the meantime, a man’s options are to swear off pussy all together, or pound out the best of the worst that’s out there. I like getting laid and will continue with that approach.
As opposed to his other requiems.
Or if you want to go for a modern, far less classy, far less refined route;
Though admittedly that song should’ve been out when I was a Junior/Senior in high school 8 years ago…
Thanks for doing the numbers for us AV8R. “It’s impossible to meet a new woman without assuming she’s fucked up in some way.” Same here brother. I’m old now, 53, though in very good shape due to my work being somewhat physically demanding & my taste for foods that happen to be really nutritious. I’ve always worked out regularly though now it’s all for me & none to ‘look good’. However, I fall into the ‘swear off pussy altogether’ camp…I’ve practiced chastity for the past decade. After the last divorce nearly impoverished me I’d had enough & went ‘ghost’ long before discovering the MGTOW community. All my divorces were initiated by the wives without any substantial grounds…they just didn’t feel happy or fulfilled or some such rot.
Please do humanity a favor and do not procreate. Thank you.
I wonder who thumbed you up, you fucking faggot/cunt
“The real alphas out of any species don’t really like being around women outside of sex and impregnating them.”
Damn, wild animals like (and have more use for them) their females more than humans do. Animals like to screw and impregnate. We don’t even like to impregnate them anymore…and sex is also becoming more of a hastle. Well, that’s what you get when you starts messing with the natural order of things.
Aww that’s so cute how you think of yourself to be so valuable XD
Hate to break it to you, but all over the animal kingdom, it is the female that eats or otherwise kills the male when the guy gets useless and/or annoying. The truth is that women are the superior gender, and we always question why the fuck we keep the dudes around. At least now more guys are aware that ladies are the true alphas and are acknowledging their proper place. Hopefully the little cluster of peabrains on this site will realize it soon… or else they will get hurt as they are cast aside like lowly scum. (Which most guys are tbh.) For all your talk about reproduction, no male on this website deserves to have his DNA be passed on either way.
Good luck with whatever, dickheads. Y’all will need it.
“Shows you how stupid women (and lack of insight) generally are. Declining fertility rates are overall a bigger negative for women than for men.”
In reality, the decidedly lack of willingness by today’s men to procreate, and take responsibility as a father, combined with their “pump and dump” philosophy, are the reasons for the decline in fertility in America.
Even if that’s the case my point still stands. The question you must ask is ‘why the lack of willingness by today’s men to procreate?’. Has it something to do with the – general – quality of women and/or are there other factors at play. As far as i can assess men will treat women in accordance to the way they conduct themselves. A woman that acts whorishly will get treated as such or be ignored altogether. Women that behave respectfully get treated accordingly. To give you a small example. The moment i see a cute girl that’s dressed like a whore i’ll check out her boobs and ass (and if possible her cameltoe), when a nun or a covered muslim woman walks by i – almost automatically – look down out of respect.
No, your point does not stand. Women get behave how they want.
Even if that’s your position my point still stands. If women get to behave as they wish men have that possibility also…one of which is not to procreate and cohabitate with females a man deems ‘problematic/deficient’ in behaviour. Remember; actions have consequences.
Yes, of course, it’s all men’s fault. Because women are pro-life and haven’t aborted off 50 million kids in the USA alone, right?
Oh wait… it’s MEN who are pro-life, and women who want to slut it up and get to pay a doctor to cut the baby to pieces.
I disagree mcg, its feminism and women indefinitely postponing children for their careers that is causing the declining birthrate. Men’s reaction to it is driven by the behavior of women, see question 1.
If women didn’t have a hole between their leg called vaginas hat felt good to jersey meat hook, I doubt they’d even exist. Men throughout the ages would have killed them off for their annoyingness and being a general burden on society.
Sure there are some real skanks out there, but not every women is useless. There are some real gems. You just aren’t going to find them in the places you expect them to be
Sure most women should be busy making babies, but isn’t this more of an indicator of our own human intelligence doing us in?
If birthrates are declining worldwide, even in less developed countries where people are generally less intelligent(and feminism is far less prevalent)…doesn’t that mean that on the whole, human women have gotten just smart enough to notice how physically taxing and resource intensive childbearing is so they’re giving up on it in order to live a better life themselves? Or only have one in order to better raise just that one child?
We’re never going to be able to convince everyone to have 2-3 kids, and we may not even be able to force it(surely attempting to force it would be counterproductive assuming many would die in a war over something like this).
Maybe the whole process of birth needs to be disassociated from the human body altogether in order for us to survive as increasingly intelligent beings.
I imagine an intelligent being would recognize the importance of a constant supply of humans is required to maintain and advance civilization
But there are less and less men willing to have children too, so the blame can’t be solely on women for this. Low birthrates are happening all over the world, even in the more trad countries where there are still good women. I don’t think this is a simple case of western feminists doing what they do best.
Lol, men…
We get pregnant, you scream “Bitch better get an abortion!” We choose not to have kids you scream “It’s your fault the population is screwed now!”
Western Society’s major problem: a large and growing demographic of men who refuse to embrace adulthood, are terrified of parenthood and remain in a prolonged adolescence until they are almost 50; but by then no sensible young woman wants to have a child with them.
Grow up and stop blaming women for the problems you create.
What you mean is that men at 50 finally have enough resources/income to start a family in anti-male modern society. The problem isn’t that women don’t want these men. The problem is they are extremely selective when it comes to women, and you can’t get one.
Lol are you projecting because you can’t find a mate? I have a family, spouse and am pretty much living the American dream, you?
No, not by your definition. Having family responsibilities/obligations has never been one of my dreams. I like to travel light, and have all options available to me at all times. If I can avoid having a bunch of leaches attach themselves to me, then that is my “American Dream.”
The most common fallacy used in this topic is claiming that there is overpopulation by citing the world population.
