My case against having children

At my age, women tend to really want children. It tends to be the main thing they seek out of a man. To me this just seems to be a terrible idea and I’d like to explain why.

Here you can see how much we weigh, compared to all the wild animals. Wild animals here means anything that lives on land and has a spine. So this includes elephants, zebra, crocodiles, rats, ostriches etc. We weigh about ten times as much as all these wild animals right now.

To keep us all fed, most of the other animals in this chart exist. They’re generally kept in small cages and bred to grow as fast as possible. They can’t be happy, because they can’t do the sort of stuff they like to do. Most of them can’t run and fly, they can’t build nests, they can’t play with each other and they can’t roll in the mud. When they have children, those children tend to be taken away from them.

The world’s population could choose to stop such behavior, but there’s no clear desire to stop it. Companies like Beyond Meat go bankrupt and the percentage of vegetarians in the United States seems to be in decline:

Worrying about low birth rates in Japan or the imminent demise of the white race, or the end of your own family, all just seems a little silly to me, when we take into consideration that our whole species weighs ten times as much as the wild animals.

For what it’s worth, men tend to be worse than women when it comes to reproductive delusions. A woman tends to make it her main priority for any children she has to be raised in safe and stable conditions, where they can be happy. Young men on the other hand can be persuaded to reproduce by a soyjak meme, because the meme suggests the blonde guy with the beard has a lot of children.

There are entire lineages of animals that have evolved over millions of years, that are about to be lost. We could lose the whole elephant order before the end of this century. They could become functionally extinct. That would be sixty million years of evolution, wiped out.

People tend to enjoy blaming sub-Saharan Africans for all of this. Overpopulation is real to them, but only in the sense of there being too many black people. This is just another self-serving delusion. In reality, the Africans are now simply experiencing the population explosion that Europeans and Asians already experienced in the past. If all Africans disappeared tomorrow, the world would still be overpopulated.

The African share of the world’s population reached its lowest point in 1900, they’re right now still catching up. The projections for 2100 are unlikely to be reached, they’ll run into hard ecological limits long before it reaches that point. African soils are very fragile and easily lost to erosion.

That brings me to my next point. I was already born into a pretty catastrophic situation. Over forty years, the world lost a third of its arable land. We’re forced to feed more and more people, with less and less land. We’re losing land to erosion and desertification, but also just to pollution. A lot of farmland in China is now so polluted that it can’t be used anymore to produce food.

Any child born today however would just get an even worse hand dealt. Our ecological overshoot after all is getting worse, not better. You run into sustainability problems in any direction you look. Whether it is the loss of fertile soils, the depletion of mineral veins from which we get our copper and other resources, or the loss of a stable climate, the problems we’re dealing with today will merely escalate further in the future.

The evidence is also quite clear that hardly anyone really takes the sustainability crisis seriously. Consider this: The chickens that we use for human nutrition together make up 70% of this planet’s bird population by weight. Because they’re young animals, genetically almost identical, bred to grow fast, kept together in small buildings, these birds breed very dangerous influenza viruses: The virus has no reason to keep its host alive as it’s very easy to find more hosts, it is in competition with the other viral particles to replicate as fast as possible.

Wild birds have to migrate from place to place over a long period, so they can’t transmit very severe influenza viruses. And these birds live much longer in the wild than our chickens do, so many will have immunity against influenza, forcing the virus to mutate to reinfect them. This helps select against hypervirulence.

Highly pathogenic influenza is a product of the poultry farms. The balance between poultry and wild birds is now so distorted, that we see the severe bird flu we created show up around the world, killing off wild animals of various species, like hundreds of seals in Germany recently.

But again, nobody really cares about this, not our politicians, not the general public. You have so distorted the distribution of life on Earth, that you’re breeding severe influenza viruses that just randomly kill off populations of wild animals, but it’s an afterthought that barely reaches the newspapers. And hardly any news mentions why we now have these severe bird flu strains showing up everywhere. The industry has been really successful in keeping the public in the dark about that.

