Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Great Blackdragon Debate 4: Having Kids Makes You Happy, Or Not?
-By Caleb Jones
The specific topic we will be debating today is:
Having kids in an intelligent way makes men more happy in the long-term, not less.
Fred will be debating FOR, I will be arguing AGAINST.
Fred's comments will be in blue like this. My comments will be in the usual black font.
As always, I will let Fred start and end the debate with his comments. At the end, you can decide who won.
LET THE BATTLE BEGIN!!!
Thanks for accepting the debate. Let's get started. Before we get into the details, I'd like to outline some basic starting points for the debate. I assume you won't have any problem with these:
1. There are very stupid ways to have kids, such as knocking up your girlfriend when you are 15. Obviously, this is not conducive to long-term happiness, and I don't want to discuss this type of situation.
2. I am only considering the man's perspective here. Much of what we will discuss will also apply to women, but I think we can keep this more simple by only discussing men.
3. There are significant positives and significant negatives to having children. My argument is that the positives outweigh the negatives when you have children in an intelligent way, making you more happy long-term. Your argument is that, regardless of how it is done, the negatives outweigh the positives when you have kids, making you less happy long-term. Correct?
I agree with your three parameters.
It is not my argument that the negatives outweigh the positives, since every man will have a different opinion as to what is "positive" or "negative" and how much value of each it is to him.
An extremely conservative, right-wing, religious Alpha Male 1.0 may consider having five children as a huge net positive (leaving a legacy, doing God's will, having little minions to boss around, prove to the world his penis works, etc) even if doing so makes him far less overall happy because of the extreme amount of work, cost, sacrifice and stress this places on himself, his finances, his wife, and his marriage. He'll clearly be less happy overall than a man like me, but that doesn't matter to him. He'll still tell you that it's worth it because there's more positive (in his eyes). (And we haven't talked about when this man gets divorced, which is statistically likely in the modern era, and has to pay child support for five children or go to jail.)
My argument is that having kids makes you less happy, on average, on the overall, over a period of around 15-20 years, until the kids grow up and leave. Because it does. Just about every study they've done on this topic indicates this. Just about every married couple with kids I see goes through this; moments of intense joy followed by hours or even days of irritation and hard work, as I explained here. Like with long-term monogamy, this unhappiness occurs regardless of "how you do it." It's inherent in the system. Having kids is hard, hard work, that usually isn't fun for mom or dad.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, I'll try to summarize what you wrote:
- A person viewing huge positive aspects of having children (such as leaving a legacy) as outweighing the negative aspects is incorrectly weighing the positives and negatives. His day to day life will be less happy (due to the negative aspects) even though he won't see it this way because he is weighing the positive aspects too strongly. Is this an accurate summary of what you think?
- The main negatives to having children are: the extreme amount of work, cost, sacrifice and stress this places on himself, his finances, his wife, and his marriage. And possibly paying child support. Any other things to add here?
- Your proof that having kids makes you unhappy is 1) studies on this subject and 2) your personal experience and the experience of other people you know. Is this correct?
- The graph and writing relating to having kids from your "How Happiness Works Over Time" blog post is your personal opinion, correct? That is not based on a study?
1. No, he's not incorrectly weighing positives or negatives. He's instead placing his own happiness as a lower priority as compared to other things. So if he says, "Having kids makes me more happy," he is wrong. If he says, "Okay, fine BD, having kids makes me less happy, but I don't care because of X and Y," then he's correct. My only issue here is happiness.
In other words, you are more than welcome to defend or encourage lifestyles that make you less happy, but you can't tell me these lifestyles make you more happy, because they don't.
2. Yep, that's a pretty complete list. Regarding one of the items, remember "sacrifice" means always wanting to do things with your life that you are unable to do, because of the kids. So many men who are fathers wish they could do so many things, but can't. Add that to everything else in that list, and you've got a decent amount of unhappiness, even if you're the greatest parent on Earth and your kids are the best kids in the world.
3. Correct. However, I wouldn't characterize my personal experience raising kids as miserable or constantly unhappy. Just less happy than if I didn't have any kids. The vast majority of mothers and fathers, if you got a little alcohol in them, and put them in a secluded room far away from everyone they knew, would quietly admit the same.
4. Correct, my personal opinion/extrapolation. However, I very confident that if you gave that graph to a researcher qualified in this area, they would more or less agree with it.
1. Ok, I think I understand your point here.
2. We are in agreement here
3. Studies on this subject are pretty much irrelevant because they reflect the average person. The average person is:
- A) Broke/In debt- talk about stress! I can't imagine anything more scary than having kids that I may not be able to feed. The average person is basically living paycheck to paycheck. There is a ton of data on this. Here is one source.
- B) Working a shitty 9-5 desk job- Super-stressful. Your boss can take a shit on you everyday but you can't cut off your only source of income when you have kids. Great way to lower your happiness.
- C) In a traditional sex-less (or low sex) marriage- Ugh. You've covered this enough on your blog, but once again, the theme here is that the average person feels trapped (in this case sexually).
- D) having kids in his 20s or early 30s- You guessed it- trapped. You want to do something different or amazing with your life, but you are trapped financially by your kids.
The AVERAGE person is less happy by having kids? No shit- they are completely trapped financially and sexually. How miserable! Fortunately there are ways to NOT suffer. As you've stated, it is ideal to be in great financial shape, hire a full-time nanny to help, accomplish many of your major life goals first (prob means having kids in your 40s), and have a non-monogamous marriage with pre-nup and parenting plan. Happiness is usually more about eliminating negatives than creating positives. A study with people having kids intelligently would show an increase in happiness, since they are facing very few of the "average person" problems.
Yeah, I know the average person sucks, I'm not sure if you're quoting me or making an argument. So, your contention is kids won't make a man less happy if he does all of the following:
- Hires a nanny (part time or full time?)
- Is able to easily afford a nanny (nannies are expensive)
- Doesn't have any kids until he's 40
- Is regularly banging other women besides his wife
- Has a prenup and a parenting plan (if he's married; does he even need to be married?)
Yes or no?
If yes, I'll proceed to discuss those above items.
If no, please tell me exactly and with specifics what "having kids intelligently" means.
I am quoting you and making an argument. The point here is that you claim that the "average person sucks" and yet you use studies full of average people to show why an Alpha 2.0 (in this case meaning someone having kids intelligently) will be unhappy having kids. The studies (which are your main argument for why having kids will make you unhappy) are not valid for the way that you suggest (and I agree with) to have kids.
And yes, the points you listed are how I (and you, I think) view the specifics of "having kids intelligently."
To answer your questions:
- Full time nanny would be ideal
- Nannies are expensive but aren't necessarily that pricey. I met a live-in au pair the other day, and she was only getting room/board + $1500 a month.
- To keep things simple, let's say married with a prenup/parenting plan. I know every state has different laws (including some with common law marriage) that make this complicated. You've already discussed the ideal ways to get married.
I have another main point discuss, but I'd like to discuss this point first.
I agree that the stats I refer to are looking at (mostly) normal people who do most things wrong in life, so let's move on from that.
You've confirmed that raising kids "intelligently," means you hire a full-time nanny. You just said, hilariously, that paying a nanny $1500 a month plus providing her full-time room and board is not "pricey." This is ludicrous, I completely disagree, and I think the vast majority of people reading this would as well. Very few men, even most Alpha 2.0's who make the recommended $75,000 per year, are going to be able to easily do this.
So yes, I agree that if you are wealthy, and can easily afford a full-time, live-in nanny to raise your screaming kids for you, this may not damage your long-term happiness as I normally describe. I've already said as much in this article here, where I described how many of these kinds problems don't apply to rich people. Rich people can have divorce after divorce, can have multiple children out of wedlock, can get STD's, and have all kinds of problems that won't affect them like they affect non-wealthy people. It's a different world.
But if you think this option is available to the typical guy out there following (or trying to follow) the recommended lifestyle I talk about (Alpha Male 2.0), again, even if he makes the recommended $75,000 a year, then you are wrong.
Haha yes, $1500 is "pricey." What I meant was that $1500 per month is a good value considering you get a full-time nanny 24/7/365.
Like you mentioned, obviously this is not reasonable if you are making 75K a year. But come on, BD, you're nitpicking here. As I said, a full-time nanny is ideal. But what can a person making 75K a year do? Obviously they can get some help as well. How about hiring a college student to help for $10 an hour a few days a week? Maybe this runs $480 a month ($480 = $10/hour X 4 hours per day X 3 days a week X 4 weeks per month) or $5760 a year. Not cheap, but reasonable for someone making 75K.
Or maybe you think that isn't enough help and/or money. Maybe the recommended amount of income per year needs to be a little higher 75K. Once again, I think that is just nitpicking. Unless you have you have anything else to add related to your quoted studies being not valid or the specifics of having kids intelligently, I'd like to move on to my next main point.
This nanny thing was your idea, not mine. I'm still trying to nail down your SPECIFIC definition of having kids "intelligently." You clearly said above it was to hire a full-time, live-in nanny. Now you're moving the goal post and saying it can be paying a college student for a few hours a week. I can't respond your point if you keep changing your definition of "intelligent."
Please give me your final, very SPECIFIC definition raising kids "intelligently" is. Then when I address it, don't change it.
Haha, you are certainly getting bogged down in the details here. As I've stated from the beginning, the most intelligent, most ideal way to have kids is to have a full time nanny.
Just so we are on the same page:
- Yes, this is pretty much impossible if you only make 75K a year.
- You can still do ok for yourself if you only make 75K a year (as I just described), but this is not ideal (not the most intelligent way to have kids)
- You set the 75K number, not me.
As I've said many times on my blog, you must get agreement on the specific definitions of words if you discuss a topic, or else you get nowhere. It is not a "detail." Your definition of "intelligently" raising kids is very important to this discussion; indeed, it's the entire topic here.
Your contention is that "intelligently" raising kids requires a full-time, live-in nanny. I agree this would offset most or all of your unhappiness. The problem is the VAST majority of men reading these words are not going to have that ability, which renders your entire point invalid, or at least very, very weak. I think I won this round. But I'll let the readers decide.
On to your next point, if you had one.
Let's do a quick recap:
1. You claimed that studies show that people are less happy when they have kids. I showed that those studies are invalid. But you still haven't provided any evidence that proves that people are less happy. This is required to "win" this round.
2. I stated that people will be significantly happier than studies show if they have children intelligently (meaning A. they are in great financial shape B. Accomplish major life goals first (prob having kids in your 40s) C. have a non-monogamous marriage w/prenup+parenting plan D. hire a full time nanny. We agree that those 4 items will make you significantly happier when you have kids. You nitpicked ONLY ONE of those 4 items, and claimed that now my entire point is invalid.
This is illogical. My entire argument is not invalidated by nitpicking one point, it is only slightly less strong. Your average reader (which was never a condition to start, but fine, let's go with it) can achieve say 85% of having kids intelligently, and will still be FAR better off than average people in the studies.
Why does it have to be full-time nanny or nothing? That doesn't make any sense. You can still achieve all of A-C, and part of D (having a part-time nanny) on 75K a year. You can achieve A-D 100% on a higher salary.
Furthermore, your current argument is non-existent; it is just nitpicking ONE of my points and suggesting it invalidates everything. Please respond with exactly what your argument is for why you will be unhappy having kids, and explain how the average reader not being able to achieve 100% (but can achieve 85%) of having kids intelligently invalidates the entire argument.
The studies include normal people who tend to suck; they're not invalid. If they were invalid, you would be able to suggest all kinds of easy-to-do things to prevent unhappiness from occurring, not hard ones like hiring a full-time nanny.
If 1 of your 4 requirements is a full-time, live-in nanny, yes, your point is invalid, since it only applies to a small group of men.
If your point is the nanny accounts for only 15%(!) of the happiness gained, that's laughable. An Alpha Male 2.0 in great shape with protected finances and nonmonogamy is still going to suffer noticeably reduced overall happiness by having kids. Freedom, peace, travel, your daily schedule, sex, low cost of living, living abroad (if you want to), sleep, focus on your Mission, ALL of these things are negatively affected to some degree when having kids. It's true when they're small, true when they're teenagers (though not quite as much). Then, post age 18, you still have things like college costs, helping them get cars, helping them get jobs, helping them get settled in life, helping them get through their problems, and on, and on, and on. There are so many ways in which your overall happiness levels decrease in some way, I can't even begin to list them here.
To say that most of this crap is offset just because you're not fat and can fuck other women is wrong. How does banging FB's on the side help when the baby is screaming in the middle of the night, when the 9 year-old is needs help with his homework, when the 17 year-old just crashed her car?
I agree the Alpha 2.0 lifestyle helps, but doesn't fix even 50% of this reduced happiness.
1. Here is what is laughable- you previously agreed that the studies were not relevant, and now you have changed your mind.
2. Also laughable- you continue to pretend that childcare is a binary issue. Full-time nanny vs no nanny. It is not binary. There is a spectrum of childcare solutions. A part-time nanny + doing everything else intelligently will get you roughly 85% of the way there. Each person can add or subtract childcare hours as they see fit.
3. Your evidence is still non-existent. You've simply listed negative aspects about having kids. The debate is not: "Are there negative aspects of having kids?" Obviously, there are negative aspects of having kids. In order to "win" this debate, you need to prove that the negative (happiness decreasing) aspects override the positive (happiness increasing) aspects.
4. The other aspects (A-C) of intelligently having children are not insignificant. In fact, the #1 complaint of most of my friends that have kids in an "unintelligent way" is that they are not able to fuck other women.
5. By the time you are in your 40s, it is not that hard to make significantly more than 75K a year. You have 20 years of work experience at this point. I would guess the majority of your readers that are 40+ are making significantly more than 75K a year.
6. Maybe part of the problem is your outlook on kids in general. Many people look at "helping them get jobs, helping them get settled in life, helping them with their problems" as positive (happiness increasing) things where they enjoy the opportunity to help mentor their children.
Anyway, at this point, it feels like we are spinning our wheels here. I'd like to move on.
Let's move on then. Proceed.
I know we both agree that, in life, much happiness is derived from doing meaningful work. For many people, having kids is the most important and meaningful thing that they do. Although I am aware that this is impossible to prove, I believe that evolution has made us strongly desire having children, sort of like a built-in Mission (to use your terminology).
Of course, the counter argument here is that the feelings and emotions that people have regarding their kids are all coming from societal programming. For the record, I 100% believe that societal programming massively influences just about everything we do, including our decisions to have kids. SP obviously is responsible for many of the dumb things men do, like buying a woman a massive engagement ring. However, there is more to this than just SP.
Having kids actually affects men physiologically. You can read more about this here. I bring this up not as evidence that having kids makes you more happy but to illustrate that there is something more going on here. Having kids affects men on a very deep level. If you believe that having kids is a "built-in Mission" for men (which I do), then the logic that follows is that not having kids will lead to at least some level of unhappiness and regret, while having them will lead to some level of happiness and satisfaction. Overall, assuming one can intelligently deal with the negative aspects of having kids (as we've discussed), having kids should increase your long-term happiness.
To quote your article: "When men did more than donate sperm to a pregnancy...they got called crazy. The condition...describes expectant fathers who are stricken with some combination of weight gain, nausea, food cravings, backaches, insomnia...a father's testosterone level also drops by about a third, on average, in the first three weeks after his child is born."
That makes men more happy?
My evolution designed me to impregnate as many as women as possible before I die. If I did that as caveman in 50,000 BC, or a farmer in the 16th century, that would be a good idea. If I did that today, the child support would bankrupt me and quite literally destroy my life. Evolution isn't the issue. Long-term happiness and modern-day realities are.
I never said not having kids won't cause any unhappiness. It may for some men. I said that having kids will damage your long-term happiness (despite moments of joy), and if you add up all the unhappiness you'll experience over the 18-20ish years (at least!), that will be far more unhappiness than any regret you might feel if you never have kids, while you're living a great life, being a free and happy man.
I'm not telling men to never have kids. I'm saying if you really want kids, you can't bullshit yourself with some kind of right-wing guy-Disney fantasy. You must fully understand that your average levels of happiness are going to take a noticeable hit for about 20 years. Do it if you like, but damn, you'd better want those little bastards so badly that you don't mind decades of reduced overall happiness.
Let's wrap this up. Make your final statement (you can address any of the above if you wish), and we'll let the audience decide.
Really, BD? Let's recap:
Fred: "I bring this [article] up not as evidence that having kids makes you more happy..."
BD response: "To quote your article: .... That makes men more happy?"
RE: Evolution- It is very relevant. Evolution is the reason why we are the way we are. However, your argument regarding evolution is irrelevant. No one is suggesting having dozens of children with multiple women.
I'll let the rest of my arguments stand as written.
BD, thank you for the debate; I enjoyed it! Also, thank you for your blog. It has definitely helped shape some of my views and changed how I see the world.
Thank you Fred for a vigorous debate!
The rest of you can now leave comments as to who you thought won, plus any other points that should have been brought up. Having kids is an extremely important topic and warrants further discussion.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Sideburns 2017-07-05 08:38:05
Whatever your background, whatever your politics, whatever your agenda (except for a tiny minority of people who cannot see it or do it any other way): 1). Your memes always spread faster than your genes. YOUR future kid will always cost you more time/money than it takes to stop OTHERS reproducing, or to adopt one of THEIR kids. Therefore, if you want to beat them, you must not join them. 2). Your future kids will always take resources from your other goals, but not add them. Therefore to maximise your happiness you must not breed. Who still does not agree?
KryptoKate 2017-04-17 18:23:00
LOL Jack, you haven't convinced me you don't want to be a cult leader. They all think they're acting kindly and in the best interests of their beloved followers/family. And plenty of them allow sleeping around, so long as they get to sleep with all the chicks. You ever hear of the Children of God? I mean, I agree with some of your opinions and admire your revolutionary spirit, but seriously, lord help your followers if you ever get too much power. 😉
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-17 17:19:00
JOTB, your ego is so insanely large that I would say parenthood is going to challenge you quite a bit.My ego loves a challenge!
