| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Feminized Cannabis Seeds  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Blue_Lux το καταπεπτωκος φροντιστης   Registered: 12/07/19 Posts: 6,136 |
| ||||||
|
America has recently experienced the lowest rate of birth in its history, but the rate of births, as most know (but often omit for some reason), is not homogenous demographically. Elon Musk was saying something about this. Why do white women comprise around 63-65% of childless women? Why are White and Asian men most likely to not have children, around 25%? What does the current trend look like, and why? I want to use this as a platform for some other ideas.
Could there be some seeking a homogenized population? If a society, or ruling members of a society, were to seek a homogenized majority population, which would result as a low-caste, they would not only cancel out the fragmented sub-cultures and historical solidarities but also rob the human race of their future potential. Life thrives on maintaining sub-populations with genes that are maintained distinctly apart from one another, which act as natural buffers against, for example, unique pathogens or predators who can eliminate some sub-populations but not all. That is an interesting trend that works against deep time, something that current people, obsessed with little time, do not seem to treat. If sub-populations, races were to be eliminated within a society by increasing the birth rate of minority groups and decreasing the birth rate of majority groups, in order to make a homogenized population, for whatever reason (perhaps to control future dissent, reliance on sub-cultural identity, or reliance on anything other than economic models that benefit only people at the top rungs of society), the future prospect that people can benefit from preserved genetic sequences distinct from the entirety of the population is eliminated additionally. We simply do not know and cannot predict exactly what in 500 years, 1,000, 5,000, etc. will become crucial or important. Something may be only produced or preserved in one group of people that have remained separate, but not allowed to be separate---rather... Preserved. That this is a meaningless argument is absurd, because the likelihood that a homogenous whole is as capable of producing novel genetic outcomes as one heterogeneous is very unlikely, and consistently observable as the opposite in nature. It is much more likely that via maintainence of sub-groups, sub cultures, novel groups of genes (allowed to live, allowed to be preserved) important outcomes not only genetically but culturally will be produced. You sufficiently eliminate that entire prospect by seeking a homogenous population. It is perhaps easier to control a population that is not divided by race (or perhaps for a short period one that is), but it is the sign of a profound weakness that a nation cannot be maintained without directly eliminating the differences among the actually weak (who are not but measurably so), the poor, the less well-off. That, furthermore, eliminating differences that are not easily calculable or reconcilable regarding corporate models economically may have extreme consequences in the opposite direction than what was intended seems to me highly likely. People, for millennia, have thrived on their cultural and historical inheritances, not only in genes but in behaviors passed down by parents in inarticulable ways, in mannerisms too fast to be accounted for, and too complicated. Many ways of behaving, perceiving, thinking and feeling have everything to do with the history of the person's ancestors, and more specifically their geographic location, which blurs the line between nature and nurture. If nature has nurtured a specific condition, or a set of psychological conditions and behaviors, then are they via nature or nurture, even if expressed by the children of parents whose parents also did not live in the climate where they were conditioned, who also did not experience those natural conditions active that originally conditioned them in the ancestors of their parents? Take, for example, that many people in America do not have ancestors that experienced extreme winters for a vast amount of time. The ones who do have ancestors who experienced thousands of years of brutal winters without electricity have had passed down in them, through but not only through what Freud and Lacan talk about as a "maternal language," something distinct, something those who did not experience such extreme, distinct times simply could not have developed, repeatedly, not on their own but in direct relation to the changes of nature, to a brutal reality of cold, of frostbite, of the death of trees and crops. That thousands of years of a people experiencing harsh winter yearly would have no impact on the collective unconscious of that group is simply asinine. Mannerisms, behaviors, ways of treatment and thinking have been produced in the heat of those homes, by the hearths, juxtaposing the harsh cold outside which simply cannot be produced by people in other climates. Conversely is the same for those who did not experience harsh winters. Psychologically speaking, that these micro-details, these 'collective Vorstellungen' (perhaps they can be called) can be looked over and rendered superfluous or uninteresting, that they can be paved over and muffled out of existence is perhaps one of the most idiotic things I have ever had the misfortune of analyzing. So, even strictly psychologically speaking, to delete the differences between people or to desire it is not only