Post: #1

I've begun studying the decline of once-affluent and powerful societies and the themes of increased hedonism and decreasing birthrates always seem to operate in tandem during declines. This seems a bit paradoxical to me, because if people are having increased amounts of hedonistic sex, wouldn't birthrates have increased? (note: I understand that this relates to the current situation in the west, but this paradox can be reconciled due to the presence of modern-day birth control methods).

Post: #2

The pullout method has always been very effective, so no not really paradoxical.

Post: #3

Having children inhibits the ability to engage in hedonistic behavior. No longer can you go out to the clubs and bang random people if you got a kid at home.

People have the foresight to realize this, so they use various forms of birth control. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Post: #4

Hedonism may select for humans resistant to it.

Post: #5

What Seth said, couples don't want to "settle down" and have kids, plus the more partners women have, the less they are able to stay in LTRs.

Post: #6

Simple - hedonism in the past did create higher conception rates.
Romans for example wiped out a herb that induced abortions. In addition slave girls certainly bore their children, but those were not citizens of the old sort.
In Europe in the 1890s in Paris as well as in the 1920s across Western Europe when the globalists field-tested promiscuity it resulted in a huge number of children born. The orphanages were filled to the brim, since this was before the pill, reliable state-sponsored abortions and before single-mother-financial-support and child-support-protection-money. By the way - UK royals had royal abortionists in their employment since both men and women had numerous affairs after the births of the main progeny.

So in short - hedonism was usually accompanied with more children, but when those are not born in stable marriages, then it won't help much.

Post: #7

Developed nation = expensive lifetime commitment to children

Undeveloped = kids to support the family

Consider that half the time in developed nations men lose the right to see their kids (but are still required to pay to raise them). No brainer. Don’t have kids.

Women going to school and having careers. Oh I’ll get fat and stretch marks? It hurts too? Hmm maybe a toy dog or two I can snuggle...

Ever see the movie idiocracry where only stupid losers have kids. In the future everyone is a total moron. They can’t even water crops.

Brown people still having kids in USA. In 50 years your typical American will be Hispanic. What no beans??

Post: #8

(02-02-2018 02:52 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  In Europe in the 1890s in Paris as well as in the 1920s across Western Europe when the globalists field-tested promiscuity it resulted in a huge number of children born.

Do you have info that you could link on this?

Post: #9

I'd say it's because of an affluent society and less need for children. In the past when everything was agrarian, kids could start working at age 6 on the family farm and contribute to the family economy. Now it takes 3-4 times that long before they're independent from their parents, and the parents don't get any return on their investment. Economically, children have become net burdens rather than assets.

With the ability to save up wealth and receive social security and pensions, parents don't need their kids' help in their old age anymore. Whereas in times past, they might not have been able to continue running the family farm in their old age, so they'd need someone to take care of them.

The whole notion of "children are a blessing" can only survive for so long when its economic underpinnings are pulled out from under it. Then you're left with no rationale for having kids, leading to hedonism and low birthrates.

Post: #10

(02-07-2018 10:16 PM)Conquistador Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:52 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  In Europe in the 1890s in Paris as well as in the 1920s across Western Europe when the globalists field-tested promiscuity it resulted in a huge number of children born.

Do you have info that you could link on this?

I have heard it from Alan Watt who went through various books and even newspaper articles back then:

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

You can research the sexual liberation movement in Paris as well as what has been happening in some Western cities in the 1920s. There was a marked boost in orphans soon afterwards.

Post: #11

What people also forget is that before we called it abortion, it was called infanticide.

We do have increased birth rates in our hedonistic society, but women just abort them. In the old days, they would just leave the baby out in the wild to die and get eaten by wild animals.

Orphanages were created by Christians as an act of mercy, as a response to Roman decadent values, but even Orphanages had appalling death rates of children nor could they keep up with more than probably 10-30% of bastards produced. Most bastards were just left to die.

