I don't understand this whole concept of reproduction "crisis". It seems obvious that the equilibrium will simply shift to a lower point. The individuals with lower affinity to reproduction will die out, and take their culture with them. The cultures/families who value reproduction more will spread. And the new equilibrium will be reached. Why must we try forcing the people into something? Let the natural order of things run its course. Especially since a) the effects are very slow, not really noticeable; b) it's not overpopulation, which could be problematic, but the opposite of it; c) these discussions revolve around an unspoken assumption that there is a certain optimal number of people that we must maintain, which is of course completely baseless.

>>16966419
the problem is that human population and economies have been growing like a ponzi scheme for the last 300 years
that's fine as long as new blood is always coming in, but the system collapses under the weight of the older population when younger generations don't keep pace
of course, exponential growth in nature can only be maintained for so long before hitting a limit

also, i'll say a world of children raised by single mothers sounds like a fucking awful idea for the well being of those children

>>16966422
The article is lunacy of course.
In case of reducing population, there could be some economic recession (questionable; this needs research), but the wealth will be ok because of concentration through inheritance. Anyway there's a million ways to regulate economy. Obviously there is no inherent need for a certain number of people to support the economy. Just 10 years ago there were 1B fewer people, and the economy was fine. 20 years ago, with 2B fewer people - economy fine. And so on. So why are people wailing at the prospect of returning to those numbers as if it were a catastrophe? Especially since it will take like 100 years to drop back to 7B. All current population will be dead by then, and those who will live will be quite used to the stable/slowly receding population.

>>16966412
What am I reading? Scientists are helping governments try to artificially sustain economics to compete with the world. Sold out buffoons.
Mean while... I'm stuck in a high rise, people surrounding me with a low quality of life.

>>16966412
Science proves women belong in the kitchen.

>>16966419
it's not even the point, having children will fall out of fashion once ai is fully integrated into the economy, the funny thing is that governments and 'scientists' don't expect this, there's going to be a pruning that will eliminate a lot of human cultural elements we find important today and a lot of people are clueless about it, planning their whole lives around it like its some obstacle that can be pushed away

>entire generations of people raised by single moms
oh boy

>>16966412
>If we want to make further progress we have to marginalize the most evil force that has raped the planet, animal, women and themselves for centuries with no signs of slowing.
No shit. TMD

>>16966497
>entire generations of people raised by single moms
>Single-parent households in the U.S. have surged, with 40% of births to unmarried mothers and roughly 23% of children, the highest rate globally, living with one parent. Mothers lead roughly 80-90% of these households

>>16966419
economic growth both locally and globally is intrinsically tied to growth of company, of assets and most importantly of population. you need local population growth for prosperous cities and global population growth for a booming economy. regardless of whether the unemployment rate is increasing, people are starving, and underfunded districts, the nebulous "economy" doesn't care.

>>16966426
the economy doesn't function by raw count of population. it functions by growth or decline.

File: house prices.jpg (108 KB, 939x758)

108 KB JPG

>>16966412
It's funny to me seeing "intellectuals" trying to figure out why birth rates are falling now people are broke as shit when the baby boom happened when a man working 40 hours a week could afford a house, stay at home wife and as many kids as they wanted.
It's almost as it 60 years of economically destroying the working class to make the rich richer has long term consequences.

>>16966643
Read the paper. The authors acknowledge this.

It's not a mistake it's intentional

>>16966419
It's purely economic. T h e y need line goes up forever
>>16966437
Kys

>>16966412
>Economic incentive
Danish research shows that women desire economic improvements, not children. Money is their goal. Kids are useful to get money from men, if theres no other way.
The actual results are that each 5% of increase of income for women, cause a 4% decrease in chances of reproducing. For men, 5% increase in income increases chances of reproduction by 1%. The obvious solution is to impoverish women. Study is epidemiological, taken from the entire population of Denmark, not college students

>>16966610
>>16966608
>>16966754
What is this economy and why is it so important to have continous growth? Soon you will have 4 grandparents sharing 1 newphew like the other anon said so it's not like there will be a lack of goods. Humans have existend and prospered long enough without the concept of economy.

>>16966643
>now people are broke as shit
Not women. Women have more money, hence dont need men to survive like they used to. The more money a woman has, the less she needs men/kids.
People are not poorer than in 1800, they dont have kids because specifically women dont need men, dont need kids to trap men.

>>16966412
>provide women with resources to convince them to have kids
translation: you will now pay for their lifestyle with your taxes, while getting nothing in return, while also having a lower income and social status
>>16966419
the crisis is that modern society relies on a number of systems which require positive population growth to keep existing.

women stop reproducing when given the choice but the one thing we can't do even though it's the only thing that would work is remove that choice again

>waow
Stopped reading there.

>>16966791
>Not women.
he said people, anon

>>16966426
2 billion more Africans and Indians

>>16966422
Who cares if Jews lose imaginary dollarydoos

>>16966419
>the effects are very slow, not really noticeable
In my lifetime, Japan went from a country where 10% of the population is over 65 to one where 30% of the population is over 65. From one where the median age was already 35 to one where the median age is over 50. The same is happening in the West, just with a bit of a lag.
The effect is of course far more noticeable for countries that had ridiculously high fertility rates for the entire 20th century and that are now at/below replacement level and falling.

>>16966422
Imagine being a man born under this regime
>Hey Johnny I only had you to get government gibs and your purpose is to work to provide more gibs for the next generation of women to have kids (not with you). Enjoy your life of slavery
Hitler 2 would show up pretty fast

>>16966643
>muh economics
sahel niggas be out there havin 6 kids while starving you fucking retard. meanwhile your quirk chungus cousin makes 6 figures and thinks she's never going to have enough money to afford a family

>>16966412
>But new technologies are on the horizon that could offer men reproductive equality
Oh yeah, like what? Are we finally getting our robot waifus with artificial wombs?

>>16966412
In Norway, women on average report a preference for 2.4 children but have only 1.4 (Cools & Strøm, Reference Cools and Strøm2020). Such fertility gaps between desired and actual offspring are common in low-fertility nations (Beaujouan & Berghammer, Reference Beaujouan and Berghammer2019; Friedrich & Bujard, Reference Friedrich and Bujard2025; Stone, Reference Stone2019). Americans consider the ideal family size to include 2.7 children, but their fertility rate is 1.6 (Gallup, 2025). Testa (Reference Testa2007) found that European women on average want 2.2 children—with “lack of the right partner” being their most frequently cited reason for not achieving intended fertility. When women struggle to secure a long-term partner in their twenties, they have their reproductive window shortened and many end up childless (Saarela & Skirbekk, Reference Saarela and Skirbekk2020; Stone, Reference Stone2022).

