Gen. Ripper Was Right; Your Sperm Count Sucks

[Speaker to Animals]

Nature, completely unbidden, solves problems without regard to what humans believe should be valued. We have, for eons, been building societies that require fewer people, and lo and behold, virility starts to decline. Doesn't exactly surprise me, or even strike me as negative by any convincing moral rubric.

Or it is because you pussies haven't been taking your Alex Jones recommended vitality pills, and now western society is doomed... I don't know, I'm not a nerdy scientist, I have very robust sperm.

Nah. The feminization of males signals the decline of a civilization. This happened several times in history already, so it's hardly some mystery. Civilization is built by testosterone.

Think of the civilization as an organism in which each individual human is but an organ. The higher testosterone in the males, the more likely the civilization will build, expand, and explore new cultural forms. In that Spencer outlook, Spencer sees the decline happening when the civilization exhausts those cultural forms. But I don't think we can realistically exhaust cultural forms at all. What happens really is that men become feminized. Art becomes feminized and vacuous. Armed struggle becomes less effective for the state. The fertility rate begins to decline. Men begin to build less things. They innovate less.

American men in the 1950s were interested in colonizing space, curing diseases, inventing computers and jet airplanes and continental transportation systems. American men in the 2050s will be interested in fashion, social functions, and making statements in everything they do. We already have begun a kind of dark age in the academy. Real academics are getting shut down and replaced with the fake post-modern stuff.

It can be turned around though. I don't believe in some causal destiny of civilizational rise and fall.

Since we have zero examples of a civilization that lasted forever, we have no idea what one might look like. Granting your premise the masculinity drives the creation of civilization, the most robust civilizations might see that taper off to achieve a manageable sort pf stasis... who really knows. Trying to save civilization with some arbitrary determination of the right definition masculinity and the acceptable quota for it is a fools errand if you ask me.

Also, what art counts as feminized? If you just list a bunch of shitty art, then I am going to assume that, when it comes to culture, feminine is just a synonym for crappy in your lexicon, and isn't very useful for art criticism.

I am not making an arbitrary definition of masculinity.

I am talking about hormone levels: an objective and testable metric.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Define "Nature, completely unbidden," as it relates to > 50% sperm drop in one generation.

We need fewer people, and here is situation that could result in fewer people.

Well, you are doing your part, comrade, by being personally completely asexual. Good show. :cheers:

Manly and vital as I am, it is as difficult for a poindexter to wound my masculinity and vitality as it is for a kitten to wound a bear.

(I just called you a nerd, if that wasn't clear. i am not sure what the internet equivalent of a swirly is, but best know, me and the rest of wrestling team are about to lay them on all the nerds. Nerds. You've been warned. )

[TheReal_ND]

Why does he go around letting everyone know what a bitch he is?

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh and real price of homes/property should decline. Small business may benefit from less competition. I know we are supposed to be all about free markets (lol borders are racist) and shiet though so whatever

A reduction in fertility creates social and economic disorder as you have more old people than young, more people in need of support than people to work towards supporting them, and so on.

Worse, it creates a decline in human capital, which means we are less able to innovate technological solutions to the problems facing us, which for us in the 2050s are likely to be immense.

Millennials I think might have trouble seeing this trend, but everybody Gen X and older has seen our world getting increasingly more fucked up as our lives progressed. Sure, we had the Cold War and the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads with respect to nuclear war with the Soviet Union, but even that wasn't really as huge a technical problem as the collapse of capitalism, environmental change and degradation, all the ills of globalization, and even the peak oil that looms over our near future. We are going to need very complex solutions to highly technical problems that few men really understand in the first place. But we will have so much fewer men that are capable of it, that I suspect these problems not get solved.

Most technological innovation is produced by men in their thirties and forties. It's always been this way. Just looking at the total population decline doesn't even begin to illustrate how bad this demographic winter could be for us, because it's looking at the total population, and not in particular the eventual minuscule numbers of men in their thirties and forties who possess the aptitude for STEM studies (which already is a small fraction of the male population).

Add into that the increasing feminization of males, the demonization of masculinity, and even the cultural marxist ambition to drive men out of STEM altogether.. shit's going to get real, son. These marxists have no idea what bed they are making for themselves.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am not making an arbitrary definition of masculinity.

I am talking about hormone levels: an objective and testable metric.

Fair enough, but it seems clear that you think that higher levels of certain hormones present as particular approaches to culture. When you use a term like 'feminized art' I assume you have an idea of what 'masculine art' might look like, and then we are moving quite far from testable hormone levels, and into fuzzier versions of those terms.

[TheReal_ND]

A reduction in fertility creates social and economic disorder as you have more old people than young, more people in need of support than people to work towards supporting them, and so on.

A valid point. I don't really feel like the rest of that post is even on the same topic as I was so w/e

Edit: wait this was

in their thirties and forties.

Yeah idc about the rest

[heydaralon]

I think my sperm count has gone down a lot from resting my warm laptop on my crotch area. It feels good to do that though, especially when I get out the shower. I've heard that's reduces the number of swimmers in the pool though.

