The Death or Reversal of Human Civilization

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I decided against posting this thread in the politics section because it is more philosophical than political (but I do not object to it being moved there). I do not advocate any political views or measures. I need to emphasize that I do not hate women nor have I had bad experiences with them. Just making observations (which I find interesting).

What is civilization?
In my view, it is the opposite of the natural state. You can look at the animal kingdom and our own history (even though I still consider humans animalistic in the biological sense and don't hold religions beliefs) to get an idea what nature looks like.

What is the death or reversal of civilization?
Equality between males and females.
The peak of civilization was therefore somewhere between the cultivation of farmland (thousands of years ago) and around a century ago when female equality was set in motion.

Why?
Reproduction (i.e. females in the eyes of males) are a resource similar to food or raw materials. It is essential to life. Males compete over it violently in a natural state. This competition is a source of constant conflict and chaos which prevents order, peace and the building of an economic system. Biological data suggests that most men in history did NOT reproduce while most women did. Before the time of farming the ratio was about 8 females to 1 male (of those who reproduced).
We have to distinguish between alpha and beta males. Females naturally flock to alpha males (due to presumably better gen material or defense ability or resource acquiring capabilities), which means beta males feel left out and resent society. They either leave the group, band together and/or challenge alpha males (-> constant conflict/chaos). For the sake of social stability the resource "women" was divided up: one woman for one man. This has brought about a huge boost in stability, economic development (alongside farming and lactose tolerance) and peace. The allocation of women is therefore essential to civilization and has been declared god's will by various religions (with Islam also preferring monogamy but limiting it to the maximum of 4:1). Groups of people who lived in a civilization state not only enjoyed peace and prosperity but also had larger armies (because betas also had a reason to defend the group).

What is the situation today (regarding dating)?
The sexual liberation is actually a liberation of the alpha males (or of females to compete for the alphas -> I am not denying agency to women; even in the natural state they were the gatekeepers of the next generation except for forced marriages and rape).
Data collected from the cell phone app "tinder" has shown that the top minority of men sleep with the majority of females, i.e. betas are left out again (I think the top 20% get 80% of the woman... the gap could be even higher - I don't recall the exact numbers). Ironically, betas were hoping to have more access to women by also supporting the sexual revolution of the last century but it has led to the exact opposite. Betas gave in to their innate desires to help women (hoping for sex in return) and were collectively "friend-zoned" in a fundamental way.

What is the situation today (regarding family life)?
Women are equal (and on average sometimes superior) to men in terms of education and jobs. In the past (i.e. during the civilization phase), most men outcompeted most women in terms of (paid) work (I am not looking down on housewives in the slightest - unlike most people). Today women compete with men on the job market but still desire a man who is more successful or at least as successful as they are. This is obviously a problem: it produces childlessness among many fertile women and makes the percentage of alphas even smaller.

What about the government/state?
Some would say that civilization is still progressing because the role of government increases. I think the opposite is true: The government (esp. in countries in which women have power in the government sphere) reverses the above mentioned definition of civilization. It tries to offer social stability, but at least in terms of reproduction, it is without a doubt a progressive return to the natural state. The government is increasingly replacing men by providing economic security to women, even when they are pregnant or single mothers and modern states make divorces easy (compared to societal blame and stigmas in the past). In a way, women are now marrying the state. It accelerates the thend by taking away the risk of falling in love with an alpha who is not loyal (why should he if he is in high demand?) and becoming a single mother. In lower income communities, males (even perceived alphas) may not even be able to compete with the state financially (which is problem e.g. in the African-American community in the United States).

Solution?
There is no solution. There might not even be a problem. Depends on the perspective. For a minority of men and the majority of woman, it might be beneficial. For betas and social stability, it might be a different story. For more on that and the interests of woman, see further posts (if there is any interest in discussing this topic in a cool-headed and respectful way). [only grammar was changed in the latest edit]

 

[Lacius]

Respectfully, this post is nonsense, and it comes off as the ramblings of an incel with too much time on his hands. Aside from dissecting parts of the first post, one should not expect me to respond much in this thread.

