Is Global fertility problem is due to lack of pair-bonding?

[Anonymous]

Is Global fertility problem is due to lack of pair-bonding?

Put most sexual life on earth have 2 mating strategies:

pair-bonding: 2 individuals bond and mate for life.

Practical effect: Marrage, often arranged by parents historically for humans due to practical time critical & resource reasons.

Motivation: Facilitating children who need more support.

promiscuous mating: Sleep around with the most attractive person you can get. Don't settle or commit.

Practical effect: While men will sleep with anyone, women tend to hold out only for the top 20% or they get raped.

Motivation: Have as many children as possible of the highest quality and hope they survive with little support.

History:

6 million years ago our last common ancestor with Chimpanzee practiced promiscuous mating strategy, which is very common among life on earth.

Starting 4 million years ago due to an ever expanding need for humans children to learn our childhood started getting longer and longer and to support the same Pair-bonding became a more and more dominate mating strategy.

As with all species the way women evolved to meet that need via pair-bonding is in relation to that need judging a man's suitability for pair-bonding based upon his resource value as she judges it.

(Keep that in mind "as she judges it" is important to why marriages were largely arranged given such women at such an age are generally young and naive about what resources are valuable, and what kind of man can provide them)

Updates

1 y

We in the industrialized world have largely screwed ourselfs in 3 ways:

1: By becoming rich we are no longer in the poor environment for which we were evolved. This messes with women's pair-bonding instincts.
2: By embracing feminism and creating equality or even superiority for women we have basically abolished the pair-bonding ability of most women for most men.
3: By inventing contraceptive & sex alternative technology we have given ourselfs a never before heard of powerful tool to overwr

[mandyfire98]

Could be or you know maybe because financially, it's no longer viable to have big families because nobody can afford it anymore. Everyone is expected to work non-stop for little pay and there's no time to actually raise children anymore. The schools are doing most of it and when they aren't, daycare services are doing the rest. Basically it eventually came down to "ain't nobody got time for that, we gotta make money so we can, you know, take care of ourselves." Which is super hard to do in the environment we currently live in.

[Asker]

If your not making children your really not making anything as it stops with you regardless.

No matter how much of your life you give to your boss for a little extra money.

[mandyfire98]

"a little extra money"

Oh no you misunderstood. Not a little extra money but keeping your head above water money. That's where society is at now especially in America. This isn't about a little extra money, this is about literally not being able to have kids because it's too expensive and not being able to raise them in a suitable environment financially.

End the financial burden and you'll see fertility rates rise.

I know redpill nonsense likes to point the finger at "oh it's all women's fault, they're evil and have too many options. If they were wed off at 12 to arranged marriages to men they'll never love then they'll repopulate the earth."

That's never gonna happen so you better focus on fixing the financial issues first.

[Asker]

Children are not an optional life choice for a family or nation @mandyfire98
People seem to be treating as such as if filibustering until it is too late waiting for better circumstances that likely will likely never come was anything but a losing strategy.

What exactly is this "suitable environment" your waiting for anyway if nearly all of our ancestors raised children on a starvation diet in a single room shelter or cave?

Ultimately if you have to starve to have children then you starve to give your family and nation a chance to go on beyond the 100% certainty of demise otherwise.

I think most people have a variable definition of "necessity" which is frankly not connected to actual needs. The fact that women won't go at all until they meet their standard unlike men makes their delusions about needs crippling.

[mandyfire98]

Bring your child up in an environment of poverty and starvation... Jesus Christ... Cold hearted shit

[Asker]

So you think the only reason you @mandyfire98 exist at all is 98% of your ancestors were cold hearted?

Your alternative is not bring them up at all which is infinitely worse, then having a life of luxury compared to nearly all mankind.

[mandyfire98]

My ancestors didn't have a choice. We do as a modern advanced society. It's not to go back to caveman society lol.

It's damn sure not arranged marriages where people are forced to marry those they don't even choose or love.

It's to fix our current financial issues.

Funny how everybody will look for every wild ass solution or scheme but the obvious one. Which is to fix the system instead so that people will comfortably be able to raise their children and offer them the best life possible.

