Would we solve dating and social issues by having less men?

All men are competition for other men.
In Stoneage most men died very early hence most didn't have offspring.
Medieval times we had wars.
Right now 105 guys for 100 girls.
Should we abort a bunch of male children by random selection?
70 guys per 100 girls seem reasonable
I'm not even nazi.

Attached: 11121-emma-roberts-main.jpg (420x245, 46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

indexmundi.com/australia/age_structure.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No dumbass without men competing for pussy we would still be in the stone age

Well we got robots now. Well almost.

Miners = machine
Factories = machines
Truck driver = machine
Warehouse operator = machines
Store clerk = machines

Lot's of guys without jobs, you expect universal income to fill in?

Or you think you are hotter than the average because oddly online every guy is well over 6ft, 7/10 in looks, with an IQ of 120. they make over 100k in a year. etc.

But how it's issues if all female have partners? It's issues only for beta lossers.

/thread

Why even have that drag on us, you still pay social security for them, you still pay their neetbux. Also less men make it easier for YOU to choose.

We won't be going back there ever.

just a bump for more views

>All men are competition for other men
Good to know that bonds of brotherhood mean nothing in Romania.
>In Stoneage most men died very early hence most didn't have offspring
Pretty sure the women would've died just as often.
>Medieval times we had wars
Quite possibly the only point in your favor, seeing as this did make men die more often than women, but consider this: most countries went to shit once most of their men died instead of becoming utopias.
>Right now 105 guys for 100 girls
Even in the times where the female population outnumbered the male (during and after wars, mostly) there were still single females. Reducing the male population doesn't make women date more.
>Should we abort a bunch of male children by random selection?
Why random? We could target those with birth defects, congenital diseases, insufficient height, or whatever. Eugenics is better than random culling for this kind of thing.
>70 guys for 100 girls seems reasonable
Wouldn't that increase competition between women? Surely we should be shooting for a 1:1 ratio.
>I'm not even nazi
Clearly not.

So much nitpicking, so little experience in the real world.

>Should we abort a bunch of male children by random selection?
How does that improve the species?
Not my problem you can't get a girl friend. That is natural selection.

Sweden has elected officials who have considered passing laws that a certain percentage of all male babies be castrated at birth.

>All men are competition for other men.
No, that is ridicolous.
The split is 50/50 for a reason, for every men there is women, at least in theory.

>70 guys per 100 girls seem reasonable
No, it is the worst thing you can possible to.
It can't solve any issues except eliminating monogamy altogether, creating AN EVEN BIGGER MESS THEN WE ALREADY HAVE.

>The split is 50/50 for a reason, for every men there is women, at least in theory.
Not anymore, we got more guys than girls.
104 guys per 100 girls among the young in Germany
People shitposting here are those 4 who will die alone.

That's a good start, but being unborn is better. If robots can replace you why stress the states resources?

>Wouldn't that increase competition between women?
Yessss women fighting for YOU fucking retard.
Women chasing you is bad? It's a sin? Did the Bible tell you that?

ultimately women should be employed by corporate people farms to produce children. the wider world would mostly be made up of men or manly women. Sexual desires will be limited in the future.
The traditional family is an inefficient way to create the next generation. The traditional family is literally bankrupting the developed world.

first of all, this has to a woman posting, because this makes absolutely no sense.

the birth rate is 51% women, 49% men. statistically.

So there are more women than men.

Second, if you had less men, to your degree. It would cause more problems than solve.

Men already fight and die for women. Imagine if the contest was even harder!
women and their "logic" never fails to amuse me.

Attached: czechfantasy.jpg (800x507, 86K)

Australia
indexmundi.com/australia/age_structure.html
15-24 years: 12.79% (male 1,524,368/female 1,446,663)
25-54 years: 41.45% (male 4,903,130/female 4,725,976)

More men than women, keep on coping if that helps you with your virginity.

people farm is an attention grabbing term. The traditional family is also a people farm, but a small scale one, like a backyard garden plot.
The human family needs to be scaled up so it is more efficient and logical. To conserve resources. By people farm, I mean more like a boarding school.

If in the boarding school all classes are sexology pls sign me up otherwise turn me gay or shoot me.

>Would we solve dating and social issues by having less men?

No, because you would just get invaded by another nation with more men.

We would have less issues if we had less white knights and more real men who don't drool over sluts and enable their retarded behavior.

what? source?

More guys means more thirst thus creates the coping false mating behaviors you described. Sjw think they will get laid with their shtick.

We'll globalize it then.

No, we just need another war. I mean real one, like world wars 1 ans 2, not modern proxy shit for banker shekels. Purpose of war isnt even important as much as act itself, it will solve not only problem you described, but most of problems of modern world. If we're lucky, kikes will be eradicated in process as well.

Tranny laws in Norway, he's trolling.

Large amount of unmarried single men has always been a destabilizing factor for civilization. It's not even news, even ancient cultures like Romans have whole myths about solving incel problem through war and sex slaves.

It's just that the now surplus men are becoming worse problem than ever. There will not be beta uprising, but a man without wife is pretty fucking more likely to commit crimes, be attracted by radicalis, fall into addictions and shoot up public places than a man with a woman and offspring.

Are you a muzsik?

How is this an argument?
Men would just compete for a few more, better pussies than their peers.

Competition doesn't stop if you reduce the number of competitors.
Also, wymenz also compete. They'd have to step up their game to get the better men.

Well there you go, finally the voice of reason. Less men means all men get laid without hurting anyone in the process. We can automatize a lots of jobs to compensate for it. This is the way.

>We'll globalize it then.

Good luck with that.... most places couldn't give a shit about your feminist agenda, and without sufficient males, you will basically get steamrolled.

It'll sort itself out. Nature always does.

Robot army.
Robot miners.
Robot truck drivers.
Robot factory workers.
Robot warehouse workers.

If a virgin high on meth shoots 30 men or blows up 500 it doesn't really. Your passive way is ludicrously dangerous.
t. Evropa right now

Why have humans at all? Why don't you step down OP and let the machine rule?

He's an amerimutt , all of them are "temporarly embarassed billionaires".

Now you pull autist logic on me. Do you want to operate a nuclear plant? No you don't. Robots will, but what about the guys who uses to do it, who gives them salary?

Weak nations and species are by default passive. No amount of rallying or ideals will change that. And even the strong will eventually be devoured.

Stop posting worst emma, faggot.

Attached: emma2.jpg (585x621, 46K)

No you are just talking about yourself in this case.

Who cares? If they can't adapt they don't deserve to get paid. No one has a right to life.

Fite me!

Attached: emma-roberts-beauty-evolution-10.jpg (1997x2996, 967K)

Ah so you are a nazi. Good to know.
I'm humane abort at birth no suffering in longterm for anyone.
Abort randomly so no genomic shit interference.

>attached to a concept of ego
You're literally a dog. No individual matters and time will claim you and everything you build.

>Robot army.
>Robot miners.
>Robot truck drivers.
>Robot factory workers.
>Robot warehouse workers.

and why would the robots do what you tell them?

This guy gets it.

Attached: brave_emma.jpg (1080x1080, 49K)

I did try to kms once.
I'm accustomed to death seen people go in hospitals.
I studied buddhism properly as well.
Thank you for your concern.

Well because they are dumb enough to do so, AI is still in it's infancy. They might not have our motives and fears. You are projecting human issues on non-human sentient beings.

Attached: empunch.jpg (1361x1020, 124K)

I think there’d be a whole lot less evil in the world with less men. But honestly, where’s the fun in that?

So why are you still actively struggling? Why should we be interested in your thoughts as an individual when you're mentally a child fresh out of the womb screaming out his existence?

So? People were happier in the stone age. Natty food, get to hang out with your mates all day hunting, fishing and fighting. All the hard and boring work is given to women. Barely any disease. Most men die violently so theres plenty of pussy to go around. Its basically all great unless you end up getting killed and because all the fighting in hand to hand it means if you survive its because you deserve to, not just that you got lucky.

>Well because they are dumb enough to do so

The how is it going to defeat your enemies?

reductio ad hominem

>People were happier in the stone age
Aha sure they were, go to the woods now and try it out for yourself.

""Dumb"" enough to follow us.

I really hate the term 'manosphere' but I have a bunch of views from across that landscape.
Even though I mostly lean pro-male I see your point. Life is unfair, the world always cleanses itself, yet the modern world has made it so people who would have otherwise died off can stay alive, live in comfort, and often breed too (uf they can talk to members of the opposite sex).
It's a harsh truth to endure, but men have always been the ones to be wiped out when nature decides it's time to sweep the floor. And men are evil bastards to other men. It's how the dynamics of life work.
The only reason the west and Japan have not seen a violent chaotic scenario with all these excess men is because chemicals and decadence have sedated those men. If it weren't for men being castrated cucks in the developed world, these guys who can't get pussy would have started raping and killing by now, and it wouldn't have been anything for the weak of heart to watch.

>""Dumb"" enough to follow us.

No, i'm saying if the AI is dumb enough to follow your commands, how is it going to defeat a human enemy that is smarter than you?

My shithole has no upward mobility. U mad poorfag?

They are logically smarter, physically faster, but obedient as slaves.

You don't say? Let's swap countries.

You would collapse society. The boon of monogomy was that almost all men ended up working. Society prospered because of that work.

Nah. I'd rather go back to being homeless here in the US.

Make sure you buy a good phone so you can keep on posting here.

dick face, hover over my flag. You fucking cock gobbler from romania.

i am not in australia

I would fix society.

You argue ego but won't back it up? You've basically suggested abuse of freedom for the benefit of some others. Why should anyone here take it as anything else but projection on your behalf?

Attached: 7e333b41.jpg (716x960, 67K)

Cayman Islands is a meme. Only exists in wikipedia.

The one should serve the many. It was always so.

that just means even more women per chad

>should
But it is not so. Your ideals are equal to everyone else's. If I'm opposed to your ideas and there is no compromise shall we fight till death?

Yes, oil wrestling. Punch me in the butt if you can.

you also dont account for quality in your ratio.
105:100 doesnt mean eligible or pairable. mgtow, obesity, poorness, lazyness, feminism, liberalism, handicaps, location, all dramatically affect compatibility. your ratio is just untrue in terms of mate pairing.

in regards to your desire for ratio control, as a brain equipped with a penis im ok with 1.X girls per man, but without any real idea of the pairable ratio that currently exists i dont think it would be wise to intentionally try to edit that number. you clearly want more girls, but what if 50% of them are dykes and you are really creating 70:50 instead of 70:100.

in the end the best political choice in most situations is non intervention.

It took you 2 posts to serve yourself. Nice one OP.

yes. it only takes one man to impregnate every woman on earth.
that being said, dating/social issues are not the only aspects of our reality, they're part of a much more complex ecosystem
50-50 men women seems to be the way to go.

banning polygamy will solve a LOT of social issues. no divorce, forced marraiges would solve a lot of issues too.

>non intervention
Sounds nice at a spirituality course.

>it only takes one man to impregnate every woman on earth
Okay 30 guys per 100 women then.

based on what

Cucks who make these 'solve women' threads are not competition. In fact, you should probably all fuck off to /r9k/

I am an honorable man.

No aborting is necessary. Just leave it to nature.

Evolution. No competition = stagnation.

Adult virgins create a mess. Less melodrama, your option is why have sanitation if we can breed people immune to cholera by shitting in the street every day.

You're a child projecting his own failures. Grow up.

lick my balls i can prove it 9 ways to sunday i live here.

Romania is the fucking meme. Nothing but slavs and hookers

Ruthless eugenics. Very nazi idea.

I don't think we need more competition, but there is a drastic difference between men of the top and the bottom. It's causing terrible thing to the births rates. Is it because women are too picky? Or are men the problem? If men are a problem, what is it truly (it goes deeper than the soy syndrome, not being a bodybuilder and political views) and why is it that way? Maybe "normal" men are giving up?

I am over 25 by long.

Yes I know I pay for sex regularly.

Less natural selection means more soyboys. The soyboy is genetic.

>very nazi idea
As is your "let's dictate who gets to live by gender and random selection".

We'll see it for sure after we run my experiment first.

That's a necessity based on current situation. No ethnical group or income class share be spared.

>They are logically smarter, physically faster, but obedient as slaves.

why would they agree to be your slaves if they are smarter than you?

They are programmed to be so.

What necessity? It's just you wanting stuff.