We've removed a lot of the messier aspects of infanticide by killing the fetus in the womb with modern medicine, but make no mistake if a woman and man is cold enough to have an abortion they are also perfectly capable of abandoning a child just as men and women have done for thousands of years.

Post: #12

(02-09-2018 10:21 AM)Samseau Wrote:  What people also forget is that before we called it abortion, it was called infanticide.

We do have increased birth rates in our hedonistic society, but women just abort them. In the old days, they would just leave the baby out in the wild to die and get eaten by wild animals.

Orphanages were created by Christians as an act of mercy, as a response to Roman decadent values, but even Orphanages had appalling death rates of children nor could they keep up with more than probably 10-30% of bastards produced. Most bastards were just left to die.

We've removed a lot of the messier aspects of infanticide by killing the fetus in the womb with modern medicine, but make no mistake if a woman and man is cold enough to have an abortion they are also perfectly capable of abandoning a child just as men and women have done for thousands of years.

Nice response.

Post: #13

(02-07-2018 11:16 PM)BlueMark Wrote:  children have become net burdens rather than assets.

Ding, ding, ding. Add to this the expectation that every child acquire a 4 year degree (with tuition having long ascended into the stratosphere) otherwise you're a failed parent.

To those who actually do the math (most don't) they treat the decision like being in a position to buy a luxury item like a Ferrari or a yacht.

Post: #14

/\ Children are a net burden?
Not in the developing world, in the Muslim community or among the social welfare classes of Western society.

Post: #15

(02-15-2018 05:28 AM)amity Wrote:  /\ Children are a net burden?
Not in the developing world, in the Muslim community or among the social welfare classes of Western society.

To the lower classes they are a net gain, since they have more money after they are born. To the middle and upper-middle classes they are a financial net loss.

The welfare society fosters idiocracy.

Post: #16

Anonymous Conservative covers this apparent contradiction in his book on r/K theory.

Essentially, the r-type society either aborts (as Samseau said) or uses prophylactics to avoid the offspring all together. Think about all the times you've "dumpster dived" - not in looks necessarily, but in personality - and used a condom. You weren't taking the sex seriously, and if the dumb bitch had gotten pregnant you wouldn't have been invested in the offspring (nor would she). Using a condom is saying from the get go "This one isn't serious, she's just trash to get my rocks off with."

So although we're inundated with r-type mating patterns, they tend to be non formative. Without birth control, we'd have a slew of bastards wandering around... or we'd be forced to be more responsible with our decision making.

Post: #17

Children are not really a net gain or a net loss. Thinking of it in financial terms is wrong. Children are a continuation of a legacy that you otherwise wouldn't have. There's nothing that will replace your offspring.

There are no luxury items, adopted black babies, no amount of cats, or life goals to replace that.

That's the problem with modernity there are a myriad of personal distractions and self delusions to keep that realization at bay. For society as a whole not having kids is actually detrimental as we've seen low IQ primitives will generally out breed high IQ naval gazers.

For women it is directly counter to their biological programming and for women in the west by the time they realize that it's usually too late. Women who don't reproduce and live into middle age quite literally go insane as we've witnessed with vast amounts of supporting evidence.

Post: #18

(02-15-2018 02:26 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Anonymous Conservative covers this apparent contradiction in his book on r/K theory.

Essentially, the r-type society either aborts (as Samseau said) or uses prophylactics to avoid the offspring all together. Think about all the times you've "dumpster dived" - not in looks necessarily, but in personality - and used a condom. You weren't taking the sex seriously, and if the dumb bitch had gotten pregnant you wouldn't have been invested in the offspring (nor would she). Using a condom is saying from the get go "This one isn't serious, she's just trash to get my rocks off with."

So although we're inundated with r-type mating patterns, they tend to be non formative. Without birth control, we'd have a slew of bastards wandering around... or we'd be forced to be more responsible with our decision making.

