Post: #1

Discussion in the Is Night Game Really Dead in America post on Roosh's site and The Age of Commerce post on RoK got me thinking about population dwindling in decadent societies. After thinking about it, I don't understand why the populations would decline in societies like Rome. Rome was notorious for orgies yet birth control was still 2000 years away, so how was population decline possible in this scenario?

Post: #2

Population can decline even though there's a high birth rate, think of things like high mortality rate for children.

In Rome's case though, too many men might have died in wars, hence why the barbarians started to gain citizenship as the Emperors needed more recruits and Roman blood wasn't as prevalent as in the previous centuries.

Post: #3

Quite simply. Not enough good, hard men were molded to suit the needs of the Empire and the Legions died. These Legions conquered a lot of land in their time.

Its different today as we have nuclear deterrent but people from different cultures who transport that culture into another society tend to be more aggressive and take over. Case in point: Britain.

Post: #4

(07-29-2014 04:43 PM)nek Wrote:  Discussion in the Is Night Game Really Dead in America post on Roosh's site and The Age of Commerce post on RoK got me thinking about population dwindling in decadent societies. After thinking about it, I don't understand why the populations would decline in societies like Rome. Rome was notorious for orgies yet birth control was still 2000 years away, so how was population decline possible in this scenario?

Rome suffered from plagues and massive raids from barbarian tribes along their frontier. They also went through periods of intense civil war. Turns out swords and knives and disease ridden rats have a negative affect on people's life expectancies.

Post: #5

What about in Eastern Bloc countries? I don' know enough about the culture, but I'd venture to guess that birth control isn't as common there as in the west and people are still having sex yet alot of them started into population decline in the 90s (from what I read around these parts, I'll try to find the discussion).

Post: #6

Entire towns' worth of men were killed in the Great War.

Imagine that going on for generations.

Also don't forget how small populations actually were during the classical period.

Post: #7

The problem with Rome was that there was an internal decline while at the same time the barbarian kingdoms were on the rise. Had Rome been in its prime no barbarian tribe could have done what Alaric did in A.D. 410 and sacked the eternal city.

As Rome went through Civil Wars and plagues, there was an upset in the very fragile economic system that was in place at the time. In most of the Empire folks were only at subsistence farming level. As food surpluses declined it became very hard for the Empire to field armies as to do so would cause even lower food production.

Look at the numbers of soldiers the Roman Republic and the Early Empire were able to field, >100,000 in many cases. Compare this to the Roman Army wiped out at Adrianople around A.D. 400, maybe 40,000 men.

In addition the Legions at this time were not the same ones that conquered Europe, they had many foreigners in their ranks. The toughness of the soldiers also decreased, as Roman soldiers no longer trained as hard and began to only do the bare minimum like the mercenaries they were fighting alongside.

No one reason caused the decline of Rome, but internal decline was what pushed it over the edge, and this was caused in part by what many in ROK have noticed, men no longer being men, no more service in the army because it is a man's duty or a sense of honor, society becoming decadent. This coupled with economic strain and the Barbarian invasions proved to be too much in the end.

Post: #8

(07-29-2014 04:43 PM)nek Wrote:  Discussion in the Is Night Game Really Dead in America post on Roosh's site and The Age of Commerce post on RoK got me thinking about population dwindling in decadent societies. After thinking about it, I don't understand why the populations would decline in societies like Rome. Rome was notorious for orgies yet birth control was still 2000 years away, so how was population decline possible in this scenario?

The indigenous Roman population did not reproduce at very high levels and especially the upper crust of Roman society did practice abortions via herbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...oman_world

As people are getting more interested in orgies and rampant easy sex the original population always goes into decline.

Post: #9

I wouldn't say it's "rampant easy sex" or decadence, the doom and gloom is grossly exaggerated in the manosphere. Women work first now and postpone childhood for careers, and when they do have children, not as many as in developing countries, as caring for 6 children is more difficult and time consuming than 1 or 2.

Traditionalism (and by extension, population growth) requires participation from both genders. Women willing to be wives and mothers, and men willing to commit and provide. Developing countries with high birth rates still follow these societal guidelines.

Denouncing promiscuity yet at the same time seeking it out in attractive women (game) is a huge contradiction from my perspective. We're too late in the game to change anything but we're certainly not improving the situation as men if population growth is a concern. Historians will likely view us as having contributed to the decline by participating rather than resisting or reverting to traditional lifestyles.

Post: #10

Remember that the decline of Rome took centuries, with various eras of decline, plateau, grave crisis followed by resurgence, etc.

Population decline had been a problem among the elite for centuries, but for a long time the lack of children at the higher echelons was compensated for by people from outside those classes willing to step up and fulfil roles in government and the military WHO STILL BOUGHT INTO ROMAN VALUES.

When that was no longer the case, the ancient world changed irrevocably as new cultural elements like Christianity and the kinship ties of the Germanic and other tribal peoples took over.

