Reduction of fertility by sterility (as a result of drugs/vaccines etc.) is hard to generate. As an example - even when sperm counts fall dramatically it doesn't typically change the birth rate much or at all. This is because when people decide to have children they keep trying until they get the number they want - resorting to more sex,…
Reduction of fertility by sterility (as a result of drugs/vaccines etc.) is hard to generate. As an example - even when sperm counts fall dramatically it doesn't typically change the birth rate much or at all. This is because when people decide to have children they keep trying until they get the number they want - resorting to more sex, in vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, sperm banks etc.
I (strongly) suspect that the poverty and warped incentives which stem from our diabolical taxation/welfare state have a much larger effect. People who don't want children (or at least as many children) don't have them, whether they are fertile or not. And people want far fewer children than they used to because
(a) taxation makes children much harder to afford
(b) government interference in healthcare, hosuing and education markets makes those essentials much more expensive and again makes children harder to afford
(c) social security replaces reliance on your own children for support in old age with reliance on everyone elses' children. This acts as a disincentive to have children.
This is all part of Satan's system - it is inimical to life. And it was designed knowingly although largely implemented by unwwitting fools.
There is also the question of the quality of the remaining sperm and eggs. Who wants to be producing eggs and sperm contaminated with nanoparticle technologies? What will be the impact of that on future generations?
Unlike antibiotics which can be found in many plants we've been eating for millennia, nanotech is something the human body has never had to deal with before. I would want to see some studies done proving otherwise before I'm convinced they're harmless to sperm and eggs.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying here, and/or if we are disagreeing.
I'm saying that these types of harm tend to have only a small affect on the number of babies born because people counteract the problem by increasing the effort they put into having babies to compensate. So let's say I am a young man and my wife and I decide we want four children. Then we pour whatever effort is necessary into having four children.
If I have solid, capable super-sperm then we only have to procreate four times and we are done.
On the other hand if my sperm have been crippled by poor food, vaccines, other toxins and Satan has been whispering in their little ears then we may have to visit the fertility clinic forty times, pay for expensve medical assistance, and have sex every night for decades. But we will likely make whatever effort is necessary to get the number of children which we decide we want.
Therefore I am saying that there many attacks on the population growth rate
(1) a biological attack - a reduction in the number and motility of sperm
(2) an economic attack - an attack on the wealth and incentive structure of the family
(3) a psychological/cultural attack on the idea of marriage, family and values in general.
I have ignored (3) for the purposes of this discussion, but am saying that (2) is far more significant than (1) because (2) causes people to want to have fewer children. And when people actually want fewer children then they willingly cooperate in achieving that result. A couple with great biological fertility who want two children usually end up with two children and only rarely end up with more as a result of "a mistake". Whereas a couple with all sorts of biological issues who want two children also usually end up with two children despite the extra effort they must put in to achieve their goal.
Do you disagree with this? If you do, could you be specific about exactly what you are disagreeing with?
(1) I think sperm issues are only one portion of the biological attack. There are environmental toxins, dietary and other portions of this attack as well.
(2) I was not aware that epigenetic dysfunctions would inherently deteriorate over generations. I am not an expert by any means - but I thought
(a) epigenetic dysfunctions were not inheritable - the son gets the original DNA which is of course susceptible to behave in the same way as the father's but no worse
(b) recreating the environment which caused the problem in the father would result in the same issue (but not a worse one) for the son.
Obviously if subsequent generations are subject to worse environmental factors than preceding generations then the problem might deteriorate - but that's not quite the same thing.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is a non-issue. I just don't think it's as important as the economic attack.
I don't think you're correct about the son starting in a worse place than the father. My understanding is that
(a) Epigenetic changes are environmental and are switched on and off by environmental factors.
(b) Epigenetic changes are not inherited at all. The son starts in exactly the same place with the original DNA inherited down through the generations.
(c) If the son is then subjected to the same environment as the father he would presumably suffer the same epigenetic changes.
If you are saying that you believe that epigenetic changes are inherited and therefore somehow accumulate over generations in a way which would cause a deterioration in fertility in an unchanging environment, could you point me at a source which describes the mechanism by which this happens.
On the economic issues:
(1) Yes - the coming economic collapse will probably blow everything out of the water in terms of total effect. I'm not sure I would have suggested that losing access to pharmaceuticals would be a major contributor though :-).
(2) That wasn't actually what I was referring to in terms of the economic attack, although - as you point out - I should have been. I was actually referring only to the distorted incentive system which results from the welfare / regulatory state. Specifically the mechanisms of taxation, inflation and state provided retirement which all act to incentivize people not to have children.
