Public pensions reduce fertility

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1213215/

Socialism kills. All Marxism is anti-natal, it’s the only thing it has in common.
Hence, national socialism is fucking retarded, sorry. It doesn’t work. You can’t have a half-evil system. It makes people lazy, as we see:

A number of population scholars have asserted that social security programs such as old-age programs lead to decreased fertility levels because parents need not rely on children for “security” in old age. There is, however, a paucity of empirical data on the above. This paper analyzes 67 countries and shows that social security programs have a measurable negative effect on subsequent levels of fertility.

This might go down in history as the thing to doom the Boomers, demographically.

In fact, the social security programs appear to have as much of an independent impact on fertility as do the traditional correlates of fertility (infant mortality, education and per capita income).

Explains the sheer drop in fertility in places like Poland, and why places like Russia and China are currently bricking it.

Then you have fake Catholics like the French, fucking around and never marrying because there’s no stigma any longer. Socialism preserves a husk of civilization while hollowing out the core.

It’s popular for insecure morons to say higher education should be banned but it replaces ballrooms for the high IQ to meet one another. Education is K-select, that’s why Marxists have tried to destroy it. Would you rather they screw the local waitress and have dipshit kids? On your tax bill? Assortative mating must be enabled for a healthy, functioning society. Ban foreign students and there’s more room by far. Then you don’t have national security risks like the Chinese stealing missile data AMERICA.

College educated parents (yes, both) have higher IQ children. The right wing gets triggered over this and other facts where the universe doesn’t revolve around men (or women, but they don’t care there). As covered previously, most child IQ is inherited maternally. So we know it’s men to blame for fucking the dumb broads, who exhibit sexual selection like a leech being discerning in a blood bank. Stop fucking stupid women. At least, don’t be surprised when the kids are entitled douchebags. If your kids are stupid, and you think it isn’t you – it’s your choice of woman.

Pandemic and fertility link, apparently

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6502/370

The COVID-19 pandemic and human fertility

A picture emerges.

Published in Science. Yesterday.

i-was-right.jpeg

Why study that? Why associate the two in our minds?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic will have consequences for human populations. Worldwide, mortality levels are certainly affected. The worst-hit northern Italian provinces recorded losses of period life expectancy of 2 to 3.5 years for men and 1.1. to 2.5 years for women, the largest decline in life expectancy since the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic and World War II (1). Similar patterns follow in other countries (2). With the focus firmly on deaths, the scientific debate risks overlooking that population dynamics are also shaped by fertility trajectories. Throughout history, spikes in mortality owing to events such as wars, famines, and pandemics were followed by changes in fertility, resulting in fewer births in the short term and by recuperation in subsequent years (3).

so they’re blaming the nothing-burger ALREADY – for what the vaccine’s gonna do

obscure 1998 paper [3] does not make weak appeal to “history” relevant now
a mild historical trend refers to r-type die-off to a large degree, covered in AC’s r/k book (link here) and so greater K-selection in remaining breeding population, who were more in-group oriented and cautious – simple really

Economic and social change triggered by a pandemic

K-shift

is also likely to influence childbearing intentions and completed fertility. How the COVID-19 pandemic will affect fertility has implications for the rate of population aging, shaping future health challenges and economic growth potential across the globe.

Drivers of these medium-term rebounds are the desire of parents to replace lost children, as well as structural shifts in expectations on the survival probability of offspring. In the wake of unexpected mortality shocks, fertility may also take on a symbolic meaning, as new births become a positive reframing mechanism, signaling a return to normality.

by K-types, for K-selection again

forgive my shitty graphic

 Channels for adverse fertility effects include the increased mortality and morbidity of adults in reproductive age;

r-types

higher frequency of maternal mortality and stillbirths;

r-types

and slowdowns in conceptions, owing to fear of infections and decreased social mixing.

K-types

They always half-explain.

Peace led to a recuperation of postponed marriages and childbearing after couples reunited, as well as remarriage of war widows (78).

K-selection. War swiftly follows a decade or two later because banks are bloodthirsty. Can’t let Ks reign, culturally, might cancel them.

Europe needs an attractiveness and high IQ sperm bank in case of war.

A relationship between excess influenza deaths and a 9-month lagged depression in births was observed by Jacques Bertillon in seminal studies on the impact of the 1889 influenza outbreak on the population of France (5).

1914-1889 = 25 years

On this basis alone, one might conclude that setbacks in development, owing to negative life expectancy and income shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, will lift fertility in countries scoring below 0.85 to 0.9 in the Human Development Index but reduce fertility in highly developed countries. Increased fertility in the developing world would maintain high population growth, aggravating challenges in food production, unemployment, poverty, and public health, thus hampering economic growth and pushing back the onset of the demographic dividend. A further fertility fall in high-income countries would accelerate population aging and population decline, both of which are major policy concerns.

racial replacement

In high-income countries, expansion in women’s education has been one of the most powerful drivers behind the sustained fertility decline of recent decades.