What is civilization?
In my view, it is the opposite of the natural state.

Humans are social animals, and civilization is natural.

What is the death or reversal of civilization?
Equality between males and females.
The peak of civilization was therefore somewhere between the cultivation of farmland (thousands of years ago) and around a century ago when female equality was set in motion.

You're acting like western civilization is the only civilization. In other civilizations, female equality has been around a lot longer than one hundred years.

Everybody in a society is better off when everybody in that society is equal. If some in your society are treated poorly, then you live in a society where people are arbitrary treated poorly, and that means the line between you being treated poorly or somebody else being treated poorly is arbitrary. One should also care about others' well-being.

Why?
Reproduction (i.e. females in the eyes of males) are a resource similar to food or raw materials. It is essential to life. Males compete over it violently in a natural state. This competition a source of constant conflict and chaos which prevents order, peace and the building of an economic system. Biological data suggests that most men in history did NOT reproduce while most women did. Before the time farming emerged the ratio was about 8 females to 1 male (of those who reproduced).

You're ignoring half of the competition (females competing for the "best" males).

To say males compete over it "violently in a natural state" is also incorrect, as humans are social animals. Our closest living non-human relatives are bonobos, who aren't violent in matters of sex. You're also ignoring that the primary purpose of the human sex drive isn't reproduction; it's social bonding.

[We] have to distinguish between alpha and beta males.

This distinction is arbitrary and varies, and just about everything you said about alpha/beta males is wrong, since they don't actually exist.

What is the situation today (regarding family life)?
Women are equal (and on average sometimes superior) to men in terms of education and jobs.

Today, a woman makes approximately 80% of what a comparable man makes.

This is obviously a problem: it produces childlessness among many fertile women and makes the percentage of alphas even smaller.

Fewer babies is a good thing for the woman, humanity, and society. It allows a woman to have more control over her life, a woman with more control over her life can contribute to society in other ways, and it reduces the many problems associated with overpopulation.

It is a perfectly fine choice to not have children.

The government is increasingly replacing men by providing economic security to women, even when they are pregnant or single mothers and modern states make divorces easy (compared to societal blame and stigmas in the past).

1. Everybody should have equal access to economic stability.
2. Divorce should be easy. No one should be trapped in a toxic marriage.

It accelerates the thend by taking away the risk of falling in love with an alpha who is not loyal (why should he if he is in high demand?) and becoming a single mother.

Disloyalty isn't in demand, and it's just for someone who is disloyal to suffer the consequences of his or her disloyalty.

In lower income communities, males (even perceived alphas) may not even be able to compete with the state financially (which is problem e.g. in the African-American community in the United States).

What does this even mean?

 

[H1B1Esquire]

What did I just read? I get that you probably had a point...but....it broke and fell off around the third paragraph.

I would have made this a blog or EoF.

 

[Stwert]

Sorry, but you completely lost me when you said, “data from Tinder”. It was spurious to begin with, but Tinder as a potential source of, what should be, scientific data? No, just, no.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Sorry, but you completely lost me when you said, “data from Tinder”. It was spurious to begin with, but Tinder as a potential source of, what should be, scientific data? No, just, no.

Tinder is widely used to hook up for sex and the ratio resembles much more the pre-civilizational state (many women for one man) than a monogamous-promoting civilization. Your objection is dishonest. Scientific data can come from anywhere. You could count cars on the street and make a study on colors of the cars, age of the drivers, etc. Facebook, Tinder, etc are not sources of scientific articles, but they certainly are FULL of data.

 

[Lacius]

Tinder is widely used to hook up for sex and the ratio resembles much more the pre-civilizational state (many women for one man) than a monogamous-promoting civilization.

1. There's nothing inherently wrong with hookups.
2. Tinder dates can and do lead to monogamous relationships.

 

[Hells Malice]

Oh boy an incel escaped it's cage

Edit: also I agree women exist only to make me sandwiches and babies

 

[gnmmarechal]

Oh boy. I tried to read this. I swear I did. I just couldn't finish it. It's too much.

 

[orangy57]

HAHA HOLY SHIT THIS POST

 

[Chary]

Friend-zoning doesn’t exist.

 

[onedementedsmurf]

Chary, stop friend-zoning people!

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Humans are social animals, and civilization is natural.

As a naturalist, I regard everything as nature, including covering every cm of this earth with asphalt and replacing ourselves with AI. But nature can also be defined differently - that's how most people use it and how I used it in this post.

You're acting like western civilization is the only civilization. In other civilizations, female equality has been around a lot longer than one hundred years.

Can you give me examples, please?
I can only think of matriarchal societies but they are extremely rare. In a matriarchy, neither alphas nor betas know who the father is because men do not restrict female sexuality. However, I suspect that even in a matriarchy, betas are more used for resources and alphas for reproduction. Especially around the time of ovulation, a woman naturally desires alpha males.

Everybody in a society is better off when everybody in that society is equal. If some in your society are treated poorly, then you live in a society where people are arbitrary treated poorly, and that means the line between you being treated poorly or somebody else being treated poorly is arbitrary. One should also care about others' well-being.

There are different types of equality. The equality between men (i.e. alphas and betas dividing up the "resource" women) creates social stability. The equality between sexes creates less social stability because women will go for the top tier and will even look down on previous alphas who make less money than they do.
If there was no monogamy George Clooney would have tens of children from tens of women of different age groups.
You can't say the same about 'insert hot female'. Prostitution has been tolerated in many society for ages in order to keep betas from getting too angry. But prostitution usually does not result in offspring. Today, pornography (and possibly video games?) serve a similar role.

You're ignoring half of the competition (females competing for the "best" males).

I am not: "The sexual liberation is actually a liberation of the alpha males (or of females to compete for the alphas...)
If you let females freely decide who to have sex with, the majority of women choose a minority of men. The hangover men (betas) cause instability. At the height of the refugee crisis (in terms of numbers coming to Europe at once), a German pastor suggested giving refugees free access to prostitutes. Angry men (i.e. men who don't have access to women) are one of the most dangerous source for revolution/revolts.

To say males compete over it "violently in a natural state" is also incorrect, as humans are social animals. Our closest living non-human relatives are bonobos, who aren't violent in matters of sex. You're also ignoring that the primary purpose of the human sex drive isn't reproduction; it's social bonding.

The primary purpose of all sexual beings is reproduction. Your very existence is depends on it.
The bonding is secondary for the sake of actually bringing a human life to term and ideally care for it until it can reproduce (which is more work than any other animal). Bonobos might be the most matriarchal apes. Lots of non-productive sex (even among the same sex) and I would assume less knowledge and care regarding the question: who is the father?
I stand by claim that in nature (or a more natural society), males compete over women violently. The fight for a woman is an essential theme in all human societies. However, I grant you that in a more "feminized" society, there is less knowledge and regard for female loyalty, so betas are outcompeted more quietly. The ideal society for females (in terms of their instincts) is a society in which there is no sexual repression and there are no DNA tests. In some/many western countries (I believe the US are one of them) there is no punishment for cheating and a husband has to care for a child which was born during his marriage - even if it is not his.

This distinction is arbitrary and varies, and just about everything you said about alpha/beta males is wrong, since they don't actually exist.

Alpha refers to a high degree of
-physical attractiveness (in males often linked to strength)
-social status
-income/resources
Female equality has made the last two less relevant in theory, but in actually females still want to marry up or at least not down in terms of status or resources. It's in our/their genes (so there is no one to blame; just as you can't blame men for favoring young women). This increases the female to male ratio. Now that homosexuality has been widely accepted (which I welcome), the next big thing will be the acceptance of heterogamy. It will be sold as fairness/justice as any number of people can marry a woman/man, but we all know the standard model will be several women for one man. It's nature. In fact, despite monogamy, we already have unofficial heterogamy: successful men having affairs. This has been rightly pointed out by Muslims and (at least in Germany) heterogamy is already quietly accepted by health insurance companies (as long as the marriage was done prior to coming to Germany).

