Could sex be used to counter declining birth rates?

[Anonymous No.12669694]

[Anonymous No.12669699]

Probably better to try and regulate the housing market

[Anonymous No.12669701]

>>12669694
Sex should unironically be unpleasurable

[Anonymous No.12669704]

>>12669694
it would most likely have an impact

[Anonymous No.12669712]

>>12669701
I often ponder on what society would look like if sex wasn't pleasurable

[Anonymous No.12669735]

>>12669712
I think people would still find joy in having children and founding a family, but no porn, no sex for fun. Sex would only be made between a man and woman to procreate.
The real question is, could that affect LGBT?

[Anonymous No.12669738]

>>12669694
Birth rates plummeted because of three reasons:
a) The chunk of the population that can acquire a residence with a floorspace they personally consider to be reasonable has plummeted
b) The chunk of the population that is confident enough to date somebody long-term has plummeted
c) The amount of free time the population has plummeted. Ironically we work less hours than in the early 20th century but commute times have skyrocketed. People with 8 hour work days spend up to 16 hours outside of the house, and that's just San Jose.
What we need is a government program to set up spacious communities for knowledge workers to work from home where commute times and distance doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it's left or right wing as long as the economic part gets done, but staffing this with a class of willing support workers is extremely tough.

[Anonymous No.12669743]

>>12669735
LGBT is 90% a subconscious (not conscious) cope for being merely average in a highly demanding world but that remaining 10% is genuine, the historical record supports it.

[Anonymous No.12669747]

>>12669743
Therefore, with no sex, we would see less LGBT no?

[Anonymous No.12669761]

>>12669735
>The real question is, could that affect LGBT?
Not to a huge extent. There are two types of LGBT:
>people prone to propaganda who do it to advance their social standing by demanding compassion and/or power from their peers
>"born this way" people who possess dysgenic traits - and where there is one, there are many. So even though these people would not find pleasure in sexual activities, they would still be less likely to reproduce and live normal fulfilling lives like their normal human counterparts

[Anonymous No.12669768]

>>12669761
Messed up the formatting so here's what I was aiming at:
The first category will still act LGBT as long as the propaganda will be active
The second category will still be genetically defective, and for the lack of sexual degeneracy, would find alternative avenues to express their defectiveness

[Anonymous No.12669777]

>>12669768
>the propaganda will be active
Propaganda being? LGBT encouraging others to be like them?

>genetically defective
We have proof of this genetic defect to explain these deviants? I mean, some LGBT folks are really nice, not bigoted people just going on with their life, just spending it differently in love life and sex life.
Let's not be reductive.

[Anonymous No.12669779]

>>12669735
No porn is good but i think sex for fun is neccesary

[Anonymous No.12669783]

>>12669779
Was speaking about the world where sex isn't pleasurable.

[Anonymous No.12669784]

>>12669694
Interesting question, but how exactly is sex correlated to birthrates?

[Anonymous No.12669794]

nature already knows that trick and it used to work well until people started using condoms.
>inb4 pull out
30% of sex that ends in pullouts ends in pregnancy

[Anonymous No.12669798]

>>12669699
/thread

[Anonymous No.12669799]

>>12669777
>Propaganda being
Virtually universal institutional support - government, media, corporations, NGOs. Remember this "LGBT-friendly" environment 10 years ago? I don't. Nobody does. This trend accelerated in the past 10 years to the point you have to be a blind fool to pretend it's all natural. It's not that <individual company X> is plotting with <individual company Y> to turn your son gay. It's a game of the emperor with no clothes. Everybody plays along, from top to bottom, as long as it's socially beneficial to do so.

>We have proof of this genetic defect to explain these deviants?
>Let's not be reductive.
Why not? Unless you believe we are some special creatures created by a sky god, instaed of dumb apes driven by nature, we have to reduce human behaviour to that animal behaviour.
Natural selection rewards genes that can
1) survive in their environment in the present
2) survive through their offspring in the future
It's dead simple. You don't reproduce? It's because you either die before your time from external factors (like war or natural disasters). Or you're not genetically desirable enough (attractive, intelligent, **healthy** - including mental health, which LGBT people do not possess).

