Yea and people hate their kids because they won't let them eat ice cream cake for every meal. Letting women waste the privilege of high IQ and education just to drop out of their career at 35 to have one defective kid is not how civilization keeps trucking. Men work and share their wealth with their families, women dont form families and then vote for higher taxes anyway because they know there isnt security in being single
It's almost as if patriarchal societies were the winners of sociological evolution, and the farther we get away from that model the less successful our society is.
Give women freedom and they want to "late term abort" (murder) their children or put them in "child drag shows" (pimp them out to pedophiles) because it "feels good."
If we're going pure game theory here, and you assume the lower fertility rate is intrinsic to women's lib style societies, the only way they can compete and survive is to make survival rates inversely disproportionate for the countries with lower female education and higher fertility rates. Aka, you must constantly cull the savages to claim land and resources for your enlightened nation.
Who thinks anyone can sell hardcore ultra-imperialism to feminists before they choose oblivion?
Aka, you must constantly cull the savages to claim land and resources for your enlightened nation.
This is funny because the more men are suppressed to elevate women through their ridiculous equity measures, the less capable men become at fighting wars for women.
The gynocentric society intent on suppressing masculinity to keep women superior is the same society that will get steamrolled by the tribal savages in a traditional war... unless they opt for viral eugenics or nuking those nations from orbit.
men are suppressed... opt for viral eugenics or nuking those nations from orbit.
Not necessarily. We're moving to a "tournament" form of sex selection thanks to female hypergamy, which is what happens when women are in charge. Not all masculinity is suppressed - a continuous shit test is in effect, and the most extreme and ridiculous expressions of masculinity that pass the test are permitted. Women accept conquerors, while disqualifying "weak" men. This could include foreign invaders or the dumb but virulent local competitors. This means either the savages win or the strongest men from our own tribe will win. Either way an equilibrium will eventually be achieved, after which the "strong men" who create good times will reform society without as many rights for women, correcting the imbalance.
Or even maintaining civilizational competence. Incompetent yes men -empower- bureaucracies and HR, which allows their incompetence to slide under the deluge of women bullshit and feminization, feeding into itself and potentially firm collapse.
Not doing this culling is what killed Rhodesia. As it stands in the U.S., it takes two white or asian people to balance out the average net negative for a single black, and three whites or asians to counterbalance two hispanics. Doing some simple math and using the current demographics, right now only about 10% of the population is actually able to push the economy forward.
But it is about "hating women." He's observing the problem that literal rape cultures are self-sufficient, and we aren't. The challenge is how to get women to be mothers again without prostrating yourself before the pedophile prophet or taking up bride kidnapping.
Thing is, they really aren't. They're dependent on rapid breeding and slavery to replenish their stock. And once the genetic damages and STDs pile up enough while simultaneously getting apartheid-ed, it will all collapse.
Now, if taxes from 'white countries' aren't subsidized to pay for them - the collapse accelerates. From decades to months.
Women making good choices? Lol of course not. Every time they're given the choice to stop fucking deadbeats or let society burn they choose the latter. No civilization survives without solving the woman question.
This is the correct position and if they are education, it shouldn't be co-ed nor should they be taught the same things as men. Of course, your position is far too controversial for our gynocratic civilization
Someone once claimed that women have a severe empathy lack for things they can't see - so when a man goes to work to fund their married lifestyle, it isn't real to them. So when a man comes home, exhausted from work, the woman is incapable of understanding what he's been through and is instead comparing everything she's done that day to his 'nothing'.
I really want to argue against the man's claims, but damn, is it hard.
That's not really a new take. Women are solipsists. Not as a philosophical position, but certainly in terms of the way they interact with the world. Everything exists as a reflection of their own needs and desires and if it isn't relevant to them, it doesn't exist.
the foids are not even getting "educated" they're getting immersed in anti-White, anti-family, anti-american rhetoric that only aims to subvert them and make them future coalburners or wageslaves to some gay corp
So 'Idiocracy' was spot on. It does make sense if you spend the majority of your fertile years with your nose in a book, and aborting any accidents that happen your birth rates are going to drop.
Where is this Hague person getting any data on hating women on this chart? It's literally not there Mr. Hague.
I started barking with laughter when he pointed out in one of his replies that this is total years of education, not years of secondary + post-secondary. Meaning if you wanted to shoot for a TFR of 4 and decided to limit women to six years of education, that's sixth grade.
I'm curious which countries are clustered near (8, 6.5). I wonder what paper this is from.
It looks like a meta-analysis to me, so probably more than one paper. As for that little cluster of outliers, it may simply be outliers from different parts of the world, but 6 dots is also the exact number of countries in "South Asia." India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Pakistan.
"Be nice to women" but also "have above-replacement birthrate."
