[berserk]

I just heard a report here in Scandiland that 20% of men never have children. Of course, that fact was used in a report that a record low percentage of women under 25 years had children. The link they tried to claim obviously was that men should be fathers younger, completely ignoring the fact that men have no biological clock and if men even have a choice in general in if they want to be fathers or not.

That seemed like a very high number to me, but is it? 20% of men end their line without offspring. Normal or not?

Is it a problem, not necessarily, but considering these men pay 40-50% of their gross earnings on taxes which to a very large degree go to mothers, children and families with children, I can't help but think these guys have become unwilling (or ignorant) cuckolded worker bees in the Holy Welfare State.

Consider that for the first half of the year, you work to pay for someone else's children. That seems an awful lot like being an indentured servant. If I were one of those 20% to be, I think I'd rather say fuck you to that system and find somewhere else more appreciative of my productivity.

I wonder how high a percentage of men not becoming fathers would make men realize how rigged a system they are participating in.

[tallandblonde]

(11-03-2014 10:14 AM)berserk Wrote:  

Of course, that fact was used in a report that a record low percentage of women under 25 years had children.

Surely this is happening all over the world right? As women become more career focused, they tend to push off having children into their early 30s. It's the same way in the US. People are getting married later in life, and subsequently have children at a later age. It all comes with the empowered women movement.

[Deluge]

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

[heavy]

Good question, and would be interesting to see. However, there is a flaw in the stats you mention.

They're incomplete stats. Some alternatives listed below:
- Current percentage of men over 30 of who've never had children
- Percentage of men over 30 who died during 2013
For the first stat you're looking at a snapshot in time. For the second stat you're looking at a period of time where men died.

Regardless, you do bring up some interesting thoughts. The premise today is that we, as citizens, owe each other. That I, as a US citizen, am obligated to pay for others (moms, children, unemployed, etc).

In the past, we owed those to whom we contractually agreed, but we did not owe those with whom we are not contractually agreed.

Now, we don't owe those to whom we contractually agreed (mortgages, student loans, etc), and we owe those with whom we never contractually agreed (taxes --> domestic spending).

[rudebwoy]

I am in my 40s and have many friends who don't have kids including myself.
20% seems about right!
You can thank feminism once again, women don't want children until it is too late.

[el mechanico]

(11-03-2014 12:32 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

I am in my 40s and have many friends who don't have kids including myself.
20% seems about right!
You can thank feminism once again, women don't want children until it is too late.

Or maybe dry spells

[BoiBoi]

(11-03-2014 10:31 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

Thanks for the link!

[rhr]

(11-03-2014 10:14 AM)berserk Wrote:  

Is it a problem, not necessarily, but considering these men pay 40-50% of their gross earnings on taxes which to a very large degree go to mothers, children and families with children, I can't help but think these guys have become unwilling (or ignorant) cuckolded worker bees in the Holy Welfare State.

Consider that for the first half of the year, you work to pay for someone else's children. That seems an awful lot like being an indentured servant. If I were one of those 20% to be, I think I'd rather say fuck you to that system and find somewhere else more appreciative of my productivity.

I wonder how high a percentage of men not becoming fathers would make men realize how rigged a system they are participating in.

This is a common phenomenon throughot history often referred to as Agri Deserti. The phrase stems from the Roman Empire and means roughly "deserted farms". During its decline farmers were taxed heavily which led a lot of farmers to abandon their farms, later on this was outlawed and farmers were forced to stay on their property and pay even more taxes to the corrupt and out-of-control central Roman state. This, in return, led to a massive decline in birthrates - people simply stopped having children.

Today's equivalent to the Roman State - the Western Welfare State - is experiencing a similar phenomenon, this time it's called MGTOW, and its effects are pretty much the same. Paradoxically however, this is GOOD news, as the collapse and termination of the Western Welfare experiment is a necessary prerequisite to ensure advancement and progress of humanity into the future.

.

[turkishcandy]

(11-04-2014 12:22 AM)rhr Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:14 AM)berserk Wrote:  

Is it a problem, not necessarily, but considering these men pay 40-50% of their gross earnings on taxes which to a very large degree go to mothers, children and families with children, I can't help but think these guys have become unwilling (or ignorant) cuckolded worker bees in the Holy Welfare State.

Consider that for the first half of the year, you work to pay for someone else's children. That seems an awful lot like being an indentured servant. If I were one of those 20% to be, I think I'd rather say fuck you to that system and find somewhere else more appreciative of my productivity.

