90% of first worlders can totally afford to have children, but they just don't prioritize it.>access to top level services and goods>starvation is unheard of>extremely high quality of life>convenient lifestyle>safe environment (in comparison to the rest of the world)I've seen plenty of firsties with enough resources to sustain a child, yet they will not do so and instead they choose to adopt dogs, cats, spend all their money on matchas, lattes, tranime, videogames, partying and other materialistic consoomslop.I am 100% sure that, even if economy was better, they would not have children anyways, because it's a cultural event.People are raising their kids to be sheltered and removing their autonomy to take decisions and act by themselves, parents are unironically cooking and serving manchildren and womenchildren in their 20's, treating them like toddlers, spoil them and make them free from any responsibility and the consequences of their actions, then proceed to cry why their children are genetic dead ends.Many parents do so in order to keep them dependent on them, so they can have power over their children with the intention of helping/better guiding them, little do they know that, by doing so, they are anihilating their virtues and taking from them any chance of them becoming successful adults who will survive, form social networks and thrive after the parents die.If you are a parent and you want to see your grandchildren, raise your children to the world, and not to be your little pets.
>>536072393It's simply because women would rather be single and childless than reproduce with non-Chads. The only reason women reproduced with average guys in the past is because they were forced and pressured into it, which explains why the misandrist feminist movement was and still is popular among women. It probably does feel like body horror to be pregnant for 9 months and then painfully give birth to the brood of a man who you see as subhuman.
>>536072393I think that it has a lot to do with women's rights. You're basically putting your life into the hands of a woman, if you ever decide to have children and a family. If you know the first thing about a woman, you know that you're building your house on shifting sands. Nobody wants that kind of insecurity. If you want to encourage men to have families, you need to lessen women's agency and empower men to be the masters of their household. Such is life, and these facts will never change.
>>536072393It's lefties who aren't breeding. Nothingburger.
>>536072393it's a self-domestication problem , when you put wild animals and give them food and a pen, they stop breeding too , we have the perfect zoo for humans now
>>536072450So, when women are allowed to choose mates, natural order is actually restored?Because the prior system sounds incredibly fucking artificial where there needs to be consistent management of half of the human population in order to mass produce babies for financial interests?Zamn
>>536072393Most of society's current problems, not just birth rates, can be traced back to Boomers and Gen Xers confusing being hyper-protective of their children with being a good parent.
>>536072625Yeah you put it quite well. That's also probably why billionaires like Musk are "concerned" about low birth rates, because they need more cattle to protect their money flow.If you take a sober look, societies need mass production of babies so that you can prop up the elites and so that you can provide the elites with goy cattle.
It's both.Alot of people who would like to have children stop at 1, and start trying very late in life.Culture affects those who do not want any to begin with.
>>536072625I mean, civilization in general is artificial. If you leave humans to act solely according to their natural instincts then we all end up back as hunter-gatherers.
>>536072625There is nothing natural about limiting men's agency through the state. What is actually happening is an artificial support of women's agency, governed by artificial laws, guided by artificial moral teachings. This is the result. Things haven't been natural for a long time, the question that should be asked is 'does this work for you better now that these artificial changes have occurred' because it's all arbitrary. Because it's all arbitrary, it can be changed to suit your whims; as it has been changed to suit the whims of women.
>>536072778Grog rather hunt than live in berrypicker world
>>536072829It just gave them the ability to sexually select for the first time in history without being oppressed, sold, or raped into that role.Most people are just mad because they got filtered out of the gene pool, and I say this as a mid-ugly manlet.
>>536072844The grass is always greener on the other side. A few months of living as a hunter gatherer, and you would understand exactly why the whole drive of human history has been to get as far away from that state as possible.
>>536072930Correct, and if giving women the arbitrary right to sexually select leads to outcomes including but not limited to demographic changes, population collapse, undesirable cultural changes, then their ability to sexually select should be reevaluated. This is the constructivist pro-male argument. Personally, I really don't give a shit about women's right to sexually select. I haven't been terribly effected by it, but I dislike some of it's outcomes. This alone is enough for me to explore alternative modalities of governance.
>>536072930So we know that if homo sapiens females were ever able to universally select their mates without boundaries, Homo sapiens today would look alot different on average.
>>536072844Most hunter gatherers also relied a lot on vegetables, nuts and roots
women accept the power structure presented to them, they are half-childrenit was a conscious choice by overlords to change this power structurewomen were actually happier under soft patriarchyChina says all this and has been going toward NatSoc, priority to males, alimony now banned
>>536072393
>>536072393agree