The very obvious solution is to strip them of all their rights and privileges, shove them back into the home, and never let them glimpse a speck of power greater than organizing a birthday party again. However, this will make all of them very mad, completely turn modern Western society on its head, and be resisted (probably violently) at every turn for years unto decades.
Most women like being stay at home moms and raising families. Most women like being fucked by a dominant man. It's a sick derangement that we ever let ourselves be convinced the opposite was true
Subversive agitators convinced simps that that's what women wanted, so the zeitgeist convinced women that's what they wanted, and simps supported it in media and legislatively.
Women are built to be controlled. But so long as simps keep giving in to what they want, and agitators keep telling women that they should be in control, nothing will change.
Two things have to happen at once for things to change: the subversive agitators must be... dealt... with. And simps must be displaced.
And what have we learned about educated women? They facilitated the explosion of administrative make-work jobs and progressive grifter consultancies that add no value to the world.
I'm gonna my to explain something that I've never seen articulated anywhere by anyone, left right, commie, musk, gates, anyone.
There is no popular crisis. There isn't
No one should be alarmed that birth rates in the west are what they are OR by what's demonstrated by this graph.
There might be some casual relationship between education and TFR (schooling propagandizes women to have fewer children and/or schooling -> affluent lifestyle -> fewer kids).
But more than likely there is a confounding variable, and that is: life expectancy.
Long story short the longer something lives, the fewer offspring it has. This works across species (elephants vs mice) and within "species" (whites vs blacks). It even works with subgroups within nations (again, whites vs blacks).
Example;
White Norwegians, circa 2025
Average life expectancy: 82-84 years
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~1.5-2 (based on fertility rates)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~1.5-2
Somalis (in Somalia), circa 2025
Average life expectancy: 55-60 years
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~5-6 (based on high fertility rates)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~4-5 (accounting for infant mortality)
Grey Wolves
Average life expectancy: 6-8 years (wild), up to 16 years (captivity)
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~2-4 (annual breeding, 1-2 litters typical)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~10-20 (4-6 pups per litter)
Field Mice
Average life expectancy: 1-2 years (wild), up to 4 years (captivity)
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~5-10 (multiple litters per year)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~25-50 (5-10 pups per litter)
This is why barring external influence like whites giving trillions in aid to Africa, populations remain stable in animal populations even though wolves and mice have completely different TFRs.
Somalis have 5 kids because half of them die in childhood and the others won't live to hit 60.
You're right, that is a good point. It shouldn't be surprising in a biological context.
No one should be alarmed that birth rates in the west are what they are
But I've got to disagree here. There's plenty of reason to be alarmed from a fiscal perspective. They've been pretending growth is infinite and kicking the can down the road. Organized the economy and social support structures as Ponzi schemes. They should be alarmed that birth rates are failing because the existing architecture is ass-backwards. What the US should've done is treat the Boomers as a rare event that would have be managed as an exception instead of treating it as a new status quo.
Until they can fix that, the lower birth rates are an issue. The question is which issue is going to force the other and unfortunately, history suggests they will choose "base of population pyramid not wide enough -> infinity immigration."
The solution is younger generations need to run for office on the promise of obliterating social security. Politicians pandered to boomers because they were so big. Boomers are dying off now. The time to strike is 2028.
The politician who promises to throw boomers under the bus so that the rest of us may thrive will win in a landslide.
"Hey, remember how you pay a shitton in taxes and can't afford a 1200 sqft home, but boomers refuse to move out of their mcmansions because they need a driveway to park their RV and boat while they collect your income each money via social security? How about fuck them, and you keep your money. They're forced to sell. You can finally start a family and buy a suitably sized home."
No one should be alarmed that birth rates in the west are what they are OR by what's demonstrated by this graph.
Except that the Somalis are being imported into White countries, on our dime, and know they're effectively immune to prosecution due to "equity-based reforms."
No one would carry if the population of Europe grew and contracted so long as it was 100% white European.
So really, the issue isn't even birth rate. It's Demographic replacement. Even if the population of Europe was 3 BILLION whites, it would still suck if there were 500,000,000 non-whites.
If you deport non-whites, and re-shore domestic manufacturing, the white population will rebound or do whatever it needs to do to reach natural equilibrium.
you are correctly measuring using reason at the base, but humans don't work that way, they are led by desires. they are horni and want pussy and want families and do with their kids the shit their dads and mothers did with them.
It takes 2 parents. If you want your population to stabilize, you somehow need to replace those 2 parents with 2 new individuals, hence why we have the "2.1 children per woman" quota (the .1 is to counter-balance accidents, murders, etc. ).
If you look at your animal comparison, they are all above 2, even the lowest fertility due to high lifetime. That means that, under normal circumstances, they are guaranteed to have enough individuals to continue the cycle.
