Affluent White Female Liberal. Except that pay in academia is significantly lower than in corporate world, especially here in the UK, unless you want to get involved with some shady government shit, but, while I can say many unkind things about my colleagues (I know, not a very Christian thing to do, so I won't), only a few of them are THAT scummy.
Rise of the DINKs (Final Civ Death Stage)
- Thread starter Samseau
- Start date
Affluent White Female Liberal. Except that pay in academia is significantly lower than in corporate world, especially here in the UK, unless you want to get involved with some shady government shit, but, while I can say many unkind things about my colleagues (I know, not a very Christian thing to do, so I won't), only a few of them are THAT scummy.
Pretty much any heavily career oriented woman is annoying, even if they claim to be conservative. It's cool if it actually makes them happy (usually they're miserable), but men will never truly care about a woman's job, education, money, etc.
But women do care about men's job, education and money. As they'll only ever consider "dating up", at least for "long-term prospects" - that's what AWFLs call marriage - the higher they are, the more men they reject automatically.
I don't know how familiar people here are with mad British writer Simon Sheppard, but he did a very good analysis of Modern Women phenomenon - in Amsterdam, in 1998, before it had spread worldwide. Many materials are available at his website " heretical dot com ", and they're much more insightful than conjectures by "PUAs" or "Incels".
I don't know how familiar people here are with mad British writer Simon Sheppard, but he did a very good analysis of Modern Women phenomenon - in Amsterdam, in 1998, before it had spread worldwide. Many materials are available at his website " heretical dot com ", and they're much more insightful than conjectures by "PUAs" or "Incels".
Would you be against posting some of the better ideas you've found (from Sheppard) here as quotes from his work, whenever you have time?
Surely. He invented a system of psychological coordinates which he refers to as Procedural Analysis:
https://heretical.com/sgs-1999/basic-pa.html
It's based on game theory and, to be precise, it applies to sexual behavior only - but a lot of social behavior of human beings is sexual. There are four generalized coordinates in that theory - Signals, Markers, Tokens, and Handles. Here's the gist on them:
Signal (mostly feminine) - A gesture, especially a sexual one serving to attract a mate.
Marker (mostly masculine) - An unambiguous indication of involvement.
Token (mostly feminine) - When one thing means another
Handle (mostly masculine) A request which evokes a fixed and predetermined response. A condition in which handles are issued is called a handle state.
The Protagonist is the one who starts the game. In case of human relationships, it is usually the female, although, due to her use of ambiguity and implicit moves, she usually conceals that fact (Sheppard's first book that made him somewhat [in]famous is called "The Tyranny of Ambiguity"). Opponent can be a single person, or a whole environment. It's different in different games, i.e a female going out on the street to catfish men in order to validate herself has a whole (male) Society as an Opponent, whereas a more formal game, like chess, will have one Protagonist (the white player) and one well-defined Opponent (the black player). Possible moves are Cooperate (C) and Defect (D).
The highest payoff (Temptation) is received by a player who defects while the other is cooperating. The lowest payoff goes to the sucker who cooperates while the other defects. (In the celebrated Prisoner’s Dilemma, a symmetric game, T > R > P > S.)
Females play the Tit For Tat (TFT) strategy, a strategy which is good at eliciting cooperation. Formally, TFT is ‘Cooperate on the first move, thereafter do as the opponent last did.’ TFT is imitative, it copies the other player and any attempt to improve on it.
In Disguised Defection the female disguises her defection and collects the Temptation payoff repeatedly.
In Marginal Defection the female acquires power surreptitiously, continually testing the male, seeking to establish a new base from which her power can be further incremented. The female optimally proceeds just below the threshold at which the male is provoked. If she miscalculates in her power-seeking manoeuvres she may provoke a violent reaction and other serious consequences.