Especially if your kid gets your brains and force of will, which just increases the chances they will rebel or reject your values. You assume that your child will adopt your values and worship you, which is not a good assumption to make.I know exactly how to play this to avoid rebellion. All I have to do is deceive my children into thinking that I am against everything that I really do believe in. By condemning my own values, I'll make those values seem cool. Thus, by doing everything I want them to do, my kids will feel like they're rebelling against me and think they're bad asses! I'm still working out a parenting plan with my girlfriend (who actually disagrees that this is the way to do it), but I'll perfect this agenda eventually. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said that you must set expectations for your children that are just short of reasonable. That way, when they rebel against those strict expectations and you pretend to be angry with them, their rebellious instincts will be satisfied. Whereas if you give your kids free condoms, let them do anything they want, and tell them, "just don't be a criminal or a heroin addict," they will become criminals and heroin addicts because that's the only way they can rebel against you and feel like cutting edge bad asses! So I may have to pretend to be a prude so that when my teenage kids start having sex, they'll feel like empowered rebels, which will give them better sex! Basically, I will have to get to know my children's innate personalities, and then tailor a specific psychological strategy for those personalities, which may indeed involve deception and false flag outrage. But again, my girlfriend disagrees with doing this because her mom was honest with her and she turned out super sexually liberated, so we're still working out the bugs.
Let’s be honest, you want to be a straight-up cult leader, you have all the attributes.Oh pish tosh!
If you could, you would rule over a whole community of your children, right? Where you sleep with all the womenI have said time and time again that I am disgusted at the thought of being a woman's only source of sex. That's a recipe for neediness and her following me around like a puppy dog acting very insecure about the fact that I'm sleeping with other women. I can't get turned on by a woman whose sex drive is so low that she would be willing to limit herself to only one man! So yes, I want to sleep with all the women, but I want those women to have their own rotation of multiple men (which my girlfriend does). I need all my women to be high sex drive and promiscuous. So your implication that I would "sleep with all the women" in a territorial or "hoarding" capacity is plain false.
and have dozens of babies and they all worship you as their dad/god/ruler. Right?I prefer the term "teacher." And I sincerely believe everything I teach my kids will be for the benefit of their long term happiness. Imagine, for example, the opposite: You have a Christian prude parent teaching his daughter to be a pure virgin because he loves her and doesn't want her to be "ruined" for marriage. Now when this girl becomes a teenager or goes to college, you release her into this sexually liberated world. What will happen? She will have to abandon her prudish values in order to fit in and be happy. She will experience a lot of cognitive dissonance and peer pressure. Because she's a naïve virgin, she might snap under the pressure, go completely crazy, and die of a drug overdose. Or, if she's a naïve and innocent virgin, a player might take advantage of her, break her heart, and cause her to commit suicide, all because her prudish father raised her with "Christian values" while failing to lock her up in a segregated community, like the Amish. This is why I want all my kids (both the males and the females), upon growing up and reaching puberty, to become players. I want my future daughter to have a rotation of men. If she gets too peer pressured into monogamy by her high school friends, I'll encourage her to cheat on her boyfriends and develop strategies of discretion. Shit, I'll even drive her to the house of the boy she's cheating on her boyfriend with, teach her to wipe her phone memory, etc... I would do the same for a son as well, of course. The eventual plan is to steer them towards open/poly. But I recognize that I won't accomplish this with logic. It won't be a rational or straightforward process. It may involve deception on my part unbeknownst to my children as I deliberately steer them towards the red pill while they believe that their beliefs and ideas are their own. Sometimes, this will involve me lying to them. Other times, this will require honesty. But here's what I do know: My intentions are good because the result of the red pill is more happiness than would be allowed under a mainstream view of the world. I will do everything in my power (including deception) to make sure that my kids are red pill and poly by the time they're 18 (not just red pill when it comes to sex, but when it comes to everything). The goal is their happiness, which will lead to my happiness, and yes, my satisfaction and ego gratification as a father. If I fail as a parent, so be it. But it is definitely worth the risk. Now, if I were a billionaire, I'd play this very differently. I'd probably set up genetic "franchises" in multiple locations across America (like terrorist cells, except legal and non-violent). I would impregnate twenty different women of various different races and skin colors. I'd sit back and watch the different personalities that come with those different DNA combinations. But I would travel a lot and play a major hand in raising them (whether one family would know about my other families is debatable). But I wouldn't allow them to meet until they're all adults. They would then exchange their different perspectives, stories, and life circumstances, while being all bound by one father and one red pill. Then we'd work on saving the world. Of course, that's a bullshit dream of mine since I'm not a billionaire. But everything above this paragraph, I plan on doing in real life! So no, not a cult leader. Just a kind hearted teacher..... 🙂
hey hey 2017-04-16 10:14:44
@Kat95: I read it but I don't know 2.0 family to say if you are right or wrong. I believe though if you correctly set your house to be 2.0, it will have far better foundations than a normal marriage with a beta. My point above is most people get married and have children out of stupidity. You as a woman got married of the loser beta because of SP(you don't really care who will have your children when you grow up-even if he some fat shorty and he is soooo nice and sweet he will still close the deal). If a beta is so extraordinary why he gets a divorce slapped on his face later on? And why after the divorce the wife despises him and takes advantage of his good nature? The beta loser got married because of SP and scarcity mentality. So nobody forced you to go day after day after day to a job you hate AND create another "problem" in your life which is family, even before you set yourself straight. The hardworking beta you admire is simply the pathetic victim of society. Most of us have been there and is not a good place to be. Men are men when they take charge of their own life and not letting things on autopilot.
See, parents are slaves to the next generation. That is precisely correct.No that is not accurate. A parent can be free and have children. It is his/her choice. Disney/SP and ignorance, creates the slave problem.
Gil Galad 2017-04-15 18:19:50
Especially if your kid gets your brains and force of will, which just increases the chances they will rebel or reject your values.I'm gonna have to agree with this. That's one more reason I'm reluctant to have kids: even if the system doesn't steal them from me ideologically - which it will, if I have them in the West as it currently is, or even in my home country which is massively importing western memes, good and bad ones - , kids also have specificities that can't be predicted by just what their parents are like and what the system tries to teach them. After all, I view myself as just that sort of fluke: my beliefs are very different from those of my parents and my culture and the typical westerner. I'm not interested in having a clone of myself (consciously), but I also don't want to father a kid that just thinks I'm weird at best and a fascist (whatever will be considered fascist later in this century) or control freak at worst. All of that on top of the risk of just losing said kids to a divorce and its equivalent for unmarried parents.
I have zero fear about the US being overtaken by non-western culturesWell there's always the Eurabia scenario. In very broad terms, suppose that a western country just ends up having 51% muslims due to its welcoming policy and to the immigrants' superior birth rates. That creates a possibility of democratically taking over and then removing democracy and now you're not in a Western country, and it happened "non-violently" (hence the importance of a powerful constitution and other anti-mob rule structures, instead of "dumb democracy", I guess). I'm simplifying of course, but I think this is what Jack is thinking of, and I can't say he's wrong. My hope is that secularism spreads as quickly as possible in the muslim world: just like "they" would want to conquer the West from the inside, may "they" be conquered by secularism from the inside. After all, we have a precedent, if I've got my facts right: by the time the USSR collapsed, there were now tons of commies and quasi-commies in the US and that's also when the US started irrevocably moving left (talk about a pyrrhic victory). It's a very dark irony when you think of it.
FWIW I think you are probably half-way between INTJ and INTP and probably leaning towards the latter, you are too laid back and open-minded for INTJ but maybe you fall somewhere in between on the spectrum.Lol, yeah it's possible. My ego is of another type: I retain the fanatical belief in my own awesomeness ( :p ) without the desire for duplication, or not much. But if you watch Rick And Morty you might agree with me that it may be cool to be a Rick among many others 😉 On a more serious note, my desire for kids may be more general: I just get the feels when I see children aged 3-9. Teenagers, when even remotely smart, are typically insufferable zealot know-it-alls, and you have to be really lucky to kind-of not want to kill your 16yo kid, I reckon. Like I said, it's just more comfortable to be an uncle instead of a father: less stress and investment, cooler, and hey, at the instinctual level, your genes are still getting spread. What I do want to "duplicate" is a number of ideas, here and there. Even the people who "don't give a fuck" that the rest of society doesn't share their views still feel a dissatisfaction with the SP-dominated world; personally what dismays me the most is how just a handful of fallacies and subtle logical mistakes - which could be exposed in a 60-second explanation each - rule the way people think. So "spreading memes", in moderation, could be a decent replacement for spreading genes - I think Sideburns said it above too and that's one thing he got right.
KryptoKate 2017-04-15 15:17:03
See, parents are slaves to the next generation. That is precisely correct. JOTB, your ego is so insanely large that I would say parenthood is going to challenge you quite a bit. Especially if your kid gets your brains and force of will, which just increases the chances they will rebel or reject your values. You assume that your child will adopt your values and worship you, which is not a good assumption to make. Let's be honest, you want to be a straight-up cult leader, you have all the attributes. If you could, you would rule over a whole community of your children, right? Where you sleep with all the women and have dozens of babies and they all worship you as their dad/god/ruler. Right? On the macro issue, choosing to breed more simply to keep up with another population that is horrifically overpopulated is like racing with someone to see who can run off a cliff faster. It's retarded. And yes I've seen Idiocracy. It's ridiculous to act like the problem is smart people not having enough kids when obviously the problem is that dumb people have way too many. Primitive cultures are not a true threat, we simply tolerate them because we're so nice. If we wanted to, we could annihilate them all tomorrow, and if they ever push it too far and truly pose a real existential threat to us, that will happen. Til then, we can simply keep them out. In fact I'd be more than happy to institute a trade program where for every smart, educated, valuable non-westerner who wants to get into our society, we let them in but we also ship out one or more of our dumbasses. Then we can let them keep up their behavior of violence and murder over resources and who gets to keep the women constantly impregnated, and giving birth to endless babies they can't afford, so long as they stay in their own crappy territories. I realize that Rome was overrun by barbarians, but that was before nuclear bombs, or even guns. Since the advent of modern weapons, primitive cultures have never prevailed over advanced ones, and to the extent that we have let them survive, it was out of being nice, not because we couldn't have if we wanted to. Whereas they literally do want to kill us but can't. Because they're stuck throwing rocks while we're flying over in jets dropping bombs. I have zero fear about the US being overtaken by non-western cultures, that is preposterous. If things got nasty, we could take off the gloves, and no one wants us to do that. @ Gil Among the INTJ males I have known, they do always seem to want to have kids -- probably because the "J" part gives them a big ego and the ego desires to replicate itself. I just don't think INTJs generally enjoy actually being parents, certainly not the everyday dealing with small children. I have known quite a few INTJ men who basically ditched their families and took off or became very scarce, after having a few kids. INTPs seem to be the ones who mainly realize they don't want kids in the first place. FWIW I think you are probably half-way between INTJ and INTP and probably leaning towards the latter, you are too laid back and open-minded for INTJ but maybe you fall somewhere in between on the spectrum.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-15 15:02:57
@ Jack, if you’re interested check out truthism.com. The guy who writes for that website has a similar information delivery system to you.Wow! Very clever way of insulting me. And I almost bought it too! Seriously bro?
Says shit that you always knew, but never knew how to explain it.Really? You always "knew" that the planet Earth is run by "extraterrestrial reptillians?" The man running that site is a clinical psychotic. Plus, towards the end, he rails against all serious relationships and human bonding with women, says that casual sex should be the only sex, and essentially condemns all women with misogynistic contempt, thus contributing to the depopulation agenda by driving the sexes apart and discouraging emotional intimacy. Oh, and did I mention that he believes the Earth is controlled by extraterrestrial reptillians? Nice job trying to link people like me to schizophrenics. If I were a true conspiracy theorist, I'd say that website is run by the CIA in order to "trap" people like me in the land of crazy, thus ensuring that we will never be a threat to the established order by giving us just enough rope by which we will discredit ourselves from the point of view of any sane person. Fuck off!
Kat95 2017-04-15 12:02:00
@hey hey Hmmmm, did you read my further descriptions of my Alpha 2.0 hubs? Anyway, in general since I do not believe I am married to a Beta (capitalization intended, though I understand why BD styles it "beta"), I would simply respond that Moms raising the kids are similarly slaves. I have been both a working and a stay-at-home Mom and I can tell you there were many days it was easier at the office. I breathed a sigh of relief at work and steeled myself for the weekends. Once *all the kids are in all-day school there is no argument its much easier, but there is no harder work (except possibly emergency response work, trauma surgery, of course armed services, first responders of all kinds) that is harder than being home day after day after day after! day! with *multiple preschool and younger kids. I hope you are wise enough to consider the possibility that unless you have spent at least a year (because its the day after day that gets you, just like for my 2.0 Alpha) staying home with multiple members of the under-five-year-old set, you might not have complete information upon which to form a informed opinion. In my informed opinion (speaking as a working and stay-at-home Mom), *both* parents are "slaves" to the process of successfully raising the next generation. And, since the point of BD's post was long-term happiness, by enslaving ourselves we are risking everything, because kids have the power to lower your long-term happiness.
hey hey 2017-04-15 02:36:35
What you are referring to is not personal satisfaction, but well being. In the moment that your kid calls you and asks for money, you might buzz a 4 on your well being index (on a scale of 1-10). But later that day if a social scientist came into your home and conducted an interview and you were sitting in your living room together, you might pull a picture of your family from your mantel piece and think of various fond memories of your family. You might be inclined to argue that ‘personal satisfaction’ is a BS way of measuring happiness, but you would be wrong to dismiss it entirely. A lot of our internal consciousness is remembered or anticipated moments, and not present well being. BOTH personal satisfaction and well being factor into happiness.No it is not well being. It is personal satisfaction. I could have spend that money going on a trip that will give me higher personal satisfaction than sending money to my child that I know he/she will spend it on parties for his/her own personal satisfaction or on pointless things for me. If a scientist came to my place I would probably pull out pictures of the wonderful relationships I had with women and not the family, because I will despise that-not my family but the situation I'm in.What would make me happy is having children only when I'm financially ready and have a decent free time in my everyday life to do it. There is no other way around it to have children and be constantly happy in your life. I've seen a lot of fathers cursing their children even though they are doing it innocently because they drained them and their life. Yet these same fathers will tell you the best thing that happened to them in their life is their children and this is because of scarcity mentality, not because of anything else. It shows they didn't have much going on their life and pretty much they were leading a boring life overall.
hey hey 2017-04-15 02:17:51
I suppose a quibble I may have with this column is the depiction of the Beta as boring and submissive and pathetic. In our (female) eyes, he is and remains the gorgeous (or we wouldn’t have married him) guy who, day after day after day after! day! (for years and years and decades) gets up every morning at the butt crack of dawn or earlier, fights his way thru traffic to the office he mostly loathes, and slays corporate dragons he really doesn’t care about – so that the kids we created together have a wonderful, steady, nurturing home and upbringing. If that doesn’t take superhuman strength, I do not know what does. This is the guy I love and respect more than I think at times is humanly possible.In other terms a slave. The kids might grow up safe but the advice they will get will be so bad they will get into the world repeating the mistakes of their father AND their mother, thus becoming slaves themselves. Not to mention the high probability of the divorce and as such making the children grow up in an even more hostile environment. The beta is good for the short term and the NRE. He is very bad for the long term, because he spoils you and the children in ways you probably don't understand. You love the beta because he gives you comfort and free stuff. In other words he spoils you without challenge. This never ends well for either you or him or the children.
Gil Galad 2017-04-14 14:57:42
Edit: my last test was a while ago but it looks like I'm an INTJ. I'm introverted but I gotta admit that I do find kids hard to resist, especially little girls lol. I don't know if I'll beat the urge to have some, but I think I might be able to settle for nephews, if my sisters have kids. I'll be the mischievous uncle their mums tell them not to spend too much time with :p
Gil Galad 2017-04-14 14:41:49
Gil is wishing to avoid the paradox and get both high quality and high quantity through technology@Kate: I had a phase in my late teens when I was also disgusted by our high numbers and thought we should have the normal numbers for an omnivorous mammal of our size. When you extrapolate, the number you find will typically be in the 5-50 million range, and anyway, 3-5 million is what we were stabilized on when we were hunter-gatherers and needed a square mile per person to feed ourselves. More recently I stumbled upon Isaac Arthur's youtube channel, and I was freakin' amazed. With just three of the videos (Arcologies, Ecumenopolises, and The Impact of Nuclear Fusion), I was pretty much converted: not only can we house a trillion, but we can do it while preserving the present biosphere and keeping a reasonable amount of space per person, not crammed like it's shown in traditional SciFi - and no crazy technology is needed, just more scale, mostly. Here's what I think: Africa needs to get its shit together because it's projected to account for almost all the population growth this century; and the other countries just need to keep it reasonable. I understand that white people might want to crank out a little more babies because they are currently the scapegoats of everyone and the backlash is understandable. As a side note, the other thing that changed my mind about population is that we need numbers, if only for the probabilistic aspect, to continue to have frequent inventions and fast technological progress. My personal view on kids is this: 1° if there's no life extension clearly on the horizon when I'm about 50, it's unlikely that I'll have kids, maybe a 30% chance. The hassle is just too much and I crave my freedom. 2° if it is on the horizon, then I'll have kids, but I'll have them whenever the fuck I want because I'll have the time and the 20+ years they'll steal from me won't represent a huge fraction of my (then) lengthened lifespan.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-14 05:22:13
And JOTB you are off your rocker on this issue.Because I'm not a misanthrope?
Anything that is abundant is devalued. Valuable things are scarce.This goes against everything BD preaches about having an abundance mentality. A scarcity mentality leads to monogamy, jealousy, and hoarding. By your logic, the prudes are right. Sex should be scarce, otherwise it's not valuable. Women should be considered scarce (and therefore, pedestaled as precious diamonds) and hoarded by jealous and monogamous men! Fuck that!
I also don’t need any theory or arguments about this because all I have to do is look around. There are ALREADY way too many people!! They’re everywhere, I’m already nauseated by our excessive numbers!One trillion people on the planet would be perfect for me. But I'd settle for 200 billion. Any more and we'd have to colonize other planets (which I'm also in favor of).
Seriously how can anyone NOT think this??Not all of us suffer from humanphobia.
Natalists are just motivated by pure dumb animal drive to empty their balls and spread their seed, even if it means misery and disgusting conditions for everyone. There is no reason in it for them, it’s an animal emotion.You have zero clue what my reasoning is about wanting children. If even one person in your family tree (out of millions) thought like you, you wouldn't exist.
Doing the bidding of your genes rather than living your own enjoyable, high-quality life means you get what you deserve, I suppose, which is a shitty, low-quality life.My life is pretty high quality, thank you very much. And I plan on it staying that way.
People like myself and Sideburns prefer a high-quality life for everyone.How? By having the intellectuals stop reproducing and allowing the West to be overrun by third world savages who breed like rats? That's a high quality life for no one. If you, as an intellectual, refuse to have kids, you are part of the problem.
People like JOTB prefer low-quality, high-quantity misery with the delusion that he alone will beat the system.If you actually believe that that's what I prefer, then the only one showing signs of delusion is you.