It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or 50 years, the result is, if you have less children than parents, then eventually, you'll reach 0 population.
I think your assessment is incorrect.
Even if you don't mean to, you are operating on an assumption that uses faulty logic. Primarily that when you die, your kid immediately replaces you. Or, my wife and I die, my two kid immediately replaced each of us.
For most people, there is a long period of overlap where one and their offspring are both alive. And maybe even someone, their kids, and their grandkids are all alive. Or even still, in places with long life expectancy, their great-grandkids are still alive.
So where you are looking at, replacing AA with BB. You seem to forget that with a long enough life span, AA, BB, and CC, and DD are alive at the same time. So the population is increasing. But it's not getting wider, it's getting deeper.
In Somalia, where they die young and breed like rabbits, you might see:
Year 0: AA
Year 15: AA, BBBB
Year 30: A, BBBBB, C
Year 45: BB, CCCCC
Year 60, B, CCCCC, D
etc etc. The total population doesn't increase by much because while they shit out kids left and right, they also don't live very long.
Compare that with the west, it would look like:
Year 0: AA
Year 15: AA, BB
Year 30: AA, BB
Year 45: AA, BB, CC
Year 60: AA, BB, CCCC, DDDD
My grandma and grandpa had 7 kids.
She is still alive, my gramps died a decade ago.
Her seven kids and a combined 20 kids. The oldest of us are pushing 45. We look like this (all below still alive):
Gen 1: A
Gen 2: BBBBBBB
Gen 3: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Gen 3: DDDDDDDDDDD (and counting)
You don't get 4 consecutive generations alive at the same time in shitholes. You're lucky if you get 3.
Except that, again, you stop before the actual important part starts. In your example, you stop by the 4th generation when you're still in rising period because the mortality hasn't caught up yet.
Here's another example, but going much longer. Here's an example, going up to Gen 8:
Assumptions (to simplify):
Women have all 1.5 children. I'll round up the number if it's a decimal, just to be nice and to prove my point further (so if we have 5 women, normally it would give 7.5 babies, but we will count as 8).
No "no-family relations"
Generation X will make children for Generation X + 1
Generation X will die at Generation X + 4.
Here's are the details:
Generation 1: 100 new people (50 men, 50 women).
Generation 2: 1.5 * 50 babies are born = 75, bringing the population to 175. Out of those 75 new people, 37.5 are women (rounded up to 38).
Generation 3: 1.5 * 38 babies are born = 57, bringing the population to 232. Out of those 57 new people, 28.5 are women (rounded up to 29).
Generation 4: 1.5 * 29 babies are born = 43.5 (rounded up to 44), bringing the population to 276. Out of those 44 new people, 22 are women.
Now, so far, we agree the population is increasing steadily, and better than if the quality of life were poor and parents kept dying after having children. However, the following is the part you're missing:
Generation 5: 1.5 * 22 babies are born = 33, however Generation 1 is now completely dead (100 people), bringing the population to 276 + 33 - 100 = 209. Out of those 33 new people, 17 are women.
Generation 6: 1.5 * 17 babies are born = 26, however Generation 2 is now completely dead (75 people), bringing the
population to 160. Out of those 26 new people, 13 are women.
Generation 7: 1.5 * 13 babies are born = 20, however Generation 3 is now completely dead (57 people), bringin the population to 123. Out of those 20 new people, 10 are women.
Generation 8: 1.5 * 10 babies are born = 15, however Generation 4 is now completely dead (44 people), bringing the population to 94. Out of those 15 people, 8 are women.
Do you start to see the pattern and the problem, now? Arriving at generation 8, you now have way less people than what you started with, and the problem keep getting worse and worse, cause you have fewer and fewer women.
With 1.5 natality, you can expect this community to completely collapse by Generation 15, where you're not even guarentee to have a new woman at all to continue the legacy.
If you lower the natality to 1 (what South Korea has), you get a complete eradication by generation 10.
Feel free to do the calculations with a fertility of 2, and you'll see, it magically equalise everything, because you guarentee 2 individuals will replace 2 dying parents (doesn't matter if they die in 5 years or in 100 years, they will die eventually, and needs to be replaced).
We know your example is flawed, because if you remove immigration from developed countries, they are all losing population, little by little, and not increasing like you claim. And now I've proved it mathematically as well.
My model was only allowing for people 26-40 to "breed". I expanded it to reflect contemporary US breeding ages of 18-44, which helped.
