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?
What’s wrong with this picture?
The boys are refusing to become men.
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.
The most important job in the history of the world is making and raising better people for the world. You can’t really top that for a purpose, the gift of Life. Ancient societies used to worship women for this power.
It’s the most difficult job because quality is hard to ensure. It’s also vital to a better future.
And look at the Spartan women – one job they had, to make little Spartans, they had one job, and they didn’t do it. And everyone died. This is left out of the feminist propaganda.
I see other women my own age running about like headless chickens saying “I want to save the world” and I have to point out, 1. that’s impossible, 2. it isn’t a pleasant task (wouldn’t it involve mass-murdering all the evil people? the simplest thing?) and 3. surely the best one person can do is become The World to another person aka children?
As you can imagine, precisely none of this gets through.
As a rule, I don’t explain myself twice to stupid people who don’t deserve to reproduce if they can’t understand something the first time around.
The local underestimation on government record is deliberate, by appearing smaller in number, they can extract more Western resources because coping.
Africa will continue to be a problem, probably the world’s biggest demographic problem (everybody’s problem), for at least the majority of this century. Yes, century, due to demo momentum.
There is plenty of arable land and resources… and the Chinese are greedily trying to buy these up. I suggest we shift White Man’s Burden onto these Asians who want to profiteer from Africa, wash our hands of the issue once and for all. Let them sort it out, they bought a lemon with those tenants. Most illegal immigrants to Europe are able, young male workers, but Africa doesn’t have any to spare (and those are the best they have, which says something).
Africa is a much larger landmass than we’ve all been led to believe, the maps we grew up with were corrected to fit well on maps and children’s globes (for memory) and make the oceans appear proportional to their real size, as a consequence Africa has been vastly under-depicted. The NGOs have kept this lie because it’s hard to ask for money to give to an entire continent which dwarfs your own and, rightly, should be the ones supporting you instead.
So no, the Africa Problem / Calais Crisis / EU Invasion Issue is NOT going away by a long shot. It’s here to stay and even by conservative estimates, it is set to get much, much worse.
I’m not happy about this, but it’s the truth.
The UK can fit into Africa over 120 times.
You deserve a slightly better explanation so I dug this up.
…the fact that most people do not realise how much the ubiquitous Mercator projection distorts the relative sizes of countries.
A sphere cannot be represented on a flat plane without distortion, which means all map projections distort in one way or another. Some projections show areas accurately but distort distances or scales, for example; others preserve the shapes of countries but misrepresent their areas. You can read all the gory details on Wikipedia.
Gerardus Mercator’s projection, published in 1569, was immediately useful because it depicts a line of constant bearing as a straight line, which is handy for marine navigation. The drawback is that it distorts the shapes and areas of large land masses, and the distortion gets progressively worse as you get closer to the poles. (Africa looks about the same size as Greenland under the Mercator projection, for example, even though it is in fact 14 times bigger.) This was not a big problem for 16th-century sailors, of course, and the Mercator projection remains popular to this day……
Yes, I know, I’m a genius, but it’s mostly the old study of oceanography maps. It isn’t that hard, merely niche knowledge.
…An alternative and arguably more rigorous approach would be to repeat the exercise using an “equal area” projection that shows the countries’ areas correctly while minimising shape distortion. These two properties are the hardest to balance when showing the whole world on one map. I decided to rework Mr Krause’s map using Gall’s Stereographic Cylindrical Projection (1855) with two standard parallels at 45°N and 45°S. Distortions are still evident at the poles, but for most countries shape is maintained, and their areas are shown correctly. As you can see (below), the results are distinct from Mr Krause’s map. But however you look at it, his point is a good one: Africa is much bigger than it looks on most maps….
This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.
Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.
He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.
Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..
Another point I need to make;
Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.
Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that. When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’. When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?
Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.
Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind ofenvironment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.
Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.
European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group
The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.
When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.
The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)
If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.
Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).
There is no veneer specifically made for humans.
Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.
The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.
The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.
Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.
“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.
They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.
Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret
We’re below replacement in Europe, natch. I would add that the national figures include immigrant spawn, N-generation. The picture is far bleaker than this, barely 1 child. Thanks, feminism!
A contraction would be fine given the economic gloom IF we weren’t being replaced genetically.
