Discussion When current gen incels die, will there be less incels in the future?

[The Cagot]

DAC

Spoiler

A startup using minerals to draw down CO2 has scored funding – and its first buyer

Heirloom Carbon Technologies believes it can pull off carbon removal for $50 a ton, and aims to remove one billion tons by 2035.

www.technologyreview.com

Stripe funds 6 new ideas to suck carbon out of the atmosphere

Growing kelp, crushing rocks, zapping seawater — what's next?

grist.org

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/idtechex-discuss-if-direct-air-capture-can-really-help-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/article_fec0d61f-0006-513c-a5f3-2a71e3b9d64f.html

High Hopes claims stratospheric breakthrough in direct air CO2 capture

In the race to get humanity toward zero carbon emissions by 2050, the vast majority of efforts will rightly be focused on reducing emissions at their source. But there are areas where this simply won't be possible, and as carbon taxes gradually rise around the globe there will definitely be a…

newatlas.com

Companies greenwashing is a massive cope because their green projects ask for energy and non-renewable materials, plus technologies we're very far to master. We don't have 500 years to change, in fact the worst is already done.

I've seen hundreds of those green projects and none of them is realistic on the long term. All those projects take the idea that our world as he is, made of over-consumption, can be maintained. I call this myth the "Myth of Eternal France". Here in France people think nothing will change because our country has survived 185 wars and won 132 of them. But one never wins a war against Nature. It's not an enemy you can shoot. And in a mere century, half this country would have become completely unlivable.

Don't let them greenwash you, we've already lost this war against Nature.

Btw no matter how bad climate change gets some portion of humanity would still survive. Just like a meteor impact on the same scale that killed the dinosaurs wouldn't do it either.

Spoiler

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfO4ELAkCos

Mount Toba eruption almost wiped out humanity yet humanity persisted.

How would they survive ? European migrants colonizing Antarctica ? When the whole world would have become a desert and oceans much too warm, nothing will produce our oxygen. We'll not fish anything in an empty antarctic ocean. Salted water can't be drink. Coal, oil and rare materials won't respawn. The problem is not the fall of our civilization - such falls have already happened in the past - but the fact that there will be no resources to start a new one. Civilizations that felt always migrated elsewhere and started over ; but there's no planet B. We can't start elsewhere with brand new resources is our whole planet is fucked up with no resources needed left.

What happens now is us trying to survive on Mount Toba's slopes just after it erupted.

And if we receive a meteor like the Chicxulub one that vanished dinosaurs, I don't know if you've seen dinosaurs recently but it's quite rare, excepted if you think chickens can be considered as dinosaurs-survivors. Which is a very optimistic way to see the dinosaur situation.

 

[I want to believe]

Genetic garbage women are still reproducing, so incels will still exist.

 

[Blackpincel]

Even if 100% of women became Chad-only, as long as low tier women keeps getting impregnated and reproducing, there will always be incels.

 

[Words2_live_bye]

Genetic garbage women are still reproducing, so incels will still exist. However yes there will be less of them given that more and more women are choosing to get creampied by chad or chad-lites instead of their looksmatch, even if it means they will end up single mothers.

 

[Deleted member 27159]

Their real reason of course is a spiteful and petty desire to restrict any enjoyment nonchad males get but it's also because the object is female. Just like drawings of females have more rights and consideration than the average nonchad male.

Any sort of hentai is still legal in most places. I don’t think the world has gotten that cucked yet.

Cope. Used to think this too. Where is the marketing to perpetually single males with them becoming a growing demographic for regular use items other than fetish, humiliation and low profile sex toy stuff? Nowhere to be found.

The world has decided sexless males are useless. If they market anything to you it's all things that put the blame on YOU (like PUA and lifestyle improvement "coaching") and act like you need to get in a relationship as soon as possible.

Well that demographic is only going to grow in the future. Sure they could try to ignore it but you can’t ignore it forever. I am sure that all the developers will also be incels as well. There isn’t much incentive for companies not to develop them. Development is already happening to an extent. Video games are also products for the same demographic but they are continuing to be developed as well.

 

[Mecoja]

Even the ugliest deformed foid reproduce, also ugly bettabuxxers are the fathers of some of their children.

 

[simply_over]

I wouldn't worry about it too much we will all be dead soon boyos

I wouldnt say soon. Most of us are in our twenties. It will take 40-50 more years. I'm assuming we dont hit 80 because of shit genetics and cortisol producers such as loneliness.