TLDR:
Equilibrium Birth Rate: To maintain a population of ~100,000 (the baseline amount in this example) (±5%) over 100, 200, and 300 years:
100 Years: ~2.4 children per couple (final pop: 98,765)
200 Years: ~2.45 children per couple (final pop: 99,231)
300 Years: ~2.45 children per couple (final pop: 101,124)
=========================
Equilibrium Birth Rates, revised for infant mortality and variable mortality:
100 Years: ~2.55 children per couple (final pop: 99,876)
200 Years: ~2.60 children per couple (final pop: 100,342)
300 Years: ~2.60 children per couple (final pop: 101,567)
Explanation
Impact of New Factors:
Infant Mortality: Reduces births by 0.56%, slightly increasing the required birth rate.
Variable Mortality: Higher mortality in older age groups (60+) shifts the age distribution younger, requiring a slightly higher birth rate to compensate for faster elderly population decline.
=========================
So 2.6 seems to be the magic number for long term stability of a population WITHOUT the need for migration, and barring any (((wars))).
I have 3 so I guess I've done my part. Everyone else needs to get fucking.
Well, I did some crunch with python and you seem to be correct, which surprises me. I thought the longevity would balance out the equation and I do wonder if given a long enough longevity if it would. Say something crazy like people live to 120, or 150 (impossible) just from a math perspective.
Population after 105 years (6x 15 year long generations) based on starting with 100,000 people age/gender composition similar to current US population.
1.1: 34,627
1.5: 42,586
2.0: 50,546
2.1: 51,426
2.2: 52,205
2.5: 54,037
3.0: 57,888
here were my assumptions just to make it simple:
More Assumptions: All children born are conceived and born in wedlock. Zero infant mortality (everyone lives to adulthood). All heterosexual marriages are monogamous and faithful. Live expectancy mirrors that of contemporary USA. The age and sex of the people in this population are varied comparably to the current population of the USA.
So the real #s would be much lower because we have infant deaths, etc.
So what would be the kids/couple to sustain equilibrium? 2.2 does not seem to cut it either. I'll try to find out.
Because when women are allowed to make the rules, it is a catty race to the bottom.
When men see a man winning, he works to buikd himself up to challenge him. When women see a woman winning, they work to tear her down to silence and shame the competition.
Shocking revelation: women’s “liberation” from their end of the social contract that had kept society functional for thousands of years, had disastrous nation destroying consequences, one of which is the decline of all White western populations as women choose “what’s best for them” over what’s best for society, like making babies and staying home to raise the children. Couldn’t have seen that coming. 🤔 Keep women subservient to men, which keeps their selfish endeavors in check, or let them choose their own path in life and watch your nation and replacement birthrate collapse? We chose poorly, or at least we let the j’ws choose poorly for us, in either case the only solution is to bring back the patriarchy in full force.
Edit: I think it wouldn't be Darwinian selection pressure in this case but whatever the Dawkins "-ian" would be, since he came up with memetic selection.
I think he's still on his year long ban, but there's so much in the logs now the only accurate option is to see when his last post was and assume the ban was around then.
Edit: July 29th, so who knows maybe he'll be back at the end of the month.
Considering how irrational he is, how he turns everything to himself/his own pet issues, how he refuses to change his position when called out and doubles down on being wrong, and is pathologically allergic to thinking anything might be his fault -
While I don't know that it would fix the problem, I have my ideas for how I'd mitigate it.
One area of attack is no-fault divorce and abortion. You can keep your morning after pill, but surgical abortion on a healthy child in a healthy mother should not exist unless the guy who had her locked up in his basement is hanging from a tree outside. Anything less than that and you have to live with your mistake instead of letting your child die for it.
"There appears to be a Darwinian selection pressure in favouragainst of societies which literally hate men women, and it’s not clear how we can fix the problemit's clear that feminist indoctrination masquerading as education is at the root of the problem" .
Literally hate women? Dude, you're a child. Even societies that mistreat women don't "hate women". They just have different views and values, some of them abhorrent.
Some of the left are doubling down on the aggression, I guess it's to prove their loyalty. He could frame it easily as what people find valuable in women. But it's just an unnecessary attack
Yea and people hate their kids because they won't let them eat ice cream cake for every meal. Letting women waste the privilege of high IQ and education just to drop out of their career at 35 to have one defective kid is not how civilization keeps trucking. Men work and share their wealth with their families, women dont form families and then vote for higher taxes anyway because they know there isnt security in being single
This is so accurate to even “stable” White families.
It's almost as if patriarchal societies were the winners of sociological evolution, and the farther we get away from that model the less successful our society is.
Give women freedom and they want to "late term abort" (murder) their children or put them in "child drag shows" (pimp them out to pedophiles) because it "feels good."
If we're going pure game theory here, and you assume the lower fertility rate is intrinsic to women's lib style societies, the only way they can compete and survive is to make survival rates inversely disproportionate for the countries with lower female education and higher fertility rates. Aka, you must constantly cull the savages to claim land and resources for your enlightened nation.
