Post: #26

(10-17-2013 01:18 PM)defguy Wrote:  Besides wouldnt population control be a good tihng? we have WAY too many people on this planet and it isnt sustainable.

I've got no patience for the perpetuation of this myth, which I've countered on this site before:

(05-09-2013 07:35 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 02:43 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  In the long run, I am convinced that the entire world has to do something similar to China (either this way or through natural changes occuring from feminism, as destructive as they are). We're probably already beyond a sustainable population point, agriculturally and environmentally speaking.

Prove it.

I tire of people expressing absolute certainty with regard to Earth's population capacity and the need to reduce human numbers despite lacking anything approaching an appropriate level of evidence to make such a broad, drastic conclusion. There is no evidence that Earth has reached its carrying capacity, and there is no agreement on precisely what that carrying capacity is (estimates have ranged from 400 million to 14 Billion, all depending on who you're talking to and when you're talking to them). Current shortages in essentials (food, water, etc) are due more to human corruption and greed than they are the presence of this mythical population limit.

This is without even taking into account technological concerns. Our capacity to feed humanity and keep it healthy has expanded by leaps and bounds in the past century. This is why our population is the size it is now-it grew to match what we became capable of matching. This is also why even in the poorest nations with the most rampant rates of population growth, living standards have actually INCREASED during the last 3 to 4 decades (higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality, etc, etc).

Technology cannot be counted on to provide such boosts ad infinitum, but arguments regarding our need to trim the human herd show a complete disregard for the possibility that such a boost could occur again in the future. Advancements in technology could create the improvements in efficiency and productivity needed to sustain population sizes thought impossible decades ago. Strict adherence to the necessity of human population decline does not allow for the consideration of these developments of the man advancements they could bring.

Short version: There is no evidence that earth's human carrying capacity is less than 7 Billion, and there is therefore no evidence that such a number of human beings cannot be sustained. Thus, it cannot logically be concluded that we have "way too many people" on Earth, at least not objectively.

And no, population control/fertility decline would not be a good thing on a global scale.

Quote:And truth be told what have you done that proves to 7 billion people that youre genes are so special we need to pass them on? Im awesome, I know it, most people know it, but the future will be just fine regardless of whether I have kids or not...

That's your personal decision, but the question you ask is irrelevant. There is no need for a man to justify his desire to reproduce and, in doing so, satisfy the most basic and fundamental function of any being.

This desire is present in every living creature. The rabbit seeks to pass on his genes. The rat seeks to pass on his genes. The dogs and the cats seek to reproduce. The cockroaches and the ants feel the need to pass on their genes. This is an urge that is fundamental to the persistence of life-it is common in nearly all creatures because it has to be in order for said creatures to persist on this planet. There is no obligation on the part of these or any other creatures to justify their possession and satisfaction of that fundamental reproductive urge.

The idea that this urge should be subject to some sort of inquisition/examination in the case of humans or any other being is, frankly, silly. The only person who needs to be convinced of the worth of your genes and their need to persist is the individual you seek to mate with. Nobody else (nevermind 7 Billion other people) needs to be involved.

Again, if you'd like not to have children as an individual then that is your call. You're not obligated to have children, nor are you really obligated to justify your lack of desire to do so. The catch, however, is that those who feel differently also have no real obligation to justify the urge to reproduce. You don't need to be "special" to have a right to pass your genes on as you see fit (so long as you can convince a mate to make that happen with you). Furthermore, that must remain the case if we are to persist as a species.

Post: #27

(10-17-2013 01:18 PM)defguy Wrote:  @ kdolo nough with the conspiracy shit... feminist arent blocking the production of male birth control and the cure for cancer... even feminist are subject to the same herd mentality of women.

"Male reproductive choice. Because equality works both ways." <-- awesome slogan for fund raising for this. Plus TONS of women would love to have men take part in birth control. Most women hate taking it, even feminist ones...

Besides wouldnt population control be a good tihng? we have WAY too many people on this planet and it isnt sustainable. And truth be told what have you done that proves to 7 billion people that youre genes are so special we need to pass them on? Im awesome, I know it, most people know it, but the future will be just fine regardless of whether I have kids or not...

1. I didnt say that feminists are behind holding back the male portion of birth control. but the people behind feminism - coincidentally who also control most of the big pharmaceutical industry have done so.

2. Whether women hate or like taking it is irrelevant. One of the main powers that women have over men now is the power to get pregnant at will whether tha man wants to or not. Feminists and women in general will not like this power taken away from them. The shift of this power to men will change relationship dynamics - will will have to behave better in order to induces men to procreate.