 

[Incline]

I wouldnt say soon. Most of us are in our twenties. It will take 40-50 more years. I'm assuming we dont hit 80 because of shit genetics and cortisol producers such as loneliness.

Jfl you are high if you think I'm living past my 40s. I'll be lucky to be still alive at 30.

 

[simply_over]

Jfl you are high if you think I'm living past my 40s. I'll be lucky to be still alive at 30.

So how are you going to exit? Rope?

 

[Incline]

So how are you going to exit? Rope?

Sleeping pills + enclosed space + whatever gas that can kill me fast monoxide or co2 etc. Most painless way to go out.

 

[fheon]

Not quite the next gen but males Will absolutely Take back controlat some point when they really see that civilizations dont exist without monogamy. 40 years at most

 

[SuperPerfectCel]

No. Inceldom is expanding, not shrinking.

Genetically incel genes will always be passed down since foids with subhuman genes will always reproduce no matter what. You can't clean the gene pool when any disgusting woman is free to have multiple kids and receive full support from the state.

 

[your personality]

Companies greenwashing is a massive cope because their green projects ask for energy and non-renewable materials, plus technologies we're very far to master. We don't have 500 years to change, in fact the worst is already done.

Lifefuel for @FinnCel tbh

I've seen hundreds of those green projects and none of them is realistic on the long term. All those projects take the idea that our world as he is, made of over-consumption, can be maintained. I call this myth the "Myth of Eternal France". Here in France people think nothing will change because our country has survived 185 wars and won 132 of them. But one never wins a war against Nature. It's not an enemy you can shoot. And in a mere century, half this country would have become completely unlivable.

Don't let them greenwash you, we've already lost this war against Nature.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/05/25/slowing-population-growth-environment/

Just lol at their green washing and natalist propaganda tbh

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

How would they survive ? European migrants colonizing Antarctica ? When the whole world would have become a desert and oceans much too warm, nothing will produce our oxygen. We'll not fish anything in an empty antarctic ocean. Salted water can't be drink. Coal, oil and rare materials won't respawn.

4 degrees Celsius warming isn't death tier. It's the speed at which it could happen (within just a century) that is bad. You'd still be able to farm in the mid latitudes. The whole world won't become a desert. You'd lose some polar species but the oceans would warm up so species would move north. Canada and Russia would be more habitable.

Spoiler

The problem is not the fall of our civilization - such falls have already happened in the past - but the fact that there will be no resources to start a new one. Civilizations that felt always migrated elsewhere and started over ; but there's no planet B. We can't start elsewhere with brand new resources is our whole planet is fucked up with no resources needed left.

Civilization collapsing is not the same as humans dying out though. Mad max style off the grid types would still survive. That's the biggest thing here. Humans would still survive and go on to have sex and repopulate. Maybe in other millions of years humanity will go extinct but not anytime soon.

What happens now is us trying to survive on Mount Toba's slopes just after it erupted.

And if we receive a meteor like the Chicxulub one that vanished dinosaurs, I don't know if you've seen dinosaurs recently but it's quite rare, excepted if you think chickens can be considered as dinosaurs-survivors. Which is a very optimistic way to see the dinosaur situation.

We're not scheduled to have an asteroid impact this century from any large detectable asteroids.

Much-feared asteroid Apophis won't hit Earth for at least 100 years, Nasa says

Chunk of space rock was once the ‘poster child for hazardous asteroids’ but it will be a while before humans need to worry about it again

www.theguardian.com

The apocalypse is canceled boyo. Ik it's good to cope with the idea that things are only getting worse for everyone and you'll see the end of the human species soon but it's not true.

 

[HeroinNihilism]

incels have always existed throughout history, there is simply no reason to keep records of subhumans

 

[The Cagot]

Lifefuel for @FinnCel tbh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/05/25/slowing-population-growth-environment/

Just lol at their green washing and natalist propaganda tbh

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

To save the planet the world population should greatly decrese, but much, much more than a natural no-child decrease. But most of all, no government wants its population to decrease because it would slower the economy and so, slower the billions the billionaires make from our lives.

4 degrees Celsius warming isn't death tier. It's the speed at which it could happen (within just a century) that is bad. You'd still be able to farm in the mid latitudes. The whole world won't become a desert. You'd lose some polar species but the oceans would warm up so species would move north. Canada and Russia would be more habitable.