>Based on these investigations, we argue that the modern world’s uniquely resource-rich and gender-equal environments have triggered what we term a Mating Equilibrium Shift—possibly a main driver of today’s declining pair-bonding and fertility rates in many nations. Female freedoms and material prosperity seem to motivate women to place greater emphasis on short-term strategies (non-bonded mating), but in terms of reproduction, these strategies are rendered maladaptive by contraceptives. Low-fertility societies have thus entered what we call the Post-Pair-Bonding Fertility Trap, in which too few stable couples form early and durably enough to sustain replacement-level fertility. This trap is a consequence of the Female Choice Fertility Paradox: when women’s free mate choice is combined with economic independence and effective contraception, it systematically favors mating strategies that undermine pair-bonding and, in turn, realized fertility.

So in short women fuck around on tinder, don't get knocked up, then cry when they're 30+ and childless.

>>16966799
>the one thing we can't do
It's happening. The question is if the lineages capable of civilization die off while it happens or not.

Barbarian rapeworld is the future if you continue to insist being a little mean to women is impossible. Do you want a barbarian rapeworld?

>If our hypothesis is correct in that our current environment motivates women to assign lower value to certain groups of men, we should see fewer assortative matches and declining pair-bonding rates. We would expect a marginalization of men with lower long-term mate value, and greater female intrasexual competition for the high-value men (Fisher & Cox, Reference Fisher and Cox2011; Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Larsen and Kennairin press). A line of studies support the hypothesis that this change is occurring. For instance, Harper et al. (Reference Harper, Dittus, Leichliter and Aral2017) found that from 2002 to 2011–13, the top 5% of American men increased their number of sex partners by 32%, while a similar reduction in sex partners occurred across men in the lower percentiles. Norwegian men in the top 5% of estimated earnings capacity have over a 90% probability of being partnered by age 40, while men in the bottom 5% have under a 40% probability (Almås et al., Reference Almås, Kotsadam, Moen and Røed2023). Danish men experience similar marginalization, as 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Mænds Sundhed, 2017).

So the meme of "more women are fucking chad and not chud" is real according to this article.

none of you autistic white incels will breed, and that's a good thing

>>16969025
Yeah but it's only true when they say it.
If you notice and bring it up, it's still not happening and take your meds schizo.

>Considering how women deem there to be so few good-enough men when they use apps, it is not surprising that the resulting dating stratification can have adverse effects on pair-bonding rates. Such apps have displaced friends and family as our primary matchmakers (Bleize et al., Reference Bleize, van Stekelenburg and Tamboer2023; Castro & Barrada, Reference Castro and Barrada2020; Rosenfeld et al., Reference Rosenfeld, Thomas and Hausen2019)—generating many relationships—yet their channeling of women primarily to the most attractive men contributes to how many men become incels (involuntary celibate), while many women become insings (involuntary single), as they are unable to get the high-value men they date to commit (Larsen & Kennair, Reference Larsen and Kennair2025). A woman (34) referenced this challenge in the Norwegian mating debate: “Those I find interesting are not interested in anything serious or want ‘something simple’ that does not challenge them in any way” (Heia, Reference Heia2023).

I've never heard the term "insing" before, but maybe that's because I'm not on social media.

>>16969025
>>16969027
The narrative of this study seems to be that you're an incel because you're an economic liability not even fit to be a beta provider, not because you're an ugly. I, for one, think both factors are significant contributors, but it's still funny how much you're gonna grasp at straws to have your narrative validated when the basic reality is that you'd be useless to a woman in any age and any society.

people talk about declining fertility rates like there's some serious problem with people's bodies but in most cases its literally just women don't want the men

>Dawkins (Reference Dawkins2016, p. xxix) stated, a bit hyperbolically, that “we are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” In other words, our genes have programmed into us emotions that do not work for us but for the genes themselves. A woman with a mate value in the 60th percentile may desperately long for a partner, but if the biochemical algorithm that governs her mating strategies—in response to her materially abundant environment—will not release love-inducing hormones unless a potential partner scores above the 90th percentile, pair-bonding becomes less likely. Similarly, our female ancestors may not intentionally have wanted to become a single mother, yet still have been emotionally motivated to behave in a way that mixed their genes with those of a higher-value man. Depending on individual circumstance and the environment’s mating morality, such pregnancies could also result in a pair-bond, one the man otherwise might have declined.

So this article is arguing that it is, in fact, in women's nature to choose only the top men. This reads like an incel fantasy; it's stunning.

>>16969034
>women don't want the men
most idiots on this site would dismiss any woman on 'principle' but they really just want to stay angry.

>Today, the emotions programmed into women respond to an exceptionally resource-rich environment that is uniquely empowering for women (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Garcia and Sokol Chang2013), so much so that solo parenting could be the preferred option for their genes. But in terms of reproduction, birth control renders short-term strategies ineffective, and most women lack the economic and social resources that would make them consciously choose to reproduce without a partner. Put differently, men as a group no longer provide enough value to free women for modern societies to sustain replacement-level fertility through pair-bonding alone.

So the fertility crisis is men's fault for not providing enough?

>>16969037
Mid six figures is not a big ask, chuddie. M*les need to stop being such fucking losers.

>Of course, growing up with two parents comes with a line of benefits (Amato, Reference Amato2005). But if the Post-Pair-Bonding Fertility Trap makes communities steer toward self-eradication, compromises that forfeit some benefits but maintain societal survival should be considered. Certainly, we do not argue against pronatalist policies that target couples; quite the contrary—we think this strategy is also a good idea, although one that is unlikely to have a strong enough effect (Bergsvik et al., Reference Bergsvik, Fauske and Hart2021). We therefore see a need to rethink how post-pair-bonding societies support single parents. To incentivize more individualistic reproduction, people willing to have children alone could be offered additional social and economic resources. This is not a vision of women rejecting men, but of a society that ensures women who cannot obtain commitment from acceptable partners are not prevented from becoming mothers, so that survival-level fertility can be restored even if pair-bonding rates remain low. Conceivably, piloting such supports could refocus national attention on the fertility crisis, nurturing a wider pronatalist culture that—beyond enabling solo parenthood—might also raise fertility within relationships.

So the solution is not to tell women to stop having unrealistic standards for their partners but instead give them enough money so that they can raise them alone?

>>16969037
>So the fertility crisis is men's fault for not providing enough?
The fertility crisis is men's fault for creating "an exceptionally resource-rich environment that is uniquely empowering for women" according to that paragraph, which is obviously true regardless of the Darwinist pseudoscience wank that follows.

>>16969039
It's simple, really, chuddies should pay federal alimony to provide for single mothers at the societal level. I'm thinking 40% of income should do it.
Also, remove all unemployment benefits for m*les. That's what the army is for.

>>16969036
i dunno, growing up though school like most women were quirked up borderline aesexual but im young
i feel like its pretty normal now to be disgusted by the average guy

>We therefore predict that many men could fare even poorer if women further emphasize short-term strategies, as a consequence of being in a stronger position to reproduce without needing a partner for economic and other support. Women may choose to become pregnant mostly with the most sought-after men, even if these are unwilling to pair bond. A more extreme view is that perhaps men should not have to pay child support, particularly if experiments show that women are mostly interested in having children with the most compelling men, and those men are not willing to participate if it entails an economic downside. These would be drastic measures, but we believe they could be justified by the existential stakes of solving the Female Choice Fertility Paradox.

