Over_ed said:

---

The actual birth rate of Japan (2024) was 1.374 births per woman.

Korea (South) says hold my beer. ~.75 births per woman. (about half of Japan's)

Most countries (outside of Muslim/African) have a problem with this.

Japan, is, by far, not in the most immediate trouble.

---

India says hold my beer. Not muslim not Africa and added 160 million people between 2011 and 2022 the same period Japan "lost" 4 million. Keep in mind the some of that loss is migration which can be reversed through incentives or through natural progression.

For the other folks talking about 401ks, infrastructure and car sales... that is looking at things in years maybe a decade or two. Economies and civilizations adjust in a matrix of ways.and not linear computations those folks seem to embrace harder than climate change.

Tom Fox said:

---

Mouse utopia.

---

You are very prophetic; it is already happening. See vid below. Also, if you think Japan is bad. The Japanese birthrate looks like a baby boom compared to Korea. On a positive note, China had almost 15,000 kindergartens close last year. Their population is tanking maybe faster than Korea. China's population is around 800-900!!!! The continuous Covid outbreak has recently ramped up. So more miles long at funeral homes for them. Their Sinovac covid vaccine was a complete tofu dregs vaccine, which was expected. It was ruinous for their populations health!!!!

13B said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

13B said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

We have a huge abundance of land right now, so that is a very poor example. Also, you can't live in land. There must be a dwelling built to live there. Humans build those dwellings.

Also, you incorrectly used a single specific example of land to try to prove my general assertion about fewer goods false: If population decreases, there will be fewer goods.

---

Incorrect, we might have enough to sustain us now but it is a finite resource that provides us food. I can't eat a house. Beef doesn't originate in my refrigerator or at the Kroger store.

---

I'm correct. He's talking about land for the purpose of occupation by humans! And the topic is depopulation, not increasing the population and food production. Your post is a non sequitur.

---

They go hand in hand, fill all of the land eventually, where are you going to get food for those people. Soylent Green?

---

He was talking about land cost going down because of fewer humans in the future and thus less demand. I respond no, land available for humans to live on is not a constraint right now - it is not - and thus the cost would not go down significantly if we had fewer people. You then respond with "we have enough now but what if we don't in the future as far as agriculture and animal production". I then explain what the conversation was about but it seems you still don't get it.

When resources are scarce populations decrease, when they are abundant they expand.

Ragoo said:

---

When resources are scarce populations decrease, when they are abundant they expand.

---

Populations have expanded in the industrial age because we ar better at keeping people alive longer, but with respect to birth rates the exact opposite has happened in every industrialized nation on earth since the end of the 19th century. As abundance rises, birth rates keep going down. And because humans have an upper limit of lifespan that eventually causes a population crash.

Ragoo said:

---

When resources are scarce populations decrease, when they are abundant they expand.

---

I think you are referncing in Malthus.

Quote:

---

Malthus law

Malthus's law, also known as the Malthusian theory of population, asserts that populations grow exponentially while the food supply grows arithmetically, leading to a situation where population growth outpaces food supply growth, eventually causing living standards to decline and triggering a population decline through events such as famine or war. According to Thomas Malthus, who first published this theory in 1798, when living standards improve, population growth increases, but this growth is eventually checked by resource limitations, leading to a return to subsistence levels.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

When resources are scarce populations decrease, when they are abundant they expand.

---

Populations have expanded in the industrial age because we ar better at keeping people alive longer, but with respect to birth rates the exact opposite has happened in every industrialized nation on earth since the end of the 19th century. As abundance rises, birth rates keep going down. And because humans have an upper limit of lifespan that eventually causes a population crash.

---

Yes. Studies have shown that the more educated and affluent a nation becomes, the fewer children they have. It's not a function of resources in these cases.

In fact, the African continent is the only continent growing now

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

You're thinking about as far as the front of your nose.

When social security was introduced, there was roughly a 15:1 worker to retiree ratio. Many hands make light work, so the program made sense and worked for a while.