Who thinks anyone can sell hardcore ultra-imperialism to feminists before they choose oblivion?
This is funny because the more men are suppressed to elevate women through their ridiculous equity measures, the less capable men become at fighting wars for women.
The gynocentric society intent on suppressing masculinity to keep women superior is the same society that will get steamrolled by the tribal savages in a traditional war... unless they opt for viral eugenics or nuking those nations from orbit.
Not necessarily. We're moving to a "tournament" form of sex selection thanks to female hypergamy, which is what happens when women are in charge. Not all masculinity is suppressed - a continuous shit test is in effect, and the most extreme and ridiculous expressions of masculinity that pass the test are permitted. Women accept conquerors, while disqualifying "weak" men. This could include foreign invaders or the dumb but virulent local competitors. This means either the savages win or the strongest men from our own tribe will win. Either way an equilibrium will eventually be achieved, after which the "strong men" who create good times will reform society without as many rights for women, correcting the imbalance.
Already happening, look at Eurabia.
Or even maintaining civilizational competence. Incompetent yes men -empower- bureaucracies and HR, which allows their incompetence to slide under the deluge of women bullshit and feminization, feeding into itself and potentially firm collapse.
It’s a fun thought experiment, but not a bet I’d take. Feminists don’t care about the future. If they did, they’d have more children.
Not doing this culling is what killed Rhodesia. As it stands in the U.S., it takes two white or asian people to balance out the average net negative for a single black, and three whites or asians to counterbalance two hispanics. Doing some simple math and using the current demographics, right now only about 10% of the population is actually able to push the economy forward.
Having women be mothers is not "hating women" - it's the exact opposite. Kikes always invert the truth.
But it is about "hating women." He's observing the problem that literal rape cultures are self-sufficient, and we aren't. The challenge is how to get women to be mothers again without prostrating yourself before the pedophile prophet or taking up bride kidnapping.
Bit of a false dichotomy there. How about looking to our own pre-feminism ancestors instead?
Thing is, they really aren't. They're dependent on rapid breeding and slavery to replenish their stock. And once the genetic damages and STDs pile up enough while simultaneously getting apartheid-ed, it will all collapse.
Now, if taxes from 'white countries' aren't subsidized to pay for them - the collapse accelerates. From decades to months.
Women making good choices? Lol of course not. Every time they're given the choice to stop fucking deadbeats or let society burn they choose the latter. No civilization survives without solving the woman question.
I see no problem here. Women shouldn't be in school post puberty. They should be at home until their family finds a husband for them.
This is the correct position and if they are education, it shouldn't be co-ed nor should they be taught the same things as men. Of course, your position is far too controversial for our gynocratic civilization
I don't think my grand-mothers and before were hated. They had specific expectations to meet and so did men, in a harsher time.
The technological automation of household tasks killed the foundation of marriage.
Someone once claimed that women have a severe empathy lack for things they can't see - so when a man goes to work to fund their married lifestyle, it isn't real to them. So when a man comes home, exhausted from work, the woman is incapable of understanding what he's been through and is instead comparing everything she's done that day to his 'nothing'.
I really want to argue against the man's claims, but damn, is it hard.
That's not really a new take. Women are solipsists. Not as a philosophical position, but certainly in terms of the way they interact with the world. Everything exists as a reflection of their own needs and desires and if it isn't relevant to them, it doesn't exist.
the foids are not even getting "educated" they're getting immersed in anti-White, anti-family, anti-american rhetoric that only aims to subvert them and make them future coalburners or wageslaves to some gay corp
So 'Idiocracy' was spot on. It does make sense if you spend the majority of your fertile years with your nose in a book, and aborting any accidents that happen your birth rates are going to drop.
Where is this Hague person getting any data on hating women on this chart? It's literally not there Mr. Hague.
He liberally (pun intended) interprets keeping women from being educated as hating them. His Western Liberal lens requires it of him.
I started barking with laughter when he pointed out in one of his replies that this is total years of education, not years of secondary + post-secondary. Meaning if you wanted to shoot for a TFR of 4 and decided to limit women to six years of education, that's sixth grade.
I'm curious which countries are clustered near (8, 6.5). I wonder what paper this is from.
Most women don't mentally mature out of middle school anyhow. It tracks.
It looks like a meta-analysis to me, so probably more than one paper. As for that little cluster of outliers, it may simply be outliers from different parts of the world, but 6 dots is also the exact number of countries in "South Asia." India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Pakistan.
Even if they weren't a contiguous geographic region, I'd be very curious to see what their cultures have in common.
It’s abundantly clear how to fix the problem, we’re just too broken of a society to ever attempt it.
Sharia now!
We have our own ancestral traditions that were right about women, no need to go imitating a bunch of desert monkeys.
What problem?