>>16969043
The article seems to argue against alimony, but its motivation is less about making lower-value males pay for women and more to appeal to high-value males so they can get women pregnant with no consequence.

>Another alternative could be state-sponsored surrogacy for single men who want to become fathers. In feminist nations like Norway, however, surrogacy is typically not permitted because the practice is seen as exploiting women’s bodies (Stuvøy, Reference Stuvøy2018). Still, a compromise could perhaps be reached to portray experiments with state-sponsored reproduction as more gender neutral to win greater support from men. Given the increasingly dire situation for certain groups of men, communities should not underestimate the potential for resentment and misogyny arising from mating exclusion; a marginalized male underclass could become a destabilizing societal force (Costello & Buss, Reference Costello and Buss2023). This perspective is also worth bearing in mind as societies seek countermeasures to the fertility crisis. While we predict many people will find such discussions unsavory, they are needed if viable solutions are to be found.

A real "Good for me but not for thee" mindset in Norway it seems.

>In the longer run, artificial wombs could allow men greater reproductive equality. Experts predict that such technology might be available as early as in the 2040s (Cavaliere, Reference Cavaliere2020; Gupta, Reference Gupta2025; Henriques, Reference Henriques2023; Martinez & Goodwin, Reference Martinez and Goodwin2024; Segers, Reference Segers2021). This decade is the same one in which some experts estimate that AI and robotics can free humans from having to secure themselves materially through labor (Kurzweil, Reference Kurzweil2024; Nayebi, Reference Nayebi2025; Rainie & Anderson, Reference Rainie and Anderson2024). Billions of humanoid robots could be providing us with goods and services in the 2040s (Gavin, Reference Gavin2024; Neumann, Reference Neumann2025), bringing us toward a future of “sustainable abundance” (Diamandis & Kotler, Reference Diamandis and Kotler2023; Goldstein, Reference Goldstein2025).

Insane leap of logic to make.

>>16969048
>>16969050
ChatGPT please write me a post debunking these comments.

>Men today are in a similar position. Free women exclude a growing proportion of men from pair-bonding, and they wield the reproductive power that the patriarchy had seized through arranged marriage and female subordination. To achieve parity, men must place their faith in tomorrow’s reproductive technologies, just like women had to for centuries. Perhaps this perspective can make experiments with individualistic reproduction more salient also for men. After all, the societies that steer toward demographic collapse belong to us all.

So the answer is that most men are just fucked and have to put up with the situation until artificial wombs are real?

>For modern women, the stakes are similarly large. Not only does the fertility crisis deprive many women of having the children they desire—instead relegating them to involuntary singlehood and childlessness—but from a feminist perspective, it is important to remember that the countries with low fertility are mostly those in which emancipated women are free to choose their own partners (Figure 4). As we explored, this unique level of mating agency underpins the Female Choice Fertility Paradox, which has captured gender-equal nations in the Post-Pair-Bonding Fertility Trap.

But apparently it's just as bad for women despite the onus of the situation being on them?

>One way of looking at this challenge is that our nations have completed only the first part of modernity’s feminist project. Because no cultural change that sabotages reproduction can endure, the most crucial part remains: finding a way to combine having free women with sufficient reproduction. This is obligatory if we are to secure the future of our gender-equal communities. If we fail, feminism risks becoming one of humanity’s gravest mistakes: a noble project of emancipation that unwittingly dooms history’s most advanced civilization to demographic extinction. We therefore suggest that experiments which provide greater economic and social support for single parents, like those explored in this article, should be a high priority not only for societies facing low fertility, but also for feminists. However daunting and difficult this challenge may be to fully understand, it must be confronted if female emancipation is to remain a viable civilizational project.

So feminism really is to blame for everything?

>>16966412
Test
[math]$x$ = $7$[/math]

>>16969055
Test
[math]
$x$ = $7$
[/math]

>We therefore propose that a further individualization of reproduction could be the most effective means for aiding the survival of low-fertility nations, and in the extension of that, to preserve the cultures that grant women liberal freedoms. Nations should consider reproductive policy experiments to find out which economic and social resources are required for enough women to conclude that single parenthood is better than remaining childless. Insights from such pilot projects could inform universal implementation in our post-automation future. If artificial womb technology arrives around the same time, men would achieve greater reproductive equality, which could counter the male marginalization we have seen increase over the past decades. These would be drastic measures, but considering the existential stakes for nations and gender equality, they are worth considering in earnest.

So the end goal is to say relationships are dead, try to incentivize women to raise children alone/increase single motherhood, and let men continue to suffer until artificial wombs are invented. What an insane read.

>>16969033
>Useless to a woman
Just club her over the head. If women aren't useful to men, why let them live or have any of the property or personal rights they have and continue to enforce them with militaries staffed mainly by men? Let the invaders invade, rape them to death and destroy society, then it'll be back around to men leading by necessity again.

>>16969058
>to preserve the cultures that grant women liberal freedoms
They are so close to waking up.

>>16969060
>If women aren't useful to men, why let them live
They're useful to the few men that matter. You're just not one of those men. If anything, the ones in charge are seriously considering that maybe they shouldn't let you live.

>picky women die out
>Non-picky women have kids and pass on their genes, future generations are less picky

i don't see the problem thoughbeit

>>16969078
The problem, according to the article, is that those less picky women would be complicit in the reduction of women's rights. Really the whole problem can be boiled down into feminists aren't having enough kids to defend feminist societies.

>>16969087
Too bad I guess...

>>16969037
The bar is so low for men that women are happy if he washes his asshole and has a job. Think about what that implies about the average male. I wouldn't be dating if I were a woman either.

>>16969420
What is it with troons (failed men) overcompensating by picking of the foid narrative? It makes you sound like a cunt but it doesn't actually give you one, so you still WNBAW.

>>16969421
Weird argument. I'm a man and do not claim I am a woman. I'm a man in a healthy relationship with a woman (does that make you upset?) what I am saying is that if I were born a woman, I'd understand their plights and be a lesbian. Or asexual. Since women are behaviorally also annoying.

You can tell the writer of the article genuinely understands both the issue, the threat it poses, and the extreme measures that may need to be taken to fix it. But can't, because mentioning any of the potential solutions is essentially suicide in modern society, so he has to pretend that waiting for a theoretical technology in 2040 is somehow a viable solution.
Give it a decade though and some real, genuine conversation will be had

>While the pill empowered women to pursue the most attractive men with less risk of pregnancy, apps like Tinder give them easy, practically unlimited access to the most compelling men. Women have increasingly used this advantage to further restrict their dating pool. In 2014, female Tinder users were about three times as discriminatory as the male ones, while today they reject 10 times as many profiles (Bilton, Reference Bilton2014; Gerrard, Reference Gerrard2021). According to Gerrard (Reference Gerrard2021), the average woman first swipes away around 95% of men. In the chatting phase, 98% of the remainder is filtered out before the woman commits to a date (Grøntvedt et al., Reference Grøntvedt, Bendixen, Botnen and Kennair2020).

>>16969420
I find it hard to believe that 95% of men on dating apps are jobless with smelly assholes, that sounds like hyperbole to me.