Today, a woman makes approximately 80% of what a comparable man makes.

I should have been more precise: equal in education but not equal in income. But the point is: Equality and the modern government have made women less dependent on men, i.e. it decreases the number of alphas. But our genes have not caught up to this new reality.

Fewer babies is a good thing for the woman, humanity, and society. It allows a woman to have more control over her life, a woman with more control over her life can contribute to society in other ways, and it reduces the many problems associated with overpopulation.

It is good in terms of dealing with overpopulation. But the more we progress in terms of increasing female freedom and reducing the risk of said freedom, the less there will be stable families (1woman+1man+1 or several children) and the more there will be patch work families, single mothers and alphas not caring for the children (but instead the state carrying that burden). The effect can be seen more clearly among African Americans (due to the government being a better provider compared to the male average income), but the trend also effects European Americans and others.

 

[Lacius]

I regard everything as nature

Then your thread has no point.

Can you give me examples, please?
I can only think of matriarchal societies

If you can think of examples, then I don't need to.

i.e. alphas and betas dividing up the "resource" women

Viewing women as people instead of a resource is probably the first step to doing better with women.

If you let females freely decide who to have sex with, the majority of women choose a minority of men.

And yet, most adult males are sexually active during at least some part of their lives. Are you sure you don't mean to say that the minority of women (the ones you think are hot) don't choose a minority of men (you)?

If there was no monogamy George Clooney would have tens of children from tens of women of different age groups.

Yeah, but he's also not a douchebag.

But prostitution usually does not result in offspring. Today, pornography (and possibly video games?) serve a similar role.

I think I figured out how you found your way to GBATemp.

The primary purpose of all sexual beings is reproduction. Your very existence is depends on it.

1. I think you meant to say "the primary purpose of the act of sex is reproduction," not, "the primary purpose of all sexual beings is reproduction." There are a lot of sexual beings who have no interest in reproducing.
2. Saying something is a primary purpose because it led to my existence is pretty arbitrary. By that logic, the entire purpose of human evolution was to eventually make it to me. I appreciate it, but I'm not that important.
3. The primary purpose of the act of sex is definitely not reproduction. 99.999% of the sex acts that occur tomorrow are not going to be reproductive, nor are they intended to be. Mine hopefully won't be.

Alpha refers to a high degree of
-physical attractiveness (in males often linked to strength)
-social status
-income/resources

These characteristics are all arbitrary.

1. Different people are physically attracted to different things, and even the same person can have different tastes at different times.
2. Social status is dependent upon the social situation.
3. The importance of income/resources is also dependent upon the person. When it comes to no-strings sex, this often isn't very relevant.

Alpha males don't exist, and if they do, it's subjective. The "alpha male" who picked on you in high school might not be the "alpha male" at my Star Trek viewing party.

Now that homosexuality has been widely accepted (which I welcome)

We haven't even acknowledged how the existence of LGBT people destroys most of your arguments (e.g. the argument that sex is primarily procreative).

In fact, despite monogamy, we already have unofficial heterogamy: successful men having affairs.

I wasn't aware that women didn't have affairs.

But the point is: Equality and the modern government have made women less dependent on men, i.e. it decreases the number of alphas. But our genes have not caught up to this new reality.

Speak for your own genes. Sexism isn't genetic; it's conditioned.

But the more we progress in terms of increasing female freedom and reducing the risk of said freedom, the less there will be stable families (1woman+1man+1 or several children) and the more there will be patch work families, single mothers and alphas not caring for the children (but instead the state carrying that burden).

The divorce rate is steadily falling.

The effect can be seen more clearly among African Americans (due to the government being a better provider compared to the male average income), but the trend also effects European Americans and others.

I was just thinking to myself, "This sexist conversation isn't bad enough. Let's throw in some racism."