Overpopulation means that a population that can no longer feed itself. Famines used to be far more common, so the world used to be more overpopulated than it is today. A metropole is not overpopulated, a hunter-gatherer tribe made up of 50 people who due to circumstances can no longer feed itself, is overpopulated.
too many dicks around. Need to be 4 females for every 1 male. Then us males can freely bang chicks and everyman will be sexually happy.
They used to conduct massive world wars to solve the problem of over-abundance of dick. Haven’t had one of those in a while. They’d send all the dumb betas into combat to be canon fodder, while the old, rich alphas would fuck all the women on the home front. Now, in the absence of major wars, Western societies have become dick farms…God damn sausage fests.
Lots of idle, pussy beggin’ beta men hanging out on street corners with nothing to do. The phenomenon of over-abundance of men is a pretty modern trend; post WW2 really. Pussy has always been in high demand, but having so many useless men around inflates the already high price of pussy. The demand for pussy, quality or not, is through the roof. Why do you think modern women have the chip on their shoulder that they do?
if you are not an alpha male in America, you are fucked. plain and simple. Like even game does not help, you need two of fame/height/looks/social-circle to survive sexually + be aggressive.
Pretty much. America is the most competitive society on earth. All the sexual spoils go to the top men in the society. We are all small fish in a big pond. Many of us cannot compete. That’s why expatriation is such a popular idea in the manosphere. Many of us want to be bigger fish in a smaller pond, so to speak.
I have been keeping an eye on the Japan/ ROK/UK/Spain/Latvia populations. I noted this trend accelerating as the boomer’s are reaching pension and grave age. We are headed for an almighty fall.
I predict wealthy nations will attempt to incentive productive/child bearing age people to their nations like a pedo will try to attract kids with candy.
This will leave the lesser nations dried up of the prime resource of civilisations, the resource most undervalued by governments, politicians and dictators alike…people.
I see Latvia nowadays as an empty wasteland of old people, in Japan [The MGTOW nation] the youth is not pumping out kids as its too costly and there are no jobs.
Its like the Mice Utopia experiment. Game over.
The Romans tried to incentivize their sub-replacement citizens to breed with hefty bounties paid for each additional child born. It didn’t make a dent.
The Romans got overran by the far more fecund barbarians at the gates instead, raping and pillaging the outlying towns.
I guess the Goths, Franks, and Gauls figured if the Romans won’t breed with their own women, we might as well go do it for them.
What also happened is that the Christians bred while the pagans didn’t, with the result that the remaining Romans ended up all Catholic. (That’s where Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, and French come from.)
And Swiss and Germans too. . Sometimes the winners become the vanquished. It’s a curious thing.
ya very grue. it seems a youth buldge is way better then a graying population. its rather strange to build all this wealth and infrastructure and not pass it down to anyone.
well not the poor ones seeing low fertility rates.
japan is the most aged nation on the planet(1 in 4) and its become a huge economic problem from taxes to living expenses…very expensive to livevthere.
wonder how isreal is able to keep theirs high.
The Israel number isn’t from the the Jewish population necessarily. The Palestinian population has a much higher replacement rate then the Israeli and is slowly overtaking the Jewish majority.
thats false. after force urbanizaizing the arabs in the nedkov their fertility took a hit. It was deliberate to avoid a possible arab majority. But what Im curious of is how is the jewish birth rats going up
Less anal and more vaginal, then?
Possibly true. The rise of heterosexual anal is part of the problem. 30 years back, a woman’ sex appeal was dependent on her breasts, Today’s women’s sex appeal is primarily focused on the ass and lordosis behavior. Plus porn where heterosexual is the norm with anal creampies. Heterosexual anal is common on university campuses everywhere now. Plus anal sex related diseases for both genders. With both men and women loving more and more butt sex, this could also be a problem. We need an article on heterosexual butt sex to explore this.
And don’t forget oral and all the lovely infections you can get from it. The ‘modern’ idea of a sex act is just plain self destructive, and on purpose. We’re supposed to fuck ourselves out of existence.
you could run for office on this slogan – you’d have my vote!
“The only wealthy western nation with a recorded fertility rate north of 2.1 is Israel.”
– with the highest standard of living in the middle east.
$10 billion per year in US aid does tend to free up your evenings.
As long as you’re making up numbers, why not go with eleventy bajillion?
The truth is that US aid to Israel is around $3 billion annually, every penny of which must be sent back to the US in the purchase of US manufactured equipment.
Wrong. According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, (authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy), the total amount for aid to israel at the time of the writing was in excess of $10 bn including military aid, humanitarian aid, etc, and is more than the next two aid recipients COMBINED. Further, aid packages to israel are funded at the beginning of each year, allowing israel to invest and earn interest on money that US tax-payers are at the same time PAYING interest on.
Nice try though jerk-off.
actually the only reason Isreal’s birthrate is so high is because they have a lot of Arabs who live within their borders and are having lots of babies. I mean lots of babies!! 20% of Israel’s population is muslim arab, not jewish. Most people dont know this. And the percentage is growing. So much that they distort the fertility rate in Israel up to 2.1. Their goal is to eventually outbreed the Jews and reclaim Israel via demographic warfare. The Isrealis are so concerned about it some are talking about denying these Arabs citizenship.
No, actually it’s the Jewish women. Arabs have a lower fertility than Jews now, believe it or not.
ya this true that fertilty has increased among secular an religoius jews while arab fertility is going down due to forced urbanization.
Spengler at PJMedia agrees that the Jews in Israel are eager to make babies and are out-breeding the Arabs inside and outside the country.
The Israelis are on a roll! They have a great and booming high tech industry and have just found large deposits of oil and natural gas in their territorial waters.
Too bad about Jewish cuisine though…..
Cool, maybe they can give the US taxpayers some of our money back
Israel’s Jewish fertility rate, in comparison, is predicted to increase from 2.99 to 3.04, while the rate for Israeli Muslims is projected to decline from 3.37 to 2.71.