It seems to me we have five real options;
>wait for some magic technology to fix it all
>ban or heavily regulate contraceptives
>ban or heavily regulate abortion (the overturning of Roe v Wade increased the birth rate in those states that moved to regulate abortion)
>suppress women's wages, place extra taxation on single women, just make life significantly more difficult for women in general so they're forced into marriages with men
>full-on breeding camps, arranged marriage, and the absolute repeal of women's rights
You can see how none of these are popular options, even though we are going to have to do something at some point

>>16969455
>>16969455
or the current solution: immigration

This is the natural progression of social development within the systems of society that we operate. When women don’t need to have a man to provide for them they are given more selection power for potential mates. This will prune a large number of genetic lines from the male and female sides of society. The irony being that this will be a holocaust of a larger portion of low quality women while the population of men will continue to maintain the same almost neutral selectivity traits. The pumpkin spice hyper-selective performative females will die off and so will their lines, men will gain a whole dating pool of women whose personalities aren’t Pinterest visualization collages. You’ll need a personality to reproduce in the approaching generations and we are seeing the death of these deep foid lines now, even if it is being interpreted totally backwards.

>>16969463
Immigration is a flawed solution and at best a temporary band-aid since immigrants may not necessarily hold the same values as the country they are emigrating to. India's population continues to grow exponentially and their emigration rates are amongst some of the highest in the world. Indian culture does not share the same values as most western societies, especially regarding women's rights. There's no guarantee that when the native population dies out that the immigrants will continue to hold the same values, which is covered in the article.

>>16969479
>women's rights
usecase?

>>16969479
>There's no guarantee that when the native population dies out that the immigrants will continue to hold the same values
why do you think this matters in any kind of way? the values of the culture should reflect the people that make up the culture.

>>16969479
>India's population continues to grow exponentially
No. It's birth rate is below replacement.
>>16969463
From who lmao? The only nations left with an above replacement replacement rate are African ones, and their birth rates are declining rapidly themselves. Plus, if you do replace your population with African muslims women's rights and contraceptives are going the way of the dodo anyway.
We may simultaneously be the first and last generations to experience legal gender equality. What a time to be alive

>In contrast, the countries that still reproduce their populations are predominantly found across a fertility belt that extends through Africa, the Middle East, and further east (Figure 9), nations with quite different family practices and female freedoms than those familiar to us in the West (de Haas et al., Reference de Haas, Kabagenyi and Diennabila2025). If our communities fail to solve the fertility crisis and disappear, it seems unlikely that the fertility-belt nations will ever repeat our unique experiment with individual mate choice. In such a future, there may not be many free women, at least as we understand the concept in the West.

>>16969486
>>16969488
I'm merely reiterating the article's stance and why the writer considers solving the fertility crisis something of grave importance.

Literally no one wants to pay men more money despite it being one of the main solutions to the fertility problem.

Society's a joke, they don't want this fixed.

File: chad replacement rate.png (19 KB, 968x288)

19 KB PNG

>sort countries by fertility rate
>number one is literally Chad
is this some kind of sick fucking joke? it's not fair bros

A problem, I feel, is that the writer fails to address consequences of the marginalization of men. The writer of the article advocates for immediate or near immediate efforts for women to achieve reproductive independence, while men must wait on a future technology that may or may not happen in an indeterminate amount of years. The writer proposes to eliminate child support so that high value men can impregnate a large number of women without real consequence.

What I fear is that by implementing such a solution, "high value" men, which is to say successful businessmen, politicians, and the like, will have free access to women and women will be able to bang their 10/10 hottie, get knocked up, and raise a child in comfort. Meanwhile "low value" men, the average every day joe, will be relegated to pity fucks from women with bleeding hearts, effectively creating an upper and lower class division in men. Even if the artificial womb does come into existence by 2040 as the writers claims, putting up with that shit for 14 years is societally damaging to a large number of men. And lets say it does come into existence and we have artificial wombs, the ones who will have access to that technology first will be the "high value" men, and women, who already have a stigma towards the concept. It's naïve to think that they would freely hand the technology to "low value" men so that they can have their chance to procreate. I know this reads like an incel fantasy, but based solely on the solution and societal mechanisms that the writer is proposing, this is a possible future.

Either we have a (more) plutocratic society in which only the wealthy and powerful are allowed to freely procreate, or our civilization is eroded away and taken over by a new population. Western Civilization is fucked no matter which way you slice it.

>>16969525
Lower class men will just rape and turn to crime. Why play ball with a society that not only structures itself in a way to economically disadvantage you, but sexually as well?

so they realize that because women are more picky than ever and and more successful than the average man now and birth rates are falling, yet their solution is to make women more wealthy so that the maybe more will breed because they can easily afford to be a single mom? Jesus Christ that is depressing.
I am assuming these people are scientists, and if so they have to have encountered the same studies I did showing that about 80-90% of all women will breed anyways. I see this play out just that way in real life too.
most women are going to breed anyways, that is not the issue. there is a huge portion of men that will never breed, you can increase birth rates and genetic diversity by getting those men to breed. just give incel men a high paying or high status career and more of them will breed. the answer seems simple, only rich men or attractive men are allowed to breed now. I know they want to find a way solve this without hurting the rights women have now, but observable reality and every study show societies where women have less rights and are discriminated against, more men are able to start families. we already know that most women are going to breed no matter what, so that's not the issue and they don't need even more money.

>>16969525
they'll elect idiots like trump again

>>16969525
>while men must wait on a future technology that may or may not happen in an indeterminate amount of years
And assumes that women would let men have that instead of banning it like they are trying to do with any other forms of male pleasure.

>>16969528
>their solution is to make women more wealthy so that the maybe more will breed because they can easily afford to be a single mom? Jesus Christ that is depressing.
Their solution is also stupid as well as it has been shown that women are LESS likely to have children the better off they are.

>>16969422
>I'm a man in a healthy relationship with a woman
Uh oh. You're having a regression to your old fantasies. Go get your emergency estrogen shot. But putting aside the fact that you're a seething tranny, it's by definition impossible for a man who talks like you to have a healthy relationship with a woman, even if it were possible for a woman to care about a pussywipe quite like this.

>>16969596
kek what is it about men in successful relationships that make people like you seethe like this? all he said was the quality of men is low, which is objectively true. he is obviously a man worthy of woman to date. your mind jumping to trans stuff reveals how mindbroken you are lmao you will die alone.

>>16969646
>all he said was the quality of men is low
How would he and you know that? What characteristics are you assesing men for quality? And given that you and him are assumedly heterosexual, are those the same characteristics that heterosexual women look for in men?

>>16969420
>women are happy if he washes his asshole and has a job
Do you seriously believe that most men don't wash their assholes or don't have jobs?
>>16969422
Did you really take it to heart when your woman exagerated her past dating troubles just to make you feel more of a catch? Did she also tell you all her exes were toxic and you're the super special exception?

>>16969653
i see the men my sister dates.

