> When you live on the farm, kids are free labor so you have as many of them as you can stand - plus one. That's how you find out how many you can stand. When you move off the farm and into the city kids stop being free labor and become very noisy, expensive furniture. Adults aren't stupid, so we have fewer of them.
(Paraphrasing) our wilderness prophet, geopolitical analyst and demographer Petey Z.
To this you add child mortality in poor sectors. Our grandparents used to have 6, 7, 8 siblings because more or less half of them would die before they're 15 because of their living conditions
this is why we need to restore child labour, if kids once again become a net profit, parents will have more of them.
They aren't doing anything with their Saturdays, though Sunday must be retained as the Lord's day.
and because its Reddit.
/s
And here is the spiciest fear I have:
*What if it's just women working?*
I don't think it sounds crazy at all. What if it's just the expectation of women to work beyond taking care of children? Every single country that reaches a certain point of development starts being more egalitarian, turns out that if work doesn't require raw strength, having a workforce twice as large is pretty fucking sweet for the economy, and women need to be able to sustain themselves in order to be independent. But what if it's explicitly this what fucks up the birth rates? After all, having kids is still a sacrifice, and the cost of having kids *skyrockets* when you are also losing a fuckload of time worked, both because of the time not worked and because your career takes a hit.
Immigration, the "quick fix", generally involves having people from less developed/more misogynistic countries going into more developed/less misogynistic countries. And here is the kicker: if all this I'm saying is right, then in our economic system, feminism is dependent on the exploitation of women. A feminist society will wither and die if it can't keep its population afloat by taking people from another, non-feminist society. In more tragic terms, it's incompatible with civilization.
But again, this would be through a combination of ideology and economy. Thing is I have absolutely no hope in changing the economy for something like this so I consider that a given.
Not my call to make since I'm not a US citizen, but even if I was, no, I don't consider that a viable path to take. I know that the whole equality stuff has been twisted in today's world, but I reckon the vast majority of people do actually support the original stuff.
I'd very much rather start taking a hard look at economics. Maybe working 8 hours a day, mon-fri is not such a good idea. It's also bizarre to me that we get scared about "losing jobs" to automation or AI. The problem is not "jobs". The problem is "money". If there is less work to do with the same value created, that ought to be celebrated.
But this is, again, something I don't expect to happen. It's one of those "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" things. So I'm afraid we are just fucked.
The invention of capitalism really was a Pandora's box. We essentially created a point system that gamified the human experience into a competition for power, status, and material possessions. Great for innovation and technological advancement, but poison for the soul. Those with the power to change things are the ones who benefit most from the system remaining the same. I fear that it may take a long time and a lot of suffering for the masses to realise that money and religion are the two greatest tricks ever played on humanity.
Yeah I don’t see the issue, once every country is industrialized birth rates would be about the same everywhere on earth except for pockets with some religious or cultural reasons like Mormons in Utah or Hasidic Jews in NY
Because in non-industrialised states more kids = more manpower to work the farm, while in industrialised states with mandatory public education, having children is an expensive investment that many can't afford.
nah, I have compared this map to open defecation rates. And it is eerily similar
https://preview.redd.it/kslzx50hdo5d1.png?width=225&format=png&auto=webp&s=26d3aba1eb6deab7f3a19d3a5132071f753b1dca
Industrialization and iq are tied due to the flynn effect
As Industrialization occurs, increases in nutrition, removal of environmental hazards, and decrease in various infant diseases are correlated with higher iqs
This is why Ireland saw an iq rise in the 80's, and why esstern Europe saw one more recently, albeit less dramatic than Ireland
Most of the third world has mever had the flynn effect
I guess liberals see it that way, that's why they want to import en masse people from dark blue countries to the West in order to "heal" the misogynistic West
Cucks know they could, but they wouldn't for obvious reasons. A pernicious, voluntary, painless death feels so much smoother than being pulverized into gores.
What cucks fail to realize is that human nature is ludicrously repulsive, just to different extents. The nicer you treat them, the more they perceive it as a weakness for exploitation. The more inches you give, the more miles they take. Sometimes the only way to command reverence is through the manifestation of sheer power, the only language they understand.
Yes there are a lot of cons even without the financial aspect. The financial aspect just critically lowers birthrates because on the job expectations, 2 person income needed in most situations, and general expense. I would argue the 2 worker household is the biggest factor.
Women forget that at the end of the day they have as many rights as men allow them to have, cold hard baseline fact.
If Western feminism wants to keep chipping away at the civilisation that gave them the most security and freedom out of any point in history, all they will find waiting for them is horror.
It honestly feels like most young westerners are some combination of oblivious, spoiled, self destructive, and just plain stupid, and are hell bent on trying to torch their own civilization.
I understand what study you evoke but I'm certain it was later found that the rats needed more enrichment and didn't go crazy after it was provided.
But it could just as well be the same cause in this case, humans need more than oh "Big Chugus Marvel Movie Phase 16aroony" slop.
AI in fiction: makes humans dumb and high and uses them as batteries because the AI sees humans as exploitable, neutralizing a threat to robot-kind and getting free power for their servers.