These are extreme examples (always the best for analysis):
War is a game of Loser. Each side seeks to inflict maximum cost on the other, and doing so invariably involves cost. The winner is the player with the highest payoff at game end. In other words, the winner is the player who suffers the least damage (the least losses, the least negative payoff). There is also the “shit magnet” who invariably makes wrong decisions and drags the Opponent who tries to help down with him.
A case of “Pure Altruism” might be an anonymous donation to a charitable cause with no thought of self-gratification. The relatedness variable r in Hamilton’s rule might be required to be zero for the altruism to be regarded as pure. (Hamilton's rule is rB > C - "r" is "relatedness", "B" is benefit (measured in number of offspring) and "C" is cost. For very high relatedness values, even animals are known to display heroic behavior).
Groupers and cleaner fish are the best-known example of Symbiosis in nature. When (as occasionally happens) a cleaner fish ends up in the stomach of the grouper, it is less than perfect. A traditional married couple cooperating to raise their progeny, perpetuating each others’ genes.
Malign Encouragement: Encouraging the Opponent to engage in detrimental behaviour, perhaps motivated by jealousy or animosity, for profit, or in competition for resources. Numerous examples exist.
The most astonishing thing about the Malign Encouragement strategy is that despite its obviousness and ubiquity it seems hitherto never to have been formally defined.
https://heretical.com/sgs-1999/basic-pa.html
It's based on game theory and, to be precise, it applies to sexual behavior only - but a lot of social behavior of human beings is sexual. There are four generalized coordinates in that theory - Signals, Markers, Tokens, and Handles. Here's the gist on them:
Signal (mostly feminine) - A gesture, especially a sexual one serving to attract a mate.
Marker (mostly masculine) - An unambiguous indication of involvement.
Token (mostly feminine) - When one thing means another
Handle (mostly masculine) A request which evokes a fixed and predetermined response. A condition in which handles are issued is called a handle state.
The Protagonist is the one who starts the game. In case of human relationships, it is usually the female, although, due to her use of ambiguity and implicit moves, she usually conceals that fact (Sheppard's first book that made him somewhat [in]famous is called "The Tyranny of Ambiguity"). Opponent can be a single person, or a whole environment. It's different in different games, i.e a female going out on the street to catfish men in order to validate herself has a whole (male) Society as an Opponent, whereas a more formal game, like chess, will have one Protagonist (the white player) and one well-defined Opponent (the black player). Possible moves are Cooperate (C) and Defect (D).
The highest payoff (Temptation) is received by a player who defects while the other is cooperating. The lowest payoff goes to the sucker who cooperates while the other defects. (In the celebrated Prisoner’s Dilemma, a symmetric game, T > R > P > S.)
Females play the Tit For Tat (TFT) strategy, a strategy which is good at eliciting cooperation. Formally, TFT is ‘Cooperate on the first move, thereafter do as the opponent last did.’ TFT is imitative, it copies the other player and any attempt to improve on it.
In Disguised Defection the female disguises her defection and collects the Temptation payoff repeatedly.
In Marginal Defection the female acquires power surreptitiously, continually testing the male, seeking to establish a new base from which her power can be further incremented. The female optimally proceeds just below the threshold at which the male is provoked. If she miscalculates in her power-seeking manoeuvres she may provoke a violent reaction and other serious consequences.
These are extreme examples (always the best for analysis):
War is a game of Loser. Each side seeks to inflict maximum cost on the other, and doing so invariably involves cost. The winner is the player with the highest payoff at game end. In other words, the winner is the player who suffers the least damage (the least losses, the least negative payoff). There is also the “shit magnet” who invariably makes wrong decisions and drags the Opponent who tries to help down with him.
A case of “Pure Altruism” might be an anonymous donation to a charitable cause with no thought of self-gratification. The relatedness variable r in Hamilton’s rule might be required to be zero for the altruism to be regarded as pure. (Hamilton's rule is rB > C - "r" is "relatedness", "B" is benefit (measured in number of offspring) and "C" is cost. For very high relatedness values, even animals are known to display heroic behavior).