Gil is wishing to avoid the paradox and get both high quality and high quantity through technology,I thought this was self-evident, but I agree with him. That is precisely how humanity should avoid the paradox. With the proper technology, the Earth can house up to a trillion people. If we colonize other planets (which we should), human beings can reach into the quadrillions while maintaining a high quality of life!
which I suppose might happen, but it is not the reality right now.No, reality right now is the third world over flowing and the civilization that gave us the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, human rights, libertarianism, individualism, sexual liberation, and so forth is dying because smart people think it's stupid to have children. Please watch the movie Idiocracy!
It is not a matter of caring about society or the future, which I don’t. It’s about wanting to live a high quality life now, for myself.So you're willing to damn future generations to third world hell (because the West will become the third world if westerners don't restart breeding) for the good life now? I'm saying you can have both - a high quality life now AND contribute to the next generation by raising rational children who will at least make this world a little better. That's my plan. I'm not willing to see the West overrun by third world values just because me contributing to the gene pool is "irrational." It's perfectly rational if you understand the crisis that I'm trying to prevent.
Anyone who enjoys the natalist philosophy is free to move to Somalia and see how wonderful it is.Fuck off! Soon, the West will be Somalia (with all its dictatorial values) unless westerners start procreating!
INTPs and INTJs should not have kids,I am an INTJ. Now what?
KryptoKate 2017-04-13 19:02:52
Late to this party but just wanted to say that I am totally with you Sideburns. And JOTB you are off your rocker on this issue. No one who actually ENJOYS nature and other species needs to be told/manipulated by someone else in order to understand that too many people is bad. It's fucking self-evident. I love tigers. They are the most beautiful creature on earth. But you know what would be terrible? A world with 7 billion tigers. That would be much, much, much worse than a world with only 7 tigers. Apex predators are supposed to keep their population numbers low, that's how the food chain works. When there are too many predators, disgusting things happen. Humans are THE apex predator. Which means we should be rare, not choking the planet as if we were fucking ants or wildebeest. Don't you people learn anything from this blog? Anything that is abundant is devalued. Valuable things are scarce. Billions of people does not increase the value of humanity, it substantially degrades it. I also don't need any theory or arguments about this because all I have to do is look around. There are ALREADY way too many people!! They're everywhere, I'm already nauseated by our excessive numbers! If I can actually get out to take a walk in nature without seeing anyone else it is a miracle! Seriously how can anyone NOT think this?? I will never, ever, ever understand anyone who wants the planet to be choked to overflowing like ants stacked upon one another. Ever. Sure, we *could* do that, but why would we want to?? What an utter nightmare. Natalists are just motivated by pure dumb animal drive to empty their balls and spread their seed, even if it means misery and disgusting conditions for everyone. There is no reason in it for them, it's an animal emotion. I love my cat and we live in spacious, high quality, wonderfulness. The feral cats that breed nonstop and live on the streets of my neighborhood do not. Instead the feral cats are scrawny, diseased, missing eyes and limbs, with visible tumors in some cases, hungry, fighting, and looking in *wishing* they could live the fabulous, comfortable life that my cat lives. I suppose some of you would prefer to live the horrific life of a starving alley cat than not reproduce. I think you're insane, or as a I call it, enslaved to the interests of your genes. Doing the bidding of your genes rather than living your own enjoyable, high-quality life means you get what you deserve, I suppose, which is a shitty, low-quality life. People like myself and Sideburns prefer a high-quality life for everyone. People like JOTB prefer low-quality, high-quantity misery with the delusion that he alone will beat the system. Gil is wishing to avoid the paradox and get both high quality and high quantity through technology, which I suppose might happen, but it is not the reality right now. Instead we can simply look around and see exactly what happens with too many of a species that fails to regulate its breeding...more misery, more fighting, more murder, more disgusting conditions. Have fun with that. It is not a matter of caring about society or the future, which I don't. It's about wanting to live a high quality life now, for myself. Anyone who enjoys the natalist philosophy is free to move to Somalia and see how wonderful it is. Also, on the topic of the actual blog-post, this is really a matter of personality. There is actually pretty good research on this. Rationalist types (NTs) do not particularly enjoy having kids, and the INTs *really* do not like it. INTPs and INTJs should not have kids, or at least not unless they can figure out a way for someone else to do the work of raising them. Extroverts will probably enjoy their children. Feeling types will want kids whether or not they enjoy it, so it doesn't matter. INTs really should avoid it unless someone else is going to raise the kids, because they are not the type to rationalize things to themselves that they don't enjoy just because society tells them it's valuable. Therefore they don't tend to get much out of the "story-telling" aspect of satisfaction or warm-fuzzies from fulfilling social norms, the way others do.
Duke 2017-04-12 15:56:26
@ Jack, if you're interested check out truthism.com. The guy who writes for that website has a similar information delivery system to you. Says shit that you always knew, but never knew how to explain it.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-12 12:22:06
I’m not surprised that you are well versed on the “depopulation agenda.” For all that you disagree about with Roosh, you two at least have this in common. He has been going about this subject for the last two three years.The problem is that Roosh comes at this from an anti-sex "women need to stop being sluts" angle. The real reason is that he has M/W. He believes that being pro-sex makes you a part of the depopulation agenda because all he sees is casual sex or traditional monogamous marriage. And since one night stands and casual fuck buddy arrangements aren't conducive to raising children, he concludes that all women should become virgins till marriage "for the sake of increasing the population." Basically, the man is an idiot. And I can't listen to him even when he's talking about the depopulation agenda, since he tries to tie it into his sex-hating Puritanism. Due to his M/W complex, open relationships and "having your cake and eating it too" has never occurred to him. He goes on and on about saving the nuclear family if there's any hope of increasing the population. And I agree. But none of us here are against the nuclear family. We just believe that the family should be sexually open, whereas traditional nuclear families have chosen discreet cheating instead while shaming the woman for it more than the man. It's pathetic. And he's wrong about sexual liberation just in itself contributing to depopulation. What contributes to depopulation is precisely the discouraging of men and women from being together and instead encouraging each gender to see the other as the enemy, which facilitates the opposite of sexual liberation, and of course less children (all sex is rape, all men are rapists, all women are false rape accusing gold diggers, be a celibate MGTOW, become a lesbian, etc...).
And Ben Shapiro? He’d also be a smart guy if he wasn’t so against the sexualizing of very young girls by teen magazines and the so-called hook up culture that takes place at universitiesAgreed! Sadly, Ben is a super duper religious Orthodox Jew. He lost his virginity to his wife and his wife lost hers to him. Yuck. Talk about being an omega male. For this reason, he has sympathies with sex-negative feminism and, just like all tradcons, believes that sex-positivism is bad. Still, despite his "be a virgin till marriage" tradcon horseshit, he has very smart things to say about political correctness, the climate change myth, and many other things. Unfortunately, getting him to understand that you are harming teenagers by refusing to sexualize them would require him turning his back on his bullshit religion, and he's too entrenched in the Orthodox Jewish community to see reason on this issue.
I do wonder what the elites have planned for the future though. RFID chips though vaccines, economic meltdowns, cashless society, global conflicts, agenda 21, martial law-FEMA Camps.I have heard of them wanting to implant an RFID chip in the right hand or the forehead, but I haven't heard them injecting it into you through vaccines. I doubt it will happen that way, but they are definitely dead set on a cashless society and putting all money and information on those implanted microchips (they plan on selling it as a way to eliminate organized crime - drug dealing, prostitution, etc...). If that happens, freedom is effectively dead. This is why I actually strongly disagreed with a post that BD made on his Sublime Your Time blog where he threw in his support for a cashless society in the form of nothing but checks or debit cards, saying that using paper or coins made him feel like a peasant in the Roman Empire. But, then again, he doesn't care about his privacy, unlike me. I've recently set my financial life up in such a way that most of my transactions are done with cash. I enjoy annoying the elites and rubbing in their faces the fact that they can't track me. The only exceptions are my online purchases and my bills (which I pay over the phone), which I use a debit card for. I also make sure to have no credit cards, as I hate the notion of spending someone else's money. As for the rest of what you mentioned, just because the elites are planning something doesn't mean it will happen. They can masturbate about it all they like but they are not gods. Human free will is just so annoying for them and I enjoy irritating them in my own small way. I will admit though that I felt genuine terror when reading about Agenda 21. Luckily, the UN is probably the most politically impotent and powerless organization in our world today (at least in reference to America).
Good luck with the children you plan on having, at least they’ll have a smart dad and hopefully be smart themselves.Thank you.
Gil Galad 2017-04-12 10:41:54
Again, I said we could use less jungles and more shopping mallsYou have an amusing habit of responding to a point, then moving to another sentence extending the same point and saying "Again,...", as if I was supposed to time travel to realize "Geez, Jack has already answered that, I shouldn't have kept talking about it". You do this often. Maybe you'll realize how nonsensical it is. Or maybe you just use it to create an illusion of a stronger argument through repetition.
that the Earth will be a giant ice cubeWe discussed this months ago and I told you that the available computing power to model climate today is literally - literally - millions of times superior to the 70s. The argument is void. BTW, global warming and global cooling were competing theories in the 70s, and most of the support the latter had was due to a temporary cooling that occurred between the 40s and the 70s.
I was talking specifically about junglesA rational person can't walk around showing off their massive lack of knowledge about the Jovian moons, get called out on it - I wasn't really expecting an answer to "how much did you double check this Jack ?" - , and not have at least a moment of doubt about the objectivity of the rest of their reasoning. Similarly, your unawareness of how very large surface areas covered in vegetation in the equatorial zone are not the same as many individual trees when it comes to preserving climatic balance should give you pause. But no, you're perfectly comfortable spouting the most ridiculous scientific inaccuracies as long as they seem to help your argument.
You do understand, of course, that reducing carbon dioxide would also reduce oxygen right?CO2 levels during (pre)historic warm episodes our ancestors lived in were about 300 ppm, and during cold ones - "ice ages" - they dipped to 180 ppm, and oxygen was fine. Today they're 400 ppm, way above the standard for warm, interglacial episodes. Stop stretching statements of degree into an extreme/absolute version of them; strawmanning leads nowhere. Same with equating me with humanphobic eco-terrorists; it's not like I was proving the opposite when I was responding to Sideburns, lol.
George CarlinGeorge Carlin was a nihilist who casually admitted that hearing about thousands of deaths in the news made him very happy; his quarrel with the environmentalists, mostly, isn't that they're wrong about the threats to ourselves, but that to him, it would actually be a good thing if we went extinct: at the scale of a million years, the Earth would be perfectly fine ("therefore, greenpeacers are wrong to worry about Earth"). I wouldn't quote this guy in my favor if I were you; from your perspective the real George Carlin is way worse than me in this regard.
Then why do all the PC people believe in climate change, while most non-PC people don’t?In my home country, most religious people aren't marxists, but unfortunately most people who successfully disentangle themselves from religion find nothing better to do with their supposedly freed minds than to dive into another dogma, marxism (I've seen the same thing in some Western settings). This kind of reasoning is just extremely weak because there are dozens of alternate explanations.
just generally acting like a dominant woman bullying a beta male on the part of these tree huggers will just steel my alpha resolveMy point exactly. You don't care about whether climate change is true or false, you only care that admitting you don't have enough data to be sure of its falsehood would be "beta". Tell me how someone who prioritizes his perceived alpha status over knowing the truth has a better chance of knowing the truth than someone who fully prioritizes truth.
As Ben Shapiro saidFollowing Ben's logic, if someone with binoculars ("a scientist") told you that a shooter is about to take you out and you realize your foot is stuck and the only way to move away and evade the shot is to cut off your foot, you just go "fuck that, you're lying about what you're seeing in your binoculars, present me with a solution that doesn't involve losing my foot or I won't believe your alarmist crap". It's nonsensical. I'm reasonably sure you don't have the discipline to take a few months of self-imposed agnosticism to do a real reexamination of this issue and purge your biases, so I don't hope to convince you of anything, but I'm letting you know: anytime that I'm in the mood to bother, I will counter anything obviously misleading or unscientific that your write to deceive people into espousing climate change denial & similar, because I believe that such things deserve to be called out every time. And you will keep receiving "unacceptably condescendent" questions like my "How well-read are you in modern neuroscience?" the other day, because misleading people and speaking with confidence about subjects you repeatedly show ignorance of deserves to be called out, too.
Brian 2017-04-11 20:35:18
Throughout my entire adult life I have considered children to be something women want FROM men, and relationships are the way they get it. I read some of that notion within your own writing. Honestly I have never understood why men would actually want children themselves unless it was a way to control someone or stay with the woman they love. Do you have any thoughts on that idea?
Duke 2017-04-11 18:58:40
I'm not surprised that you are well versed on the "depopulation agenda." For all that you disagree about with Roosh, you two at least have this in common. He has been going about this subject for the last two three years. http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-western-progressivism-is-depopulation And Ben Shapiro? He'd also be a smart guy if he wasn't so against the sexualizing of very young girls by teen magazines and the so-called hook up culture that takes place at universities which he extensively details in his 2005 book Porn Generation. I do wonder what the elites have planned for the future though. RFID chips though vaccines, economic meltdowns, cashless society, global conflicts, agenda 21, martial law-FEMA Camps. The list goes on and on. It's brave new world out there. Good luck with the children you plan on having, at least they'll have a smart dad and hopefully be smart themselves.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-11 17:10:31
Oh god, it's you again. That's......nice. Sigh. Atmospheric CO2 levels haven’t been this high for at least the past 2 million years, and possibly several tens of millions of years.Uh huh. That's why 98 percent of scientists in the 1970s said that global cooling is real and that the Earth will be a giant ice cube by the year 2000.
The continuation of this means runaway greenhouse effect, and we know what Venus thinks of this. But if you’re going to deny the greenhouse effect itself, just take a look at the moon, which, devoid of greenhouse gases, is 32°C colder than Earth.LOL!
Solar flares are currently not higher than in the 1950s; global temperatures are.No, they aren't. I love watching local weathermen. They keep long records. I love it when one of these weathermen, or weather websites, says about a hot day in winter - "This 65 degree F winter weather almost beat the 67 degrees we had on this same winter day back in 1917." I love it! Or a hot day in the summer: "This summer day has had a high temperature of 98 degrees F, which almost beat the 101 degrees F we had on this same day in 1908."
I don’t know where you live, but there’s a good chance you’ve noticed yourself that winters are milder and summers longer than 20 years ago where you are.See above.
Now you’re insulting everyone’s intelligence. You do realize that the only reason Earth acquired 21% oxygen is because plants appeared on it, right ?Who said anything about plants? I see plants and trees everywhere. I was talking specifically about jungles (albeit using their more PC name - rainforests). As George Carlin said, "Rainforests and wetlands came into existence because the environmentalists realized that no one would donate money to save jungles and swamps."
And that that was the event that made animal life possible at all ?Again, I said we could use less jungles and more shopping malls. That's just a fact. I never said anything about doing away with plants or trees. A few days ago, I was walking in the woods with my girlfriend. She asked me what I'm thinking about. And I said, "Wouldn't it be hilarious if this entire forest gets torn down and replaced with a shopping mall? Then all the stores in that mall could be required to have a plant or small tree because, as the bosses would say, "We actually care about the environment in this company, thank you very much. We're a very progressive and eco-friendly corporation which believes in going green." HAHAHA! She's a pro-environment hippie and even she laughed at that!
Humans plus livestock represent 98% of all vertebrate biomass, up from 0.1% ten thousand years ago. If anything, that means we need more machinery to create oxygen and trap carbon, not less.You do realize that plants feed off of our carbon dioxide in order to give us oxygen right? You do understand, of course, that reducing carbon dioxide would also reduce oxygen right? And you do realize that reducing carbon dioxide to the extent that these psychotic humanphobic eco-terrorists want would result in a new ice age, right? You want to live on the moon?
The only scenario where it might be defensible to do away with part of the natural machinery – ie, treesAnd just when did I say I wanted that? Again, I see fucking trees everywhere. But on "Earth Day" - a pagan piece of shit holiday that shouldn't exist - you are inspiring me to protest by making a youtube video where I pour gasoline all over a huge plant and set it on fire. In fact, everyone should find their own way of protesting the eco-Nazis on Earth Day. Cut down a tree. Shoot a squirrel. Do anything. Just capture it on film and put it on youtube, or somewhere.
Yeah, that’s why China, one of the least PC countries in the world (regarding science that is, not human rights of course), is dumping fortunes into increasing its solar power capacity,The irony is that communist China is more capitalist than America.
having become n°1 in the world in 2015, and expected to have deployed 70 gigawatts by the end of this year.That is due to the capitalist love for efficiency and merit. They just sell it as "saving the planet" because it's good PR with the UN and other fascist institutions.
Climate change is realYou can say this a thousand times and it won't make it true. Environmental doomsday people have been with us since the industrial revolution. Robert Malthus believed that the world can't feed this many people since the population explosion caused by industrialization. He said if we don't sterilize people or start committing genocide immediately, only dead rats will be viable food sources by the year 2000. It's all bullshit. The 7 billion people today - even the poorest of the poor - live like kings and queens compared to the richest people of yesterday. Things change and human adapt. The climate change hysteria is about control. It's about a global carbon tax (which will really be a "life tax"). It's about halting scientific progress (except for the elites). Eric Holder - an Obama crony and genocidal maniac - once said that not only should the human population be reduced to 500 million, but there should be a global science court either legalizing or criminalizing each new scientific invention. He's a Malthusian and he's scum. But most of all, all this climate change hysteria is about white guilt and persuading westerners to stop breeding so that western values can die with them, thus green (heh) lighting a one world government.
and if the US hasn’t admitted it yet, it’s not because the elites are lying, but because the US has always had the problem that its masses are much less pro-reason than its founding fathers.Then why do all the PC people believe in climate change, while most non-PC people don't? Climate change isn't about reason or science. It's about fear. It's about guilt. It's a way of hating white males. It's about emotion. It's about pagan Earth worship that would value human lives below the lives of plants and animals. And it's about absolute world domination sold to children through cartoons in order to make the truth less believable to them when they reach adulthood.
Why do you think there’s so much more creationism in the US than in Europe ? The US is still dragging its judeo-christian chains. Have no fear, the Earth is ours, we can’t damage it because Yahweh will be protecting it – they’ve just depersonified God and are now saying that “nature” will take care of itself.You keep imputing this Christian bullshit unto me and trying your best to lump me in with bible thumping rednecks. It's out of left field and it won't work. Christians don't believe in climate change because they recognize it for the pagan and pre-Christian feminine religion that it is. But it's not necessary to be a Christian to recognize that this Gaia Earth mother crap is horseshit!