R-type matings do not abort all the time - the legion of low-IQ single mothers do not err. In addition you have Muslims who have essentially managed to mate r-selected while having seemingly k-selected patterns. The way they do it is by inbreeding at levels from 25-75% depending on each country - the majority around 50%. If you add fasting of pregnant women during Ramadan and chronic vitamin D deficiency, then you have other r-selected points. Essentially all those breeding patterns do create a more r-selected society.

Most sex is non-formative - that does not prove anything.

Post: #19

(02-15-2018 02:43 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Children are not really a net gain or a net loss. Thinking of it in financial terms is wrong. Children are a continuation of a legacy that you otherwise wouldn't have. There's nothing that will replace your offspring.

There are no luxury items, adopted black babies, no amount of cats, or life goals to replace that.

That's the problem with modernity there are a myriad of personal distractions and self delusions to keep that realization at bay. For society as a whole not having kids is actually detrimental as we've seen low IQ primitives will generally out breed high IQ naval gazers.

For women it is directly counter to their biological programming and for women in the west by the time they realize that it's usually too late. Women who don't reproduce and live into middle age quite literally go insane as we've witnessed with vast amounts of supporting evidence.

You're right, in that children *should* be viewed as a legacy. But most people don't think like that. Most people (both men and women) just do what society tells them to do, or follow economic incentives. They don't think about what they are doing with the time they have, what they will leave behind, etc. That's why the economic factors are such a big driver of both high and low birthrates, and why even in a country that is both modern and relatively traditional and parents still push their kids toward marriage and family (e.g. Japan or Korea), birth rates are lower now than several decades ago.

Post: #20

(02-15-2018 02:45 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 02:26 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Anonymous Conservative covers this apparent contradiction in his book on r/K theory.

Essentially, the r-type society either aborts (as Samseau said) or uses prophylactics to avoid the offspring all together. Think about all the times you've "dumpster dived" - not in looks necessarily, but in personality - and used a condom. You weren't taking the sex seriously, and if the dumb bitch had gotten pregnant you wouldn't have been invested in the offspring (nor would she). Using a condom is saying from the get go "This one isn't serious, she's just trash to get my rocks off with."

So although we're inundated with r-type mating patterns, they tend to be non formative. Without birth control, we'd have a slew of bastards wandering around... or we'd be forced to be more responsible with our decision making.

R-type matings do not abort all the time - the legion of low-IQ single mothers do not err. In addition you have Muslims who have essentially managed to mate r-selected while having seemingly k-selected patterns. The way they do it is by inbreeding at levels from 25-75% depending on each country - the majority around 50%. If you add fasting of pregnant women during Ramadan and chronic vitamin D deficiency, then you have other r-selected points. Essentially all those breeding patterns do create a more r-selected society.

Most sex is non-formative - that does not prove anything.

Do you think this rampant inbreeding is going to result in a genetic meltdown of some sort?

Inbreeding is not without consequences.

Post: #21

< All Muslim societies resulted in a deterioration of their genetic stock. That is why they could not hold on to the powers. The original Arabs were great warriors, then they settled and inbreeding destroyed them. They did the same to the conquered Persia. The Ottomans were also initially mercenaries and could easily best the more inbred Arabs dominating the entire Muslim world. Later they kept on to the power by capturing both female European slaves as well as male European slave soldiers. Those Janissars were even better administrators - they were raised to be 100% Turkish in mentality just without the inbreeding.

Inbreeding is also something that can be cleared up (if it's not too destructive) within 1-3 generations. There are reports that the initial Eastern European, Russian Jews coming to the US had an IQ of under 100. But that instantly jumped over 15 points within 1-2 generations as those Jews suddenly had a much much larger breeding stock than in their rural villages in the Russian countryside.

In theory most of the Muslim world could boost their IQ by 10 points if they stopped all their idiotic practices. But of course they are not going since it's been made halal by Islam.

Post: #22

(03-19-2018 07:10 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Do you think this rampant inbreeding is going to result in a genetic meltdown of some sort?
Inbreeding is not without consequences.