Groupers and cleaner fish are the best-known example of Symbiosis in nature. When (as occasionally happens) a cleaner fish ends up in the stomach of the grouper, it is less than perfect. A traditional married couple cooperating to raise their progeny, perpetuating each others’ genes.
Malign Encouragement: Encouraging the Opponent to engage in detrimental behaviour, perhaps motivated by jealousy or animosity, for profit, or in competition for resources. Numerous examples exist.
The most astonishing thing about the Malign Encouragement strategy is that despite its obviousness and ubiquity it seems hitherto never to have been formally defined.
Last edited:
But this is all dry and obvious. Let's move to some astute observations which were formalized (Sheppard does come across as a bit unhinged sometimes):
Proposition 1. Females cannot tolerate naked masculinity.
Corollary 1. Females oblige males to be dishonest to obtain sex.
Corollary 2. The more powerful the female, the more dishonest the male must be.
Proposition 2. The status of the female is proportional to the status of the male she can attract.
Proposition 3. Instincts are never annulled they are only displaced.
Corollary. The more directly instincts are discharged, the more psychologically healthy the individual.
Proposition 4. The male instinct is to reduce the costs of sex, the female instinct is to increase the costs of sex.
Proposition 5. The more resistive the female, the more selective the male becomes.
Proposition 6. The primary sexual activity of the female is relationships.
Proposition 7. The less likely the male is to respond, the more likely the female is to signal.
Theorem 1, The Dynamical Laws.
The only power that females have is given to them by males;
The only thing which females do with that power is use it against males.
Lemma 1 for Theorem 2. Any voluntary system must be to the advantage of the female or the female will not participate.
Lemma 2 for Theorem 2. Females are never satisfied.
Lemma 3 for Theorem 2. Base and Spoiled Female (BSF) perceives her status as being proportional not to the status of the male she can attract, but to the status of the male she can reject.
Theorem 3, The DSoD Theory.
Males make large differences larger and small differences smaller;
Females make large differences smaller and small differences larger.
Theorem 4. The Super Masculine State dominates, the Super Feminine State becomes extinct.
(This is basically subject of this thread + Islam one).
Conclusion. Control of females is mandatory for a successful, civilized, humane and compassionate society.
Proposition 1. Females cannot tolerate naked masculinity.
Corollary 1. Females oblige males to be dishonest to obtain sex.
Corollary 2. The more powerful the female, the more dishonest the male must be.
Proposition 2. The status of the female is proportional to the status of the male she can attract.
Proposition 3. Instincts are never annulled they are only displaced.
Corollary. The more directly instincts are discharged, the more psychologically healthy the individual.
Proposition 4. The male instinct is to reduce the costs of sex, the female instinct is to increase the costs of sex.
Proposition 5. The more resistive the female, the more selective the male becomes.
Proposition 6. The primary sexual activity of the female is relationships.
Proposition 7. The less likely the male is to respond, the more likely the female is to signal.
Theorem 1, The Dynamical Laws.
The only power that females have is given to them by males;
The only thing which females do with that power is use it against males.
Lemma 1 for Theorem 2. Any voluntary system must be to the advantage of the female or the female will not participate.
Lemma 2 for Theorem 2. Females are never satisfied.
Lemma 3 for Theorem 2. Base and Spoiled Female (BSF) perceives her status as being proportional not to the status of the male she can attract, but to the status of the male she can reject.
Theorem 3, The DSoD Theory.
Males make large differences larger and small differences smaller;
Females make large differences smaller and small differences larger.
Theorem 4. The Super Masculine State dominates, the Super Feminine State becomes extinct.
(This is basically subject of this thread + Islam one).
Conclusion. Control of females is mandatory for a successful, civilized, humane and compassionate society.
