Saturday, July 25, 2015

Sex and Reproduction Stand in Opposition to Each Other

I occasionally engage in thought experiments. "If this was like that, what would be the end result?"

Now imagine if men and women had internal values, under conscious control, that one way would lead to sex and reproduction, and the other way, just sex.

All those arguments about contraception and abortion...gone. Poof. They never would have started in the first place.

For several thousand years people have been trying to control their reproduction, sometimes in gruesome ways, such as exposing babies to die, the way the Romans did.

And a lot of the "witchcraft" in the Bible was about "witches" using herbs to induce abortion.

For the matter, right in Genesis there are admonitions about filling the earth with people, and how women claim they're going to die unless they have children, or daughters having sex with their drunken father in order to have children.

Yet, while the urge for sex is strong, the urge to reproduce is not. That, I suspect is why there are all these prohibitions throughout history against abortion and contraception, and all these encouragements to have children.

Because, when it comes right down to it, many people don't want to have children, and when they do, they want very few, not a lot.

Imagine if we had those internal values 2000 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if the earth only had about one-fourth the population it has now. If not less.

My paternal grandparents had nine children. Three didn't survive past 21. My father, who almost didn't survive past 17 due to a horrendous car wreck, was one of those nine children. He and my mother only had two: my sister and me.

That's a big drop in the number of children.

If the urge to reproduce was strong, the population of the world wouldn't be dropping (except for Africa).

Since Americans aren't reproducing, everyone is up in arms about it, and it's one reason the government is importing 85 IQ to 90 IQ Third Worlders).

There are even movies about reproduction, such as Idiocracy

The late Arthur C. Clarke, many decades ago (I believe in his novel, Childhood's End) suggested what would happen if we had 100% effective contraception. For one, the destruction of the family.

Science-fiction writers are never right on the specifics (except by accident) but they are often right in general.

When people are not at replacement level, then the formation of families starts to collapse. So Clarke was right in that way.

There was a movie I saw a few years ago, called Children of Men. Its premise is that one day, no more children were being born.

Now imagine where that would lead.

My experience has been that when women put off having children, due to abortion and effective contraception, then when they decide to have children, they can't get pregnant. They get Babies Rabies but no babies pop out. They waited too long. If the urge for reproduction was overwhelming, they'd be squirting out kids at age 13, and refusing all birth control and abortion.

Now where does that lead? Just look around at many of the women today.

My experience has also been many men don't particularly want to have children (again, the urge to reproduce is weak) but when they do, they're glad they did.

Of course, reality puts the kabosh on some of the dumber concepts in the Manosphere, such as women choosing "alphas" to have children then choosing "betas" to provide for them. I've never seen this, not once. There's no evidence for it, either. It's one of the mental masturbatory fantasies, like most evolutionary theory.

You can't have it both ways, with women aborting over 60 million fetuses, along with conception so effective their ovaries have dried up by the time they want to have children. Then allofasudden they run out and if they can pregnant by an "alpha" and then find some "beta" (somewhere, somehow) to support them. What sort of naive nitwit came up with this crap?

In college I was taught men are supposed to want to spread their sperm far and wide while women are supposed to seek one man to support her and her children.

I certainly had problems with that, since my experience starting at age 13 was that women were the wildly promiscuous ones, the ones who'd have sex with any man they found halfway attractive. And that has been the history of the world.

As for men, it wasn't about trying to screw every woman they could, since men are the real romantics. You can't have that both ways, either, with men being the real romantics and at the same time wanting to screw 100 women (I've met guys who've spent their lives seducing women, and all were weaklings incapable of love).

So modern-day evolutionary theory has some fatal problems...just like the Manosphere.

The only way I see out of these problems is to look to the past, when we had government a fraction of the size we have now, with sound money, with high-paying jobs for men where they could support a family (because raising children is extraordinarily expensive and don't those imbeciles in the government realize that?).

Even with effective conception and abortion and the collapse of families, I suspect these problems would cure themselves, as they always have in the past.

This isn't going to happen for a long time, though.


kurt9 said...

Even with effective conception and abortion and the collapse of families, I suspect these problems would cure themselves, as they always have in the past.

Robotics and radical life extension (SENS)???

Ras al Ghul said...

God's not stupid, its never a good time to have a child, but its always a good time to have sex.

I suspect that if a form of male pill gets legalized the birth rate will drop through the floor, especially the "accidental" pregnancies.

Ultimately, incentives matter.

And back when people did not live off the labor of others (see welfare, social security and retirement plans in general) people on average had enough children that based on probabilities one would reach adulthood and take over the family business/farm and support their parents in their declining years.

Presently, there are no incentives for a man in particular to have children (for a woman at the bottom there is child support, welfare benefits, tax "credits" (money coming to her for free) and for other women it secures the requirement that the male continue to provision for her (regardless of her behavior).

But there is a negative economic incentive for a man to have children. They are a cost, they don't secure anything.

Now there are some that will say the future belongs to those that show up, but since you yourself are not going to be there, who cares?

Omega Man said...

I do know that some perhaps not all women, do want to get married and have children. A good friend of mine, who is quite handsome, charming and a ladies man to boot, regularly gets dumped when he tells the prospective young ladies that he does not want children.

Other young ladies have told me as well that such an admission would be a deal breaker.

This, along with many men getting divorce-raped and having virtually everything taken from them, would throw cold water on any desire for a family.

Anonymous said...

The only way I see out of these problems is to look to the past, when we had government a fraction of the size we have now, with sound money, with high-paying jobs for men where they could support a family

This is why Islam is popular with some whites.

These whites want to be politically correct, therefore they must be anti-Christian.

But they have a natural insight regarding the need for patriarchy.

Thus they go Muzzie and can claim two kinds of self-righteousness - anti-Christian and pro-civilization.

Many white nationalists are similar, but they are more repressed than Muzzies.

For the moment, Western civilization is still eating its seed corn and subsidizing anti-Christian movements. It's a question of money, for the moment. All over the world, people still price things in USD, not CNY.

The trigger to change will probably be a financial crisis that causes the USG to lose control of the USD in the markets. The USG can always tell the Fed to print, but they can't tell Wang Ching Chong to use USD when he would rather have glorious currency with Chinese characteristics.

Mindstorm said...

Pro-Islam is not pro-civilization. Islam and industrialized society are hardly compatible.

One Fat Oz Guy said...

"Men just want to spread their seed..."

If that were true then sperm banks wouldn't have a severe shortage of sperm donors. What easier way to spread your seed than to give it to people who are paid to implant it in women to create babies.
Funny how that point never gets heard by the seed spreader believers.

Fredrick said...

I thought that part of the reason sperm banks had a severe shortage was due to the qualification process/prerequisites required to be a sperm donor. More specifically, I was under the impression only men with 'desirable genes' were accepted to donate (such as desirable physical attributes, IQ, etc).

I didn't think just anyone could donate.

And then there's the fact women (especially those going to a sperm bank in the first place) would be quite selective about such things, so I doubt any random guy would be accepted?

Anonymous said...

I didn't think just any man could donate sperm too.

I thought that one had to be under 30, and at least 6 ft in height.

American women seem to be fixated on a mans' height, much more so compared to foreign women.

Anonymous said...

Also, I thought clinics preferred men with a higher or ivy league education.

Anonymous said...

This post reminds me of this rediculous book: "The End of Men" by Hannah Rosen:

The author is a delusional woman. Without men, there would be no civilization.

There is no such thing as a "strong and independent woman."

Women are only as strong and independent until their need for the next oil change for their car, which was designed and built by men.