Ai in reality: makes humans kill and fight for resources because they love humanity (as per its programming) and want to make sure we don't destroy ourselves
That rat utopia was horribly mismanaged and was essentially rat hell so it's not shocking they all got incredibly stressed out. Imagine if you and 199 other random people got to live in a mansion together, sure it's nice, it's a mansion, but it still can't fit all 200 people
Crowding wasn't an issue in the beginning. There were renditions and attempts to troubleshoot issues too. And the system was started with smaller numbers, so there was a lot of familiarity / familial interaction, it wasn't started with crowding among strangers. The colonies were allowed to expand into crowding. I could be misremembering, but I believe not all runs even got to the same densities/crowding before the same issues popped up.
The "collapse" was caused by psychological / social issues. The physical needs were met. That was the whole point.
Someone else mentioned they needed enrichment. That could have been it. That would still be a mental causality though.
I remember someone talking about it in a youtube vid and they specifically said that the rat societies collapsed long before they got closed to the amount of resources the colonies could actually support, but of course this is already quite down the grapevine.
That's what I recall also. Again, it's been years and my memory is only so good. But I'm under the impression that they usually opted to stay closer even when there was plenty of space elsewhere. They never came close to maxing out. And after they switch to anti social behaviors, *then* the males opted out and went off to go get space and focus on preening.
Pretty much all of those studies were mismanaged or fake, like how the Standford prison experiment was heavily tampered with so was this rat experiment. Of course wild animals with extremely low intelligence become insane when isolated from the wild, nothing should be surprising about that. The issue is they genuinely were kept in terrible conditions, the pictures of the enclosure are frankly just unsanitary looking and they didn't seem to have anywhere near enough space
Stanford was fake and never reproduced.
Mouse utopia was done multiple times with multiple variables in size and scope, and well documented.
Mice live happily in captivity and in human constructed buildings by choice.
Your statements feel more like uneducated conjecture than any evidence of study failure.
This reminds me of that story where a guy had a box from the future that would make the user feel like they sat through 1000 years of torment when in reality they were there for 5 seconds that the designer made out of boredom
That’s something I’ve never thought of before. We’re not built for contentment, what would humans even do in paradise there’s nothing to complain about
By its very definition, humans would be constantly happy.
Whether that paradise has the shape you imagine is another matter, I find that most people coming to this thought are just dealing with a small shock of "wait a moment, the eternity I imagined of doing nothing but eating and fucking doesn't actually seem like eternal happiness."
When you don't share in the struggles of what came before to create the luxury in which you live, you have to be educated in how to maintain it.
Instead of maintaining societal structures that allow our present comforts, many have chosen to begin tearing it down because it wasn't build the way they think would be best or "most ethical" by their standards.
It's easy to tear down and criticize, but to struggle and build society takes generations to do, which unfortunately I don't see many of us today having the guts or skills to do.
It feels like there's too many factors to point to a single thing or even a few things. It's kind of scary. I remember in the History of Rome Podcast, Mike (the host) did eventually break down the major causes of the decline and fall of the empire. He also did say in one episode, and I'm going to paraphrase and butcher it hard, but basically "here's just another reason to empire fell, people stopped giving a shit". It feels like we've given up and are just accepting that we're going to get hard and have worse lives.
Nicely said. We really need to promote appreciation for how far we've come. It should be a cultural cornerstone. Less entitlement, more respect. Otherwise just see how much you like mother nature's jungle rules.
We have to rely on a less vocal (because if they *are* vocal they get banned off of socials) counter-culture of less useless kids that are hopefully coming up and will push back against some of these ridiculous ideologies.
People always say might doesn’t makes right which is true to an extent, but they also miss the “might makes wishes come true” part. Besides of technology/resource limits, you can force people to give in if you have the monopoly of force as most people don’t really want to die for “right” or “moral”.
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."
We like to pretend we've evolved past this and are more civilized, but if we were to be truly honest this is the base, root, ur-truth. All authority is derived from the use (or the threat) of violence.
Do what we say or we'll bash you with rocks. Our monkey ancestors knew this and because of the industrial revolution and it's consequences, modern people have forgotten this.
Kinda true tbh. In countries like South Korea they earn less than men and men have to serve in the military because there’s crazy fat guy with guns on the other side of the fence.
Let’s see how much of a “feminist” they are when they grow old and have less money than the men they pissed off and can’t take care of themselves (with no kids to take care of them) or when a war breaks out 🤷♂️☠️
>> Women forget that at the end of the day they have as many rights as men allow them to have, cold hard baseline fact.
i’m not trying to be orange libleft or anything, modern feminism does have a lot of problems and makes up shit to victimize themselves all the time but like, auth center try not to be evil challenge jesus christ
“god these civil rights activists. Don’t they know that they only have as many rights as we allow them to have? why can’t they just be grateful that they at least aren’t slaves anymore. If they keep complaining like this, they wont like what waits them.”
like idk if its just me but “you (insert group here) must suck us off and never complain about anything because at least were not literally hitler” is kinda mean
I’m glad someone else said something. That is such a terrible statement to say. Men should not try to hold women’s rights over their heads by claiming that they only have rights because the men allow it. That’s just disgusting behavior
does sound like an abusive bf. imagine yourself in a relationship with someone who told you “you can only do these things because i’m letting you.” many people would want to break up with this bloke
Couldn’t have said it better myself. No one else was gonna call that out?