[TheReal_ND]

I hope you don't breed anyway



j/k make more white babies

[heydaralon]

Oh and real price of homes/property should decline. Small business may benefit from less competition. I know we are supposed to be all about free markets (lol borders are racist) and shiet though so whatever

A reduction in fertility creates social and economic disorder as you have more old people than young, more people in need of support than people to work towards supporting them, and so on.

Worse, it creates a decline in human capital, which means we are less able to innovate technological solutions to the problems facing us, which for us in the 2050s are likely to be immense.

Millennials I think might have trouble seeing this trend, but everybody Gen X and older has seen our world getting increasingly more fucked up as our lives progressed. Sure, we had the Cold War and the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads with respect to nuclear war with the Soviet Union, but even that wasn't really as huge a technical problem as the collapse of capitalism, environmental change and degradation, all the ills of globalization, and even the peak oil that looms over our near future. We are going to need very complex solutions to highly technical problems that few men really understand in the first place. But we will have so much fewer men that are capable of it, that I suspect these problems not get solved.

Most technological innovation is produced by men in their thirties and forties. It's always been this way. Just looking at the total population decline doesn't even begin to illustrate how bad this demographic winter could be for us, because it's looking at the total population, and not in particular the eventual minuscule numbers of men in their thirties and forties who possess the aptitude for STEM studies (which already is a small fraction of the male population).

Add into that the increasing feminization of males, the demonization of masculinity, and even the cultural marxist ambition to drive men out of STEM altogether.. shit's going to get real, son. These marxists have no idea what bed they are making for themselves.

If the population keeps growing and stuff keeps getting automated, this could lead to a huge problem too dude. Not to mention, there have been plenty of times in history where a drastic reduction in people led to an overall benefit. The bubonic plague survivors had far better lives after. A mass die off like that is grotesque, so I'm not advocating any kind of Mao solution to overpopulation, but surely less reproduction is a more humane way to deal with the problem. As long as we cut down on immigration and deport illegals, I think we can mitigate some of the damage to our society. As an aside, India has over a billion people. Nigeria has 186 million. There's not a lot of good stuff coming out of those countries. I think ratcheting up the population in the hope that we will innovate our way out of the problems caused by overpopulation is kind of a trap.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh and real price of homes/property should decline. Small business may benefit from less competition. I know we are supposed to be all about free markets (lol borders are racist) and shiet though so whatever

A reduction in fertility creates social and economic disorder as you have more old people than young, more people in need of support than people to work towards supporting them, and so on.

Worse, it creates a decline in human capital, which means we are less able to innovate technological solutions to the problems facing us, which for us in the 2050s are likely to be immense.

Millennials I think might have trouble seeing this trend, but everybody Gen X and older has seen our world getting increasingly more fucked up as our lives progressed. Sure, we had the Cold War and the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads with respect to nuclear war with the Soviet Union, but even that wasn't really as huge a technical problem as the collapse of capitalism, environmental change and degradation, all the ills of globalization, and even the peak oil that looms over our near future. We are going to need very complex solutions to highly technical problems that few men really understand in the first place. But we will have so much fewer men that are capable of it, that I suspect these problems not get solved.

Most technological innovation is produced by men in their thirties and forties. It's always been this way. Just looking at the total population decline doesn't even begin to illustrate how bad this demographic winter could be for us, because it's looking at the total population, and not in particular the eventual minuscule numbers of men in their thirties and forties who possess the aptitude for STEM studies (which already is a small fraction of the male population).

Add into that the increasing feminization of males, the demonization of masculinity, and even the cultural marxist ambition to drive men out of STEM altogether.. shit's going to get real, son. These marxists have no idea what bed they are making for themselves.

If the population keeps growing and stuff keeps getting automated, this could lead to a huge problem too dude. Not to mention, there have been plenty of times in history where a drastic reduction in people led to an overall benefit. The bubonic plague survivors had far better lives after. A mass die off like that is grotesque, so I'm not advocating any kind of Mao solution to overpopulation, but surely less reproduction is a more humane way to deal with the problem. As long as we cut down on immigration and deport illegals, I think we can mitigate some of the damage to our society. As an aside, India has over a billion people. Nigeria has 186 million. There's not a lot of good stuff coming out of those countries. I think ratcheting up the population in the hope that we will innovate our way out of the problems caused by overpopulation is kind of a trap.

Oh, I agree. I have been talking about this for a while.

I am not opposed to letting the population reduce naturally (in a moral way) in principle. My problem with it is that, if we really want to plan this, we need to start working NOW. We need to get the foreigners out of our nations or they will just replace us and take our nations from us. We need to start working towards solving the big problems that we will face even fifty years from now because there will exist a period in which most of our technical human capital will work just to support the aging population. After that happens.. great. As long as we have the automated economy when that day arrives. But between now and the demographic winter, we actually have a great deal of work to do. We need to solve those problems right now while we have massive amounts of human capital that we won't have a few generations hence.