Nature has no reason to take care of itself, because it has no reason of its own. If it breaks, it breaks, and then the people who predicted it can’t even say I told you so because they’ll be screwed too. Denying the threats is just as bad as exaggerating them.As Ben Shapiro said, present me with a solution to climate change that doesn't involve either (A) committing mass genocide and embracing humanphobia, (B) plunging the West into third world conditions, or (C) embracing one world government. Then we can talk about preventing climate change even if I don't believe it, but "just in case it's true." Until then, all the bullying, white guilt, anti-capitalism, recycle nagging, plastic bag nagging, and just generally acting like a dominant woman bullying a beta male on the part of these tree huggers will just steel my alpha resolve to make that youtube video pouring gas over that plant and watching it burn while looking into the camera and saying, "now what?"
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-11 14:22:25
Why would anyone want kids? just get a dog or cat. Much cheaper and less drama.Because I don't want a permanent baby. Babies are the least appealing to me. I want a child who will grow up and whom I can teach things to (facts, opinions, values, etc...), and who will carry on my genes and perhaps, if I'm lucky, my ideas even after I'm gone.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-11 14:15:02
Find me a group of smart people proven to produce smart babies (who remain smart even in a dumb environment),There are plenty such people in the red pill community.
all conscripted from birth to solve the threat of ecological degradationThere is no such thing. Might as well set up surveillance cameras to solve the threat of Santa Claus breaking into your house.
and thermonuclear war,Give every country in the world nuclear weapons. Poof! World peace. No nuclear country has ever attacked another and never will. Think of it as a 2nd Amendment for governments. A nuclear world is a polite world. There is also a 100 percent way to prevent terrorists hijacking airplanes. Require every adult passenger flying on a plane to have a gun. If you don't have one, the airport should be required to provide one for you. Poof! No more hijackings! It's not hard.
while simultaneously improving humanity’s (including their own) lifestyle and happiness, and I will donate all I have to spare to them, even if they don’t use PC words.Then donate your money to as many red pill blogs and sites as you can.
Gil Galad 2017-04-10 16:56:32
The problem is that there is an increase in sunspot activity (which happens once every few thousand years), which is why astronomers are telling us that, for the first time, the ice is melting on Mars and the various moons of Jupiter. No big deal.There's bad science, and then there's really, really bad science. Just how much did you double-check this Jack, or did you just assimilate the first piece of info that confirmed what you wanted to believe ? Atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been this high for at least the past 2 million years, and possibly several tens of millions of years. The continuation of this means runaway greenhouse effect, and we know what Venus thinks of this. But if you're going to deny the greenhouse effect itself, just take a look at the moon, which, devoid of greenhouse gases, is 32°C colder than Earth. Solar flares are currently not higher than in the 1950s; global temperatures are. I don't know where you live, but there's a good chance you've noticed yourself that winters are milder and summers longer than 20 years ago where you are. And the climate of the Jovian moons has much more to do with tidal heating from Jupiter than with solar activity that's - because of the square of distance law - 25 times weaker when it reaches Jupiter than when it reaches Earth. Mars has a different mechanism for ice ages and warming episodes than we do, with a different cyclicity and different glacier patterns.
The honest truth is that we could use less rainforests and more shopping malls.Now you're insulting everyone's intelligence. You do realize that the only reason Earth acquired 21% oxygen is because plants appeared on it, right ? And that that was the event that made animal life possible at all ? Humans plus livestock represent 98% of all vertebrate biomass, up from 0.1% ten thousand years ago. If anything, that means we need more machinery to create oxygen and trap carbon, not less. The only scenario where it might be defensible to do away with part of the natural machinery - ie, trees - is the one where you're massievly in favor of developing artifical machinery, ie carbon capture tech. To make things worse, consuming fossil fuels means re-releasing that very carbon that was captured by the plants that later turned into fossil fuels, while also consuming the oxygen they produced, which means you're slowly pushing the Earth back to how it was before plants did their job. Trump is an idiot for wanting a comeback of coal.
If climate change were real, the free market would absolutely put a stop to itYeah, that's why China, one of the least PC countries in the world (regarding science that is, not human rights of course), is dumping fortunes into increasing its solar power capacity, having become n°1 in the world in 2015, and expected to have deployed 70 gigawatts by the end of this year. Climate change is real and if the US hasn't admitted it yet, it's not because the elites are lying, but because the US has always had the problem that its masses are much less pro-reason than its founding fathers. Why do you think there's so much more creationism in the US than in Europe ? The US is still dragging its judeo-christian chains. Have no fear, the Earth is ours, we can't damage it because Yahweh will be protecting it - they've just depersonified God and are now saying that "nature" will take care of itself. Nature has no reason to take care of itself, because it has no reason of its own. If it breaks, it breaks, and then the people who predicted it can't even say I told you so because they'll be screwed too. Denying the threats is just as bad as exaggerating them.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-10 16:02:35
@Pyro Nagus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZNu3GRI3H4
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-10 15:48:32
I hope it’s bullshit. Seems to me evidence for and against climate change being caused by humans is a bit ambiguous and anyone can put his own spin on it.The scientists that promote it are bought and paid for. The real goal is to have a microscopic minority of people enjoying all technology while everyone else lives in the 14th century. It's about power. Nothing more.
But I believe humans are responsible for some damage at least.Negligible damage that is corrected by the planet's natural defenses, including, but not limited to, oceans absorbing the extra heat from carbon emissions. The problem is that there is an increase in sunspot activity (which happens once every few thousand years), which is why astronomers are telling us that, for the first time, the ice is melting on Mars and the various moons of Jupiter. No big deal.
I’m not a scientist. I can only speculate about the political agendas behind promoting a side of the argument.Speculation isn't necessary. The evidence is there. If you want a very specific and cogent argument, check out Ben Shapiro on youtube. He debunks this shit so much better than I can. He even makes the case that warming is better for humans than cooling, and even if some minor global warming is taking place, the consequences of rising ocean levels will simply amount to the necessity of building a few cities on a higher altitude. This will inconvenience no one, except rich elites and Hollywood celebrities who will have to give up their beach front properties (which is why they're whining about it now and trying to whip up hysteria)!
One can also say someone can promote arguments against it as an excuse to remove restrictions from factories and open coal mines. Clearly, there’s money to be made from that… or maybe not since alternative fuels are now competing.Corporations are pushing back against the eco-terrorists because they know it's all bullshit. It's just a way for fascist elites to destroy capitalism and fuck with their profits for the purposes of mass redistribution. Rich capitalists didn't become rich by being stupid, or by bowing down to fascists! Most CEOs of private corporations are some of the smartest men in the world and they see right through this global warming hoax and its "one world government" motivations. If climate change were real, the free market would absolutely put a stop to it (these men have families too). Actually, they're already investing in alternative energy because, in time, it might be way more efficient than fossil fuels.
you’re the only one who’s aggressively pushing a narrative nowIncorrect. Sideburns is aggressively pushing a misanthropic narrative of nihilism and humanphobia. I'm just pushing back.
and baselessly accusing Sideburns of knowingly working for the elites.There is nothing baseless about my accusations. The fascist elites who put out this climate change hysteria have been known to pay shills and propagandists to "reach out to the peasants" by going on their sites and blogs and attempt to brainwash them. They make arguments identical to Sideburns, speak very politely, and out themselves with lots of PC buzzwords and language. Virtually all of this has been done by Sideburns. He's either one of them or a blind follower who has been brainwashed. I'm leaning towards the former.
I try to shoot both by helping the environment when I’m in a financial position to donate easily.Do not confuse helping the environment with the climate change fiction. Passing laws preventing companies from dumping poisonous chemicals into our rivers and drinking water is a worthy goal. Getting fluoride out of our water and criminalizing the genetic modification of our food are worthy goals. But just make sure you don't become humanphobic or start whining about rainforests. The honest truth is that we could use less rainforests and more shopping malls. I'm serious.
According to studies, there is a link between comfort and security of living and the rise of atheism which ties into my theory about religious belief being an emotional safety net developed throughout our evolution. Anyway, that means that religion will be virtually extinct in the futureNo it won't. Capitalism does not allow for every lazy person to be "comfortable." There will always be poor people who will turn to religion. Especially those morons who are taught that being rich is a sin.
I hope that provides some relief for you, at least.It doesn't. Not with Islam.
Anyway, I was thinking about what Angela Merkel gets from all this.Angela Merkel is a PC puppet with an IQ of your average developmentally disabled 6th grader. All she sees is "love," "compassion," "empathy," "trees," "death to evil white people," etc... She doesn't have even 1/6th of the brain capacity to understand what she's doing and how she's destroying her country.
The higher ups can’t be blind to the damage they are doing to their countries, can they?The so called "higher ups" don't see themselves as having a country. They view themselves as internationalists who see countries only as things to be plundered. Their private jets are their true homes. They have no patriotism and no love for anything or anyone other than themselves.
Is there a hidden agenda?Yes. To destroy the West. Specifically, to destroy western culture and western philosophy. Ideas like freedom, democracy, atheism, human rights, and individualism are ideas which are very bad for the elites because they can't control the masses if the masses believe they have human rights. Hence, they want to import totalitarian cultures into the West, both as a divide and conquer strategy, and also as a way of eroding western values and substituting third world values of dictatorship and slavery, which give the elites the best type of peace of mind. In that sense, climate change is just a way to paralyze white people with guilt, thus facilitating the third world invasion.
Kat95 2017-04-08 15:03:02
@Gil Galad After several months to a couple of years, many women lose some degree of sexual interest in Betas, Alpha 1.0's, and Alpha 2.0's. I wish it were not so, but it is. For example, I think my hubs is what BD wld term an Alpha 2.0, after reading more of this blog. He was the third guy to ask me to marry him. I could pretty much control the other two (and most of the guys I dated), but not him. He rises to the top of whatever situation he is in. I wouldn't marry any other type of guy. But after many years together, we both need sizzle. I miss the sizzle. Its hard to recreate sizzle on purpose within TMM, but for us it still reappears sometimes out of nowhere, but you can't try to make it happen, then it disappears. So we both need Side Sizzle. I do worry that he would fall for his Side Sizzle, because I think guys fall in love more easily. I am pretty sure, based on my experiences in college, that I would not fall in love with mine. I agree with BD that TMM is exceptionally hard in the modern era, and open marriage is the model which offers the greatest odds of successfully raising the next generation. No falling for Side Sizzle though (which is hard to impossible to guarantee will not happen, still open marriage is very possibly worth trying). Open marriage would need to become the norm to increase the odds of it working on a societal level. This would normalize side sizzle within marriage and thus perhaps take away a little of the sizzle (the portion of sizzle which comes from forbidden fruit phenomenon) and thus make it somewhat less likely people fall for their side sizzle. Or maybe not, I have no idea and this is really just a thought experiment lol. In reality, I think me and my hubs would not be able to cope if either of us actually fooled around. And so our warm but mostly sizzle-less life together continues.
Nick 2017-04-08 10:04:52
3. Your evidence is still non-existent. You’ve simply listed negative aspects about having kids. The debate is not: “Are there negative aspects of having kids?” Obviously, there are negative aspects of having kids. In order to “win” this debate, you need to prove that the negative (happiness decreasing) aspects override the positive (happiness increasing) aspects. 6. Maybe part of the problem is your outlook on kids in general. Many people look at “helping them get jobs, helping them get settled in life, helping them with their problems” as positive (happiness increasing) things where they enjoy the opportunity to help mentor their children.This is the crux of the issue, particularly #6. For example, BD has mentioned that he loves working and will continue to work indefinitely. Work (all the actions that go into it) increases his long-term happiness. Whereas myself, I do not enjoy most aspects of working, so for me, work decreases long-term happiness.
Gil Galad 2017-04-08 04:50:53
@Kat95: I actually don't despise betas; I have some very deep beta days in my past and that past version of me is one I'd describe as "misguided" rather than "loser" or anything. Women can massively "like", and love, a caring and hardworking beta, it's just that he's not the type of guy who retains their sexual interest for long, that's all.
Kat95 2017-04-07 22:04:45
@Gil Galad You're right, evolution (raising the next generation) does have a huge impact. However, from my perspective, and from the perspective of many of my female friends based on mostly what is said and sometimes what is done (by a couple of my female friends, I am married and have never strayed, neither has my husband that I know of, but I'm pretty sure we've both wanted to at times) - when it comes to kids, we gals (and, as stipulated by Fred, this discussion is only about having kids the smart way) do indeed become very selective about whose genes we will carry around inside us for nine months. I suppose a quibble I may have with this column is the depiction of the Beta as boring and submissive and pathetic. In our (female) eyes, he is and remains the gorgeous (or we wouldn't have married him) guy who, day after day after day after! day! (for years and years and decades) gets up every morning at the butt crack of dawn or earlier, fights his way thru traffic to the office he mostly loathes, and slays corporate dragons he really doesn't care about - so that the kids we created together have a wonderful, steady, nurturing home and upbringing. If that doesn't take superhuman strength, I do not know what does. This is the guy I love and respect more than I think at times is humanly possible. But this is also the guy I have schtupped literally thousands of times. The warmth is there, but the sizzle often comes and goes. For both of us. Enter what BD has termed the Alpha 2.0. For women, the Alpha 2.0 represents a new challenge, adventure, excitement. The Alpha 2.0, in the context of what it takes to successfully raise children, well, the Alpha 2.0 has no place in that context. Except as the sizzling sideshow which, under BD's model of the open marriage, allows the woman to happily stay with her Beta (who is and remains, in her eyes, her Main Man, maybe even her Alpha, due to his aforementioned superhuman strengths which are allowing their children to thrive) by providing escapist sexual sizzle which marriage, by it seems wicked necessity, renders at times elusive. A renaming of the cast may illustrate what I mean: To many feminine eyes, our Beta husband remains our Alpha (our Main Squeeze, our No. 1 guy) and our Alpha 2.0 is our, well, I would say Boy Toy but that has a negative connotation which should not be there, especially since some of these Alpha 2.0/Boy Toy's may be CEOs or neurosurgeons....hmmm....Rendezvous Man? Maybe that term better describes our perception of this type of man in our lives. We want this man to take us up against the wall (a few times and then, sadly, as in marriage, the sizzle fizzles) but we do not take him seriously. And we don't let any part of him to stay in our uterus. Only our Superhuman Main Man gets to set up camp there. We don't want Rendezvous Man anywhere near our kids, so we certainly don't want to recreate him in our kids. I have had almost this exact discussion with my gal pals. We love our Superhuman-and-Therefore-the-Ultimate-Alpha Main Men, we just need some Side Sizzle (as does our Main Man). This is why I love BD's blog, it seems there may be lots of men who want only to be Side Sizzle!! Hallelujah!! Get vasectomies (once you have decided being Rendezvous Men is truly what you want in life) and give us a call, um, a text. We will be (very) happily waiting to see you weekdays between 9 and 2, and never on weekends or holidays (you can see your unmarried girls then, with our satiated/relieved blessing). If you have seen the movie 5 to 7 (I think is the title), it describes exactly this type of relationship, which is exactly what I think is woman's (and man's) natural state within the context of marriage/raising children/evolution. Marriage with Side Sizzle for Both = Genuinely Happy Marriage and therefore much greater chance of successfully raising Happy Healthy Kids = Evolution's Demands Met
Anon. 2017-04-07 09:10:45
The general question of happiness has been discussed a bit here: http://alpha20.ning.com/forum/cbc-audio-documentary-say-no-to-happiness
Gil Galad 2017-04-07 04:52:12
@Kat95: I think the default setting of women depends on the definition or context. There is one extreme definition, which is: what one does when one has no moral scrupules AND there's no shaming or obstruction from society AND they have absolute power; in the case of men, we do know the answer to this question by looking at what emperors (Chinese, Aztec...) have historically done: they took one or a few wives and thousands of concubines or sex slaves. Maybe you can have a look at what female empresses/tyrants have historically done in this regard to get the woman side of this. A second framing of the question and less extreme one: what do women do when they don't have absolute power but there definitely is some social freedom ? I think the answer is serial semi-monogamy, meaning that they'd jump between boyfriends while also having more casual sex on the side. It gets more complicated when you introduce the pressures that both men and women create on each other for evolutionary reasons, ie the desire to prevent your partner from having other partners while breaking that rule yourself if you can get away with that. In a context where women have more social power or where men are pussies, women's "default setting" will definitely be to have a "monogamous" boyfriend who's instructed to stay 'faithful to them' while the woman will be fucking other guys, until she develops feelings for one of them and/or gets bored of the bf and dumps him for the new guy. If things are more balanced and both sides have a spine, you'll get a reciprocal arrangement like BD's model, where both sides are allowed to see other people though it will only be 90% satisfying to them, which is still great. More on the evolutionary side of things: the point to remember is that though most sex is non-reproductive, we like sex because we're programmed that way in order to reproduce. At the instinctual level, a woman needs to maximize her chances of 1° numerous offspring that gets taken care of and 2° offspring with high quality genes. Ironically, one of the solutions for this would be to have a Beta "husband" whom she'll cuckold, and have him raise the children of a high quality but impossible-to-cage Alpha, while making him think they're his children: she gets the genes of the Alpha in her kids, and her kids get the providing from the Beta. I'm not saying all women will consciously scheme to do such a thing, but 1° this is at least what morally unrestrained individuals would do if they can get away with it, and 2° evolution has found a solution to our moral scruples by masterfully programming us for self-deception: a woman might marry a Beta while honestly thinking she'll be faithful to him, but then she starts losing her attraction for him and meets the Alpha who makes her drip with desire, and then things "just happen", and she has kids that look suspiciously like the side guy but hides everything from her husband "to preserve his feelings" - and all the while she still "loves" her husband, just in a non-sexual way. It doesn't matter to evolution that the person is too righteous or whatever to consciously plan these things, so long as they do end up happening even if constant self-deception and rationalizing are what gets them there.
Kat95 2017-04-06 22:22:46
(Disclaimer/preamble: I am a woman and I love this blog by Black Dragon. I think it contains the most honest commentary about modern relationships I have read in quite a while, perhaps ever. After reading several columns, the only thing, at least so far, with which I disagree is serial monogamy as a woman's preferred relationship default setting. To me, and perhaps I am in the minority of women (however several of my woman friends feel and act as if they would agree) multiple long-term relationships and FB's feel perfectly natural to women.) Maybe my comment will be deleted since I am a woman, but since there was nothing in the rules about only men commenting, here goes: In my opinion, Black Dragon has decided happiness (both long and short term happiness) is the thing he values most in life. (Please forgive me if I am wrong, Black Dragon, and happiness is not what you value most.) Is this a wise choice? On both an individual and societal level, is that the primary reason for life - to be happy? This is something I have been struggling with of late. A reasonable case can be made for and against happiness being the most important thing in life - with the case simultaneously being made for or against adding children to one's inventory of life experiences. Because children definitely lower your short-term happiness and they also have the power to lower your long-term happiness, this seems, to me, beyond debate. Instead, the question really is how important is happiness in life. Answer that question and you've answered the children question.