It’s actually delayed marriage.

Marriage is just usually delayed to meet a spouse at college v. church in earlier generations.

The manosphere keeps getting this wrong.

Here, fertility is maintained through extensive outsourcing of childcare.

Due to Third World labour competition suppressing domestic wages, have done since the floodgates opened.

Women have worked since always so that isn’t it.

During the current pandemic, however, prolonged school closures and mandated physical distancing have caused an immediate return to childcare within the home. In as much as this imposes a heavier burden on parents’ time, the lockdown will result in lower desired fertility and childbearing postponements in the short term.

being a parent? yeah, you made it, you raise it

damn parental entitlement

Subsequent fertility will also be affected by the ways in which parents and couples share the additional time devoted to childcare and housework during the lockdown. Greater gender equity in the division of domestic labor would reduce the burden on women and have beneficial fertility implications (1011). The lockdown will, however, have other immediate effects on fertility. Given high maternal age in high-income countries, assisted reproductive technology (ART) is essential for many parents who want children. During the lockdown, most ART cycles were suspended or canceled altogether. The eventual reopening of fertility clinics will not easily offset lost cycles.

Nope, most white women don’t use those.

The shutdowns are resulting in large economic losses. With high-income countries set to experience the steepest fall (−6.1% in 2020 according to the International Monetary Fund, versus −1% for developing economies), millions of households will be affected. Given the irreversible nature of childbearing and the substantial costs associated with child-rearing, unemployment and lost income will necessarily reduce fertility. This was the experience of the 2008 Great Recession, when overall fertility declined, particularly in countries that had the strongest economic downturns (12). In addition, a stronger feeling of uncertainty will make couples postpone any long-term investments—children being prime examples—and therefore reduce fertility further. Coping mechanisms for dealing with uncertainty will consequently matter. There is evidence that, in periods with unexpected increases in economic uncertainty, fertility declines less in areas characterized by stronger trust and social capital (13).

so NOT multiculturalism

fertility is economic, including the social/female requirement of marriage first

most births are still best predicted by marriage

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/characteristics-of-mother-2-in-england-and-wales-2013

UK 2013 data, table 1:

live births WITHIN wedlock, all ages: 

367,618

live births OUT of wedlock, all ages:

330,894

re America

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-a-32-year-low-in-2018-cdc-says-birthrate-is-at-record-level

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage/

Reconcile. 

In low- and middle-income countries, as the economy relapses, the question is whether fertility will start to rise again, thereby reversing recent decades of fertility decline. In the demographic literature, there are two main economic explanations for high fertility. One is that poverty increases the benefits of unpaid child labor in the family while bringing down the life-long value of investment in education. The other is that high fertility offers a form of security for parents in their old age (14). However, socioeconomic development and increased rural-to-urban migration over the past decades cut the percentage of people living in rural areas to less than half. These structural changes have altered the opportunity costs of childbearing, leading to smaller-family ideals as well as greater legitimacy for modern contraception and wider accessibility to the same. Urban dwellers in large cities are more directly exposed to economic downturns: Rising unemployment and underemployment are already leading to migratory displacement and decreased purchasing power, with adverse implications for childbearing. The COVID-19 pandemic also forced family-planning centers to temporarily close or reduce their activities. The short-term effect of lost access to contraception may include an increase in unwanted pregnancies, with adverse health implications for mothers and children, as seen in the recent West African Ebola crisis (15).

Certainly, policy responses will play a central role, by determining not only the scope of the pandemic itself, but also its social and economic fallout. In contrast to the 2008 economic recession, there is, this time around, a consensus that austerity is not the answer. Yet, given the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, fertility decline seems likely, at least in high-income countries and in the short term. In low- and middle-income countries, the fertility decline observed in recent decades is unlikely to be fundamentally reversed by the pandemic. In contrast to transition economies, most sub-Saharan African countries are lagging behind in the demographic transition. Despite prospects of economic hardship and poverty, ongoing structural change will make a reversal to high fertility unlikely. For these countries, trends in international coordination and protectionism will be a key determinant for the revival of their export-led economies, thus affecting, directly and indirectly, the world’s demographics for years to come.

