Page 1 of 1
Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:09 am
by IvoryBlackBishop
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)
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:16 am
by gaffo
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)
good idea, but me thinks you might be a woman.
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%
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:09 pm
by Advocate
gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:16 am
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)
good idea, but me thinks you might be a woman.
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.
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.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:41 am
by godelian
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).
Alpha f-ucks versus Beta bucks.
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%
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:22 pm
by Walker
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.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:54 am
by Astro Cat
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."
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 2:10 pm
by Agent Smith
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.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 2:29 pm
by ThinkOfOne
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)
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 6:15 pm
by promethean75
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%
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 6:48 pm
by Sculptor
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
That is exactly the point where your argument flounders.
What is this, and how would you determine it?
...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.
When your female cows are not spawning children what would they do?
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)
How many generations are you going to inflict with this regime.
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%
Posted: Fri May 12, 2023 9:12 am
by Wizard22
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)
The problem systemically, is that the 'incel' males become antagonistic, violent, and rebellious, when the system signals to them their obsoletion.
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.
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Fri May 12, 2023 6:58 pm
by Impenitent
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:48 pm
When your female cows are not spawning children what would they do?
tell the male bulls that are crossdressing like female cows to knock it off?
-Imp
Re: Reducing the surplus male population by 90%
Posted: Fri May 12, 2023 7:14 pm
by Sculptor
Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 6:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:48 pm
When your female cows are not spawning children what would they do?
tell the male bulls that are crossdressing like female cows to knock it off?
-Imp
Why?