You could certainly draw parallels with the modern west, however the fate of ancient Rome is not a blueprint for predicting what might happen. There are too many different variables now. However, it's fair to say that the modern elite classes are not reproducing at replacement level, and probably their power to recruit non-blood-related newcomers to perpetuate their values is diminishing also.

edit: and enough with the cliches about orgies and rampant easy sex. This comes straight from a couple of Roman literary works intended for propaganda purposes. And the purported orgies of a Caesar in the 1st century AD had nothing to do with the military and demographic trends over a vast empire over several centuries. When Rome was finally overrun, it had been Christian for centuries and the days of orgies and bacchanalia (even though, again, these were never important elements of the culture) were long gone.

Post: #11

The Romans practiced infanticide. They also had a herb that would prevent pregnancies, but it was farmed into extinction it was so popular. Regardless aristocratic Roman women, if they got preggo after a few months of wild sex, would just throw their babies in the trash outside of the city after giving birth.

Really, today's abortion is just a more sophisticated form of infanticide, which has been going on for millennia.

So decadence played a direct role in the decline of Rome, as women simply refused to be mothers. The men also lost rights to control their women (like today, a man back then could go to jail for hitting a Roman woman) so the women were free to act like sluts. And, like today, most men adapted by becoming players.

Human nature never changes.

Post: #12

(07-29-2014 06:07 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  ...
Denouncing promiscuity yet at the same time seeking it out in attractive women (game) is a huge contradiction from my perspective. We're too late in the game to change anything but we're certainly not improving the situation as men if population growth is a concern. Historians will likely view us as having contributed to the decline by participating rather than resisting or reverting to traditional lifestyles.

Roosh as well as many others wrote on the subject. You can be a traditionalist at heart while being a Player for now and thus contributing to the decline.

Women as gatekeepers of sex could change the process within 2 weeks. After several months and a reversal to previous morals the only women a Player would be getting would be prostitutes or mistresses whom he would have to support financially. The occasional lucky fling would be the exception and any kind of Game via Night or Daygame would be out of the question.

( One funny fact: The number of prostitutes in many European countries back in the 1950s was equal to the current one despite by far lower population numbers. The reason for this was based on the fact that girls hardly slept with a man before serious promises of commitment or even marriage. )

I - just as many others in the community don't see much sense at fighting the flow of endless debauchery.

Post: #13

Women are not the gatekeepers to sex unless men let them.

When Rome was first established, men had absolute authority. They could kill their wives if they so pleased.

By the time Rome was sacked, women had more authority. Women were free to divorce and no man could harm a woman without being punished.

So, in reality, men are the gatekeepers to sex. They just take what they want. Women only become the gatekeepers to sex when men are too busy killing each other and white knighting for women so men cannot put them in their place.

Post: #14

(07-29-2014 06:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Women are not the gatekeepers to sex unless men let them.

When Rome was first established, men had absolute authority. They could kill their wives if they so pleased.

By the time Rome was sacked, women had more authority. Women were free to divorce and no man could harm a woman without being punished.

So, in reality, men are the gatekeepers to sex. They just take what they want. Women only become the gatekeepers to sex when men are too busy killing each other and white knighting for women so men cannot put them in their place.

Aj - if you allow women to take part in orgies and have sex with slaves, then be sure to know that chaos will ensue.

An example of a civilization where men had absolute power over female sexuality while not really negatively restraining it like in some Muslim cultures is Japan right until modernization. While men had mistresses and frequented brothels, wives were held in high regard, were protected and were expected to be faithful mothers and sexual "servants" to their men.

Now of course stability in the marriage field does not automatically produce superiority in other areas of life, which ultimately cost the Japanese the ability to decide their own future.

Post: #15

Hate to be sacrilegious, but there can be too much repression of women. Look at the Muslim countries, all very backward, invent nothing, and most have very weak economies if they are not oil-rich (Indonesia, southernmost dumbest part of Philippines)

Post: #16

(07-29-2014 07:31 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  [quote='Samseau' pid='793421' dateline='1406677294']
Women are not the gatekeepers to sex unless men let them.

When Rome was first established, men had absolute authority. They could kill their wives if they so pleased.

By the time Rome was sacked, women had more authority. Women were free to divorce and no man could harm a woman without being punished.

Now of course stability in the marriage field does not automatically produce superiority in other areas of life, which ultimately cost the Japanese the ability to decide their own future.

At this point Japan has self rule, no? Shouldn't they let elite outsiders in to keep the lights on? To really ask hard questions, what is so bad about a Japan with 70% of the population they have now?

Post: #17

(07-29-2014 04:43 PM)nek Wrote:  Discussion in the Is Night Game Really Dead in America post on Roosh's site and The Age of Commerce post on RoK got me thinking about population dwindling in decadent societies. After thinking about it, I don't understand why the populations would decline in societies like Rome. Rome was notorious for orgies yet birth control was still 2000 years away, so how was population decline possible in this scenario?

Actually most of the ancients throughout the world had numerous methods of birth control. There were a lot of plants and herbs that have spermicidal qualities, lemons, Dong Quai, Cotton bark, Penny Royal. Papaya seeds ingested daily have been shown to reduce a man's sperm count down to zero after a while and is still used in some cultures today.

