Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm
Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
This is something of a radical idea, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
good idea, but me thinks you might be a woman.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 am This is something of a radical idea, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
you ignored the rest of your utopia, sterilize all the ugly chicks, so the 10 percent alpha males have the cream of the women, instead of the ugly fat broads - many of whom look like men anyway.
so ya good idea, just remove the overies of the ugly bitches when you remove the balls from the bata males.
carry on.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
When only the top 10% of most Alpha males are left, they'll be ruling like no male has ever ruled before. Go for it.gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:16 amgood idea, but me thinks you might be a woman.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 am This is something of a radical idea, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
you ignored the rest of your utopia, sterilize all the ugly chicks, so the 10 percent alpha males have the cream of the women, instead of the ugly fat broads - many of whom look like men anyway.
so ya good idea, just remove the overies of the ugly bitches when you remove the balls from the bata males.
carry on.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Alpha f-ucks versus Beta bucks.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 am Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
Only relatively young, middle-class women can afford to think like that.
This way of thinking will become irrelevant as the middle class inevitably destroys itself.
In my opinion, the next economic recession, along with the upcoming financial Armageddon, will utterly annihilate the middle class in the West.
As the energy crisis is now unfolding, we expect spectacular electricity blackouts in summer, and lack of heating gas during next winter. Next spring, it is the food crisis that is expected to take over: Empty shelves all over. As the labor market will have imploded by then, there won't be any jobs either. I also believe that there will be runaway hyperinflation by then.
At that point, it will probably be a bit late in the game to look for a "provider" to help out. Everybody, men and women, will have to fend for themselves, with no help from the government forthcoming any time soon.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
After that, the Brandon project can declare, mission accomplished.
For Brandon supporters of the past and present:
- If you supported Brandon for president out of ignorance, that's bad.
- If your support for a Brandon president was informed, that's worse.
For Brandon supporters of the past and present:
- If you supported Brandon for president out of ignorance, that's bad.
- If your support for a Brandon president was informed, that's worse.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
What in tarnation did I just read?
Men aren't just "one of two types," this is enormously toxic thinking. And I'm a woman.
If a man is worried about being "less fit" (and really, this goes for any gender or sex), how about they work on doing a little introspection and just work on being a decent and respectful person? Then they wouldn't have to worry about being "incels."
Men aren't just "one of two types," this is enormously toxic thinking. And I'm a woman.
If a man is worried about being "less fit" (and really, this goes for any gender or sex), how about they work on doing a little introspection and just work on being a decent and respectful person? Then they wouldn't have to worry about being "incels."
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
There's a certain brand of philosophy, not meant for the weakhearted, that squares with the OP. It's plastered all over the pages of books written by Lilliputians.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Not all that "radical" as it's an idea that's been around since at least the early 60's. Of course, that idea was proposed by a nutter.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 am This is something of a radical idea, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
-
- Posts: 5135
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
I don't care if there are only women in the future... I just hope there are...
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
That is exactly the point where your argument flounders.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 am This is something of a radical idea, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit
What is this, and how would you determine it?
When your female cows are not spawning children what would they do?...ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
How many generations are you going to inflict with this regime.Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
And do you realise that the genes that comprise the 90% useless men are already represented in 90% of the women, so that the next generation would produce much the same gene pool as the previous one. The gene pool would "improve" to your expectations after several generations.. BUT...
If you get your aim to make only perfect humans, who the fuck is going to do all the hard work in subsequent generations?
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
The problem systemically, is that the 'incel' males become antagonistic, violent, and rebellious, when the system signals to them their obsoletion.IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 amThis is something of a radical idea, but I thought I would put it out there nonetheless.
Supposedly, males, at least in the eyes of women, can potentially be defined as one of two types - one who provides "things", but has no romantic or biological appeal whatsoever, and one who provides romance, but may be lacking in the department of stability. (A bit of a dichtomy, but useful nonetheless).
In the case of males who potentially provide a steady supply of "labour", society could simply have the less genetically fit ones castrated at birth, keeping only the top 10% of males in terms of biological and/or intellectual fitness and romantic appeal sterile; said males would potentially be able to have up to 10 wives each to balance things out, so long as the women consentually agreed.
The remaining 90% of less "fit" males would be required by the state or society to supply a steady stream of menial labour, while the remaining 10% fittest males and their women would be subsidized, for the purpose of providing romance for the women and producing potentially more fit and aesthetically appealing offspring.
Eventually the 90% of less fit males could be replaced and rendered irrelevant once robotics and automation is used to supplant the inferior labor which they provide, and the program in its current form could be weeded out, with automated labour taking the place of less fit men and providing subsidization for the fitter ones and the women who adore them.
This of course would render the "incel" subcultures and the "men" who populate them extinct, and I doubt that society as a whole would be at much of a loss for it, and hopefully other inferior specimins of emotionally-stunted men, who provide nothing but a burden, a source of aesthetic revulsion, or threat of domestic violence upon women, sans anything resembling romance, understanding, or appreciation, another form of Darwinian extinct refuse, unable to further pollute the genetic pool in lieu of men with better genetic traits to offer women and their future children)
They don't go down without a fight. The West sees this phenomenon in spree-shooters, unhinged 'incel' males who want retribution against the system/society that expels them. In the East, it's seen in Moslem suicide-bombers. In China, incel males often go on knife-stabbing sprees, with as much or sometimes more damage than gun spree-shooters in the West.
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Why?Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 6:58 pmtell the male bulls that are crossdressing like female cows to knock it off?
-Imp