JS: Strict rules of engagement between the sexes is the norm for all of human history and for good reason. Either that or society collapses.
This is a very popular sentiment on manosphere blogs. It has such a righteous feeling of moral vindication, that it just MUST be true.
But whenever I’ve asked the speakers of this intuition what, EXACTLY, they mean by “society collapses”, all I hear is the sound of crickets. And I’ve asked at least 20 times by now.
Are people going to stop producing Ipads? Will Egg Mcmuffins no longer be available? What EXACTLY does collapse mean?
I get the theory that men who are not incentivized to produce for a family have less incentive to be productive. But they still need to eat. Ok, so we might move to become as lazy as say the Spanish, or the Greeks. Is that your idea of collapse?
Sometimes the argument is that since we are taking on traits shared with some African cultures, that our society will mirror those in darkest Africa. Neglecting the fact that we are not of the same gene pool.
So I call shenanigans. This is some some emotional scaremongering to try to whip the womens into shape. Like threatening with a life of cats if they don’t marry young. Bullshit. Women are having no trouble fucking around until they choose to marry. There are no real consequence to them for that choice, as much as men WANT there to be consequences. And society is not going to “collapse”, as much as men WANT that retributive justice.
A mild economic slowdown does not equate a Mad Max scenario where the people are on permanent strike and the shops are empty of consumables.
Rock Throwing Peasant: You want to know what happens? Cuz, go into the ghetto and reap the fruits.
I want to know what happens to WHITE society. Show me a WHITE example.
JS: True, by collapse I didn’t mean total Mad Max. But a number of socially destructive trends such as failure of replacement level birthrate for the best and brightest, high birthrates for the worst. Children raised by single mothers and the resulting behavioral problems of the children: lack of ambition and discipline, lots of thuggish males on the prowl with no socially redeeming attributes, teen mothers. Historically you would also end up with massive numbers of homeless street children, but abortion cuts down on that in the west.
Thanks for the honest re-evaluation of “collapse”. Such a collapse seems quite sustainable to me. Sounds like the Philippines, where the higher classes are genetically and physically isolated from the destitute hordes. A big change, yes, but one that doesn’t automatically lead to a revolution or a swinging of the pendulum back to another direction.
But what these future predictions miss is technology. Where we are today is the result of technology. Future technological changes will change what options we have for our future. How far off do you think biotech is from altering society? What will happen when making designer babies is cheap and readily available? When electronic implants can affect our emotions?
People are looking at our boat, seeing where it’s headed, and forecasting our future position. But it doesn’t work like that. As our technology changes so does the speed of our boat, the shape of our boat, the drugs the people on the boat use, the internet connection on the boat, the wireless brain implanted internets with facebook 212.0 that get implanted into the babies on the boat, the rockets and satellites launched from the boat. We have no idea about the future because we don’t know about technology. But just taking into account the technologies that exist as of today that we can expect to be commercially available in our lifetime, we can expect massive cultural and social and even genetic changes to what it means to be human.
You know, it’s not really an argument about the future. Admit it – it’s an argument that if your personal sexual strategy isn’t favored by most people that there will be doom. It’s a hard wired emotional response that you are giving voice to, not an actual prediction. It’s hard wired because for thousands and thousands of years the guys who banded together to enforce strict social monogamy were rewarded with a private pussy. You are speaking from your biology, not from your rational understanding of what we can expect in the future.
But you are wrong in your predictions – certainly wrong – if you can’t take into count the variables of changing technology.
Technology is not cyclical.
Random Xpat Rantings 
Technology won’t save us though brah if WW3 pops of
Just saying
Exactly. I didn’t mention the military implications of technological change, as the cognitive dissonance of trying to understand such a high a level of existential threat would wipe out all ability to process the post at all. Nobody wants to know.
You got it.
Which really is another good reason to not waste time trying to “save” society, and just get on with it and deal with it as it is right now, to personal advantage.
The issue then becomes one of how to maximize a good lifestyle. For some that will still be through family. For others it will be serial and parallel monogamy. Some will pump and dump. No matter which path, a red pill solution that doesn’t depend on society helping you is the only rational solution I can see.