I mean when your solution is forcing women into arrangements where they aren't attracted to or love their partner just to give birth instead of getting the economy back to where it needs to be, that kinda says a lot about your own personal desires really.

That's some incel level "I can't find a partner so I want women to be forced to marry me and have my babies. The world depends on it. "

The incel community is full of talk of " government assigned girlfriends and arranged marriages."

Non-consent will never be ok. It's gross.

[Asker]

@mandyfire98 Do we really have a choice when every generation there are fewer and fewer of us waiting for supposedly "Good" economic times There may be too few of us left for it to matter?

Again I ask, what is "Good" economic times everyone having a house to themselfs in their 20s?

That has never be true, yet is effectively the expectation of a good job and house for starting families in the few years where biology requires it happen. Theses have always been extremely difficult and expensive thing.

That is why the "nuclear family" didn't exist until the 1950s, after all our forign competition was distorted, and grandparents were paid to stay away, and had been falling apart along without culture ever-since

It has likewise never been true that your going to just find "true love" or the one you "like" given how they are both defined emotionally from a biological standpoint of suitability to support you for most all women. In this way the economy is indeed the issue, but not for women but men.

Women have more education and money than at any point in history, its the men who were demotivated by post-90's education techniques deigned to appeal to girls that were left-behind. Which unfortunate is getting in the way of appealing to women.

I believe you called them "incels", which is ironic as you would not feel that way if you were of the education women only a generation or 2 ago enabling you to see them as equals rather than degrade and spit upon them with discus.

Thou I unlike you pitty them I am not among them having been educated in my formal years before they changed the techniques and therefore able to vastly out earn my wife and support my family.

It is that families future in this dying civilization that I worry about.

[mandyfire98]

I don't call them incels because of lack of education or even money. I call them incels because they look at women like they're beneath them. They treat women horribly and have the most misogynistic outlook one could have. That's what what makes them involuntarily celibate. Because of their awful personalities. And no... Absolutely would I not be dating or married to a man like that. Ever. Nobody will ever force me to be in a relationship I don't want to be in. Not gonna happen.

Those incels can gladly bitch about women and fantasize about women being forced to be with them until they, in reality, die lonely. I'm perfectly fine with that. Those personality disorders need to die off. Poison for the gene pool.

Your advice is still forcing women to be with people they don't love. That's basically slavery lol. You're advocating for sex slaves at this point lol. Look at the countries where arranged marriages are popular. Now look at how overall the women are treated there. Look at the women's standing overall in those countries. But who cares what half the population wants. They don't need rights I guess.

What you're proposing is basically a famous book called The Handmaids tale. Spoilers it's a horror story for a reason.

Good talk but I can't in good conscience keep talking with someone who is willing to force women against their will. It's such a fucked up line of thought. Zero empathy for women if you are willing to basically turn them into slaves. I don't care what the overall reason is for. Better to die out completely than live on one's knees.

[LazerBean]

I think the main thing is that now, for the first time in history, people have to choice to conveniently prevent children. And so people are choosing to wait longer to have children, and then have less of them. So now instead of every family having 9 or 10 children, they are having two or three.

[Asker]

They are not having 2 or 3 they are having 1 if that

[LazerBean]

The average number of children that a mother has is about 2 in the US. For less educated countries, it will be far more.

[Asker]

@lazerbean
Not in Europe it isn't nor in America, nor increasingly most of the rest of the world:

www.macrotrends.net/.../fertility-rate

The problem of pair-bonding may be related to urbanization in that the more urban a woman is the more options she is inclined to think she has with more men around making themself seemingly available.
Again men have the same problem, men's willingness to sleep with anyone means it matters less.

[LazerBean]

Your source backs up my statement. 1.7 rounds to 2, not 1. So women in the US have roughly 2 children each, as I said.

You may be right about Europe, though, I haven't looked.

But I don't really think it has to do with pair bonding at all. Promiscuous people, if anything, tend to have more children. The low birth rates are more related to people feeling more than ever that children are too much of a financial burden, access to contraceptives, and the fact that people are now commonly waiting until they are 30 to get married.

[Asker]

Is it not possible that Promiscuous people have more babies only at the cost of pair-bonding orientate people? @lazerbean If a guy sleeps with and impregnates 2-3 different women then he makes it very difficult for that woman to later have more children with other men who might get suck with that man's liability.

