Can we talk about this? More and more and more and more, sex and reproduction are being completely severed in public consciousness. Sex might not always have been about reproduction, but it was always associated with it in our minds. And all reproduction came from sex. But more and more and more sex and reproduction are seen as almost antagonistic, and things like artificial insemination are becoming more common. I think gay marriage is the big thing, since it completely destroys marriage as an institution and public symbol of sex as the source of family.
Are any of you familiar with The Dialectic of Sex? It's a feminist work from the 1970's, but one of its major ideas is that pregnancy has to be done away with for men and women to be equal, and all children should be artificially incubated once the technology is there. Does anyone worry about this eventually happening? All babies will be designed, natural babies will be frowned upon.
I believe it's the natural progression of human evolution. If we have the means to create superior beings (which these designer children inevitably will be), someone will do so. Natural selection will do its work over a period of time, and soon sex and the genitals will be solely associated with pleasure.
>>494491
What if that leads to a caste system? natural babies doing all the menial labor.
You've been duped into thinking evolution is Whig history.
>>494439
>Does anyone worry about this eventually happening? All babies will be designed, natural babies will be frowned upon.
What would the Church's position on this be?
It sounds revolting but might not necessarily be 'sinful'
>>494531
The Church would be against it. There is no doctrinal response because it's not a major thing yet, but the possibility has a lot of negative reaction in the Church's theology.
shouldn't the opposite be true? with artificial insemination, it just gives gay marriage the legitimacy of family rather than it be sexual deviance and abstinence from family-building. it only reinforces marriage as an institution, not destroy it.
>>494572
personally the idea seems like another tower of babylon
>>494632
But it severs the sexual couple's act as a foundation, which is really what underlies the whole "couple" parental formula to begin with. Without it, a single parent who just wants to raise a child on her own, or four guys is a rompy open relationship, have no reason to be any less desirable or legitimate. It destroys parenthood.
The dissociation between sex and reproduction is a common feature of decadent civilization.
>The whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit.... For as men had fallen into such a state of luxury, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or, if they married, to rear the children born to them, or at most but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance the evil insensibly but rapidly grew.
Polybius
>The partial emancipation of woman was accompanied by a revolt against wholesale maternity, and the limitation of the family became the outstanding social phenomenon of the age. Abortion was punishable only if practiced by a woman against the wish of her husband, or at the instigation of her seducer. When a child came it was in many cases exposed. Only one family in a hundred, in the old Greek cities, reared more than one daughter: "Even a rich man," reports Poseidippus, "always exposes a daughter." Sisters were a rarity. Families with no child, or only one, were numerous.
Will Durant
There is no need to worry, though. Even if Europeans do not reproduce anymore, Africans have no qualms about such things, that's why the future belongs to them.
>>494719
>only one family in 100 reared more than one daughter.
The last part sounds more a symptom of sexism and strongly enforced societal gender roles on all girls
>women barred from most professional jobs and education
>all women discouraged from working extensively because muh child bearing
I'm not saying the latter isn"t important (especially in that day with high infant death) but stringent gender roles made it harmful.
People would rather kill the daughter as a result then say, let her work as an artisan instead of forcing her to get married.
Really counter productive.
>>494439
Not exactly the same thing, but one thing I've read up about, and there is shockingly little academic or popular discourse to the implications of this, is how DANGEROUS giving birth used to be.
15th century Italy? Chance of mother dying in the month following giving birth? 1 in 5. When you add in the fact that most women would get pregnant more than once in their lives, you realize that a lot of pre-modern medicine societies were ones that had a lot more adult males than adult females, as most women would die by 30 at the very latest.
(It's also probably at least one reason women would go into convents).
At the very least, you'd expect the feminist historians to be jumping up and down on it as the primary that women haven't had equal opportunities throughout some 99% of our species' existence, but even that is a pretty muted cry. And if you want to look into questions of things like why people were so willing to commit war rapes, or just militancy in general, that's a pretty important fact that usually just gets glossed over.
why is this thread titled "Motherhood" when it is instead about designing babies?
>>494810
That is true, and I wish guys who toot their horns about how women had it easy back then and men had to risk their lives in war and so on, would heed this. Both men and women had to risk their lives for society, and the woman's part was every bit as hazardous as a soldiers.
But society, including feminism is working to denigrate motherhood (except in the case of single moms) for a reason. Non-single motherhood is having all value taken out of it, at best it is being presented as something you're a victim of.
>>494834
It's about the effort to abolish motherhood.
>>494439
The problem is as much economic as it is social. Any capable of formulating a cost-benefit analysis realizes its not beneficial to have kids. The stupid don't realize this nor do they take precautions so they have kids anyway. The smart are breeding less and less and the dumb more and more. They made an exaggerated movie about this called Idiocracy.
I consider myself to be intelligent (I'm white), and I'm going to have kids anyway. Our ancestors have gone through far greater troubles than raising children in today's society. We must remain strong and strive on despite the system being designed against us.
>>494875
>Any capable of formulating a cost-benefit analysis realizes its not beneficial to have kids
smart people have been doing pretty well despite low fertility rates, what makes you think there will be any significant change in the future?
>>494839
But that's the problem though..haven't you heard of feminism that focused on women keeping their roles and fighting for them to instead be recognized as much as male roles? They tried but women just will not obtain the same recognition as men for sticking to their roles. Men treated and still do treat those roles as not as note worthy as male roles.
>>494439
I don't know but considering Europe's birth-rates they ought to be thankful immigrants are going there since the native populace can't sustain itself for long.
>>494810
>shockingly little academic discourse
uhh, this is pretty well known senpai. the reason death rates were so high is because a majority of children didn't live past five. If you survived into adulthood, chances are you could live into your fifties.
Who cares about birth rates anymore? If you can mechanize why waste space with more humans?
>>494962
it's not so much about humans, but what type
if you have blacks, they're likely to be niggers
asians are mostly soulless
indians would be literally why
whites are going to be middle-class drug doing liberla degenerates
really desu, it's probably better to sterilize the entire human race
>>494908
They aren't going after the male roles, because the general role today is neither male nor female. As Veblen put it, "Virtually the whole range of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as woman's work in the primitive barbarian community." A great deal of functions were performed by women from the get go, they only beginning to be performed by men when they were moved outside of the home. The first big dichotomy was seperating the workplace and the household. The next big dichotomy was redefining the male's role as "laboring outside the house". The truth is that the genderless role was created a long time ago to supplant both the male and female roles, it was never a male role.
>>494969
>asians are most soulless
I hate this stormfag meme, its like they don't even realize they're a parody of those blacks they love to hate
>w-whites invented everything! de yellow debul jus' stole it from us! we wuz rome!!!
>muh creativity! muh dik!
>>494719
Population projections are total shit.
>Hey let's assume that nothing changes within 100 years.
It's as stupid as projecting 1950's South Korea and going, whoops it's doomed to fail.
>>494875
>Idiocracy
*tips fedora*
