Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Population can't increase exponentially forever, although the elite would like it to. In 35 years, the Japanese will be much better off than the coumtries that recklessly increased 3rd world immigration to deal with a short term demographic problem.
I agree that population doesn't need to keep growing exponentially. But a 25% drop in population in 35 years is likely to cause serious economic hardships.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,088,442 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by madpaddy
I agree that population doesn't need to keep growing exponentially. But a 25% drop in population in 35 years is likely to cause serious economic hardships.
Supply and demand, even the USA's population is aging out. Even with the population decrees the amount of disposable income will increase because elder care won't have to be paid. I don't think the Japanese are heading the way of the DoDo any time soon...
If you look around you will see a whole bunch of chubby women that might rank 5 on the looks and body scale who actually think they are a 8,9 and keep waiting and waiting for that perfect guy. Then as they turn 30, then 35, then 40 they don't understand that their vagina is just not that valuable.
At the age of 40 a woman's egg production drops to 50% by 50 it's like 5%
First off, not all women want kids. Second, sorry but men go through the same thing and an older man's penis is just not that valuable. As for chubby women want higher quality men, same thing happens where men think they can get a 8-10, though they are fat and homely. Contrary to public opinion, many women don't care if a guy makes a lot of money because she does. So nope, older men aren't in demand either for their paycheck unless he is really wealthy and/or handsome and she is a gold digger.
Postponing marriage and children is detrimental to society. Especially for the intelligent taxpaying ones. Sad so many people of my generation are too stupid and liberal to realize that.
Last edited by allenk893; 01-12-2015 at 12:22 PM..
Second, sorry but men go through the same thing and an older man's penis is just not that valuable.
No, men do not go through the same thing and older men do not decline in value the way older women do. I'm sorry if it offends your feminist principles, but biology doesn't care about enlightened liberal thinking. Men have a far longer reproductively viable lifespan than women do.
While a woman is fertile she is more valuable to the species than a man. Since she carries the young, she is the limiting factor on reproduction. However, the length of time she remains fertile is much shorter than that of the man.
Quote:
As for chubby women want higher quality men, same thing happens where men think they can get a 8-10, though they are fat and homely.
Not really. Studies have been done on this. The advent of internet dating profiles has created database that make analysis of large groups of people possible now that wasn't possible before. The fact is that women consistently rate themselves higher than men do. Additionally, women consistently rate what they are looking for higher than men do. The consequences of this are also seen: women file for divorce twice as often as men do, and women consistently rate themselves as less happy in their relationships then men do.
Quote:
Contrary to public opinion, many women don't care if a guy makes a lot of money because she does.
Uh, no. Wrong again. I know this is the enlightened way to see things, but the truth is the opposite. No matter how successful a woman is, she will consistently seek a more successful man to partner with. Women seeking partners rate financial security as a primary concern overwhelmingly more often than men do.
Quote:
So nope, older men aren't in demand either for their paycheck unless he is really wealthy and/or handsome and she is a gold digger.
Women are by nature gold diggers. That's how humans have evolved. We find extreme instances of gold diggery to be distasteful, but the essential nature of gold digging is genetic. The woman seeks a mate who will protect and provide for her offspring. It is how our species has evolved for thousands upon thousands of years. Now that it is no longer necessary for her to do so in the modern world, that tendency is of course lessening but evolution doesn't work on the same timetable as human technology does. It will be many generations before that instinct has been bred out of us.
It's funny how the leftists look down their noses on the religious when it comes to creationism versus evolution, but when it comes to how evolution affects gender, they discard science in favor of their political correctness exactly like the religious discard it in favor of their Bible. I saw an article in Skeptic magazine about it one time. Whereas the right has a tendency to place religion above observable scientific fact, the left does exactly the same when it conflicts with their accepted political views.
No, men do not go through the same thing and older men do not decline in value the way older women do. I'm sorry if it offends your feminist principles, but biology doesn't care about enlightened liberal thinking. Men have a far longer reproductively viable lifespan than women do.
While a woman is fertile she is more valuable to the species than a man. Since she carries the young, she is the limiting factor on reproduction. However, the length of time she remains fertile is much shorter than that of the man.
Not really. Studies have been done on this. The advent of internet dating profiles has created database that make analysis of large groups of people possible now that wasn't possible before. The fact is that women consistently rate themselves higher than men do. Additionally, women consistently rate what they are looking for higher than men do. The consequences of this are also seen: women file for divorce twice as often as men do, and women consistently rate themselves as less happy in their relationships then men do.
