Emerald

I didn't say anything about a man having an exclusive relationship with one person. A man can be great and choose not to have a romantic partner. But he must provide value to the broader community. What I said is that great men are pro-social... not anti-social. So, the idea that great men become less social just isn't true. Anti-social men don't provide a lot of value to the broader community.

I would push back on notion and ask you... "Are hermits great?"

Becoming better at socializing does make a man more attractive. So, talking to women is definitely helpful. But the intellectual frameworks that men learn from male "dating gurus" end up making them less attractive. Like, I can sense when a man has learned pick-up as it gives off the same generic vibes. It actually gets in the way of his natural attractiveness. Honestly, the best advice for meeting women that one can give to a man is "Go and talk to women." But that doesn't sell courses. So, you get all these not-so-attractive "male attractiveness gurus" who present a lot of other advice mixed in with the effective "go approach women" advice... and men will think "It actually worked. I approached women and acted like Andrew Tate. And I got a woman to sleep with me. I need to keep acting like Andrew Tate." But it's a "Dumbo's Magic Feather" situation. The man could have just approached women and operated in a generally social way, and he would have had women attracted to him. But he implemented the other ideas and bits of advice and thinks that that's why he's successful. Honestly, to be attractive as a man... talk frequently to men and women, build yourself a robust social circle with friends/family/acquaintances, develop a good reputation within that social circle, prioritize sticking to your values, and develop good social skills. And approaching women and talking with them is a good way to develop social skills. So, that will check off a box in the "How to become an attractive man" bucket. But anything beyond the things I listed above is just developing more audacity. And that's the number one quality that a man needs to up his lay count. But audacity doesn't make a man more attractive.... even if he is getting more sex.

A man who develops himself and aligns to his greatness doesn't become more anti-social... he becomes more pro-social.

The misread is that pick-up makes you more attractive. It really doesn't. Becoming a great man who lives by his values and is an asset to the community makes you more attractive. And this will increase your options for romantic partners significantly because your social status will improve and you will be more respected in general by others. But it won't get you laid at the volume that pick-up does. But it's way more efficient for finding a partner and other opportunities in life. Pick-up is about audacity and persistence... not attractiveness. Pick-up is about sleeping with women... not being attractive to them or admired by them more generally. All you need is go through he numbers game to find a woman who's looking for a hook-up out of loneliness, boredom, or horniness to succeed at sleeping with a woman. And if you show up as an option and you're audacious about it without completely bungling the social cues, sometimes you'll get picked. But it doesn't mean you're attractive. It means that you're good enough for the moment. So, I'll ask you this question... "Is it more important to you to become a great man in your own eyes, the eyes of women, and the eyes of the world at large? Or is it more important for you to maximize your lay count?" That is why I am breaking my rule about body-shaming and emphasizing the fact that these male "role models' that teach men how to attract women are not attractive men. A discerning woman wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. And while there is a sizable percentage of undiscerning women, probably at least half of women are discerning women. So, these guys may get laid often enough... but they aren't attractive. They're just audacious and persuasive... and more willing to impose themselves on the situation.

That's where a man has to ask himself... "Is it my priority to develop myself into a highly conscious man who will be a significantly more attractive and high quality man in general... but will attract a smaller number of highly aligned women." Or "Is it my priority to learn the tricks to have sex with as many women as possible?" The man who chooses the latter will make himself significantly less attractive and less respected in the world. But he will get laid more. And honestly, this is a huge bottleneck for men in terms of personal development. If you are crafting yourself as a product to be consumed by the highest number of people possible... you're taking away everything about you that makes you interesting and attractive. And you're taking away your uniqueness as a person. So many natural cult classics who would have a smaller percentage of highly discerning women with exquisite taste raving about them are trying to craft themselves into generic Summer blockbusters that the highest number of low-discernment women would feel lukewarm enough about to sleep with on a lonely or bored day. I just think it's a really important thing for men who are actually looking to become an attractive and great man to think about. How much of your Masculine greatness are you willing to sacrifice for slightly easier access to sex?