>>16969656
If you ever want to enter a relationship with a woman, you're going to have to change how you see the world. Your generalization of women is equivalent to women generalizing men as pigs. Are you a pig?

>>16969658
They may not be up to your standards, but you're a heterosexual man, your sisters are heterosexual women and evidently the men they date passed their requirements.
>>16969669
I'm not generalising women, I'm generalising the subsection of women who say ridiculous things about men such as "the bar is in hell!" signaling how picky they are to put on airs of "desirability"

>>16966412
>psychologists
>"researchers"
>science
your scientific hypothesis is flawed, and your evidence only proves you wrong.

>>16969646
>what is it about men in successful relationships that make people like you seethe
I don't know. Show me a "successful relationship" and then I'll see if I'm actually seething about it and try to tell you why. Where do I find all these men having successful relationships? Nevermind that they're not here among kissless virgins like you, I don't see them among any of my relatives or married friends, either. How can you have a "successful relationship" with a selfish, bickering and (usually) unattractive cunt that doesn't really respect you?

>>16969709
i'm sorry your parents didn't set a good example for you. poor?

>>16966412
Holy shit reading this makes me suicidal. If this paper doesn't make one immodestly religious, I don't know what will. I can't wait for the bottoming out of society. Laws, emancipation, and le economics has quite literally killed us all.

>>16969713
>markov chain twitter "retort"
Ok. I see you're not even human.

>>16966412
>provide women with the economic and social resources necessary for them to conclude that having children alone makes for a better life than remaining childless
i don't get why they would pursue this particularly. why not just having them conclude that having children at all makes for a better life than remaining childless?

>>16969721
Because it's not about anything it pretends to be about, it's just that the transition towards a genetically engineered slave class produced on an as-needed basis starts from phasing out the nuclear family and replacing men, with the state acting as a surrogate provider-husband. Wombs are selfish, morally unscrupulous and easily manipulable, even this paper effectively says that much, just coming at it from a different angle. Get men out of the equation and you can get women to consent for the state to do anything to children.

>>16966799
>women stop reproducing when given the choice
Actually they don't. They'll choose and want to reproduce organically if no outside forces act upon them. The problem is that we DO have outside forces convincing them that they are emotionally damaging everything around them if they don't act like a man, so they take that path to "cause the least harm" even though many of them confess later that they deeply regretted making that choice.

>>16969420
>>16969658
Your anecdotal evidence is not representative of the quality of the average man across society. This is the same logic used to justify saying that all black people are uneducated criminals.

>>16969918
What metric would you use to assess the average man?

>>16970005
What metric are you using to assess the average woman? I'm guessing it's washing their asshole and having """a job""", but without a hint of the hyperbole.

>>16970013
So nothing? The metric I use to assess the average woman is aggregating the experiences I have with women, as well as what my friends express. Likewise, I assess the average man by understanding the men my sister dates, my exes date, and my friends. Your turn.

>>16970013
you do realize women wash their boyfriends' laundry, right? and that they see shit stains on their underwear? what would you conclude? anyone who is socially aware enough to date knows that women value clean environments more than men, significantly so. you could easily deduce this if you had friends and went to their domiciles.

>>16970023
You're clearly a friendless incel in denial and I accept your bitter concession. Last I checked, the crucial infrastructure of modern society, all the way from the sewers to the inner chambers of power, was still powered overwhelmingly by the labor, competence, creativity and ambition of men. The implication that women somehow provide more value to society, in terms of anything they do rather than what they were born as (i.e. baby incubators) is ludicrous on the face of it and perpetuated solely by delusional women and mentally ill, failed "men".

>>16970030
Lol.
>>16970028
This guy fucks

>>16970028
>you do realize women wash their boyfriends' laundry
Women don't do laundry, cretin. Washing machines do. And clearly, they don't mind so much the dirty assholes and skid marks of the men they clamor for. Either way, see >>16970030

>>16970030
you're replying to literal bots. nobody talks that way in real life at this point. this rehash of 2010s twitter rhetoric is so anachronistic is wild

>>16970032
I tried to help you. You're too far gone. Good luck in life. I pray you find someone who loves you.

>>16970036
Have you tried helping yourself by taking your psychiatric meds, though?

>>16970032
>>16970034
Found the guys who don't wash their ass. Disgusting.

>>16970041
more obvious bot spam. extremely basic stuff. they don't even bother with a decent LLM for this kinda job, probably just pulling it out verbatim out of a database

>>16970042
Do you spend a lot of time interacting on with LLMs? You should talk to real people. And wash your ass before doing it.

>>16966412
>when nordcucks and a leaf writes an article together
lmao it's way better than expected

>>16970043
only when i post in this shithole

>>16970028
>you do realize women wash their boyfriends' laundry, right?
Did you roll in from the 1800's?
>and that they see shit stains on their underwear?
Is this a Shartmerican thing?
>women value clean environments more than men
You're just listing unfounded stereotypes found in a cosmopolitan magazine. Let me guess, you're next going to say that women are better at multi-tasking.

>>16970041
>>16970043
Men are just as hygienic as women.

Please fuck off back to lolc0w.farm, or better yet, lose your misandry before you die alone and your cats eat your corpse.

>>16970043
Foids will say that and then suck Chad off and eat his ass after 2 days of Burning Man.

>>16970067
>Let me guess, you're next going to say that women are better at multi-tasking.
This is verifiable with evidence though. And they have better smells btw

>>16970103
>This is verifiable with evidence though
Post it

File: 1740686404320080.jpg (133 KB, 526x531)

133 KB JPG

>>16966412
The decline of men approaching women functions like a political shock even when nobody frames it that way.
It reshapes family formation. Fewer approaches mean fewer relationships, later marriages, lower birth rates, and accelerating demographic decline. That feeds directly into labor shortages, pension stress, immigration politics, and generational conflict. Governments can pass incentives but they cannot legislate attraction or courage.

Second, it polarizes gender politics. Many women interpret non-approach as disinterest or resentment while many men experience it as rational risk avoidance shaped by social sanction, economic precarity, and fear of misreading norms. Each side builds narratives about the other and political movements harvest those grievances.

Third, it weakens informal social trust. Approaching a stranger used to be a low-level civic act that trained people to tolerate rejection, ambiguity, and difference. When that disappears, people retreat into apps, algorithms, and identity-filtered spaces which harden group boundaries and reduce empathy.

Fourth, it shifts power to platforms and institutions. Dating apps, HR departments, and legal frameworks mediate intimacy that used to be negotiated face to face. That concentrates cultural authority in systems optimized for liability management and profit, not human bonding.

Finally, it produces downstream radicalization. Large populations of unattached men historically correlate with instability, withdrawal, or extremist politics. Most do not become violent but many disengage from civic life, work, and optimism itself which is politically corrosive.

>>16970132
Use case for validating ("""approaching""") entitled 4s who only want Chad and will shame you for trying?
>t-t-t-to teach you to heckin' tolerate humiliation
>i-i-it's a low-level golem servant social ritual
Unironically end yourself.