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israels-population-reaches-more-than-8-million-at-years-end-336503
heres the report from wiki
Fertility rate, by year and religion[49]
Year Jews Muslims Christians Druze Others Total
2010 2.97 3.75 2.14 2.48 1.64 3.03
2011 2.98 3.51 2.19 2.33 1.75 3.00
2012 3.04 3.54 2.17 2.26 1.68 3.05
Every time I have mentioned this topic, which is rare, people bristle and attack me instead of the problem. It’s amazing to watch their reaction.
It’s really quite simple. Job #1 from the god of biomechanics is reproduction. It comes down to the heartless business of nature saving those heredities that work, and rejecting those that don’t. From a purely biological perspective, the Caucasian heredity doesn’t work anymore, and is being rejected. Everywhere you look in Western, traditionally white nations, there is population decline, an inverted pyramid to use demographic terms. The relationship between the sexes is not just broken, it’s shattered into a million pieces, a fact any man who has traveled abroad can see.
It used to bother me, but I look around and see what my people have become and in a way I’m glad to see them going the way of the dinosaurs because they have created a society that has stunning material wealth, but it comes at the expense of everything else that makes life worth living. The Simpsons’ C. Montgomery Burns said it best: “Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you want to be successful in business.” I actually found that to be a very astute observation into what the West has given up in order to have material success and more importantly, excess. Not only that, but the people in Western Civ have, by and large, become arrogant and glib, just generally unpleasant to be around.
I think when the history of the fall of Western Civ is written, this will be a major point: They ignored basic biology, and tried to turn their women into men. Unfortunately, biology doesn’t give a damn about your ideals. The future belongs to those who will be in it.
I spent decades trying to find a suitable mother for my children in the United States to no avail. The very first day abroad on different international trips I found better choices than I could have ever hoped for here. Guess which place I now have a beautiful, feminine woman now carrying my child…it’s NOT America. More importantly, it’s without the guns of child support and alimony and divorce rape pointed at my head like here in the U.S.
where? ooo pls tell me
The Caucasian heredity works fine, its given us the bulk of the advances in every field in the last 500 years. The indoctrination that Caucasian children, especially boys, are subjected to from their first day of school tells then that they are weak, have a debt to every other demographic on the planet.
After a lifetime of hearing that their only value is as disposable labor, the predictable depression leads to loads of psych drugs and some feminist-centered therapy to seal the deal.
…that’s not evolution, that’s genocide.
Indoctrination plays a role, yes, but there’s more to it than that. For one, there’s always been a latent misandry in Anglo culture that has fully flowered into feminism.
Adaptation is the key here. In previous environments, the Caucasian heredity worked extremely well. In this environment, it’s being tested, as always happens in evolution, and is failing.
This is a very complicated and sensitive topic, but I feel as though I’ve gained more than I’ve lost by leaving my people behind and finding a new tribe. That sentiment is sure to offend people, but that’s how I feel. Let the ad hominem attacks against me commence. I’m used to them…
“Every time I have mentioned this topic, which is rare, people bristle
and attack me instead of the problem. It’s amazing to watch their
reaction.”
Debating has now turned into who can insult and verbally attack the other person the most. If they get an emotional reaction out of you they believe that they have won the debate.
Yes. Why be rational when you can just sling mud at a person?
“global warming”………. should i say something? nah
There’s a lot of factors leading to lower fertility in America. Some of these are CPS punishing parents who spank, school metal detectors and the school-to-prison pipeline, stop and frisk, the mass drugging of young “ADD” men, and factors like gang initiation week. Stop and frisk and CPS can also affect homeschoolers. These things happen in white communities too.
It’s a wonder that folks growing up in a such a system would want to have kids at all, which is probably why most kids are unplanned.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a population plateau
or even a population contraction which would presumably stabilize at a
lower level. It is a pretty awful proposition where a people have to either lose their country or engage in a fertility arms race. The problem is that our economic system and political systems have a relentless appetite for MORE, MORE, MORE. More workers, more consumers, more voters. Our political class implements population replacement in the form of immigration, which introduces new sources of strife and conflict in the host society, undermining the working class, civil society and social trust. The long run fate of multicultural societies is that all issues become proxies for identity political struggles.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Stagnant and decreasing populations ARE ALWAYS signs of decadent civilizations and cultures. You either expand or get stagnation and decline. This is a problem with the WN crowd that seems unable to grasp. In the days of yore, expansion meant new continents and lands, today it would most likely mean the poles and the finally the space.
That’s very correct, history is a dynamic process, always in flux. The nation is always either in the process of expansion or contraction. Even a moderate population decline, stretched over 2 or more generations means a creative and fighting spirit of the nation is reduced. I have heard this debate becomes correlation vs causation. (Does a weakening, waning society produce less children or does depopulation affect it’s vigor?)
Low virility is also a problem and is almost never discussed. Steadily-decreasing testosterone levels have plagued western men for decades.
-Men need to avoid soy as if it were a fat 60 year old naked tranny.
-We need to gain more muscle and lose fat. More fat makes the body produce less test.
-We need to learn more about estrogen mimickers in our environment and avoid them.
IMHO, too much emphasis is placed on female biology. This society often completely overlooks what’s happening to male biology.
Yours is to do and to die
Not to cry and ask “why?”
On China, their age distribution is upside down based on their two-child policy and they’re actually going to be in bad shape in a few decades.
Looking at the graphic, you can see the largest age group is in the late 40’s and there are as many 5-9 year old Chinese woman as there are 65-69 year old women. Not good. China’s success stem primarily from currency manipulation and America’s environmental policies that cripple our domestic production abilities. China can eat my ass.
As for America, the American male population is increasingly low on virility because war has killed off many of the most potentially Alpha males; I say “potentially” because fighting wars for minimum wage just to “be someone special” is full Beta. The rest of the American male population is propagandized into being sexual introverts and even if they weren’t American women are too ghastly to generate wood without pharmaceutical assistance.
Any men who slip through all these cracks are working overtime to fund Michelle O’s next vacation.