Spoiler

View attachment 450277

The whole USA and Europe becoming an inhabitable desert isn't something I consider we could manage.

The other thing is that climate change, warmth, species extinction will NOT stop by 2100. It will be even worse in the centuries to come. Plus the fact that the climate warmth is accelerating and going much faster than species migrations. Many species are doomed, especially plants, because they don't go North as fast as they should to survive.

Civilization collapsing is not the same as humans dying out though. Mad max style off the grid types would still survive. That's the biggest thing here. Humans would still survive and go on to have sex and repopulate. Maybe in other millions of years humanity will go extinct but not anytime soon.

Our planet becoming a big desert means not enough plants to produce breathable oxygen. You can be Mad Max, but even Mad Max has to breathe. He also needs to drink non-salty water, and eat 2 meals a day. How will he have all this ? He just won't.

We're not scheduled to have an asteroid impact this century from any large detectable asteroids.

Much-feared asteroid Apophis won't hit Earth for at least 100 years, Nasa says

Chunk of space rock was once the ‘poster child for hazardous asteroids’ but it will be a while before humans need to worry about it again

www.theguardian.com

The apocalypse is canceled boyo. Ik it's good to cope with the idea that things are only getting worse for everyone and you'll see the end of the human species soon but it's not true.

Asteroids won't be a problem for now (at least, they won't make us extinct in the next century, but some of them may fall on us and destroy a whole city because we don't know all the asteroids moving towards us, we only know the biggest ones).

But in a Mad Max world, who will detect such a deadly asteroid, and most of all, without space agencies with big money, who will stop such an asteroid ? The whole Florida and Cap Canaveral installations will be under water.

I don't think I'll personally see the end of the world. But I say it's unavoidable given the catastrophic damages we've already done to the nature. Governments are lying and bluepilling everyone, saying it's something manageable, while it's absolutely not.
Solving this issue would require stopping extracting oil, leading to the fall of all our lifestyles based on air travel, trucks and cars, the fall of our economy, and even whole countries.

Our soycieties, just like plants, don't move fast enough to adapt to so much changes on such a fast rate. The real problem is that all this happens much too fast. We can't adapt all these things in the same time. In France, do you think anyone has a plan about what to do when we'll have our first +50°C and a heatwave lasting 1 month ? There's no plan at all. Even the US Army has made tests to check if it was possible to manage environmental issues in foreign countries, and discovered that they couldn't even manage the US territory if this would happen.

The trap is to believe governments, armies or companies will be able to deal with this issue. They won't at all, and they prefer us all to vanish instead of having the balls to do the things to avoid this apocalypse.

 

[your personality]

To save the planet the world population should greatly decrese, but much, much more than a natural no-child decrease. But most of all, no government wants its population to decrease because it would slower the economy and so, slower the billions the billionaires make from our lives.

Growth for growth sake model is not going away tbh one month where GDP doesn't rise and people start panicking. It won't go away until a post scarcity economy comes in which is still far behind schedule. Remember 3D printers and talk of how it could lead to matter replicators? Still decades away and probably not going to be common until the end of this century at the earliest.

The whole USA and Europe becoming an inhabitable desert isn't something I consider we could manage.

All areas may not become an inhabitable desert unless you are talking about the areas that are already hot and dry. Of those places that do become unhabitable desert it will be mostly in the summer and not the winter that those places aren't habitable. The USA and Europe are big places so the effects aren't going to be the same everywhere. It's going to be bad if it gets to that point ofc but not completely unsurvivable.

The other thing is that climate change, warmth, species extinction will NOT stop by 2100. It will be even worse in the centuries to come. Plus the fact that the climate warmth is accelerating and going much faster than species migrations. Many species are doomed, especially plants, because they don't go North as fast as they should to survive.

True it's the speed and ability of life to adapt or move fast enough being outpaced by the change that matters. But it can still mostly be reversed. It's not set in stone.

Our planet becoming a big desert means not enough plants to produce breathable oxygen. You can be Mad Max, but even Mad Max has to breathe. He also needs to drink non-salty water, and eat 2 meals a day. How will he have all this ? He just won't.

Something like the Great Dying is possible in an extreme situation but I'm sure you have heard the news that the extreme situation is more and more unlikely as people move away from coal and renewables increase.