3. World population control a good thing ? I dont know. is it ???

that's only if you assume that a. there is currently over population and b. that if so, that its getting worse. Both assumptions are arguably wrong.

Furthermore, population control - whether you are in favor of it or not may depend on whose doing the controlling and who is controlled.


As I said, down the line, this will be mandatory.

Post: #28

You have to imagine what will disappear with this:

1. Most marriages (many are shot gun - man forced to do so)
2. Abortions: (a good thing)
3. Rude, Loud, Obnoxious, masculine women who are unappealing to men: at least until conception
4. Decline in child support (men often forced to support children they don't want)
5. Eventual decline in alimony - due to decreased marriages and children
6. Decline in WELFARE and transfer payments in general which is primarily for single mothers.

Women and Feminists won't like it one bit.

Post: #29

(10-17-2013 12:37 PM)defguy Wrote:  What needs to be done to help speed this along? Do they need money? Ill help set up a Kiva profile for them and im sure TONS of red pill guys and even feminist will donate money to the cause....

You can donate to them directly through paypal, just press on the paypal button on this page here:

http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

I've donated before myself. If a good chunk of you just donated your budget for one night out, you'll increase the chances of this coming to market sooner by a shit ton. I myself have donated one days worth of work today, since they have been successful with the rabbit study.

Post: #30

(10-17-2013 01:18 PM)defguy Wrote:  @ kdolo nough with the conspiracy shit... feminist arent blocking the production of male birth control and the cure for cancer... even feminist are subject to the same herd mentality of women.

"Male reproductive choice. Because equality works both ways." <-- awesome slogan for fund raising for this. Plus TONS of women would love to have men take part in birth control. Most women hate taking it, even feminist ones...

Besides wouldnt population control be a good tihng? we have WAY too many people on this planet and it isnt sustainable. And truth be told what have you done that proves to 7 billion people that youre genes are so special we need to pass them on? Im awesome, I know it, most people know it, but the future will be just fine regardless of whether I have kids or not...

Athlone McGinnis already said it much better than I could, but just to reiterate, no one needs to justify their desire to have a child, this is one of the most basic needs and purpose of any living being.

Besides, if there are any places in this planet facing overpopulation problems, if that's even happening at all, that would be Asia and Africa, not the west, because we certainly aren't making enough babies these days.

Post: #31

Besides, if there are any places in this planet facing overpopulation problems, if that's even happening at all, that would be Asia and Africa, not the west, because we certainly aren't making enough babies these days.
[/quote]

Jesus H. Christ.


for the last time. AFRICA DOES NOT HAVE AN OVER POPULATION PROBLEM.

The continent is damn near empty with the lowest levels of population density on earth.

It has very high infant mortality and very low longevity. Therefore, no population problem. Furthermore, Africans do not consume anywhere near close to what people in the West do.

The West does in fact have a population problem because Westerners tend to consume at a level 10x what the population really is.

'McMansions
SUVs
air conditioning-heating
Food consumption
Pollution
etc.

Now the Middles East and the Indian Subcontinent ..... thats a different issue

Post: #32

You're absolutely right that Africans do not consume anywhere near what westerners do, and indeed there is still plenty of empty land in Africa but it's still the second most populated continent after Asia, hardly empty.

Post: #33

(10-18-2013 08:37 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  You're absolutely right that Africans do not consume anywhere near what westerners do, and indeed there is still plenty of empty land in Africa but it's still the second most populated continent after Asia, hardly empty.

When he says that Africa is "empty", he's referring to the continent's population density which is, as he mentioned, quite low. Africa actually is quite "empty" on a per capita basis.

Post: #34

(10-17-2013 06:52 PM)malc Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 12:37 PM)defguy Wrote:  What needs to be done to help speed this along? Do they need money? Ill help set up a Kiva profile for them and im sure TONS of red pill guys and even feminist will donate money to the cause....

You can donate to them directly through paypal, just press on the paypal button on this page here:

http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

I've donated before myself. If a good chunk of you just donated your budget for one night out, you'll increase the chances of this coming to market sooner by a shit ton. I myself have donated one days worth of work today, since they have been successful with the rabbit study.

I concur.

I think that this is vital and critical for every man out there, no need to repeat what have already been said about how will it benefit each and every one of us.

The newsletter claims that "there are over 18,000 men and women on the mailing list now. $10 each, times a third of supporters, would pay for the baboon study, the last step before humans. It's going to be around $50,000 - $60,000 for the study, and we have to write the check in a couple weeks."


I have donated, and think that all of us should.

Post: #35

Just donated 10$.

This is something we all should donate some money to.