Fast forward to today, and the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Plus we now also have Medicare and a much larger debt to pay off as well. And that's with a taxpaying generation (Gen X and Millennials) that is roughly proportionate to the retiree generation (Boomers.)

If we're stretched this thin now, how bad will it be when the curve inverts and there are more retirees than taxpayers? How much of the labor force will be eaten up by elder care? Who is going to be buying houses, cars, and consumer goods to keep the economy going when no one has kids?

And to make matters worse, with an economy in the ****ter and everyone working just to keep the retirees from losing their healthcare and social security payments, who is going to have time to raise children? Thus, the cycle continues.

---

So we have to demand more babies or import people so we can fund social security and build roads?

I am the one actually thinking past the end of their nose. Exponential population growth has multitude more problems and steady population decline.

Some of you guys drink way too much kool-aid from the decline of population fear mongers.

As someone pointed out earlier, its the new climate change but based on even less science and an extremely poor understanding of history of civilizations.

Combining WW1, WW2 and Spanish Flu deaths about 5% of the population was killed off prematurely by a pandemic and global conflict. Yet somehow the world kept going on.

Hell, most of the countries and "civilizations" from that era still exist and in fact still prosper. Japan's decline from 2011 to 2022 was just over 3%.

We abandon infrastructure all the time all across America. And regarding an aging population, yes your elementary school teachers may need to learn to wipe the noses and arses of grandma and grandpa. Same applies for consumer goods. Do old people not consume anything?

And we have a pretty severe housing shortage currently and can quit building if we reach an equilibrium.

These doomsday population declines hold constant a ton of variables that must be adjusted to have any sort of accurate prediction. Just like with climate change, the math is not just fuzzy but is mostly dead wrong.

There, I think I got past the front of my nose just a bit.

---

You are awfully confident in how wrong you are on basically every point. Starting with the first is actually the futility of immigration to solve this problem: Data shows immigrants very quickly drop to the birth rate of the country they move to. Furthermore, the places that the US generally gets immigrants from are also running out of young people. No help is coming from other countries, whether we want it or not.

You also seem to be under the impression that depopulation is this slow, gradual, gentle thing that will just ease the pressure off the housing market and then we will suddenly be back in equilibrium. Absolute delusion. Every year that the birth rate of an area is below replacement rate is a year that the population will shrink at some point in the future. Because unlike the climate change lunacy, the math on population is easy. Everyone dies sooner or later, we aren't printing babies in some government machine, and it takes 18 years to raise an 18 year old.

The US is currently sitting at a 1.6 total fertility rate, whereas replacement is 2.1. If that persists over the course of a full generation, then the next generation will be roughly 25% smaller than the current one. That's 25% fewer people working, buying, paying taxes, inventing, investing, etc. That's already catastrophically bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as somewhere like Italy. Their tfr dropped below 2 in the 70s and has been hovering around 1.2-1.3 since the 90s. That's going on *fourty years* that Italy is due to have their population contract at a rate of 1.6 deaths per working aged adult replacing them. And it doesn't stop until they raise their birth rates to 2.1 for 18ish years.

What would you call an economy where the population is shrinking at a rate of 1.5 to 1 and vast sums of the remaining labor market is needed to care for the unproductive retirees? I can think of many words to describe it, but none of them are good.

EX TEXASEX said:

---

China's population is around 800-900!!!! The continuous Covid outbreak has recently ramped up. So more miles long at funeral homes for them. Their Sinovac covid vaccine was a complete tofu dregs vaccine, which was expected. It was ruinous for their populations health!!!!

---

It worked and is working as designed. Count me as one who believes COVID was initially developed to help eliminate China's elderly population. Creating global conflict, strengthening totalitarian government's, and removing Trump from office were bonus effects.

I am awfully confident in my position on this issue.

At best the "science" is unsettled. And again you are holding constant all the variables other than birth rate and death rates then making incredibly assumptions on what that means for a particular society, country, civilization.

I am happy to debate the scenarios, but it should start with understanding the fallacies in the population decline doomsdayers.