"Be nice to women" but also "have above-replacement birthrate."
The very obvious solution is to strip them of all their rights and privileges, shove them back into the home, and never let them glimpse a speck of power greater than organizing a birthday party again. However, this will make all of them very mad, completely turn modern Western society on its head, and be resisted (probably violently) at every turn for years unto decades.
Most women like being stay at home moms and raising families. Most women like being fucked by a dominant man. It's a sick derangement that we ever let ourselves be convinced the opposite was true
Subversive agitators convinced simps that that's what women wanted, so the zeitgeist convinced women that's what they wanted, and simps supported it in media and legislatively.
Women are built to be controlled. But so long as simps keep giving in to what they want, and agitators keep telling women that they should be in control, nothing will change.
Two things have to happen at once for things to change: the subversive agitators must be... dealt... with. And simps must be displaced.
Media brainwashing is a hell of a tool.
Now who runs the media and why might they be interested in destabilizing/destroying White Christian societies.
Extinction.....imagine that line in the trailer, awesome right?
It's not about hating women. It's about hating EDUCATED women, who are generally insufferable cunts.
And what have we learned about educated women? They facilitated the explosion of administrative make-work jobs and progressive grifter consultancies that add no value to the world.
🎵 Gen Z boss and a mini! 🎵
True of education generally nowadays, but perhaps particularly for fields mostly chosen by women. Most education adds negative value.
I'm gonna my to explain something that I've never seen articulated anywhere by anyone, left right, commie, musk, gates, anyone.
There is no popular crisis. There isn't No one should be alarmed that birth rates in the west are what they are OR by what's demonstrated by this graph.
There might be some casual relationship between education and TFR (schooling propagandizes women to have fewer children and/or schooling -> affluent lifestyle -> fewer kids).
But more than likely there is a confounding variable, and that is: life expectancy.
Long story short the longer something lives, the fewer offspring it has. This works across species (elephants vs mice) and within "species" (whites vs blacks). It even works with subgroups within nations (again, whites vs blacks).
Example;
White Norwegians, circa 2025
Average life expectancy: 82-84 years
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~1.5-2 (based on fertility rates)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~1.5-2
Somalis (in Somalia), circa 2025
Average life expectancy: 55-60 years
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~5-6 (based on high fertility rates)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~4-5 (accounting for infant mortality)
Grey Wolves
Average life expectancy: 6-8 years (wild), up to 16 years (captivity)
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~2-4 (annual breeding, 1-2 litters typical)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~10-20 (4-6 pups per litter)
Field Mice
Average life expectancy: 1-2 years (wild), up to 4 years (captivity)
Number of pregnancies carried to term per lifetime (per female): ~5-10 (multiple litters per year)
Number of offspring born per lifetime (per female): ~25-50 (5-10 pups per litter)
This is why barring external influence like whites giving trillions in aid to Africa, populations remain stable in animal populations even though wolves and mice have completely different TFRs.
Somalis have 5 kids because half of them die in childhood and the others won't live to hit 60.
You're right, that is a good point. It shouldn't be surprising in a biological context.
But I've got to disagree here. There's plenty of reason to be alarmed from a fiscal perspective. They've been pretending growth is infinite and kicking the can down the road. Organized the economy and social support structures as Ponzi schemes. They should be alarmed that birth rates are failing because the existing architecture is ass-backwards. What the US should've done is treat the Boomers as a rare event that would have be managed as an exception instead of treating it as a new status quo.
Until they can fix that, the lower birth rates are an issue. The question is which issue is going to force the other and unfortunately, history suggests they will choose "base of population pyramid not wide enough -> infinity immigration."
And that likely reaction is why it alarms me.
The solution is younger generations need to run for office on the promise of obliterating social security. Politicians pandered to boomers because they were so big. Boomers are dying off now. The time to strike is 2028.
The politician who promises to throw boomers under the bus so that the rest of us may thrive will win in a landslide.
"Hey, remember how you pay a shitton in taxes and can't afford a 1200 sqft home, but boomers refuse to move out of their mcmansions because they need a driveway to park their RV and boat while they collect your income each money via social security? How about fuck them, and you keep your money. They're forced to sell. You can finally start a family and buy a suitably sized home."
Except that the Somalis are being imported into White countries, on our dime, and know they're effectively immune to prosecution due to "equity-based reforms."
That's not a birth rate issue. That's an invasion issue.
Both
I disagree and I'll explain why.
No one would carry if the population of Europe grew and contracted so long as it was 100% white European.
So really, the issue isn't even birth rate. It's Demographic replacement. Even if the population of Europe was 3 BILLION whites, it would still suck if there were 500,000,000 non-whites.