genetically absurd, robbing the future of its prospects, but psychologically impossible and will most likely be the source of an inutterable, undefinable malaise whose etiology has no origin, or rhyme or reason, which neither can be accounted for nor alleviated, which will most likely result in profound social unrest, civil war, atrocities, or simple collapse, as has been demonstrated quite well by previous civilizations. Think again whether I am making these things up! Do not people contain inarticulable differences in the way they speak, think, feel? Do you not think it likely that geographic history has influenced what underpins and facilitates such differences? and not only has influenced them but created them concomitant with natural realities experienced as requiring such mentalities and behaviors for survival? Only subsequently, in a heterogeneous population, are they called 'differences,' but much of what constitutes psychological differences between people has been conditioned by thousands of years of nature in a confined locale. One may pave over these things only to eventually find them creeping up from the cracks like zombies. That homosexuality has something to do with a birth rate problem is perhaps actually the most absurd thing I have yet to consider. According to some sources--perhaps it is not completely correct--there are 105 male births per 100 female births throughout the human species. Why is that the case? One may examine this number and see that it is about 1-5 of those 105 males that will be exclusively gay. There is a theory that the number of males is higher because of the rate of death among males, and infant mortality, but one cannot help to notice if none of them die, there will still likely, naturally speaking, be 1-5 males who naturally have no desire to reproduce, who, rather, prefer to be with themselves, with those like themselves, and to benefit their group with pure surplus, having everything they gather and or hunt allocated directly to the equal 100-100 reproducing members of the tribe and their offspring. Homosexuals are really the source of surplus in ancient times, and this is what I suspect has genetically conditioned the male birth order effect of homosexuality. This is also what the Greek myth of Triptolemus seems to account for: specific members had, more often than the others reproducing, time allocated to things the others simply did not have the time for, for whatever reason (there are a number of reasons such as childbirth, child rearing, hunting groups, etc). Triptolemus is written as having no children and no wife, and yet he has brought humanity agriculture. It is highly likely, on the contrary of homosexuals being produced by civilization or being a threat to civilization, those very gay people have produced many of the things enjoyed by all people in civilization. They may, contrarily, have been the progenitors of agriculture, for where were the women and the men who reproduced? Were they not repeating the same actions over millennia? What group of people could spend time elsewhere, who are often seen as children plucking the petals off of flowers in the outfield? Yes, it is highly likely that gay people were responsible for leaps in early agriculture, and that may be preserved in the myth of Triptolemus. Even if not, it is still highly likely that homosexual members adding to gathering and hunting had the vast majority of their personal surplus allocated elsewhere, whether they added to a hunt or brought back game of their own, not to their offspring because they had none. An able man not reproducing is one less mouth to feed and one more weapon against saber toothed tigers, prey, etc. That is the definition of surplus. So, could the natural number of gay males in the population account for the 15-17% of women being childless? Is that a normal number in a population? It seems abnormal and unnecessary. To look at the homosexuals and see them as the problem, when their problems also do not originate with them themselves, is a mistake. There have for thousands upon thousands of years been exclusively gay members in a society and they are specifically produced for a purpose. Because that purpose is no longer immediately the case does not mean, just as we have vestigial traits, it just goes away or should be done away with or ignored. On the contrary, just as future matters with respect to our condition, so does the past, and one should not be ever at the expense of the other. One can postulate about how things could be, but nature is more complicated, and our condition is more complicated than our parochial lenses. What other than that desire could be the cause of such a birth rate? That there could be a baby boom seems unlikely to me and also to AI. There may be something else causing it. I don't know. Maybe there will be a baby boom but I just wanted to use this as a means to get these ideas out to anyone interested, and to clarify maybe what I said in the past. I think it would be a profound tragedy for the differences nature has produced over tens and hundreds of thousands of years to be ruined and destroyed by the hubris of modern intelligence, because what they may imply and what they may be capable of producing are incalculable exactly but may be of extraordinary importance, such importance that if people preclude such possibilities that may stem from them then the people of the future will never forgive the people of today, and they will be ashamed of the people of today, and they may very well require solutions to things we precluded from being addressed simply or easily, which will be extremely inefficient and not to the best of human ability, of what could be. It seems to me actions just like what I have demonstrated, dubious but concerning, are at the root cause of extreme complications and even violence, which is why I wrote any of this at all. People in the past did not think about what they were doing and they paved a road to disaster. People need to think not only for themselves but for the people in the future, and that may be at the expense of what is easy. So be it. Life isn't easy. People can't design a blueprint that encompasses every possibility but they can facilitate the good probability of good possibilities. People have evolved from slime. Edited by Blue_Lux (09/24/26 12:03 AM)