Sideburns 2017-04-06 11:10:21
Woweeee....we all have something to learn in this short article: http://www.rawstory.com/2012/11/human-intelligence-slowly-declining-says-leading-geneticist/ I was wrong, intelligence can be passed on. But I was also right, it takes a long ass time and education quickly levels the differences. [Apologies for the mess of posting things twice; I will be patient and won't do it again]
Pyro Nagus 2017-04-06 05:43:02
I wasn’t viewing that as the immediate solution. The immediate solution is the revolution underway in farming efficiency, carbon capture, solar, and other areas (and I am *not* saying that a bright future is *guaranteed*, just that the alarmists are wrong to be so sure or so extreme). Also, see above. I would consider myself stunted in some way if I hadn’t stumbled upon Isaac’s channel, and I’m very happy it happened.Fair enough.
All this eco-terrorist bullshit you believe in has been fed to you by blue pillers.I hope it's bullshit. Seems to me evidence for and against climate change being caused by humans is a bit ambiguous and anyone can put his own spin on it. But I believe humans are responsible for some damage at least. I'm not a scientist. I can only speculate about the political agendas behind promoting a side of the argument. One can also say someone can promote arguments against it as an excuse to remove restrictions from factories and open coal mines. Clearly, there's money to be made from that... or maybe not since alternative fuels are now competing.
First you say thisNote the next sentence.
Stop contradicting yourself.It's called withholding judgment. Get that 'You're either with me or you're against me' George Bush mentality out of your head. I'm not pushing any narratives, only providing potential arguments for both sides. In fact, you're the only one who's aggressively pushing a narrative now and baselessly accusing Sideburns of knowingly working for the elites. He seems to have dropped his narrative for now. You're making me doubt some things but I'm not convinced by either sides. Oh and about that white guilt, I feel like I need to reiterate something:
B) I see no rational reason to concern myself with anything that doesn’t affect me (Like anything past my lifetime) other than when appeasing my psychological desire to help which is low-priority right now.Which means I'm participating purely for fun. I'm not troubled about the wellbeing of humanity though I am mildly interested in helping, but most interested in helping myself. I try to shoot both by helping the environment when I'm in a financial position to donate easily.
They couldn’t have chosen a worse religion and a worse group of people to replace the WestAccording to studies, there is a link between comfort and security of living and the rise of atheism which ties into my theory about religious belief being an emotional safety net developed throughout our evolution. Anyway, that means that religion will be virtually extinct in the future. (Kinda sad that people turn to atheism because of lack of emotional dependency rather than a logical conclusion leading them to it but whatever) I hope that provides some relief for you, at least. Anyway, I was thinking about what Angela Merkel gets from all this. The higher ups can't be blind to the damage they are doing to their countries, can they? Is there a hidden agenda?
juda 2017-04-06 04:37:17
Why would anyone want kids? just get a dog or cat. Much cheaper and less drama.
Sideburns 2017-04-06 03:21:13
@ Pyro Nagus:
reason to concern myself with anything that doesn’t affect me.If you can persuade a close relative, that could save you a few Christmas presents. Love of nature can provide motivation when trying to dodge the bullet of society's expectation of having more dependents. But yeah you got me there. Personally I find it a fun hobby and a discipline. Others find technological revolution more fun, although procreation can take time away from science documentaries. I would be very interested if you came back with some more rational reasons.
fighting for a pointless causeFighting = emotional word. Think personal responsibility not just end impact. Quietly lead by example, showing how your life is evolving towards happiness with the time and money saved not creating yet another adult.
charming nameWhat title could you think of, that is as self-explanatory, honest, and concise? How about using your surname? That would probably please your father more than if you gave him a grandchild to mind or married an immigrant.
Sideburns 2017-04-06 03:12:10
@ BD: My post about this, as a reply to Pyro Nagus's
I see no rational reason to concern myself with anything that doesn’t affect me.Is not getting through...and I have tried rephrasing it a few times. Please help. I conceded that it might be more rational to leave all this until the day when we, including BD, all achieve our retirement goals and want to be spiritual or 'give something back'. But to your:
arguing from the standpoint of “what is best for society.”I am trying to prove there is nothing intelligent about having children, because on average it's neither good for self nor good for society. Thinking I'm-extra-smart and my-future-kid-is-not-going-to-be-like-the-others is irrational and delusional, and will badly inform the rest of your Alpha 2.0 personal life decisions (think oneitis). You might be out only for your own happiness but if you lie, cheat, defame, throw litter, and otherwise treat people and animals badly, it will always degrade you and your personal space somehow. So why would you add to your problems with a new litter (pun intended)?
Sideburns 2017-04-06 03:03:01
arguing from the standpoint of “what is best for society.”I have been trying to post the below text for 24 hours but it must keep getting jammed. I will try again by rephrasing it. My original argument was that there is nothing intelligent about having children, because on average it's neither good for self nor good for society. Thinking I'm-extra-smart and my-future-kid-is-not-going-to-be-like-the-others is irrational and delusional, and will badly inform the rest of your Alpha 2.0 personal life decisions. You might be out only for your own happiness but if you lie, cheat, defame, throw litter, and otherwise treat people and animals badly, it would always degrade you and your immediate environment somehow. So why would you add to your problems with a new litter (pun intended)? @ Pyro Nagus:
I see no rational reason to concern myself with anything that doesn’t affect me.It does always come back and affect you, but so could wasting time spreading memes, I'll admit. Depends who you can recruit; it might be a close relative and that could save you some Christmas present money! Being a VHEMT volunteer does tend to snatch your social life from the jaws of child support. And I guess love of wild tigers can provide extra motivation when trying to dodge the bullet of having more dependents. But yeah you kinda got me there. I suppose it's more rational to leave all this until the day when we, including BD, all achieve our retirement goals and want to be spiritual or 'give something back'. Personally I find it a fun hobby and a good discipline. Others find technological revolutions more fun, though procreation does take valuable time away from science documentaries. But I would be really interested if you came back with some more rational reasons.
I don’t like fighting for a pointless causeIt's about personal responsibility as much as the end impact. Fighting is an emotional word. You can quietly lead by example by showing how happily your life is evolving with the free time and money you saved by not creating yet another adult.
Not a very charming nameWhat charming title can you think of, that is as honest, self-explanatory, and concise? You could use your surname, which might please your father more than if you gave him a grandchild to mind or married an immigrant.
Blackdragon 2017-04-06 00:20:42
You realize that both of you are arguing from the standpoint of "what is best for society." Maybe you're both aware of that and proud of that, but that's not a basis from which I argue anything.
Sideburns 2017-04-05 17:41:46
If you'll forgive me, I have refined my above proposition. Find me anyone who mostly: - Produces offspring that remain smart in a dumb environment - Aims to maximise the happiness of existing humans and the universe's ability to sustain them, and teaches their offspring to do the same. ...and I will donate all my spare money to them right now, even if they want grandchildren and don’t speak as politically correctly as me.
Sideburns 2017-04-05 14:45:52
@ Jack Outside the Box: Well, this Century does seems to be hotting up more than just in terms of climate, so you could be right. Find me a group of smart people proven to produce smart babies (who remain smart even in a dumb environment), all conscripted from birth to solve the threat of ecological degradation and thermonuclear war, while simultaneously improving humanity's (including their own) lifestyle and happiness, and I will donate all I have to spare to them, even if they don't use PC words.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-05 14:31:00
But 6 million years is considerably longer than this ‘hot’ little Century we have ahead of us…pardon the pun.There is no pun here. Unless you believe in the climate change myth.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-05 14:19:17
If only there were enough “intelligent” people to figure out how to stop “stupid” people reproducing, we might win and have lots of fun until our dying days.There is no need to stop stupid people from reproducing. The only thing needed is to persuade smart people to start. You are a classic Malthusian. Too many people, not enough hats: Cornucopian: Make more hats. Malthusian: Start cutting off heads.
Still not convinced intelligence is hereditary, please provide your sources.Are you serious? This has to be joke. Stop drinking the PC koolaid.
If you mean that education only happens in the nuclear family home,No, that's not what I meant.
Sideburns 2017-04-05 14:09:41
we are smarter than our ancestors from 6 million years ago@ Gil Galad: Congratulations, never thought of that! But 6 million years is considerably longer than this 'hot' little Century we have ahead of us...pardon the pun. Does that give you and me enough time to become the Ubermensch we so richly deserve to be?
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-05 13:53:58
And you’re not putting more pressure on earth’s resources so it’s not a selfish act,See? This is the exact type of idiotic statement that makes the controlling oligarchy happy! There is no pressure on "Earth's resources." This is all a myth, based on blue pill white guilt. With the correct harnessing of technologies, up to one trillion people can live on planet Earth and even more if we colonize other planets (as Gil Galad said). Currently, all 7 billion people can fit inside Texas. The fictional oil crisis is manufactured to justify funding terrorist regimes to help them reduce western populations, and so forth. All this eco-terrorist bullshit you believe in has been fed to you by blue pillers. First you say this:
as silly as his conspiracy theory seems,Then this:
Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not taking any sides in this discussion yetStop contradicting yourself. And it's not a conspiracy theory. These men have too much power to be afraid of talking openly.
On a somewhat relevant note, I’ve seen a lot of third-world governments and China encouraging reproduction. The reason (My teachers say) is to acquire more working force to bolster the economy and ideally make more babies to outnumber the future retired populace.The larger reason is because they are witnessing the West committing suicide and they want to inherit the Earth when we are gone. That's why China is the #1 distributor of RU-486, the "do it yourself" abortion pill. They're selling it almost exclusively in western markets.
Meanwhile, European countries seem to have abandoned that strategy (due to its futility?) and turned to mass refugee importing to bolster the economy. That’s what my father tells me is the reason for the refuge immigration anyway. I wonder if that ties into all this?Yes, by no longer breeding, Europeans think they can turn to immigrants to replace their own population. This only works if you can assimilate them into western values first. And with the Muslims, they are failing miserably. They couldn't have chosen a worse religion and a worse group of people to replace the West. The only hope is for smart red pill people to start reproducing again.
Gil Galad 2017-04-05 13:44:21
Still not convinced intelligence is hereditaryIf you are convinced we are smarter than our ancestors from 6 million years ago, and if you are convinced that we went from there to here through evolution by natural selection, then that leads *inescapably* to the conclusion that intelligence is at least partly hereditary. There is no escape from this, political correctness be damned. Rerun the algorithm in your head, slowly. You'll see it. There is a reason why PC has been called "secular creationism".
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-05 13:30:07
Pardon my blind spot. Is it a conspiracy do you think?Conspiracy implies secrecy. There is no secrecy. They admit it publicly and openly.
I believe Bill Gates is involved too.Yes, the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" has openly donated to Neo-Nazi eugenics groups (including, but not limited to, Planned Parenthood) and eco-terrorist organizations which call for a radical population reduction. These are extreme Malthusians (Robert Malthus was Hitler's hero who believed that if we don't reduce the population by billions, only dead rats will be available to feed children by the year 2000), as distinguished from the Cornucopians (like me). They believe that we must urgently perpetrate a mass holocaust to do away with 6.5 billion people via bombing the third world and mass starvations and viral epidemics in the first world. When Obamacare was being rolled out, everyone laughed at Sarah Palin who accused Obama of wanting government "death panels." Everyone laughed at her except Bill Gates, who is quoted as saying, "Of course we need death panels." These are very sick people and you have thrown in with them.
But I think these high IQ people are coming at population from a different angle. It does however suggest corporations don’t need Ponzi demography to get rich, so you have taught me something.The only thing that makes you valuable to these fascists is your labor. With automation on the horizon, reducing the population to 500 million is something they can't wait to do. Again, this is public knowledge. The only "conspiracy" angle is the declassified UN documents regarding "weather modification technology," which caused certain conspiracy theorists to posit that so called "weather weapons" will perpetrate the next genocide, with the fictional "climate change" used as an alibi.
See? You can educate people without conceiving them first! It’s more efficient and less messy. Besides, many kids don’t even listen to their parents. But I’ll listen to you.No you won't listen to me. If you did, you'd stop parroting the talking points of your sick bosses.
People aren’t born educated, and beliefs aren’t inherited.They are partially. Good genes do count when it comes to intelligence and certain predispositions. Also, intelligent people may create an environment that is more conducive to learning and intellectual curiosity.
After all, my parents were natalists and I am not. It would indeed be a pity if all the intelligent people died out first. But how do you know this didn’t already happen to us a long time ago?There are plenty of intelligent people here. The problem is, they're the most reluctant to breed because "the markets aren't right" or some other "paralysis by analysis" bullshit, while the rednecks have like 8 children per woman.
Cloning yourself might improve numbers, but not your lifestyle. Just as your family life will get bogged down, so will your tribe’s. Breeding for power doesn’t benefit the individuals, except the elites in some ways. And it does cause more traffic jams.Oh please! You know as well as I do what the practical consequences of all this anti-children garbage are. The radical decrease in IQ, the death of westerners and Europeans, the rise of the third world, an end to the concept of freedom, human rights, and other "antiquated European values," the return of dictatorship, and the solidification of elite control of the masses! That is the ultimate end game of all this "anti-population, white guilt, save the trees" horseshit!
Aboriginal people aren’t surviving too well actually, and it’s unfortunate, as they have a lot of eco smarts.There is no such thing as "eco-smarts." There is only pagan retardation! But if you want to live like a primitive savage, no one is stopping you.
But we were all low-impact and paleo once, and look at us now! I sometimes feel we Westerners act like savages, especially how our contraception policies and pricing deny third worlders, especially their secretly keen women, the opportunity not to breed. And bombing them relentlessly doesn’t seem to stop it either.Yeah, many elites want the third world to stop breeding just like the first world. That's why they consider bombing them a type of birth control. Even as an atheist, the only word I can use for this is "satanic." And you're really not helping. At all!
Sideburns 2017-04-05 13:24:58
@ Jack Outside the Box: If only there were enough "intelligent" people to figure out how to stop "stupid" people reproducing, we might win and have lots of fun until our dying days. A gorilla or a rhino wandering by the party might not think we're such nihilists then. (Though it depends on the DJ). Still not convinced intelligence is hereditary, please provide your sources. If you mean that education only happens in the nuclear family home, then we all need to get out more.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-05 12:57:30
Kids are for stupid people.Only if you want stupid kids. Smart people aren't breeding smart kids because they think breeding is stupid. Hence, the problem. There are two cancers which have infected the red pill community - traditional conservatism (a la Heartiste, Roosh, Vox Day, etc...) and anti-population nihilism. The former seeks to return us to the 1950s and end our fun. The latter seeks to make the former inevitable via a population of irresponsible idiots after all the "intelligent" people stop reproducing, thus forcing the government to crack down on the remaining population of retards, thus increasingly concentrating power in the hands of a few (even more so than today). Both tradcons and anti-children nihilists (which includes the anti-sex MGTOWs) need to be called out.
Gil Galad 2017-04-05 11:39:12
But we were all low-impact and paleo onceActually, when we were "paleo", a single human needed about a square mile of land to be fed - way, waaay more than today. When we had the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the Earth's carrying capacity for an animal behaving like us was roughly 5 million - and we stayed under or around that number until the neolithic revolution, because that revolution raised the Earth's carrying capacity. I'm being serious, we weren't healthier in the Neolithic than in the Paleolithic - if anything, we were sicker, shorter and weaker, but we could feed more. I suggest to anyone reading this to check out Isaac Arthur's youtube channel, more specifically his two videos Arcologies and Ecumenopolises. On top of being extremely interesting, it may change your vision of population and futurism issues.
you don’t seem to realize that a few millennia means the dyson swarm is a VERY-long-term solution to a comparatively immediate problemI wasn't viewing that as the immediate solution. The immediate solution is the revolution underway in farming efficiency, carbon capture, solar, and other areas (and I am *not* saying that a bright future is *guaranteed*, just that the alarmists are wrong to be so sure or so extreme). Also, see above. I would consider myself stunted in some way if I hadn't stumbled upon Isaac's channel, and I'm very happy it happened.
Pyro Nagus 2017-04-05 11:13:38
Glad I made you laugh at “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” (visit their website by the way, because with your logical adoption ideas, you sound like a supporter).Wow, I genuinely thought it was a joke. Not a very charming name for the emotionally driven but definitely attention-grabbing. Anyway, while I like the idea of fighting for a noble cause (like saving the environment): A) I don't like fighting for a pointless cause (Not enough people don't care for the movement to have a significant impact). B) I see no rational reason to concern myself with anything that doesn't affect me (Like anything past my lifetime) other than when appeasing my psychological desire to help which is low-priority right now. But the fate of humanity is a topic close to heart so I'll read into it when I have the time. Thank you.
...I have a very strong desire to witness the next centuries and go into space and maybe have kids too. In a few millennia, I see humanity living in a Dyson Swarm around the sun, with a population of quadrillions. And there will still be a protected biosphere, and maybe space habitats for genetically revived extinct species, too.I wouldn't count on a hypothetical concept with so many possible ways of failing. Not yet at least. (Ignoring the fact that sheer energy isn't the only resource we need) Another issue, you don't seem to realize that a few millennia means the dyson swarm is a VERY-long-term solution to a comparatively immediate problem. Oh yeah, thanks to Jack for the reminding me. There is that whole inverted evolution thing going on, and as silly as his conspiracy theory seems, I can't rule out the possibility... Don't get me wrong though, I'm not taking any sides in this discussion yet, despite taking part in it. On a somewhat relevant note, I've seen a lot of third-world governments and China encouraging reproduction. The reason (My teachers say) is to acquire more working force to bolster the economy and ideally make more babies to outnumber the future retired populace. The obvious problem being, of course, the burden to reproduce for the new generation (Not that it will hurt any politician in the current government). Meanwhile, European countries seem to have abandoned that strategy (due to its futility?) and turned to mass refugee importing to bolster the economy. That's what my father tells me is the reason for the refuge immigration anyway. I wonder if that ties into all this?