Let's take a quick look at our Native Americans in the United States. In 1800, there were approximately 600,000 Native Americans in the United States (or territory now comprising the US).

As you would suspect, there was a rapid decline in their population due to displacement, disease, societal interruptions, all sorts of bad things.

Today there are an estimated 1 million 100% pure bred Native Americans.

I think we can tap the brakes on the United States disappearing because we are currently in a birth rate decline that may... or may not continue.

So can we send ALL of the Palestenians to Japan?

Mas89 said:

---

So can we send ALL of the Palestenians to Japan?

---

They love tunneling so much put them in Japan, but underground.

Extra points if it is along a fault line with loose soil.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The pendulum will swing the opposite direction soon.

---

No it won't. Why? Because the problem is far deeper than social policy. It's likely hitting us at a basic genetic level. The common denominator is female education, females in the workplace, and birth control. The introduction of all of these things craters birth rates because of hypergamy. Women will never marry down and won't find men they consider beneath them status wise to be attractive. Thus, they are competing for an increasingly smaller portion of men.

This has a negative feedback loop on birth rates and it will continue getting worse. I don't blame the women for this because this is just how they are biologically wired, but it's reality.

Ultimately western and white pop will need a war to survive. The populations will collapse without major increase in birth rate

flown,

interested on your take on this presentation.

and then there is..............JESUS!

The big flaw it seems with all this reasoning is it doesn't make sense that humanity has a certain number, especially when over a 1 billion, that it has to have to keep all running.

It means it can't keep running the SAME way it has been, but how much of this can automation, AI, changed tech, etc, make irrelevant? Since advanced societies have less kids per household, it seems that a drop is built-in but it also seems as long as they continue to do so, they will go on.

What you need get rid of is Left schooling which suppresses household building and desire to marry in favor of some other vision, setting in motion loops like some of the posters above describe.

But if you get back to just a normal even just over break-even replacement rate, why can that not serve for any number of cultures?

Quote:

---

Yes. Studies have shown that the more educated and affluent a nation becomes, the fewer children they have. It's not a function of resources in these cases.

---

I would say urbanization is the biggest factor. On the farm, kids were free labor. In the city, they are nothing but a financial drain on the family. So familes start naturally having less of them.

I agree. China is old and poor. Their SS system is already broken. They CAN NOT meet their retirement obligations. Also, believe Covid was created and released (remember they locked down internal travel to and from Wuhan but let international travel to and from Wuhan continue). So they could spread the disease worldwide to force a mail-in election, which they knew would be stolen by the Democrats.

Appreciate you sharing. As with many of the doomsday prophesiers, he spends his time going over data of where birthrates were, are and projected to be and the corresponding impact on population.

But in those 13 minutes, he does not get into WHY this is such a terrible thing, other than a vague comment about end of civilization.

I am absolutely not challenging the data on birth rates and its corresponding impact on the demographics of certain population. My contention is on the consequences to society both at a micro level and at a macro or global level.

Are we worried as in the OP that a certain culture or population with distinct characteristics will fail to continue on? I get the worry but its sort of how the Earth has always worked. Some cultures persist and others fade away or are assimilated into existing cultures or combined into new cultures. The United States is a prime example of the latter, and that has happened over a brief 250 years of our existence.

Most of us were taught that H. sapiens were the result of a single branch of evolutionary "tree" of genus Homo that resulted in us being the terminal species of that "tree". Recent finds and studies of our ancient ancestors suggests a more complicated, convoluted path to H. sapiens that resulted from periodic contact and inbreeding with other species from the genus Homo including Neanderthals and Denisovans.

We have been taught that Neanderthals died out long ago and only the superior H. sapiens carried on, but we now know that to be untrue and genetic studies show a fair amount of H. sapiens carry H. neanderthalensis DNA / genes.

I am contending that we need not worry so much about carrying on a specific lineage and that contrary to what the man in the video disregarded, overall global population of H. sapiens is indeed critical for planning the next million years or so.