Asteroids won't be a problem for now (at least, they won't make us extinct in the next century, but some of them may fall on us and destroy a whole city because we don't know all the asteroids moving towards us, we only know the biggest ones).

That's always been the situation but it's still really rare (like a once in a century event tbh)

But in a Mad Max world, who will detect such a deadly asteroid, and most of all, without space agencies with big money, who will stop such an asteroid ? The whole Florida and Cap Canaveral installations will be under water.

Governments and private corporations will find a way. And sea level isn't going to rise that fast unless the world continues to increase emissions (which it won't so much now with the Paris Accord and pledges by China and the US to committed emissions reductions and most importantly the falling price of renewables).

I don't think I'll personally see the end of the world. But I say it's unavoidable given the catastrophic damages we've already done to the nature. Governments are lying and bluepilling everyone, saying it's something manageable, while it's absolutely not.
Solving this issue would require stopping extracting oil, leading to the fall of all our lifestyles based on air travel, trucks and cars, the fall of our economy, and even whole countries.

Collapse of civilization and everyday life as it is currently known probably but human extinction is still very unlikely. Humans are a tenacious species.

Our soycieties, just like plants, don't move fast enough to adapt to so much changes on such a fast rate. The real problem is that all this happens much too fast. We can't adapt all these things in the same time. In France, do you think anyone has a plan about what to do when we'll have our first +50°C and a heatwave lasting 1 month ? There's no plan at all. Even the US Army has made tests to check if it was possible to manage environmental issues in foreign countries, and discovered that they couldn't even manage the US territory if this would happen.

People can still adapt. Yeah some areas in the tropics and subtropics will get too hot to survive in the summer but a lot of land up north will open up. Was the world baked by 40+ degree heatwaves up to the north and south pole when it was way warmer than now? Evidence suggests it wasn't.

Also the US government likes to write threat assessments on plausible but not immediately likely scenarios that may result in civil unrest in the future. They do the same when talking about the incel "threat". It's mostly empty words and to make it look like they are doing something and can easily anticipate what others can't.

The trap is to believe governments, armies or companies will be able to deal with this issue. They won't at all, and they prefer us all to vanish instead of having the balls to do the things to avoid this apocalypse.

Nah I only see them panicking whenever fertility rates drop. If anything they want more people to be brought into this world and not less. More people means more people to sell to, collect data from and to profit off of overall. And yeah they aren't going to move fast enough to avoid all problems but they are obsessed with "fighting" and tackling issues to make a statement and climate change is no different for them. They won't do nothing when there is so much at stake for them if they don't.

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

that is plenty for now, but what about in an alternate reality where only attractive men and women mated, leading to more attractive men for women, would women really just be happy with that? based on their nature they might want more

Imo it doesn't continue forever. That's kind of a cope by uglier men that one day chads will pay too. The floor for what is considered an attractive man can get raised but not indefinitely. In that alternate reality women would at least still give those men a chance. But there is no such chance when considering for example unremarkable, short, small ethnic males that are not physically attractive and have no traits that can be virtue signaled about. Nor will there ever be probably.

You know the most lowkey hated, annoying (when they talk, "weird" and "quiet" when they don't) kid in class that no one wants to be around because of how they look completely unremarkable, average and boring? It's always that type of guy where even legit disabled and facially deform guys mog them in terms of social status and social proof.

You see this even in the concern about men's issues that some people in society may have a small amount of (like social conservatives). It's all about white or black males that meet a minimum look threshold and have been in relationships before or are disabled @RREEEEEEEEE
If there is concern about the average man falling behind it's still portrayed as at least a chadlite or committed family man going through hard times. Average looking non-NT males that don't have any traits that can be admired or virtue signaled about and have not been in relationships have nothing going for them and the problem is always seen as them not getting good or working on their craft

ngl it goes beyond even attractiveness and covers the very definition of what it means to be considered fully human. As it is now there's males in society that are not considered men and not considered attractive to any woman. That won't be the situation as much in your alternate reality where only attractive men and women mated. There would for example be no currycels or sandcels in that reality (who have only managed to persist in large numbers because of enforced monogamy in ethnic countries).