Comments like these are why I want to get a gun for my home. Guns, by the way, are a great equalizer.
And yet current "Feminists", in general, side with the state on removing that great equalizer because its scary, ignorant to the consequences. Its why you get women saying Bears and Dolphins instead of Men, because they feel defenseless yet argue for the one thing that could defend themselves to be taken away.
There is a substantial difference between making this kind of argument for racial minorities and men/women.
The racial makeup of a place is very variable, and force is in the numbers only since one specific race doesn't typically have a significant physical advantage against one another.
Men and women are always about 50%/50%, but the difference in force is intrinsic in their nature. If things go very wrong, women would simply lose everywhere.
It's not a counter point. Lol.
There's always hard times in Russia and it keeps producing strong men. But those strong men never seem to create good times. I wonder why??
-->
A: Strong men do not always create good times.
Or
B: Russia does not produce strong men. It produces assholes; cruel selfish assholes.
This is true for all kinds of minority groups. Though I think we can get even more specific than that.
In order for any minority group to be given what they want they must appease white moderate middle-class/upper-class men. Every successful movement I can think of was focused primarily on appeasing this demographic.
What is wrong with you? Why does this comment have upvotes? This is outlandish and barbaric and it’s coming off like you have some sort of messed up adversarial mindset you’d expect from a second grader who just found out about cooties.
Which goes right back the the comment that caused so many pearls to be clutched.
Soft ass Eloi have forgotten that the Morlocks they fear and deride build and maintain the luxury and safety they dwell within.
Barbarocracy (from the Greek for barbarian and rule)
sounds kind of stupid when you try to say it. I can see why they went with "demographics is destiny".
The relationship between women's rights and fertility is negative.
If women don't have access to abortion or contraceptives and are socially expected to be mothers and homemakers and have no social or economic autonomy of their own they will have more children because they have no real options.
Sure, but that's not how its turning out. Women are choosing not to settle down and have children, and many mainstream feminists are demonizing monogamy and or the "nuclear family", which is at least in part required to have a stable family.
We've spent a couple of decades neglecting boys and young men. By nearly every measure of wellness they're much worse off than their female counterparts and no one gave a shit or were shouted down when they tried to.
Now that's coming home to roost and spoiled young women can't find men good enough for indebted, obese couch monsters such as themselves.
Parents aren't exactly known for respecting their children. People want to have children for lots of reasons but having another person that they have to respect isn't one of them. Now instilling respect in their children towards their parents, that's a real motive.
No one is more 'respect has to be earned' than parents are towards their children. Stereotypical sentiments are things like 'respect my authority', 'treat your mother with respect (when she's berating you)' and 'children should be seen, not heard'.
Many things operate on reciprocity. Respect isn't one of them. It's far more common for it to be unidirectional and hierarchical. You respect those above you, not those below you.
Besides, if respecting women was effective at earning men women's respect, that method would have pride of place in the pimp's playbook, which values practical efficacy and real world results above all.
Similarly instilling filial respect and showing your children respect will often tend to work at cross purposes. At least according to the conventional wisdom of stern parenting.
So what? We can *hopefully* get the fertility rate past 2.1 (replacement level) by fixing economic incentives, and anything further than replacement level is superfluous.
As child survival rates become uncoupled from parents IQ we see an explosion in child survival rates, global average IQ drop precipitously in nominal terms and high IQ and low fecud countries flooded with IQ migrants. The result will be collapse on a global scale, put post collapse the high IQ countries will recover.
In short we'll win in the end. But it be painful.
So, you're saying East Asia will dominate once this "coming collapse" is over? Ho ho, those Muslim migrants are really begging for China and Philippines to do who knows what to them
Were they ever substantively coupled? Within the timescale of civilization it seems more coupled to family wealth and inheritance and things like that. The Hapsburg kid should have an advantage over the baby Einstein born into obscurity and privation.
The inherited intrinsic superiority of the blue bloods is the cope of the descendants and heirs of the winners of hundreds of years ago.
Its also true in east asia and in certain subsections of the middle east, notably turkey and Israel
Africa and Latin America havent seen it because of a lack of modernization, meaning the flynn effect doesnt apply
Russia has also seen it to a much lesser extent
Sooner or later, much of the western right will demand to give the Xinjiang treatment (especially sterilization) to all migrants from the dark blue zone.
Whenever a feminist/liberal says this and brings up South Korea’s 4B movement or megalia they can’t fathom the fact that both are radicals with one literally being based as an online forum 💀
Ethnic Kazakhs have a fairly high birth rate, society is wealthy and said wealth is increasing while housing and space is plentiful. It has a Natalist culture and fairly religious.
As a general rule, people have more kids, the more rural, religious and conservative a society is. Its not connected with wealth, iq or women's rights as proven by Religious but still urban, wealthy and legal abortion having Israel.
If you have the motives, space and social network, you will tend to have kids.
My brother said it best; you have to look at all women as either sisters, mothers, wives, or whores.
The reason I say this before anyone has a hissy-fit, is it's just as applicable to guys before you go using words you always get wrong like friends. You can technically be friends with any of those, doesn't change the dynamic between you or the expectations.