On humour:
https://heretical.com/sgs-2019/humour.html
The role of humour is to release neurotic tension and distribute information. The female (in all her forms) seeks to increase the neurotic load of males, because neurotic and confused males are easier to manipulate. This is the underlying purpose of suppressing humour. It raises the level of collective neurosis, especially in males. Any female who voices an objection is contributing to feminist consolidation.
Recall that neurosis (after Pavlov) is when one stimulus evokes two or more responses. The conflict could be between alluding to the truth, a laudible, positive instinct, and fear of the costs of broaching what is now a forbidden topic. The list of subjects which cannot be joked about will grow indefinitely, because humour undermines female power. In the absence of a counter-mechanism, the scope of the prohibitions will only increase.
On neurotic transfer:
https://heretical.com/sgs-2014/transfer.html
Neurosis: Nowadays the term neurosis has come to mean a generalized state of anxiety, “a mild mental illness, not attributable to organic disease, characterized by symptoms of stress” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2002). The hope is to reclaim the term for a specific psychological reaction: the mental condition which arises when one stimulus evokes two or more responses.
Neurotic transfer is transferring power to an opponent, motivated by neurosis. In game-theoretic terms, a Protagonist induces neurosis in an Opponent, and the Opponent responds, not by retaliating, but by transferring power to the Protagonist. The Opponent’s reaction strengthens the Protagonist (or a subsequent, similar neurosis-inducer, another member of the population). Equivalently, the Opponent may disarm himself in some manner. Either way, following a neurosis-inducing event created by the Protagonist, the Protagonist’s position is fortified.
Consider the following sequence, a ‘boy meets girl in the city’ story if you will. A male meets a female, somehow, among the crowds. They share a coffee, or a drink, and get on. He asks her to meet him for an outing in a few days time, and a place and time of meeting are agreed. He is greatly attracted to her, in fact he has hidden the extent of it from her (males bond to females more quickly than vice versa, for obvious evolutionary reasons).
The time of the appointment arrives and with it comes a bombshell, for she does not show up. He has looked forward to their meeting: he has made plans and perhaps even bought tickets. He waited nervously but the climax of the appointed time passes without any sign of her. This, patently obvious in this example, is the NIE, the neurosis-inducing event.
The reason for her non-attendance is irrelevant, certainly to the male, for it will probably never be known. She has been economical with information so he cannot contact her. The city center serves thousands of people from outlying areas, visitors and tourists and meeting her again by chance, and paying enough attention to recognize her, is quite unlikely. She is forever lost.
Sometime later he meets another girl. Again the male is attracted to her and again a rendezvous is arranged. By now however, a persistent neurotic state has been established. He fears that, like last time, she will not turn up. His conflict is between his pleasurable anticipation of meeting her again, and his fear that he will again be let down. He expresses his fear by seeking affirmation: “You will turn up, won’t you?” and this is neurotic transfer, for in his neurotic state he has made his position worse.
Due to his neurotic state – persistent from the previous occasion when a girl he desired did not show up – he has transferred power to the female. By expressing his fear he has conveyed significant information. His neurotic utterance tells the female at least three things. First, that he has been let down before, maybe several times. Second, he is evidently anxious that she will attend, counteracting any pretense of nonchalance he has made; this enhances her, increasing her confidence and power. Third, at some point between now and the rendezvous the possibility of not attending will occur to her, and she may surmise that it is common practice in this environment for females not to turn up to meetings with males. The probability that she will not attend is increased.
The neurotic male further empowers the female. By the neurotic transfer of power he has strengthened his opponent, and she is his opponent, because although there is potential for symbiosis between the players in this game, it is still a long way off. Moreover, as is common to many female procedures, action towards a single male is of benefit to females generally.
https://heretical.com/sgs-2019/humour.html
The role of humour is to release neurotic tension and distribute information. The female (in all her forms) seeks to increase the neurotic load of males, because neurotic and confused males are easier to manipulate. This is the underlying purpose of suppressing humour. It raises the level of collective neurosis, especially in males. Any female who voices an objection is contributing to feminist consolidation.
