Why should society care for those who can't procreate?
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Why should society care for those who can't procreate?
Why should society care for those who can't procreate?
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Self-Interest.
Read Adam Smith not too long.
I've been away from IQfy for a few days. What the frick am I looking at? It hurts my eyes.
Yotsuba Stock Exchange
It´s hot trend and very funny
click
Society determines who procreates and who doesn't. It's entirely top down yet pretends to be bottom up.
Because its a system unequal.
1 sperm=100 wombs
100 sperms=1 womb
This is where it all begins.
>It's entirely top down
Who decided that you wouldn't procreate and how did they accomplish this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax
I don´t know a state policy of law in U.S.A. doing the same thing.
not the guy you are responding to, but:
It's not case-to-case but more broadly decided: Let's say we take women out o the workforce again, suddenly their priorities in finding a mate changes completely: They want a stable, providing partner, someone with a strong family-connection as a safety net and that as fast as possible to raise their standard of living.
Now let's say we have a society where males are taken out of the workforce completely: Women have all the economic power, now their ideal male would be just extremely physically attractive and short term to have variety, everything else the men can't provide anymore anyways.
The same with limiting birth control: Making sex very risky for procreation leads to the same calculation: Stability, long-term economic prospects and a strong family-background is suddenly very important if the chance is high you become pregnant during sex.
If birth control is abundant, short-term mating with highly attractive males without regard for their background becomes more common.
Society should care for all of its members but if eugenics can be utilized then men should be bred to be physically attractive and capable. The “chud” should be phased out through selective breeding.
With robotics taking control of jobs and society being automated, society should be changed as thus. The overall make up should be largely women (1 to 10 female to male ratio) and all of society should be based on fostering hedonism and any habits which release endorphins- sex, drugs, fun. The ideal future is one where many women serve the few men sexually like 80 to 20 rule but with automated workplace factored in. Children are raised together in a barracks-school as one like Socrates suggested in the Republic while their parents are out having fun.
>They want a stable, providing partner, someone with a strong family-connection as a safety net and that as fast as possible to raise their standard of living.
That's not the guy who can't breed in currentyear though. That guy is an autistic vidya addict who can barely take care of himself and has no business being a parent.
There isn't much prospect in getting a wife, 50% divorce rates, a woman that isn't the caretaker of the home, expensive getting a living space for your children, hookup culture, general disdain towards gender roles, no point in being a man when the state can supply for everyone, stuff like that, I don't know if the average man is thinking about all these things but they do have an influence on the prospect of meaning.
We have porn, videogames, cheap junkfood and pseudo-relationships online, while it ain't as good as a wife society has all in all made men redundant in many things, to the point where a sizeable amount of men even try to become women.
All this happening within a timespan of 50-100 years, while our ancestors could relatively easily secure a mate we're stuck dying alone with no future prospect unless you're a top contender for women, in then society has made long term relationships so fickle, everyone is replaceable.
But you know, it is what it is.
>We have porn, videogames, cheap junkfood and pseudo-relationships online
Why should any woman in principle want to marry someone who thinks like this? Even if you moved to a country that is based and tradpilled and so on, marriage would still be out of the question.
Seems weird to blame society if you wouldn't be able to succeed even in a society that doesn't have the issues that you're complaining about.
If you look at what a man needs he needs the following to be happy:
A wife
A meaningful job
A meaningful existence (religion)
A hobby
proper food
decent relationships
Modern society has broken the strong bond of marriage (reinforced by religion and societal norms) so the prospect of getting a loyal wife is much lower than it has ever been
Videogames entertainment but they can also function as a replacement for a meaningful job, where you put in effort and reap immediate benefit with little to no risk.
Religion has been replaced by science and the zeitgeist of meaning, earn as much money and trust the science, it makes for a workaholic capital based value system.
Junkfood has replaced proper nurture and has given another way to dull the loneliness and despair with dopamine and whatever addictive substances they put in there.
Online relationships has replaced real relationships because they are low-risk and low-commitment, you can pick and choose when to engage with your friends, but a man needs real honest close by physically friends.
All this is to say all the pyramid of needs has been replaced by an artificial pyramid of needs, easy to get, but low nutrition junkfood for the soul, this is slowly killing the modern man and society at large, we're seeing the fruits of this rotten tree by the mass shootings, incel culture, suicide rates, loneliness rates and all other meaningful statistics involving happiness of life.