Perhaps it's not my place to make such a comment (meaning that I'm not trying to be creepy), but you're not a bad looking guy. So, I don't think you have anything to worry about in the looks department. Plenty of women your age will find your appearance sufficiently attractive. And women are much more attuned to personality qualities anyway. Looks are just the first threshold of consideration. Like for myself, probably about 60% or more of men in my age bracket are sufficiently physically attractive to consider them for dating. But my attractions are more based around chemistry... and that will only happen with maybe 1/10th or less of that 60%. So, the looks bar has to be crossed for an attraction to be there... but the rest of it is personality and chemistry, which isn't really something that can be learned. It's just showing up as you are as a person in a social setting and interacting authentically. And some women will just take a shine to you... though women often hide their attractions for fear of coming across as weird. So, it may not be super obvious. But it will happen if you socialize frequently with women. I say this to say that your looks will not be a factor in holding you back from finding a girlfriend... nor will any deficit of dating techniques. The only things that will hold you back are a lack of authentic socialization and/or being closed down to intimacy building interactions. Once you cross a woman's bar for sufficient physical attractiveness, the other qualities you have as a person will do most of the legwork if there is chemistry and you're a good match for her.

Not sure if these are before and after photos... but he's actually a bit more attractive in the first picture. He has a more Masculine and mature-looking face in the first one compared to the second one where he looks a bit mismatched between his hair and his stubble, the glasses don't suit his face, and he looks a bit more youthful and Feminine.

I know it's not nice to appearance shame but I feel like it should be said... a lot of guys who are popular pick-up artist coaches are very unattractive. I'm bringing it up because I find it ironic that the guys who teach men how to be attractive are usually not attractive themselves. And I just looked up the John Anthony guy just now, and I remember seeing some images or video of him before. And he seemed to have some insecure body language And I remember thinking, "It just goes to show you that a man doesn't need to be even in the slightest bit attractive (physically or personality-wise) to have a lot of sex. He just has to have audacity." Maybe that's the appeal of characters like him, that Owen guy, and Andrew Tate to the target audience. They're not attractive guys... and yet they still get laid a lot. That way, the men they're marketing to who are feeling unattractive and lonely who are looking up dating advice can look at them and go, "You know what. If these uggos can get laid, so can I." And that's correct. Getting laid isn't really about being attractive or even about developing an attractive personality. Attractiveness helps, but it's not necessary. It's really about the audacity to keep approaching. But it's kind of surreal from the female perspective how there are SO MANY unattractive men that are the gurus in the field of "attracting women" or who are known as 'attractive male role models' Like, all I see when I look at Andrew Tate is an anthropomorphized rat with a gym body, an annoying personality, and annoying speech patterns. And I was musing recently about a hypothetical female equivalent of Andrew Tate giving a ton of horrible dating advice to women and women eating it up en masse and getting super obsessed with this ugly lady and her terrible dating advice. And I laughed to myself about that hypothetical situation. She'd have a decent body but a rat-face. And she'd dress in ways that most men don't find attractive, but that women believe that men find attractive. And she'd give terrible advice that would be very repellant and unattractive to the majority of men... but that insecure men with savior complexes would be like, "I can fix her!" And she'd show the more attractive insecure men with savior complexes as proof that her methods work and that she is a very desirable woman in the eyes of men. And then men would be like, "That's not what we're attracted to." And then, the women would be like "Queen Andrea Tate says never ask a fish how to catch it. And she's obviously VERY successful with men. Men just don't like to reveal that that's really what they're into because it's difficult for them to admit what they really want." Then, there would be tons of women actively making themselves less attractive and believing that they're making themselves more attractive. And they would be getting some men to sleep with them because they'd be being more brazen and approaching a bunch of guys... and they'd take that as confirmation that Andrea Tate is as attractive to men as she says she is. And it would become this movement of women becoming more and more repellant as individuals. Then, there would be a female loneliness crisis precipitated by the influence of this kind of propaganda and the online echo chambers around it. And Andrea Tate and the other female dating experts that look like thumbs and act like bitches would be like, "That's because men aren't men anymore. Now-a-days men are insufficiently Masculine because of modern brainwashing. So, they're avoiding what they naturally like (which is the repellant behavior)." It's actually genuinely hilarious to imagine things flipped around because of the absurdity of it. But I digress. I just find it very interesting and ironic that many of the guys who teach other guys how to be more attractive aren't themselves attractive. They just get laid a lot... and that's a very different skillset.

