This post is just a small expansion to a thread I made not so long ago,
incels.is
For those who don't want to read it, I made the argument that the reason for no one caring about the decreasing levels of testosterone in males is because it (purposefully or not) helps to exert control over the male population.
There were a lot of interesting responses regarding various reasons for low T in the first place as well as some speculation as to if these hormonal changes were intentional.
Still, there was one comment that caught my attention.
Well this is a multifaceted question and I can't provide a definitive answer.
Still, what I will do in this thread is isolate as many variables as possible to answer this question in a naturalistic/biologic point of view. In order to do this I will neglect any cultural/racial/religious influence and focus primarily on the biological differences.
So in that sense this post is a generalization of the previous one.
Male chicks can’t lay eggs and therefore the egg industry perceives these chicks as worthless. Plus, male chicks bred in hatcheries and organic farms aren’t suitable for meat production either since these chicks won’t grow to produce huge legs and breast muscles.
Note: I am not defending "animal rights" whatsoever.
This is true for humans too.
Female life is valued more than male on a daily basis as well, but in order for normietards to see it, you have to amplify the environment. A catastrophe or a war, for example, will force a clear distinction to be made:
The reason for this difference only being visible in extreme scenarios is the usual suspect. Feminism and the consequent idea that men and woman are the same and that gender differences only exist because of societal costumes (and not influenced by biology jfl).
This is standard practice for livestock. The whole flock is mated by a singular healthy and strong male.
The simple yet brutal biological pill is that females are the constraining factor in reproduction.
If you place 10 males and 1 female in an island, after 9 months you will have 1 new habitant.
Conversely, if you place 10 females and 1 male, after 9 months there is the potential for at least 10 new habitants.
If the lower 20% of men died today, the reproductive repercussions for our species would be practically none, while if the lower 20% of woman died today, our reproductive ability (as a species) would reduce by at least 10-15%.
This conclusion, in theory, confirms the viability of the 80/20 rule as a reproductive strategy (in fact, for most of human history it has been this way).
Well, that's it. I've come to the point that I can't even watch a farming show without being reminded of the blackpill.
JFL
Why no one cares about the fast decline of men's Testosterone levels?
Why is Testosterone crucial for male well-being? Gymcels are probably already aware of the key roles that Testosterone plays in the male body: muscle mass and bones facial and pubic hair body’s development of deeper voice mood and quality of life propensity to develop depression and other...
incels.is
For those who don't want to read it, I made the argument that the reason for no one caring about the decreasing levels of testosterone in males is because it (purposefully or not) helps to exert control over the male population.
There were a lot of interesting responses regarding various reasons for low T in the first place as well as some speculation as to if these hormonal changes were intentional.
Still, there was one comment that caught my attention.
This is a "water is wet" type of statement I know, but why is it true? Why "no one cares about men" to begin with?
Well this is a multifaceted question and I can't provide a definitive answer.
Still, what I will do in this thread is isolate as many variables as possible to answer this question in a naturalistic/biologic point of view. In order to do this I will neglect any cultural/racial/religious influence and focus primarily on the biological differences.
So in that sense this post is a generalization of the previous one.
Inspiration
Recently I watched a show called "Clarkson's Farm" (decent show for those brocels interested in farming/homesteading/ruralmaxxing). This show presents a number of farming practices regarding livestock that inspired the making of this post.
Castrating the male population
It's common practice among farmers who keep male livestock to castrate them. This is to prevent male livestock from attacking other livestock and/or causing damages. The parallelism to humans is obvious and is the topic of discussion of the previous thread.Discarding new born male chicks
Another slight hint at the blackpill comes in the form of killing new born male chicks. The reasons are pretty obvious though:Male chicks can’t lay eggs and therefore the egg industry perceives these chicks as worthless. Plus, male chicks bred in hatcheries and organic farms aren’t suitable for meat production either since these chicks won’t grow to produce huge legs and breast muscles.
Note: I am not defending "animal rights" whatsoever.
This is true for humans too.
Female life is valued more than male on a daily basis as well, but in order for normietards to see it, you have to amplify the environment. A catastrophe or a war, for example, will force a clear distinction to be made:
- Adult Male
- Not adult male (Woman, children, elder)
The reason for this difference only being visible in extreme scenarios is the usual suspect. Feminism and the consequent idea that men and woman are the same and that gender differences only exist because of societal costumes (and not influenced by biology jfl).
Breeding livestock and answering the question
"Sheep follow a similar reproductive strategy to other herd animals. A group of ewes is generally mated by a single ram, who has either been chosen by a breeder or (in feral populations) has established dominance through physical contest with other rams." - WikipediaThis is standard practice for livestock. The whole flock is mated by a singular healthy and strong male.
The simple yet brutal biological pill is that females are the constraining factor in reproduction.
If you place 10 males and 1 female in an island, after 9 months you will have 1 new habitant.
Conversely, if you place 10 females and 1 male, after 9 months there is the potential for at least 10 new habitants.
If the lower 20% of men died today, the reproductive repercussions for our species would be practically none, while if the lower 20% of woman died today, our reproductive ability (as a species) would reduce by at least 10-15%.
This conclusion, in theory, confirms the viability of the 80/20 rule as a reproductive strategy (in fact, for most of human history it has been this way).
Well, that's it. I've come to the point that I can't even watch a farming show without being reminded of the blackpill.
JFL