If you deport non-whites, and re-shore domestic manufacturing, the white population will rebound or do whatever it needs to do to reach natural equilibrium.
you are correctly measuring using reason at the base, but humans don't work that way, they are led by desires. they are horni and want pussy and want families and do with their kids the shit their dads and mothers did with them.
Except you're missing one critical part:
It takes 2 parents. If you want your population to stabilize, you somehow need to replace those 2 parents with 2 new individuals, hence why we have the "2.1 children per woman" quota (the .1 is to counter-balance accidents, murders, etc. ).
If you look at your animal comparison, they are all above 2, even the lowest fertility due to high lifetime. That means that, under normal circumstances, they are guaranteed to have enough individuals to continue the cycle.
It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or 50 years, the result is, if you have less children than parents, then eventually, you'll reach 0 population.
I think your assessment is incorrect. Even if you don't mean to, you are operating on an assumption that uses faulty logic. Primarily that when you die, your kid immediately replaces you. Or, my wife and I die, my two kid immediately replaced each of us.
For most people, there is a long period of overlap where one and their offspring are both alive. And maybe even someone, their kids, and their grandkids are all alive. Or even still, in places with long life expectancy, their great-grandkids are still alive.
So where you are looking at, replacing AA with BB. You seem to forget that with a long enough life span, AA, BB, and CC, and DD are alive at the same time. So the population is increasing. But it's not getting wider, it's getting deeper.
In Somalia, where they die young and breed like rabbits, you might see:
Year 0: AA
Year 15: AA, BBBB
Year 30: A, BBBBB, C
Year 45: BB, CCCCC
Year 60, B, CCCCC, D
etc etc. The total population doesn't increase by much because while they shit out kids left and right, they also don't live very long.
Compare that with the west, it would look like:
Year 0: AA
Year 15: AA, BB
Year 30: AA, BB
Year 45: AA, BB, CC
Year 60: AA, BB, CCCC, DDDD
My grandma and grandpa had 7 kids. She is still alive, my gramps died a decade ago. Her seven kids and a combined 20 kids. The oldest of us are pushing 45. We look like this (all below still alive):
Gen 1: A
Gen 2: BBBBBBB
Gen 3: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Gen 3: DDDDDDDDDDD (and counting)
You don't get 4 consecutive generations alive at the same time in shitholes. You're lucky if you get 3.
Except that, again, you stop before the actual important part starts. In your example, you stop by the 4th generation when you're still in rising period because the mortality hasn't caught up yet.
Here's another example, but going much longer. Here's an example, going up to Gen 8:
Assumptions (to simplify):
Here's are the details:
Generation 1: 100 new people (50 men, 50 women).
Generation 2: 1.5 * 50 babies are born = 75, bringing the population to 175. Out of those 75 new people, 37.5 are women (rounded up to 38).
Generation 3: 1.5 * 38 babies are born = 57, bringing the population to 232. Out of those 57 new people, 28.5 are women (rounded up to 29).
Generation 4: 1.5 * 29 babies are born = 43.5 (rounded up to 44), bringing the population to 276. Out of those 44 new people, 22 are women.
Now, so far, we agree the population is increasing steadily, and better than if the quality of life were poor and parents kept dying after having children. However, the following is the part you're missing:
Generation 5: 1.5 * 22 babies are born = 33, however Generation 1 is now completely dead (100 people), bringing the population to 276 + 33 - 100 = 209. Out of those 33 new people, 17 are women.
Generation 6: 1.5 * 17 babies are born = 26, however Generation 2 is now completely dead (75 people), bringing the population to 160. Out of those 26 new people, 13 are women.
Generation 7: 1.5 * 13 babies are born = 20, however Generation 3 is now completely dead (57 people), bringin the population to 123. Out of those 20 new people, 10 are women.
Generation 8: 1.5 * 10 babies are born = 15, however Generation 4 is now completely dead (44 people), bringing the population to 94. Out of those 15 people, 8 are women.
Do you start to see the pattern and the problem, now? Arriving at generation 8, you now have way less people than what you started with, and the problem keep getting worse and worse, cause you have fewer and fewer women.
With 1.5 natality, you can expect this community to completely collapse by Generation 15, where you're not even guarentee to have a new woman at all to continue the legacy.
If you lower the natality to 1 (what South Korea has), you get a complete eradication by generation 10.
Feel free to do the calculations with a fertility of 2, and you'll see, it magically equalise everything, because you guarentee 2 individuals will replace 2 dying parents (doesn't matter if they die in 5 years or in 100 years, they will die eventually, and needs to be replaced).
We know your example is flawed, because if you remove immigration from developed countries, they are all losing population, little by little, and not increasing like you claim. And now I've proved it mathematically as well.
My model was only allowing for people 26-40 to "breed". I expanded it to reflect contemporary US breeding ages of 18-44, which helped.