I asked Chat GPT, exact same query, only with the addition of "In regards to Spiral Dynamics" at the beginning, and I got a very different answer. And to be clear, I don't have a ChatGPT account. Prompt: In regards to Spiral Dynamics... I want to ask you, if we have three couples and they are the stereotype couples of that stage, a man with a woman, and we take stage blue, stage orange, and stage green. Which couple do you think is most dysfunctional of these three stereotype stage blue, orange, and green couples? Here's ChatGPT's answer: That’s a fascinating and nuanced question — one that Spiral Dynamics fans often wrestle with, because dysfunction looks different depending on the value system rather than the level itself. Let’s walk through each stereotypical couple briefly and then assess “dysfunction” in their context. 🟦 Stage Blue Couple (Traditional / Conformist) Core values: Order, duty, morality, tradition, hierarchy, sacrifice for the greater good (family, religion, nation). Stereotypical couple: A man and woman in a clearly defined, traditional marriage. The man might be the provider or authority figure; the woman might prioritize family, faith, and moral stability. Potential strengths: Stability, loyalty, shared values, clear roles, commitment. Potential dysfunctions: Suppression of individuality, rigid gender roles, shame/guilt-based control, emotional repression, authoritarian dynamics (“I know what’s best”), intolerance of difference. Typical dysfunction: Power imbalance masked as moral righteousness; lack of authentic emotional intimacy due to rigid roles. 🟧 Stage Orange Couple (Modern / Achiever) Core values: Success, autonomy, rationality, competition, personal freedom, material progress. Stereotypical couple: Both partners are ambitious professionals, results-driven, measuring success by achievements and lifestyle. Potential strengths: Independence, self-development, innovation, goal orientation. Potential dysfunctions: Emotional neglect, transactional dynamics, status competition within the relationship, workaholism, shallow connection. Typical dysfunction: Disconnection masked by busyness and success; love expressed through achievement rather than presence. 🟩 Stage Green Couple (Postmodern / Relativist) Core values: Equality, empathy, authenticity, community, emotional openness, inclusivity. Stereotypical couple: Both partners value emotional honesty, co-creation, and conscious communication. They avoid hierarchy, want fairness, and emphasize feelings and shared understanding. Potential strengths: Deep emotional connection, mutual respect, shared growth. Potential dysfunctions: Over-intellectualizing emotions, conflict avoidance (“everything is valid”), lack of clear boundaries, passive-aggressiveness, decision paralysis from trying to please everyone. Typical dysfunction: Emotional fusion and lack of structure — the relationship may drown in endless processing or an aversion to conflict. ⚖️ Comparing Dysfunction Across Levels If we’re talking about which is “most dysfunctional”, it depends on what you mean by dysfunction: In terms of oppression or imbalance: Stage Blue can be the most dysfunctional — it may involve repression, submission, and emotional rigidity. In terms of emotional alienation and burnout: Stage Orange can be most dysfunctional — partners may drift apart while maintaining an image of success. In terms of lack of grounding or practicality: Stage Green can be most dysfunctional — partners can get lost in ideals and never resolve things concretely. 🧭 Summary StageDysfunction TypeMetaphor BlueRigid, hierarchical, repressive“Trapped in tradition” OrangeDisconnected, competitive“Trapped in success” GreenOverly egalitarian, indecisive“Trapped in feelings” If you force me to choose one as “most dysfunctional” in a modern Western context, I’d say Stage Blue — because its rigidity often leads to suffering that’s unacknowledged or moralized away. But in a hypermodern urban setting, Stage Orange dysfunction (disconnection and emptiness) might be more common and corrosive. Would you like me to sketch out what a typical conflict dynamic looks like in each couple (e.g., how they fight and resolve issues)? That can make the differences even clearer.