(international coordination)

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2020/07/15/they-want-to-sterilise-you/

demand to see the ingredients lists people, I’d wager you’ll see antifertility agents

BMJ, 2018: EU suddenly concerned public is refusing consent for vaccines.
https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1378

Cognitive ability and fertility in Swedes

aka a select population of white people.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359

We examine the relationship between cognitive ability and childbearing patterns in contemporary Sweden using administrative register data. The topic has a long history in the social sciences and has been the topic of a large number of studies, many reporting a negative gradient between intelligence and fertility. We link fertility histories to military conscription tests with intelligence scores for all Swedish men born 1951–1967. We find a positive relationship between intelligence scores and fertility, and this pattern is consistent across the cohorts we study. The relationship is most pronounced for the transition to a first child, and men with the lowest categories of IQ scores have the fewest children. Using fixed effects models, we additionally control for all factors that are shared by siblings, and after such adjustments, we find a stronger positive relationship between IQ and fertility.

Furthermore, we find a positive gradient within groups at different levels of education. Compositional differences of this kind are therefore not responsible for the positive gradient we observe—instead, the relationship is even stronger after controlling for both educational careers and parental background factors. In our models where we compare brothers to one another, we find that, relative to men with IQ 100, the group with the lowest category of cognitive ability have 0.56 fewer children, and men with the highest category have 0.09 more children.

There are a lot of new readers who don’t seem to know how I roll.

  1. I am right.
  2. When in doubt, see rule one.

My assumptions have statistical backing. Read up or FO.

Oh, look, it’s the military! [coughs in K-type]

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eugenic-economy/

My brain doesn’t instantly become thick because you dislike an opinion it produces.

If you’re not smart enough to know what’s science, what’s speculative and what’s satire, go elsewhere.

I’ve spent years proving myself on here, with a variety of good predictions (the refugee crisis, African demographics, Brexit, Trump etc). Your incredulity is not required.

Non-white births down in America

The sky isn’t falling you fecking idjits.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

[Marriage is also a factor. Unmarried women don’t want a baby.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/no-ring-no-baby ]

I am shook. Women don’t wanna be lumbered with the baby of a man who doesn’t care enough to be a husband and father?* They aren’t attracted to feckless manchilds?

Those bitches!

“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”

FEATURE

NOT. A. BUG.

Chart for the lazy people:

Look at the actual data before whining.

That’s called a selection pressure, children.

Men won’t marry? Women won’t breed.

Who wins? [women, their relatives breed]

But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women.

Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist”

Telling them to be breeding sows isn’t?

Hey, what exactly are they claiming these women should do?

Get back in the maternity ward? Pump out future Dem voters?

*If you really “care” (virtue signal) about Western birth rates, Chicken Littles of the internet, ask MGTOW why they’re complaining about the birth rate but not marrying. You don’t get to complain if you’re causing the ‘problem’.

https://www.rt.com/usa/us-white-births-census-613/

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage/

A problem you cause is a CHOICE.

[GDP will go up in a generation with fewer lower IQ drains on its system.]

Other data article:

For the lazy:

“That is, most long-run change in fertility can be accounted for by changes in the marital composition of society.”

Marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

HALF OR MORE.

Meanwhile, student loans must be written off if you care about IQ.

“It’s possible that debt may also reduce fertility, independently of marriage. Some studies do show that student debt has a strong effect on delaying fertility. The economic rationale is simple: having and raising children costs money, and student debt gobbles up a share of income right off the top of the budget. Crucially, even income-based repayment doesn’t fix this, as it resets with higher incomes: a debtor can’t earn their way out. As income rises, so do debt payments. At some high threshold, of course, the debtor can exceed the required payments and can advance the date of final repayment, but the point is that student loans, no matter how they are structured, divert money that might have gone towards planning for a child. It’s even possible that student loans delay marriage because they cause debtors to change their childbearing anticipations: maybe debtors realize they won’t be able to afford a child for a long time, and so they postpone marriage until they are (financially) ready for a child.”

Men can’t afford to marry, have kids unless loans are much lower.

Loan control would be a conservative policy, boosting high IQ fertility.

More babies being born are born to high IQ, educated parents.

Again, actual data.

“Finances, and student debt, specifically, aren’t the only reason for delayed marriage. Most unmarried people who want to get married say either that they are too young and unready for marriage, or else they haven’t found the right person. It may be that part of the problem is the decline in “marriageable men.” At the metro area level, the imbalance in sex ratios can sometimes be enormous.”

“The simple fact of the matter is that marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

ACTUAL. DATA.

Women want to have kids, it’s the mens’ fault.

“Combined, it turns out that a combination of marital status, age, and fertility ideals is a pretty good predictor of individual-level fertility. In other words, marital status serves as a circuit-breaker on fertility aims: married people get close to achieving their aims, while never-married people generally don’t.”
“But one vital driver of birth rates is marriage. And as long as the average age of first marriage rises and the number of prime childbearing years the average woman spends married falls, we can expect to see fertility linger at low levels. Therefore, any policy supporting childbirth—however generous it may be—that does not also somehow impact marriage trends is unlikely to boost long-term fertility.”

It isn’t women’s fault they won’t man up.