The implications of this plot are hard to grasp on first glance. For those seeing this graphic and seeing nothing, just take a few minutes to think about it.
Currently China has between 104 and 130 million women between the ages of 40 and 50. It also has between 52 and 80 million women between the ages of 5-15 years old. Both demographics will slowly move up this ladder as they age, but neither demographic will ever “increase”. Granted, you would expect a higher die-off rate in the older age-bracket, but you still don’t end up with 52-82 million 40-50 year old Chinese women when the previous 40-50 year old women reach 75-85 years old (and they will eventually).
What that plot shows is nothing short of coming catastrophe, the older generations that did not have children, either by fiat or by feminism, are fucked because there just aren’t enough young people to take care of them. Expect the number of older homeless people to rise in the coming decades, and expect that at some point, society will turn their backs on them, or face an even worse fate.
I know some vapid feminist harpie who moved to China last year to teach English. Fat, rude, arrogant – the trifecta.
Now she is engaged to some Chinese guy. I saw the poor sap on Facebook and could only shake my head in pity.
This is a byproduct of the two child system that nobody ever mentions – Chinese guys having to shack up with anything they can get due to scarcity of trim.
It just occurred to me, I know one of those entitled feminist-types that was just telling me about wanting to move to china to teah english. Didn’t make sense at the time but this does kind of explain it; Amerika is starting to get fed up with feminists but china is a seller’s market!
This could be a solution to China’s economic dominance over the US. We will export our fat man-hating harpies to them. Within five years, they will have the GDP of Haiti…
China’s economic dominance over us is only partly due to what THEY are doing, the other half of it is how poorly the US is performing. If China fell off the planet tomorrow, the US would still be sucking ass.
The birth rate is determined by faith in the future (religion) education and more recently internet access. It can be solved by the repression of women (unlikely) or a massive war where the young men get slaughtered (quite likely). Demographics determine a nations future. The only two nations which are maintaining or growing their populations are the USA and Israel…they are the winners by default.
Yeah, except the US population growth is not due to Charles and Allisson efforts, but the efforts of Taquiya, Abdul, Juan and Mariana.
The USA isn’t any more since the recession.
I think Africa is still producing. Who is ready for a very dark planet?
…not sure who’s gonna cover the EBT funding.
White proles are restless. Black plantation equipment on the other hand might be better for business. It has always been the policy of the ruling class to either absorb or exterminate the smart ones among the underlings and an average IQ of 100 for the working class is a bit uncomfortable for the management.
Indeed. Historically, India, China, and Europe were the big three human centers. In this century, it’ll be India, China, and Africa instead.
Expect every wealthy western country to end up with substantial black and mulatto populations. France and the UK are already at that point in fact.
Only Europe is necessary
A recent analysis I read claimed that Africa has never been at its carrying capacity. The disease burdens are too high for that. Western medicine and urban hygiene have distorted in the 20th century that but they rest on a very thin reed and seems to be faltering in the 21st. Look what AIDS did to them and how poorly they handle ebola and MERS.
The only hope the human race has is to become too big and too unruly to be centrally managed. The eco-Nazis and elites know exactly what they are doing.
If only we could “break out” now, head into space now. Would you be out the door if warp drive was invented and we could go to other worlds? I would be gone in 2 minutes.
Yes. Especially now that the Kepler mission has proven that Earth-size planets are common.
I always thought a society that wont fuck to save itself, isn’t worth saving.
‘Misogyny’ is nothing but a tool to silence opposition to
the female ideology.
It is the extension of
the female defense mechanism.
The word is so overused that it has practically lost its meaning. If a woman calls you a misogynist just reply by saying “so what?” and watch that hamster go.
Inconvenient, Unreliable, Unloyal , Evil, degenerate,malignant,inaccessible, destrucive, deleterious,
These are all synonomous with “women” yet all men have paid a HIGH price for this MALICE. You will be one miserable fuck if you try to engage one, …… this sounds outrageous but women are what in biblical times were described as “devils”
Thats is why, men who are honorable, loyal, virtuous, accessible, magnanimous, progressive, are horrible with women, They are the oppposite! and the most advanced game involves you being the opposite of anything that would be decent.
Reverse psychology game:
Be horrible: Women respond to it with humor and see you as a self respecting man
Be unreliable: They see you as non-needy
Be evil: they see it as “smart”
Be unloyal: Makes em insecure and think that you have high value, it makes em think your super-desireable and you can fuck other women on the fly just makes em wanna compete even more and (not joking) beg for it
You see , humans identify with humans like themselves, and women are horrible, so be horrible and you will have great success
this is true for most western women, aka feral women, and it saddens me
even with most western women, there is a point of diminishing returns though
Men like you is why women won’t settle down. Talk about playing the victim card. It’s not like men never ever fuck women over. Yeah get married young and have kids only to have your man “trade up” on you when you’re 50. Yes women are vulnerable and that’s why we have to protect ourselves. I’d rather be single and wind up a dried up old hag than to suffer a broken heart to that degree. In many developing countries where birth rate is still decent, birth of boys out weighs girls at an unnatural rate. It’s all good though, women are stupid anyways. Welcome to the future.
This is why generally the first rule or precept in any religion is the outlay of the nature between man and woman. Adam (good, honest, humble, loyal, brave, loving) was created by God himself. Eve (weak, disobedient, disloyal and deceiving), created by man. Eve’s first job, is to shit-test Adam, by taking up with bad-boy, Lucifer. Luci tells the bitch to eat from the tree and not only does Satan spit the correct game to seduce this bitch, but she gets Adam to “partake” of the forbidden fruit as well (which was Lucifer’s plan). This is almost in every major monotheistic and polytheistic religion (Pandora’s Box). The similarities between Eve and Pandora are striking, Pandora is given a box by the gods and told, never to open it bitch, but the cunt opens it anyway and releases chaos and death into the world (just like Eve). The common theme is that women are much closer to evil, the are more willing to be the pawns of evil. Something within their character malignant and lends itself to darkness. If any of that shit is even real, I would fucking curse Adam, for even giving up his rib to make that bitch. He would have better in paradise by himself.