Thank you! I can see just on this thread the a mixture of scarcity-thinking and pick-up ideas play into the "Close the deal now or she'll get bored" idea. And that perspective is still coming from the illusion of scarcity... which causes men to not have many sexual standards to avoid losing the chance to sleep with a woman. And for men who haven't had a lot of experience with women, it makes sense that there would be a fear of letting go of the opportunity for a hook-up. But if the goal is to become an attractive man in a more holistic sense where the man radiates a very positive Masculine energy (which goes far beyond just pick-up techniques), one of the best things a guy can do is to be able to channel his sexual energy well and develop a more detached relationship with sex, where he can take it or leave it. And this enables him to raise his standards. And people who have higher standards are much more attractive than those with lower standards. That is most especially true for men. And from the discerning female perspective, men who come across as attractive are men who have a high libido... but also have high standards and a lot of control over how his libidinal energy is channelled. The metaphor that I like to use is that an attractive man is a fierce lion and expert lion tamer all in one. One of my main issues with pick-up is that it may work for the purposes of sleeping with women through the numbers game, but it doesn't really teach a man how to be an attractive man in a more holistic sense. It's more like, "Here's how to get a small percentage of women to sleep with you." instead of, "Here is what a man who exudes positive Masculine energy is like." The former tends to come from the place of "How do I have to be for a percentage of women to be attracted enough to me to sleep with me." And the latter comes from a wholesome self-focused place where a man invests in himself to make himself feel more fulfilled in life. And this is what makes a man exude a general attractiveness and admirability in the eyes of many women... as a side benefit.

But guys who approach women randomly as a frequent habit are really easy to spot out. You can always tell when a guy has studied pick-up and does it frequently. And many women will sort them from consideration straight away, simply on the basis of being a stranger who approached randomly with a romantic intention. And cold approachers come across as spammy to lots of women, if the pick-up is done outside of a nightclub kind of environment where the etiquette is more conducive to flirting with strangers. Cold approach is very similar to cold marketing in that way. The majority of people will see any kind of cold marketing outreach as spam, whether it's done well or done poorly. They will opt for more familiar goods and services from companies that they know, like, and trust... and will ignore the cold emails and cold calls. But 0.5% to 2% of people who are cold marketed to will actually buy the goods or services that the cold marketer is offering. Many customers will require warm marketing to close. But some customers, you will be able to close with cold marketing. The upside to cold marketing is that you can do A LOT more volume. So, you can actually run a very successful business form cold marketing alone. But a warm audience helps A LOT. Everything that I just said about cold marketing is the same as cold approach... as you are trying to market yourself to a cold audience. And the close rate will be similar because most women will sort you from consideration as spam. But 0.5% to 2% of women will say yes... while 98%-99.5% will say no. And many of the "nos" you get, are saying no because they perceive you as spam. Probably 10%+ of those "nos" you get in cold approach would be "yeses" if you were in the same social circle as them.

No doubt it is the product of the nation-state. Any world that sees itself as divided into in-groups and out-groups from other people, will always beget these kinds of unfair outcomes. It has to be the case for the world to operate in its current state. And that arbitrary human-to-human division happens on the level of the nationstate... but also happens/happened before with smaller groups that have understood themselves as separate. And it's arbitrary, of course. If we take the United States as an example, it's a LOT of people stretched over a huge chunk of land that all identify the same way under the abstract idea of the nation-state. But you could also have a situation where there is a village that defines itself as a totally different group from another village that lives a mile away. But the delineations... and having an arbitrary in-group and out-group is what must happen now for the world to operate. And that creates so much suffering. My point was that we must figure out a way to holistically transcend the nation-state, so that we can line up with the possibility of living in a more fair world. And this will require many shifts... technologically, ideologically, and psychologically.

Yes, I definitely think so.

To be fair, those screenshots are from several years ago... perhaps 3 or more years ago.