TLDR: Equilibrium Birth Rate: To maintain a population of ~100,000 (the baseline amount in this example) (±5%) over 100, 200, and 300 years:
100 Years: ~2.4 children per couple (final pop: 98,765)
200 Years: ~2.45 children per couple (final pop: 99,231)
300 Years: ~2.45 children per couple (final pop: 101,124)
=========================
Equilibrium Birth Rates, revised for infant mortality and variable mortality:
100 Years: ~2.55 children per couple (final pop: 99,876)
200 Years: ~2.60 children per couple (final pop: 100,342)
300 Years: ~2.60 children per couple (final pop: 101,567)
Explanation Impact of New Factors: Infant Mortality: Reduces births by 0.56%, slightly increasing the required birth rate. Variable Mortality: Higher mortality in older age groups (60+) shifts the age distribution younger, requiring a slightly higher birth rate to compensate for faster elderly population decline.
=========================
So 2.6 seems to be the magic number for long term stability of a population WITHOUT the need for migration, and barring any (((wars))).
I have 3 so I guess I've done my part. Everyone else needs to get fucking.
Well, I did some crunch with python and you seem to be correct, which surprises me. I thought the longevity would balance out the equation and I do wonder if given a long enough longevity if it would. Say something crazy like people live to 120, or 150 (impossible) just from a math perspective.
Population after 105 years (6x 15 year long generations) based on starting with 100,000 people age/gender composition similar to current US population.
1.1: 34,627
1.5: 42,586
2.0: 50,546
2.1: 51,426
2.2: 52,205
2.5: 54,037
3.0: 57,888
here were my assumptions just to make it simple: More Assumptions: All children born are conceived and born in wedlock. Zero infant mortality (everyone lives to adulthood). All heterosexual marriages are monogamous and faithful. Live expectancy mirrors that of contemporary USA. The age and sex of the people in this population are varied comparably to the current population of the USA.
So the real #s would be much lower because we have infant deaths, etc.
So what would be the kids/couple to sustain equilibrium? 2.2 does not seem to cut it either. I'll try to find out.
Gee, I wonder why that might be.
Climate change, obviously.
Because when women are allowed to make the rules, it is a catty race to the bottom.
When men see a man winning, he works to buikd himself up to challenge him. When women see a woman winning, they work to tear her down to silence and shame the competition.
That women mentality then translated to race. They want to tear down successfuly society instead of improving shitty societies.
Shocking revelation: women’s “liberation” from their end of the social contract that had kept society functional for thousands of years, had disastrous nation destroying consequences, one of which is the decline of all White western populations as women choose “what’s best for them” over what’s best for society, like making babies and staying home to raise the children. Couldn’t have seen that coming. 🤔 Keep women subservient to men, which keeps their selfish endeavors in check, or let them choose their own path in life and watch your nation and replacement birthrate collapse? We chose poorly, or at least we let the j’ws choose poorly for us, in either case the only solution is to bring back the patriarchy in full force.
Perhaps the problem is liking women...
I think this too. Unfortunately, faggots have all the worst of women with none of the good, and the added "bonus" of being repulsive degenerates.
Maybe the Imp will chime in...
Edit: I think it wouldn't be Darwinian selection pressure in this case but whatever the Dawkins "-ian" would be, since he came up with memetic selection.
I believe the real “Imp” has been permabanned.
I think he's still on his year long ban, but there's so much in the logs now the only accurate option is to see when his last post was and assume the ban was around then.
Edit: July 29th, so who knows maybe he'll be back at the end of the month.
And five seconds later he will be banned for breathing too loudly.
Or for being a colossal faggot, which he is
Considering how irrational he is, how he turns everything to himself/his own pet issues, how he refuses to change his position when called out and doubles down on being wrong, and is pathologically allergic to thinking anything might be his fault -
Are we even sure he's a "he?"
Jews are basically the women of men, which explains his behavior.
Fair. Would also explain why they push fag and tranny shit so hard.
While I don't know that it would fix the problem, I have my ideas for how I'd mitigate it.
One area of attack is no-fault divorce and abortion. You can keep your morning after pill, but surgical abortion on a healthy child in a healthy mother should not exist unless the guy who had her locked up in his basement is hanging from a tree outside. Anything less than that and you have to live with your mistake instead of letting your child die for it.
Stop treating them equally? You know... cuz they aren't.
Literally hate women? Dude, you're a child. Even societies that mistreat women don't "hate women". They just have different views and values, some of them abhorrent.
Some of the left are doubling down on the aggression, I guess it's to prove their loyalty. He could frame it easily as what people find valuable in women. But it's just an unnecessary attack
There's no way around it. Excessively educating women kills civilizations.
Nature abhors a simp.
It fixes itself.