Uh, no. Wrong again. I know this is the enlightened way to see things, but the truth is the opposite. No matter how successful a woman is, she will consistently seek a more successful man to partner with. Women seeking partners rate financial security as a primary concern overwhelmingly more often than men do.
Women are by nature gold diggers. That's how humans have evolved. We find extreme instances of gold diggery to be distasteful, but the essential nature of gold digging is genetic. The woman seeks a mate who will protect and provide for her offspring. It is how our species has evolved for thousands upon thousands of years. Now that it is no longer necessary for her to do so in the modern world, that tendency is of course lessening but evolution doesn't work on the same timetable as human technology does. It will be many generations before that instinct has been bred out of us.
Been burned in the past, eh? Lol, it's so obvious.
I've dated a ton of guys who didn't make that much money. Doesn't bother me at all.
I've dated guys who completely misrepresent themselves on dating sites. I'm talking, they look NOTHING like their pictures, nothing. Yet, I'll still give them a chance because I'm not a complete ahole.
It's "liberal thinking" to think older women are attractive & datable? Will conservatives ever come out of their caves I wonder?
Postponing marriage and children is detrimental to society. Especially for the intelligent taxpaying ones. Sad so many people of my generation are too stupid and liberal to realize that.
It's a personal choice, not a political outlook. And it is shaped more by the nature of society than anything else. That's why these things become trends. Trends arise from individual decisions, but they are formed by factors that go far beyond individual action.
And the shift in the US has been relatively quick, which means that a lot of people are still operating from outdated mental models.
Basically, the fertility rate in 2007 (right before the economic crisis) was slightly above the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per woman. That was higher than most European nations, leading to the belief that the US was somehow structurally different in character when it came to reproduction.
But it has dipped or plateaued every single year since then, and in 2013, it was at 1.85, which is on par with England and is slightly lower than France. So we'd have to look at society-wide trends to find out why such a rapid shift has occurred. It's not a "liberal" or "conservative" event; it's a social process.
Been burned in the past, eh? Lol, it's so obvious.
That's the standard answer to someone who questions feminism: they are bitter and threatened by independent women.
Quote:
I've dated a ton of guys who didn't make that much money. Doesn't bother me at all.
Well if you're an intelligent person then you should realize your personal experience is not a universal truth.
Quote:
I've dated guys who completely misrepresent themselves on dating sites. I'm talking, they look NOTHING like their pictures, nothing. Yet, I'll still give them a chance because I'm not a complete ahole.
Again, I'm sorry that the facts offend your feminist sensibilities, but they do remain the facts. If I remember the stat correctly, on average women rate themselves as 2 points higher on the 1-10 scale than men do.
You are demonstrating exactly what I mentioned at the end of my post that you responded to: rejecting scientific data when it offends your politics.
Quote:
It's "liberal thinking" to think older women are attractive & datable? Will conservatives ever come out of their caves I wonder?
Uh, no. I said no such thing. That's you misrepresenting what I said in order to reject it. But go on telling yourself that you are enlightened and intellectually superior so anytime someone says something that you don't like it must be wrong and they are stupid or insecure.
That's the standard answer to someone who questions feminism: they are bitter and threatened by independent women.
Well if you're an intelligent person then you should realize your personal experience is not a universal truth.
Again, I'm sorry that the facts offend your feminist sensibilities, but they do remain the facts. If I remember the stat correctly, on average women rate themselves as 2 points higher on the 1-10 scale than men do.
You are demonstrating exactly what I mentioned at the end of my post that you responded to: rejecting scientific data when it offends your politics.
Uh, no. I said no such thing. That's you misrepresenting what I said in order to reject it. But go on telling yourself that you are enlightened and intellectually superior so anytime someone says something that you don't like it must be wrong and they are stupid or insecure.
Where did you question feminism? All I saw was a bunch of whiny "Women suck" posts which leads me to conclude you've been burned. I can almost guarantee all of the posts I see by men & women that are overtly hostile towards the other gender is because they've been burned & are now bitter & jaded.
No, men do not go through the same thing and older men do not decline in value the way older women do. I'm sorry if it offends your feminist principles, but biology doesn't care about enlightened liberal thinking. Men have a far longer reproductively viable lifespan than women do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Uh, no. I said no such thing. That's you misrepresenting what I said in order to reject it. But go on telling yourself that you are enlightened and intellectually superior so anytime someone says something that you don't like it must be wrong and they are stupid or insecure.
Maybe you can explain the bolded up above because as it reads, it makes absolutely no sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