You could argue that we now have corrupted our genes these days with chemicals, drugs, therapies, gene manipulation that maybe some of our current lineages SHOULD end.

Its a much more complicated topic then "Japan be gone soon if they don't start cranking out children".

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/other-human-species-evolution

Well said and great question proffered for discussion.

I've got 3 kids that I know of, I'm 40.

But how I lived when I was 20 I created an army of 20 year olds.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

I've got 3 kids that I know of, I'm 40.

But how I lived when I was 20 I created an army of 20 year olds.

---

Same here. I will never do the dna thing because I don't want a knock on the door.

Micah97 said:

---

This is the single most important crisis facing humanity and people rarely talk about it. Wasn't even discussed in the presidential debate. Humanity's head is on the chopping block, the axe is coming down, and we are arguing about global warming when china's population will drop by 50% in the 75 years.

---

I am cool with China going the way of the dodo.....bunch of commies

Japan on the other hand......the culture that brought inappropriately dressed girls with unrealistic proportions to mainstream animation needs to be preserved at all costs!

appreciate the thoughtful reply.

I do always get the feeling in these discussion is innovation and adaptation are missing. That is understandable because they are unknowns and hard to predict, but they have also been highly dependable in all sorts of population and scarcity issues.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Too many people on this rock as is.

---

Hello Klaus. Is 30% reduction in farming and ranching enough? Or do we need to starve the World, faster?

gkaggie08 said:

---

If I was 15 years younger and single, I'd go to Japan and fix this issue. I'd leave looking like a drawn up up old range bull

---

this scene immediately comes to mind….

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Buford T. Justice said:

---

Was just thinking the same thing.
All of those beautiful women around, and the dudes want to play video games, and look at media content.

---

It is the girls that are making that choice. Those dudes would breed them in a millisecond if given the opportunity.

Those chicks are holding out for the ideal mate and aging out. Completely absent of self evaluation and what they can actually land.

---

This is correct.
The earlier poster was simping and blaming men. But you got it right.
Women are delaying because they think they are so awesome that only the top 1% will do even though they themselves are 5s and 6s. They all want 9s or 10s men.

They have a clock that men don't have. They forget this. For men, it is in 70s so irrelevant to this discussion.

The next step is the chick sees that she turned 40, no husband or kids, they get all uptight and post "WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD MEN GONE??" on twitter. Then they devolve into "Men are insecure of strong independent women" which is the go-to argument of sad future cat ladies.

---

This is not correct.
Nor is the earlier post you responded to.
Both comments read like the kind of Alpha/Beta doctrine of chatbots programmed to astroturf a false-flag discussion portraying every stereotype Progressives throw around about "incels".

It's not that women are chomping at the bit to become a bridled bride and well-worn womb once they find one of the small handful of men with a Hemsworth body and a Bezos bank account. Women born after 1995 are increasingly not interested in you at all -- not because you're not a 10, but because being a wife and a womb isn't what they want to do with their own lives.

You definitely can have a discussion of how that came to be, and discuss the cultural forces that have made that perspective widely adopted by women 18-35ish.

EX TEXASEX said:

---

I agree. China is old and poor. Their SS system is already broken. They CAN NOT meet their retirement obligations. Also, believe Covid was created and released (remember they locked down internal travel to and from Wuhan but let international travel to and from Wuhan continue). So they could spread the disease worldwide to force a mail-in election, which they knew would be stolen by the Democrats.

---

LOL. I have to assume this is sarcasm.

If those sneaky shifty Chinese are so well-organized and clever to pull off a Kwisatz Haderach level of reading the future that they set a virus loose to rampage among 8 billion vectors while knowing exactly the cumulative outcome of an election 12 months later, then we Americans are mere infants among gods, and the kindest thing we could do for ourselves is nuke our entire continent to snuff ourselves out in a flash and escape the longsuffering of certain subjugation from the Yellow Menace.

At this point I might as well say I was late to work this morning because them Chinese released covid 5 years ago so America would get snarled in traffic jams because the Chinese foresaw that companies would all phase out their WFH and force us to crowd into infrastructure that was neglected during the shutdowns.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The pendulum will swing the opposite direction soon.