[Anonymous No.12669804]

>>12669784
Well...
First, pregnancy by "mistake" that both individuals (or just the mother, cause who cares if the poor man can or cannot provide for the child lmao) accept to pursue, that are due to accident during sex, which of course is done for pleasure if you don't aim for a baby.
Second, pleasure from sex is a really good motivator for the man and the woman to have the man finish into her, the deepest possible, as to ensue a pregnancy. That's how sex pleasure is cabled, as to allow for pregnancy after sex.

[Anonymous No.12669811]

>>12669694
Each woman should be mandated to give birth to at least one child. However, there should be no requirement to raise it. There should be well-funded government-run "orphanages" to take in all these new children.

This sort of patriotic duty is equivalent to conscripting men to the army for a year.

[Anonymous No.12669818]

>>12669694
Mass-production of humans via in vitro fertilisation and artificial womb
take the techpill

[Lust No.12669820]

>>12669799
More like companies going on their knees not to be cancelled lmao

But yeah, it accelerated lately really fast. Just like how BLM took off incredibly since the police shooting of the black man whose name I forgot.

And what about animals just having sex for the sake of it? And animals displaying gay and lesbian tendencies? (can't bother to look up gay animals right now, but you know what I'm talking about)

>we have to reduce human behaviour to that animal behaviour
And yes, we can reduce ourselves to animals.
But aren't we more?
Isn't reducing our behaviors to animal taking away the "humanity" aspect of our behaviors?

[Anonymous No.12669831]

>>12669811
>>12669818
Gay and smoothbrain take
The ideal environment to rear a child is the male/female balanced family unit

>And what about animals just having sex for the sake of it?
What of it? Just like with humans -> sex feels good -> babies likelier to come out

>And animals displaying gay and lesbian tendencies?
Why would humans be unique in this kind of dysgenic behaviour?

>But aren't we more?
Anything extra is just cope from an overdeveloped brain

[Anonymous No.12669832]

>>12669694
DECLINING BIRTHRATES.
For fucks sake, this made me mad. Angry mad. The worlds is overpopulated by at least a factor of three and you delusional fuckers think that population is declining when it is in fact growing. It is immoral to produce more offspring than necessary to replace you and your partner. It is crime against humanity. The pope should be tried and convicted for endorsing this.

[Anonymous No.12669833]

Declining birth rates is a product of neoliberalism.

[Anonymous No.12669835]

>>12669831
but many women don't want babies because of pregnancy. You can solve that suffering by artificially creating the baby, then you raise him or her normally

[Anonymous No.12669838]

>>12669832
declining birthrates -> end of civilization if we haven't achieved total automation

[Anonymous No.12669841]

>>12669832
>The worlds is overpopulated by at least a factor of three
I agree
All aboard the SS. Hoot. We got some business to take care of

[Anonymous No.12669842]

>>12669831
Raising a child is very time-consuming. If you are a specialized expert, then your time gets "wasted" from the society's points of view if you spend your time changing diapers.

[Anonymous No.12669846]

>>12669842
>Raising a child is very time-consuming.
That's why women should be in the home rearing the children, and the men out there bringing in the money.

> If you are a specialized expert
>Women
Yeah, pass.

[Anonymous No.12669847]

>>12669820
>Just like how BLM took off incredibly since the police shooting of the black man whose name I forgot.

All of it was a deliberate media stunt. It's funny, because they clearly wanted something to 'lynch-pin' the movement on, and Floyd was clearly just an unfortunate dude who OD'd on shit during his arrest that got filmed, which they could only hide for so long, so they had to find something else to parade around to hype people up. You don't remember him because it doesn't matter who he is, the important thing is that they got people to feel like looting and burning stores was meaningful, demonstrating that they could get a meaningless movement mass movement going based on nothing but propaganda that would achieve nothing but align people against their 'enemies' (i.e. people who support free speech), creating conflict across lines where there ought to be none.

[Anonymous No.12669848]

Most people are unnecessary even today. Tomorrow 99% of people will become a deadweight.

[Anonymous No.12669851]

>>12669838
>declining birthrates -> end of civilization
Even if declining birthrates will leave 1/3 of population, it will just return the world back for around a century. Are you trying to say that civilization was dead back then?

[Anonymous No.12669855]

>>12669847
You're missing the actual trigger

[Anonymous No.12669861]

>>12669851
See >>12669841
Where is the "overpopulation", you quadruple nigger?

