/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15758296
Fertility rates will almost certainly have a rebound. Natural selection virtually guarantees this. IN the modern world, people have roughly about as many children as they want to have. What we're seeing now is a purge of people with a weak instinct to reproduce,. "Breeders" with a strong instinct to have many biological children are growing exponentially, and will become a larger and larger fraction of the population as time goes on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0

Fertility rates will almost certainly have a rebound in the long run.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0

>>15344539
>muh fertility collapse
Fertility rates will almost certainly rebound in the long run.


https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0

>>15320251
>What we need is a cultural shift that makes it so that having children is universally desirable.
You don't need a cultural shift to do this. People with a weak instinct to reproduce are being weeded out of the gene pool. Eventually we will get to the point where almost everyone has a strong instinct to reproduce.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0

>>14716897
>the global population will start to trend downwards. impoverish nations with high birth rates are getting less poor by the day, as long as we continue to help them their birth rates will slow just as the ones in europe/north america have.
You are completely ignoring the fact that selection pressure exists. The sorts of people who aren't reproducing in the modern environment are being weeded out of the gene pool, and we are undergoing strong selection pressure for "breeders" with a strong instinctive drive to reproduce as much as possible. Religious fundamentalists with high fertility rates like the Amish will also grow exponentially.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2021/09/the-insular-fertile-future.html

>>14547849
And how exactly do you know this?

>>12672559
>migrants are the ones heaviy driving population growth
t. didn't even read the article. The fact that migrants are driving population growth now doesn't refute anything in the article. The point is that natural selection will weed the people who aren't breeding out of the gene pool, and fertility rates will probably rise again in the future.

>>12672575
>As I pointed out in the previous post in this series, there were huge economic incentives to have large families before the Malthusian transition. Since the economically rational thing to do was to have lots and lots of children, there much have been little, if any, selection for fertility per se. If anything, sooner the converse. Families that had more children than they could support suffered higher death rates for their lack of discipline. Meanwhile, the genetic competitiveness that committed and affluent “breeders” gained was limited by the fact that overall cultural norms were highly pro-natal, which limited their ability to eke out a relative advantage. Moreover, since higher IQ tends to be correlated with both greater economic success and lower desired fertility, these rich genotypic breeders must have been quite rare anyway. Hence, in the pre-industrial Malthusian world, there would have been an equilibrium in which breeders only ever constituted a small share of the population.

>When these Malthusian constraints fell away at around the time of the Industrial Revolution, along with the loosening of traditionalist pro-natality mores (have as many children as you can support and no more), the evolutionary underpinnings of the old equilibrium likewise crumbled away. However, since in most populations breeders are not yet a high percentage of the population, at first – i.e. the first century or so – this only had very modest effects, because there were very few breeders at t=0.

>>12567530
>>12567533
>>12567546
Whites and East Asians will have a breeder transition eventually. The current trend of low fertility won't last forever, since natural selection will weed the people who aren't breeding out of the White and Asian gene pools.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11958492
Bullshit. Europeans are eventually going to have a fertility rebound. Natural selection will weed out the people who are inclined not to breed, while the "breeders" will eventually become the majority of the population. France is already starting to show signs of a breeder transition, since it had the earliest demographic transition and the longest time for natural selection to take effect.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/france-as-epicenter-of-fertility-transition/

>Then the worm turned. German fertility plummeted after World War I, and even the Nazis with their “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” rhetoric were unable to force a recovery to peak Weimar levels. Meanwhile, the French – long derided for “race decay” by the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans – started to make more babies. Ironically, this began during the Vichy period, at the trough of France’s fortunes, and spread to the rest of the country after 1945; the French have been much more fertile than the Germans ever since. Whereas one 1920s League of Nations demographic projection saw the French population falling from 40 million to 29 million by 1970, it instead soared and now stands at 65 million.

>>11909830
>That's not how this works.
Why not? Do you deny the existence of natural selection?

>>11909835
West Germany has a similar Muslim/non-white population compared to France. You wouldn't see as sharp of a France/Germany divide if it weren't partially due to White French having higher fertility. France also had an earlier demographic transition, meaning they had more time for natural selection to take effect.

>>11839604
>>11839654
>>11840655
>>11840677
Brainlets. The so-called demographic transition is eventually going to reverse itself, as natural selection does its work.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11670628
>Also the birth rate changes with circumstance and who is doing what has nothing to do with overall evolutionary strategy
Who is doing what has a lot to do with evolutionary strategy.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/

>>11409777
>due to technology removing selection pressure
You're retarded if you actually think technology is removing selection pressure.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11366357
Your friend is a retard.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/eloi-morlocks/

>>11192913
>Instead it'll happen because humans are inherently dropping their fertility rate as they become richer and more developed. Which is why the fertility rate is dropping like a stock market crash all across the globe.
You're retarded. The only reason why fertility rates are low now is a departure from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Fertility rates in developed nations will inevitably have a rebound, as people who control their breeding are weeded out of the gene pool, and "breeders" undergo strong positive selection pressure.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11166677
>implying people won't evolve genetic resistance to onions

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11090471
>implying

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11021782
>So natural human evolution is basically over, right?
Wrong. There is currently strong selection pressure for resistance to modern factors that limit fertility.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>10670429
The current negative birth rates won't last forever. Whites are due for a rise in the fertility rate in a few generations, since the people who aren't breeding are being weeded out of the gene pool.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>10637868
>>10637910
>>10637919
>muh demographic transition
The current trend of low fertility rates will inevitably reverse itself. The only reason why fertility rates are low now is because natural selection hasn't had time to catch up with the modern environment. In several generations, the people with low fertility will be weeded out of the gene pool, and the "breeders" will inevitably become the majority of the population.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>10598939
>As America and much of the western society becomes more secular
Except it isn't. Religious fundamentalists by far have the highest fertility rates of any religious demographic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYEyv5a_3LM
https://phys.org/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-society.html
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.unz.com/isteve/cochran-harpending-paper-on-amish/

>>10538445
Birth rates won’t decrease indefinitely. In a few generations, fertility rates will rise again, as low fertility people are weeded out of the gene pool and “breeders” become a majority.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>10540047
The fact that evolution is true

>>10528271
>muh demographic transition
Which will inevitably reverse due to evolution catching up with modern selection pressures

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/