Science casts scientific method and reveals that men must be marginalized.
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.
>>16966419the problem is that human population and economies have been growing like a ponzi scheme for the last 300 yearsthat'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 paceof course, exponential growth in nature can only be maintained for so long before hitting a limitalso, i'll say a world of children raised by single mothers sounds like a fucking awful idea for the well being of those children
>>16966422The 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.
>>16966412What 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.
>>16966412Science proves women belong in the kitchen.
>>16966419it'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
>>16966419economic 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.
>>16966426the economy doesn't function by raw count of population. it functions by growth or decline.
>>16966412It'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.
>>16966643Read the paper. The authors acknowledge this.
It's not a mistake it's intentional
>>16966419It's purely economic. T h e y need line goes up forever>>16966437Kys
>>16966412>Economic incentiveDanish 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>>16966754What 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 shitNot 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 kidstranslation: you will now pay for their lifestyle with your taxes, while getting nothing in return, while also having a lower income and social status>>16966419the 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
>waowStopped reading there.
>>16966791>Not women.he said people, anon