[Anonymous No.12669863]

>>12669838
A sustainable decline in population would be 0.5%, at this rate it takes 250 years to even approach a sustainable human population size. I didn't say it needs to decline in perpetuity, just for the foreseeable future, 250 years is 20 generations.
Run the numbers on current population trends and see where we are headed in 250 years if nothing is done.
Mass extinction due to starvation.

[Anonymous No.12669869]

>>12669861
At the "Europe" and "North America" parts because only these parts consume a lot of valuable resources.

[Anonymous No.12669871]

>>12669841
Time to solve the asian and african question.
It only affirms my believe that: Poverty = More children

[Anonymous No.12669874]

>>12669863
>>12669861
https://youtu.be/-s_4VnXHF64

[Anonymous No.12669876]

>>12669871
Only the number of people with high quality of life matters.
That's the real reason for the corona - if you don't exit your house, don't eat outside and don't use transport, you consume not that much.

[Anonymous No.12669886]

>>12669869
Are you proposing Europe and North America completely close off their borders and deport anyone who got here from outside these two continents in the past 50 years; then doom the rest to "third world" living standards? Because unless you want to doom the third world to the third world, there is no stopping them.

>>12669871
Asia and Africa exploded in population since the 50s only because of western medicine and technology. The hundreds of millions of "extra" people there wouldn't be alive and would instead have succumbed to disease, starvation, internal conflict, etc.
Look at Indian demographics around the Bengal famine:
Huge unsustainable population growth -> famine (today blamed on muh colonial policies) -> regression to sustainable numbers -> agricultural reforms in india in the 50s with American experts and technology -> explosion in numbers

[Anonymous No.12669894]

>>12669886

[Anonymous No.12669895]

>>12669886
>>12669876
I think youre underestimating the effect culture has on making children. Where I believe poor people are more easily influenced by culutre (whole different discussion really) and so make more children.
It's true however that modern technology has made the grow possible however I wouldnt name it the cause.

[Anonymous No.12669898]

>>12669886
>Are you proposing Europe and North America completely close off their borders and deport anyone who got here from outside these two continents in the past 50 years; then doom the rest to "third world" living standards? Because unless you want to doom the third world to the third world, there is no stopping them.
Sounds like a good idea, but what will be the excuse? Hmm... what about proclaiming pandemics?

[Anonymous No.12669906]

>>12669895
both are important indeed. My grandmother lived in a third world country, and I think 3 of 7 children died at age 1-2, plus she had also 4 other children with another man

[Anonymous No.12669908]

>>12669874
I hope they are right.

[Anonymous No.12669916]

>>12669906
I've heard Hungary and Poland have increased their birthrates by subsizding it. Might be a way to subsidize fewer children as well.

[Anonymous No.12669953]

>>12669916
it didn't work

[Anonymous No.12670480]

>>12669916

Finland is constantly rated as #1 country to have kids because all the gibs and paid maternal leaves and we still have birth rate lower than Japan.

[Anonymous No.12670488]

>>12669838
good

[Anonymous No.12670495]

>>12669953
>>12670480
If so then I can only say that the career chasing, must-experience-everything mindset has made people averse to getting a child. I do think a strong counter reaction to this will happen, maybe gen Z will get a lot of children.

[Anonymous No.12670499]

>>12669694
Birth rates will rise again no matter what. Natural selection is weeding the people who don't breed out of the gene pool.

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

[Anonymous No.12670505]

>>12670495

Yeah, we (Finland) just experienced something they call a corona baby boom, a minor bump in births during the epidemic. Might be because of covid, might just be the 3rd world immigrants beginning to really show up in the statistics.

[Anonymous No.12670528]

>>12669712
Dead

[Anonymous No.12670811]

>>12669704
kek

[Anonymous No.12671484]

>>12669704
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.12671525]

>>12669738

If anything the first and last of your points are correlated with having more children, not less.

Strongly declining birth rates are seen in countries where most people are much more well off and have more free time than in the US, so these points can't be the reason.

Your second point does not hold either as people in long term relationships also have far fewer children than before.

