Are there any philosophies/arguments for reproducing?
The only one I can think of would be to have someone to take care of you when you're old but that is nye with modern welfare states.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>that is nye with modern welfare states.
People live longer and longer and need more people and money to keep their pensions afloat. If anything, every person should have 4 kids so that they can pay their taxes to cover their retirement. Demographic crash is incoming and no one is doing anything about it.
Funny you post Tywin, because I believe in reproduction for the same reason he does, in order to leave behind a legacy.
But is there a reason to care about legacy or family? I'm not dismissing preference it's just not persuasive.
No, and in fact there is no legacy being passed down. I don't even know my great grandfather's last name, nor do I care about anything he did. The idea that you are passing down a legacy is not only pointless, but absurd.
Just because your family were all peons with no achievements to their name it doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone.
It's something you have to feel, and if you don't feel like you should create a legacy, you probably shouldn't. Your probably subconsciously understand that you have faulty genes, and that humanity should go on without them.
Desire to procreate is linked to low iq.
No, high IQ are related to more neurosis and overthinking, which gets in way of successful reproduction which is baseline for everyone normal.
People like Darwin had multiple children and that didn't get in the way of research.
>No
Yes.
Antinatalists are the midwits, while low IQ and high IQ are the breeders.
Objectively untrue.
Just look at the most successful people, they create huge dynasties. The only subset of high IQ people who don't breed are autist science spergs. Highly successful businessmen, kings, and warlords, all have tons of children.
The most successful man right now Bezos has zero children. Some statistical outliers do not change overwhelming data.
>warlords
Oh sweetie
Look at Elon Musk and Bill Gates, I think Bezos is the statistical outlier here.
>Oh sweetie
Look at Genghis Khan, the archetypal warlord. Black person warlords are moronic because Black folk are moronic; and even then, if you ever watch the Cannibal Warlords of Liberia when they interview General Butt Naked, you can tell he's a cut above his countrymen, even if he would only be considered below average amongst white people.
No these are still statistical outliers. That's how statistics work. IQ is negatively correlated with iq period. Citing Gengis Khan is moronic because he lived before and without need to birth control.
>Be high iq
>Refuse to pass on your genes
>So the only people left are those with a low iq
Seems pretty stupid to me.
Why?
Maybe it would help if you understand how words work.
Because your chart tracks amount of kids per woman, not absolute amount of kids for the entire population that is above 100IQ.
If anything, higher intelligence in women means fewer kids, but higher intelligence in men results in more kids.
Your conclusion is false and your interpretation skewed. You seem to not understand words you use.
>So the only people left are those with a low iq
Why would you even care about this unless you're a stakeholder in your society? If you're a poor or disenfranchised person, or a victim in your society why would you care what happens after you die? Wouldn't you feel some kind of spiteful satisfaction that you're not contributing your genes to a society that hates you?
Because the society you're living in won't last forever and you're preventing your genes from contributing to the construction of a better one.
So?
Why would I want society to become better for people that I hate? Wouldn't it cause me greater satisfaction to believe that it will collapse and they will suffer after I die?
Probably a good thing that your line is going to end to be honest.
>...Nuh uh, you're the outlier!
Seriously? So the college going midwits are the 140IQ galaxy brains that form the bulk of statistical data?
This is sophistry at this point, frick off.
Musk had kids
Gates has kids
Buffet has kids
Every Indian billionaire has kids
Zuckerberg has kids
One autistic outlier doesn't prove anything
I'm not allowed to do what rich/successful people do because I'm "a peasant" so I better not have kids then.
You're choice, I'm going to pump out as many kids as possible and encourage them to start large families.
>businessmen, kings, and warlords
>high IQ
Peasant cope
i'm sure you're very proud of your dad for running a tiling business, but that doesn't make him smart
My dad was an alcoholic neet pedophile. I'm a peasant, just not a coping peasant.
Literally everything is a vanity.
However, you were given life and nurture. It is only fair you give a new life in turn a chance to exist with such improvements on upbringing as you felt were lacking in your own life.
For the joy of raising a child?
pedo
ITT: mindless goyim who SHOULDNT raise kids.