He's setting your expectations, so that you don't interpret your first 50 "nos" as a sign that you should stop approaching. And he's encouraging you to do a lot of volume. (In any kind cold marketing, more volume equals more sales) But that 3000 number is not realistic, even for cold approach.... unless you're doing something VERY ineffectively. And if you're a beginner to approaching women, you very well might be doing something VERY ineffectively. That's why he's setting your expectations at such a high volume. Number one, it gives you practice through volume. Number two, it sets your expectations very low, so that you don't get discouraged. In cold approach, you will likely have a close rate of about 0.5% to 2%. That's industry standard for any kind of cold marketing. So, you may need to cold approach 50-200 women to get one yes. And cold approach will take you longer to find a willing woman, because many women have standards to automatically sort out random guys that approach as most will see it as spam attention. It's the difference between cold sales and warm sales, business-wise or dating-wise. Cold sales will be much harder... because the "customer" doesn't know, like, or trust you. What I was recommending, however, was to get involved in a social circle. In a social circle, your numbers will be much better as you will have fewer leads... but warmer leads. They will come to know, like, and trust you... and you will be read as a more valuable partner. If you are looking for a girlfriend, social circle and building warm connections with female friends and acquaintances is the superior strategy. It requires fewer skills, and you will find more discerning partners who like you for your personality. Plus, it will meet your needs for community. If you are looking for a bunch of sexual variety and hook-ups and to have exciting sexual experiences, cold approach is the way to go.

It's a good idea... if done prior to the first time having sex or even if the guy just isn't in the mood. It's a major green flag actually. It tends to communicate that a man is more stable, mature, and experienced... and he isn't super desperate for sex and has the ability to withhold his sexual energy for the sake of making sure that things feel aligned and "right" for himself. And he makes that decision because that's what feels good to him. It communicates he has his own sexual boundaries... and higher standards for how he expresses his sexual energy. And it communicates that he's not desperate for sex. He is capable of leaving it, if he's not in the mood that night or if the dynamic isn't yet aligned. This also indicates that he will be more likely to be faithful because he can control himself sexually/emotionally and isn't just trying to have sex with whoever he can and whenever he can. It shows that he's able to wield his sexual energy and feelings with a high degree of discipline and mental strength. But it's better if this is done from a place of genuinely wanting to wait... and not as a performance that a man puts on to manipulate a certain reaction in the woman. Coming from that place of trying to evoke a reaction of woman, those decisions won't be sovereign decisions... and will still be coming from a needy and desperate "do what the woman wants" place. And a great many women will pick up on that. It won't pass the smell test. If you want to do it from a genuine place, you can do it from the perspective of, "I will enjoy the sex a lot more if I take actions to make sure she's really yearning for it." instead of, "How can I please her? I know, I'll wait and she'll like me more because I waited." Those are coming from very different places... and the intention behind the action will be felt. The main trick is to developing this orientation to sex in a genuine way is to recognize that sex really isn't scarce... and to recognize that you do have many many options. And you must also disambiguate sex from your sense of self-worth... and to disambiguate sex from any kind of Masculine identity you might be trying to construct. That will put you in a space where you can feel content in a space where you feel detached from sex relative to identity and physical urges... to where you can easily wait several more dates before something happens.

Yes, but that situation exists because wealthier nations have their boots on the necks of poorer countries... through regime change and the installation of dictators, exploitation of a cheap labor force, and extraction of natural resources. That's the nature of imperialism. The imperial powers maintain their power by dominating smaller countries. It's very unfair, of course. But it's how those who live in the imperial core maintain a higher standard of living than those who live outside of it. That's why everyone wants to move to the imperial core. It is the ultimate privilege. Everyone prefers to be the boot... and not the neck that the boot is stepping on. That's why immigration needs to be regulated, as there must be friction for people expatriating from neck locations and immigrating to boot locations. Otherwise, everyone would come to the boot locations... and the boot location would have no one to exploit. My point is that the system as it is needs reform. And the immigration issue won't be solved until we figure out a structure for society that is fair for everyone. Until then, the best we can do is to create a challenging but surmountable level of friction in the form of a path to citizenship for those relocating from the neck to the boot. Also, the current US system requires a cheap labor force in the form of immigrant labor to continue operating. If there were no illegal immigrants, the US economy would fall apart. So, the immigration "problem" with illegal immigration is not actually a bug... it's a feature that enables the economy to keep running. And if the immigration "problem" was solved, it would tank the economy. This is another example of why the system must change. Not only is it EXTREMELY unfair... it requires immigration laws to be bent and broken for the economy to keep functioning. It's these things that people don't understand about the issue with immigration. But an intelligent conversation about immigration can't be had without considering these facts about how the system works in reality.