I wonder how high a percentage of men not becoming fathers would make men realize how rigged a system they are participating in.

This is a common phenomenon throughot history often referred to as Agri Deserti. The phrase stems from the Roman Empire and means roughly "deserted farms". During its decline farmers were taxed heavily which led a lot of farmers to abandon their farms, later on this was outlawed and farmers were forced to stay on their property and pay even more taxes to the corrupt and out-of-control central Roman state. This, in return, led to a massive decline in birthrates - people simply stopped having children.

Today's equivalent to the Roman State - the Western Welfare State - is experiencing a similar phenomenon, this time it's called MGTOW, and its effects are pretty much the same. Paradoxically however, this is GOOD news, as the collapse and termination of the Western Welfare experiment is a necessary prerequisite to ensure advancement and progress of humanity into the future.

.

It won't do a positive natural selection effect, since Muslims and Asians are very well-disciplined, introverted and family-oriented which in result leads to them reproducing in masses without any ethnical and cultural mix or adaptation, gaining political and financial means that would otherwise never be possible if it weren't for the Western liberal policies. By the time Western Civilization collapses and the progressive policies are abandoned, it will be politically, financially and more importantly demographically impossible for the Caucasians to form a state and a world order of their own. Roman Empire was replaced by other European-descendant empires. This won't be the case this time.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(11-03-2014 10:31 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

I've read a lot about this in the manosphere and the implication seems to be that 80 percent of the women judge only 40 percent of the men fit to spawn with.

But let me give another take. Most modern men don't want kids and a lot that did get them were tricked into it.

I know anecdotal incidents don't count for much, but I want to throw this question out to everyone: when you had a girl who wanted kids (or when you had a pregnancy scare), how did you react?

Me? I ran fast from women who wanted to have kids with me. And I had several pregnancy scares. After one proved negative, I did something I never do -- actually went to church and thanked God!

If there are more like me, I think it's easy to see where the 60 percent of men who don't breed come from. I had my reasons for not wanting kids; I'm sure others do too. My bro has four kids. To each his own. No regrets.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

(11-04-2014 10:22 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

It won't do a positive natural selection effect, since Muslims and Asians are very well-disciplined, introverted and family-oriented which in result leads to them reproducing in masses without any ethnical and cultural mix or adaptation, gaining political and financial means that would otherwise never be possible if it weren't for the Western liberal policies.

I don't think it has to do with being Muslim or Asian. Aren't fertility rates pretty closely tied to wealth?



Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and even Thailand have some of the the lowest fertility rates in the world, all below 1.41, far below the 2.1 replacement rate. It isn't a coincidence that these are the wealthiest Asian countries.

Albania, Lebanon, the UAE, and Azerbaijan are all below the replacement rate too, despite being predominately Muslim countries. As a whole, Muslims are growing at a huge rate, but they're concentrated in poverty-stricken countries, and the rate will slow down as they become more prosperous.

Irish and Italian Catholics in the US used to grow at an extreme rate, but you saw how quickly that died down once they had other options. People modernize, and Muslims will too, if not they'll be left behind in that shithole of a sandbox, especially as they lose their one economic tool in the future.

Also has anyone seen this article? I knew the global fertility rate was falling, but I didn't know it was predicated to be below the replacement rate by 2020. It's 2.5 right now.

[turkishcandy]

^You count on that Muslims will modernize and become prosperous? Look how much the Muslims in Europe modernized... They make it a life purpose to turn Western Europe into that shithole of a sandbox they came from. There is something with that mentality that can't be changed by exposure to modern society.

[Deluge]

(11-04-2014 11:32 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:31 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

I've read a lot about this in the manosphere and the implication seems to be that 80 percent of the women judge only 40 percent of the men fit to spawn with.

Most of the reason only 40% of men in human history had children is a combination of polygamy (the alpha males of the tribe couldn't have multiple women without a lot of other men missing out) and because of very high murder rates. One of the best predictors of male fertility in hunter gatherer societies is whether or not you've killed someone.

[berserk]

(11-04-2014 07:52 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 11:32 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:31 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

I've read a lot about this in the manosphere and the implication seems to be that 80 percent of the women judge only 40 percent of the men fit to spawn with.

Most of the reason only 40% of men in human history had children is a combination of polygamy (the alpha males of the tribe couldn't have multiple women without a lot of other men missing out) and because of very high murder rates. One of the best predictors of male fertility in hunter gatherer societies is whether or not you've killed someone.

What's the modern day equivalent?