This of course would shift the burden of blame to men if we tried to go full promiscuous, but in that case your asking about 80% of men to selflessly look after 20% of the men's children. Which is kind of what we are already starting to do with the welfare state starting this.

[LazerBean]

Not true. It doesn't make it more difficult for women like that to have more children in the future, because there are so many men who don't care about any of that to begin with. The ghetto community has more than proven that.

[Asker]

@lazerbean
At some point even 'modern' women with most of the resource at their disposal are maxed out for time raising children alone limiting how many they can have.

A limit that is particularly low with or without a husband fulfilling the role of a wife given what is required of them in terms of time is far more than what is required of a man and conflicts with their ability to actually make money.

When Feminist reorientation schools to myopically "Close the gender gap" causing boys to academically drop thou the floor while girls reached new heights in the select areas boys had previously done better. They really distorted our entire civilization in making us incomparable.

Those boys grew up to be men useless to those ever more educated women. Leaving them all to compete for a tiny minority of men who succeeded regardless and without time or money to be mothers.

[LazerBean]

That's all fine and dandy and true, but it's just not what's causing the drop in global fertility. I think that men and women having extramarital sex is the root cause of the vast majority of today's problems. But this just isn't really one of them. I think it's a partial contributor, but it's far from the main cause.

[Asker]

Why @lazerbean Would you think men doing something which they had been doing for countless thousands of years would suddenly now be causing a global drop in fertility?

While it is certainly undesirable creating many bastard children who will be in want of a father among many women with the same issue.

Why would not the newer elements of ever more 'educated' women be responsible for the new problem that followed?

[LazerBean]

The presence of easy and effective birth control is also something that we have had for the first time, and obviously DIRECTLY impacts the number of children people have. But why do you insist that is not the culprit and that women being educated is?

We used to not have birth control, and now we do. Therefore we had more children before, and now we don't.

Just like tuberculosis you still be a deadly disease before we had modern treatments for it, and now that we have modern treatments for it, it is not.

It's extremely straightforward and obvious, I don't really understand why you are determined to refuse to see it.

[Asker]

It is certainly true @lazerbean that the availability of effective birth control is perhaps the single most important element to the effect that we humans are not capable of handling that power responsibility. However this availability started in the 1960's and while proceeding a large drop in fertility, and we didn't drop below replacement until the 21st century.

The point is we humans didn't evolve to handle either change, and our culture is unlikely to survive the 'rapid' dye off of selection in 'evolution' required to adapt.

[LazerBean]

It's just whatever floats your boat at this point.

[BonzoInBitburg]

No. Kids are too damn expensive. My wife and most of her friends chose to not have kids as did a lot of my kids friends. Many of my acquaintances through work are choosing to not have kids because it's too expensive. Sometimes it comes down to buy a house or have kids.

[subwayperson]

It is because people are having less sex. People need to love each other more and fuck each other more

[Anonymous]

Global fertility problem? There are 8 billion people on Earth. HALF of those people, 4 billion people, live on less than $7 a day. Why would you want more?

In 1900 it was 1.5 billion.

[Asker]

You will never fix global poverty with population control. We have a distribution problem not a food problem, and fewer educated people will only make that problem a lot worse.

We know that is the case because of how the wealthy areas got wealthy in the first place starting out just as poor or poorer.

[WilliamPamer446]

It's due to erosion of male and female self respect an stereotypes about gender and nihilistic, shallow values

[Anonymous]

God, the conspiracies

[Asker]

Look at the marriage rates, Less and less pair bonding:

www.cdc.gov/.../marriage_rate_2018.htm

Are these widely known and published numbers proving a decline in real pair-bonding a conspiracy theory?

As for the reasons why go spend some time studying the reproductive habits of the different sexual species on the planet, and our own ancestors.

use your head, think about why theses systems exist, what is different about each species driving theses differences.

Maybe then you might see why the rise of human intelligence and the growing dependence on learning led to a rise in pair-bonding as our dominate system.
Maybe that is why children raised out of wed-lock are far less successful even in rich countries where their physical needs are met.

Is that a conspiracy theory?