 

[Captain_N]

The only way human civilization is gonna survive is to expand to other planets. When some extinction level event happens here on earth, the other colonies are not effected off world.

 

[bodefuceta]

Your definition of natural is pretty absurd. Though your views on modern society are mostly spot-on, the arguments need some serious ironing. Also you can't just ignore the role of technology in this. I'm an alpha male so I'll take my leave. There are modern books that you should read. Lacius is bluepill beta (laughable advice on doing better with women) as are most people here, so find better places too

 

[Lacius]

Lacius is bluepill beta (laughable advice on doing better with women) as are most people here, so find better places too

The men's rights movement is an androcentric joke.

 

[IncredulousP]

I disagree a bit with op but I feel like he/she does bring up a lot of good points about the underlying chaos and stress of natural competition among men and women alike, and how it increases or decreases in relation to technology and societal standards/law.
And to follow, Tinder is an EXCELLENT source of data on sexual habits. The app collects an obscene and frankly excessive amount of data on its users, but this does allow for insightful statistical analysis. Especially since the app is one of the most popular apps used to organize spontaneous sexual acts between consenting adults.

Now, the definitions presented (e.g. nature, reversal of nature, etc.) are bogus and subjective, but do not alone disqualify the points that follow.

I tend to agree more with liberal ideology than not, however there are some points brought up that I agree on that may be contentious among the liberal school of thought.

I do agree that there is a somewhat clear division between males that engage in sexual acts with more women successfully and those that do not. I also agree that both technology and the greater power granted to women today are moving that line, creating a smaller group of men that have frequent sex with many women. This results in a larger group of unsatisfied men. Additionally, women will experience more casual sexual experiences, but will compete for and become unsatisfied with whom they have the option of settling down and starting a family with. Overall, frustration and dissatisfaction grows on both sides of the sexes. I further agree that I simply don't know what the solution to this is, since there have been great strides made to combat sexism against women (while taking a few steps back for sexism against men, but that's another discussion) since before such technologies existed. However, it makes sense to strive for satisfaction among all individuals, so it is my hope that, whatever the political side they may like on, people can come to recognize the sexual frustrations becoming apparent in today's western society.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Then your thread has no point.

As I stated in the next sentence, I abide by the definition commonly used for "natural/nature".

If you can think of examples, then I don't need to.

Very rare examples that prove the rule.

Viewing women as people instead of a resource is probably the first step to doing better with women.

That's an emotional response.
Actually, realizing these things has helped my success with women. Also, I feel bad for having given 3 people (different cases) in my life bad advice based on your naive view of the world. One was a young woman who became almost suicidal because I did not speak up when she asks for advice. She luckily found solace in Christianity. While I'm a not a theist, I do see advantages from a societal perspective (personally, I regard religion as negative).

And yet, most adult males are sexually active during at least some part of their lives. Are you sure you don't mean to say that the minority of women (the ones you think are hot) don't choose a minority of men (you)?

Yes, I'm sure I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm not on the dating market.

Yeah, but he's also not a douchebag.

So an alpha who makes use of his fame and fortune is immoral? How in the world can you say that? I'm sure there would have been many women who would have loved to share this man. Why are you suddenly against female choice?

I think I figured out how you found your way to GBATemp.

Nice one. I can top that: I honestly found my way to GBAtemp because I was worried about my Wii. It was not functioning properly.

I think you meant to say "the primary purpose of the act of sex is reproduction," not, "the primary purpose of all sexual beings is reproduction." There are a lot of sexual beings who have no interest in reproducing.

Agreed. Although from a biological standpoint, my definition still stands (cf. The Selfish Gene by Dawkins; except that Dawkins is also too afraid to apply his theory to humans).

Saying something is a primary purpose because it led to my existence is pretty arbitrary. By that logic, the entire purpose of human evolution was to eventually make it to me. I appreciate it, but I'm not that important.

To make it to you and me and whoever is breathing right now. Yes, we are that important. Genes have tried to cheat death since the beginning of life. Non-sexual life forms by cloning and sexual life forms by sexual procreation.