Sideburns 2017-04-05 09:57:05
@ BD: A good corollary to the 2% rule might be: If you're gonna go around worrying about the bad things that are less than 2% likely to happen, then you should be also walking around very excited about all the good things that are less than 2% likely to happen. Next time you catch a paranoid thought, smile because you're also about to win the lottery today! @ Jack Outside the Box: Pardon my blind spot. Is it a conspiracy do you think? I believe Bill Gates is involved too. But I think these high IQ people are coming at population from a different angle. It does however suggest corporations don't need Ponzi demography to get rich, so you have taught me something. See? You can educate people without conceiving them first! It's more efficient and less messy. Besides, many kids don't even listen to their parents. But I'll listen to you. People aren't born educated, and beliefs aren't inherited. After all, my parents were natalists and I am not. It would indeed be a pity if all the intelligent people died out first. But how do you know this didn't already happen to us a long time ago? Cloning yourself might improve numbers, but not your lifestyle. Just as your family life will get bogged down, so will your tribe's. Breeding for power doesn't benefit the individuals, except the elites in some ways. And it does cause more traffic jams. Aboriginal people aren't surviving too well actually, and it's unfortunate, as they have a lot of eco smarts. But we were all low-impact and paleo once, and look at us now! I sometimes feel we Westerners act like savages, especially how our contraception policies and pricing deny third worlders, especially their secretly keen women, the opportunity not to breed. And bombing them relentlessly doesn't seem to stop it either.
Sideburns 2017-04-05 05:42:25
@ Jack Outside the Box: Pardon my blind spot. Is it a conspiracy do you think? I believe Bill Gates is involved too. But I think these high IQ people are coming at population from a different angle. It does however suggest corporations don't need Ponzi demography to get rich, so you have taught me something. See? You can educate people without conceiving them first! It's more efficient and less messy. Besides, many kids don't even listen to their parents. But I'll listen to you. People aren't born educated, and beliefs aren't inherited. After all, my parents were natalists and I am not. It would indeed be a pity if all the intelligent people died out first. But how do you know this didn't already happen to us a long time ago? Cloning yourself might improve numbers, but not your lifestyle. Just as your family life will get bogged down, so will your tribe's. Breeding for power doesn't benefit the individuals, except the elites in some ways. And it does cause more traffic jams. Aboriginal people aren't surviving too well actually, and it's unfortunate, as they have a lot of eco smarts. But we were all low-impact and paleo once, and look at us now! I sometimes feel we Westerners act like savages, especially how our contraception policies and pricing deny third worlders, especially their secretly keen women, the opportunity not to breed. And bombing them relentlessly doesn't seem to stop it either. @ BD: A good corollary to the 2% rule might be: If you're gonna go around worrying about the bad things that are less than 2% likely to happen, then you should be also walking around very excited about all the good things that are less than 2% likely to happen. Next time you catch a paranoid thought, smile because you're also about to win the lottery today!
Gil Galad 2017-04-05 01:57:36
They ARE the anti-human agenda whose goal is to reduce the population to 500 million. They pay you to spread this anti-human filth in a polite and cordial way. It’s only practical effect is reducing the population of intellectuals, high IQ individuals, and westerners while the third worlders and savages breed like rabbits, thus justifying more coercive control to regulate the behavior of the increasingly low IQ sheep, which is precisely what your bosses want – a totalitarian police state as people act more and more irrationally and the smart civilized people refuse to breed.I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories in general, but I do find myself believing this to some extent. I think some of it is happening more organically than by design - the same way that we all know some priests are just sincere believers and well-intentioned brainwashers rather than covert unbelievers following their interests - but a number of people up there probably do want this. If I refrain from having kids, it will never be because of "population". Right now I can't stand the thought of having a kid who turns SJW on me, and when I see that even in my North African country people are catching this disease, it doesn't look so unlikely. It's like every person who has more or less evacuated religion finds nothing to do with their supposedly freed mind than to plunge into another dogma; you've got to continue to hate something, like America, the rich, the bourgeoisie, men. I've been researching the options in France, where I currently am, for raising a kid outside of national education, but I'm pessimistic. All in all my own turning out nonreligious and non-blue pill was probably a massive fluke that I will have a hard time replicating with my hypothetical kids.
Blackdragon 2017-04-04 20:10:29
Assume that you want to have children some time ( hypothetically speaking) and you go towards that goal with the woman you like and you get a child with some disability.(etc down syndrome) What your reaction would be then? How would that change your life plans? Just curious about your reaction p.s don’t tell me about 2% rule or that you do not want any children. (just assume that you want children and that you are within the 0.0000001% of people who have a child with disability)But it IS within the 2% Rule, therefore I wouldn't worry about it and you shouldn't either. If you disagree, then you disagree with the 2% Rule, therefore you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe in going through life worried about things that are ultra-unlikely to ever occur. I just landed in Shanghai, China; if I disagreed with the 2% rule, I would never have come here. I could have been killed in a plane crash!!! I could be arrested by the Chinese government!!! I could have gotten a stomach disease!!! (See what I mean?)
there is no debate 2017-04-04 03:30:39
Kids are for stupid people.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-03 17:13:09
Hate to do this to your joke,It wasn't a joke. It was a sincere question.
Perhaps they have donated to population awareness groups?Population awareness groups. That's cute.
Your normal capitalistThey aren't capitalists. They are corporate fascists. And they don't donate. They ARE the anti-human agenda whose goal is to reduce the population to 500 million. They pay you to spread this anti-human filth in a polite and cordial way. It's only practical effect is reducing the population of intellectuals, high IQ individuals, and westerners while the third worlders and savages breed like rabbits, thus justifying more coercive control to regulate the behavior of the increasingly low IQ sheep, which is precisely what your bosses want - a totalitarian police state as people act more and more irrationally and the smart civilized people refuse to breed. You must be so proud.
Sideburns 2017-04-03 14:39:50
@ Jack Outside the Box: Hate to do this to your joke, but you're going to have to spell it out for me... Perhaps they have donated to population awareness groups? Your normal capitalist would not be interested because they rely on a pyramid scheme of minions, their kids included, externalities be damned.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-03 12:56:38
Their longevity? Their politics? Their pulse?No. I was asking who signs your paychecks!
Sideburns 2017-04-03 12:49:44
@ Jack Outside the Box: was that an intelligence test? I think I have failed. Help me out... Their longevity? Their politics? Their pulse? I see from Wikipedia they had 10 kids between them, looks like money was no issue for these guys...
Jack Outside the Box 2017-04-03 11:54:26
Hey sideburns, be honest now: David Rockefeller or George Soros?
whitelion 2017-04-03 09:12:14
Blackdragon Assume that you want to have children some time ( hypothetically speaking) and you go towards that goal with the woman you like and you get a child with some disability.(etc down syndrome) What your reaction would be then? How would that change your life plans? Just curious about your reaction p.s don't tell me about 2% rule or that you do not want any children. (just assume that you want children and that you are within the 0.0000001% of people who have a child with disability)
sideburns 2017-04-03 06:19:14
Let's come back to topic: my argument, using the logic of human and environmental indicators, is that it's neither particularly intelligent, nor overall happiness-making to breed. And for most people, even looking after humans is a stress, so let's reduce those numbers. I think that would be the more Alpha 2.0 thing to do. And for those who still want the challenge: there's adoption. @ Gil Galad: No doubt some voluntary human extinction fans are pro-suicide and deathist, and think humans are bad or evil. Although all it takes for evil to triumph is for a conscious being to do nothing. But please have the intellectual honesty to admit that dying out naturally does not mean the suicide or killing of any individual, and that the website explicitly disowns all these views. Then we can debate whether our clever and artistic species is really worth preserving despite its inherent problems. Please explain how you are going to witness the next centuries? Presumably you'll be revived too. Your sci-fi scenario is neither impossible nor undesirable. Though it does seem like a big risk. I wish I could believe it, and for many years I did. But historical extrapolations show a massive skew towards mankind killing or massively crippling itself within the next century (or less), and away from colonising space successfully. We simply don't have time for complex ideas. The juggernaut is bouncing down the hill and heading for a cliff, and instead of safely applying the brakes (zero births) or steering away (reduced births), you want to turn it into a beautiful flying machine in the last few seconds. It's one thing to put homo sapiens on a pedestal. It's another to love your imaginary great-great-grandchildren more than existing actual children living in an already dying world (please educate yourself on the average prognosis for our actual biosphere today). I suspect a little tribalism here.
SAO 2017-04-02 02:15:35
Guys who say things like, “I must have kids because I don’t want to be alone when I’m 85!!!” need to make sure that they’re not alone when they’re 85. You have 85 years to build strong relationships, build strong familial bonds, build strong friendships, both with people your age and those who are younger. This is not very complicated.As a naturally introverted young man who never,ever wants kids (some people have told me this will change in the future,but I can't imagine it ever happening at all.),this statement is of interest to me. As I've said,I'm an introvert who doesn't really need a lot of friends(most of my social interaction is with my family,and/or interacting with people on the internet)but I've heard that as you grow older and more physically vulnerable,you start craving for connections. Taking this into account,here's what I think one should do(and what I probably will be doing in the not-so-distant future): Step 1: Work on your Physical Fundamentals - What I mean by this is your physical health,hygiene,overall appearance,etc. Lets face it,people who look good not only have it easier in the dating game,but people tend to treat them better and look at them in better light,its called the "Halo effect." You might say that I'm stating the obvious but there are a lot of geeks/people out there who have bad hygiene,and they will definitely have more difficulties making friends if they don't fix this. Thankfully however,I've got this mostly covered (my main issue is losing fat/weight.) Step 2: Learn good social skills and practice interacting with people. One book I know is Dale Carnegie's "How to win Friends and Influence people" and I believe BD has this in his recommended books. I don't know any other sources of info other than that so if anyone knows,please let me know. Step 3: Join hobbies,activities,and/or niches that you are genuinely interested in. This is where you will be able to meet people you are genuinely able to connect with,and it makes the process fun too. Your personality should develop with experience. That's pretty much it I believe. Despite my introverted nature,I already have somewhat decent social skills. its not hard for me to make friends,its just that I don't bother with deepening friendships because I genuinely prefer spending time by myself at the moment. in the future however,I may change my mind and more actively implement these steps. do you think I'm missing something?
Lao 2017-04-02 00:44:07
"Remember that sometimes not getting what you want is a wonderful stroke of luck.” - Dalai Lama I raised kids for 15 years, spent years fighting to get back in the younger ones lives post-divorce when my ex completely blocked any form of contact, and now find myself in the unexpected calm waters of "post-parenthood" where I have finally accepted things as they are. I should say it is hell, in fact I tried to convince myself that it was, but it is not, it is amazing. Such a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. The sudden loss of the constant stress and worry of having children can't be outsourced to a nanny (is that lump cancerous etc etc). I was a high earner, travelling most of the time on business, so avoided the daily grind in the later years. I tried to convince myself that being a dad defined me, but I can now see I was just living a society-acceptable unhappy life. My new partner wants kids, she knows I don't. However, now stronger, living life as I want, she knows this will only happen if we live in separate addresses near to each other, so my role would effectively be more "favourite uncle" than "active father". This of course will also free me to continue having an active sex life, something that most people know dies after kids, with men being made to feel selfish for even wanting a sex life. It will still lower my happiness, but it is a potential compromise I might make. In short, if you unburden yourself of thinking how society wants you to think, you will eventually see that, for all the undoubtedly magical but fleeting happy moments everyone uses to defend it, having kids is a guaranteed way to make all aspects of your life more unhappy.
Gil Galad 2017-04-01 17:15:32
But please read the simple website I refer to. It’s not at all defeatist. All your points are addressed there. Then you can better lecture us!I've known your movement for maybe three years. Given the very name of the movement, telling me that it's not suicidal is pretty hilarious. I have absolutely no intention of "bowing out gracefully". I think deathism is a stupid ideology, and I have a very strong desire to witness the next centuries and go into space and maybe have kids too. In a few millennia, I see humanity living in a Dyson Swarm around the sun, with a population of quadrillions. And there will still be a protected biosphere, and maybe space habitats for genetically revived extinct species, too. Defeatism is in implicitly declaring all this to be impossible or undesirable because of an underlying dislike for any further expansion of humanity, as an "evil" destructive species, when any judgement of this type is self-refuting since you can't be that bad if you're a species that can find itself bad. Even if your movement has members with more subtle viewpoints, your "intelligence test" wasn't; it's more of a test of how vulnerable one is to shaky rhetoric.
sideburns 2017-04-01 16:47:48
@ Gil Galad Who said anything about suicide? I want us all to live long, happily, proudly, each with more hope and resources, and then bow out gracefully in old age. That's by far the best guarantee we have of success. And it would probably make us the wisest species ever, not just the craftiest. What nobler idea could you possibly teach your child today? Ok I'll go read up on the latest green techno stuff, because I could do with a refresher, I'll admit it. And we still need it desperately, not forgetting contraception technology of course. But please read the simple website I refer to. It's not at all defeatist. All your points are addressed there. Then you can better lecture us! Any baby adopters here? I co-step-parented for 5 years and though I discovered I prefer not to raise kids myself, and think I am more useful elsewhere, it really made a difference to think I was also 'helping out' existing kids instead of adding to them.
Blackdragon 2017-04-01 14:26:00
What about one’s race and nation (synonyms, when used sincerely)?Read this and this. 1. My race and nation are both suicidal. 2. My race and nation largely hate people like me. 3. Therefore, I see no reason to suffer personally unhappiness just for my race or nation.
M O 2017-04-01 13:36:41
An extremely conservative, right-wing, religious Alpha Male 1.0 may consider having five children as a huge net positive (leaving a legacy, doing God’s will, having little minions to boss around, prove to the world his penis works, etc)What about one's race and nation (synonyms, when used sincerely)? I am not conservative, would never be anything-wing (I want two, or all the wings I can have. How do you fly with only one?), but... like a great writer said, centuries pass, and the Chinaman and the Jew are always there. Because they have that faith: the faith that, as centuries pass, they should still be there. It's not metaphysical and about another world, and at the same time it's not about one's own ego. Not narrow, but realistic. Of course it conflicts with hedonism ("makes you less happy", in Selfishdragon tongue) 🙂
Gil Galad 2017-04-01 12:51:52
@sideburns: go educate yourself on the many ways that are already being developed to drastically increase the carrying capacity of the Earth - while still leaving plenty of space for its fauna and flora - and then come back to lecture us. With the proper technology, the planet could house a trillion people while still having a rich biosphere. We just need to work on that, not give in to defeatist and suicidal memes. And it's not like the birth rates aren't already decreasing everywhere; if anything, it's Africa you need to go lecture: it's projected to account for most of the population growth this century.
sideburns 2017-04-01 08:28:30
@ Pyro Nagus: Glad I made you laugh at "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" (visit their website by the way, because with your logical adoption ideas, you sound like a supporter). Because there is an INvoluntary extinction movement going on right now, of other species and ultimately ourselves, that isn't as funny, is not intelligent, and certainly does not make people happier. And we're contributing to it spoilt brat by spoilt brat. Another factor to consider when we decide to make another one of us. @ John Galt: Creepy or sexy, they're probably also dropping their panties at the thought of your past history of marrying and breeding. Hoping you'll repeat the process. I'd personally rather have the extra time and money saved to find all the ones that are quite happy with me being child-free, and may even be inspired to do the same. Spread memes not genes.
John 2017-04-01 07:00:04
@Max I am in your shoes. Got my son who is now 13, but with full custody. Once they get to be around 12-13 they're on auto-pilot and they don't want you in their shit. It's great to be honest, to do it on your own, when they are at that age. Especially when you have a boy, as a father. They can stay by themselves a little more. I'm not saying it's easy, my son is still an asshole. Hormones clicked and the pissed off dad's started calling. That's when it is tough as a single dad. When you have to figure out how to fix this shit on your own. But as as a dad it's easy to nip it in the bud. Give it some time. Right around 13, no day care, sports are now school sports (no dealing with parents), school sports require less of your time, you can start going out a hour or so without having to find a babysitter, and you can bring woman around more. I actually divorced my wife 6 months (divorces take 6 months) before my son's 13th birthday (when they can choose where to live) because I knew he wouldn't go with her. You get close to them in a different way when they are that age.
Marty 2017-04-01 02:52:35
@Max Great post. Thanks for sharing that. I think you have handled your situation very well and will be rewarded for it in the future through the relationship with your son. You were very smart to keep the mother out of it from the start and make it work on your terms!!
Max 2017-03-31 23:04:25
Great discussion. In many ways everyone is right here. having a kid is not for everyone. IT takes a lot of time , money and maturity. And it changes you. But sometimes the decision to have a kid may not be yours. So you deal with it. My story. At 49 I was seeing probably around 7 girls around the country (I travel a lot), and two in my home town. One was a smoking hot hispanic girl I had been seeing off and on for about 7 years. Well she comes over one day and says she's pregnant and we gotta get married. WTF?? Now this girl was hot in the sack, but had the worst temper of anyone I ever dated.( Far upper right on the Hot -Crazy chart) Its why we never stayed together more than a few months. Anyway, there was no way I was gonna marry this chick. I got thinking , this girl doesn't make much and this kid is gonna have a miserable life if I don't interject. We didn't get married but I got a court order for 50% physical custody. So he's with me half the time. A few things a lot of you have touched on. I'm home a lot so no Nanny, but it's still very expensive. It's a lot of work. I've sort of let myself go to hell, because it's pretty draining. You're always thinking about them, first. There's not much me time. As a single parent you have to be careful, because if you get angry, there's no one there to stop you but yourself. And you will get angry. So if you have a temper at all you learn to control it. Everyone thinks it's tough when they're small, diapers and formula and all that. Wrong, they're sleeping half the day at that age. It's when they get mobile that it really gets interesting. Then there's the issues of dealing with mothers. As a single dad, you're odd man out in their territory, and most don't appreciate it, and really don't want you interloping in their world. Since most kids are raised by mothers and teachers are usually female, I find myself having to deal with women from a different perspective. And its not pretty. Most seem to feel they have some biological gift for raising and teaching kids. It's their ticket to the kiddie playground and mothers groups, so they can hang out with the other moms. But to be honest most mothers I've seen are really pathetic clueless parents. And since Dad wants to get laid, and also has been convinced she has some kind of biological gift for this stuff, he stays detached and just goes along with whatever stupidity she dishes out. It's been a real eye opener. So now my son is 8. I'm finally starting to delve back into the dating world. My son is a great kid and we have a great relationship. To be honest, I was happy without a kid. It's changed me in ways I didn't expect. It's been really amazing, watching him grow starting to take responsibility. I started teaching him to shoot 2 weeks ago. He's a better shot than I am, and I qualified expert on several weapons in the military. Obviously if I was married to his mom this would be difficult. He was swimming competitively at 5 and diving by 6. I've thrown my life into this kid. But this stuff comes at a huge cost. Both in terms of what you pay , but also in terms of what you can't earn because of the time lost caring for him, as well as sports, private school, 429 for college. And then there's your time. Your time get's eaten up by school activities and being asked to volunteer for everything under the sun. It's pretty endless. Having said all that. I wish I had more kids and had them earlier in life, with someone I could have married to share some of this. ( My sons mom does very little with him). It would have been a blast. Everything I enjoyed as a kid I now get to teach my son, and do over again as well. And see the joy on his face as he masters this stuff. It's certainly not for everyone. I've always loved kids when I taught swimming in high school and college. But to be able to shape and help out your own kid is really something. To see the passion they have for things really takes the old and makes it fun again. I wouldn't trade it for anything. I could care less if I see him on my death bed. I'm having fun now. I just want him to turn out well and have a great life. I had a lot of fun in my earlier years. Now it's his turn. In some ways I do think you need to get as much out of your life as you can, early on, in terms of your career and in terms of doing and learning the things you want. Once that's out of your system, Then you might be ready to be a parent.
