If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

The original tweet is insinuating that birth control is an undesirable form of liberation from biology because it's imposing sterility "upon the whole of humanity." So the implied argument seems, to my eyes, to be that birth control methods are bad elements of women's liberation because they allow women to avoid their biological responsibility to procreate (or something of the sort). I was confused because I didn't (and don't) see how simply postponing childbirth to a future date is circumventing childbirth (entirely, that is).

It isn't circumventing it entirely (well, until it is). Egg and sperm quality decline with age, and waiting until 30+ to have children leaves a narrow window for having children if you are still able to achieve pregnancy. So even if women decide they might want more than 1.7 children, they may be unable to.

I dunno, but breeding just for its own sake seems ridiculous to me, especially if we're talking about a sterility that won't truly impact the human species for thousands of years.
......
According to the IUCN, an endangered species is one that meets any one of the following criteria: a 50–70% population decrease over 10 years, a total geographic area less than 5,000 km2 (or local population area less than 500 km2), a population size less than 2,500 adults, a restricted population of 250 adults, or a statistical prediction that it will go extinct within the next 20 years.

I think we'll be fine.

The effect on the species will be much faster than thousands of years, because the ramifications extend beyond simply "less people are being born now than before."

 

[CiG]

The effect on the species will be much faster than thousands of years, because the ramifications extend beyond simply "less people are being born now than before."

Such as? I may have missed something.

 

[Einherjar86]

It isn't circumventing it entirely (well, until it is). Egg and sperm quality decline with age, and waiting until 30+ to have children leaves a narrow window for having children if you are still able to achieve pregnancy. So even if women decide they might want more than 1.7 children, they may be unable to.

Your main concern is isolated to what you perceive as the sub replacement fertility rates of educated, well-to-do families--hence your earlier comment about "quality of population."

If that's your concern, then why is adoption not enough to boost its (let's say) reproductivity rate? It strikes me that simply having a child, whether biologically or through adoption, adds to the potential for future fertility.

Also, I should just say that I don't believe in reproduction for reproduction's sake, like CIG said--especially if it impacts people's personal livelihood.

 

[CiG]

Note to our customers: please don’t throw our beer over fascists. Hit them over the head with a brick as is traditional.

Brewery company advocates political violence, gets blown out in the responses, tries to pull the "just a joke bro" move.

 

[Dak]

Your main concern is isolated to what you perceive as the sub replacement fertility rates of educated, well-to-do families--hence your earlier comment about "quality of population."

If that's your concern, then why is adoption not enough to boost its (let's say) reproductivity rate? It strikes me that simply having a child, whether biologically or through adoption, adds to the potential for future fertility.

Also, I should just say that I don't believe in reproduction for reproduction's sake, like CIG said--especially if it impacts people's personal livelihood.

How does adoption increase the population?

The bit about personal livelihood is a key point of criticism from the burgeoning nationalistic political movement towards the economy as so organized over the last ~100 years if not longer. It should not make poor economic sense to have children.

Note to our customers: please don’t throw our beer over fascists. Hit them over the head with a brick as is traditional.

Brewery company advocates political violence, gets blown out in the responses, tries to pull the "just a joke bro" move.

Pulling an AOC.

 

[Einherjar86]

How does adoption increase the population?

I'm specifically referring to your insinuation about increasing fertility rates in certain regions ("dirtworlders" was your term, I think) and decreasing rates in others. I'm saying if you want to even the rates, adoption is a perfectly viable way to do that.

The bit about personal livelihood is a key point of criticism from the burgeoning nationalistic political movement towards the economy as so organized over the last ~100 years if not longer. It should not make poor economic sense to have children.

You think it's not a key point of criticism from other cultural communities--say, academic intellectuals?

But you're going to wrap this into a commentary on the development of coastal urban centers and intellectual elites and how that entire lifestyle is to blame (at least in part) for sub replacement fertility rates, and that if people living there can't afford children it's because of the economic infrastructure/organization that's emerged "over the last ~100 years if not longer."

If coastal living is too expensive for young professionals to have children, objectors will say those professionals should move somewhere more affordable. When they insist that the careers they've prepared for and love aren't available elsewhere (or are severely limited), objectors will say that they should take other jobs. When they insist that they'll be unhappy doing other jobs, objectors will say "Have children. That's your ultimate purpose anyway."

And that's the crux of the issue for people like Zero HP Lovecraft.

 

[Dak]

I'm specifically referring to your insinuation about increasing fertility rates in certain regions ("dirtworlders" was your term, I think) and decreasing rates in others. I'm saying if you want to even the rates, adoption is a perfectly viable way to do that.

How does that even the rates?

You think it's not a key point of criticism from other cultural communities--say, academic intellectuals?

But you're going to wrap this into a commentary on the development of coastal urban centers and intellectual elites and how that entire lifestyle is to blame (at least in part) for sub replacement fertility rates, and that if people living there can't afford children it's because of the economic infrastructure/organization that's emerged "over the last ~100 years if not longer."

If coastal living is too expensive for young professionals to have children, objectors will say those professionals should move somewhere more affordable. When they insist that the careers they've prepared for and love aren't available elsewhere (or are severely limited), objectors will say that they should take other jobs. When they insist that they'll be unhappy doing other jobs, objectors will say "Have children. That's your ultimate purpose anyway."

And that's the crux of the issue for people like Zero HP Lovecraft.