LOL. So true.
When are you starting your own church?
This Sunday’s sermon:
“Why Eve is a bitch and a ho and what was Adam’s real sin.”
Answer: Because he put the pussy on pedestal.
It’s also pretty amusing how we are reinventing the wheel here. In the olden days this notion was pretty much taken for granted. Then we said the ancients were backwards idiots that didn’t know any better. Now here are again going you know what those old fuckers were right. LOL.
“He would have better in paradise by himself.”
And would have died without a son to carry on his name. Game over.
You are an ignorant idiot.
Adam’s immortal life was ended the second he ate the Forbidden fruit. That is when he became mortal.
The creation of Eve was to test Adam. For because of her, Adam ate the fruit, became mortal, and was sent down to this earth to populate it, and return to Heaven only after he and his descendants EARNED it with good deeds in this mortal life. Adam did not EARN Heaven, when he was created and placed it in it. So this life is nothing but a TEST. You have to EARN Heaven. It’s only when you earn something after toil and labour, is when you value it.
The good good deeds of man is a filthy rags(Isaiah 64:6). Heaven therefore is earned not by good works but by faith that produces good works(Ephesians 2:8)
Dude….this Abrahamic religion thingy is not real. They are stories and fairytales made up by pretentious old men in funny robes.
It’s 2014. Time to leave the fairytales behind and embrace reality.
Frankly, i’d rather have very little, if anything to do with reality. I read sites like this in order to learn, but to embrace reality is to embrace insanity for most, because this world is basically hell (or at least earthly equivalent for it).
Always enjoy your comments Lance. And you are absolutely right.
That’s the paradox of wanting a woman.
You repent for not having one, and repent more when you eventually get one. That is why all major religions – Christianity, Islam, Buddhism – stressed on the value of self control for men, when it comes to women. In Islam, it is said that one evil woman can lead 4 men to hell. Who are they? Her father, her mate (her husband), her brother, and her eldest son. For these men have a responsibility to warn and admonish her for her evil ways, if she indulges in them. That’s why you see Muslim women who are kept in check by their men. In contrast, in western societies, if any of those 4 men would try to control or admonish the average evil cunt of the modern western woman today, you’d see restraining orders filed against men. WOMEN ARE THE GATE TO HELL, and modern western women will lead a huge number of subservient, non-assuming Beta faggots with them to HELL, both in this world and the next.
In Christian theology before the beta faggots corrupted it, Eve along with poor Adam both spent 2000 years in hell to only be delivered by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Think about that! He spent 2000 years in hell for her! The Son of God had to die, to save humanity from the idiocy of a bitch! There are still wonderful Orthodox Christian (the only real last main stream body of Christianity) paintings, depicting them being delivered from hell. Numerous Christian and Islamic theologians despite centuries of fighting, came to the conclusion that women are a lot closer to evil and thus the devil. Great men in history are usually great because there was some period in their lives where the absence of women was extremely pronounced, and during this absence, most of their great works were accomplished. Frederick the Great, Issac Newton, Richard the Lionheart, Nicola Tesla etc. “Women you are the gateway to hell” – Tertullian. This was said during an era of patriarchy. Only if they knew what we were going through today.
No bullshit, during the Council of Macon in 584, there was a vote by the clergy to decide if women were in fact human! The vote was 31 nay and 32 yay. They lost by one fucking vote! Women were declared human by one vote! Lmao
You do realize that blacks (such as yourself, judging from your photo) were ALSO not considered human, and this was up until MUCH more recently than 584. You do realize this, don’t you, tard?
This. If you want to have children, there are better ways than involving yourself legally with a primitive animal. There was a recent study of thousands of women that measured the number of premarital sexual partners they had and the likelihood they would still be married ten years later. Here are the outcomes:
0 Partners (Virgin): 76%
1 Partner: 69%
10 Partners: 17%
Do you need any more proof that you should not marry boys? Get creative in your procreation.
ahhh age old wisdom backed by science.
wonder why this hasnt gone viral.
never turn a ho into a housewife
Isn’t this just another example of women attempting to behave like men in order to be “strong” and “independent”? If being horrible, unreliable, evil, disloyal, and degenerate is what makes men successful with women, then it’s just another way in which women mimic men thinking it will get them somewhere in life.
Women are the ones who should be the opposite. Honorable, loyal, virtuous, accessible, reliable. All a woman has to do is be that to make a man stay with her and get herself ahead in life.
This is a great article Athlone. I love red pill economics articles like this. Send us another one!
children? no, thanks. I’m happy being childless, and even my friends who have kids tell me they were happier being childless. (I realize…) So, dont expect my help to save the world.
I’ve had five (with three wives) so I’ve done my part. Please note that raising children with a middle class American lifestyle is very expensive, especially here in California. My wives have not worked so I’ve always been the exclusive breadwinner.
The ultimate old age security remains, as it always has, in having healthy, productive children who still love you into adulthood.
There is one white Christian country that’s still above replacement that wasn’t mentioned: Argentina. Although how long it will remain so isn’t guaranteed. Iceland and Ireland are also about at replacement, about the same as Turkey.
Are you fucking kidding me? i live in argentina and there is no way this country could be white.
Don’t forget the virus called feminism infected society
In related news, millennials are having less sex than previous generations, according to studies.
“The results of University College London’s recent National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestylessuggested that the frequency with which 16- to 44-year-olds are “mingling limbs” has been steadily decreasing over the past two decades. It found that women were having sex an average of 4.8 times a month and men, 4.9. Ten years ago this was 6.3 and 6.2, and 10 years before that, 6.1 and 6.4.”
For women, that’s a MASSIVE 24% drop from just a decade ago.
