Human Population Through Time

[Granger]

The members of the, as you called it, homosexual male community is happily busy having sex as they see this as a no strings attached kind of entertainment that's better the more often you do it. Plenty of women, on the other hand, are preoccupied attaching strings and as of this like it better the less it happens (as the value of the act as, perceived by their victim, increases), at least with the ones they attach the strings to... while they themselves get busy with the modern day equivalents of milkmen.

I don't think women have less intrinsic sex drive than men, they have just weaponised it.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

While I agree sex can certainly be used for personal gain in many circumstances (I mean, people pay cold hard cash for it), I don't think that most women withhold having sex in order to maintain its power as a tool for coercion and profit. The "weaponization" you've described, which I don't think is a particularly apt word lol, is likely a product of the well documented differences in sex drive between men and women which evidence suggests is more likely attributed to innate or biological differences, rather than cultural or learned.

I want you to think back to when you were 15 years old and couldn't stop thinking about boobies.
How many 15 year old girls do you think constantly thought about dick?

[MagicManICT]

I don't think that most women withhold having sex in order to maintain its power as a tool for coercion and profit.

This one obviously isn't married yet...

[Procne]

I think you're both right to a degree.

First, the reason why sex can be "waponized" by women could be based in the fact that, again, men need it more than a woman.

Second, it doesn't have to mean that "most women withhold having sex in order to maintain its power as a tool for coercion and profit". It is much more indirect and it manifests itself through a lot of traditions / customs which give the woman this power. Like monogamy, no sex before and outside marriage, shunning homosexualism, a married person being valued more highly than a single in some cases, plus things like expectations for men to be physically strong and women to be fragile, men to be able to earn money and woman to be able to take care after her household. Where men could coerce using physical and economic strength women had to find other ways and advantages. Thus they are much better at dealing with people, manipulating and using every "argument" available to them. It's not necessarily bad, we could easily turn this discussion around into how men abuse women. It's just each sex has its own unique advantages and uses them as they see fit.

[Potjeh]

The whole women's rights angle has it's merits, but I still think the biggest reasons are economic. People generally want some sort of stability before they start a family, and these days it's nowhere to be found. Even in feudalism a lowly peasant was important, a lord couldn't just replace his serfs with different ones because where would he get them? Other lords certainly wouldn't give up any of their own serfs because they needed them to work the land. So everyone (excluding rare vagabonds) had their own place in the world. But in today's late stage capitalism workers are easily disposable, because you can always get different ones when you need them. The notion of "Human Resources" is very telling of how corporations view their workers. So for many people there is simply no stability and no real place in the world. I think this is why France has the highest birth rate in western Europe, neoliberalism has eroded unions and workers rights there less than in other countries in the region.

[Granger]

I think Porjeh makes a good point: When people see the world go to shit around them they're less inclined to make new tiny humans, as this would only condemn them to bad things esisting/coming...

[Procne]

While the economic stability has its impact, especially for educated people, I think the more important cause is the fact that we currently have more to lose by having children, than decades ago. There are more entertainment possibilities and new, exciting lifestyles, which simply are not possible when you have children. Lack of economic stability adds to it. Take a look at 2nd and 3rd world countries which have neither economic stability or safety in general. People still breed there like rabbits. Simply because they have nothing else to do, prolonging the family in fact adds to economic stability for them. Those people have less "needs" in life. We have more of them and we are picky, so we require really good conditions to start having children.

Still, true, with more economic stability the natural growth should at least be high enough to overcome deaths and maintain steady population. At least for now.

[Potjeh]

I'd argue that a subsistence farmer has more stability than a corporate employee. Besides I don't think it's so much about money as it is about a sense of belonging. Humans are social creatures, and lacking a community subconciously puts us in crisis mode where having children is not desirable (it takes a village to raise a child after all). And the late stage capitalism is all about turning people into just another product, where they are easily replacable and that makes forming strong bonds a lot harder and makes it a lot easier to lose community members when they have to move for job every couple of years. People tend to avoid the heartache by avoiding bonding, so these days all we have is acquaintances and no real close friends. It's ironic how there's never been more humans on Earth yet the average individual has never been more alone.

[MagicManICT]

I'd argue that it is because people are comfortable that they aren't having children. Why mess with a good thing?

[shubla]

I'd argue that it is because people are comfortable that they aren't having children.

If people stop having children, you will stop having pension. There will be lack of workers and you will have miserable life in your last years!