Friday, 11 July 2014

Going Backwards Genetically

The whole world seems to be going backwards, in the sense of breeding and genetics.

I have thought for a while that feminism was almost deliberately-aimed at destroying civilisation. Telling women that they don't need a man, that they deserve an education, that they are capable of having a career just like a man, that they can have a life that is fabulous and far better than any man can provide. Female Esau's, selling their birthright.

A perfect recipe for having no children at all, or defective children later in life.

So our better women go down the tubes reproductively, wasting their prime child-bearing years chasing ultimately-futile dreams. Leaving the impulsive garbage types to pump out five different children to five different men, while the putative mother has a fine time with sex, drugs and alcohol. The drugs and alcohol can have their effects on the children, shitty home lives with a mother in constant turmoil, worthless men for father-figures, perhaps even being born with STDs from the get-go.

On the dime of me and the stupid bright girls who don't want bright bastards like myself. At least, not until their ovaries are shrivelled up and they're reproductive toast at the age of 35.

Much too late chicky-babe.

Looking at the credentialism gone wild, where the universities push their agenda, brainwash the graduates into getting huge debts for fluff degrees. Women encouraged to find themselves rather than doing what they should be doing: birthing and bringing up the next generation of children.

No next generation of children, your civilisation goes down the hole, outbred by impulsive idiots who couldn't keep things going even if they wanted to. They'd much rather suck off the teat of the productive: useless people tend to be lazy bastards.

Socialism in a nutshell, then they wonder why the productive people look at the shitty deal and laugh and walk away.

Never mind. Stupidity (doesn't) breed it's own rewards.


  1. In one sentence:
    "Humanity is a victim of its own success",
    attribution unknown.

    1. I totally agree - and I'll add: "willing victim" to that.

    2. Some simple math:
      An average menstrual cycle lasts 28 days. Between menarche at the age of 12-13 and the menopause at the age 45-55, how many released oocytes will be there? Assuming no pregnancies and no anovulatory cycles. Assuming no double ovulations as well (which happen sometimes - as dizygotic twins prove).
      About 13 ovulations per year, for 32-43 years. The number is 489, average of 417 and 561.

      Not exactly "reproductive toast". Still, many risks rise significantly with maternal age.

      Internet is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

    3. [...]in postmenarchal girls, about 80% of the cycles are anovulatory in the first year after menarche, 50% in the third and 10% in the sixth year.[...]
      So the final number is a little lower

    4. Have you ever wondered how screwed would be the possible situation with half-sibling twins happening? With so many people on Earth, I'm sure that happened already.

      From the perspective of the mother, it's a godsend, if both fathers chip in. From the fathers'... a shortened life expectancy, one way or another. A waking nightmare.

    5. Under 28 years of age, 12.5% (1 in 8) of women are infertile aka sterile. Mostly due to STDs that have no obvious effect - ie they don't know. I knew a girl who had it happen to her at age 12-13.

      Women start becoming clucky at age 30, the manifestation of their body going on to its last gasp of reproductive ability. Higher chances of genetic issues (Downs Syndrome for example).

      The chances of having a Down's syndrome baby increase with age. At 20, the risk is one in 1,529; at 25, one in 1,351; at 30, one in 910; at age 35, one in 384; at 40, one in 112; and at 45, one in 28. However, most Down's syndrome babies are born to women aged between 25 and 30, as statistically that is the average age when most babies are conceived. (Source: DailyMail.)

      Most women (95%) have used up 90% of their eggs by age 30. (Source: Telegraph Health.) This is why even IVF has problems "taking" with older age (stats elsewhere on this blog).

      These three tendencies are why I use the term "reproductive toast" in reference to women of 30+ years age. Anovulatory hassles would seem to make the situation worse than I expected.

      Half-sibling twins probably have occurred. I concur, a very screwed situation.

    6. The most pressing problem with deteriorating eggs is their quality, not quantity.