---

No it won't. Why? Because the problem is far deeper than social policy. It's likely hitting us at a basic genetic level. The common denominator is female education, females in the workplace, and birth control. The introduction of all of these things craters birth rates because of hypergamy. Women will never marry down and won't find men they consider beneath them status wise to be attractive. Thus, they are competing for an increasingly smaller portion of men.

This has a negative feedback loop on birth rates and it will continue getting worse. I don't blame the women for this because this is just how they are biologically wired, but it's reality.

---

"Women will never marry down" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh man Texags never disappoints when it comes to the culture wars.

***SPOILER*** Most women who have married, have married down. Men get to be little boys forever and go off to play Architect and Firefighter and Corporate Raider with other boys all day, while women do 90% of the actual LABOR-- /planning/organization/scheduling/transportation/resource-management/provisioning/feeding/clothing/teaching/training/mentoring/community-building/relationship-maintenance that makes the nuclear family so successful.

"Awesome smart hot girl with head on her shoulders and a bright future runs off with charismatic loserbro whose dating skills consist of driving a sports care while playing 'Wonderwall' on his guitar, so smart hot girl with head on shoulders ends up pulling double shifts as a nurse year after year to keep the family barely afloat while loser husband tries to find himself among all the other interchangeable dudes on the car dealership floor" is waaaay more common than "smart hot girl with bright future waits until 38 to marry Daniel Craig and start a family".

Women aren't rejecting men more now because men aren't Alpha enough. Women are rejecting men because they don't want to get STUCK like they saw in their own family generations having to do BOTH roles -- work nonstop at a job to keep financial stability AND still do all the trad-wife stuff because men have perfected the art of learned-helplessness so mommy/wifey has to step in and make sure things get done right.

Women aren't rejecting men more now because they want a big Alpha to rule over them. They're rejecting men more now because they want an EQUAL division of labor. And no, holding an office job is nowhere close to being equal in labor to 20 years of being the primary planning/organization/scheduling/transportation/resource-management/provisioning/feeding/clothing/teaching/training/mentoring/community-building/relationship-maintenance working.

Every married man should feel like he won the powerball every day she stays with him.

heavens11 said:

---

I don't personally understand the thinking that this planets human population needs to continue to grow at any material rate. We have multiplied and subdued the planet.

Population has exploded Ilover the last two centuries and (it seems) an ever increasing % are not producers but rather feeding off the system.

Someone is going to have to explain it to me like I'm a second grader why not having more people on this planet is an existential crisis.

I'm no humans are evil wannabe bill gates trying to kill off humanity, but don't see why more is better

---

Politicians need more bodies to pay for their decades of deficit sending

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The pendulum will swing the opposite direction soon.

---

No it won't. Why? Because the problem is far deeper than social policy. It's likely hitting us at a basic genetic level. The common denominator is female education, females in the workplace, and birth control. The introduction of all of these things craters birth rates because of hypergamy. Women will never marry down and won't find men they consider beneath them status wise to be attractive. Thus, they are competing for an increasingly smaller portion of men.

This has a negative feedback loop on birth rates and it will continue getting worse. I don't blame the women for this because this is just how they are biologically wired, but it's reality.

---

Good post. As a guy that has been married nearly 25 years and has kids (mostly grown up now) I would like to share an observation I have come to over the last decade or so. And being a faithful husband I have come to this conclusion strictly via reading, observation, and what younger males than me (mostly who have reported to me) have told me about the modern reality of sex/dating/marriage. So here is my conclusion.

First, break men and women up into categories of 8/9/10, 5/6/7, 2/3/4, and 1. 10 being the most attractive/desired, 1 being the basement.

Also account for the fact that what makes a suitor a 4, 7 or 10, is much more subjective to females than males. Males are much less complex in this regard. Women factor in numerous more criteria in picking a mate.

1's of either sex are the far outliers and don't factor in. These people will likely never marry nor reproduce.