Additionally there are numerous plants that were known to have "abortifacient" properties. (causing miscarriage) and have been for thousands of years

Even the bible mentions "coitus interruptus" which is just pulling out.

By the way years a ago I was banging my girlfriend at the time anally and was just about to blow when there was a loud pounding at my front door. It startled me so bad I jump and pulled out then blew all over her back. It turned out to be a buddy of mine who was drunk and needed to take a shit after leaving a bar nearby. I gave him shit about it but we later laughed about it and decided we'd invented something new. "Bungus interuptus"

Post: #18

(07-29-2014 08:20 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Hate to be sacrilegious, but there can be too much repression of women. Look at the Muslim countries, all very backward, invent nothing, and most have very weak economies if they are not oil-rich (Indonesia, southernmost dumbest part of Philippines)

The repression of women is a non-issue from a science and knowledge standpoint. The Romans and Greeks kept their women at home and completely separated from political life, and had absolute authority over their wives and children (including life and death).

And yet both of these civilizations started virtually all known inquiries into scientific, mathematical, logical, architectural, and biological fields. Although Aristotle is to blame for half of these, but I digress. It's clear that women have nothing to do with science and innovation, and keeping them in check is probably better for a society's stability in the long run thus it is better for science in the long run as well.

Post: #19

(07-29-2014 06:07 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Denouncing promiscuity yet at the same time seeking it out in attractive women (game) is a huge contradiction from my perspective. We're too late in the game to change anything but we're certainly not improving the situation as men if population growth is a concern. Historians will likely view us as having contributed to the decline by participating rather than resisting or reverting to traditional lifestyles.

Try to be a traditionalist in a place like the U.S. and find a girl who is actually willing to fuck you and have your kids... good luck with that. You're going to get labeled as some kind of right wing Nazi loser. Even if you manage to knock one of them up you're going to be in a pretty bad situation with our draconian child support laws. You're not going to "improve the situation" by choosing between blowing your brains out or getting ass raped in jail for years on end when you eventually lose your job and can't make the payments (yes it will happen at some point, there's no more job security).

The deck is stacked too heavily against us for anyone who is even marginally intelligent to ever get into that kind of situation.

Post: #20

(07-29-2014 08:21 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  At this point Japan has self rule, no? Shouldn't they let elite outsiders in to keep the lights on? To really ask hard questions, what is so bad about a Japan with 70% of the population they have now?

All countries could easily live with 30% the populations or less. The problem are not the populations, but our monetary system which is one big scam that requires population growth or at least high income growth to be repaid.

Thus Japan is not free as they have a useless Western style central bank and fractional reserve banking (which they did not have beforehand), they are connected to the global banking system and are forced to sign plenty of international trade treaties, the US military never left after WWII, even some censorship laws were enacted and stayed. As soon as you leave your predatory usurous banking system and some potential controlling force inside a country - you own that place. But that is off topic here. The US was semi-free when Andrew Jackson abolished the second US central bank (private as the current one) and achieved zero debt for the last time, but he left the fractional reserve system in place. But the Japanese people resist quite a few points on the global agenda, so you likely won't find Western-style complete degeneration anytime soon there.

Post: #21

(07-29-2014 08:21 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 07:31 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  [quote='Samseau' pid='793421' dateline='1406677294']
Women are not the gatekeepers to sex unless men let them.

When Rome was first established, men had absolute authority. They could kill their wives if they so pleased.

By the time Rome was sacked, women had more authority. Women were free to divorce and no man could harm a woman without being punished.

Now of course stability in the marriage field does not automatically produce superiority in other areas of life, which ultimately cost the Japanese the ability to decide their own future.

At this point Japan has self rule, no? Shouldn't they let elite outsiders in to keep the lights on? To really ask hard questions, what is so bad about a Japan with 70% of the population they have now?

there isnt a problem with japan having 70% of its population, the problem is the demographics that are changing. The population is getting older, so people are retiring and there arent enough young, working adults to pay into social programs old people need, or even do jobs that have to be done that old people can't physically do. japan could get along fine with a population 40% of what it is today, as long as its the right 40% and not dead weight. for japan to keep going, it needs less elites and more people to do grunt work: garbage collection, construction, nursing, ect

Post: #22

(07-29-2014 04:43 PM)nek Wrote:  Discussion in the Is Night Game Really Dead in America post on Roosh's site and The Age of Commerce post on RoK got me thinking about population dwindling in decadent societies. After thinking about it, I don't understand why the populations would decline in societies like Rome. Rome was notorious for orgies yet birth control was still 2000 years away, so how was population decline possible in this scenario?

population decline happens in every country as it grows richer, not necessarily more decadent (though there may be a decadent wealth relationship) because there is less need for kids. as infant mortality decreases, you dont need so many kids to hedge your bets against a few of them dying. moving into cities and urbanization also decreases need for kids because theres less farm work and more skilled labor that kids cant do without training first.

in the case of rome, its also important to remember that the western roman empire fell . . . the eastern roman empire lasted another 1000 years. and the western empire was always the problematic one due to a number of factors that were not cultural

Post: #23

Just a slight detail: the Romans did have birth control. They used a plant called Silphium, which was harvested to extinction in the late Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium