Childlesness and pathological altruism

Anyone who has ever taken a closer look at the people who support all the leftard lunacy has noticed that although they're preaching tolerance and diversity, they're actually very similar to each other. And one thing in which they're all pretty much identical is the fact that they're childless. Now, one may think that many such creatures don't really deserve children and that the lives of those children would likely be a living hell, and I tend to agree. However, biology is a powerful force, and caring for children is pretty high on our instinctual priority list, especially if you're a woman.

So, what do the women who don't have children do? Their instincts demand they take care and protect something, whatever that something may be. Often it's dogs or cats. A crazy cat lady is not a stereotype by accident, it's a stereotype because women who fail to have children compensate by having a dozen cats instead.

One curious piece of information we can gain from this revelation is the fact that our instincts and what is best for our genes to propagate are not perfectly aligned. Many women rationally don't want children, yet spend most of their time and resources caring for children-substitutes instead. While this misalignment worked fine enough in prehistoric times when birth control was a thing of science fiction and rape was a legitimate way of having sex, today it is ever more stronger in its manifestation. And ultimately it ends in a disaster. Instead of raising a couple of kids who will in time became functional adult members of society, these women spend their time on cute cuddly creatures whom I personally don't have anything against, but who will never become a society's asset.

These are the ones that, aside from their own private life being void of real meaning, don't do much harm. But there are others, way more sinister, who do the society terrible things.

You can guess who I'm talking about.

Yes, her. Mutti.

The name itself says enough. They call (or used to call her) mutti, meaning mother. Why? Well because obviously, lacking a child of her own, she focused her maternal instincts on the people of Germany. But the thing is, without any strong biological bond, those feelings are a sort of a loose cannon, and can shift much more easily than in case of a real parent-child bond. And they seemed to have shifted after that girl cried in front of her because she was to be returned back to Palestine.

So in that one moment of emotion, Angela Merkel realized that her surrogate offspring are not just Germans, but all the other people of the world as well. The only logical conclusion is to let them in and take care of them, like any mother would do if she discovered she had children in distress.

And this sort of irrational thinking is basically what's behind German lunacy. One childless woman who is now compensating for the fact that 30 years ago she chose career and parties over having a child. Practically destroying a nation because of her personal missed chances and consequential emotional instability.

Of course, she's not an anomaly in any sort of way, but a most prominent representative of a whole class of bitter childless women better known as social justice warriors. Instead of focusing on cats and dogs, these hags focus on people instead. Their powerful maternal instincts force them to seek any disadvantaged person or group to nurture, and even more importantly, force them to invent such people when none are around. That's why we see all that talk about oppressed and disadvantaged groups who are in reality living under the same rules as the rest of us and doing perfectly fine. It's also why we see obscure creatures and sexual deviants from fringes of society being forcefully included in the mainstream and respected for their beliefs.

The instinct in women to care for someone is simply so strong that it's not enough to just be happy if everyone else is. It is pushing them to invent trouble just in order to provide nurture to the weak. Munchausen by proxy and pathological altruism are simply a typical female brain in overdrive. And it's not just a human trait.

Realizing this makes us understand why demography is such a crucial matter. Having most women bear children is not just to keep our numbers. Perhaps even importantly, it gives women the focus for which they were biologically engineered in the first place, thereby keeping us from ruining ourselves by embracing suicidal pathological altruism and all the other post 1968 lunacies which came along with the birth rate drop.

Rape cutlure you say? With arranged marriages being a thing of the past, it may be the only thing that could save us. If it existed in the first place.

Abortion

Let's get one thing straight first. Abortion is an act of killing. I said killing intentionally, because there is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing is, in special occasions, socially permissible. Murder isn't. With that out of the way, what are really pros and cons of the whole ordeal?

Putting all morals aside, having an abortion can paradoxically in some situations be a good way to propagate one's own genes. Animals are known to kill their own offspring in dire situations, and they do it because not killing them would be even worse. For example, a starving animal whose children are about to die may prolong its own life by eating them. They would have died anyway, and by eating them, the mother has the chance to survive a while longer till a feeding opportunity arrives. Yes, it's cruel. Yes, it's sad. But nature and mathematics don't care about your feelings. If the numbers add up, they add up, whether you like it or not.

Could the same be said for humans? Yes, although it is often more subtle. But to understand the impulse, we must first understand that welfare state is an unnatural state of being. The safety net distorts natural balance, but humans have not yet fully adapted to its properties. However, judging by demographic trends, they will adapt in a few generations if it doesn't fall apart by then. Why is the impulse natural, why is the safety net unnatural, and how are we adapting?

The impulse is natural, because if it weren't for the safety net, having children in specific situations could bring doom both upon them and their parents as well. Imagine a world where being out of work automatically means being out of money, and therefore food. Also forget about the perfect world of abstinence, and imagine an average human instead, whose impulse control is barely higher than that of a bright chimpanzee. When you barely have food for yourself, having one more mouth to feed may mean not having food for either your mouth or the upcoming one. After all the effort and extra resources consumed for carrying the child, it may well die of malnourishment days after being born. You basically spent nine months worth of food for nothing. On the other hand, being sufficiently well fed during that period may help you get a chance at improving your situation. Your current husband finally finds a job, or your new husband is rich and you successfully courted him because you didn't have all the extra baggage children and malnourishment bring. Now you can fuck like bunnies, and have all the children in the world. So by sacrificing one, you got 10 instead. Is it morally wrong? Yes. But the dead child of the moral girl won't inherit the Earth, it will be your cruel and evil spawn instead.

Now, the social safety net basically distorts this situation, because it rushes in and helps you and your genes survive, even if you do all you can do to lower your chances. People are simply not adapted to the situation, and still act like it is not a factor at all. Take an example of a high school girl who decides to have an abortion because it will severely impact her career chances. Would it matter in a world without a social safety net? Yes, it actually would. Because her overall children-raising potential would be higher if she optimized for the finances and job position. But with a social safety net, she can simply drop out and keep popping out babies all she wants. With each additional baby, her financial situation will not just stay the same, it will actually improve. But with social safety net, people intuitively take decisions that are actually detrimental to their genes' survival. Add in birth control as well, and you basically have what we have now - poor breed like crazy, while rich decide they don't want children at all and die childless or with 1 child at best. Because, naturally, the desire is not really to have children, especially in the males (and nowadays in females, which are of late socially engineered to behave like men do). The desire is to have lots of money and lots of sex. Children follow.

People are adapting, and they are adapting fast. But do it in a somewhat peculiar way. Let's see some charts first. Here's the USA:

At least hippies are dying out

We see that after an initial surge, the rates are continuously dropping. This basically means there's a shift in people's behavior, and it's likely happening because abortion-inclined individuals are quickly becoming a minority. It is actually distorted by immigration, mostly of people who haven't been under such an evolutionary pressure yet. To understand that, let's see a country that is a net exporter of people, in this case Croatia:

Die hippie scum!

There's actually a 10-fold decrease! The people who were inclined to have an abortion basically bred themselves out of existence. So now, the people who are dominating the demographics are people who a) like children, and b) have poor impulse control, or religious fanatics who consider procreation to be their higher purpose. People who just like children will probably stop at 2-3 pieces, which will be just the right number for them to enjoy without dying of exhaustion. But those with poor impulse control will have dozens. They'll be reluctant to commit an abortion, and will therefore breed to maximum potential, unwillingly disregarding any desires for personal comfort. People with poor impulse control alone will just keep getting an abortion after abortion, till their uterus is ravaged enough that having another child will be a rather unlikely occurrence.

So what will the future world look like? Most likely, it will be populated primarily by easy going slackers and religious fanatics. The meek shall truly inherit the Earth. At least till the safety net breaks down, which is actually a serious concern in such a scenario. Responsibility is a continuum. Many responsible are actually too responsible. They see dangers where there aren't any, and those people will take extra measures not to breed, because they exaggerate the grievances of parenthood and chances of serious harmful events. But by their extinction, the overall level of social responsibility will surely drop, which means that the social safety net will ultimately run out of fuel and the baby pumpers will find themselves out of food. So we'll have a new era of chaos and anarchy, in which the few abortion-inclined individuals that are left may well find themselves to be in advantage again. That is, unless computers and robots manage to take control first.