I'm not implying all that garbage is better, it's just the most realistic replacement for many men that get lost in the system. The bottom 40-50%, yeah maybe they should put 10x the effort in that our ancestors did but we aren't machines, we're just people moulded by our surroundings to a large extend, naturally seeking the path of least resistance with no one really to pull us up, since society is so disconnected and compartmentalized
It's not like everyone is either a Sigma grindset hypersuccessful gigachad or a neet addicted to vidyia and junk food. The latter is basically a currentyear equivalent of the village drunk or the prodigal son of minor nobles who brings the family estate to ruin. None of this shit is new.
The concept of a societal failure is not new, the scale of it is new. We're entering an unprecedented period of stagnation in western history.
If anything, it was even worse. If you were born as the third son into a peasant family, you were fricked from birth. People with no inheritance would often become roaming laborers for hire, and the only things that somewhat helped with this issue were high infant mortality and conscription.
but they had less psychological needs and anxiety levels than modern "incels"
Western world ossifies and inceldom scale is one of the proofs actually one of the most important
>over half of women claim they can't find a partner they want to have children with
>NOOO I DON'T MEAN LIKE THAT!!!
I do mean like that tho.
It shouldnt people like this need to be euthanized or conscripted and sent to battle
like trannies?
They are made in the image of God
>man wants to build buildings, sow and reap more fields, explore new territories, invent technologies, create new medicine, brew better drinks, et cetera
>this sure sounds like a lot of work
>hey, what if we made a deal so that men who do these things will get rewarded with a woman and as a result, children?
>that way we get work done much faster, increase our population and therefore our potential, as well as securing all our male population as allies!
Simple, efficient. Now we are seeing the rise of matriarchy, and already a decent amount of the population is wondering if working only for money (pennies at this point) is worth it.
Society kind of cares, that is what marriage is for - to get men to engage with society. Roman men had to be insentivized to marry women otherwise they'd sleep with prostitutes and slaves the rest of their life. Men don't typically want a domestic life, some do, but that is atypical. Participating in the state typically involves the promise of insurance of paternity and concrete rewards like money / land / women.
Modern society cares about pussylettes in that they want to maximize human capital and want fewer people checking out (not that they are efficient at addressing this or even concerned about the individual rather than what individuals can do for the state). Modern governments invent abstract concepts like honor in service or duty to serve the state as ways to get young men to sacrifice their lives in wars for very little return but I predict the idea of sacrificing yourself for a modern state that is actively hostile / doesn't protect your economic interests / deliberately imports millions of scags to reduce labor bargaining / and actively promotes inflation (which only hurts workers) will be a very silly thing to give your life for.
Are you dumb? We should take care of people even if they are gay, trans, disabled, or a member of any other marginalized group
The fact that you would even suggest otherwise shows a critical lack of empathy on your part. I hope you work on yourself.
It is easy to procreate, people that do are not necessarily valuable to society and vice versa.
We should either force them to work or forcefully marry them to a prostitute and send them to sparsely populated areas.
Because procreation isn't the sole value of a society.
It takes all sorts to run and thrive.
Hitler had no children and yet he was based so that's that.
Because they’re human beings
Not even your own body cares for all of its own cells and will gladly sacrifice them for its own greater good. Your hands were formed by destroying your own cells having them suicide.
It is in their own interest to live in your body but your body doesn't care about all of the individual cells composing it.
Failures and sacrifices are an integral part of nature. Mediocrity is expected to fail and die, disappearing in their demise.
If you forcibly let them thrive they will incontrolably multiply overhelming the entire system in their unfitness. Hindering its evolution and flourishment.
Society, an organism made of individuals, shouldn't focus too much on the individual beyond what is expected and necessary. What has no reason to go on living should just die and the resources wasted on maintening them alive redirected, repurposed toward more fit elements of society.
If they can't be cured or would cannot be expected to repay the value of being cured with interest doesn't have to be cured.
Thus those unable to find mates should remain single, if they get unhinged they should be put down like dogs.
Utilitarian homie when his dystopian AI overlords consider him obselete and send him to the biofuel meat shredder
Utilitarians are right and they wouldn't do something so drastic of you were to prove your worth and make your value positive.