But the vast majority of people who currently exist, prefer existence over non-existence... even if suffering is involved. So, we can logically assume that the currently existing majority's preference for existence would remain in all future-born people. So, the question is "Why are you trying to impose a moral philosophy that most people don't agree with, that would cause people who would most likely want to exist to not exist against their own preference for existence?" And you might say, "They don't exist yet to have a preference for existence. So, it's against their consent to bring them into existence." But then I would say, "Likewise, they don't exist yet to prefer non-existence. And non-existent people definitionally cannot consent to things because existence is required for consent. Yet, if we look at currently existing people, most of them value their lives and want to exist." That's why the philosophy of antinatalism is a moot point. Not only is it unrealistic and unpopular as a philosophy (which is an issue because antinatalism requires unanimous support and participation to achieve its stated aims of eradicating human suffering through eradicating human existence)... it's also (based on its own faulty logic of the lack of consent of non-existent people) forcing the non-existence decision onto non-existent people that the non-existent people didn't consent to. The idea of non-existent people consenting or not consenting is a silly notion to begin with, because they can't consent. But if they can't consent to existence... they also can't consent to non-existence. But it's truly a moot point because you're talking about the preferences of people who don't exist yet... and the non-consent of people who don't exist yet. So, in the same way that non-existent people can't deny consent and say "no" to existence... non-existent people also can't consent and say "yes" to existence. So, you are assuming a preference for non-existence in people who can't yet speak for themselves. And you're foisting the current and historical less popular option (non-existence) onto every would-be person who doesn't get to be because society listened to the antinatalists.

That's a slightly different issue. I think it would be good if our population drops gradually to about half of what it is now over the next 10-15 generations or so, as that would be better for the planet. That more gradual drop is already happening because of birth control, family planning, women's rights and bodily autonomy, and lifestyle differences in a post-industrial world. In fact, it's happening a little bit too fast to avoid the difficulties associated with population drop... especially in places like South Korea. But I think it will be manageable in most countries at this rate. But antinatalism plays no role in this drop. These kinds of ebbs and flows of birth rates come from more organic, non-ideological feedback loops within human nature and nature more generally. It's how the feedback loops of nature play out through human lifestyles and technological shifts. We just don't think of it as nature, but it is. That's why it happens in such a widespread way in post-industrial nations. Nature says... once humans are post-industrial that means the population has exploded. And in post-industrial societies people choose to have smaller families or opt not to have kids altogether. Nature is intelligent like that. Within the flow, there is a seed of the ebb. Within the ebb, is the seed of the flow. And having our population gradually drop requires us to eventually transcend the Capitalist system for a system that doesn't rely on the principle of infinite expansion... which will also eventually not work (just like Antinatalism and Libertarianism). What goes up must come down. But a steep drop in birth rates is not the way to do it. You have to taper it over many generations. And if (hypothetically) antinatalism gets adopted in the most maximal way that's realistically possible, that steep drop in birth rates would lead to a lot of human suffering. There would still be humans coming into existence, because most people aren't ideological about having kids. But the birth rate would put undue suffering onto those new people to take care of the massive aging population.

But the purported aim of antinatalism is to reduce/eliminate suffering. That is the aim of the ideology... to reduce/eliminate the suffering of sentient beings through non-existence. So, if the practical outcomes of people adopting an antinatalist ideology (in the most 'successful' realistic application of antinatalism, from an antinatalist perspective) is that it creates more suffering... then the philosophy is moot. It means that the philosophy is unrealistic and doesn't do what it intends to do. And if you aren't evaluating a philosophy based on its practical application within reality, you're just doing mental masturbation. It's similar to Libertarianism. The idea is, "If everyone abides the nonaggression principle, we could run the government and society like this." But the problem is that people don't abide the nonaggression principle. And people will never universally adopt and practice the nonaggression principle. So, Libertarianism can never practically work. With the antinatalist ideology, the best possible realistic scenario (from an antinatalist perspective) is a steeper drop in birth rates. And the effect of a steeper drop in birth rates, is that people will suffer. So, the ideology ends up practically doing the opposite of what it intends to do. That is why it is a moot ideology.

It rings hollow because most people don't agree with the idea the idea that procreating is unethical. And everyone has variations to their ethical compass. I see having children as ethically neutral and in the realm of personal sovereignty. And some people see not having children as unethical. And even if someone does theoretically agree that having children is unethical, the desire to have children is so meaningful to people that they'd absolutely be willing to break from that abstract idea that "procreation is unethical" in order to have kids. Like, if you really wanted to have kids, you would drop antinatalism like a hot potato. Not to mention the fact that having children comes from having sex... and people like to have sex. And there are tons of "oops!" babies that come into existence even though they weren't explicitly planned on. So, even if everyone got on board with the antinatalist ideology and was in agreement that having kids is unethical and defied their own deep desire to have children to be "ethical" in that way... there would still be "Oops!" babies. The only way to actually enact an antinatalist ideology would be to forcibly sterilize everyone against their will... which would bring us into eugenics territory But here are my counter-arguments... 1. Every decision you make... including the decision to donate to charity... is one that you make because it feels right to you or makes you feel good. There is no such thing as a selfless decision. And having children is no different. But that doesn't mean that you see your children as a mere tool of your happiness. Good parenting is a one-way street where you give care and they receive it to grow into themselves as people. The benefit that I get is that my children are really cool people to be around and it's amazing to watch them grow... and I'm glad to know them as people and to have them as my family. They are very much wanted by me... but their existence doesn't belong to me. 2. You don't know that the person you bring into this world won't value their life tremendously either. And you rob so many of them a chance to live and exist and experience if (hypothetically) society adopts an anti-natalist ideology. I am glad that my parents procreated and had me. I'm quite sure that my kids are also glad that I procreated and had them... as they don't wish not to exist. Most people prefer to live and want to continue existing... even if they encounter suffering in their lives. Most people do not attempt suicide or commit suicide. So, you are setting up a situation where people who would want to exist are disallowed from existence for the sake of an ideology. 3. A non-existent person cannot consent to existence (if we look from an Earthly perspective). So, that is a moot point. You have to exist to consent. Consenting only happens in the domain of existence. So, you cannot consent to existence. Therefore, you are simply acting as the ultimate authority and assume that everyone who exists is non-consenting... and you project your own ideas onto them and rescind consent for them. You assume their no... when perhaps they wanted to give an enthusiastic yes to life. Instead, you project an unpopular ideology onto them that assumes that they are forced to exist against their will. It's like stealing something precious from a sentient being by assuming that that sentient being doesn't want to exist. Now, of course, there are plenty of potential people who don't get born into existence. And I see that as being the sovereign prerogative of a given person as to whether or not they want to bring life into the world. But because you are saying, "Let's not bring people into this world because they might not want to exist.", my rebuttal is "What about the majority of people who do want to exist? Maybe 5% of people who are brought into existence, don't want to exist. But why deny the 95% of people who do want to exist for the sake of the 5%?" But ultimately, antinatalism rings hollow because the only people who agree with it are people who are looking for a post hoc justification for not having kids. The people who believe it's unethical to not have children tend to lord their perceived moral superiority over those who choose not to have kids... and badger them about "being selfish" and hounding them to have kids. So, as a rebuttal, those who don't want to have children use the antinatalist ideology to be like, "Actually, I'm the morally superior one... and you're being selfish for having kids." Almost no one else agrees with antinatalism. And even if they do, if having kids is meaningful to them, they will still have kids.

