When are women going to get rid of their "i need to have kids"-'instinct'?
- Thread starter weaksauce
- Start date
I'm sure there would still be a large portion of the female population whom love the peen not just for procreation sake.
You're in luck (not really). Being attracted to the same sex doesn't mean that the desire to have children or a family is non-existent.
It's just that with artificial insemination, they can just shop down at the sperm bank.
Once scientists perfect oocyte fusion, that's when men will be shit out of luck.
You can't get over instincts: you can put and keep it under control, but not get over it. If you could, that wouldn't be an instinct.
And no I don't think the biggest problem in the world today is the overpopulation but the reasons behind the overpopulation.
On a side note, Italy has the lowest birth rate in the world nowadays....are people here happier thanks to that? I very much doubt so...
And no I don't think the biggest problem in the world today is the overpopulation but the reasons behind the overpopulation.
On a side note, Italy has the lowest birth rate in the world nowadays....are people here happier thanks to that? I very much doubt so...
The desire to have smaller amounts of progeny is very much a predicted effect of evolution. So while surivival of the fittest is the name of the game, the strategy to obtain those results is what forces smaller family sizes.
This has been studied ad naeseum in closed societies suffering rampant disease, and contrasted with the opposite, also the poor/rich divide.
Essentially the concept of a super family starts to win when the people in question have a large amount of resources, it serves their interest to focus on ensuring the growth and success of just a few progeny rather than popping out many and throwing them out in the wind (this works better in places where disease is rampant).
This game theory competition between opposing concepts is what creates and drives the 'emotions' and societal trends to produce scarcily or to go at it like rabbits, so rest assured this topic itself is as old as time.
This has been studied ad naeseum in closed societies suffering rampant disease, and contrasted with the opposite, also the poor/rich divide.
Essentially the concept of a super family starts to win when the people in question have a large amount of resources, it serves their interest to focus on ensuring the growth and success of just a few progeny rather than popping out many and throwing them out in the wind (this works better in places where disease is rampant).
This game theory competition between opposing concepts is what creates and drives the 'emotions' and societal trends to produce scarcily or to go at it like rabbits, so rest assured this topic itself is as old as time.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
To the OP: Hopefully never.
I have more problems with "I need no men" or "Men have to do everything for me" or the female control of the mating game by which they effectively control the honor of men . In days in which the first world is having population crisis larger families should be promoted not critiqued.
are you saying they have kids in order to have someone support them? if you are poor you should have less no more kids.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Uhm, what? No one controls your honor but yourself.
Cartoon Corpse
Veteran
works both ways. only the buffoons 'think' making a kid is an evolutionary success. survival of the fittest can ONLY apply if there is NO welfare. a correction is coming i think. 40% of US females (50% in Boston area) of childbearing age have no kids according to 2000 Census, up from 10% in the 70's. given what i know/read about welfare mothers, the demographic we're talking about are the people who actually do the work around here...not the high and mighties (stars, etc), not the vermin parasites. just a group who isn't gonna be around to put up with the consequences of 'caring' and pretardation. or inflict it on an offspring. 20 years is gonna herald a HUGE shift in 'amerikan' 'life'. no wonder bush is building the police state, from that perspective.
Usually, poverty tends to be worst in areas where the means of economic survival are labor-intensive and long-term care is done by the family unit. In places with high mortality rate, survival is also dependent on making sure deaths can be compensated for.
Without industries or economic sectors that provide wealth based on advanced education--things which take significant per-child investment, more can be gained with menial labor, which can start young, requires less schooling, and gains more capital with larger numbers of kids.
It's only when the economy moves beyond that phase that the equation shifts in favor of fewer kids with more invested in each.
Cultures and events can shift this. Agrarian and pastoral cultures favor large families, in part because doing so allowed their survival.
Areas where political tensions are high often have higher birth rates, as rival factions try to keep numbers in balance.
Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most self-reliant or capable. It is the persistence of traits and patterns that work to perpetuate themselves.
It is incorrect to think that Darwinian evolutionary trends match our desire to glorify traits we personally hold dear.
As long as welfare exists and it provides such a large amount of capital for large families that it enables the creation of even more families, a welfare-supported family will be more fit than one that has fewer kids without.
Uhm, what? No one controls your honor but yourself.
That works for sure if you are in love with your hands and have no problem living all your life alone.
Else its all up to them.
Uhm, what? No one controls your honor but yourself.
And I for one don't care about "honor"...sounds to medival for me
That works for sure if you are in love with your hands and have no problem living all your life alone.
Else its all up to them.
Don't talk in absolutes regarding relationships.
Not two relationshps are alike.
My ex "hunted" me down.
She didn't want kids either.
But I dropped her...not the other way around.
Was she in "control" over me(and my honor
)?People only have the amout of "power" over you that you give them.
The girl I am currently dating isn't into such "power-trip" as you describe either.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Good words, true words.
I havent given anything to them. Society has and women take it for granted.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Bullshit, then you've given the power over you to society. Sounds like you have some self-image problems.
You control your own reality, at least to a certain extent. Worrying about what others think/feel about you is giving them control over you.
Bullshit, then you've given the power over you to society. Sounds like you have some self-image problems.
You control your own reality, at least to a certain extent. Worrying about what others think/feel about you is giving them control over you.
yep, to a certain extent, but mating is one thing in which you depend on the mindset/opinions of other persons to be successful. so the opinion of the norm affects you whether you want it or not in this case.
if we were hermaphrodites, society wouldnt matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