So much for this manosphere myth that sluts are rampant. It’s actually the other way around. There’s a motherfucking scarcity reality out there, folks.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/why-generation-y-less-sex
You cannot rely on women to give you accurate data for any type of statistical survey and men are known to exaggerate about their sexual lives.
But I won’t be surprised if people are having less sex as boys are getting quite feminine.
Who knows how true the absolute numbers are, but the results relative to other time periods are what’s important here… and there’s no reason to believe that the surveyed women (or men) would lie more about this today than they did yesteryear. Which leads me to believe (along with my own personal observations) that this study is correct. Quantity of sex is definitely on the way down.
I can’t remember the comedian who did this, but he basically asked the audience to raise their hand if they have ever gotten a blowjob. All of the guys raised their hands. He then asked the audience to raise their hand if they have ever given a blowjob. No one did. The comedians response, “someone is lying.”
Over the last 20 years, the populations have changed. If that was a survey in the UK, think how many burka’ed females were included in the original survey compared to now. That’s just one example.
Add in the relative increase in proportion of beta boys over the same period, and maybe there’s less incentives for all females.
These numbers are definitely true. I’m rather shocked at the number of virgins I run into in their early 20s. Seems it wasn’t that way around 5-10 years ago.
And these girls aren’t virgins by choice; they’re just so socially awkward/shy (despite not being unattractive) they can’t figure out how to get any guys to fuck them.
And guys are just as bad.
Not my problem
I disagree. Too many fucking people every which way you turn. Too many stupid fucking people every which way you turn. Crowded streets, crowded trains, crowded subways, crowded beaches, crowded everything. We would be better off cutting the population down to a billion.
Biology doesn’t know whether you’ve busted a nut in her eye or her pussy, and there’s no punishment for aiming at the wrong target. Fool biology temporarily, and fool it often.
Perhaps you can volunteer to be the first person of the one billion you suggest be eliminated.
It will revert to survival of the fittest, as it has for millennia. Nature will decide who makes it and who doesn’t.
Actually, he’s proposing that 5 billion be eliminated, so logically he should play Russian roulette with a revolver with 5 bullets.
You sir are an idiot. If you don’t like stupid f***ing people, why don’t you just go somewhere where there are fewer of them. Did you know that the entire world population would fit comfortably into Texas, with a resulting population density comparable to that of Brooklyn or Queens? Or that if everyone spread out evenly throughout the habitable land area of the earth (excluding Antarctica, the Himalayas, etc.) there would be about 3/4 acre for every man, woman, and child? Does that sound like overcrowding? No it does not.
Or if you want you could go somewhere really remote, and if you get into trouble there wouldn’t be any stupid f***ing people to rescue you. Then you would die and there would be one less stupid f***ing person to worry about.
Who cares? Does this world really need any more people? There aren’t enough useless eaters as it is?
Nations, civilizations, and economies cannot continue growing forever. This is clearly evidenced throughout history. Civilizations rise, atrophy, then eventually fail under their own weight; much like a fruit tree that produces so much fruit that it’s limbs break. Civilizations have an endpoint. Nature craves balance. Its unnatural for societies to grow this large. They must scale back to be sustainable. Reduction of human populations will happen one way or another.
Many of the problems that we see today in the world are simply “there are too many f**king people who we don’t need”. Everyday technology gets better and there is less need for lower IQ people. Frankly, if there were some horrible event that killed off 1/2 the population of the world, IMHO, our standard of living in 1st world countries probably wouldn’t go down much, and might actually go up. We just don’t need all the people that we have today to sustain society; machines do it for us.
Think about your average organization (100+ employees). How many of those people are actually doing something useful for the company? For how many hours a day? The rise of bureaucracy, HR, politics, etc; it’s all because we simply have too much production capacity and nowhere to direct it. So we just keep people busy with “make work” jobs. Frankly, most of the people I know have a “make work” job, especially women. Do we even need educated school teachers anymore? Can’t we do this with Internet coursework and “classroom monitors”? Why on earth are there 10,000 people teaching exactly the same thing in classrooms across the country at the same time when we have the technology to find the best teacher, put his ass in front of a camera and broadcast it to all 10,000 classrooms?
Extend this trend across all the jobs out there that could/should be made obsolete by technology and you have some idea of the scale/scope of the problem. Computers can do we most people today do, and can do it better. The exceptions are physical work (which, as we know, American’s don’t do) and very highly educated work (which the vast majority of people are not suited to do).
More people? No thanks, I’ll take fewer people, more education, and more automation. Do we want more Yellowstone or more Mumbai?
” The rise of bureaucracy, HR, politics, etc; it’s all because we simply have too much production capacity and nowhere to direct it.”
Wrong, it is hard as hell to find decent tradesmen nowadays. I have been trying for YEARS to find a good carpenter to help with my house renovations. I live in a medium cost-of-living area and am willing to pay $40/hr or even more.
The reason we are mal-employing people in +100 person orgs is because of asinine corporation laws and bailouts and societal acceptance of same. This is not a good reason to restrict population numbers.
Fewer people means less education and less automation.
***Slow Clap***
This is why I continue shift through the rude articles on ROK, even though I am generally not wanted.
Articles like these are important to read.
Yeah, that’s right. Don’t talk about low birth rates being supplemented by immigration is actually just another word for population replacement. Other than that, good article.
Women, by and large, do not have each other’s best interests in mind. They will bitch to their gal pals about the horrors of child birth, breast feeding, etc. The real reason for this is they do not want them – even some of their best “friends” – to experience happiness, personal fulfillment, and contentment with a family. So many of them are, at their core, unhappy and lost. Rather than struggle for self improvement, they would rather urinate in the public well and then offer their best “friend” a glass, calling it lemonade.
Ironically, ROK has more to offer women than the majority of sites designed for “modern” women, whose information is often intended to confuse women and pull them further away from their innate biological virtues. The red pill can benefit them as well.
Sadly, by the time a lot of women realize this, it is too late. They have traded in their opportunity for a loving family for a cubicle job, a credit card bill, and lonely nights of Haagen Daz.