[JWLZG]

(11-04-2014 07:52 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 11:32 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:31 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

I've read a lot about this in the manosphere and the implication seems to be that 80 percent of the women judge only 40 percent of the men fit to spawn with.

Most of the reason only 40% of men in human history had children is a combination of polygamy (the alpha males of the tribe couldn't have multiple women without a lot of other men missing out) and because of very high murder rates. One of the best predictors of male fertility in hunter gatherer societies is whether or not you've killed someone.

There's also the fact that natural selection -- via wars, disease, famine and other upheavals -- tends to target men much more unfairly. Given traditional gendered roles which saw the men out there doing the grunt work, we were the first to face decimation by Mother Nature. Events like the Black Death didn't discriminate between alpha and beta, and I bet young German and Russian men weren't being given the chance to fuck like rabbits before being sent to Tannenberg or Stalingrad.

(11-04-2014 08:14 PM)berserk Wrote:  

What's the modern day equivalent?

Whether you're lifting weights or lifting scores in World of Warcraft, for starters.

[Deluge]

(11-04-2014 08:17 PM)JWLZG Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:52 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 11:32 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:31 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Only 40% of males and 80% of females who have ever lived have reproduced. Bit by bit we are dragging ourselves back to the Stone Age.

I've read a lot about this in the manosphere and the implication seems to be that 80 percent of the women judge only 40 percent of the men fit to spawn with.

Most of the reason only 40% of men in human history had children is a combination of polygamy (the alpha males of the tribe couldn't have multiple women without a lot of other men missing out) and because of very high murder rates. One of the best predictors of male fertility in hunter gatherer societies is whether or not you've killed someone.

There's also the fact that natural selection -- via wars, disease, famine and other upheavals -- tends to target men much more unfairly. Given traditional gendered roles which saw the men out there doing the grunt work, we were the first to face decimation by Mother Nature. Events like the Black Death didn't discriminate between alpha and beta, and I bet young German and Russian men weren't being given the chance to fuck like rabbits before being sent to Tannenberg or Stalingrad.

(11-04-2014 08:14 PM)berserk Wrote:  

What's the modern day equivalent?

Whether you're lifting weights or lifting scores in World of Warcraft, for starters.

Decimation by mother nature disproportionately affected those with the fewest resources and always has.

[JWLZG]

(11-04-2014 08:35 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

Decimation by mother nature disproportionately affected those with the fewest resources and always has.

To an extent, but thanks to the disparate proportion of the upper classes versus the working- and underclasses, not to mention their resourced stature.

In any case, it didn't stop Dr. Spencer from receiving the sort of preventative measures befitting of someone of his class.

The good majority of us in the Western world will never have to worry about our next meal, the risk of homelessness, nor accessible healthcare -- certainly not if you are at least middle-class. These forms of preventative safety nets have enjoyed a far higher societal penetration compared to the last century (which is recent in the grand scale). This hasn't so much tipped the odds in our favour so much as shifted it to a different paradigm. While we might be long removed from the front lines of total war or similar turmoil, the next big disaster will be just as devastating once it penetrates our secure Western bubble. The recession in Europe is probably enough of an indicator.

Now going back in time, the ruling classes weren't always hermetically sealed off in some dimension oblivious to the woes of the hoi polloi. If you are going to use the Black Death as an example, the most protected members of society -- the clergy and nobility -- still succumbed, if only at rates proportional to the lower classes.
While the U.S. baby boomer upper classes were notorious for draft-dodging Vietnam, that wasn't always the norm. Historically, the nobility have been compelled to put themselves in harm's way as an incentive to preserve the status quo and indirectly to maintain their hold on the status quo. Even the great explorers -- Magellan, Marco Polo, James Cook -- were members of the aristocracy.
And when revolution spelt the end of the Bourbons and Romanovs, there was absolutely nothing saving them -- they couldn't just book one-way tickets to South America.

[rudebwoy]

Today it seems the lower class and maybe a few wealthy people are having kids.

[bacon]

I've written about this subject before. In the context of the US there are more and more men opting out because they are many disincentives to do so. Consider the quality of would be mothers to your children, government via family courts having complete discretion over your visitation rights should you separate from the mother, the possibility of incarceration if one fails to pay child support even if you suffer job loss or medical illness, overall expense to provide a decent lifestyle combined with a shortage of high paying jobs to do so, recent societal changes where there is far less social stigma for avoiding fatherhood, liabilites, and children in America have no expectation of providing care for you when you are elderly something still present in many countries with high birth rates. I could go on but given these conditions more men in the US will reach the conclusion that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and not have kids.