The idea of not eating chickens and not eating their eggs is just unthinkable to the population. It’s also politically impossible. So we continue breeding these viruses that kill off our wild birds, infect animals like foxes that eat those birds and perhaps eventually end up infecting our own species too, or that will recombine in pigs to create a new virus like we saw with the swine flu.

If we can’t get ourselves to change the things we eat, so that our enslaved animals don’t weigh fourteen times as much as the wild animals on land and start breeding deadly viruses that kill the few surviving wild animals, then I don’t see how we’re going to solve any of the other difficult problems we’re going to have to deal with somehow. In fact, I expect that the energy transition will probably end up like the dietary transition in the United States: First it stalls and then it fades away again.

People tend to feel an obligation to have children to perpetuate their society, but this is not fair to the children themselves. Governments urge people to have children, realizing their social safety net depends on maintaining births. But imagine being brought into existence, because your society has a lot of people above the retirement age who need to be taken care of. How is that different from slavery? You’re literally just created to take care of the elderly.

When governments have to start throwing money at couples to get them to reproduce, it’s fair to expect that the children who are born from such relationships generally don’t have a very great deal handed to them. It means to be born at the end of a pyramid scheme.

The decision of most South Koreans and Japanese not to reproduce is a wise one. The average woman in South Korea now has 0.7 children. South Koreans are some of the most intelligent people on the planet, they have clearly figured out that the current situation does not allow any children they may have to live happy lives.

I wish Dutch women were smart enough to figure this out as well, but alas. They live like ants in tiny concrete cubes stacked on top of each other, in cities beneath sea level, but still they have that urge to fill this country with more people. Dutch people are just not very smart.

You can see this for example, in the conflict over nitrogen pollution. The Netherlands has too many pigs and cows, so all their manure ends up polluting our soils. We have 11 million pigs. There are about 10,000 wild hogs in the country. So for every wild pig, there are a thousand domesticated pig kept in cages.

This country is the second biggest food exporter in the world and the EU’s biggest meat exporter. You would expect that people realize this causes problems, considering we have such a small country. But they don’t want to see it. They want to blame “communism” or some globalist plot, rather than the simple fact that we have 11 million pigs in cages living next to wildlife reserves.

When the government tries to solve the problem, you witness a political revolution, as people vote to continue this madness. As a result you see that the problem just continues: We continue poisoning our groundwater and our soils.

Part of the problem of course is that people don’t really decide whether to reproduce or not based on a pie chart. It’s something instinctive. These instincts don’t suddenly die once we reach a million humans, or a billion humans, or weigh ten times as much as all other vertebrates put together.

These instincts can sometimes be reduced when we’re under severe stress, but as a domesticated animal, the instinct is much less easily suppressed in us than in many wild animals like cheetahs and pandas. The cheetahs need to run long distances together, or they don’t want to reproduce. It’s pretty hard to get many wild species to reproduce in captivity. The animals we eat are an exception. We ourselves, are another exception.

The year is now 2023. The earliest you’d have a child is 2024, meaning the child would be 76 by 2100. By 2100, at four degree of global warming, the world looks a bit like this:

I can guarantee you that somewhere between “the African elephants died out” and “millions of Indians are fleeing heatwaves too hot for human survival”, your child would become pretty miserable. And worse, it would probably just end in death. Do you expect that 8 billion people will just huddle together in peace and safety together in New Zealand and Europe?

This is not what people enjoy hearing, but this conversation is kind of long overdue. Entire towns are wiped out by wildfires, the wildfires are getting so big they’re now creating their own weather and the Southern US are hit by multiple major hurricanes every season now. Go look for yourself how many major hurricanes they got a century ago compared to today.

The warmest eight years on record, are the past eight years. It’s not just suddenly going to reverse itself. Sadly, humanity spent the years we should have been pressing the emergency breaks, debating whether this is even really a problem or not. The oil industry knew since the 50’s this is a problem, but paid their scientists to keep their mouths shut.