Recall that neurosis (after Pavlov) is when one stimulus evokes two or more responses. The conflict could be between alluding to the truth, a laudible, positive instinct, and fear of the costs of broaching what is now a forbidden topic. The list of subjects which cannot be joked about will grow indefinitely, because humour undermines female power. In the absence of a counter-mechanism, the scope of the prohibitions will only increase.
On neurotic transfer:
https://heretical.com/sgs-2014/transfer.html
Neurosis: Nowadays the term neurosis has come to mean a generalized state of anxiety, “a mild mental illness, not attributable to organic disease, characterized by symptoms of stress” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2002). The hope is to reclaim the term for a specific psychological reaction: the mental condition which arises when one stimulus evokes two or more responses.
Neurotic transfer is transferring power to an opponent, motivated by neurosis. In game-theoretic terms, a Protagonist induces neurosis in an Opponent, and the Opponent responds, not by retaliating, but by transferring power to the Protagonist. The Opponent’s reaction strengthens the Protagonist (or a subsequent, similar neurosis-inducer, another member of the population). Equivalently, the Opponent may disarm himself in some manner. Either way, following a neurosis-inducing event created by the Protagonist, the Protagonist’s position is fortified.
Consider the following sequence, a ‘boy meets girl in the city’ story if you will. A male meets a female, somehow, among the crowds. They share a coffee, or a drink, and get on. He asks her to meet him for an outing in a few days time, and a place and time of meeting are agreed. He is greatly attracted to her, in fact he has hidden the extent of it from her (males bond to females more quickly than vice versa, for obvious evolutionary reasons).
The time of the appointment arrives and with it comes a bombshell, for she does not show up. He has looked forward to their meeting: he has made plans and perhaps even bought tickets. He waited nervously but the climax of the appointed time passes without any sign of her. This, patently obvious in this example, is the NIE, the neurosis-inducing event.
The reason for her non-attendance is irrelevant, certainly to the male, for it will probably never be known. She has been economical with information so he cannot contact her. The city center serves thousands of people from outlying areas, visitors and tourists and meeting her again by chance, and paying enough attention to recognize her, is quite unlikely. She is forever lost.
Sometime later he meets another girl. Again the male is attracted to her and again a rendezvous is arranged. By now however, a persistent neurotic state has been established. He fears that, like last time, she will not turn up. His conflict is between his pleasurable anticipation of meeting her again, and his fear that he will again be let down. He expresses his fear by seeking affirmation: “You will turn up, won’t you?” and this is neurotic transfer, for in his neurotic state he has made his position worse.
Due to his neurotic state – persistent from the previous occasion when a girl he desired did not show up – he has transferred power to the female. By expressing his fear he has conveyed significant information. His neurotic utterance tells the female at least three things. First, that he has been let down before, maybe several times. Second, he is evidently anxious that she will attend, counteracting any pretense of nonchalance he has made; this enhances her, increasing her confidence and power. Third, at some point between now and the rendezvous the possibility of not attending will occur to her, and she may surmise that it is common practice in this environment for females not to turn up to meetings with males. The probability that she will not attend is increased.
The neurotic male further empowers the female. By the neurotic transfer of power he has strengthened his opponent, and she is his opponent, because although there is potential for symbiosis between the players in this game, it is still a long way off. Moreover, as is common to many female procedures, action towards a single male is of benefit to females generally.
Everyone gets the sex wrong. Control of Information is a feminine strategy: it is a non-physical way of exerting power. Practically all of the strategies being executed by Western governments are feminine. The mass media is happy to parrot ‘Big Brother’ but the reality is that free speech, humour, privacy and countless other desirable traits and behaviours are masculine in character. They are male strategies. It’s not Big Brother but Big Sister; when the ‘Orders’ were first published, people thought I was being unduly harsh. Now however, they have become very prescient, particularly item 5: ‘I shall maintain males in a state of neurosis and confusion, and any male who disagrees with me, or induces any unpleasant feeling, shall be deprived of every amenity I have the power to withhold.’