Reduction of fertility by sterility (as a result of drugs/vaccines etc.) is hard to generate. As an example - even when sperm counts fall dramatically it doesn't typically change the birth rate much or at all. This is because when people decide to have children they keep trying until they get the number they want - resorting to more sex, in vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, sperm banks etc.
I (strongly) suspect that the poverty and warped incentives which stem from our diabolical taxation/welfare state have a much larger effect. People who don't want children (or at least as many children) don't have them, whether they are fertile or not. And people want far fewer children than they used to because
(a) taxation makes children much harder to afford
(b) government interference in healthcare, hosuing and education markets makes those essentials much more expensive and again makes children harder to afford
(c) social security replaces reliance on your own children for support in old age with reliance on everyone elses' children. This acts as a disincentive to have children.
This is all part of Satan's system - it is inimical to life. And it was designed knowingly although largely implemented by unwwitting fools.
All of that has been and will continue to be a part of the depopulation agenda. Until it all falls apart.
Thanks for pointing that out reante.
There is also the question of the quality of the remaining sperm and eggs. Who wants to be producing eggs and sperm contaminated with nanoparticle technologies? What will be the impact of that on future generations?
If eggs and sperm are so indestructible why are so many deformed and nonfunctional?
Unlike antibiotics which can be found in many plants we've been eating for millennia, nanotech is something the human body has never had to deal with before. I would want to see some studies done proving otherwise before I'm convinced they're harmless to sperm and eggs.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying here, and/or if we are disagreeing.
I'm saying that these types of harm tend to have only a small affect on the number of babies born because people counteract the problem by increasing the effort they put into having babies to compensate. So let's say I am a young man and my wife and I decide we want four children. Then we pour whatever effort is necessary into having four children.
If I have solid, capable super-sperm then we only have to procreate four times and we are done.
On the other hand if my sperm have been crippled by poor food, vaccines, other toxins and Satan has been whispering in their little ears then we may have to visit the fertility clinic forty times, pay for expensve medical assistance, and have sex every night for decades. But we will likely make whatever effort is necessary to get the number of children which we decide we want.
Therefore I am saying that there many attacks on the population growth rate
(1) a biological attack - a reduction in the number and motility of sperm
(2) an economic attack - an attack on the wealth and incentive structure of the family
(3) a psychological/cultural attack on the idea of marriage, family and values in general.
I have ignored (3) for the purposes of this discussion, but am saying that (2) is far more significant than (1) because (2) causes people to want to have fewer children. And when people actually want fewer children then they willingly cooperate in achieving that result. A couple with great biological fertility who want two children usually end up with two children and only rarely end up with more as a result of "a mistake". Whereas a couple with all sorts of biological issues who want two children also usually end up with two children despite the extra effort they must put in to achieve their goal.
Do you disagree with this? If you do, could you be specific about exactly what you are disagreeing with?
Hmmm.
(1) I think sperm issues are only one portion of the biological attack. There are environmental toxins, dietary and other portions of this attack as well.
(2) I was not aware that epigenetic dysfunctions would inherently deteriorate over generations. I am not an expert by any means - but I thought
(a) epigenetic dysfunctions were not inheritable - the son gets the original DNA which is of course susceptible to behave in the same way as the father's but no worse
(b) recreating the environment which caused the problem in the father would result in the same issue (but not a worse one) for the son.
Obviously if subsequent generations are subject to worse environmental factors than preceding generations then the problem might deteriorate - but that's not quite the same thing.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is a non-issue. I just don't think it's as important as the economic attack.
I don't think you're correct about the son starting in a worse place than the father. My understanding is that
(a) Epigenetic changes are environmental and are switched on and off by environmental factors.
(b) Epigenetic changes are not inherited at all. The son starts in exactly the same place with the original DNA inherited down through the generations.
(c) If the son is then subjected to the same environment as the father he would presumably suffer the same epigenetic changes.
If you are saying that you believe that epigenetic changes are inherited and therefore somehow accumulate over generations in a way which would cause a deterioration in fertility in an unchanging environment, could you point me at a source which describes the mechanism by which this happens.
On the economic issues:
(1) Yes - the coming economic collapse will probably blow everything out of the water in terms of total effect. I'm not sure I would have suggested that losing access to pharmaceuticals would be a major contributor though :-).
(2) That wasn't actually what I was referring to in terms of the economic attack, although - as you point out - I should have been. I was actually referring only to the distorted incentive system which results from the welfare / regulatory state. Specifically the mechanisms of taxation, inflation and state provided retirement which all act to incentivize people not to have children.