We’re well beyond the point where you’re supposed to come to terms with the predicament we face. The South Koreans and Japanese seem further along in that process, hence why they don’t have children. But Joe Sixpack from bumfuck nowhere, USA hasn’t figured it out yet, that the party is about to come to an end: “No, I’m pretty sure the global elite just want to kill us all because they’re evil.”

And so by 2055, when the Pakistani and Indian conflict over the drying rivers devolves into a nuclear war, Joe Sixpack Jr will sit in a nuclear bunker with Sally Soccerdaughter and she will ask him: “How come you were born?” “Well Sally, my father was a low IQ low status white male with a bit of autism, who listened to the Alex Jones show, browsed Zerohedge and began to believe that elites just want to kill us all for no good reason whatsoever and a real alpha male Chad rebels against them by weaponizing his wife’s vagina.”

And I will be honest, I don’t blame the low IQ low status white males. The problem was never properly explained to them. The right wing think tanks funded by fossil fuel billionaires proved much better at communicating to them, than the people studying our atmosphere. If it was my job to explain it to them, I would say:

HEY LISTEN UP DIPSHITS

TURN OFF THE ALEX JONES SHOW FOR A SECOND. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY, IT’S NOT THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING OR CHEMICALS IN THE WATER THAT TURN THE FROGS GAY.

LISTEN TO THIS. ALL THE OIL COMPANIES WERE WARNED IN 1959 THAT THEY’RE MAKING THE PLANET UNINHABITABLE, BY CHANGING OUR ATMOSPHERE.

SO WHAT THESE GUYS DID WAS HIRE A BUNCH OF SCIENTISTS, PUT THEM ON THEIR PAYROLL AND STUDIED WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT’S HOW THEY ENDED UP PRODUCING FANCY GRAPHS LIKE THIS:

SO THEY FIGURED OUT THAT UNTIL ABOUT THE 2000’S, THEY COULD JUST DENY THE PROBLEM WAS REAL, THEY COULD JUST FEIGN IGNORANCE FOR THE COMING DECADES.

AND THEY PROHIBITED THOSE DUDES FROM SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE SECRETLY STUDYING. SO THEY COULD NOT WARN THE PUBLIC.

THEY BOUGHT THEMSELVES A HEAD START, BY FIGURING OUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE ANYONE ELSE WAS PAYING ATTENTION TO IT.

AND THEN THEY USED THEIR HEAD START, TO FUND A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.

THAT CAMPAIGN WAS DESIGNED TO CONVINCE YOU, THE LOW IQ LOW STATUS WHITE MALES, THAT THIS IS ALL A BIG HOAX, INTENDED TO RAISE TAXES ON LOW IQ LOW STATUS WHITE MALES AND SEND YOUR WIVES ON VACATION TO GAMBIA.

AND THEY SUCCEEDED. BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOW IQ.


That’s what I would say. But that’s not professional, so then you don’t get invited to the conferences and the cocktail parties anymore. You can kind of see that with Greta Thunberg. After the “how dare you” speech, they didn’t really invite her anymore. Now she is just back to blocking traffic in Stockholm, angering low IQ low status Swedish males.

The face of respectable climate science is Michael Mann, a guy who gets basically nothing done. He’s going to sit in his bunker by 2050, claiming that we can still solve this. The guy who succeeded at warning the world was James Hansen. But he was up against massive vast interests.

When you try to explain to a low IQ low status white male that this is a real problem, you have to cut through a thick forest of propaganda laid out in his mind, by the likes of Alex Jones, every Republican, but also just think tanks and propaganda institutes like the Heartland Institute, that come up with really shoddy propaganda like this:

See, sometimes the propaganda is so poor, so obvious, so lacking in any subtlety, that even the dumbest of low IQ low status white males must be able to realize that someone is trying to manipulate them. If you’re driving to work and you see this, surely you must think to yourself: “Wait, why is someone paying to compare global warming believers to the Unabomber?”

