We have spoken about the inability of women to intuitively understand numbers before, in the context of women who seemingly accidentally rack up huge numbers, albeit not in their bank account. Much more consequential is that Western women no longer have a lot of babies, and the implications are indeed quite worrying.
Several months ago, during a visit of my parents, I bumped into the mother of a primary school friend of mine. We chatted a bit and she told me that her son is now married and has a kid. This is perhaps not that remarkable in itself. However, she has only had one child herself. Her son also only has one child and it does not seem likely that he will have another one. Thus, you can see how this family tree is not widening but narrowing. In contrast, occasionally you do come across larger indigenous families who have more than two children. Mainly they have three. Four or more is indeed quite rare. However, the difference in the number of grandchildren is startling. The underlying mathematics are trivial, but let us spell out some examples regardless: A woman with two children who all have two children themselves ends up with four grandchildren. If she has three, and her children also have three each, then there are already nine grandchildren. With four children who have a perhaps more realistic three children each, the number of grandchildren is 12. Now compare this to the previous case of there being only one grandchild. I also know of families with several children of which only one got married and had one child.
I think that women not having children is a very clear expression of a decaying society. With each generation, there are fewer and fewer children, which our politicians will use as an excuse to import even more African rocket scientists. The resulting societal changes are intended to discourage the indigenous population even further. Oftentimes, this dwindling of the native population is only considered as some kind of abstract phenomenon, which is quite misguided. Incidentally, my mother gave me a good example a while ago: she told me that an acquaintance of our family had died and the poor guy did not even make it past the age of 55. He was survived by his wife and one son who is in no particular hurry to have children. It was the wish of the deceased to be buried only in the presence of his closest family, meaning only his wife and son. This is a perfect expression of a withering family tree that is almost dead.
Contrasting the aforementioned example with someone who has eight or ten grandchildren is quite impactful as the number of descendants is a large multiple. This is what a healthy family tree looks like, and it is the kind of vigor and virility that keeps a nation and a people alive. I come from a pretty large family myself, but when I was much younger, I simply took this for granted. Now that I am getting older, I find some kind of vague comfort in knowing that I am part of a family line that has been growing rather than decaying.
This reminds me of the question of overpopulation. I mean, disregard the climate change fearmongering and the whole anti-birthrate brainwashing only for Western whites but not for the immigrants for a moment. That some natural resources are finite, like petroleum, minerals and land itself, is a fact…
Having in mind all of the above, how many billions of people on Earth are too much? As a man, I want to spread my seed at least twice, as is our nature, but I wonder if unbridled population growth is really sustainable.
We are not all on the same team. You don’t have to be a gentleman who avoids having children so that someone else can have them instead. Have as many as you wish and if Earth will not have enough resources to maintain all the people, the strongest will prevail, as they always did. Evolution is a competition, not a cooperation.
Yes, this is absolutely correct. You bring up the aspect of economic competition. If we still had that, we most likely would not have this problem at all as it would be the more successful men who have more children. Instead, our elites have erected a social structure in which there is generous financial support for the least capable, so much so that they get incentivized to have more children. Some low-IQ African “rocket scientist” living on welfare in Germany, together with his white-trash wife, would not be able to financially support his children at all if he had to earn a living.
I am not talking about unbridled population growth. However, I think that we would be a lot better off if some people had more children and others fewer or none. This is not really an issue for whites, though, and won’t be for a while, as there are too many women who have no children at all.
“I am not talking about unbridled population growth.”
I know, mine was more of a side comment. It’s just that some of these “trad” fellows seem to think that the ideal number of children for any proud white man is 12 or so. To fight back white replacement? Yeah. But after that fight is won, if ever?
Anyway, I know overpopulation would have to be addressed first in South Asia before whites should concern with it. China already did.
Vey good post.
Though I would add two things:
A) I think it’s already enough to have a stable family tree. So me having two children and both of my children having two children is already a good goal
B) unfortunately all developed countries have a fertility rate below 2. Even countries like Hungary and Russia who tried to address this issue were not able to increase it above 2. But I wish the west would act more like Japan who say – ok then we will just have a population decline – rather than import foreigners to compensate the decline
Of course, with two children per couple, of which none dies before procreating, you have a perfectly stable society. Normally, a fertility of 2.1 children per woman is seen as necessary to keep the population stable.
I’ve been having some thoughts on lineages as well. If each generation of your descendants has two or more kids, the family tree will grow exponentially.
Consider however that each child also has exponential number of ancestors the further down the family tree you go. In other words, your distant descendants will only have a small fraction of your genetic material. With each subsequent generation your genetic heritage gets diluted to the point that after a certain number of generations you will have no higher degree of relatedness with your descendants than with another currently living random member of your ethnic group.
I’ve been spending some time with my brother’s kids and I have to say their joie de vivre is infectious. I can see that having a large family is definitely one of the more fulfilling things you can achieve in life. However, my previous point was that it is not possible to achieve an everlasting legacy through passing your genetic material because it will inevitably get diluted with passage of time.
This leads towards nihilism. Ultimately, you can say that humanity will not make it, or that the sun will eventually die. However, don’t you try to enjoy life right now even though you will likely be dead in sixty years? Besides, I do not even believe in that kind of cosmological nihilism as it is nothing but an unverified hypothesis, strangely enough pushed by the same kind of people who tell you that you should not have kids because of global warming.
Yes, you can view it this way. However, I interpret it differently. You made contributions to your family tree, and others (hopefully) build on it. Thus, you have immediate influence over the next generation. Before the tradition of Western art was completely destroyed, we could observe the same there and see, for instance, how music progressed over the centuries. There are, for instance, some influences of Bach in Mozart’s music, but taken as a whole, their style is quite different.