I find myself nodding along in agreement every time I come here. You’re right, ROK really does have some of the most valuable insights out there for women and not just men. Most of what is said here rings true to me.
Having children is not one of those things however, even though I completely understand the necessity for it and why it is expected of me. Legitimately, I have never in my life felt the desire to have children. Even now at 26, I don’t feel like a clock is starting to tick like most women. For me that clock just isn’t there. My husband of 4 years also does not want children.
I wonder how the manosphere views women like me? Obviously I am contributing to this problem of low birthrates, but am I worthless to society because of it? I am an engineering student, and I’m in a stable marriage. I openly despise feminists and everything they stand for. Surely I can still be of use to society in some way even without having any children myself? I can’t make myself want them and it would be wrong to bring them into the world if I’m not prepared to care for them properly.
Dude…just get a job and be a productive citizen. Then you are a contributing human being.
In reality, the choice is not between “us” existing in larger or smaller numbers on the same planet in the future. But rather about the planet’s composition. If “we” have fewer kids, those that do not will replace “us.” And with them, the cultural bias towards fertility will return. Something so utterly elementary that only a progressive who prides himself on “believing” in evolution would miss it.
Also, in reality, women are completely expendable past reproductive age, if it was not for their children. They really are pretty much pure deadweight. Who the heck would voluntarily work to support and protect a barren old hag, aside from her own sons and husband? Hence, claiming that women are better off in a low fertility world, is the operative equivalent of claiming women,are better off in a totalitarian world where “the state” will take care of them; by forcing those who otherwise would not to do it. It is, in other words, a bet on the efficiency of slave labor vs labor of the freely endured sort. Or, IOW, a bet on the efficiency of progressive, totalitarian mechanisms for motivating people, versus evolutionarily developed instinctive ones. Not that I’d expect a progressive who prides himself on “believing in evolution” to be able to follow logic that deep and pure, but that’s hardly a knock against the argument.
Anyway, one way or another, culture will swing back to one that values fertility and children. Either by us adopting, or us being replaced. It’s not like the earth cares one way or the other. But for those of us who do feel that there are, or at least were, elements of Western civilization that deserves not to be thrown out with the bathwater that is the progressivism of the past 150 years, it does behoove to look fr ways to tilt the scales at least some degrees in the direction of adopting, from where we are heading today.
The only problem with this lower reproduction is that the smart people are reproducing less. That’s the problem.
When I look at the people who are having children today, I fear for the future. We’re heading for a new Dark Age. I believe valuable information will be lost again.
I agree. And you know who is responsible… women. Because the best men want to reproduce more but the best women want to reproduce less. That’s why we need something like Marriage 1.0 back or we need to come up with some other way.
The men sticking their dicks and shooting loads in nasty women who should never be mothers bear some responsibility, too.
Yeah and the men that don’t take care of their kids. I fucking hate both of those types.
feminst: I dont wanna have kids thats misogyny, I want an office job
us:fine
feminist: living costs so much, a big portion of our money is taxed to take care of old people and no one is doing the crappy jobs
us:well theres no young kids to do the crap work and work their way up and now theres more of a financial strain to take care of our heavily aged population like in Tokyo.
feminist: well lets get some migrants
us:fine
feminist: those immigrants wont integrate to our culture no matter how much we shame and attack them(sometimes physically during the early years)
immigrants: just cause we are from the 3rd world doesnt mean were dumb enough to make the same mistakes as you.
feminist:um…its our mens fault…we didnt know better and they didnt man up to put up with our shit.
us: you are right,guess well learn from the traditional immigrants how to keep you in line.
feminst: but but misogyny
better to have family over career, better to have a youth bulge then aged population decline(kids are an investment,seniors are burden). No point in having fancy infrastructure and “enlightened values” cause biology and evolution doesn’t give a fuck.
Excellent takedown. I read the original in the NY Times, but don’t have the smarts to risk that moron Teitelbaum the way you did. Keep up the good work
There is a great new book out by Nicholas Wade called “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History.”
This book spends a lot of time on genetic differences between the races that have developed since Homo Sapiens left Africa. Wade covers the research in this area – which has exploded since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003 – with great readability.
Of course, must of this is focused on differences between the major races of the human population. But there are other implications that he covers as well. Such as the fact that poorer and less intelligent people are procreating at a much faster pace than more intelligent people. And, the ugly possible implications of that. There is nothing about evolution that guarantees that every generation of humans will be more intelligent and more capable than the previous generation. That is especially not the case when the feminist state actually encourages dumb people to procreate and discourages smart people from doing so.
On this topic, the conclusions that Wade makes can be summed up by stating that it is very likely that humans on average will devolve to some extent in terms intelligence. I suppose that somehow and in some twisted way, this is what feminists and progressives would like to see. Dumb people are easier to control. Though, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of genetic difference between the races (which is not necessarily something to interpret as being bad – what it comes down to is that races are good at different things), these idiots will continue with their social sciences beliefs that differences are only skin deep. And that intelligence is a result of environment, not genetics.
How can a dumber human population be good for the planet? Surely, dumber people will have a harder time figuring out how to pollute less. In fact, they may be so dumb that they do not even understand that they are polluting.
It really is amazing that just about every position that feminists and “progressives” take is actually bad for both the human race and the planet. This, despite the fact that they are almost always proven wrong.
The aging society of women thing is never going to happen. When the society goes through a depopulation and feminization curve, those healthier more aggressive and dominant peoples ALWAYS ALWAYS take over. This has happened before to Rome and also to the Chinese Fujian people during the Han dynasty. Massive depopulation, created a shortage of young men of fighting age, who are essentially the yeast of a civilization. This in turn has resulted in inability to hold back waves of invasions and immigration.