>>16966419
Yes, it is insanely obvious. The industrial revolution and the implementation of globalism has seen the largest population explosion humans have ever experienced. Every single other population explosion has been followed by a contraction and stabilization. The "crisis" is a socially invented one. Mid-century retards thought they were going to outrun thermodynamics forever.

>>16970156
no need for a melite because you were called out

>>16970105
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01922/full
This is just one paper. There are many like it.

>>16970069
Not even close to true. Look at the perfume industry. Women dominate it. Or the beauty and grooming industry. Women shave more often. Not to mention the clean environments such as kitchens and bedrooms.

>>16970216
What does perfume have to do with hygiene? Perfume isn't soap, it applies smells, not gets rid of them.
>Women dominate it
They're just consumers, the people who created the perfumes, combined the ingredients, experimented with them, were men.
>Women shave more often
A fashion choice. If you're going to imply that body hair equals bad, women tend to keep more scalp hair than men.
>Not to mention the clean environments such as kitchens and bedrooms.
Women have been bitching for 50 years how men shackled them to the kitchen, now you're using women's (non-existent in younger generations) housekeeping skills as a source of pride?

Who invented kitchen and bathroom detergents? Who invented washing machines and dish washers? Who invented vacuum cleaners? What gender makes up most of the plumbing industry?

>>16970225
>What does perfume have to do with hygiene?
you lost with this.

>>16970170
Notice how your impotent rage forces you to (You) me again and to generally keep spamming the thread with your mentally ill one liners. :^)

>>16970228
You're a filthy cunt who thinks bathing herself in perfume instead of taking a bath or a shower is "good hygiene".

>>16970028
>anyone who is socially aware enough to date knows that women value clean environments more than men

Every woman's apartment that I've been in is fucking squalor with clothes lying everywhere, empty starbucks/coffee bean cups lying around and a ton of dirty dishes in the sink.

>>16966419
>culture
And genetics. Also, culture is confounded by genetics.

>>16969026
>Saar

>>16967400
Hitler 2 is well on his way already lmao

Kek, this reads as some bait thread on >>/r9k/

>>16970443
Every board has its share of disgruntled sexless anons, all it takes is the right thread to unearth them.

>>16970445
He was talking about the "study", tranny/foid.

>>16970490
Doesn't disprove my point nigger.

>>16970512
please fuck off back to lolc0w.farm

>>16966422
it's a much more literal ponzi scheme than that, ever since state pensions were introduced governments have known that if the population were to ever shrink they would have to abolish them or else be bankrupted by paying more money out than they got from taxes, and if that happened in a democratic society then whatever group was in government at the time would never be in it again, so they can never allow it to happen, so the whole thing is otto von bismarck's fault

>>16966412
>women are so spoiled and hypergamous we actually hit birthrates crisis
>we're not going to do anything with women whatsoever, instead, we will force men to fix this problem
>my proof is that I found some statistic correlation
these people call themselves the "right side of history" btw

>>16969751
>They'll choose and want to reproduce organically if no outside forces act upon them
With the mate of their choosing which has become increasingly strict with each passing generation, hence the problem we're now in.

>>16970902
Except they've always done that throughout history in general. The reason why it appears that their standards have shot through the roof is because:
1. They have greater total exposure to men thanks to online sources, as opposed to what is immediately available in the 6 mile radius of them, and those men have exposure to them.

2. Western culture and its decline of organized religion in general means that we've lost the social stigma that we would apply to both men and women for being promiscuous

3. Women don't understand how men think about sex and how it's different from them. They assume "men think with their dicks" when in reality men are far better at dissociating sex from love whereas that's not true for women.

4. Birth control is too widespread and effective (don't even need to talk about the hormones here).

Basically what happens is a woman will see an insanely hot and attractive man and think "Oh shit if I can get him to sleep with me that means he loves me!" The hot men, drunk with power and with no one to openly shame them, take advantage of the girl and sleep with her even though they've already decided in their heart and mind "I would never be with this woman." Once the guy gets bored or gets better options, he leaves her. Meanwhile, the woman is now "stuck on her highest setting" aka "Alpha Widowed" and thinks only someone on par with him or better could EVER be for her. Thus, she then thinks all other men are "settling" and only becomes interested in them when desperate.

Solution? Bring back social stigma for promiscuity for both women AND men.

File: 240215-putin-cosmodrome-m(...).jpg (171 KB, 1500x1000)

171 KB JPG

No needs to worry about demographic collapse for nordcucks, Putin soon will provide the final solution to their existential dilemmas

>>16966419
If you look the problem is broad and getting broader. I used to think along your lines 20 years ago but when fertility is collapsing everywhere from downtown Seoul to goat-herders on the Iranian plateau, just hoping things will select for the certain populations to keep having babies is delusion.

>>16969054
>However daunting and difficult this challenge may be to fully understand, it must be confronted if female emancipation is to remain a viable civilizational project.
And yet still a worthwhile pursuit that society must validate or die trying...

>>16969422
>I'm a man and do not claim I am a woman.
>if I were born a woman, I'd understand their plights and be a lesbian.
Like clockwork

>>16971988
Take your meds. You're hallucinating again

>>16972019
I took my meds, your accidental outing is still there.

>>16969078
You should check out Dr Dani Sulikowski. Her whole thesis is about how it's a self perpetuating cycle. The reproductive winners are the very women that go out of their way to create the demographic crunch in the first place, they become the founding elite of the next cycle, and the process repeats itself selecting for the same female/female competitive behavior each time.
If anything it's distilling even more of this behavior in the gene pool, not dying out.

File: 1767115208427680.jpg (170 KB, 777x711)

170 KB JPG

>>16972210
idk it's sounds like foid cope

>>16972213
I wouldn't categorize saying 'intrasexual female competition is a contributing factor to every civilizational collapse' is foid cope but you do you I guess frogposter.

>>16972242
So the female inability to form friendships destroys civilizations... damn.

>>16966419
>Why must we try forcing the people into something?
Yeah, we need to repeal the laws and not force this depopulation agenda

>>16969463
If immigrants assimilate, they join the feminist death cult, and they themselves need to be replaced with immigrants. If they do not assimilate, their culture will eventually replace the original one that started this madness. Either way, feminism will die. And western people will die with it.

>>16966419
It takes a lot of manpower to operate modern infrastructure and protect it against entropy. Once this system fails and collapses, most breeders will end up in collateral, too. Not that I personally have a problem with it.

>>16966419
>these discussions revolve around an unspoken assumption that there is a certain optimal number of people that we must maintain,
Wrong. They actually revolve around the idea that we are humans and have the ability to affect our destiny. We are not unthinking instinctual animals that are utterly helpless against the whims of nature.

>>16966754
...may I see it?

>>16969027
celebration parallax.

>>16969463
yet to work anywhere

>>16966412
Islam has already solved the problem

>>16969525
The idea of an artificial womb is such a stupid idea.
If this technology existed, why would it get into the hands of private citizens?

The most likely scenario is that some big corporation will own this technology and limit the access to it for a profit.
Eventually your friendly big corpo will own their own private workforce as they hold the legal parentship over their spawn.
Imagine being born into slavery for the first 18 years of your life. And I don't imagine they'll allow them to get an education.
The corporation gave you life, the corporation will take care of you.