| |||||||
|
Blue_Lux το καταπεπτωκος φροντιστης Registered: 12/07/19 Posts: 6,136 |
| ||||||
|
Life is literally the experience of changes of nature. The most early life was something reacting to periods of light and darkness, over and over again, recording this over and over again, with set durations of light and set durations of darkness. The same is with distinct peoples' psychological makeup. These makeups are conditioned by nature in distinct geographical locations but they are not genetic, not merely conditioned, but cellular as passed down, repeated formations of neuroplasticity. A neuroplastic formation, made to resemble like a mirror the environment and the changes of the environment, and the way of life in reaction to a consistent environment can be passed down not in genes, not in mere psychological condition, but something wordless and almost impossible to symbolize, because it is a grouping of neurons in a specific way that is not a mere conditioned response. It is an activity, a way of thinking and being. Regardless of whether you take people from an environment or not, they will still withhold the greater capability than others for those very neuroplastic formations, which relate inextricably to the conditions that produced them, regardless of what information you give to them, or regardless of the new environment, or what information is in their new environment. Thousands of years of repeated action in the same way develops people in accordance with those situations. With regard to Winter, particularly a brutal one, you know where you are in terms of your identity better than in any other place. For those people they knew where they were, their existential reality, more than at any other time during the winter. This is to show that a situation as such can condition experiences of identity that other people cannot experience or do not experience in the same way, so when someone is born from people whose ancestors became to experience a form of identity that the people around them have not been handed down, to equalize those people becomes a profound cruelty, regardless of any theory of how plastic the mind is, or how mouldable a person's brain is.
This points to the danger of psychedelics. Psychedelics cause a kind of neuroplasticity, and they can be utilized to uproot those kinds of configurations or presets, which have been handed down by the parents but perhaps also in genetics. It is not unheard of that genetics can predispose someone to specific ways of being, perhaps smaller than a simple predisposition to alcoholism, and with respect to very many small pieces of information accumulated over a long period of time, distinct to that person's ancestors, for example, a simple way of speaking or tone, a movement of one's arms, "the way a child picks his nose" (according to Jung)," a way of seeing the sky, a way of feeling about a tree, a way of feeling about snow, images in dreams, imaginations, emotions concerning a specific person, etc. etc. I noticed my husband has the same reaction to the seasons. He smells the same thing I do and feels the same way about it, whereas I wonder if others who do not share a similar ancestry experience the same thing. This is why I think communist arrangements are almost all originating in theory from people with equatorial or subtropical, low latitude zone origins, whereas Northern peoples, and Southern, generally do not historically consider themselves with regard to the materialism of the self that governs capitalism and communism. Quite the contrary. It is easily observable psychological fact that people from hot climates are generally more pugnacious and irritable. This hasn't been applied with a factor of time. Just as velocity requires a time factor, and acceleration is the further application of a time factor, you find that you can apply a time factor to conditions that have been held constant for a particular people for a long period of time, which acutely appear as greater irritability in traffic on a hot day. Edited by Blue_Lux (09/24/26 01:13 AM)
| |||||||
 RJ Tubs 202    Registered: 09/20/08 Posts: 7,749 Loc: USA 
Last seen: 13 hours, 35 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Excellent topics you bring up. Most folks won't touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I notice it's white women who often tell me people are not having children for two reasons - it is too expensive, and the world is currently so terrible, why bring more people into this mess? Women in Mexico & other less developed nations do not feel this way and they keep having kids. More than other groups, white women embrace the gloom & doom attitude at high frequency. Also, the women's liberation movement freed women from the slavery of motherhood and being a wife. To this day, young women celebrate their "freedom" - which relates to that perspective.