I tend to agree with you, Xsplat. For the fun of playing devil’s advocate, I will just offer this:
If current dysgenic trends happen to outpace technology, or at least outpace the effective spread of technology, there could theoretically be a point at which the negatives outweigh the positives and a tiny minority of white innovators simply can’t keep up with massive waves of black, SE Asian, and Aztec breeders. Hyper-clean drug-research labs and massive space telescopes simply can’t exist in broken societies.
You’re really making two points here, as I can see it. One, technology continues to change whether sadsacks like it or not. And Two, it’s really not so catastrophic if humanity has to take a step back in terms of material prosperity. I totally agree with the second point, though I of course would lament the brutality that would inevitably result from a severe economic downturn (whether in the US or the Phils or wherever).
Regarding the first point, about technology, the sadsacks might actually be sneaking in a valid point through the back door. I agree with your general proposition that the main psychological factor at play is that certain people don’t want to see their own genetic strategy disadvantaged. (And that’s perfectly understandable of them, as you point out.) But it’s not inconceivable that a total breakdown of the structures that led to our current technological society could result in a breakdown of technology itself.
You are right to say that technology is not cyclical. But technology doesn’t happen in a vacuum. To take an extreme example, if every person on Earth was replaced tomorrow with an African person, utter chaos would be the immediate and permanent result. There would be no spaceships or birth control pills or whatever other technology you can think of. Maybe in a few thousand years another innovative group would evolve (in fact, almost certainly), but the interim would be fucking ugly and bloody and miserable. And you can’t fault people for wanting to avoid such a scenario. It’s kind of like Asimov’s “Foundation” series, if you’ve ever read it.
Now, of course, the real world is not as dramatic as that. Things happen pretty gradually on a genetic level. And they happen pretty fast on a technological level. So again that’s why I tend to agree with you and why all of this is really just intended as some stimulating devil’s advocacy. But you can’t automatically dismiss the doomsayers by calling them losers and citing technology. Technology does in fact depend on at least SOME level of sane, quiet, hard-working, intelligent, innovative, and deep-time-oriented people.
I don’t think things will get so bad that technology literally stops and reverses. But it’s not some sort of crazy, sex-starved, loser-ish position to argue that it COULD.
It is a tiny elite of the best and the brightest who create the cad-cam blueprints that our computerized robots use to manufacture our stuff. What percent of the population are currently involved in innovating new technologies?
A minute fraction.
Our technological progress does not rely on the masses. It needs a razor thin slice of elites to function. And the size of the required elite shrinks every day, as we gain processes that automate design and manufacturing.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some day a computer will help you print out a customized gerbil on your home biological printer. Or custom pterodactyl.
But like you say – it all about how long it takes for us to biologically and electronically enhance ourselves, and our babies. Once we can do that, then it makes no difference how stupid the current set of breeders are.
Did you know that it is currently possible to infect people with a virus, and alter their genes? And that we currently know of several genes related to IQ? This is not some future science I’m talking about. If I had the desire, I could put together some funding and throw together a clandestine research lab and infect intelligence on the masses. We currently have that technology. I know it sounds unbelievable and futuristic, but I’m not exaggerating or being funny. We currently have this technology. What is today routinely being done with using viruses to genetically alter people can be adapted to change any gene we like. It’s just a matter of sitting people down in a lab to do it.
And facebook 212.0 is going to be sharing our emotions and memories over the menta-net. The children who learn at a young age to do this will have a borg over-mind, and may decide to wipe out or merely financially enslave all the non-borgs.
The concerns we have now regarding race are trivial, old school. They will be all but meaningless soon eough.
Even if what I’m talking about takes 5 generations (which is very unlikely), it doesn’t matter. In one generation all babies can be engineered, or infected with genetic engineering viruses.
Viruses, man. Viruses.
Oh, and did you know that we have already modeled on a massive array of computers a working mouse brain – every synapse modeled? We’re working on doing that with a HUMAN BRAIN already. Science fact. And we already can integrate neurons with computer chips. It was years ago already that we taught rat neurons on a chip to fly a flight simulator of a 747. So we will certainly soon be able to use electronic modules to plug into the brain to replace broken modules or enhance existing functionality.
And how far off can it be before we start incorporating senses from other animals into people? How about a fish’s midline? A pidgeons feeling for magnetic north? Seeing polarized light? Or if that’s too ugly, we can hook up to such senses wirelessly – become a dolphin wirelessly. But what is unknowable are what mental faculties we can eventually create. We have a triune brain now. What will we be able to do with a quatraine brain?