Agree with comment;
Publicizing this information widely is a good way to promote Reaction. People don’t generally like being the victims of genocide. More people need to be woken up.
This article briefly describes Lynn’s view on what makes modern populations rise and fall. It then pro- vides a demographic analysis of what happens to modern sub-fertile high-IQ Western populations when Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (IRDS) combines with External Relaxation (ERDS, in the form of super-fertile low-IQ non-Western immigration) into Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (DRDS). The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization. DRDS is currently unopposed politically, so existing fertility differ- entials may eventually lead to Western submission or civil resistance.
Denmark’s school sex education programme has been so successful the collapsing birth rate is “approaching epidemic” levels, and children will now be taught how to successfully reproduce at school, and encouraged to have children younger to save the Danish people.
The number of Danes born every year is steadily dropping as couples have on average only 1.7 children between them, and a fifth of all couples will never have children. In 2012, only 57,916 new Danes were born, compared to more than 65,000 in 2008.
Although the total population is continuing to rise, this is because of significant immigration inflating figures, and expensive fertility treatment for older couples, which now accounts for one tenth of all born. Today, only 89 percent of Denmark’s population is considered ‘Danish’ by the Government, and over half of immigrant residents are from outside the EU.
The Danish government is concerned that if present trends continue the population will collapse and is attempting to stave off disaster by encouraging couples to have more children, younger. The new campaign in Danish schools flies in the face of previous ‘sex ed’ classes with their focus on avoiding pregnancy, as it will teach children their fertility will begin to decline in their twenties, and leaving starting a family until thirty is too late.
A spokesman for the Danish Family Planning Association said: “When you look at sex education for the oldest students, it’s largely about how not to have children, so there is a focus on prevention, the use of contraceptives and the option of abortion. That means that young people lack knowledge on fertility and pregnancy.
“That lack of knowledge can mean that people end up not having children or not having the number of children they want”.
This point was backed up by the head of a Danish fertility clinic, reportstheLocal.dk: “Up until now, our biological expiration date has been overlooked in our zeal to avoid having children when we don’t want to have them.
“On average in Denmark, we began to establish a family when we are around 30 years old. By then half of our reproduction capabilities have disappeared and that means that some people have too short of a time span to have children or have the amount of children they’d like to have”.
Denmark isn’t the only country facing a declining birth rate, although approaches to the problem do vary.
Yes, burying your head in the sand is certainly an approach.
Back in 2006 Russian President Vladimir Putin began a new programme called “Mother Russia” to reverse the declining birth rate by offering families having their second child a £22,000 ($36,000) incentive.
More recently, a valentines day concert part-organised by Putin booked American 1990’s R&B band Boyz II Men to sing their popular song ‘I’ll make love to you’ to get Russian youth in the mood. Although conception rates in Russia for Valentines day 2013 are not available, it is understood that the “Mother Russia” incentive programme has been a success.
UK is at 1.9 but I don’t trust those figures, too high, since they count anyone born here as ethnic Briton. I’d wager it’s between 1.5-1.7.
People increase in proportion to the number of marriages, and that is greater in proportion to the ease and convenience of supporting a family. When families can be easily supported, more persons marry, and earlier in life.
In cities, where all trades, occupations and offices are full, many delay marrying, till they can see how to bear the charges of a family; which charges are greater in cities, as Luxury is more common: many live single during life, and continue servants to families, journeymen to Trades, &c. hence cities do not by natural generation supply themselves with inhabitants; the deaths are more than the births.”
The great increase of Offspring in particular families is not always owing to greater fecundity of Nature, but sometimes to examples of industry in the Heads, and industrious education; by which the children are enabled to provide better for themselves, and their marrying early…
They’re catching onto dysgenic trends. It’s the RT finding we all know.
Have they tried comparing this to genetic populations a la Wade? Mass immigration/invasion distorts the results somewhat, as does poor nutrition (slightly), but intelligence is mostly genetic. And the virility of the low-IQ is presently far higher than notoriously sub-replacement Europeans, for example. Then there’s the stupidity of teachers, their average IQ as a profession is less than a substantial number of their students, who are driven down to the lowest common dominator of IQ in their class, and the political propaganda brainwashing, which actively punishes critical thinking. *brushes down hands* I think that covers most of it.