My point is that it's a fringe ideology that won't be adopted universally or by anyone who would actually want to have kids. So, the ideology of antinatalism is only adopted by people who already didn't want to have kids as a post hoc justification for not having kids in a world that pressures and pesters them to have kids. Literally no one who wants to have children is stopping themselves from procreating because of antinatalism or because of some abstract notion that "procreating is unethical"... which is something the majority of people don't agree with. So, the idea that human beings are all going to adopt the ideology of antinatalism and stop reproducing until there are no humans is a moot point, as it would never happen. If hypothetically (and this probably wouldn't happen either, as I don't think literally anyone who wants children would be swayed by antinatalist rhetoric towards not having them), a sizable minority of people started to adopt an antinatalist philosophy and stopped having kids, what would happen is that our birth rates would fall and it would cause a lot of suffering over the coming generations because we'd have an aging population with fewer younger people to prop the economy up. That's the most realistic result of this ideology. So, if the attempt at switching to an antinatalist ideology succeeds as best it possibly can, it would just lead to a lower birth rate... and not the human race dying out entirely. And having a steep decline in the birth rate would lead to a lot of suffering. So, it's a moot point.

Good luck getting people who want to have children on board with that. First off, antinatalism is a pretty extreme ideology that would have dire consequences for the human race if it were adopted on a broader scale. We're already trending towards lower birth rates, and that could lead to some really difficult living circumstances for the humans who are already alive. It's something we should try to pump the brakes on slightly, if we can. We don't want to end up like South Korea will be in a generation or two. But beyond that, people who want to have children just aren't going to adopt antinatalism. The only people who agree with antinatalism are a percentage of people who didn't want to have kids anyway. And they adopted antinatalism as an ideological justification for that decision long after they knew they didn't want children. It would be a very rare person indeed who really wants to have a child but decides not to because they heard the antinatalist philosophy. The rhetoric rings quite hollow unless you're looking for ways to feel better about your decision not to have kids by framing it as morally superior to others' decision to have them. I can see it really appeal to people who don't want to have children (especially women who don't want to have children) because people are always harassing them about having kids... and saying bullshit like, "people who choose not to have kids are selfish" and other things like that. So, I see antinatalism as something that the childfree people who get harassed by breeders adopt as a way to push back and say, "Actually, you're selfish for having kids because life is suffering!"

In the U.S., it's statistically proven that immigrants (legal and illegal) commit fewer crimes per capita than U.S. born citizens. And chances are, if someone is worldly enough to immigrate to another place, they probably have a good bit of Orange and above in regards to spiral dynamics. Immigrants are generally very ambitious people who are focused on achieving upward social mobility. It's a very Orange thing to do. But if you want to know why it's necessary for immigration to be regulated, it's because of how countries with imperial power use that power to disenfranchise other countries... which creates a 'haves and have nots' situation where there's a huge disparity in standard of living between countries. So, the wealthiest places on the planet are in the imperial core, where all the power is concentrated. And if given the option to, most people would move to the imperial core... as they are places where conditions are better and human rights are more of a guarantee. But we can't have all the people in the world piling into a handful of powerful imperial nations. And if all people did that, the empire wouldn't have enough people outside of the imperial core to legally exploit for cheap labor to make the imperial core livable. That level of exploitation is reserved for countries outside of the imperial core because of laxer human rights laws in less powerful countries. To give an analogy, let's say there's a big open field. And a few spots in the field are really nice... but the rest of the field is covered in ant piles and the ants will bite you if you're in those spots. So, of course, the people who are standing in the spots with the ants will try to move to a spot with no ants. But then, everyone will be crammed into the non-ant-ridden spaces. That's what's happening globally... only with poverty and human rights abuses instead of ants. So, we need immigration regulated to maintain the order of what we currently have... or it will all fall apart as there will be no have nots to exploit to make the haves lives better. You need have nots in the current system for there to be haves. Ultimately, this problem will only get solved when the countries where most immigrants expatriate from become more safe, stable, and comfortable places to live, with more upward mobility and more human rights. Then, you'll probably see immigration numbers drop by half or more.