Blackdragon 2017-03-31 17:55:37
It sounds like black dragon leans more on the “gratification and stimulation” side of happiness, since he mentions sex 10 times more than he mentions being proud of his son, daughter, etc.It could also be because this is a blog about sex.
David 2017-03-31 16:48:07
I think you both have a different definition of happiness. It sounds like black dragon leans more on the "gratification and stimulation" side of happiness, since he mentions sex 10 times more than he mentions being proud of his son, daughter, etc. Hell, Eastern monks find happiness in suffering and pushing their pain thresholds to the limits while remaining calm. We would consider that torture, but they derive pleasure from it. I hate kids. But I can see some men derive more happiness from caretaking and having a valued leadership role. They might even enjoy suffering for a cause more than they enjoy doing their hobbies. Thats funny how dopamine works. If you read the book Meet Your Happy Chemicals, caretaking and helping can also boost more oxcytocin and seratonin than sexual stimulation. And those are the chemicals many scientists associate with happiness. Btw Fred lost as soon as he mentioned the nanny. Game over.
Pyro Nagus 2017-03-31 14:08:58
This cracks me up:
Voluntary Human Extinction MovementAnyway, I'm young and in that rare group of genetically(?) defective people that don't see any desire in having children but 1 out of 10 times that I think about children I see the appeal in filling a cute feminine empty head with wisdom. Teaching them about the world and whatever... I read nearly everything in the page and I don't think anyone mentioned adoption. Massive costs aside, if you adopt someone older than a toddler, you evade most of the crying and around 1/3 of the responsibility. Your freedom will still be crippled. But the idea is that will shorten the amount of time you have to suffer. And you're not putting more pressure on earth's resources so it's not a selfish act, if you care about that sort of thing. (I'm hoping someone challenges this idea, I feel like I'm overlooking some important details) I realise that some people like the whole package, some want a biological legacy and some like toddlers but I just like the teaching/disciplining part. Maybe it's the INTJ in me. I dunno. I'd probably never do it personally though. Too limiting. Instead I'll probably clog the need to parent something with a pet, a dog specifically. Their loyal nature is very desirous.
Blackdragon 2017-03-31 12:54:40
If you want to have kids, will you be happier having kids, or happier not having kids, even though you want to have kids?The short answer is that on the overall, over the course of your entire day-to-day life, you will still be less happy if you want kids and have kids. Knowing this, if long-term happiness is your priority, you would chose to not have kids even though you wanted them, but you would make very sure to implement plans in your life to offset any regret you might have later in life because you never had kids. Guys who say things like, "I must have kids because I don't want to be alone when I'm 85!!!" need to make sure that they're not alone when they're 85. You have 85 years to build strong relationships, build strong familial bonds, build strong friendships, both with people your age and those who are younger. This is not very complicated. However, I realize this is an overly logical way of looking at all of this, and very few men who want kids are going to take this advice (including me; I had kids). Therefore, I think it's "easier" to say to men who want kids, "Go ahead and have them, but have them as late in life as possible, after all of your big goals have been hit (age 40+), and don't bullshit yourself; you're going to be less happy on the overall for about 20 years, even if your kids are perfect and you are the perfect parent." That's what I've more or less been saying.
bluegreenguitar 2017-03-31 10:48:33
1. The true question (to me): If you want to have kids, will you be happier having kids, or happier not having kids, even though you want to have kids? In other words, will you be happier with kids (assuming parenting causes a decrease in happiness)? Or will you happier without kids and always wishing you had kids (and being possibly unhappy about that)? If you don't want to have kids and you do, or don't want to have kids and don't, well those are different scenario. 2. As of March 2017, there's no truly effective scientific research with double-blinds and other proper scientific techniques studying the "AM2.0 parenting method". It would probably take 10-20 years to follow people around and see what the long-term outcomes of the different choices would be. And while plenty of shared experiential knowledge exists about the AM 2.0 dating and financial type lifestyles, not much shared knowledge exists about the parenting style (to my knowledge). 3. Therefore, if you want kids, it's very hard to know in advance if you'll be happier having kids or not, based on scientific studies and other forms of shared knowledge. If you decide not to have kids, then you don't have to think about it much, except that you want to have kids but aren't going to (at least yet). But, if you decide to have kids, just like anything else, there are many ways to "optimize" the situation. 4. The $75K sweet spot is a rough guesstimate, averaged across multiple locations in the USA for single guys. Please remember the study says that your happiness doesn't increase much if you earn more than $75K, but it still may increase. Below $75K and you may experience more stress from financial issues. In Manhattan, the number would be higher, lower in other places. If you have a family and are supporting 2 kids and the mother of your children, the number would be higher. See BD's post 'Is High Income Important.' (https://blackdragonblog.com/2014/04/09/is-high-income-important/) In other words, $75K is the baseline for financial happiness in the USA. 5. So, to "maximize" your happiness (in the AM2.0 lifestyle), at least financially, with a family, you would most likely want to earn much more than $75K in the USA. Therefore, paying between $5K-$20k a year for child care wouldn't be out of the question - especially if it helped a family's overall well-being. 6. What would be the average equivalent number (of $75K) for an AM2.0 family man? I would guess $125-150K? What do people think? Thanks!
Blackdragon 2017-03-31 10:07:27
BD, a typoFixed; thanks. (The first few paragraphs were never submitted to my proofreaders.)
In the moment that your kid calls you and asks for money, you might buzz a 4 on your well being index (on a scale of 1-10). But later that day if a social scientist came into your home and conducted an interview and you were sitting in your living room together, you might pull a picture of your family from your mantel piece and think of various fond memories of your family.That still doesn't change my point; indeed, it bolsters it; overall "usual" unhappiness peppered with moments of happiness. Looking at old photos and smiling is a moment, not a static condition.
For most of human history, even 100 years ago, kids were cash flow positive (an asset). One boy would double the father’s productivity in just a matter of years on the farm. Even a 5 year old daughter could be feeding chickens at dawn and helping mom make the bread. Now, kids are a liability (cash flow negative).Good point; I never brought that up. Many right-wing men and Alpha 1.0's are still stuck in the 1800's when it comes to the ideas of marriage and raising a family. Back then, getting TMM and having as many kids as you could was a great idea. Today, no.
John 2017-03-31 09:07:34
BD has the correct side of the argument, but the argument could be won SO much more simply. For most of human history, even 100 years ago, kids were cash flow positive (an asset). One boy would double the father's productivity in just a matter of years on the farm. Even a 5 year old daughter could be feeding chickens at dawn and helping mom make the bread. Now, kids are a liability (cash flow negative). So, do it if you want, guys, but don't be telling me it's a good investment. Sheesh.
Sachmo 2017-03-31 02:43:18
@hey hey "How is personal satisfaction when your kid is miles away from you at college, calling you and say “Dad I need money?”. Happiness does not equal with happy moments. " What you are referring to is not personal satisfaction, but well being. In the moment that your kid calls you and asks for money, you might buzz a 4 on your well being index (on a scale of 1-10). But later that day if a social scientist came into your home and conducted an interview and you were sitting in your living room together, you might pull a picture of your family from your mantel piece and think of various fond memories of your family. You might be inclined to argue that 'personal satisfaction' is a BS way of measuring happiness, but you would be wrong to dismiss it entirely. A lot of our internal consciousness is remembered or anticipated moments, and not present well being. BOTH personal satisfaction and well being factor into happiness.
John Galt 2017-03-31 02:38:37
First let me start by saying this comment cracks me up:
Raising kids intelligently in Fred’s definition means you are well off or rich and have your shit together.I actually agree with most of BDs points but bottom line is a person making $75,000 shouldn't be having kids because they can't afford them. Sending one kid to college (mine is off to college in 1 1/2 years) is going to cost me about $250,000. That's 5 1/2 years of net income for someone making $75k just for one kid to go to a private college. [Not debating the point about if college is a good idea or not...just giving this as a piece of data]. I think it is self evident that in general, if you aren't making at least $150,000 a year having a kid has way more downside than upside for all the reasons mentioned here. And, duh, if you don't have your shit together clearly having a child(ren) is a terrible idea. With that said, MoChnk makes a fantastic point I never thought of before about oneitis. I only have one child and she is literally the only person on the planet that can hurt me. If she were to be raped or murdered or paralyzed or die in an accident or die from cancer...just the thought of these things actually hurts me. The point I think MoChnk was making (and he doesn't even have kids so bravo for thinking of this) is that by choosing to have a child you build in a sort of "nuclear armageddon" into your life. So for those people that are risk averse, having children seems like a bad idea. But let me share a couple of thoughts on the "plus column" for having a child. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that having a child has made me a better person and a happier person. If any of you have ever had to learn something well enough to teach another person this probably makes sense to you. You might know how to throw a baseball but if you have to coach another person on how to throw a baseball you will understand the mechanics of it much better and it will likely make you throw a baseball better. If you are a decent parent, that is kind of your job. To be your kid's life coach on finding happiness. I have found that without a doubt my own ability to pursue my own happiness has increased enormously over my child's life. In trying to teach my daughter how to be happy, it has helped me better learn what makes me happy. Being a parent will make you more humble. Being a parent will make you more patient. Being a parent will force you to learn to focus on what you can control and let go of the rest. All of these things contribute to making me a happier person in general. The final point I will make, and I am only half kidding, is that having a child and being a great parent has probably gotten me more sex with more fantastic women than I could have ever imagined. Guys in the 40s and 50s that have no kids often creep women out (younger women especially). When a woman I am seeing sees how I light up when I talk about my daughter or sees me texting my daughter advice about her boyfriend or whatever, I can almost hear the woman's panties drop. Now CLEARLY I am not saying that you should have kids in order to get laid but I'm just sayin... I have actually pondered this question quite a bit over the years.
If I could go back in time would I still choose to have my daughter?If I knew I was going to get the kid I got, 100% I would do it. Like the other person with three kids commented that two of his kids brought him incredible joy and satisfaction, I have a truly fantastic kid. My life isn't just better some of the time. My life on average is better having had her. But if I am being intellectually honest and I was just looking at the probabilities on it, I would probably have to side with BD on this one. I wouldn't have done it. Rough math with absolutely no science behind it: if you have a kid you have a 30% chance of your life being 30% better and a 70% chance of your life being 30% worse. The expected value of having a kid is lower. But if you have an appreciative, respectful, intelligent, athletic, kind, attractive, hard working, honest kid it can be the best experience, bar none, of your entire life. I will leave you with this note my daughter texted me on my birthday last year:
HAPPY 50th BIRTHDAY DAD!! I love you so much and I'm so unbelievably lucky that I get to be your daughter. You've always been there for me and help me through whatever I'm going through especially these past years as I've gotten into high school. You always make me laugh and some of the best times of my life have been spent with you. You are my biggest role model and I hope that when I grow up I can be as hardworking, smart, and as dedicated as you are. You mean so much to me and I respect and love you more than you will ever know. I can't wait to create more memories and share experiences with you as I get older and our relationship evolves. Thank you for all you do dad I love you very much and can't wait to celebrate with you. Happy 50th from your favorite and only daughter
Ashwin 2017-03-31 00:40:21
MoChnk, good comment there. Add to it that as women get older, MOST do not find "meaning" in anything other than building a family (kids, home decor, match-making, grandkids, etc.) And when they don't have their own family, they mess with other women's who do. (Gossip, TV Soaps, for eg.) On the other hand, MOST men find "meaning" in their work & contribution, not family affairs. --- BD, a typo right at the beginning "debate me on the my contention that". --- Something that was never brought up was "what are the positives of having kids?" The discussion felt all about "how to mitigate the negatives?" I'm 38. All my siblings-cousins-schoolmates have kids. Some are drama queens, while others are well-behaved. Yet, I still don't see any positives, other than "moments of joy". Am I missing a big elephant that everyone else is enjoying? 🙂
Eldm 2017-03-30 18:29:42
@Dylan It'll be a pointless debate anyway - since Molyneux is hell bent on "saving the west" and Blackdragon is hell bent on "long term happiness" - two are mutually exclusive.
Blackdragon 2017-03-30 18:21:10
Do you think Stefan Molyneux is happily monogamously married with kids?I don't know him personally so I wouldn't know. Right now he seems okay, but that's only my wild guess. He doesn't seem like a "happy" guy since his happiness is so tied up in the fate of the collapsing West. He seems very stressed (which is exactly what you'll be for the rest of your life if the fate of the West concerns you greatly).
I know you mentioned having a debate with him. What points would you use?This and this.
I think Stefan wants to encourage people have kids and get married because he wants to save the west.Exactly correct. Fuck happiness, Do What's Good For Society™ you selfish butthole. The problem is society now A) hates you and B) is suicidal, as I already explained here. A society full of mostly left-leaning moderates and SJW's isn't deserving of your help.
I just wonder if what he says is his experience of it.He would say what most TMM people say; he would say that he really loves his daughter and loves his wife, and beyond that he would leave it very ambiguous.
Dylan 2017-03-30 17:41:01
Do you think Stefan Molyneux is happily monogamously married with kids? I know you mentioned having a debate with him. What points would you use? I love Stefan but I agree with you on monogamy not being not great for a mans happiness. I think Stefan wants to encourage people have kids and get married because he wants to save the west. I just wonder if what he says is his experience of it.
Blackdragon 2017-03-30 16:39:59
The amount of happiness you can get from having kids has (overall) decreased with time (since the 1950’s and before, etc) because the amount of burden and expectations and cost put upon parents, especially in the USA, has steadily gone up with time. When I was kid, my parents were not expected to do anywhere as much doting, fill my days with instruction and activity, and buy so much crap, etc. All those things are things that take away from parents being able to invest in their own quality of life. Some of these things are now required, such as by law (mandatory car seats, cant let the kid walk or bike to school, etc) or big child support payment in excess of what’s needed, or by convention – less the neighborhood busy-body or school counselor calls CPS on you because your child was unattended.Correct. Transformation into a big government culture makes raising kids far more difficult, far more risky, and far more costly for everyone. I'm not that old (44) and even when I was a kid in the 1980's, there was no CPS, there were no helicopter moms, child support was never a big deal, and you would just go walk around town as a small kid and everything was fine as long as you were home by 7pm. And this was when crime rates were higher than they are today. But today we live in a mommy/daddy-take-care-of-me culture (big mommy government to give you free stuff for left-wingers, big daddy government to go get the bad guys for right-wingers, and freaked-out helicopter moms for everyone), so we've skewed the entire concept of what it means to not only have children, but to be an independent human being. It's tragic and sad, though I stopped caring about all of this stuff quite a while ago. If economic and cultural conditions were more like those in the 1950's, this would be a very different conversation to say the least. (Not only about kids, but about TMM too.)