But the thing is, they have vast amounts of propaganda that is a thousand times subtler than this. They fund scientists, who insist it’s all caused by the sun. Do you think these oil companies really believe that? Of course they don’t, they knew this in the 70’s. They’re just trying to keep this a “scientific controversy”. And then you listen to the low IQ low status white male show, to hear some fat Texas redneck insist that it’s caused by the sun, as his spit flies through the room in all directions.

These companies generally no longer bother funding denial of the problem by now. The PR damage from being caught funding denial of the problem outweighs any benefits for them. After all, the fossil fuel industry also depends on trillions of subsidies. Anger elected government officials too much and they’re not allowed to suck on the subsidy teat anymore.

But importantly, they don’t have to fund denial of the problem anymore, because they succeeded at making this right wing low IQ low status white male orthodoxy. The idea that you can just change our atmosphere without causing trouble is now one of the central pillars of the low IQ low status white male outlook on life. At the Republican debates, none would publicly acknowledge the problem is real, because the electorate just doesn’t want to hear it. If Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones or some other LSWM guru said this problem is real, his career would be over.

That’s how successful the propaganda has been.

But it also means that we now have to reap what we’ve sown. There won’t be room for billions of people on this planet anymore. Entire ecosystems are just going to be consumed by flames and disappear during the lifetime of today’s children.

The most dignified thing to do now, is to at least honestly accept that we failed. It’s a severe cruelty, to bring children into the world who would have to inherit this escalating catastrophe of a planet that is losing its life support systems.

41 Comments

  1. Thanks for the detailed reply to my comment in yesterday’s blog post.

    Like I said before, your website has inspired me to learn more about climate change. So I am currently reading Storms Of My Grandchildren. After completing it, I plan to next read either Wallace-Wells’ “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming” or Pentti Linkola’s “Can Life Prevail?”. Hopefully these books won’t make my depression worse. I’ve also been reading lots of your older blogs about climate change. So I am finally escaping from the clutches of the LSWM climate change deniers on Zerohedge.

    But I’m still curious about Elon Musk. He has a high IQ, he understands the grave threat of global warming. So I was perplexed watching his recent interview with Bill Maher during which he was adamant that population decline was a bigger problem than overpopulation, and that the planet has plenty of resources to cope with more humans. Other than being able to sell more cars, what are his motivations for such comments?

    I’m looking forward to watching the international news coverage of the Extinction Rebellion protests in The Hague starting on the 9th of September. Presumably these will be the biggest, most disruptive protests to date.

    • Way to psyop yourself. The “grave threat” of C02 has contributed green mass the equivalent of the continental US according to NASA and CSPIRO.

  2. We have to focus on surviving a worldwide biological war and defeating a worldwide dictatorship. Any distraction from this focus makes all worse.

  3. How happy a person is has almost nothing to do with his surroundings. It is an inborn trait. I grew up in a well off family in a rich state in the U.S. in a small town; I had very good parents, and I was still miserable because depression runs in my family. On the other hand I have relatives and friends who live in genuine poverty, some are homeless, they have awful diseases, they were abused by their parents – but they are happy. So their kids would be happy in a dying world. Are they stupid? Mostly yes, just because most people are stupid. I don’t think you can convince an innately happy person that his or her kids will be miserable, since they can’t even picture what it is to be miserable, and also they would be right. Their kids would end up in underground bunkers cheerfully eating roasted rats. Sure, they would then die because the rat was radioactive, but most of their lives would have been happy.

    One of the early studies done on whether happiness is innate was done on faculty members who were up for tenure. Whether you get tenure is of course a real source of happiness or misery. They checked the general happiness level of the participants before the decision, and after, and followed them for a while. For a short period the innately miserable ones got a boost in happiness, and then went back to their innately miserable state. For a somewhat longer period the innately happy ones were unhappy, but then returned to their natural state of being happy, even though their great goal in life had been thwarted. This turns out to be true for people who are disabled, too. At first they are more miserable, but then – as long as they are not in chronic very severe physical pain (that is the big caveat), they return to being just as happy or unhappy as they were before they were injured.