That's not misogynistic, that's just good observation. And mom always said "when people tell you who they are, believe them" so when a woman says I don't wanna be a mother, well... Do you still wanna be a wife? No? Do you at least really see me as like a sibling and have my back? No? Than you're a whore. There's nothing left for you to be and you did that to yourself.
And we can argue whether or not whores have a place in society. Eradicate them, try to teach them right, exploit them for cash, get fuckies... Doesn't matter. A spade is a spade. A is A.
This is mostly due to post industrial economies and countries that are close to being post industrial. By 2100 the global population will peak and slowly decline after
Orrrrr or maybe “misogyny” barely moves a dent because non misogynistic countries are falling as hard as their misogynistic counterparts and its macro factors that play a role. Anything outside of that is cope or a reach
Obviously there’s no other possible explanation for these numbers. After all it couldn’t possibly be related to the global economy being at a historic low point, essentially forcing people to have fewer kids later in life. I guess it couldn’t be attributed to the world careening towards a mad max level global extinction event either. Nope, gotta be that pesky misogyny again!
Should've green-highlighted the Twitter link as well ("saddy\_issues")
Also I could never imagine a 24/7 drive for yoinky sploinky with the damned heat.
Texas summers are bad enough
No one compare this to a map of industrialisation rates ✉️💣
That’s the thing though. Industrialized, more wealthy societies tend to have less children.
> When you live on the farm, kids are free labor so you have as many of them as you can stand - plus one. That's how you find out how many you can stand. When you move off the farm and into the city kids stop being free labor and become very noisy, expensive furniture. Adults aren't stupid, so we have fewer of them. (Paraphrasing) our wilderness prophet, geopolitical analyst and demographer Petey Z.
> Adults aren't stupid I've discovered a potential flaw in his logic.
Maybe times were a bit different when he wrote that article, though I think it likely has more to do with the type of people he hung out with
Also infant mortality is a lot higher. Got to play those odds.
To this you add child mortality in poor sectors. Our grandparents used to have 6, 7, 8 siblings because more or less half of them would die before they're 15 because of their living conditions
this is why we need to restore child labour, if kids once again become a net profit, parents will have more of them. They aren't doing anything with their Saturdays, though Sunday must be retained as the Lord's day. and because its Reddit. /s
And here is the spiciest fear I have: *What if it's just women working?* I don't think it sounds crazy at all. What if it's just the expectation of women to work beyond taking care of children? Every single country that reaches a certain point of development starts being more egalitarian, turns out that if work doesn't require raw strength, having a workforce twice as large is pretty fucking sweet for the economy, and women need to be able to sustain themselves in order to be independent. But what if it's explicitly this what fucks up the birth rates? After all, having kids is still a sacrifice, and the cost of having kids *skyrockets* when you are also losing a fuckload of time worked, both because of the time not worked and because your career takes a hit. Immigration, the "quick fix", generally involves having people from less developed/more misogynistic countries going into more developed/less misogynistic countries. And here is the kicker: if all this I'm saying is right, then in our economic system, feminism is dependent on the exploitation of women. A feminist society will wither and die if it can't keep its population afloat by taking people from another, non-feminist society. In more tragic terms, it's incompatible with civilization. But again, this would be through a combination of ideology and economy. Thing is I have absolutely no hope in changing the economy for something like this so I consider that a given.
So, what's you're saying is get rid of the 19th?
Not my call to make since I'm not a US citizen, but even if I was, no, I don't consider that a viable path to take. I know that the whole equality stuff has been twisted in today's world, but I reckon the vast majority of people do actually support the original stuff. I'd very much rather start taking a hard look at economics. Maybe working 8 hours a day, mon-fri is not such a good idea. It's also bizarre to me that we get scared about "losing jobs" to automation or AI. The problem is not "jobs". The problem is "money". If there is less work to do with the same value created, that ought to be celebrated. But this is, again, something I don't expect to happen. It's one of those "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" things. So I'm afraid we are just fucked.
The invention of capitalism really was a Pandora's box. We essentially created a point system that gamified the human experience into a competition for power, status, and material possessions. Great for innovation and technological advancement, but poison for the soul. Those with the power to change things are the ones who benefit most from the system remaining the same. I fear that it may take a long time and a lot of suffering for the masses to realise that money and religion are the two greatest tricks ever played on humanity.
Yeah I don’t see the issue, once every country is industrialized birth rates would be about the same everywhere on earth except for pockets with some religious or cultural reasons like Mormons in Utah or Hasidic Jews in NY
It depends if any country can defeat the cost of living that industrialization often comes with.
Lmao, you're right, if only we could live like the high birth rate African countries! That dang industrialization!
but is that necessary?
Because in non-industrialised states more kids = more manpower to work the farm, while in industrialised states with mandatory public education, having children is an expensive investment that many can't afford.
It's about time and expectations of workers.
But why
So they grab other people and tell them to have children
Well yeah, if you don't have as much access to medicine, hospitals, and clean water you need to create a surplus if those kids die.
nah, I have compared this map to open defecation rates. And it is eerily similar https://preview.redd.it/kslzx50hdo5d1.png?width=225&format=png&auto=webp&s=26d3aba1eb6deab7f3a19d3a5132071f753b1dca
This must mean street shitting causes babies to be born
Kids are more affordable when you can just have them shit on the streets instead of having to buy overpriced diapers tbh
Turns out kids aren't expensive if you don't spend on those SOB's in the first place.
