Contraception and abortions are a recent phenomena.Up until recently, humans mostly had kids because sex felt good.But today due to modern contraception and abortion, people can choose to not have kids.The thing is that having children is illogical. It is a risk and a drain on resources.This is why evolution made sex the greatest pleasure imaginable, to make sure animals would seek sex even it's not beneficial to them.But today, by decoupling sex from evolution, only those with a mental drive to have kids will have them.The thing is, it's still illogical.If we take the atheistic world-view that life ends after death and the only thing that matters is maximizing pleasure while alive, having kids makes no sense.It drains your finances, and is a waste of your precious time.This is why religious people by far have many more kids than atheists, and the correlation is proven scientifically.But also due to social pressure eroding. Boomers were not ultra-religions, but having kids was the "proper" thing, so they had them.Against this can be seen as a remnant of religion.But today this kind of social pressure has weakened.The only thing that strongly forces people to have kids is religion and in the future only the very religious will procreate.Atheism will breed itself out of the gene pool.This has always striken me as extremely ironic, being atheistic is literally unscientific.
Fuck off schlomo
>>16811545yes funnily Jews do prove my pointIsrael is the only first world nation with positive fertilitydoesn't matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or whateverScientifically all religions are correct, because they all enhance fertility.
>>16811548>Scientifically all religions are correct, because they all enhance fertility.Why is enhanced fertility "correct"?
>>16811544But you are assuming that the children of religious people will remain religious too and won't become atheists after being influenced by society.
>>16811637I don't have to assume it.If they become atheists they will be naturally selected against, just like the rest of the atheists.Eventually atheism will become a taboo or even illegal, because humans adapt faster than evolution.
>>16811615because he's one of the glowies trying to manipulate us into having kids so they can have more slaves, duh4chan is infested with US glowies
>>16811548Jews have abandoned religion (It's an ethnic group which have undergone a reform in the 18th century, so that no Jew is anymore required to worship a god or firmly believe into judaïsm).What is truly remarkable is that Israel is the only first world country to have been immune to the heavy social engineering that has stopped the other first world people to reproduce.
>>16811548It's also interesting that Orthodox Jews pretty much everywhere are above replacement fertility, usually by a large margin. Urban areas tend to be fertility shredders but even in the most densely populated cities, the Orthodox Jewish community will have a high fertility rate.
Do you have a child, OP? Alternatively, do you often get to interact with parents, discussing their experience of parenthood?
>>16811544Dumb atheists have low fertility, but dumb religionists are afraid of reproductive technology. Both are genetic dead ends.In the future, one faction of humanity will dominate: nativists willing to embrace AI childcare and artificial wombs. They will sustain 5.0+ fertility rates for centuries.
>>16811919*natalists
>>16811544The future of humanity is digital anyway not biological, so the population concern is a nothingburger.
>>16811548>Scientifically all religions are correct, because they all enhance fertility.Pic related is from the "Vietnam Study", which followed the life outcomes of Americans who are veterans of the Vietnam War. I wonder how much this applies to other racial and national groups.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379573949_Does_Conservative_Religiousness_Promote_Selection_for_Intelligence_An_Analysis_of_the_Vietnam_Experience_Study
>>16811864Even with your parents being religious I think society's influence is bigger and most young people will end up being atheists. You only have to see the evolution in since like 1930 to now. People born in the 1930s were almost all religious, the next generation was the baby boomers and that religious ones decreased a lot and since that it has kept decreasing.
The more intelligent you become, the more you realise that this world has been made inhospitable by greedy humans.Someone out there wants you to have kids so that they can keep extracting money from them. They don’t really care if these humans are destined to a shitty life as long as they can profit from them.If you stop reproducing you stop creating new customers for these greedy bastards and this is what will force them to change their ways.
>>16812852You're barely sentient so the entry bar for "your" opinion (by which I mean the opinion the Malthusian oligarchy crafted for you) can't be that high.
Societies have historically created their own means of regulating female fertility to avoid complete collapse on themselves.some delayed the age of female marriage, others divorced their wives when they got too old and found a new wife, it all ultimately achieves the same end of a lessened number of children per woman.You also need to look at the effects of outbreeding on fertility
>>16812853found the kike
>>16812874Funny how any mention of nonsentience immediately triggers nonsentient behaviors.
>>16812877kike doubling down on his greed lmao
>it just loops the preprogrammed behavioral patternBred to serve and get milked. There is no moral issue here whatsoever doing anything to it and its kind. The kikes are fully in the right.
>>16811544people who don't want to have kids rely on other people having kids so they can have the things they enjoy
>>16812913>people who don't want to be giant balls of flame rely on other objects being giant balls of flame so they can have warmth and lightGo set yourself on fire in solidarity with the sun, retard.
>>16812913no one is stopping you from having kids, you can just go impregnate a dumb bitch and move on.