    I knew all of this before I decided whether or not to reproduce, so it was an easy decision for me. But a happy person could easily expect to have happy children, no matter what their situation (unless they were in severe chronic physical pain).

  4. Yup, it’s always polar bears, coral reefs, what not. Too hot? climate change. Too cold? climate change. Too little rain? climate change. Too much of rain? climate change.

    Just like covid alarmists ruled the world for three years, climate alarmists insist on continuing the green grift.

    Here’s one for you, Radagast: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/surviving-the-world-of-bought-and

    As for the bullshit “declaration” below: hahahaha. 😀 Yes, a thousand times yes.

    • >the polar bear was the “charismatic megafauna” of choice for “global warning.” but a funny thing happened: they absolutely thrived.

      The only people I ever hear talking about polar bears are “climate change skeptics”.

      You think we want to abandon fossil fuels over the polar bears?

      If that’s what you think the problem is, that polar bears would go hungry, you have been truly thoroughly brainwashed.

      Here’s a suggestion: The real problem is that parts of the Earth home to billions of people will suffer from recurring heatwaves too hot for human survival, even when they’re sitting in the shade.

      You know what that means? It means all the wild above-ground animals die. It means you die when your air conditioning fails, like during a power outage.

      But somehow the propaganda campaign succeeded at convincing people like you that climate change is a problem because the polar bears have to swim longer distances.

      That’s how shielded you are from reality. That’s how thick the web of propaganda spun around your head is. Even the “leftist” media doesn’t tell you the real problem, because they don’t want to make people depressed.

      The real problem, is billions of deaths and the collapse of civilization. That’s what you’re looking at.

      • If it weren’t for climate alarmists (to me, in person, regularly) crying about dying reefs and bears, disappearing ice caps, changes in weather patterns and supposed warming of the globe (all man made, of course, because we — humanity — are that fucking grand; god-like even)… nobody would bother disproving any of that rubbish.

        Here’s your dose of “nah, we ain’t gonna die by the billions because co2 went from 0.03% to 0.04% in the last 50 years”:

        https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/making-climate-charts-look-scary

        (or maybe straight here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/ )

        What gets me is how bunch of hacks, in the name of moar public funding, managed to whip large swaths of western population into a frenzy over their hockey stick graph. Kinda like when vaccinators managed to convince majority+ of western world that safe & effective is the only way forward.

        Not that I expect you to change your tune, ever. Because the climate alarmist’s goalposts are so “well” defined… that no matter what happens, no matter over what time frame, it’d still be the evil cabal of fossil fuel producers responsible for all of it. And the only solution is more communism.

        • >Here’s your dose of “nah, we ain’t gonna die by the billions because co2 went from 0.03% to 0.04% in the last 50 years”:

          >https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/making-climate-charts-look-scary

          Yeah this is extremely stupid. It’s like saying that having a four degree fever only looks scary on a chart where temperatures start at 35 degree Celsius, whereas it stops looking scary at zero degree Celsius. It’s meaningless rhetoric, but if you take it seriously, you would probably sit and watch your kid die of fever.

          I’m sorry, but I don’t think I can help you out.

          Beyond a certain level of wishful thinking, there’s just nothing left I can do.

          • Oh I see he also makes the “temperatures used to be higher millions of years in the past” argument.

            That was before humans had evolved. It was before any of the grains we eat had evolved. It was when the sun was fainter.

            Just because all life on Earth didn’t go extinct back then, doesn’t mean those conditions are compatible with civilization.

            If you think that argument means something, that means I’m basically like a cash-strapped dad with a big credit card debt, who is arguing with his toddler over whether we can afford to go to Disney World.

            “But dad, your credit card still works, you can buy us tickets!”

            “Dad, the tank is full of gasoline!”

