Plummeting Birthrates Watch Thread - The horrifying implications of living in a Children of Men situation.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
ur_mom_lmaoooo said:
rajectory the entire developed world is headed towards.
Click to expand...
Not just developed world, this is hitting the Third world as well. Even Afganistan is seeing dropping TFR after the Taliban here. Even trying hard Women's rights restrictions doesn't work here. There's something about the modern world here.
 
Mister Fister said:
Not just developed world, this is hitting the Third world as well. Even Afganistan is seeing dropping TFR after the Taliban here. Even trying hard Women's rights restrictions doesn't work here. There's something about the modern world here.
Click to expand...

It's urbanization over concentrated in a few cities.
 
Mister Fister said:
So we're going to concentrate the world's population into fewer and fewer cities?
Click to expand...

Well something has to change to help prevent Rat Utopia because a commonality with all nations with abysmal birthrates are one or two major cities are the ones with all the jobs and naturally no one wants to be left out. Perhaps nations can do what they can to help encourage businesses to help spread out so over concentration isn't happening as much.
 
Kyria the Great said:
Well something has to change to help prevent Rat Utopia because a commonality with all nations with abysmal birthrates are one or two major cities are the ones with all the jobs and naturally no one wants to be left out. Perhaps nations can do what they can to help encourage businesses to help spread out so over concentration isn't happening as much.
Click to expand...
I know WFH (work from home) tends to be unpopular among conservatives, but it would help people secure jobs while preventing them from having to geographically relocate into urban hellholes, thus helping reduce urbanization and hopefully even allowing for the reconstruction of kinship networks (since if no one has to move, deep connections among neighbors and between generations within families could re-develop).

Plus, it actually has been shown to increase the TFR: this study concluded that WFH adds 8% to US births, or 291,000 births per year. This is greater than the contribution of government spending on childcare. From the study: using G-SWA data, WFH is estimated to raise lifetime female TFR by 0.32 when both partners WFH one or more days per week as compared to couples where neither does. Using SWAA data for the US, lifetime fertility is estimated to be 0.45 children per woman greater when both partners WFH.

Adding 0.32-0.45 to the current US TFR of 1.58 would yield a TFR of 1.90-2.03, which would more or less put the US at replacement TFR. Of course, the downside here is that WFH jobs can be very easily outsourced to India, so you would need some kind of restriction on that in order for WFH to be widely implemented to the point where it would have a significant impact on the TFR.
 
ur_mom_lmaoooo said:
I know WFH (work from home) tends to be unpopular among conservatives, but it would help people secure jobs while preventing them from having to geographically relocate into urban hellholes, thus helping reduce urbanization and hopefully even allowing for the reconstruction of kinship networks (since if no one has to move, deep connections among neighbors and between generations within families could re-develop).

Plus, it actually has been shown to increase the TFR: this study concluded that WFH adds 8% to US births, or 291,000 births per year. This is greater than the contribution of government spending on childcare. From the study: using G-SWA data, WFH is estimated to raise lifetime female TFR by 0.32 when both partners WFH one or more days per week as compared to couples where neither does. Using SWAA data for the US, lifetime fertility is estimated to be 0.45 children per woman greater when both partners WFH.

Adding 0.32-0.45 to the current US TFR of 1.58 would yield a TFR of 1.90-2.03, which would more or less put the US at replacement TFR. Of course, the downside here is that WFH jobs can be very easily outsourced to India, so you would need some kind of restriction on that in order for WFH to be widely implemented to the point where it would have a significant impact on the TFR.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why politicians from rural areas don't like work from home, so long as its an area with decent internet you'd think it'd look like an economic godsend and a chance at reversal of the last 50 years of rural and smalltown hollowing out.
 
Mister Fister said:
You're obviously a successful contractor from your own posts so why are you so eager to attack other professionals?
Click to expand...
He wouldn't be tard raging if he were a successful business man with any relationship at all. Font is the best example of a true and honest incel that I've seen in a long time. Most of A&H makes fun of women because BP chicks throw a tantrum and it's funny to watch them sperg. Font is the tard kid at the playground who doesn't understand social dynamics.
 
ur_mom_lmaoooo said:
I think the real takeaway here is, assuming intentions are an accurate reflection of future childbearing, just how insanely few people will actually end up having kids within the next few decades. In many of these countries, you are quite literally looking at fewer than half of young women planning to have children (the lowest on the list are the East Asian countries, with roughly only one third of women intending to have kids). That is extinction-level event fertility.
Click to expand...
OK, see, this is my point. If half the cows in a generation never get bred, the herd doesn't die off. It shrinks for a while, and the less fecund genes die out.

Pregnancy being largely an intentional choice now means that people who actually *want* kids are selected for. If 50% of women say "I don't want kids" and you have a TFR of 1.25, you really have a bunch of bluehairs removing themselves from the gene pool to be replaced with normies at 2.5 TFR.

The only way this leads to extinction is if somehow the children of the next crop of mothers are also 50% likely not to want babies. I suspect this is not so, as even less important things like political ideology are highly heritable.

The wide swathes of women saying no to babies now are not, in my view, "infected by feminism." They're non-maternal stock that weren't worth the keep anyway. I don't think taking a women's studies class in college is going to change your actual personality, though it may embolden you to screech more.

I'm going to look back on this thread and chortle in one or two Centuries. Not wanting babies isn't new. Being able to satiate your lust and your desire for social acceptance without babies is pretty new. It's not gonna end the human race, just the shitlib race.

Edit to be clear that I do know what I'm talking about with cattle, if not women: There's fecund and maternal traits, which are really not that closely related. Cows are not permitted not to be exposed to a bull, so fecundity determines if they calve. Maternalism determines if they'll take good care of their calf. Low maternal cows become dog food.

Fecundity matters much less for nodern humans with pills and condoms. If they're maternal, they'll still choose to calve out if they can.
 
Last edited:
I actually think we’re seeing the effects now of the Right bias in reproduction. Look at how popular hard right politics are getting. I know the left is trying to replace with importation but is it really a win to replace a 115 IQ leftist with a 80 IQ Brown?
 
Mister Fister said:
I actually think we’re seeing the effects now of the Right bias in reproduction. Look at how popular hard right politics are getting. I know the left is trying to replace with importation but is it really a win to replace a 115 IQ leftist with a 80 IQ Brown?
Click to expand...
I think it's too early for right wing selection to filter through.
 
Audit said:
He wouldn't be tard raging if he were a successful business man with any relationship at all. Font is the best example of a true and honest incel that I've seen in a long time. Most of A&H makes fun of women because BP chicks throw a tantrum and it's funny to watch them sperg. Font is the tard kid at the playground who doesn't understand social dynamics.
Click to expand...
I am not a businessman, never claimed to be. I am also not a contractor. I am an employee of a large construction company. I know that you have trouble believing that people who are right can't have jobs, but you're a retard, as is @Mister Fister and everyone else who is pissy that I am right. This is why you faggot cowards refuse to engage with my actual arguments, and instead bitch about me being correct.

I make fun of women because they destroy their lives with really stupid decisions, then pretend that it's men's responsibility to clean up after them, all the while claiming they are "equal". Much like how they claim older men can't have kids because barren women would feel bad if they did lmfao. Keep seething. You are proving, yet again, that you do not care at all about this topic.
 
Mike_Israeltel said:
Nobody gives a shit about your welding job.
Click to expand...
Clearly several people do, given the seething ITT. Regardless, my point remains correct and the same: anyone who opposes a marriage between an older White man and younger White woman is a direct contributing factor to declining birth rates. Whites are already subjected to everpresent anti natalist propaganda, and even the people who pretend they support White birth rates just pile on further by claiming that you can not reproduce unless you follow a fabricated feminist standard for marriage. Feminists standards are exactly what destroyed the birth rate to begin with.

Listening to these "people" further will only compound the problem. This is why most the thread actively avoids discussing what I am saying, and instead do the usual feminist tactic of making shit up and changing the subject, hence the focus on my job and sexism and not what I have been discussing the whole time.
 
Last edited:
Brother man, you're the only one yapping about collars and income. Let it go.


You seem very preoccupied with the white race, which makes me wonder if you've actually added to those numbers, but I don't care about that, either. What I am curious to know is if you'd be so upset about tie-dyed urban freaks not reproducing, if the darkies weren't reproducing so quickly. Is it the ratio that really bothers you, or do you reallh want a billion more idjits reproducing in the rat palaces?
 
On the topic of, "What are the implications of men and women waiting until much older to have children?", one thing I almost never see brought up is the extremely skewed sex ratio of children born to older parents.