The Orders of the Big Sister:
https://heretical.com/sgs-1995/bigsis.html
1. I shall unreservedly exploit the achievements of males in furtherance of my goals. I shall enlist the vulnerable and those who cannot speak for themselves for my own purposes.
2. I shall control information, distort truth and manipulate thought. Freedom of speech will not exist.
3. I shall call for tolerance while allowing only those opinions and activities which are to my advantage. I shall promise one thing and do another.
4. I shall decree that males and females and people of different races are the same, when it is manifestly untrue. I shall oblige males to perform roles for which I am naturally better-suited.
5. I shall maintain males in a state of neurosis and confusion, and any male who disagrees with me, or induces any unpleasant feeling, shall be deprived of every amenity I have the power to withhold.
6. I shall indulge my instincts to manipulate, mindfuck, play tricks and be dishonest without fear of retribution.
7. I shall treat animals better than men.
8. I shall encourage massive immigration so that others shall be the underclass and not me. I shall favour immigrants and half-castes to spite and insult males of my own race.
9. I shall have the right to do everything and the obligation to do nothing. I shall have babies whenever and by whom I please.
10. Any male following his instincts to the same extent will be imprisoned.
The Orders of the Big Sister:
https://heretical.com/sgs-1995/bigsis.html
1. I shall unreservedly exploit the achievements of males in furtherance of my goals. I shall enlist the vulnerable and those who cannot speak for themselves for my own purposes.
2. I shall control information, distort truth and manipulate thought. Freedom of speech will not exist.
3. I shall call for tolerance while allowing only those opinions and activities which are to my advantage. I shall promise one thing and do another.
4. I shall decree that males and females and people of different races are the same, when it is manifestly untrue. I shall oblige males to perform roles for which I am naturally better-suited.
5. I shall maintain males in a state of neurosis and confusion, and any male who disagrees with me, or induces any unpleasant feeling, shall be deprived of every amenity I have the power to withhold.
6. I shall indulge my instincts to manipulate, mindfuck, play tricks and be dishonest without fear of retribution.
7. I shall treat animals better than men.
8. I shall encourage massive immigration so that others shall be the underclass and not me. I shall favour immigrants and half-castes to spite and insult males of my own race.
9. I shall have the right to do everything and the obligation to do nothing. I shall have babies whenever and by whom I please.
10. Any male following his instincts to the same extent will be imprisoned.
I think that's enough excerpts from Sheppard. His website is free to read, and has no nasty adds, unnecessary JavaScript, or other cancer that plagues modern Internet. If you really like him, you can find the contacts and buy his books (like I did). Unless he winds up in jail again. It's pretty damn easy to get imprisoned in Ye Ol' Blighty nowadays.
This is an epidemic especially in northern European countries. I'm fortunate to understand a few other languages and it's all "glad we have no children as they're only a nuisance" or "people in their 30s and 40s are wasting their lives having kids" to " I wish those people with kids had some consideration for the ones who made the rights decision as we hate their noise and are ruining our lifestyle" etc etc etc. There is zero understanding or care for their own future which is having some smelly Indian whipping their bums when they're old, zero respect for their parents who brought them up and zero care for the Elites replacing them with said Indians and the space craft engineers from Africa.
Zero care for their culture being erased.
Zero care for their culture being erased.
It's barely any different than a Jim Jones style suicide cult.
Patently insane - yet everyone carries on like normal. Asking them to think of the future is equivalent to assaulting them with a baseball bat.
To play devils advocate here can the issue of having children be considered one of those issues where the actions of an individual make sense and are logical on an individual level but exacerbate the collapse when viewed collectively?