            If you think “temperatures used to be higher tens of millions of years ago” is an argument, then you’re too ignorant to understand the nature of the problem. It means you don’t understand how our civilization functions.

            If you don’t understand how things work, why our civilization can function the way it does, how we depend on cold winters to avoid tropical parasites showing up in our soils that will reduce your kids IQ, how our crops can not compete at high CO2 concentrations with invasive weeds, how fungal pathogens thrive on our crops under high CO2 concentrations, how agriculture depends on stable precipitation patterns and can not survive under rising hourly precipitation extremes that will trigger soil erosion in places not covered by mature trees, how we depend on stable temperatures to avoid releasing frozen methane in bursts that can cause underwater landslides that trigger tsunamis, then you just can’t be involved in deciding whether we’re going to Disney World or not. Sorry.

            You’re one of those people who serve as a good argument against democracy.

          • Well, since we are into ad-hominems now, my turn:

            I mean, aren’t I lucky that I have access to someone who’s not only the world topmost expert on immune system, but also the topmost climate “scientist”? I guess I should go and lick your boots now or something.

            Anyway,

            What your chain of reasoning presupposes is a static system. Oh poor gaia, if you — the smartest communist central planners of the world — don’t intervene yesterday, we are all gonna die.

            I mean, it’s the same fucking string of failed predictions and horror stories we’ve heard for the past 20+ years (longer, but I sure as shit wasn’t paying attention then, as I was too busy trippin’).

            Go give them a read to a random sample of the prediction drivel, it’s pure gold: https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/

            But yes, if the ice caps melting don’t sink Holland, it’ll be the super pests, or famine due to some super-scary change in weather, or soil erosion, or both. Damn, and the tsunamis in case that previous fabulation fails to materialize in due time.

            Yawn.

            But I guess the brainwashed masses (good job there!) will transport us back to pre-industrial age long before we manage to snap you out of this fantasy.

            And yet I can’t wait for the inevitable eco disaster of recycling the EV batteries, the EOL solar panels, and the turbine blades. Go “green”!

            As for me being an argument against democracy, I’d appeal to the “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Because unlike commies, I don’t mind people with differing opinions.

          • Someone should remind these cornucopian nitwits that there were at least as many Prophecies of Boom as there were of Doom. I remember sitting in high school in the 1980s, forced to listen to a “businessman” give a “talk” on the fabulous future that was headed our way. By the year 2000, he said, we would have a battery the size of a briefcase that would power a car (or maybe it was a small town, I don’t remember all the details). This would be brought to us by the glorious Free Market and the wisdom of Reagan and Thatcher. I also remember quite a few editorials along the same line from “intellectuals” like Milton Friedman and Julian Simon (you see, children, when there is shortage of anything in the capitalist system, the price mechanism jumps into action to alert investors…infinite substitution when a resource becomes scarce…no limits to human ingenuity when the danger of collectivism is removed…yadda…more yadda…and boundless efficiency and invention when the fetters of government regulation are removed…still more yadda). Where is *that* timeline?

            I guess what I really want to know, not-commies, is where is my Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor?

    • You can actually improve the gene pool by not having children. When you take the amount of money you save by not reproducing, you can use it to offer lifelong free birth control to multiple people.

  5. Fools: Them damn communists are destroying the family, the economy, and our drinking water!
    Same fools: Obviously the atmosphere is fine!
    Amazing how hard it is to get them to take one step more to acknowledge that the modern devils are ruining everything.

    I don’t agree with you that all this terror is enough to say you should not have children. If children are born into such a thing, is it not their karma that led them to it? You won’t prevent such suffering by abstaining from the basic stuff of human life. It will simply change form according to that incomprehensible subtlety of God.

    I would encourage you to look into Sikhi. It is a Dharmic religion unlike any of the others in its emphasis on communal involvement and love-of-mankind-as-love-of-God. I’m interested in it precisely because it emphasizes those things I’m weak in. I’m alike to you. I hate mankind as it is. I feel nothing but resentment for the modern world, technological arrogance, and the unspiritual-thoughtless ravaging of Nature. Sikhism is therefore the exact counterbalance to my nature.