The data is loud and clear.

White bachelor men are cucking themselves.

Inter-racial fertility

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00521.x

“Alternatively, opposition to the relationship from the couple’s family and friends may reduce fertility.”
Nice excuse, shame fertility is biological.

“Interracial and interethnic partnering do not affect fertility for cohabiting, Black‐White, Mexican‐White, and Puerto Rican‐White intermarried couples, but it does reduce fertility in Chinese‐White and Asian Indian‐White intermarriages.”

So much for your Eurasian master race, eh?

Does their atheism have anything to do with this?

Or should that be….

Take comfort in the fact there will be more half-black kids for your half-Asian kids to date!

Hybrid vigour, right goys?

Turley troopers

WHITE PILL POSTING.

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/

Attending church isn’t mandatory for faith. The disciples didn’t even do it. Plenty of attendees have no faith and don’t practice. They’re drunks, fornicators, adulterers and blasphemers.

Practice isn’t measured by how you spend a Sunday. And what is work? And what if your work is helping others? Jews consider using a light switch work. Is cooking? Food shopping? Cleaning? Driving? Using a door key?

You’re a Christian the whole week! Or not!

And what if the Lord made you nocturnal? Or you need to work weekends for overtime to feed family? This isn’t the Middle Ages, the Industrial Revolution screwed over our timings for church. Now we all have different schedules. Does reading the Bible not count as observance? What if the preacher isn’t using the Bible in good faith? What if all the local places are co-opted?

It’s just the Papacy that wanted to increase “donations” (that shouldn’t be tax-free, frankly).
There was a big social push to get weekly attendance. Because God said “rest” and that obviously implied “go out of your way to listen to people who just want to empty your wallet”.
Sitting in a pew won’t magically cleanse you. Priests don’t forgive, that’s God’s job.

I will whore for Patreon this once:

A new conservative age is rising in Western Europe! Support me on PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/drsteveturley

Death is genetic

Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.

We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-are-programmed-to-die-early-and-thats-a-good-thing

If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?

“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”

Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.

They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.

Sexual competition.

In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.

Empires rise with K, die with r.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/rk-is-timeless/

“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”

READ DARWIN.

“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”

Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.

Nature is nationalist.

“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘

MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.

“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”

The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.

For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).

How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.

Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

Paper: The population cycle drives human history

http://www.v-weiss.de/cycle.html

No, it’s an actual paper.

The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.

…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.

I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5

These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….

cool mocking shades yes peace

#mike drop#

…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….

Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.

This says it all:

When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.

And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.

If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.

Over to John Stuart Mill;

“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”

Link: London teachers encouraging teen pregnancy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278061/Schools-start-telling-pupils-children-early-possible.html

It might be to make work for themselves.
It might be demographic.
Maybe they noticed they need more liberals to recruit or push into Higher Ed.

Notice the blame here? Notice the stupidity masquerading as sense?

Logically, let’s backtrack this.

Old enough to support it. Well, as Captain Capitalism has mentioned, the economic system is calculated against fertility, it is anti-natal and has been making women barren, because the time it takes for them to support a child eats into their reproductive window (as does education, which goes unmentioned).

Okay, so a woman needs support.
Gee, whose responsibility is that?
Let’s look to child health. They’re healthier with married parents. Better outcomes all around. Better citizens for society, less crime, better health and happiness.

So the woman needs to be a wife to have children young.

What needs to happen before this is possible?

...Anyone?

Any guesses?

What’s wrong with this picture?

The boys are refusing to become men.

tyra take responsibility

They are acting like men but refusing to man up to the consequences they caused.

Boys need to stop having children they have no intention of supporting out of wedlock, expecting the state to pick up the expense. They should choose a wife and marry young. That is the male choice.

Yet these teachers, they’re foisting the burden on women, despite how older fathers are behind the rise in retarded children (look it up, damaged sperm and probability of psychiatric conditions).
Instead of telling the boys to stop fucking around, they’re pushing the responsibility of commitment on the girls, knowing the girls have no power to influence this outcome (it’s a decision that falls to the male) and knowing full well they’ll end up a burden on the State – and wouldn’t you know it, the State Education System!

p.s. the natural process of reproduction will never be removed from sex, it’s a myth; if you’re old enough for the responsibility of sex, you’re old enough to have a child. On the flipside, if you’re having a child because you’re expected to, or for external gain, abort the poor child and do them a favour, you’d be an awful parent.

p.p.s. I would not want a child with the economy about to tank, but that’s just me. A tiny dependent infant in a low income household with high time preference is practically the worst position I can think of in a zombie apocalypse.

p.p.p.s. We’re all parents, financially speaking. Our taxes are all paying for children. They aren’t our children. We’re tax-pumped cuckolds. That’s why we can’t afford our own children.