A bit of an aside - Desmond Morris, in his famous book The Human Zoo brings up the point that many animal species engage in homosexual behavior, but only humans pair bond as homosexuals for life. Lifelong homosexual paring is relatively new in our species. Being gay today is different than 50 years ago. Being gay today is a lifelong commitment and is seen as a genetic trait like eye color. You must agree that all homosexuality is genetic, or you are seen as a bigot. More and more men feel stress & even terror about being intimate with a women. Some men even feel disgusted by the idea. So they opt for plan b.
| |||||||
|
Blue_Lux το καταπεπτωκος φροντιστης Registered: 12/07/19 Posts: 6,136 |
| ||||||
|
I'm not sure homosexual pair bonding is new. There is an ancient figurine made by the Vinca people perhaps 7,000 years ago that looks oddly homosexual. Here it is
 Does that look like a man and a woman? I wonder whether it is. They are two bodies fused together, oddly symmetrical. Usually heterosexual art includes a distinction in one or the other to clearly represent maleness and femaleness. This one isn't so clear. I'm not saying they are homosexual, but a group of people thinking like that anyway seem to me at least likely to have been familiar with men who preferred to live together with no sexual interest in the opposite sex.  This is really beside the point however that the modern birth rate has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Edited by Blue_Lux (09/24/26 11:52 AM)
| |||||||
|
RJ Tubs 202 Registered: 09/20/08 Posts: 7,749 Loc: USA
Last seen: 13 hours, 35 minutes |
| ||||||
|
It's now a gynocentric world where men are "toxic" and women, blacks, & LGBTQIA+ are exalted.
| |||||||
|
Blue_Lux το καταπεπτωκος φροντιστης Registered: 12/07/19 Posts: 6,136 |
| ||||||
|
I believe the term is "yonic." W/e I guess. And don't lump the LG with all that. The rest is het if you ask me.
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Feminized Cannabis Seeds Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
rather deep hearsay regarding Elon Musk (unpleasant) |  DividedQuantum |
606 | 8 | 11/19/14 12:35 PM by hTx |
|
|
homosexuality (  1 2 3 4 5 6 all ) |
 ribbit |
9,898 | 105 | 01/16/03 02:44 AM by TeTr0 |
|
|
Genetics and Homosexuality------I don't think so ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 chemkid |
10,039 | 78 | 07/29/02 03:45 PM by chemkid |
|
 |
Racism, homophobia and homosexuality. ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Shroomalicious |
6,804 | 76 | 12/17/02 07:36 AM by Anonymous |
|
|
Your mushroom rating. ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 tak_old |
3,781 | 54 | 05/13/03 05:20 PM by Azmodeus |
|
 |
Homosexuality and its Cause(s) ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Diploid |
6,381 | 73 | 10/26/04 03:11 PM by kbilly |
|
 |
cosmic homosexual double standards? ( 1 2 all ) |
 question_for_joo |
3,319 | 20 | 03/12/05 05:37 PM by SneezingPenis |
|
|
Importance of Genetic Homosexuality ( 1 2 3 all ) |
chemkid |
5,391 | 55 | 12/21/02 03:39 AM by nubious |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 71 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 41 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||