  6. I’m sure you are well aware that Theodore Kaczynski advised his readers to have as many children as possible. The logic behind it is very simple. If those who do care about nature/wilderness do not reproduce, then those concerns have a heavy competitive disadvantage.

    Apart from this rather soulless but nevertheless true train of thought, getting older without children certainly sucks. What will you do being 50? It is well knwn that children reduce the risks of cognitive decline, and if you watch carefully, you will see this around you. Older people without children are often trapped in their own bubble and lack vitality.

    I’m well aware that global warming is a real problem, like many other existential risks. It may even be something nobody expects and can foresee, like what is described as a black swan event. Nevertheless, I think it’s impossible to predict the future with acceptable accuracy. There are simply too many possibilities. it is not realistic.

    I think most people advocating for childlessness simply follow the 36. law of power by Robert Greene, which is “Disdain Things You Cannot Have”. But I’m sure that Radagast is smart enough to impregnate a woman. And he should do it, for the sake of himself and, according to Ted, also for the sake of this planet.

    • Yes I’m aware. But he wrote that about thirty years ago and recently committed suicide.

      There will not be any real revolution against the technological system, of the sort Ted desired. Rather, it will just bump into some combination of biological, societal, physical and economic limits.

      And I’m not planning on putting children on a dying planet, to task them with bringing down industrial civilization. That’s too autistic, even for me.

  7. Good work channeling the talking points of a young college girl PMSing. What’s next are you going to harangue us on how the oil industry used the same techniques as the tobacco industry? Don’t forget capitalism and the patriarchy. You are so naive and gullible if you think the Greta entity is whatever you think it is and not a calculated fabrication. Yeah, let us stop using 100% of all fossil fuels right now! This will make the holocaust look like a bar mitzvah.

  8. @Radagast

    Actually it’s better that it is conditional for men to demonstrate all the qualities of a good Husband like Industriousness, Good character and income first alongside his own cosy property.

    Before even allowing him access to any females. And as I noted before the Population at large has women marrying men with up to 5 years younger.

    Scarcely is it that 50-60 year old men couples with 20 year old women.

    And if by those qualifications men marry later and couldn’t get any woman otherwise. Population growth gets limited by definition.

  9. If you don’t want children then you have no right to shape the future outside of your lifetime. You will die latest around 2070, and according to your solar panel cobbled steampunk worldmap you live in the green belt, so everything is fine for you. And do not pretend to be an idealist, because as atheist you will be just gone after your death, you have no reason for complaining.

  10. Note that LSWMs really can’t handle this observation.

    For a man, having children takes two minutes (or 30 seconds for the LSWMs in my comments). For a woman, it takes nine months.

    So a woman has a strong instinctive reproductive drive, she feels her life is incomplete without children, but she also has a rational element that allows her to realize when it’s not a good idea.

    LSWMs don’t have that. They just have the instinct, reason entirely flies out of the window.

    The LSWMs in my comment section come up with the weirdest rationalizations. I have removed comments of people telling me to kill myself. I have a dude who says I have no right to influence the future because I don’t want children, there are other LSWMs who think they will be taken by God to some paradise location with their family to sit out the apocalypse. Oh and one guy thinks we’re all going to have a splendid future ahead of us, because the polar bears are doing fine.

    And this makes perfect sense. To reproduce, an LSWM only has to put in 30 seconds of work. Kid dies? Well that sucks for the woman. But the guy who impregnated her doesn’t even have to know he’s a father. So LSWMs will always instinctively just come up with ways to justify putting more children on this planet.

    • Aren’t most Ms like that, not just LSWMs? IMO many Ms of all skin tones weaponise the wife’s vagina and reproduce up a storm. If there are less and less W people, isn’t that to do with WMs getting more responsible? Or maybe just being “denied access” 🙁

      And Ms of darker skin tones are picking up the slack.

