Your opinion on falling birthrates and antinatlism

submitted by greybeard from self.RealIncels

After recently seeing a blackpill youtuber engage with the problem of falling birthrates it got me thinking. Access to women has been used for centuries to make men invested into the project of civilization. So if you think it is hopeless for you, you'll obviously care less. Even though, I will depend on normies reproducing if I want to cope in peace as I age.

Also, if increasing the birthrate is achieved via incentivizing stable monogamic marriages, it might give a lot of guys who are marginal incels today a chance to get a wife themselves, since this prevents 80/20 from manifesting as hard.

I guess I just find it funny that a blackpiller would make a video about it. Maybe because we are demonized so much anyway it allows us to say politically incorrect things that society needs to consider if it wants to survive.

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Vortex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck this gay earth. Soyciety deserves what it gets.

[–]Mazurro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with everything except that it's a chance for us. People are just following this path so birthrates will continue to fall, marriage or partnership is happening more rare so less houses rented etc.

Market will collapse one day, but it won't change our social status.

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't mean to say that falling birthrates might be a chance to us, but that the solutions countries might implement will accidentally help us too. The simplest example (that obv. won't happen) would be state mandated girlfriends.

[–]Mazurro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

it will fuck us even more for being alone, but it might also be harmful for normies. In Poland they planned tax for people without kids past 25.

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True. I think if the state taxes no-child people, it's needs to give everyone a chance to breed

[–]foreigncel 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Inmigration and automation could solve the problem, the world needs less people.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the world needs less people

OK Hitler

[–]foreigncel 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not talking about genocide, just let the population decline.

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

the world needs less people.

Is this really a problem in countries affected by low birthrates? Afaikt the malthusian predicitions didn't come true, we seem to have a century or two until evolution picks up again and makes this an issue

[–]foreigncel 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'd like to think that a smaller population will help the world to reduce our carbon footprint and increase the gdp per capita.

[–]greybeard[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

increase the gdp per capita.

Economies of scale predict that higher population leads to more prosperity for all. We'll also advance faster through the tech tree, with both more scientists and more importantly more geniuses. More tech is also a good way to lower carbon emissions past a certain threshhold. We desperately need more of it. If third world countries industrialize before it is economical to create a low emission economy, we're most likely doomed. They have so many people and are a ticking timebomb. If the west collapses due to low birth rates before the necessary innovation took place, GG

[–]foreigncel 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting, BTW I found two articles defending depopulation, the funny thing is that both were written by women: "Why declining birth rates are good news for life on Earth" and "The Robot Revolution Will Negate Population Decline"

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"The Robot Revolution Will Negate Population Decline"

I broadly agree with her. Automation is a big wildcard that might just bail us out of this mess just at the right time.

The first article is all over the place. First she writes about age-discrimination and different intelligences. While broadly true (obviously old people know more stuff), anybody who had the misfortune to try to teach their grandparents or even their parents something new knows first hand how much IQ falls with age. Most scientists who make big discoveries do so before 35 years old. This is all pure cope on the same level as "everybody is beautiful if they have good personality"

Demographer Ron Lee of the University of California, Berkeley, and others have shown that GDP per person, and hence living standards, are highest when fertility falls just below replacement level (around 2.1 births per woman) – to 1.6 or even less.

Duh. Obviously economy will be more productive in the short term if people invest resources into work instead of children.

>Policies limiting carbon emissions and plastic waste would be far more effective and timely tools for undoing or at least mitigating the damage we’ve done to the planet.

>limiting plastic waste mitigating the damage to the planet

Meme "science" communication. Plastic is not bad for the environment and produces much less GHG than using paper or any other packaging. With the caveat that microplastics could be bad, but we don't know yet while GHG is a known danger so deserves much more priority.

Her stuff on immigration is similar, she mentions one study that I can think of tons of explanation why high immigration in the past is correlated with high living standards today. Most simple is that they were good places then and just compounded the benefit

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's neckbeardy bullshit, and one of the single biggest problems in the world today.

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

neckbeardyd bullshit

I don't understand what you mean.Can you rephrase?

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, I mean that the people who espouse "anti-natalism" tend to be people who 1) have failed to reproduce; and 2) think they're superior to other people. This is anecdotal, of course. Maybe there are decent, thinking people who have become "anti-natalist" for honest, altruistic reasons, but I have never met one.

And maybe it's not entirely just my observation. I mean, people who have failed to reproduce would arguably be more likely to be anti-natalist.

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see. Problem is, women can't "fail" to reproduce, it is always a choice for them. For men it might be true that it's cope.

[–]scumyaal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nice to see some legends still here

[–]greybeard[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

>still haven't ascended

it's over. Apparently you neither. welcome back brocel

[–]scumyaal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Looks like (beating) meat's back on the menu boys