Artificial womb technology will end humanity.

>>16972210
>>16972242
But how could elite women pull this off in civilizations that are patriarchal like Rome? Wouldn't the elite men put an end to it since it would shrink the population of their people?

>>16966435
>I'm stuck in a high rise, people surrounding me with a low quality of life
The alternative is dying before your 40th birthday. The industrial revolution and its benefits.

>>16973106
Your lifespan is ~6 years, you're just too brainwashed to know it. The life span of a hunter gatherer is indefinite.

>>16969014
>>16969025
>>16969035
>>16969052
>>16969442
This is basically saying women have not dropped the patriarchal standards of what makes a male a good mate (wealth, perceived dominance, strength), while appending matriarchal standards (attractive) with Feminism, and isolated themselves with worthless concepts that have targeted them for decades (consumerism, money, fashion). As a result they stay single because they want to have their own money, own property, while the man gives them his money and property, and is also extremely attractive and enables her consumerist behavior.

Feminism is a real joke in modern society, if women are incapable of controlling their own sexual behavior and not being disassociated or on drugs for the majority of their lives.

Most men and women are very hedonistic nowadays, we always were but the internet has amplified it dramatically. I would say liberal democracies are entering their final stages. Simply put the experiment failed. Identity politics as seen itt are just a symptom of a degrading communication system.

File: 537bcf1ac07837785d2a32321(...).png (574 KB, 848x1060)

574 KB PNG

>>16973366
yeah, it's not late-stage capitalism, it's late-stage democracy

>>16973368
Name one (1) time communism has succeeded, I will wait.

>>16973172
I mean that's basically what has happened. Men don't apply patriarchal standards to women anymore but women still apply patriarchal standards to men. This is why the feminists that cite the goal of feminism to be equality between men and women are delusional, the end goal of feminism is just the dismantling of mens value until it hits near zero.

>>16966412
>this passes as a "science" and not as an ideology

File: 1751350254564377.png (260 KB, 687x603)

260 KB PNG

Women being in work and school causes civilisational collapse within three generations.

They say that raising a kid to a productive 18yo adult costs around 250k EUR. Each pair should raise at least two children to stop the decline so that's 500k EUR. Thus the yearly cost of workforce-preservation per parent is ~13k EUR. The median pay in EU is ~22k EUR thus leaving with ~9k EUR to survive the year. The lower end of yearly expenses is 10k EUR. In the current system, preserving the state fertility means that most people become poorfags.

>>16972372
Okay? So the civilization just designs itself with the idea that it will expand and contract.
During high-population periods people expand outward into the less dense parts of the country, and during low-population periods the people shrink back into smaller areas.

>>16966426
>So why are people wailing at the prospect of returning to those numbers as if it were a catastrophe?
Those previous years were predicated upon future growth. When we had 1 billion fewer people, we were gearing up to prepare for the next billion and many more. That encouraged investment and provided work. Transition is going to be very disruptive.

>>16971362
>collapsing everywhere from downtown Seoul to goat-herders on the Iranian plateau
Because despite the appearances there isn't as much of a difference between goat-herders and the Seoul chinks as the situation would have you believe. They both have access to smartphones (and therefore internet) and are integrated into the global economy and thought-processes. A meme, idea or a thought-process that emerged in the Seoul 200 years ago had basically zero chance of reaching the goat-herder in bumfuckistan, these days that's almost guaranteed if the meme/idea becomes big enough (OPPA GANGAM STYLE/k-pop brainrot/whatever else).

If an economic/logistic/infrastructure collapse happens, the goat-herders lose access to smartphones/internet and thus the Global "thought-market" becoming more isolated again and within a generation or two go back to having more children again because neccessity. Same reason Ngbus population in Africa is falling down. Despite seeming to belong to another continent/world/reality they are actually the very same citizens of the global thought-market due to technology.

tl;dr no u

>>16972386
>We are not unthinking instinctual animals that are utterly helpless against the whims of nature.
>Rogue star/vacuum metastability events in your path
>pssh nothing personell kid

>We destroyed society, here's how to fix it

>>16974042
>Okay?
Ok. Enjoy dying.

>So the civilization just designs itself with the idea that it will expand and contract.
No, """civilization""" will always collapse.

>>16966412
Why wouldn't they just give more socio-econ resoueces to males so they can provide for whole family again an save fertility like that?
This is essentialy whole proposed idea but with females in mind + removing males from picture even more, giving even more push to idea that males are only usefull for reproduction.

File: Screenshot_20240711_11060(...).jpg (353 KB, 1080x1052)

353 KB JPG

>>16966412
Who gives a shit?
If the elites want me to create more cattle(humans), then they should give me a home to raise them in. And they should give me high enough pay, so I also have the free time to raise. Nobody including myself owes anyone else any children.

And last time I checked, we aren't even remotely close to running out of humans at 8+Billion. INB4 "muh not enough young workers". If push comes to shove and there isn't enough young people working to support the aging populations. We would just round up all old people, then throw them in a woodchipper. Over abundance of oldfucks that workers can't support, is the issue afterall right?

>>16974067
>If the elites want me to create more cattle(humans), then they should give me
They don't want anything from you. They want you dead so they will kill you. What does the subject of this thread have to do with you?

>>16974069
read the room, clanker

Mr. Elon and his cronies along with banker all bitching about a """fertility crisis""". The fact """fertility crisis """ is anybody's vocabulary in this day and age. Think for a second, you clanker! Who's going to buy their shit? Who is going to pay their taxes? Elon sure isn't going to pop out 20 million babies a year. It's us peons.

>>16971360
Russia is a collapsing shithole, not sure what you’re talking about, they’re never doing shit again.

>>16974093
First sentence makes it very clear that you're a psychotic patient. Please consult >>16974069. No one on this planet needs dysgenics like you reproducing, least of all the eugenics-obsessed depopulationists who rule over you.

>>16974096
that's not an argument, and you didn't disagree

>>16974108
>psychotic brown patient hallucinates something about "arguments"

>>16974144
Why are you arguing with yourself anon? Is this website really that dead?

File: underwater-welding-work.jpg (70 KB, 728x408)

70 KB JPG

>>16969037
Men provide civilization. All of the basic functionality of modern society relies on men doing work that women think exist through magic. The issue is that men do this in aggregate, so on the individual level of a woman, individual men have little value to her, but without men as a group keeping the electricity on, the water flowing, the food growing, sewage treated, garbage collected and the petro available, those women would quickly perish. Explaining this to women is fruitless because they will look at the guy explaining it to her, see that he's not one of "those guys", and just dismiss male aggregate value due to her perceived value of the man in front of her. A few feminists when cornered during a debate and forced to admit these functions are essential to their own survival will dismiss it with a hand wavey statement like "lesbians will do that work" or pretend that 2% of linemen being female means that could scale up to 100% easily.
I don't think there's going to be a "see the light" moment for women. Society will simply decay to a lower energy state until a new equilibrium point is achieved where the standard of living is much lower, and many, but not all, features of modern technological society ceases to function.