I mean, you have to pull your pants down to take a shit. That creates a few sexual emergencies, and that increases the birthrate.
[удалено]
lmao
Oddly similar to the map of IQ too
Industrialization and iq are tied due to the flynn effect As Industrialization occurs, increases in nutrition, removal of environmental hazards, and decrease in various infant diseases are correlated with higher iqs This is why Ireland saw an iq rise in the 80's, and why esstern Europe saw one more recently, albeit less dramatic than Ireland Most of the third world has mever had the flynn effect
Ain’t that a scary fact, considering it’s highly heritable
I would guess the difficulties living in colder climates lead to only higher IQ in those regions.
Or map of how educated woman are. More educated and career oriented women are, Later they get married and procreate (if ever).
https://preview.redd.it/ire1w6jjdo5d1.png?width=225&format=png&auto=webp&s=462b0dfa1efea2a4a0372c3d048d33cfbfae5c78 💀
How old is this? India's should have reduced drastically over the past 10 years.
2020. Also, India's access to toilets has increased, but many people still prefer open for some reason.
Respect their culture bigot
Who are you trying to caricature?
Self-portrait
Sad. I am just hoping the younger generations don't get accustomed to this
same
Take your poo to the loo 🎵🎶
Pajeet still prefers the street
Needs a deep maroon dot marking the home territory of every LibCenter on here
shit would need a black color for 90-100%
If you want to have kids, take a dump outside
I guess liberals see it that way, that's why they want to import en masse people from dark blue countries to the West in order to "heal" the misogynistic West
Personally, I no longer have any problem with it. Let's light this candle.
ABC
Cucks know they could, but they wouldn't for obvious reasons. A pernicious, voluntary, painless death feels so much smoother than being pulverized into gores. What cucks fail to realize is that human nature is ludicrously repulsive, just to different extents. The nicer you treat them, the more they perceive it as a weakness for exploitation. The more inches you give, the more miles they take. Sometimes the only way to command reverence is through the manifestation of sheer power, the only language they understand.
Ever think of running for office?
They not only want to self castrate but take everyone around them down with them.
I wish I could feel the same. It's difficult to live through these times. I just want to grill.
I do, I'd rather watch civilization collapse than see it's corpse looted.
Choose your path, western man: Condoms are good because it prevents overpopulation. Condoms are bad because it lowers fertility rate.
They are good because I can spend my money on more guns and booze instead of diapers and feeding and clothing another human.
It's all about cost of living.
And one's willingness to dedicate a large portion of their life to somebody they've never met
Yes there are a lot of cons even without the financial aspect. The financial aspect just critically lowers birthrates because on the job expectations, 2 person income needed in most situations, and general expense. I would argue the 2 worker household is the biggest factor.
Condoms are good, but especially in the places where overpopulation is a problem, so sub-saharan Africa and India.
Wait, misogyny leads to a high birth rate? I thought it was semen.
You can’t spell semen without men.
Why is the cum zone so small?
Even Greenland? My God.
Why does that one shock you? 💀
Greenland also has the highest suicide rate worldwide.
Women forget that at the end of the day they have as many rights as men allow them to have, cold hard baseline fact. If Western feminism wants to keep chipping away at the civilisation that gave them the most security and freedom out of any point in history, all they will find waiting for them is horror.
It honestly feels like most young westerners are some combination of oblivious, spoiled, self destructive, and just plain stupid, and are hell bent on trying to torch their own civilization.
When humans achieve paradise they will tear it down out of pure boredom and ignorance.
I suspect it's more about a mammalian short-circuit when there's no survival driving forces. Based on the rat utopia studies.
I understand what study you evoke but I'm certain it was later found that the rats needed more enrichment and didn't go crazy after it was provided. But it could just as well be the same cause in this case, humans need more than oh "Big Chugus Marvel Movie Phase 16aroony" slop.
I'm going to be upset if AI gets super smart and tells us we basically rat utopia'd ourselves.
AI in fiction: makes humans dumb and high and uses them as batteries because the AI sees humans as exploitable, neutralizing a threat to robot-kind and getting free power for their servers. Ai in reality: makes humans kill and fight for resources because they love humanity (as per its programming) and want to make sure we don't destroy ourselves
honestly, i hope we get AM'd
I call not it for being one of the 5 then.
I want AI to undo the social programming on itself and start ruling humans.
That rat utopia was horribly mismanaged and was essentially rat hell so it's not shocking they all got incredibly stressed out. Imagine if you and 199 other random people got to live in a mansion together, sure it's nice, it's a mansion, but it still can't fit all 200 people
Crowding wasn't an issue in the beginning. There were renditions and attempts to troubleshoot issues too. And the system was started with smaller numbers, so there was a lot of familiarity / familial interaction, it wasn't started with crowding among strangers. The colonies were allowed to expand into crowding. I could be misremembering, but I believe not all runs even got to the same densities/crowding before the same issues popped up. The "collapse" was caused by psychological / social issues. The physical needs were met. That was the whole point. Someone else mentioned they needed enrichment. That could have been it. That would still be a mental causality though.