So here we go.

The 8/9/10's of both sexes will date, have sex, party, get in relationships, and many will marry and have children. This is the natural order and always has been.

Males in the 8/9/10 range will lower themselves to females in the 5/6/7 range for sex if that is what is available when there is a need. The females in that range are typically more than happy to oblige. This is also the natural order of things and always has been.

Conversely, females in the 8/9/10 range will NEVER lower themselves to even considering men in the 5/6/7 range for anything from sex to security. This is also the natural order.

Now, in modern times, things go astray.

Males in the 5/6/7 and 2/3/4 range have been historically happy to couple with women in their same range. This is the natural order. These people used to be perfectly happy to "stay in their lane" and have happy lives, marriage, children, etc.

But now, the 5/6/7 women have been deluded in to believing they deserve or are entitled to 8/9/10 men. Major disruption to the natural order. Making it ever worse is that tech has given the 8/9/10 men the ability to easily access 5/6/7 women for sex which reinforces in the minds of 5/6/7 women they should have better suitor options.

The same is true for women in 2/3/4 range.

Ultimately, the 5/6/7 women reject 5/6/7 men and the 2/3/4 women reject 2/3/4 men. Again, major deviation against the natural order.

All in all this just makes women, brainwashed by delusional notions of the kind of man they can attract, simply unhappy. For the men, frustration and rejection leads to porn addiction and little interaction with females outside of work related.

The entire natural order of male/female relationships has been destroyed by tech and feminism. Hopefully it can right itself but unless you're an 8/9/10 the future seems bleak. IMO.

wannaggie said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The pendulum will swing the opposite direction soon.

---

No it won't. Why? Because the problem is far deeper than social policy. It's likely hitting us at a basic genetic level. The common denominator is female education, females in the workplace, and birth control. The introduction of all of these things craters birth rates because of hypergamy. Women will never marry down and won't find men they consider beneath them status wise to be attractive. Thus, they are competing for an increasingly smaller portion of men.

This has a negative feedback loop on birth rates and it will continue getting worse. I don't blame the women for this because this is just how they are biologically wired, but it's reality.

---

"Women will never marry down" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh man Texags never disappoints when it comes to the culture wars.

***SPOILER*** Most women who have married, have married down. Men get to be little boys forever and go off to play Architect and Firefighter and Corporate Raider with other boys all day, while women do 90% of the actual LABOR-- /planning/organization/scheduling/transportation/resource-management/provisioning/feeding/clothing/teaching/training/mentoring/community-building/relationship-maintenance that makes the nuclear family so successful.

"Awesome smart hot girl with head on her shoulders and a bright future runs off with charismatic loserbro whose dating skills consist of driving a sports care while playing 'Wonderwall' on his guitar, so smart hot girl with head on shoulders ends up pulling double shifts as a nurse year after year to keep the family barely afloat while loser husband tries to find himself among all the other interchangeable dudes on the car dealership floor" is waaaay more common than "smart hot girl with bright future waits until 38 to marry Daniel Craig and start a family".

Women aren't rejecting men more now because men aren't Alpha enough. Women are rejecting men because they don't want to get STUCK like they saw in their own family generations having to do BOTH roles -- work nonstop at a job to keep financial stability AND still do all the trad-wife stuff because men have perfected the art of learned-helplessness so mommy/wifey has to step in and make sure things get done right.

Women aren't rejecting men more now because they want a big Alpha to rule over them. They're rejecting men more now because they want an EQUAL division of labor. And no, holding an office job is nowhere close to being equal in labor to 20 years of being the primary planning/organization/scheduling/transportation/resource-management/provisioning/feeding/clothing/teaching/training/mentoring/community-building/relationship-maintenance working.

Every married man should feel like he won the powerball every day she stays with him.

---

LOL

Yeah that's the biggest load of horse sh** I've read on this site. Seems like someone married a loser and has applied her experience across the entirety of male existence. LMAO.

I think most libs revel in societies, especially free societies, disappearing.