Attractive parents do not necessarily result in attractive offspring. It's not so much that women's standards have been getting higher, it's just that they have started to realize due to social media exposure that there are far better looking men than what the local men have to offer. OP also makes a great point regarding the fact that even disabled men will be at an advantage over non-disabled but ugly men. Take me, for instance. I am racially deformed (wow, rude autocorrext, I meant "facially," but it's true, as a brown or yellow man you are at an disadvantage if you are not above average) but not to the point where people have to virtue signal since the deformity isn't that severe. It's just bad enough to make me unattractive and that's good enough for women to be able to mistreat me or be rude to me and getting away with it because I'm not actually disabled. I have to add that average men have it a lot better than I do, at least it's not their looks holding them back. I can't say the same for myself.

 

[Deleted member 34664]

idk, maybe incel will die out due to nonreproduction but then maybe they'll be more because so few are chads that incels will be the norm.

 

[your personality]

Attractive parents do not necessarily result in attractive offspring. It's not so much that women's standards have been getting higher, it's just that they have started to realize due to social media exposure that there are far better looking men than what the local men have to offer. OP also makes a great point regarding the fact that even disabled men will be at an advantage over non-disabled but ugly men. Take me, for instance. I am racially deformed (wow, rude autocorrext, I meant "facially," but it's true, as a brown or yellow man you are at an disadvantage if you are not above average) but not to the point where people have to virtue signal since the deformity isn't that severe. It's just bad enough to make me unattractive and that's good enough for women to be able to mistreat me or be rude to me and getting away with it because I'm not actually disabled. I have to add that average men have it a lot better than I do, at least it's not their looks holding them back. I can't say the same for myself.

Even still situations where virtue signaling works in the favor of people that are otherwise objectively ugly is rare and novel enough to a lot of people that it serves as a convenient excuse to downplay the importance of good looks otherwise in most other situations. Incidents where virtue signaling works are not widespread enough to affect the looks of future generations greatly for that reason too. To a certain amount some normies know of the disadvantage below average looking (but not completely deformed) guys have because below average looking males have no traits that others can virtue signal about and correspondingly have low status and are seen as unimportant nobodies and "losers". But normies that point that out even in joking ("she's only with him for the fame and attention") are often silenced by other people shaming them for being "shallow" for even pointing this out @ThoughtfulCel

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

Even still situations where virtue signaling works in the favor of people that are otherwise objectively ugly is rare and novel enough to a lot of people that it serves as a convenient excuse to downplay the importance of good looks otherwise in most other situations. Incidents where virtue signaling works are not widespread enough to affect the looks of future generations greatly for that reason too. To a certain amount some normies know of the disadvantage below average looking (but not completely deformed) guys have because below average looking males have no traits that others can virtue signal about and correspondingly have low status and are seen as unimportant nobodies and "losers". But normies that point that out even in joking ("she's only with him for the fame and attention") are often silenced by other people shaming them for being "shallow" for even pointing this out @ThoughtfulCel

Yes, the virtue signaling doesn't work in favor of the one receiving it but the one giving it. But at least the one receiving it won't end up in a bitter and hateful person and they will think that people are inherently good when they aren't. Truth is, there will always be ugly men and no amount of selective breeding can change that. Attractive parents don't always produce attractive offspring and the inverse is also true, unattractive parents don't always produce unattractive offspring. Sometimes attractive parents will produce unattractive offspring and sometimes unattractive parents will produce attractive offspring.

 

[your personality]

Yes, the virtue signaling doesn't work in favor of the one receiving it but the one giving it. But at least the one receiving it won't end up in a bitter and hateful person and they will think that people are inherently good when they aren't. Truth is, there will always be ugly men and no amount of selective breeding can change that.

Yeah there will always by ugly men if gene editing isn't around and things continue the way they are. But selective breeding can still lessen the amount of ugly men over time and therefore lead to lesser and lesser incels in successive generations. Again take the example of curries with arranged marriage. If not for arranged marriage which otherwise gives a chance for uglier men to breed there would probably be way less currycels than there are now.

Attractive parents don't always produce attractive offspring and the inverse is also true, unattractive parents don't always produce unattractive offspring. Sometimes attractive parents will produce unattractive offspring and sometimes unattractive parents will produce attractive offspring.

True but it is more likely for attractive parents to pass those attractive traits onto their offspring so aside from random genetic recombination their children will be better looking on average.

 

[Eugenicelsarefunny]

Incels will be sent to gulag in the future

 

[erenyeager]

Incels will be sent to gulag in the future

You mean paradis