>>16974220
>Men provide civilization.
Maybe men should have thought twice before singing up for a life of docile slavery to the technological system. Women did nothing wrong.

>>16969050
If artificial wombs became reality, men would end up wiping out women. Female fetuses would be allowed to develop just long enough for their eggs to be harvested for use in the artificial wombs. Men would have no reason to tolerate female behavior, especially if synthetic sex was at a level required to meet the basic needs of males.

>>16969087
That's why government schools exist. Ideologues don't have to reproduce biologically when they can hijack the brains of the offspring of others.

>Breeding farms like cows
wow that's such a clever and humane solution, Chad will totally be okay with being fiscally responsible for his side chicks and their broods.

>>16966419
culture changes fast to fit technology, living conditions and the environment

>>16966426
inequality and the elites no longer caring about giving back, charity or even paying taxes is the problem not a couple more African's who have zero economic impact.

>>16974349
The article suggests that child support be eliminated in order to not inconvenience Chad and allow for them to reproduce with all the women throwing theirselves at his feet.

>>16974094
you're a talking corpse

>>16967400
>Hitler 2 would show up pretty fast
Then why not just take away men's voting rights and other political rights? Only those who are reproductively successful, and most of them will be women, should be allowed to vote. Those few married reproductively successful men will never vote for Hitler 2 and they will prevent other men - singles, reproductive failures, aka incels - from starting a revolution, rebellion, or anything like that. What I am basically suggesting is a eusocial model for society. It works well for other species and could work for humans, I believe.

>>16967400
Hitler 2 is the end of europe. Putin will nuke their ass to the ground because of nazis. No solution for europe.

>>16975592
That sounds very complicated and dangerous. Consider this: no rights for women put us on moon. I believe that's a more sustainable world. What do you think?

>>16975643
>no rights for women put us on moon.
Yeah, but what's there, on the Moon, for us? Do we really need to go there? Or Mars? Or anywhere else? We shouldn't act like we're that different from other animals. We need eusociality now.

>>16975645
Ok you make good points, but have any eusocial species reach the moon?

alright what's your solution short of full on 14/88
mine: government mandated speed-dating
not married? you're speed-dating at least once a month.
I for one have never gone to any type of "relationship builder" event because I assume that any women at one are low tier. if ALL single women were required to go to one I could at least hope that a decent one would be present eventually.

>>16975988
The solution is to let them dystopiamaxx until this subhuman civilization crumbles just like the previous ones did and then brutally torture and kill anyone who attempts to rebuild it.

>>16975988
the reality is that society will get close to collapse and only then people will fix it, the poverty and soulnesness and death will get bad enough that women will just want to have kids again in order to fix it. that's the only way this kind of problems can be solved today because we are all dumb humans who aren't designed to work properly in a global society like this

it's a pity because the solution is probably not that hard, just proper education and encouragement for kids at school so that people naturally want to prioritize having kids. and in the short term some economic incentives would probably be needed too

>>16972602
Fertility and Family Labor Supply
CEBI Working Paper 04/22

117 Pages Posted: 2 Jun 2022 Last revised: 15 May 2024
Katrine Marie Jakobsen
University of Oxford

Thomas Høgholm Jørgensen
University of Copenhagen

Hamish Low
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS); University of Oxford

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: May 18, 2022

Abstract
e study how fertility decisions interact with labor supply of men and women. First, we use longitudinal Danish register data and tax reforms to show that increases in wages of women decrease fertility while increases in wages of men increase fertility. Second, we estimate a life-cycle model to quantify the importance of fertility adjustments for labor supply and long-run gender inequality. Wage elasticities of women are more than 10% lower if fertility cannot be adjusted in our model. Finally, we show that human capital depreciation around childbirth is an important driver of the long-run gender wage gap.

>>16976141
>increases in wages of women decrease fertility while increases in wages of men increase fertility.
So
>>16969037
>most women lack the economic and social resources that would make them consciously choose to reproduce without a partner.
Is complete bullshit

This thread is still up?

>>16966412
>women can't find men that meet their standards
>lower male quality even further through unethical disenfranchisement and social exclusion
Sociology.

>>16966412
What crisis?
There are more people than ever and a large part (bigger?) are living only because of non-renewable energy utilization.
If they imply some lack of reproduction being a crisis they are talking only from a retarded economist's point of view.
Those guys whole existence relies on the line being green.

>>16966412
>t. Politics and the life science
>>>/pol/

>>16969035
>will not release (...) hormones
All that's going on is evolutionary squeeze that kills off people not releasing correct hormones in correct situations.

Remember: the mechanism that you feel rewarded when you eat food must've evolved somehow. Evolution is teaching our species to produce more "feel good" hormones in response to parenthood rather than just sex itself.

>>16969039
>Conceivably, piloting such supports could refocus national attention on the fertility crisis, nurturing a wider pronatalist culture that—beyond enabling solo parenthood—might also raise fertility within relationships.
This is a zero-IQ take. It's widely known that child support programs are fucking expensive but don't do jack shit.

>>16969047
>A more extreme view is that perhaps men should not have to pay child support
This is actually a good idea: replace child support with tax-funded programs - poor men will vote for it thinking it benefits them, rich men will vote for it because it massively benefits them, middle-class will be as usual scammed of their money.

>>16966783
The economy is driven by future gains from past investments.
Without continuous growth the lizard people will liquidate their assets and normal humans won't have a job to go to since they aren't paying the interest. They will have to live off the nearby land which won't be enough for all of the inhabitants of Babylon. The state will eventually appropriate private to place itself on the side of the murderous mob and all kinds of past human horrors will repeat.

>>16977920
>There are more people than ever
Not in europe. Steal people from underdeveloped countries is another iteration of european imperialism, framed as some humanitarian assistance to black or brown people. No, you are and always were an evil people. Now just die

>>16977639
Well the problem is still unsolved...

>>16977639
I'm honestly shocked to see this thread is still up, I remember finding it when it was on page 9 with less than 50 replies.
>>16977920
All of those people are coming from Africa and other fertility positive regions, not the first world, hence why it's a crisis.

>>16966437
kys x2
>>16967402
>woman decides she is not in a position to provide proper parenting and decides against it
>"REEEE QUIRK CHUNGUS NOT REPRODUCING LIKE PAJEETS!!!!"
>woman decides to reproduce anyway because oughhh we must breed
>"REEEE THESE DEGENERATES MUST BE STOPPED THEY BIRTH CHILDREN AND RAISE THEM LIKE SHIT!!!"

You need to sign up for MAIDs.

>>16969060
it's genuinely depressing to imagine that you actually think like that. thinking that relationships with half the population are this sterile, transactional thing, and having to menace and coerce them into interacting with you. what a sad, loveless little existence you live.

>>16980041
you foids are dumb like a rock. Women has to provide arguments for they staying out of the kitchen. Not the other way. Normal, natural biological, moral, religious, and historic place of women is under men' boot. Now you, dumb foid, provide us with a VALID (not emotional fraud) argument: why do women has to be out of the kitchen?