>>16812931Let's make it fair: no social benefits of any kind to the childless (retirement plan, geriatric care etc. are your full responsibility - if you have no children and no arrangement, you can die on the streets). Also, no social benefits of any kind to the breeders (no tax benefits, feeding your worthless children is your full responsibility). My observation is that antinataloons lose their mind with rage over this proposition while breeders just shrug.
>>16811544Yes thank you for figuring out what the ancients have always known. The atheistic world view leads to pure selfish hedonism and the self destruction of the human race. Atheism necessitates anti natalism.
>>16811548Religion is not correct because it enhances fertility, that is not the right relationship. Religion and science align with one another, whereas atheism and science don't, and we know science is true, therefore religion is more plausible because it aligns with what we can certainly say is true, that being science.
>>16811932Nothing biological has ever been digitised because transhumanism is a meme.
>>16813362So humans that are supposed to be these very intelligent specie need some fantasy to be able to survive? Interesting.I think people can take all the good things that religion gives like being a good person, helping others in need, having a sense of community and a purpose in life without a religion if you teach that in schools and in society as a whole. The problem that I see is that Capitalism likes hedonism and consumerism because that sells more. Some type of tamed capitalism will be the best thing and people helping others etc.
>>16813367It's too early, even AGI isn't here yet.
>>16811544fake dataindians are horny as shit no way theyre low fertility and they eat tons of ghee which helps with sperm count?
>>16813384>some fantasyAtheism is the fantasy. All humans have believed in some sort of afterlife and higher power, the idea that the material world is all there is is a new idea based off of nothing.
>>16813365science is just a method of exploration and refutation though, the knowledge of the universe accrued through application of this knowledge I'm still; not sure on what to call
>>16813628Yeah humans also believed in magic and witches for thousands of years, and?
>>16814062>he doesnt know modern science is based on faith
>>16814062please explain to me why our 5 senses should be enough to perceive the totality of the world around us?like why would we ever evolve this way from an evolutionary perspective?why wouldn't their be stuff that would need a "6th sense" to perceive, which we don't have?there's definitely stuff going around us which we cannot perceive, simply because we never developed the organs to do sopeople of the past were more open minded and tried to account for these thingsmodern people treat science as dogma and refuse to see outside the boxbut you have to understand science is just an extension of our own perceptionin fact modern science has been moving towards this direction with "dark matter"stuff we cannot perceivewho knows what it is or what it does?and there could be even more than simple dark matter, if it doesn't even exert gravity we would never know
>>16814073Yeah believing in witches is the same that modern science not proving everything it says. Yeah off course.
>>16814077There can be physical things like dark matter or frequencies or whatever that we can't se by ourselves and we need technology to do it but that is not the same that saying magic exists. If it exists then prove it somehow. The rest is just bla bla bla. I could say that unicorns could have existed but they become extincted but I need some proof of that. Also things have to have some logic, you can say that there are frequencies or forces in the universe that we haven't seen yet but you can't say a magic dwarf made a planet just saying words or moving his hands because that doesn't have any logic.
>>16814089>physical things like dark matternot exactlythe only physical thing about it is gravityotherwise it doesn't behave like any other physical thingit doesn't interact with any other thing we knowit's right there in the room with you and you can't see it>unicornsunicorns would be the leastthere could literally be an entire "alien" civilization right here on Earth developing besides us and we wouldn't even know it>prove itall science has "proven" is that we can't perceive at least 95% of the universeit's like admitting we don't know shitmagic dwarfs and unicorns would be the least surprising, and much more sensible than what is actually out there
>>16814089>magic dwarves and unicornsand that's exactly the power of human intuitionpeople of the past knew that there was more to the world than meets the eyeso they "translated" it into magic dwarfs and unicorns, because these things at least make some sensebut try to see beyond the labels at the essence of what they were sayingthere is something out there which we cannot perceive and perhaps it affects us in ways we do not understand
>>16814101So what is your point? You can say whatever you want and nobody can refute what you say, this conversation is useless. So as Science says that there are a lot of things we can't see yet or could be other energies or whatever we can't see that mean there are dwarfs right now around me but I can't see them... ok.
>>16814108I've seen a ghost under meth.Nothing will ever convince me it wasn't real.What about all the stuff people "see" under drugs?Why are the less real than the stuff you see every day?Perhaps they are manifestations of dark matter somehow.>but but you 've got no proofneither do youscience and everything else is ultimately based on perceptionwhy is "your" perception correct, and not somebody else's who sees different things?