For example if there is a risk of a run on a particular bank it makes sense to rush over to the bank as a precautionary measure and withdraw all of your money before the bank collapses (just in case). However if all the depositors do this it will be a self fulfilling prophesy ensuring the bank does indeed collapse. Or for example if at a parade somebody stands on their tippy toes to get a better view and then slowly all the other people start doing it then you will just end up with everyone having the same view as before but being less comfortable because they now have to stand on their tippy toes to get the same view they could previously get.
Having kids can be viewed in a similar lens. Given the dystopian future that appears to await the majority of humanity does it make sense for most people to have children when those children will end up having lower living standards thern they did? However those same first world people not having children will ensure that the first world natives in their own country are replaced increasingly with third worlders (pajeets, etc) accelerating the dystopian collapse that they feared.
Except this isn't the reason people aren't having kids. Only right-wingers have this kind of long-term time preference. Normies are nothing like this. They believe the future will be the exactly the same as it is now. Normies aren't having kids because they want to be selfish.
A more relevant example would be like the people crapping on the streets of India. Sure, they could go to a toilet, and use plumbing, but, hey now, it's easier just to poop outside and they can't be bothered to find a toilet.
That's basically how the "west" views having children (especially the females). Too much of a bother, even though it makes the world a shitty place.
I would say be careful what you wish for. Imagine if all the leftists in first world countries decided to start having kids! Our society would be even more messed up than it is now!
Nah, kids aren't just carbon copies of their parents. A solid chance they would rebel and go Christian or right-wing.
I would rather be born in hard times than never be born at all. Just like I'd rather have a wife and kids than never have them at all. We were dealt the life and current times we're given.
It takes quite a bit of effort and patience to meet quality people, and to become a quality person yourself. It's finally starting to pay off for me, and it can for every man on here. But a potential wife will not just be given to us, especially in the modern world. It's not fair and much more difficult than the past, but it is what it is.
It takes quite a bit of effort and patience to meet quality people, and to become a quality person yourself. It's finally starting to pay off for me, and it can for every man on here. But a potential wife will not just be given to us, especially in the modern world. It's not fair and much more difficult than the past, but it is what it is.
Unless you have a government (yours) actively working against their own (white) populous that has some understanding of what being normal is.
730K Indians into Kangaroo land last year on a population of 26mil with already 10 mil non whites residing in the 7 elevens. Another 800k coming this year.
They're ok with them having families though.
The Kalergi plan doesn't stop at the Pacific mate.
If you are a dirt world person in an area where fertility is 6 per woman, and they all are ultra low IQ peasants, then having kids exacerbates the collapse.
If you are a civilized person in a society with a sub-replacement birthrate, then failing to have kids exacerbates the collapse. Don't buy the leftist brainwashing that first world people with sub-replacement birthrates are causing some kind of population explosion that's destroying the Earth. That's such an obvious lie by people who hate you.
What you are saying is only true because the west is short sighted and wants to kick the can down the road via population growth and thus when first world people don't have kids the short fall is plugged with immigration which degrades the country. If western countries went the Japan route and just accepted less economic growth and let the population gradually decline (instead of opening the floodgates of immigration) then the sub replacement birthrate would not be an issue.
Due to the advancement of robotics and AI in 30 years time the demand for labour will be much lower hence having a large population will be a negative rather than a positive (more mouths to feed). Especially if you are a resource rich country having a smaller population in the future will be an advantage because the natural resource wealth (oil, natural gas, gold, copper, farm land, etc) will be divided amongst a smaller population. That is the secret to why countries like UAE and Qatar and Norway are so wealthy (small population + lots of natural resources = high level of wealth per capita).
This doesn't make sense. You think the solution to over population is to have extremely low birthrate countries lower their birthrate even farther?
You've drank the Kool-Aid. The West is short sighted and is kicking the can down the road? What, with their extreme sub-replacement birth rate?
The high birthrate areas are the only real concern.