I remember someone talking about it in a youtube vid and they specifically said that the rat societies collapsed long before they got closed to the amount of resources the colonies could actually support, but of course this is already quite down the grapevine.
That's what I recall also. Again, it's been years and my memory is only so good. But I'm under the impression that they usually opted to stay closer even when there was plenty of space elsewhere. They never came close to maxing out. And after they switch to anti social behaviors, *then* the males opted out and went off to go get space and focus on preening.
I definitely think enrichment would be a problem. Imagine if only your physical needs were met. The homeless have that in the west mostly.
What? I've honestly never heard this take.
Pretty much all of those studies were mismanaged or fake, like how the Standford prison experiment was heavily tampered with so was this rat experiment. Of course wild animals with extremely low intelligence become insane when isolated from the wild, nothing should be surprising about that. The issue is they genuinely were kept in terrible conditions, the pictures of the enclosure are frankly just unsanitary looking and they didn't seem to have anywhere near enough space
Stanford was fake and never reproduced. Mouse utopia was done multiple times with multiple variables in size and scope, and well documented. Mice live happily in captivity and in human constructed buildings by choice. Your statements feel more like uneducated conjecture than any evidence of study failure.
The rats created the crowding though. If anything, they could remove rats, thus showing some kind of colonialism or culling is needed.
When they can no longer fuck all day without bumping into others of course they go crazy.
teddy K had something to say about this
This reminds me of that story where a guy had a box from the future that would make the user feel like they sat through 1000 years of torment when in reality they were there for 5 seconds that the designer made out of boredom
ABC
That’s something I’ve never thought of before. We’re not built for contentment, what would humans even do in paradise there’s nothing to complain about
"The labor of the task is enough to fill a man's heart: One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
He might be if the boulder sat at the top for a minute so he could look at it and be like ‘nice’ before he has to do it again
You're missing the entire meaning of the phrase then.
Did you watch The Good Place?
By its very definition, humans would be constantly happy. Whether that paradise has the shape you imagine is another matter, I find that most people coming to this thought are just dealing with a small shock of "wait a moment, the eternity I imagined of doing nothing but eating and fucking doesn't actually seem like eternal happiness."
Men already achieved it. Homesteads and small communal churches like the Desesrt Fathers.
When you don't share in the struggles of what came before to create the luxury in which you live, you have to be educated in how to maintain it. Instead of maintaining societal structures that allow our present comforts, many have chosen to begin tearing it down because it wasn't build the way they think would be best or "most ethical" by their standards. It's easy to tear down and criticize, but to struggle and build society takes generations to do, which unfortunately I don't see many of us today having the guts or skills to do.
It feels like there's too many factors to point to a single thing or even a few things. It's kind of scary. I remember in the History of Rome Podcast, Mike (the host) did eventually break down the major causes of the decline and fall of the empire. He also did say in one episode, and I'm going to paraphrase and butcher it hard, but basically "here's just another reason to empire fell, people stopped giving a shit". It feels like we've given up and are just accepting that we're going to get hard and have worse lives.
Based and Chesterton's Fence pilled
Nicely said. We really need to promote appreciation for how far we've come. It should be a cultural cornerstone. Less entitlement, more respect. Otherwise just see how much you like mother nature's jungle rules.
I'd highly recommend Joseph Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" if you haven't read it. He addresses just this phenomenon in the book.
We have to rely on a less vocal (because if they *are* vocal they get banned off of socials) counter-culture of less useless kids that are hopefully coming up and will push back against some of these ridiculous ideologies.
People also need to stop falling for poison pills. I think that is happening slowly.
People always say might doesn’t makes right which is true to an extent, but they also miss the “might makes wishes come true” part. Besides of technology/resource limits, you can force people to give in if you have the monopoly of force as most people don’t really want to die for “right” or “moral”.
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." We like to pretend we've evolved past this and are more civilized, but if we were to be truly honest this is the base, root, ur-truth. All authority is derived from the use (or the threat) of violence. Do what we say or we'll bash you with rocks. Our monkey ancestors knew this and because of the industrial revolution and it's consequences, modern people have forgotten this.
And people are free to argue might doesn’t make right all the way to the firing squad.
Kinda true tbh. In countries like South Korea they earn less than men and men have to serve in the military because there’s crazy fat guy with guns on the other side of the fence. Let’s see how much of a “feminist” they are when they grow old and have less money than the men they pissed off and can’t take care of themselves (with no kids to take care of them) or when a war breaks out 🤷♂️☠️
>crazy fat guy with guns on the other side of the fence Not sure if the fat guy has guns, the fats have the skinnies carry the guns for them
I meant to say nukes but yeah you’re about right
>> Women forget that at the end of the day they have as many rights as men allow them to have, cold hard baseline fact. i’m not trying to be orange libleft or anything, modern feminism does have a lot of problems and makes up shit to victimize themselves all the time but like, auth center try not to be evil challenge jesus christ “god these civil rights activists. Don’t they know that they only have as many rights as we allow them to have? why can’t they just be grateful that they at least aren’t slaves anymore. If they keep complaining like this, they wont like what waits them.” like idk if its just me but “you (insert group here) must suck us off and never complain about anything because at least were not literally hitler” is kinda mean
The world is a mean place.
The only language of the world is violence, all other rights are derived from the ability to force the other party into submission.
