FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY, MEN ARE LESS FERTILE THAN WOMEN>Globally, women now have higher fertility than men – and this trend looks set to continue, says Vegard Fykse Skirbekk.>The research team, which also includes researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the UN Population Division, has investigated developments and future trends in gender differences in fertility, for example in the overall global fertility rate.>They analysed how imbalances in population composition affect men’s fertility, drawing on information from the UN report World Population Prospects and using statistical methods.>Our main findings point to a historical turning point, from higher fertility among men to higher fertility among women. This shift occurred globally in 2024. The change is driven by an increase in the proportion of men in the population, explains Skirbekk.>Our main findings point to a historical turning point, from higher fertility among men to higher fertility among women. This shift occurred globally in 2024. The change is driven by an increase in the proportion of men in the population, explains Skirbekk.TL;DR: We have a surplus of men, most of them will die incels, society will collapseThe only solutions are starting WW3 to curb the massive male population, or SLIGHTLY dial back on feminism, so obviously we're gonna have WW3https://www.uio.no/english/research/research-news/articles/2026/men-now-have-fewer-children-than-women.html
>>541571709>Men have fewer children than women... what? This implies there are children without biological fathers.
>>541571709>a surplus of menDoubt
>>541572250Or that chad is having children with multiple women.
>>541572252>>541572250
>>541572403It’s been Ike that for all of history
>>541572252Did you see the word "eligible"What she mean is that there isn't enough 6'4 trust-fund chads
>>541571709many scientists have sounded "alarms" over male fertility. in the future most men won't be able to get women pregnant no matter how hard they try.
>>541572403No, then the headline must read "Fewer men have children than women". The way it's phrased means there are less children of men (children with biological fathers) than there are children of women (children with biological mothers) from which is follows that the headline claims there are children without biological fathers.
>>541572403>>541572573Alternatively, it could also claim that there are children with multiple biological mothers potentially alongside a biological father - which sounds just as contrary to what we know about human reproduction.
>>541571709>men have fewer childreni never witnessed men birthing children in the first place lmao
>>541572515>see the word "eligible"Read the fine print.College educated + unmarried. .
>>541572573>>541572651do you think this journo put as much thought into the headline as you are trying to comphrehend it?
>>541573185No, I think all coroprate journalists are the scum of the earth and need to face the wall but that's besides the point, which is me trying the educate the part of the public who frequents this board to read the claims someone makes carefully and to hold them to it instead of just trying to read into it what they might mean and thus giving them wiggle room to move their goalposts where ever they want.
>>541571709All explained by a boom in Indian and Chinese incels and subsequently their women all actively (desperately) seeking BWC outside of their containment zones. BWC won't come to them, so they're coming to BWC and making even more Jeetcels and Chinkcels.
>>541572250probably impacted by shit like the Chinks aborting their girls for quite a while due to the 1 child policy, leading to an imbalance in the population numbers between men and women.each child obviously has 1 father and 1 mother, and even if 10 children share that father, it would still get averaged out over all men.but the split between men and women is no longer 50:50, so there are more children per each woman than there are children per each man.
>>541572515I find it funny that they seem to think women past 40 are eligible
>>541572573>headline claims there are children without biological fathersIt's women claiming 'Father unknown' so they can max the Single Mother gibs.
>>541573084that trend is basically irreversible too since men just abandon areas that get flooded with women.it's too annoying to spend time around them, and you know that it stops being about getting anything done and just becomes social peacocking. look at psychology - a field that used to be basically exclusively men, now it's 80 women.or biology - formerly a hard science, but the easiest one of them, and by now it's almost 70 women.same for social science (Sozialwissenschaften, we have it as specific field rather than as category), 70% women.none of these fields will recover. men put up with the presence of women when they are still looking for a partner, or when they have sex with that woman.but if there's no hope of sex or no desire to have sex with them, men just don't want to spend time around them for the most part.
>>541571709>once again conflating children born with "fertility"What agenda are all these mass media outlets attempting to push exactly?
>>541572250No it implies that women are getting knocked up by a smaller pool of men. Hypergamy, basically.
>>541571709There is this joke...
>>541573470A noble goal. Good luck to you.This would appear to be a reasonably simple calculation. total number of babies born divided bytotal number of childbearing age women total number of babies born divided bytotal number of childbearing age men I wonder how the researcher makes it more interesting than that to get funding. Perhaps it is not as simple as looking up three figures in the CIA factbook.
>>541571709What the fuck is this even purportedly alleged to mean? The rate of male to female parents is literally 1 to 1. That's actually exactly how that works. Wtf was the study design? Include IVF but don't count those men? How fucjing retarded do they think people are to attempt to get them to discount and forget the very obvious basic biological nature of how babby is formed?
>>541573794
Lock the bears away.
>>541574627no, 1 men impregnates two women, at scale now double the women have childrenfeminism has recreated polygamy and harems
>>541574648
>>541574627>you have 50 women and 55 men>the 50 women all get pregnant and have a child>you now have 1 child per woman, but only 0.9 children per manit's in the excerpt anon posted, too>The change is driven by an increase in the proportion of men in the population, explains Skirbekk.
>>541574091>there are more children per each woman than there are children per each man.Sure, but that's a different headline. It's "Less men have children than women do." and not "Men have less children than women do.". The latter says that the number of children all men have fathered combined is less than the number of children all women have mothered. It's absurd.
>>541574748
>>541574748dadda mamma
>>541574614Yeah that's what the author might intended to mean but it's a different headline than what he actually wrote. You could add "on average" or "per capita" to make it say that but how its written it says that the number of children all women combined have is greater than the number of children all men combined have. It's one thing to rule out the apparent meaning because it's absurd on its face and grant a different, more charitable interpretation but I find it more useful to hold someone - who's job has (or rather should have) the crucial element of formulating concise and accurate sentences to accessable and correctly convey information - at least to the standard that the apparent reading of his headlines isn't saying something wrong or misleading.
>>541574829it is absurd, but I don't expect anything else from journalists anymore.they either lie for ideological reasons, or are too retarded to even understand the topic they write about.
>>541575304True on both accounts - but there's also a third modus operandi: They regurgitate whatever they're told by the highest bidder.
>>541572250Or modern women are living their fantasy of being Chad's fourth concubine rather than Timmy's one and only.>>541572573Nah, you are retardedly nitpicking. If a man has 10 children, it still counts as one (1) "man with children".
>>541576466If a man has 10 children that still means all men combined (or just "men" for short) have 10 children. Also, if you want to read "men (who have at least 1 child) have (on average) less children than women (who have at least 1 child) have (on average)" then that's the opposite of what you're suggesting. See, because the headline is written so poorly that what it says on its face is biologically absurd it opens up the possibility for multiple different and contradictory interpretations, which shows that me pointing that out is not a nitpick. Or in other words: The headline is still wrong and you're just reading into it what you want it to say.
>>541571709Women are only fertile for Chad now
>>541577380It will only be sexual assault hue.
>>541571709As easily solved forever through impersonal engineering and readily available infrastructure.Specifically, by putting women into barns, where they will be bred and milked to the full extent of efficiency granted by human Zootechnics, and then unceremoniously disposed of with a pneumatic needle when their bodies are spent and unproductive.A world War is n existential threat that technological society cannot afford. Therefore, in order to control demographics and excise all petty social variables/contingent risk factors. Redefining the human status of women is the most straightforward and reliable solution available, by also taking the necessary steps to inhibit consciousness and language in the processed specimen, as to minimize suffering and guarantee the highest standard of quality for the produce.
>>541577380Every time this happened in history, the bottom 50% of males eventually rose up and killed everyone