Well that might be rather accurate. Urban centers as "IQ shredders" has been an NRx meme for a while. I don't see the problem as confined to the coast though, although it might be most concentrated there just be virtue of sheer numbers of people and hedonistic options.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

this^^^ makes me remember the fact that there were FEMALES that voted for Donald Trump

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

anybody want my thoughts on abortion
click here
Search Results for Query: mandatory abortion | Ultimate Metal - Heavy Metal Forum and Community

 

[CiG]

this^^^ makes me remember the fact that there were FEMALES that voted for Donald Trump

Big whoop. Bill Clinton is a literal rapist and the 90's feminist movement loved him. Politics aren't as simple as all that and not all women are as triggered as you evidently.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Hillary was the one doing everything while Bill was in office

 

[CiG]

Have to make good use of that coattail while you can.

 

[Einherjar86]

How does that even the rates?

If one regional population's reproduction rate is in decline and another's is increasing, then transplanting children from the increasing population to the declining one means that the declining population has better odds of producing more children in the future.

 

[Dak]

If one regional population's reproduction rate is in decline and another's is increasing, then transplanting children from the increasing population to the declining one means that the declining population has better odds of producing more children in the future.

Well that depends on the reasons for the disparity not changing. But somewhat true. Unfortunately, the places with high TFR are Muslim and/or have average IQ ranges of <65-85. IQs of 85 or lower can barely do the most basic, repetitive of jobs, and that's between 80-85. That's the reason the the reason the 3rd world of today has been an intractable problem. Furthermore, ehen you import enough 3rd world people, you get third world problems, which include currently, high TFR but terrible living standards because almost no one is smart enough to engage in, much less manage the necessary systems and technology.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well that depends on the reasons for the disparity not changing. But somewhat true. Unfortunately, the places with high TFR are Muslim and/or have average IQ ranges of <65-85. IQs of 85 or lower can barely do the most basic, repetitive of jobs, and that's between 80-85. That's the reason the the reason the 3rd world of today has been an intractable problem. Furthermore, ehen you import enough 3rd world people, you get third world problems, which include currently, high TFR but terrible living standards because almost no one is smart enough to engage in, much less manage the necessary systems and technology.

If you adopt children at a young age you can avoid every single third world problem you just listed. Arguably, you can avoid them simply by introducing adolescents to first-world education and socialization.

 

[Dak]

If you adopt children at a young age you can avoid every single third world problem you just listed. Arguably, you can avoid them simply by introducing adolescents to first-world education and socialization.

We have children in the US with IQs between 65-85 (or lower) and schooling and socialization doesn't do much for them. Why would it do much for children from other places where it's less of an anomaly? Also, those national IQs are likely including adults, who arguably would have some school. If we expect schooling to have such a huge effect, we might assume the children coming in are so far down that schooling only gets them too 65-85. In the meantime, these children consume massive amounts of resources for likely minimal gains, and those capable of producing excess resources exit the scene. Who is going to provide foreign aid the the 1st world?

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it's unfair to compare the educational systems of first- and third-world countries. You can't blame low IQs in third-world countries on biology (or whatever) when those countries don't have the same kind of educational infrastructure. If you take children from those populations and introduce them to more developed educational systems at a young enough age, their intelligence would improve. Differences in human biology likely aren't significant enough to forestall pre-adolescent intelligence despite educational infrastructure. In other words, it's likely you could take many of those low-IQ pre-adolescents in third-world countries, transplant them into first-world countries, and their intelligence would improve.

 

[Dak]

I think it's unfair to compare the educational systems of first- and third-world countries. You can't blame low IQs in third-world countries on biology (or whatever) when those countries don't have the same kind of educational infrastructure. If you take children from those populations and introduce them to more developed educational systems at a young enough age, their intelligence would improve. Differences in human biology likely aren't significant enough to forestall pre-adolescent intelligence despite educational infrastructure. In other words, it's likely you could take many of those low-IQ pre-adolescents in third-world countries, transplant them into first-world countries, and their intelligence would improve.

There would likely be some improvement yes, but I would guess more from nutrition and literacy than school in general. Information retention rates from school are abysmal. Those coming in at 80-85 might be bumpable to 100ish. but those <65-70 likely still can't even be bumped to capable of doing jobs that are already being automated away. So this would just be a different route to the Idiocracy future. Of course I don't think that's exactly what will happen, just saying what would happen if things were left to carry out without intervention. But of course wars and stuff happen and radically change things. Or new political and social movements. Like a focus on supporting domestic family formation rather than trying to import charity cases. Israel is doing quite well with this. They've managed to halt, if not reverse their TFR decline, and it's not simply due to the Orthodox.

 

[Einherjar86]

Having gone through a few objections/uncertainties, I'll just reiterate that I'm not sure how reproduction for reproduction's sake--as an ideological focus or centerpiece--is conducive to the improvement of personal livelihood on a social level. I'm not sure exactly where that maxim leads, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't lead to any kind of society that promotes freedom of choice. I don't think people should be allowed to do anything, but I think unimpeded access to birth control technologies makes sense.

 

[Dak]

Having gone through a few objections/uncertainties, I'll just reiterate that I'm not sure how reproduction for reproduction's sake--as an ideological focus or centerpiece--is conducive to the improvement of personal livelihood on a social level. I'm not sure exactly where that maxim leads, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't lead to any kind of society that promotes freedom of choice. I don't think people should be allowed to do anything, but I think unimpeded access to birth control technologies makes sense.

Well I'm not against contraceptives generally speaking. I've been using it for years. I'm not sure what "unimpeded access" means though, and I specifically said contraceptives rather than birth control since abortion is birth control.

The original tweet was making the point that women's lib is mostly biological liberation. My further point is that modern first world economies/culture actively discourage the most fit from having children through incentives.