Koreans are allowed collective defense. Whites are not.

if we want more children we simply have to make them an asset and people will respond.

No they will not respond because people don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. Are you an alien from Mars who reproduces by spore pod explosion? If you are I suggest you read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.

As for fruit picking. I’ve done this and many people would rather not have children than work those jobs

Sounds like you are from mars.

Google Cars s self drive, Roomba’s vacuum rooms pretty well and robots can make burgers all all right now. Roombas are consumer items

Google cars do not self drive. Never have, never will. They just have cruise control on steroids. As with regular cruise control, they would be insanely dangerous if they did not have at all times a human driver with his hands on the wheel and his feet on the pedals.

I have Roomba, it is no use. I stopped using it and hired a woman to come once a week and clean my house.

We are a few years off from more general ag robots,

No we are not. General ag robots, like self driving cars, require AI and AI is no closer than it has ever been. We cannot emulate elegans, how could we possibly emulate a man? We have a complete map of the elegans nervous system and have tools that can read out the functioning of every synapse in the worm in real time (there are not that many) and are no closer to emulating the worm than the man.

Dramatic fertility transitions, such as Japan’s and Thailand’s, don’t seem to be correlated with dramatic educational transitions.

Example 2: But what of Japan and Thailand? Generally as soon as their economies revived from WWII even slightly, a scramble for the emerging jobs took place with child-rearing adjusting accordingly.

So improved economic prospects reduces fertility, and impaired economic prospects reduces fertility. Your theory has marvelous explanatory power.

You’re a moron, Jim. I mentioned improved economic prospects not by themselves which would be paradoxical. I mentioned them *in relation to modern education/primogeniture*. Both modern education and primogeniture do not merely add to people’s wealth; what’s important–and what you missed–was that they add to people’s wealth in a way *that delays adulthood*.

So what evidence do you have of an abrupt extension of childhood in Japan 1948 caused by economic forces?

You are just pulling explanations out of the air ad hoc, without bothering to see if they fit particular cases. Demographic collapse, you assume, has to be something other than feminism and female emancipation, so you pluck anything that might cause demographic collapse, out of the air at random.

What is happening is not an extension of childhood for economic reasons, but a new phase between what used to be childhood (no sex, no responsibility, no power) and what used to adulthood (marriage, children, responsibility, and one starts getting power) The new phase is extended adolescence, from age fifteen to about age thirty where girls have power and no responsibility, and fuck a minority of males, and males have little responsibility and no power, and no opportunity to have children.

This new phase was also spectacularly visible during the early settlement of Australia, whereupon the authorities set about suppressing it with irons and the lash.

Australia’s early female settlers were, for the most part, young single women who were sent to Australia as punishment for stealing from their employers. They showed an astonishing inclination to screw males who could not possibly take care of children, and screw so many different males that it was impossible to ascertain paternity. They “were so strongly desirous of being with men that neither shame nor punishment could deter them”

They had already rebelled against patriarchal authority, and being sent to Australia separated them from any restraints of family or culture. The state was, at first a completely ineffectual substitute for customary authority.

To solve this problem, the state took action. The girls were given a choice of marriage or assignment. Most got married the day they arrived in Australia, to a man they had never met before or even spoken to before the marriage. The authorities did not bother to check if they were already married, but this was rarely a problem. They seldom were, and if they were, the husband was usually in England, hence irrelevant. Selection of a wife tended to be wordless. The girls were lined, up and males that the authorities had determined were suitable would wordlessly pick one. A girl could wordlessly refuse, but if she refused, and no one else picked her that she accepted, she got assigned to any suitable male who would have her. Those that fucked around despite their marriage or assignment got flogged. Marriage was permanent and irreversible. Assignment lasted many years, and commonly ended in marriage.

Eighteenth century Australia faced a massive outbreak of twentieth century female behavior with absolutely none of the supposed twentieth century causes. The problem was naturally rebellious females separated from the restraints imposed by family and polite society. Australia in the late eighteenth century tells us that this is simply how women behave if they are not stopped.

In the ancestral environment, paternal certainty, and paternal care of children, was forcibly imposed by men on women. Women have not been subject to selection for inclination to cooperate in this arrangement, because, throughout most of our evolutionary history, they did not get a choice.

A woman who is naturally inclined to cooperate in this arrangement is a virtuous woman, who, the Bible tells us, is hard to find. Unsurprisingly very few of the women sent to Australia were virtuous, necessitating crude and drastic measures by the authorities to recreate patriarchy, assigning particular women to particular men able to support them almost at random.

No

You are just making shit up at complete random.

Checking Wikipedia:

According to researcher Ezra Vogel, the word “salaryman” saw widespread use in Japan by 1930, “although the white-collar class remained relatively small until the rapid expansion of government bureaucracies and war-related industry before and during World War II.”[1]

So the salary man career path appeared eighteen years before the abrupt fertility collapse.

Everywhere we see female emancipation, we see fertility collapse. War makes no significant difference, peace makes no significant difference, prosperity makes no significant difference, poverty makes no significant difference.

Where females are not emancipated, (Afghanistan, Timore Leste, Japan before MacArthur), we see fertility doing fine, about four to seven children per woman, well above replacement.

Where marriage and divorce are in the hands of religions (Israel and the Philippines) we see fertility doing OK, reasonably above replacement.

Nothing else makes any readily detectable difference.

In countries were it is difficult to become independent, people are rather too comfortable not becoming independent. And crime is a problem where people allow it to be a problem. If marriage was easier and safer, people would be more inclined to shoot the Ferguson rioters from the rooftops and lynch the survivors.

Sounds like you are applying for jobs in a country or an environment where it is difficult to fire people. In such a country, it is unwise to hire people who you don’t know are going to show up on time, refrain from stealing stuff, refrain from assaulting the employer and the customer, refrain from vandalizing the office – and, of course, refrain from suing the employer or bringing charges against him for vague crimes impossible to disprove.

But this is, to some considerable extent, downstream of marriage and family formation. If the way to some pussy was to get a job and be able to support a wife and kids, considerably fewer people would call for laws that make employment impossible. The great majority of married people vote against such laws and the parties that support them. The great majority of unmarried people, particularly unmarried women, vote in favor of such laws and the parties that support them.

If only male property owning heads of household could vote, such laws would be abolished in a flash.

Comparing the voting habits of single people and married people, single people vote as if they don’t really want men to have jobs, and married people vote as if they really do want men to have jobs.

Your history is massively falsified.

No one was re-enslaved merely on the basis of color. If someone was re-enslaved, it was because they needed care and supervision.