This problem has also plagued Europe for a number of post WW2 years, due to so many young men killed on all sides. Europeans seemed to have solved the issue by importing young working age immigrants from the middle East and Africa in the 50’s and 60’s. USA is going through an internal demographic change of it’s own however and all projections aside I think it’s a wild card…
My eyes are open. But what is the solution to this problem exactly? Steady birthrates? Convincing every person, particularly in developed countries, that they NEED to have 2-3 kids each is never going to happen. Even if you could convince everyone, most will not be willing to follow through(as is evident by the worldwide decrease in birthrates in the first place).
Encouraging 2 and 3 child families as an ideal would be a start. Not everyone needs to have that many children, but it is probably in western society’s best interest that more people choose to do so than currently are.
Like I’ve said before, nothing says “FUCK YOU” to left wing ideas than a big, traditional family.
Instead of MGTOW, find women who are not brainwashed with liberal ideas, and reproduce.
Looks good on paper but then your chained to a woman and 3 kids for the rest of your life. And that’s if you don’t get raped by “Family” Court.
And so you contribute to the decline of western civilization. Thanks!
I would suggest that declining fertility rates are more a symptom of the problem rather than being the problem itself. The problem of course being government intervention. Government intervention (such as taxation, currency debasements, welfare payments etc.) creates perverse incentives which among other things, rewards women for not having children and punishes men for having children.
DOn’t care. I’m going to enjoy the decline. The sub-human niggers will breed themself to a hell on earth.
Thanks for contributing to the ruination of Western Civilization!
Spain was a Caliphate many years ago (The caliphate of Cordoba). The world didn’t end
Economics ppl…decline will still affect us, its already hitting pension/401k (the only thing that’s making a return is Treasury 30yr bonds) unless you envisage a world where enough robots can caretake enough seniors (hmm….)
For those outside western economies (China-Middle East there are more than 200m+ unemployed 16-25) “youthquakes” there will be felt first…CNN will make sureo f it.
So in which case all [they] will sell Robot Partners….
There are a few things left out of this article. With regards to the world’s poorest countries, they’re obviously not very productive. This means that they spend most of their incomes on food and energy, which are obviously necessary to survive. What are the most obvious consequences for these countries? If there are small shifts in the price of food or energy, these countries get screwed. By the way, this is how the Arab Spring happened. QE by the Federal Reserve caused a spike in food prices, which led to coups in these countries.
With regards to the world’s population, the biggest issue isn’t greenhouse gas emissions (which is a major problem); the biggest problem is water and food resources. In countries like Pakistan, they’re having major water shortages. If we were to see small shocks, the world’s poor could be completely wiped out. The world’s population will come down in one fashion or another. Either we can push it down or it will be forced down.
By the way, the link attached in the article (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita) shows how China is the world’s largest issuer of greenhouse emissions and that China’s usage has gone up 105% since 1996. Three out of the countries in the top 5 are China, India, and Russia; all of whom are developing countries that are certainly not rich. To think that forcing countries like India and China to push fertility rates higher won’t harm the environment is absolutely nuts. It’s a policy like that that’s probably the most dangerous one to take.
I agree that declining population levels is a problem especially in countries like Japan. But overpopulation is worst. You have to go to India or China to see that. With the advances in technology, you don’t really need that many people. China has a huge population. So what? You know what the standard of living and the job of the average chinese guy is like? For eg, think about the employees of the company Foxcom that assembles the cell phones. They work like robots. Countries like India and China have huge economies. If they could decrease their population, their citizens would enjoy a better standard of living. I think for US, a population of 200 million is more than enough. Already a lot of people aren’t doing anything useful and getting degrees in liberal arts that we get tech workers from India and China to come work here.
“The only wealthy western nation with a recorded fertility rate north of 2.1 is Israel”
Nice try Jew, but your hasbara doesnt work here, regardless of your strong chuptzah. First of all Israel is not a “wester nation”, it is in the Middle East. So it is a Middle-Eastern nation (and a pretty ugly one, a racist merderous psycopathic nation with Tel Aviv being named the “capital of the gay world”). Second of all you can find different countries in the Western emisphere with a fertility rate higher than 2.1:
Honduras 2.86
Bolivia 2.80
Haiti 2.79
Panama 2.38
Dominican Republic 2.36
Venezuela 2.35
Peru 2.51
Mexico 2.29
Ecuador 2.29
Argentina 2.25
Jamaica 2.43
Iceland 2.2
Your Zionist propaganda doesn’t work here, sorry.
…oops.
Israel is westernized, moron. Your anti-Judaism rant doesn’t fly.
Roosh*** why aren’t you posting:
http://www.rooshv.com/cultural-collapse-theory
(Someone ought to put a diagram on this)
Western modern women are stupid, selfish, and devoid of whatsoever moral intelligence they had in the past. They kill their own children casually, because they are in the way of their profit or their fun. They are ethologically aberrant (the only species in this slimeball in which the female willfully hates the male and seek it’s harm), biologically useless, a liability with no benefits aside from sex to men. Their greatest contribution to humanity, so far, is managing to do what the nazis, the commies and the muslims could not, through decades of armed struggle.
They will keep voting for welfare, bigger government, and more restrictions placed upon us for their benefit, until leftists get their dreamed global dictatorship, that’s when women will finally see what they did, and try to play defenseless damsel and fall back to the kitchen – to no avail, it will be too late even for that. The only way we can put a stop to the social engineering wrecking havoc in western societies, is civil disobedience and boycotting to drain the power of State and topple it, without any regard for women’s wellbeing.
Yep, they are cannon fodder being used against men, but we cannot afford considering them innocent victims anymore.
Good, it deserves to die. It shit all over men, let women have the west and we move back east.
Best book on this: What to Expect When No One’s Expecting by Jonathan Last
http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594036411
Russia and Japan have had decreasing fertility for the past 20-30 years. In the last 10 years, it has meant decreasing population growth rate. It is NOT good.
Dysgenics
“the increased cost of labor”
Yeah we call that rising wages idiot. It is a good thing.
It is scary how low the Chinese birthrate is. The Chinese economy will stop growing eventually. This will be because of the stupid one-child policy.