      • Sure, you’re not wrong. But only LSWMs show up here, so I don’t really bother thinking about what goes on in the heads of other Ms. (I think about what goes on in the heads of women for obvious reasons)

    • “a woman has a strong instinctive reproductive drive”

      You have no idea how much female humans in the West have changed in just two generations. I guess how could you, given your age.

      In my mom’s generation and earlier (she is 80 y.o.), women reproduced for one of two reasons. Either they had a high sex drive, OR they had high reproductive drive. It was really rare for a woman to have both drives. So you had plenty of women who really were not eager to have kids, but they did feel impelled to have sex and so they did have kids. When I was growing up, I never once heard a single female relative say anything positive about the prospect or experience of having kids (they didn’t say anything negative about it, since they didn’t want to be mean); it was simply something they were stuck with because of sex. Then of course you also had the sort of women that you are familiar with; women who really want kids but don’t care much about sex.

      But a single generation of really effective contraceptive (and abortion) has changed this. Women who have a high sex drive, but who don’t want kids, have pretty much been erased at this point. My mom’s generation produced them, but in lower numbers, but mine did not in any relevant numbers. As it was happening it was marveled at – “Now, with contraception, every child will be wanted!!!” And to a very large degree that happened. So women who really wanted to have kids (but not sex, especially, except a few times in order to produce the kids) were selected for.

      So that is what you are looking at. This transition is in the process of happening too in places like Korea. It’s not that these Korean women have a strong reproductive urge but are overcoming it. It is that a lot of women don’t naturally have a strong reproductive urge, but have traditionally passed down their genes anyway due to sex drive.

      I see young women who really want kids. It is charming. But they aren’t all that interested in guys and sex, except for marriage and kids. But it wasn’t that way in the past. It is bizarre that it only took one or two generations. It’s kind of hard on guys, I suppose. At the same time, it is funny since men thought that by having great contraception they would get more sex, not much less, haha.

      • >But a single generation of really effective contraceptive (and abortion) has changed this. Women who have a high sex drive, but who don’t want kids, have pretty much been erased at this point.

        Thanks, you just convinced me to start a jihad against Planned Parenthood.

      • The capitalist utopia of South Korea has the worlds lowest fertility rate of 0.78 children per female. In the captial city Seoul it is almost down to 0.6. Not even countries that experienced severe famines in the past managed to produce fertility rates that low. The life of an average South Korean kid is beyond hellish.

        Here is why:

        ”One of the biggest tragedies of the Korean education system is the fact that children and teenagers study all the time and they have little time left over for fun, relaxing, vacations or enriching themselves in non school-related activities. Some kids study 18 hours a day. They spend 10 hours at school, go to cram-school classes after school and spend their time studying when are at home.”

        And it is all in vain:

        “By way of comparison, consider Finland, the only European country to routinely perform as well as South Korea on the test for 15-year-olds conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In Finland, public and private spending combined is less per pupil than in South Korea, and only 13 percent of Finnish students take remedial after-school lessons.”

        https://factsanddetails.com/korea/South_Korea/Education_Health_Transportation_Infrastructure/entry-7383.html

    • Lol the LSWM neonazis should really just stick to comedy and stop thinking they understand how the world works. They’re generally quite good at absurdist humor.

      They’re almost as funny as Jews, but if these internet autists had to run the world everything would just get worse.

  11. Lol another thought:

    The most vocal against anything CC-related in their actions, not their words have two children, two cars and two holidays (aka beach and skiing) where I live. And they vote green. Nobody else does.

  12. This is a very strange rationalization. Why not just embrace your homosexuality on its own merits? No one seriously objects to it anymore.

Leave a Reply

The patients in the mental ward have had their daily dose of xanax and calmed down it seems, so most of your comments should be automatically posted again. Try not to annoy me with your low IQ low status white male theories about the Nazi gas chambers being fake or CO2 being harmless plant food and we can all get along. Have fun!

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.