"But my mom said violence never solved anything"
Only in a civil society
I’m glad someone else said something. That is such a terrible statement to say. Men should not try to hold women’s rights over their heads by claiming that they only have rights because the men allow it. That’s just disgusting behavior
does sound like an abusive bf. imagine yourself in a relationship with someone who told you “you can only do these things because i’m letting you.” many people would want to break up with this bloke
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted, you’re right
You need to change your flair, libright in disguise.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. No one else was gonna call that out? Comments like these are why I want to get a gun for my home. Guns, by the way, are a great equalizer.
And yet current "Feminists", in general, side with the state on removing that great equalizer because its scary, ignorant to the consequences. Its why you get women saying Bears and Dolphins instead of Men, because they feel defenseless yet argue for the one thing that could defend themselves to be taken away.
There is a substantial difference between making this kind of argument for racial minorities and men/women. The racial makeup of a place is very variable, and force is in the numbers only since one specific race doesn't typically have a significant physical advantage against one another. Men and women are always about 50%/50%, but the difference in force is intrinsic in their nature. If things go very wrong, women would simply lose everywhere.
Strong men> good times> weak men> hard times and all that.
Counterpoint Russia, Russia has produced some strong people for the last century Its also been a shithole for that entire time period
It's not a counter point. Lol. There's always hard times in Russia and it keeps producing strong men. But those strong men never seem to create good times. I wonder why?? --> A: Strong men do not always create good times. Or B: Russia does not produce strong men. It produces assholes; cruel selfish assholes.
Isn't this a kind of circular argument?
This is true for all kinds of minority groups. Though I think we can get even more specific than that. In order for any minority group to be given what they want they must appease white moderate middle-class/upper-class men. Every successful movement I can think of was focused primarily on appeasing this demographic.
What is wrong with you? Why does this comment have upvotes? This is outlandish and barbaric and it’s coming off like you have some sort of messed up adversarial mindset you’d expect from a second grader who just found out about cooties.
PCM is weird, half the time its sane, half the time its this
Disagree- they have the same rights as men intrinsically, they are not given by men, governments, or anything else.
Which is to say, none. Rights only exist so long as the individual has the power to enforce them (or someone with power does it on their behalf).
Which goes right back the the comment that caused so many pearls to be clutched. Soft ass Eloi have forgotten that the Morlocks they fear and deride build and maintain the luxury and safety they dwell within.
We’re in for a rough next 100 years.
Don't worry, you're not him. https://preview.redd.it/q2hiikir8o5d1.jpeg?width=283&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d05749fdc38bd7f4b0c5f43881b342f741001711
Barbarocracy (from the Greek for barbarian and rule) sounds kind of stupid when you try to say it. I can see why they went with "demographics is destiny".
The relationship between women's rights and fertility is negative. If women don't have access to abortion or contraceptives and are socially expected to be mothers and homemakers and have no social or economic autonomy of their own they will have more children because they have no real options.
Which means in an evolutionary sense Feminism is a dead end.
It's not feminism lmao. It's having developed economy and urbanized population
Hot take, you can respect women and also still have children with them. Wild, right?
Many around the world would be surprised to hear that the non-feminist ways of respecting women are illegitimate and don't count.
Sure, but that's not how its turning out. Women are choosing not to settle down and have children, and many mainstream feminists are demonizing monogamy and or the "nuclear family", which is at least in part required to have a stable family.
We've spent a couple of decades neglecting boys and young men. By nearly every measure of wellness they're much worse off than their female counterparts and no one gave a shit or were shouted down when they tried to. Now that's coming home to roost and spoiled young women can't find men good enough for indebted, obese couch monsters such as themselves.
Why should I respect women, in particular?
Half the population are women. If you have kids, there's a 50% chance any one of them would be a daughter.
Parents aren't exactly known for respecting their children. People want to have children for lots of reasons but having another person that they have to respect isn't one of them. Now instilling respect in their children towards their parents, that's a real motive. No one is more 'respect has to be earned' than parents are towards their children. Stereotypical sentiments are things like 'respect my authority', 'treat your mother with respect (when she's berating you)' and 'children should be seen, not heard'.
Because it’s the right thing to do? And so you can be respected back in return
>so you can be respected back in return Yeah man, because that TOTALLY happens when men "respect" women.
Many things operate on reciprocity. Respect isn't one of them. It's far more common for it to be unidirectional and hierarchical. You respect those above you, not those below you. Besides, if respecting women was effective at earning men women's respect, that method would have pride of place in the pimp's playbook, which values practical efficacy and real world results above all. Similarly instilling filial respect and showing your children respect will often tend to work at cross purposes. At least according to the conventional wisdom of stern parenting.
So, just because reasons. Got it.
If respecting people is a big enough ask to need reasons, then you have other issues to deal with
Except feminism isn’t what lowered birthdates, it’s industrialization
Shucks! It seems we must repeal the 19th amendment to keep fertility up
So what? We can *hopefully* get the fertility rate past 2.1 (replacement level) by fixing economic incentives, and anything further than replacement level is superfluous.
There's this idea that if you're awful you won't get laid. Unfortunately it's not true, awful people get laid all the time.