[Anonymous No.12671527]

>>12669701
fag

[Anonymous No.12671863]

>>12669832
The world's population is increasing, however in many countries the fertility rate is declining rapidly, and even in the nations which contribute the most to population growth, the acceleration of fertility rate is slowing and starting to reverse. What this means in the long term is that ALL human populations will slow in growth, stagnate, and then begin to recede, if we aren't careful you could even have a rapid population collapse where you effectively don't have a new generation of young people but only middle aged and older. Unless current trends change, the expected timeline is
>India/Pakistan/China slow and cease to be the leaders of population growth
>Africa takes over and the world population increases to 10 billion between 2050 and 2100
>after 2100 the world population will stabilize, and then begin to slowly shrink
we do not know what will happen after that point

[Anonymous No.12672402]

>>12669694
Declining birthrates are only a problem for smart people who aren't degenerates. If any normies decide to not have children, let them.

[Anonymous No.12672559]

>>12670499
You post this every thread and every thread someone has to remind you that the stats show that migrants are the ones heaviy driving population growth.

[Anonymous No.12672568]

>>12669916
Yes, Hungary is growing its population by this >>12669699, stopping immigration from displacing the Hungarians, and actually supporting its young people in having a family.
Almost like a mustachioed Austrian painter was on to something.

[Anonymous No.12672569]

>>12669699
\thread

If people could afford houses and children, birth rates would increase dramatically.

[Anonymous No.12672575]

>>12670499
100-200 years ago everyone had ~6 children. Where did that "breeder" gene go?

[Anonymous No.12672577]

>>12669699
Poor peasants were often huddled in one room and still produced a lot of children.

[Anonymous No.12672750]

>>12672577
yeah, back when 3 in 4 children died of some disease that's preventable now.

[Anonymous No.12672926]

>>12669694
Perhaps, but first we need to know where can we get this sex?

[Anonymous No.12672952]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.12673058]

People already have sex, epecially rich/attractive people. Elimination of birth control will be the most effective solution. People cannot stop having sex so they will have to accept babies. Especially rich/attractive people having all that sex, resources, and good genes but somehow making less babies than ugly/poor people will be fixed. Tying sex with conequences will also fix a lot of other societal problems.

[Anonymous No.12673070]

Designer Babies

Make life a scarcity

[Anonymous No.12673071]

Every modern government is trying hard to reduce the birthrates. China did it in a very open and harsh way, western states do it in a more subtle but even more effective way. They mostly succeed (and country which do not, suffer).

[Anonymous No.12673201]

>>12673071
Yeah, I'm sure Niger is really concerned with women giving birth to 7 children on average

[Anonymous No.12673218]

>>12673201
>and country which do not, suffer
As you can see from the Niger stats.

[Anonymous No.12673229]

>>12669738
>>12669916
>>12670480
Look up Lee Kuan Yew's population programs in Singapore.
>In the 1960s the Singapore government encouraged women, especially uneducated women, to get sterilised following their second child.
Then in 1988 they switched gears to encouraging educated (high IQ, good genes) women to be mothers instead of wageslaving: subsidies, tax rebates, child care, priority in schools for families with more than 2 childen, housing, etc.
It failed
Here's him later
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/money-wont-solve-low-birth-rate-problem-mr-lee
>The experiment will "prove beyond any doubt that our low birth rates have nothing to do with economic or financial factors, such as high cost of living or lack of government help for parents", he says.
>Instead, it is due to transformed lifestyles and mindsets which the Government is relatively powerless against
>But, Mr Lee adds: "I cannot solve the problem, and I have given up. I have given the job to another generation of leaders. Hopefully, they or their successors will eventually find a way out."
>In a chapter on Singapore, he also says the suggestion that the "Stop at Two" population campaign of the 1970s played a part in bringing fertility rates down is "absurd".
>Rather, falling fertility is a global phenomenon due primarily to women's emancipation and participation in the workplace, he says.

The whole problem is women's rights. That's it. Not gibs. We take away that, and we might even survive the century.

[Anonymous No.12673246]

>>12673229
That's not the problem, that's the solution (for the excess population).

[Anonymous No.12673261]

>>12673246
neck yorself

[Anonymous No.12673268]

>>12673261
>i want something
>therefore it will happen

[Anonymous No.12673294]

>>12673268
I didn't say it will happen. I said it should happen