There is a difference between what is true and what self-propagates>>16814077>please explain to me why our 5 senses should be enough to perceive the totality of the world around us?Words exist to communicate ideas and patterns. Without senses, one can only know words by their definitions, which themselves are based on words. Obviously, then, for words to have any meaning, they must in some way come back to sense perception, whether that be directly or through patterns between senses and predictions of future senses.What does it mean for something to exist, then, but for us to have in some way the means - whether present or future, either directly or indirectly, - to interact with it sensually, and for that thing to have some characterizing attributes on which to distinguish it from other existing things?>>16814089Only tangentially related to your post, but in a way, magic does exist.Suppose a system of magic existed.Magic describes some pattern of forces.If magic were consistent, then it would be predictable and describable.But if it were predictable and describable, would the people of that world any longer call it magic?What separates magic from physics?Nothing whatsoever. Physical forces are magic, and we have models describing the patterns in the behavior of this magic such that it seems mundane.This doesn't actually have anything to do with what you're arguing, though.>>16814105>magic dwarves and unicorns>and that's exactly the power of human intuition>people of the past knew that there was more to the world than meets the eyeDwarves and unicorns had specific distinguishing attributes which were able to be sensed - they were not abstract beings.What is your argument?>>16814168>What about all the stuff people "see" under drugs?>Why are the less real than the stuff you see every day?The experience was real to them, but that does not represent any experience that will be had by another when not under the influence.
>>16814434>The experience was real to them, but that does not represent any experience that will be had by another when not under the influence.It is you who are under the influence my friendUnder the influence of food, water, sleep.Try depriving yourself of these things, and believe me you will "see" a lot of stuff.>Dwarves and unicorns had specific distinguishing attributes which were able to be sensed - they were not abstract beings.>What is your argument?My argument is that it was just an attempt to "explain" unseen forces which cannot be explained.They used these archetypes for lack of anything better.>Physics is magicCan't argue with that.But perhaps magic is something different, maybe it is something that defies logic.Maybe it cannot be explained but felt.>Words exist to communicate ideas and patterns.Without senses, one can only know words by their definitions, which themselves are based on words....What the everloving fuck was that?Completely missed my point.You can only perceive the universe through your senses.If something exists that cannot be felt, seen or touched, you cannot perceive it.Who is to say that such unseeable things do not exist?In fact science has proved that such things do exist and its called dark matter.We can only detect it from its gravitation, but it doesn't reflect light or interact with the world in any other way we know it.But perhaps if we had another sensory organ we do not posses, we would be able to perceive it, and perhaps it holds wonders, maybe even "magic"
>>16814485>You can only perceive the universe through your senses.>If something exists that cannot be felt, seen or touched, you cannot perceive it.>Who is to say that such unseeable things do not exist?If something cannot in any way be perceived now or ever, then it does not exist because to be perceptible or to exert influence in some fashion is what it *means* to exist.Every conscious being with memory is its own world. One could say that things that exist to one being may not exist to all beings.However, disjoint beings which share no perceptions relative to one another do not meaningfully exist to each other.Existence is subjective in this sense, but in common parlance, to say something exists is to speak of things that are perceptible and exert influence on a subset of conscious beings, in the first case, other people, such that it may meaningfully influence decision making with respect to the worlds they live in.
>>16811544>The thing is that having children is illogical. It is a risk and a drain on resources.this abhorrent mind virus was first brainwashed into americans and then spread to the rest of the worldit is expression of neurotic narcism, hedonism and egoism amd only makes sense if you lack the concept of familial bonds and disregard familial help and support.the damage that jews and americans had done to the entire worls is immeasurable and if anything similar to karma exists they will all suffer for eternity for their crimes against nature and humanity.
>>16815949>If something cannot in any way be perceived now or ever, then it does not exist because to be perceptible or to exert influence in some fashion is what it *means* to exist.NTA but you're obviously wrong and getting filtered by the fact that something can exert an influence that you can't perceive as distinct and attributable to any particular entity.
>>16811544I still think secular people would have plenty of children if we had a reasonable society where people had enough resources to live a fulfilling life, can't be thinking about having children when you don't have a fucking house and have to pay your 99 trillion debt for existing.
>>16816109>I still think secular people would have plenty of children if we had a reasonable society where people had enough resources to live a fulfilling lifeYou look at the lives, philosophies and personalities of "people" who spout this preprogrammed talking point and immediately know it's a lie and they just feel entitled to other people's money.
>>16816230True but the neat thing is that this is a symptom too
>>16816233>True but the neat thing is that this is a symptom tooThis doesn't matter. A population that displays this "symptom" (and everything else invariably associated with it) deserves to be stripped of everything as it slowly goes extinct. Especially if it's a "symptom" and not an actual decision they make.
>>16815949Exactly this anon gets it>>16816006Moreover, perhaps you cannot perceive these things consciously, but they register in your unconscious.Which led to the creation of fantasies, mythologies and archetypes which are deeply rooted inside the human psyche and are even inheritable.Karl Jung has done a lot of work in this area, but he didn't know of the potential relation of the unconscious and dark matter, because it wasn't known to science.Just like the unconscious is the dark side of the brain, and the larger part of the brain, so is dark matter the dark side of the universe and the larger part of it.The pattern is obvious and one thing is for sure that the universe loves patterns.
>>16816287>believing in """dark matter""" unironicallyHad I realized you're serious and invested in such garbage earlier, I would have sided with the other guy just to spite you.