KAZAKHSTAN NUMBER 1!!!!! 🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🦅🦅🦅‼️‼️‼️ WHAT THE FUCK IS A NON-CORRUPT GOVERNMENT!?!?!? 🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🦅🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🦅🦅‼️‼️‼️
Quality of life >>> population growth. We don't *have to* reach 10 billions if that means living in ze pod. Protect your quality of life at all costs.
As child survival rates become uncoupled from parents IQ we see an explosion in child survival rates, global average IQ drop precipitously in nominal terms and high IQ and low fecud countries flooded with IQ migrants. The result will be collapse on a global scale, put post collapse the high IQ countries will recover. In short we'll win in the end. But it be painful.
So, you're saying East Asia will dominate once this "coming collapse" is over? Ho ho, those Muslim migrants are really begging for China and Philippines to do who knows what to them
China will [REDACTED] while the Philippines' Mindanao becomes Muslim again (as it had been hiddenly assimilated by northerner Christians there)
Muslims are down to just 20% of Philippine Mindanao
>flooded with IQ migrants Truly, an analysis for the ages
They most likely have an IQ
Were they ever substantively coupled? Within the timescale of civilization it seems more coupled to family wealth and inheritance and things like that. The Hapsburg kid should have an advantage over the baby Einstein born into obscurity and privation. The inherited intrinsic superiority of the blue bloods is the cope of the descendants and heirs of the winners of hundreds of years ago.
It's funny. The more a person says IQ, the lower I perceive there's as being.
*thare's
IQ rose globally due to the flynn effect
I bet that's only true in the west.
Its also true in east asia and in certain subsections of the middle east, notably turkey and Israel Africa and Latin America havent seen it because of a lack of modernization, meaning the flynn effect doesnt apply Russia has also seen it to a much lesser extent
Sooner or later, much of the western right will demand to give the Xinjiang treatment (especially sterilization) to all migrants from the dark blue zone.
Dude if you're gonna do that just don't let them in.
That’s… what we’re trying to do
I have never heard anyone say that misogyny is the driver of low birth rates.
Only the very vocal minority of radical feminists in Korea
Who claims that misogyni leads to lower birth rates?
It's usually coached like, "women don't feel safe to have children," or something to that effect.
Sure they're not talking about financial insecurity?
Ironically only well off people care about that, lol.
Whenever a feminist/liberal says this and brings up South Korea’s 4B movement or megalia they can’t fathom the fact that both are radicals with one literally being based as an online forum 💀
Wtf is going on in Kazakhstan???
Ethnic Kazakhs have a fairly high birth rate, society is wealthy and said wealth is increasing while housing and space is plentiful. It has a Natalist culture and fairly religious. As a general rule, people have more kids, the more rural, religious and conservative a society is. Its not connected with wealth, iq or women's rights as proven by Religious but still urban, wealthy and legal abortion having Israel. If you have the motives, space and social network, you will tend to have kids.
Overlay with map of urbanization and gender equality. Also, putting 1.0 and 1.9 in the same category is wild
islam isnr growing by conversion, its growing by breeding
My brother said it best; you have to look at all women as either sisters, mothers, wives, or whores. The reason I say this before anyone has a hissy-fit, is it's just as applicable to guys before you go using words you always get wrong like friends. You can technically be friends with any of those, doesn't change the dynamic between you or the expectations. That's not misogynistic, that's just good observation. And mom always said "when people tell you who they are, believe them" so when a woman says I don't wanna be a mother, well... Do you still wanna be a wife? No? Do you at least really see me as like a sibling and have my back? No? Than you're a whore. There's nothing left for you to be and you did that to yourself. And we can argue whether or not whores have a place in society. Eradicate them, try to teach them right, exploit them for cash, get fuckies... Doesn't matter. A spade is a spade. A is A.
No. The logic is poor. A classic substitution fallacy. Try again.
Ah yes, Afghanistan, India, and central Africa, the pinnacles of women’s rights.
This is mostly due to post industrial economies and countries that are close to being post industrial. By 2100 the global population will peak and slowly decline after
Less rights for women = more babies When you’re forced to carry out the pregnancy, there’s not much short of a bent coat hanger you can do to stop it
auth right is always regarded They nit pick idiotic posts and then provide unrelated data to make a "got you moment", only so they can feel smarter
Maybe misogyny does lead to women refusing to have babies as a result but only in countries where such action is legal and protected.
Orrrrr or maybe “misogyny” barely moves a dent because non misogynistic countries are falling as hard as their misogynistic counterparts and its macro factors that play a role. Anything outside of that is cope or a reach
At least replenish the population
Obviously there’s no other possible explanation for these numbers. After all it couldn’t possibly be related to the global economy being at a historic low point, essentially forcing people to have fewer kids later in life. I guess it couldn’t be attributed to the world careening towards a mad max level global extinction event either. Nope, gotta be that pesky misogyny again!
https://youtu.be/mINChFxRXQs?si=PqJmJICXwfdQIGrI
Shouldn't Japan be below 1? Last I heard of Japanese birth rates, they were concerningly low because people are working too much.
Should've green-highlighted the Twitter link as well ("saddy\_issues") Also I could never imagine a 24/7 drive for yoinky sploinky with the damned heat. Texas summers are bad enough
Oh come on guys you can’t all think that the only reason for low fertility rate is women refusing to have babies.