For those who don't know, it's been found that as both men and women get older, their likelihood of having a daughter increases, going from a 51:49 boy-girl odds in the early/mid 20s to a whopping 35:65 boy-girl odds by 40. That means that parents aged 40 and older are almost TWICE AS LIKELY TO HAVE DAUGHTERS THAN SONS. And this affect is cumulative; it's not like the ratio suddenly jumps from 51:49 to 35:65 at age 40; with every year you delay past your early/mid 20s, your odds of having a daughter slightly increase while your odds of a son slightly decrease.

There are two interesting things to this phenomenon: the causes and the societal implications. First of all, the causes:

The X-chromosome is about 10-12x larger than the Y-chromosome. Because of this, the Y-chromosome is much more fragile than the X-chromosome. This isn't a big deal when the father is young and all of his sperm are healthy, but as he gets older and his sperm get less robust, the Y-sperm are the ones disproportionately affected by this aging. They are much more likely to fail to reach the uterus before "dying" as compared to more solid X-sperm, and even if they do make it and fertilize an egg, they are far more prone to catastrophic breakages on the journey there and thus more likely to result in a miscarried fetus due to genetic abnormalities.

While the father's sperm ultimately determines the sex, there's also evidence that older women experience hormonal changes that may influence the pH of the vagina which disproportionately favor X-sperm as compared to weaker and more vulnerable Y-sperm. So even older mothers are more likely to have daughters independent of the age of their male partner (though the effect is far more pronounced for older fathers than it is for older mothers), and vice versa.

So, what are the societal implications of a massively skewed sex ration in favor of women and girls? Well, politically and economically speaking, you can expect everything to swing more left-wing. Co-ed schools being unsuitable for boys will only get worse as there are significantly more girls than boys in classrooms. Crime rates and homelessness rates might go down, but social services will still be strained due to the fact that women live longer than men (and are thus a greater burden on social security). An optimist might say that a surplus of women compared to men might help even out the dating scene and make it easier for young men to secure partners, but considering the extremely polarizing gender politics pitting women against men, I kind of doubt it.

Crucially, older parents are also more likely to be wealthier than younger parents and are more likely to only have one child they can pass all of that on to -- their daughter. This might mean that young women become disproportionately wealthy as compared to young men on average, and in general have a better start to life and greater access to resources than young men do, thus only further widening the gap between men and women.

While the mean age at first birth is still low enough in most nations that this effect (to my knowledge) hasn't really made itself known yet, the trend of people continuing to put off children as long as biologically possible only seems to be accelerating, with more and more people not even considering having children until their 30s. Maybe we'll see this trend begin to make itself known within the next few decades.

Edit: Can someone archive the article for me? It isn't cooperating with me for some reason.
 
As a society we have to determine if having children is more important or is it more important for Big Line to go up. They are almost mutually exclusive, which gets a lot of people butthurt but it’s true. The rat theory is nice but Europe actually had population densities several centuries ago (pre-plague) greater than what we have now. 13th century France didn’t seem to have the fertility problem they do now.

The TFR and Dow Jones are inversely correlated; I'm sure an autiste can do the heavy lifting there. I mean we can’t even acknowledge that housing prices are out of control. People would rather do retarded shit like 50-year mortgages and 10-year car loans. A society drowning in debt is not a society conducive to having larger families.

Nobody wants to admit this because big line not going up means Stalinism is just around the corner. Societies that prefer large piles of cash over large families will keep going in this direction.
ur_mom_lmaoooo said:
At this point the only real question is what the fuck these people plan to do when even Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have aged out.
Click to expand...
They’ll be long dead so they don’t care.
 
The Hardest R said:
Nobody wants to admit this because big line not going up means Stalinism is just around the corner. Societies that prefer large piles of cash over large families will keep going in this direction.
Click to expand...
It can't go on like this forever. They're running out of non-shit demographics to work to death. You can only saddle people, corporations, and nations with so much debt before the system is broke. E.g. China is drowning in debt. Between its major real estate developers, individuals, and the nation itself, it is struggling to stick to a 5%/year GDP growth despite taking on ever higher and more unsustainable levels of debt. What will they do eventually? They're trying to operate a nation on startup logic. This works well when you have VC's to bilk. Doesn't work so hot when the VC's run out of money. Soon enough, China will be writing off enormous sums of debt off as a loss and it's going to hit the accounting sheets. You can only keep zombie corporations up on life support for so long. Same thing for people. You can work a few nations to death, but once the whole world is doing it there's no where to turn to get new meat for the grinder (unless you want rotten meat that devalues the product).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom