Needless natalists are so annoying.

>>39208
My brother's got me covered, so I don't need to do anything. I'd also rather destroy the people ruining society for those living in it than be hopelessly optimistic that somehow bringing someone else into the world will fix it.

>>39209
>than be hopelessly optimistic that somehow bringing someone else into the world will fix it
Even if it's done mindlessly (say a random walk, where each human generation is a step), crude statistical arguments suggest you should have optimism and hope that continued reproduction will result in an "improved" society from current moment, at some point. Similar reasoning can be used to show society will get worse but that's a tradeoff you make for having a changing system.
Mindlessly destroying people or worse, destroying people and being wrong about said people, would have a retarding effect on the possible rate of improvement. And if you suppose that society is currently in a "bad" state, destroying people at all, poses more risk to society staying "bad" longer than just mindlessly reproducing.

>>39213
You're probably right, but at the same time until I see some reason to believe that we'll have anything to make the world less of a hellhole of greed and land capture, like mass water desalination or abundant clean energy, I don't think it's worth bringing in more people to use up the finite resources we already struggle to use. I also don't want to feed into the system that desires me to have more kids for them to sell to and turn into mindless consumers/worker drones to prop themselves up.

But maybe there's reason to not care about that and instead passing on my ideology to offspring may have a chance of causing it to spread further, and if I were to raise them right and away from the public schooling system they'd turn out far better than I did and maybe more capable of realizing my goals of TTD far easier than myself. I just need to make sure that they're not hooked on some worthless junk media to rot their brain and instead are pushed towards more mind-expanding and developing media/games/study. The only problem is I'd need to find a woman who shares my desires to craft the perfect techie killing machine and I don't know where I'd ever find someone like that. Especially one that would be capable of keeping them in line at all times to make sure the plan for their success isn't corrupted. I'd find it unbearably hard to trust anyone but myself to make sure they turn out right.

I wonder how many people have realized that birthrates literally do not matter when it comes to the big picture.

Ultimately, humanity either gets wiped out by some engineered bioweapon, or the powers that be realize that the only surefire way of preventing such is to increase the population's genetic diversity to such an extent that disease can't effectively spread, at which point there'd be a big push to advance human bioengineering.

If such a push succeeds, it'd solve population growth as a nice side effect, and if not, well, humanity still gets wiped out by a bioweapon, rendering the whole point moot.

>>39214
I don't know if it's still a thing but there was a that "crunchy" and "cottagecore" fad that seemed to infect a lot of women. Also crystal ladies might share a similar aversion to the modern techno-feudal direction of society; even if it's just an aesthetic disagreement.
Getting off the practicality of dating, even taking your view of society as true, what is not true is that it will stay the same so long as time passes. Even the act of sustaining the machine should eventually cause it to collapse. We have millions of years of evolution to support such a conclusion.

There is worry that Man could create a "self-correcting" system but I think such a system requires a level of adaptability and internal evolution, that such a system would be unrecognizable to itself given enough time. And would ultimately just be the current system and trajectory we are currently in/on. Eventually things will change for the better just maybe not for us or next generation.

cronchy

>>39213
This makes no sense at all. If humans can't choose which people are bad then there is no metric for societal improvement. Mindless reproduction just sustains the population, that's all. The key point is that it shouldn't be mindless, we have brains...

>>39219
It doesn't matter who is bad or good or what side you choose. Unless you like the current state of society, reproducing is something you want to do, as it introduces a change agent (new person) into the system.

>>39221
It does matter because your entire premise is that things can be better and you can be optimistic. Optimistic.. for what? If you literally do not believe that things can be better because you have no metric for what is better, then what you're saying is pointless. It just boils down to the fact that things change. Which happens regardless of what anyone does or does not do, even not doing anything will lead to a change in state. Do you understand? You need to have some vague idea of what is better for anything you're saying to make sense.
And to be clear, this has nothing to do with whether you should have kids or not. You just aren't making sense.

>>39222
I am supposing you already have some idea of what is or isn't good.
Obviously if you are a brain dead retard with no concept of morality, reproduction has no meaning or benefit outside of the rush of pleasure you get from it.
Assuming you have a moral framework and you do not like where society is currently at, a "random walk" strategy of just reproducing will result in society getting "better; from your point of view, at some point in time, for some amount of time.

>It just boils down to the fact that things change
This is literally all I am saying, with the caveat for things to change "we" need to reproduce. If "we" don't reproduce there will be no future change in society as society will stop taking steps in it's "walk" through time.

>>39223
Humanity in any recognizable sense have been around for only like 50,000 years, I don't think there's enough time for that to be true. Although certainly things will change and by random chance be more inline with someone's idea of a better tomorrow.

I want to do non-committal mass reproduction without touching anyone or leaving any extra traces. Just to inflate population numbers, abortion numbers. That'd be really fun.

>>39213
Not reproducing is as much a catalyst for change as much as introducing new members. In nature these are selection events. The blade cuts both ways. By not participating OP effectively denies the population any of his positive traits. In fact he is essentially a loose cannon, because without children any stake in the status quo is much more tenuous. If he lives for anything it is much more ethereal and so is his existence. If it gets denied for whatever reason he can throw it all away for revenge. Other people have done so for less. It can become extremely difficult to ply someone like this.
Even if he ultimately sits in his room all day, he is an agent of change. Moreso than any middle-aged young family man. The sustained campaign against neets is a testament to this fact.
People do not make these choices in a vacuum. OP is not the only one there are many, many other like him to the point that the mainstream media inevitably needs to touch upon the demographic crisis or why young people aren't having enough kids. Enough people do this and the whole system inevitably starts shifting.
The dragnet isn't designed to predict what the masses will do, it's what the outliers will do, and as their numbers grow and they become more detached they will only become more important.
>Mindlessly destroying people or worse...
This happens all the time. Natural disasters, accidents, war? Destruction is a form of change too. It doesn't necessarily need to be in this way but people are too stupid and greedy so it happens anyway.

It's disingenuous to post an anime girl. Unless we ended up in some literal Matrix analogue you can't have kids with anime girls.
Why don't you post actual 3D women instead?

We all know why...