There will come a time when we plug babies and small children, who have very adaptable and plastic brains, into such electronic devices. No one can now say what will be mentally possible. And when they borg up wirelessly?
This is not some distant future I’m talking about. All of the building blocks are the science present. We already have remote controlled pidgeons and rats and cockroaches.
Seriously, the concerns on manosphere blogs about our future are so trivial and so incredibly far from our real concerns. The only explanation about why they are important is that these are not rational concerns at all – it’s the same doomsday fearmongering that the family men have been using for thousands and thousands of years. It’s an evolutionarily evolved sexual strategy to distribute the resource of vagina among loyal beta family oriented males.
A hundred or a thousand years ago you heard the same arguments. God will smite our village if the women won’t stop fucking around! He told me so!
I’m not saying there are no consequences to socio-sexual lifestyle changes. I’m just saying that we are facing changes on an exponentially larger scale, and that these upcoming changes so dwarf the socio-sexual changes as to make them trivial to the point of meaningless.
Technological progress is dependent on a tiny slice of the population, yes. Given that resources are becoming scarcer, and the economic utility of the lower classes continues to decline, concentration of remaining wealth is the obvious outcome. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing.
People are competing with computers and machines for low-level jobs, and they have to bid very very low to stay in the game again that kind of competition.
Meanwhile, the economy shrinks because rich people simply don’t consume as much as poor people. If one man has as much income as a thousand families does he buy 1000 cars? Of course not. He buys one really good one and keeps his surplus funds invested.
Personally I don’t see this as a bad thing. Our natural resources are finite. Better to spend them on high tech research then on baubles for the masses. Rich people will fund technologies like super fast communications or advanced medicine. They won’t waste our economy’s scarce resources on millions of identical iPhones.
Being on the destruction of the mass market, it’ll keep this thing going a little bit longer, maybe even long enough for us to survive to the next stage, whatever that is.
Hey xsplat, haven’t read your blog for a while since it seemed you stopped blogging; thankfully you seem to have picked it up again! I think it’s a very interesting topic that you address here, one that isnt talked about nearly enough, but while its interesting to speculate on how these changes are going to affect our lives I think its more interesting to focus on how we can direct this anger of beta males towards something more productive.
Speaking from my own experiences the thrills gained from competing for resources with other males don’t compare the just balanced feeling I get from living in a “fair” society, however ridiculously naive that may sound. I tried my hand at mixed martial arts and surprisingly was quite good at it but I just can’t get the same kind of monkey-howling motivation that some other men have for competition. Same goes for attracting women; I just feel like some biological freak elephant seal male who must put down his fellow males in the zero-sum sexual marketplace in order to hump some female……which is then supposed to be the greatest thrill a man can achieve!
I don’t know why its so hard to feel superior to other men; maybe its neuroticism or inability to handle stress or some feeling of unfairness about judging someone for physical qualities outside of their influence or the fact that every single fucking bitchass person keeps lying to themselves or others yet hypocritically judges others for uttering the same fucking bitchass lies.
Thing is, and my sentiments I believe are shared among many beta males, that this kind of attitude isn’t exactly happiness-enhancing and when out of control would probably lead to the kind of public shootings in cinema’s that we just had. Roissy already speculated about the shooters not getting laid, but I don’t think a simple dry spell motivates people to commit such murders. I rather think it’s a sort of sacrifice; an effort to lay down ones life (like males are biologically predisposed to do) for an ideal society that never existed.
I suppose that’s where the neuroticism kicks in: their vision of an utopian society has rules that currently no one is willing to follow and using vigilante justice the shooters retaliate against these percieved slights. Anyway I see that this reply could be construed as whining about the weather but then you can just leave this post for the rant that it is.
fuck this shit
Ya, I want to be careful not to come across as judging these instincts for group sacrifice and policing group behavior to meet strict social standards.
Of course I’m more independently minded, and as a more artisan class type of personality have a very different outlook than the soldier and police and bureaucrat personalities.
But the human condition is a system of castes. The guys who are naturally very interested in following and fitting in and maintaining a workable social order have obviously done quite well for themselves, evolutionarily speaking. Their sexual strategy has moved their predisposition affecting genes into a large part of the population. About 40% of humans have the strong moral disposition to respect authority, for instance.