Anon. 2017-03-30 15:43:35
TBH, to me both sides of the argument sounded very weak, with more questions than solid points. Let me try to make some. 1. "Parenting brings happiness if done right". This is about the same as "TMM brings happiness if done right". Yes, there are people for whom that is true, but there's no proven system whereby anyone could achieve the same. If I, say, want to try myself as a cook, there are step-by-step guides for everything, and if my lack of experience or pure chance ruins a dish, I can just throw it away and start anew. Or I could decide cooking isn't for me and abandon it altogether. Parenting is the exact opposite. 2. "None will love you as much as the children will". If I want someone to run to me with tears of joy to sit in my lap and look into my eyes, I'll find an 18 y. o. girl. And she would have a certain obvious advantage over a child. Should I, at an advanced age, become dependent on outside help, I would consider the situation where none would want to help me except my children feeling some kind of obligation, an utter failure. If no friend would do it, and a professional can't be arranged, why do my children have to do it? What if they are now living far away? 3. If it delights one to teach someone, to share one's knowledge and experience with those who might need it, there are lots of children that can be taught and mentored. Or adults for that matter, including some number of 18 y. o. girls. However, people are all different. I never wanted a pet, but there are those who are clearly delighted to adopt one. Maybe that kind of people can really be happy with children. Or maybe they're deluding themselves. Who knows. Having pets and children alike seems to me a very submissive thing to do, where one finds fulfillment through servitude. So currently I'm just not seeing what benefits do one's own biological children have over other people of various ages. If you do like being around kids, there are friends' kids, or daycare jobs, or whatever. Otherwise, go find some 18 y. o. girls ; )
Anubis 2017-03-30 15:09:13
BD One things worth expounding upon: The amount of happiness you can get from having kids has (overall) decreased with time (since the 1950's and before, etc) because the amount of burden and expectations and cost put upon parents, especially in the USA, has steadily gone up with time. When I was kid, my parents were not expected to do anywhere as much doting, fill my days with instruction and activity, and buy so much crap, etc. All those things are things that take away from parents being able to invest in their own quality of life. Some of these things are now required, such as by law (mandatory car seats, cant let the kid walk or bike to school, etc) or big child support payment in excess of what's needed, or by convention - less the neighborhood busy-body or school counselor calls CPS on you because your child was unattended. We turned out fine, being left to our own devices much of the time, but today parents feel they have to make this huge constant investment of time, money and effort 24 hours a day.. less someone shame them or worse. -A
MoChnk 2017-03-30 13:57:16
I'm a young dude so I don't have any experience in this field and I'm also biased due to my young age so to me BD wins in a landslide. Maybe my mid-40 future self might have a different opinion. I think having a child is like imposed Oneitis. It is your child. Deal with it (unless you're a complete prick). No Soft-Next or Hard-Next or Don't-Get-Excited-About-The-One-But-The-Group™. This child is indeed "The One" (or whatever number of children you have). To me personally it appears Fred has a more feminine perspective on the issue and BD clearly a masculine perspective. Fred's points of overall increased happiness despite the negatives is a pretty feminine perspective. Most women love ups and downs and at the end of the day they are very satisfied when they can look back on their personal soap opera life with ups and downs. BD on the other hand wants consistent happiness. Masculine happiness=static=ideally only ups. Feminine happiness=dynamic=ideally ups and downs. Fred also mentions that for many people, having kids is the most important and meaningful thing that they can do and that it's kind of a "built-in mission". Now that is a very feminine perspective, and indeed to many women having their own child is more important than anything else. Just 2 weeks ago I visited my parents and happened to watch a bit of a tv talk show with them which was about artificial fertilization. And there was a feminist in the round of talkers (yes, with dyed hair) who was in her late (!) 40s and who had just managed to become a mother at the very last opportunity in her life after an oddyssey of many failed artificial fertilizations. She was in much debt after all this but it was totally worth it for her. Her feminist "men are obsolete" mindset was totally overrun by her female biology. Was pretty funny to watch. But I feel sorry for her baby son. Anyways, I do think that many women will at one point in their life decide to make a baby their life's mission. It's an urge that comes from within. That's why BD stresses the importance for every man to have a mission. The mission is kind of a man's baby, since he can't make one inside his own body. E.g. this blog. It's BD's baby and by adding content he feeds it to grow bigger. So from a male's perspective BD wins the debate. Now back to the Oneitis-thing from the beginning of my comment. Oneitis in a man-woman-relationship isn't a problem at all for women or something for them to overcome, since their default concept is serial monogamy and therefore serial Oneitis. Therefore I think Oneitis to a child isn't making a woman less happy. Also the temporary phases of unhappiness only add to her female definition of overall happiness with lots of ups and downs. I think the difference in the male and female psyche all goes back to their tasks imposed upon them by nature. Women had to raise the kids during the entire evolution of humanity. They have adapted to these emotional ups and downs with a mindset that cherishes a wide range of emotions. Men on the other hand have always been the providers and have therefore developed a mindset of constantly trying to improve things and only valueing positive emotions. You can also see these adaptations in other areas. We have been a hunter-gatherer-species but acutally the sexes have been a bit like two sub-species - men on the hunter-side and women on the gatherer-side. Men statistically talk way less than women because they used to be the hunters. The reason for that is that when you're sneaking up to a prey animal you have to shut up or else it runs away. Women not only had the luxury to talk more since the nuts, tubers, and berries, couldn't escape, but they were also required by nature to talk more, because the children had to learn how to talk. And the best way to learn a language is by being exposed to it as much and as often as possible. Another example is nutrition: men need a higher amount of animal products than women. Women can far better deal with a long-term vegan diet. Most men totally crash on a purely vegan diet (been there done that.) What BD says about male and female psychology makes perfectly sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If Fred was a woman and the debate was about the happiness of people in general when having children, then I would say that both are right and that the whole debate was totally redundant. That would be like an old man and an old woman fighting over what's more important: checking the health of your prostate or your ovaries? But after all this was a debate about men's happiness.
sideburns 2017-03-30 12:12:02
Intelligence Test: Could you pass a minimal intelligence test if one were required for a “license to breed”? To find out, simply answer this question: In light of the tens of thousands of children dying of malnutrition each day, and considering the number of species going extinct as a result of our excessive reproduction, do you think it would be a good idea to create another of yourself? YES: We’re sorry, your intelligence is not high enough to perform basic logic. Thank you for trying. Please consider the many options to creating “one of your own”. NO: Congratulations! You’re smart enough to pass on your genes. Thanks for not doing so. Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
John 2017-03-30 11:24:32
When your kid is terrorizing your neighbors, getting bad grades, getting girls to send him nudes, getting calls from angry dads, Bullying other kids, or being bullied, and etc. you're not happy. It is actually the most unhappy a person can be when their kids disappoint them and they will. It is utter hell. Then there are the time commitments for sports and activities. Then when you divorce, you have to still communicate with that beast of a woman, you hate, because you have kids together and you want your kids to see a healthy interaction so they aren't scarred. Then of course the money, my god the money..... You can not be a good parent and be consistently happy.
Blackdragon 2017-03-30 10:41:34
happiness researchers tend to split happiness into well-being and personal satisfaction, which are 2 very different things. There is no question that kids bring down our instantaneous well-being. That’s if someone asked you to press a scale of 1-10 of how you are feeling right this moment.I agree these are two different things, but that doesn't change my argument. Suffering 20+ of unhappiness (for any reason, regardless of kids) just so you can look back on your life when you're 82 and smile isn't worth it in my view. There are many ways to be proud of your life as an old man without suffering.
The question that was not addressed in the debate is that depends on what the kids end up growing up like. Here’s what I mean. I love my kids, 3 of them. I have 2 kids that bring me unparalleled joy, on a regular basis. They are easy to be around, full of laughter. They are like me but only better than me in every way possible. Just a pleasure to be with.Irrelevant. Your two prefect kids still resulted in an overall decrease in happiness for you when they were not adults because of the work/pain/sacrifice you had to endure to raise them to adulthood (unless you were rich and had a nanny do it for you).
The reason BD wins is that most people don’t have the wealth, time, or knowledge to run the “intelligently” playbook. Therefore kids reduce happiness.An accurate summation of my point.
A childless man today has endless options for a great life. Entertainment, dating, cheap travel, hobbies, the availability of recreational drugs, plus a great deal of freedom. This is a level of entertainment and fun our parents and grandparents could only dream of. What could a man do in 1950 besides have a family?Excellent point; I never thought of that.
Is there any way to be old and childless with friends and family?Yes. Duh. The fact you're even asking such a question shows your attitude is in the wrong place.
Do you want to be happiest when you look back on your life and try to find meaning in it? Or do you want to be happiest moment-to-moment?You can do both. You don't have to choose one or the other.
I think people confuse happiness with moments of joy.Correct. That.
There’s a typoFixed. Thanks.
Gil Galad 2017-03-30 09:53:10
There's a typo here:
The specific topic will will be debating todayI don't know if BD wins in the sense that he's fully proven his point/refuted Fred's points, but I do think he's right. A few comments and thoughts:
You claimed that studies show that people are less happy when they have kids. I showed that those studies are invalid.Fred didn't show that the studies are invalid. A study that shows "average" people get a huge hit from having children doesn't have zero applicability to people of above average condition. So "invalid" was guilty of the same binary thinking that Fred was blaming BD for.
Although I am aware that this is impossible to prove, I believe that evolution has made us strongly desire having childrenTo the extent that evolution is proven and that men's animal status is proven, the reproductive instinct in humans is also proven. But it's complicated. Anything you do that your "genetic algorithm" can interpret (so to speak) as maximization of your chances of having descendents, is going to partially satisfy your reproductive instinct. For example, if you have no kids but do have sex with tons of women, what your genes "understand" is that there's a good probability that there's a lot of your love children running around; the perception is just weaker in absence of direct visual evidence (ie a woman showing you a baby and saying it's yours). They will also "understand" that though you covered the part about having kids, you haven't covered the childcare part, so you're not helping your kids with they chances to give you grandkids (remember that "desire to have kids" is really "desire to perpetuate your genes"). So the effect will be mitigated and it'll be decidedly inferior to the satisfaction of actually raising kids. An opposite mitigating factor is if you have nephews: no kids but your genes still got spread anyway thanks to you siblings' reproductive success. I think the real nuclear destroyer in the debate about kids and happiness is how much having kids will limit your freedom. Man, I can't even begin to imagine everything I'll have to "temporarily" give up on if I have kids. A nanny won't change that, and after all, nanny or not, you *want* to be present in your children's life, and you're going to worry, all the damn time. And to bring back the evolution argument, having kids isn't just about spreading your genes, it's about receiving some clues from how your kids "turn out" that serve as some sort of confirmation: you want your kids to be like you, and you'll be disappointed if they're not or if they hate you (And read BD's article about dealing with the ex-wife. Jesus fucking christ. And he's right on all accounts). There's a reason there are so many "kill the father" movies. All those compounded risks plus the certitudes regarding loss of freedom, it's just way too much as I currently see it. My final word is this: either I will give in and change my mind in 10+ years, or - my current view - I will only have kids if there's life extension, so that the 20+ years I'll have to sacrifice do not represent a quarter of my life as they would with current lifespans. If I can raise kids in 2035-2055 and then live till the 22nd century, then okay, maybe.
CrabRangoon 2017-03-30 09:37:25
Good debate guys. I think people confuse happiness with moments of joy. Yes kids will give you those little moments that make you beam and proud to be a parent. However, the long term day to day drudgery is not conducive to happiness (similar to traditional marriage). People tend to justify their decisions based on these little victories and moments. Not all men are cut out to be fathers, nor do some want to be in the very fiber of their being. I am one of these guys-I've always know kids are not for me. Will it mean I need to be more serious about saving and planning for my old age? Sure-I can't rely on kids/grandkids to help me out so I'll need to hire help if need be. Honestly it's a roll of the dice even with kids. They may still toss you in the nursing home if you become too much to handle. Most if not all folks in these homes have family but are too infirm to be cared for by non-professionals. 3 out of 4 of my grandparents ended up in homes due to being too sick for us to handle anymore. The last one just dropped of a heart attack-hope that's how I go out too. Quick and easy. Too much about having kids its based on fear of dying alone, etc... and other selfish reasons such as having caretakers when you're old.
joelsuf 2017-03-30 08:37:23
An extremely conservative, right-wing, religious Alpha Male 1.0 may consider having five children as a huge net positive (leaving a legacy, doing God’s will, having little minions to boss around, prove to the world his penis works, etc)LMAO forget Dave Chapelle. I want BD to start doing stand up.
Its scary to think Ill be one of the lonely old men at the mall chatting with strangers because he’s desperate for human contact. Is there any way to be old and childless with friends and family?Just LOL at this observation. In this age where you can be as shut in as you want and have no REAL consequences, this is one of the most negligible concerns EVER. There's plenty of stuff you can do that can put you in a community nowadays to where you DON'T have to be one of those lonely old men. Just walk into a bowling alley during a league or a tournament to see what I'm talking about. Being the "lonely old man" is a choice nowadays, and a real stupid and lazy one. I see them at my job quite a bit, wandering around checking out college age chicks while they buy a quart of malt liquor. Pathetic. You don't need a family to prevent being one of these like back in the day (if that was even a thing). Anyways, BD wins this one almost decisively. And he won because of this admission from Fred:
having kids is a “built-in Mission” for menThat right there reveals how uncreative those like Fred are, to where they don't have anything that they really think they can excel at, so they say "whatever, I'll just have a kid! That'll push my limits!" And then there they are, mid 40s-50s, wondering "where the time has gone" and now they "can't do the things they wanted to do." So then despite having a nice family (if that's EVEN a thing anymore), they are STILL unfulfilled. BD Wins. Flawless Victory.
Ian 2017-03-30 07:53:48
I think the difference here is that one of you is making happiness decisions on the "story-telling" side of happiness (or, one might say, the side that finds meaning), and another is making decisions on the sum (integral, as per calculus) of one's happiness moment-to-moment throughout one's life. Do you want to be happiest when you look back on your life and try to find meaning in it? Or do you want to be happiest moment-to-moment? In the meaning or "story" case, I suppose that this might mean you're putting other values above happiness. This is how I see the different angles in your debate.
Eugene 2017-03-30 07:26:22
And to add to that, a point that wasn't brought up since BD mainly used "screaming" kids or just usual stress. What happens if your kid gets sick or injured or just something overall bad happens? What happens if your kid is out late or isn't home when they're supposed to... obviously worry and uncertainty will affect. And other cases like this... I don't think a nanny can do your worrying for you.
Eugene 2017-03-30 07:10:05
Best intelligent debate here IMO so far... I wish this could have gone on longer. Initially I was torn on "who won" as I feel this debate almost got cut off halfway after all the back and forth, but re-reading it's pretty clear BD had a better point for a number of reasons. I also would like liked to see Fred expand on his "affecting men on a deep level" point of how it increases longterm happiness. Overall : - You can't really argue with any of BD's points on the negatives and downsides of kids and how those things can hurt overall longterm happiness. Both were in agreement there. - Fred says that you can minimize those downsides, only if you have A/B/C/D completely and fully in order, and 100% smooth. Meanining, you're financially well off and will always 100% stay that way no matter what, your relationships and nonmonogomous marriage will be just fine and smooth sailing with no issues, your health is 100% fine and you're great, etc. All these things have to be in place and working in order to minimize the stress and added responsibilities of kids. And then there's the nanny thing, which is a great ideal to work towards, but isn't relevant for most guys, and since this topic generally applies to most alpha 2.0 men, if (according to BD, and I agree) this isn't really easily feasible, then you can discount that. The issue is, life is full of ups and downs. What happens if one area of your life here suffers for some unexpected reason, despite the smooth sailing you had earlier? Your kids are still there...they're not going anywhere. Now you have another big thing to take care of on top of everything else... no doubt this will add even more stress to your life. That's a good number of ducks that you need to 100% have in a row, according to Fred, in order for the positives to outweigh the clear negatives (which you both agreed on, as far as the negatives). - So this leads to the positives according to Fred, and besides the obvious positives that we all know about, such as the coolness of just having a kid, teaching/mentoring them and all the obvious good things, Fred points to one study (at least so far), and the extent of what he described was : 1) Something more is going on here 2) It affects you on a deep level 3) Not having them will lead to "some" level of unhappiness, and having them will lead to "some" level of happiness. 4) Having kids "should" increase your overall longterm happiness So on BD's end there's a whole host of obvious negative affects to your longterm happiness, that pretty much no one argues with. On Fred's on, you need to have a through d, and probably others, 100% in order and going smoothly, along with, ideally..a $1500/month+ nanyn, you need to have kids likely in your 40's and upwards, you need to not have any of those things negatively affected in any way because if you do...the balance of positive/negative was just tilted towards negative, and lastly... you will likely have "some" level of unhappiness if you don't have kids. So...when I think of it that way...the argument FOR kids increasing longterm happinesss isn't really that strong here, and I agree w/ BD.
Dylan 2017-03-30 06:43:21
A childless man today has endless options for a great life. Entertainment, dating, cheap travel, hobbies, the availability of recreational drugs, plus a great deal of freedom. This is a level of entertainment and fun our parents and grandparents could only dream of. What could a man do in 1950 besides have a family? I had a vasectomy, so I'm pretty committed to not having children. I sometimes think a family would be really nice though. Especially as you age. Its scary to think Ill be one of the lonely old men at the mall chatting with strangers because he's desperate for human contact. Is there any way to be old and childless with friends and family?
AwareManNYC 2017-03-30 06:42:28
BD wins clearly. Here's why. Raising kids intelligently in Fred's definition means you are well off or rich and have your shit together. If you are rich or well off and are thinking straight, you are probably a lot happier to start with. Adding kids in a way that is not disruptive doesn't reduce your happiness as much as it does everyone else's. You have a better chance of a positive balance. The reason BD wins is that most people don't have the wealth, time, or knowledge to run the "intelligently" playbook. Therefore kids reduce happiness. That said, most people accept the trade off because of the spiritual, social, emotional, and other satisfactions of being a parent, which are significant but don't necessarily increase happiness. It's like writing a book or training for and running a marathon. Most people find the writing or training a major drag, but love having achieved the goal.
O 2017-03-30 06:24:45
Some thoughts.......... I think the real issue is identifying exactly what types of men would be happier with kids. It's clear that even today not everyone believes that having kids provides increased happiness. Now this number may be in the minority such as 5% but maybe the reality is that if everyone was totally rational/objective we would see that perhaps 25% of men should not have kids. Some points were addressed such as age, financial security, having a nanny, etc. But what about other points: does the man come from a happy familial upbringing?, were his parents good role models?, is he responsible?, can he delay gratification?, does he have a good spouse?, was he an only child or had siblings?, what was his relationship with his siblings?, did he have loving relatives?, etc. If a person has not received love from his family/relatives/spouse then how can he love his children? (it's possible but much more difficult).
A Man 2017-03-30 06:22:27
Will kids make you long term happier? The question that was not addressed in the debate is that depends on what the kids end up growing up like. Here's what I mean. I love my kids, 3 of them. I have 2 kids that bring me unparalleled joy, on a regular basis. They are easy to be around, full of laughter. They are like me but only better than me in every way possible. Just a pleasure to be with. They are so responsible that they make my life easier as well. I can offload stuff onto them. My other kid? ugh. She brings me drama on a routine basis. I am always waiting for the next "incident" to happen. She loves us and we love her. There is no animosity. But she's always got something happening that needs my attention. If I only had the low drama 2 kids, I could see how parents would be bragging about how great kids are. As it is, I think, in the short term, the kids can be a pain in the ass. Long term, I put them at a net positive.
alex 2017-03-30 06:14:11
I agree with Fred. Raising children intelligently might make you happier: who doesnt want their son to be the CEO of the company I founded when we are 80? Who doesnt want somebody to visit us on our dyingbed that is not our client willing to close a deal before we pass away? Yet, Iwould say the best age would be 50 and not 40. Thats too early!!
hey hey 2017-03-30 05:42:46
@Sachmo: How is personal satisfaction when your kid is miles away from you at college, calling you and say "Dad I need money?". Happiness does not equal with happy moments. Children fill you up with happy moments but overall and most of the time they fill you with stress and chaos.
Sachmo 2017-03-30 05:31:01
@Fred, BD The arguments got interesting when you both got on the topic of the Full Time / Part Time Nanny, b/c it shifted from whether kids make you happy or not, to the best way to have kids. Fred, a full time nanny for $1500/mo + room/board is beyond the means of 95% of the US population. I think you should paint a realistic situation in the comments for someone earning in the $75k range -- what this person can realistically do to offset some of the possible unhappiness of having kids. Good nannies are hard to find, you are trusting them with your infant children. You might end up paying them more than $10/hr, and have less than $5k per year to spend on this... One other thought - happiness researchers tend to split happiness into well-being and personal satisfaction, which are 2 very different things. There is no question that kids bring down our instantaneous well-being. That's if someone asked you to press a scale of 1-10 of how you are feeling right this moment. But personal satisfaction, a more subjective measure, is how you look back on your life and rate your overall life experience. Kids probably raise your personal satisfaction level, which is in some sense your 'remembered' happiness. Daniel Kahneman covers the discrepancy between the present self and the remembering self very well in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow -- highly recommended. Maybe the problem is that you guys are coming from 2 different perspectives of happiness, BD from well being, Fred from personal satisfaction.