The primary purpose of the act of sex is definitely not reproduction. 99.999% of the sex acts that occur tomorrow are not going to be reproductive, nor are they intended to be. Mine hopefully won't be.

I already addressed that. Your definition of primary fits better with "most common purpose" or "most frequent purpose", but I don't want to fight over semantics, as I have already stated regarding the definition of "nature/natural".

To summarize: I see two different conceptions of society.
Inclusion: Alphas share the "resource women" with betas (what I call civilization, but I'm open to discussing definitions)
Exclusion: Betas are excluded from accessing the "resource women" (what I call nature; we have headed towards this natural state through equality, the sexual revolution and government spending). Long ago, unsuccessful betas left the group/society or rebelled against the current system. Today they seem to be kept peaceful by technology and porn.

These characteristics are all arbitrary.
(1) Different people are physically attracted to different things, and even the same person can have different tastes at different times.
(2) Social status is dependent upon the social situation.
(3) The importance of income/resources is also dependent upon the person. When it comes to no-strings sex, this often isn't very relevant.

Your denial of reality is over 9000.
(1) Yes, but on average, men want young and beautiful women, and women want strong and successful men. You honestly disagree with that statement?
(2) Then keep dreaming that your knowledge of Star Trek will get you laid (referring to another sentence of yours).
(3) It is not relevant in a country with a huge social safety net. If the government looks out for the consequences of bad female choice, of course they are going to be less careful and even more so pursue alphas.

We haven't even acknowledged how the existence of LGBT people destroys most of your arguments (e.g. the argument that sex is primarily procreative).

The exception does not negate the rule. From a biological perspective, sex is about procreation.
We can emphasize more on that point though:

The majority of females will always (in a natural state / in nature) pursue a minority of men (alphas). But in today's society they distinguish between "bed material" and "marriage material". Equality, the sexual revolution and government spending make it possible. Many women are now more likely to work on their career until their 30s, then get frustrated that the successful good-looking men are already taken at that we still have monogamy. So they either have affairs (to compete for the occupied alphas) or become cat ladies. In China there is a word for it.

I wasn't aware that women didn't have affairs.

See above.

Speak for your own genes. Sexism isn't genetic; it's conditioned.

Believe it or not, our genes are very similar. Mine are even more similar to yours than that of a pig. I'm waiting for the insult.

The divorce rate is steadily falling.

Not interested in year-on-year data. It can't be denied that the trend is clear. Comparing 1900 (and prior) to today, that is. Maybe there will be a re-emphasize on civilization one day, but it will require at least significant economic hardship (or banning of porn, the internet and video games).

I was just thinking to myself, "This sexist conversation isn't bad enough. Let's throw in some racism."

How is having empathy with African Americans racist? Due to their lower income average, the government poses a higher threat to males as providers. The single mother situation in their community is dire. Do you deny that as well?

 

[osaka35]

Just to note: don't use tinder or dating sites as any kind of verification of anything. guys send so many dickpics and drive away so many potential mates that it skews any kind of potential data to oblivion. that and the other bits which tend to happen only in online environments. You can determine how stuff works *online*, but it's dangerous to extrapolate more beyond that.

and please just keep in mind. humans are humans, first and foremost. respect the autonomy and inherent value which resides with sentient life. The rest is just figuring out how to maximize the self and the whole. Don't be in such a rush to force folks into categories or patterns of behaviour. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't necessarily mean that's how reality works.

Just...be thoughtful and compassionate.

 

[Lacius]

@UltraDolphinRevolution I told myself I wouldn't do a lot of big replies in this thread, but you probably worked hard on your response. To be fair, I'll randomly select one of your responses and respond to just that one.

Believe it or not, our genes are very similar. Mine are even more similar to yours than that of a pig. I'm waiting for the insult.

Arguing that our genes are similar doesn't address my point. I'm not arguing that our genes are dissimilar; I'm arguing that sexism isn't genetic.