But my point is that these instincts can’t stand alone from our environment, and our environment is now changing fast due to technology. PUAs are now complaining that smart phones and facebook have made it harder to compete for attention with women. In just 5 years the whole dating market has changed. And that’s from something as minor as a website.
The instinct that many have to influence society towards family values is neither good nor bad – it just is. But nowadays, because of changing technology, that instinct is much less effective than it used to be.
Maybe in small Mormon communities that instinct still gives the desired effect. But for anywhere where there is anonymous urban living, a service economy where women can earn their own money, and birth control, no amount of shaming can compete with the options available to women.
I’m not saying these instincts are bad or stupid, I’m just saying, first of all, don’t confuse the instincts with rational thinking. It’s an unstoppable inner hampster that is in some of us. These are strong instinctual drives. About as strong as the drive to have babies. It doesn’t matter WHY you want babies, you just do. Explaining why is letting the hampster talk. It’s an instinct that can talk, not a rational reason that you agree with through your feelings.
So yes, it’s going to cause some internal stress when these instincts are no longer as useful to mens sexual strategy.
Good answer man, very analytical. No shaming nor useless emoting. Thanks for your time, keep on writing
ah wait, there is this feeling of satisfaction; too bad i only got it when I knee’d a guy in the face during a match. yeah!
You talk about a tiny tech elite controlling progress of tech. Ok that argument can certai ly be made. Now doesnt it stand to reason they to are competing for resources and are not altruistic? Now having stated that, why wouldnt they just kill off or remove the fires of Prometheus from the Idiocracy masses?
Chicks might not dig nerds but they love bad boys, and nothing says bad boy like the power over life and death of millions. Revenge of the nerds?
The doom argument I understand as less people born and much later, and on top less incentivised to advance technologie more than suits their own needs, societal considerations less important. Leads to stagnation of advances
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: Truncated Moving Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: Does Banging Sluts Ruin Everything? | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: The Collapse « Free Northerner
“Our technological progress does not rely on the masses. It needs a razor thin slice of elites to function.”
That is simply not the case, the inter connectedness of technology is bewildering and the amount of effort to produce simple technologies is astounding.
Thomas Thwaites shows just how hard it is to produce a simple toaster.
http://mattstohrer.com/2011/01/12/it-takes-an-entire-civilization-to-build-a-toaster/
The more complex a society is the more precarious and suseptible it is to black swan shocks.
History is replete with dark age periods steeming from seemingly innocuous events, volcanoes, barbarian invasions, disease etc.
Agree with Johnycomelately. While it took, essentially, one person to invent Facebook, there was a whole ‘system’ behind him. Others did something on a smaller scale; he was at an elite university; he had the knowledge and skills, etc. This did not come out of a vacuum.
If the average beta-male begins to not see the value in being a hard-working drone, he may opt out of the rat race. Yes, he needs to eat, but he can live at home until he’s 30 (with little risk of judgement nowadays) and he can work at a lower paying job. He may still purchase the latest iPhone and laptop, but he won’t be spending money on other consumer goods including car, house, clothes, etc.
There will still be a number of people that will go to university for STEM. But they will always be the minority. We know women make up 60% of university students essentially studying useless liberal arts degrees. So, as usual, it will be men who sustain society. When an increasingly large segment drops out and lives a cheaper lifestyle, this impacts the economy which will invariably, impact the development of new technologies.
Factor in an ever-expanding, bloated, debt and deficit-ridden government (all across the Western world), largely due to minorities and women (esp. single women) essentially living off the system either directly (subsidies) or indirectly (affirmative action, legislation) and you run the risk of a ‘societal collapse’. Now, I doubt the Mad Max scenario either. But, a scaled down Western world with barbarians at the gates (and idiots within the gates) does not bode well for a productive future.
Factor in falling birthrate and we can see the West being overrun by less civilized peoples.
In terms of technological change, look at NASA. Where are they? in 1969 one would reasonably expect a base on the Moon and even a fledgling outpost on Mars with Man having possibly visited Pluto. What happened? Presumably there is no shortage of well educated people interested in space exploration. Affirmative action, and aging base – older men wanting a cozy lifestyle, changing priorirites (‘climate change’) and where are we?
Re: designer babies, etc…maybe but there is a limit to genetics. We can only work with what exists. Factor in fewer and fewer babies from civilized people and I don’t see it happening.
I’m not suggesting there will be a societal collapse, but there will be a steady decline and technology, without a strong economic (and sexual in a sense) incentive will not reverse the decline.
Economic decline is likely, and you’ve mentioned some good reasons to expect that.
Technological decline I can’t see, nor even a decline in technological progress. That appears to be accelerating, with no end in sight.
I hear what you are saying about some men being less inclined to work quite so hard, if they won’t be rewarded with a lifetime wife for the efforts. I can believe that can have some economic impacts. But technological growth relies on more than grunt work from a mass of motivated people. It builds upon itself, which is why the growth seems to at an exponential rate lately. Faster computers allow for better modeling systems allow for a faster rate of innovation allows for faster computers.
Bring in any forms of artificial intelligence, and technological progress will rely even less on a mass of motivated grunt workers.
But ya, motivation might negatively affect productivity. Even as technology continues to increase it.
Xsplat your rantings about aloofness make perfect sense for my own approach style and are needed, but when get out of your realm and enter into politics your personal biases lose you. Even now a decline in the technological innovation rate is beginning to be noticed and not by manospherians but for mainstream analysts, investors and scientists http://www.cientifica.com/the-stagnation-of-innovation/ http://www.cientifica.com/a-focus-on-apps-misses-the-big-ideas/ and much more. It´s true that faster computers will be able to perform calculations beyond conventional systems capabilities, for now the ultimate responsability for the data analysis and decision making lies in the human element (at least until the advent of REAL AI, something I wouldn’t encourage since most likely would be the demise of what remains of human reasoning).
The fact that your cellphone is more advanced than a few years back doesn’t mean that “technology is advancing faster than ever”, especially when one makes comparisons of real world appliances and sees how similar they are in process flow to their original designs fifty years ago or more (have you travelled recently?, do you believe flight which includes aircraft, cabines, customer service, travel speeds etc it´s more advanced than say in the 90’s. ). In reference to your white example, I would simply say the white trash of your own country (I am not Anglo), the chavs that plague the lower ranking neighbourhoods in Britain and propagation of these lifestyles onto the rest of the white population (lower SAT scores per year, stagnation of entrepreneurship in most of the West due to stifling regulations and taxes). Most likely won´t live enough to see the utter collapse of the U.S. and the West even if I reach the 70s but partial collapse of course I will. By partial collapse I mean curtailment of liberties and suspension of guarantees in events of “emergency” as well as the emergence of a real totalitarian regime.
It’s a pity but well in South America your passion style works better so hopefully I will be enjoying myself when this occurs. But I am not so emotionally invested in my life to not see the black clouds in the horizon.
“I want to know what happens to WHITE society. Show me a WHITE example.”
Easy. End of the Roman Empire. Sack of Troy. Near depopulation of Germany in (I believe) the Thirty Years War.
I’m not historically literate enough to understand all the various causes and effects that moulded and changed those societies. And having had no first hand experience living in them, I’d always question the historians viewpoints.
Do you have more contemporary examples, more relevant to out our modern times and technologies and economies?
‘Do you have more contemporary examples, more relevant to out our modern times and technologies and economies?’
That doesn’t leave many possibilities. If you want examples with a heavy bias towards modern technology, then you’ve only got the last fifty years or so. Mechanisation of industry, and widespread use of electronic appliances is a highly modern phenonema. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union and a few financial crises, high inflation in Brazil, UK or wherever, the 1970s Oil Crisis, there simply are no other examples of societal collapse/accelerated decay to choose from.
Though in truth it isn’t the ‘collapse’ that you should be concerned with, rather the YKW mentality that decimated the Russian population with GULAGs, forced labour, environmental devastation, and thought crime from 1919 to 1989. The prison population is growing in the UK and the US (predominantly lower class men I might add) and the prisoners are being put to work just like GULAG prisoners were: felling trees and mining gold to sell to the Yankees to pay for the communist system. The slave trade is alive and well, the only difference is that the state is acting as an arbiter, a middle man, who hires out the workers to the corporations for a pittance. Corporations will benefit from super cheap labour, and the government will claim that they are making criminals ‘contribute back to society’. And the public wont say a thing. Slave labour is what you should be concerned about (if that’s what you want to concern yourself with), not a ‘collapse’ of family life, of relations between males and females.