Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Thoughts on Economics > So Why Aren’t the Rich and Well-Off Having Lots of Children?

So Why Aren’t the Rich and Well-Off Having Lots of Children?

Throughout human history people have consistently tried to create ‘intellectual’ frameworks to justify their delusional and solipsistic beliefs. People seem to create and believe in such mental frameworks even when they damage, hurt and kill them. Religions, both traditional and secular, fall into that category as do all schools of philosophy and economics. Today I am going to talk about one of the more contemporary and more ‘secular’ sounding ‘intellectual’ framework used to explain the world- evolutionary psychology.

Before we go further, let us be clear about one thing. Evolution in all its forms (micro-, macro- as well as speciation) is very real and measurable. While we can certainly argue about the contribution of each sub-form of evolution to the overall process or its ability to arrive at ‘perfect’ solutions, the existence of the evolutionary process is not in question.

I however take an exception with using the idea of evolution, or a particular interpretation thereof, to justify delusional and solipsistic beliefs. Such perverse interpretations of the evolutionary process are especially common among greedy and subhuman who profess right-wing ideologies. Evolution inspired solipsistic beliefs such as the ‘survival of the fittest’ and eugenics have a long and close connection with who truly deserve a final solution. One of the more popular ‘intellectual’ justifications for ill-gotten wealth, prestige and power is that people who have them are somehow more superior, smarter or otherwise genetically better than those who were less lucky. I have attacked this idea at multiple levels in many of my previous articles and this is another one in that chain. So let us talk about evolutionary psychology especially as it concerns the mechanism through which these supposedly ‘superior’ genes spread and increase in populations- a kind of genetic Calvinism.

Given that the number of fertile progeny who reach reproductive age are the fundamental measure of success in biological evolution, let us look at the situation in contemporary societies. What are the defining characteristics of those who are having many kids today? and what about those who have fewer nor none?

If we ignore societies in the midst of civil wars or underdeveloped countries with poor life expectancy and high infant mortality, two trends dominate the demography of most contemporary societies. One- the majority of human beings live in countries where the median life expectancy is over 70 years. Two- the fertility rate in almost all countries, even those where woman had 7-9 kids barely a generation ago, is less than 3 kids per woman. However not every fertile woman in those countries have 2 or 3 kids, since an increasing number have one or none.

Some of you might see this change as merely a temporary blip in the great ‘celestial’ pattern. However an objective look at the evidence suggests otherwise. For one, there were never 7 billion plus humans alive on earth at once in an era where the whole world just happened to highly interconnected by trade and information and simultaneously technologically capable. To put it another way, we have never been here before. Contrast this to all the fiefdoms, kingdoms and empires of old which had considerable similarity to each other- even into the middle of the industrial revolution.

So, who is having more kids today? and who is having less on none? and why are they behaving that way? For starters the fertility rates among the ‘rich’ and ‘well-off’ are very low. Sure, you can find the occasional religious type who has many kids and grandkids or some attention-whore adopting kids from poverty-stricken countries. But they are just that.. the minority. The majority of people who had the (ill-gotten) financial resources to have as many kids as they wanted to are just not having them! In contrast to that, people with limited financial resources are still having kids. Why is that so?

Why aren’t the rich and well-off having lots of children?

The very low fertility of the rich and well-off is certainly not due to their altruism, decency or concern for the future of humanity. Indeed these people are some of the slimiest and most narcissistic sociopaths that have ever walked the face of the earth. Their obsession with making more money, gaining more status and abusing their power is in a class by itself. Given that CONservatives and LIEbertarians consider such people as the peak of human evolution, shouldn’t they be spreading their ‘awesome’ genes left and right? But are they? and why not?

Why does a mediocre black rapper have more kids than a well off surgeon or high-flying corporate lawyer? What about professors and scientists? How many kids does Bill Gates have? What about the guys who started Google? What about other billionaires? What about the bankers on wall street who spend every waking second thinking of new ways to fleece and fuck over humanity? Isn’t it odd that those with the resources to have tons of kids are either not interested in having them or end up with 1 or 2 kids after multiple rounds of fertility treatments? Are these people not able to comprehend evolution or the reality of their eventual mortality? What is going on?

Contrast this to the fecundity of even mediocre athletes, musicians, C-list celebrities or even your local drug dealer. Why do women want to have the kids of such men rather than educated professionals or filthy rich plutocrats? Surely, women are not dumb enough to overlook that having the kids of guys with money is a great way to live well. But women are increasingly choosing to be single mothers or have the kids of hot and popular guys while sticking some dweeby rich or well-off guy with the bill.

Why aren’t ‘high IQ’ and ‘noble ancestry’ genes making women wet and horny?

Some of you might blame ‘feminism’, ‘contraception’ and the ‘modern welfare state’ for this outcome. But are they really the major culprits behind the inability of rich and well-off men to make women wet? Would women get turned on by these guys if the situation was different? Were they ever turned on by such men?

Could it be that humans prefer to have sex and kids with other human beings rather than things that look and sometimes behave like humans?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. January 30, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    I was wondering when you’d address this topic, Lord Yama, since it’s implicit in so much of your reasoning.

    It’s been on my mind for some years.

    Since my Don Giovanni persona is the model of modesty, I’ll quote myself:

    “‘fitness’ is a minimalist proposition. In nature, those creatures that reproduce the most for as little cost as possible win…
    dodos were very much ‘fit’ until sudden change came along. Their lack of wing development and their inability to move quickly were desirable traits because it costs a lot of energy to grow strong wings or speedy legs. Many people who do well in social competition look down their noses at the welfare parents who are losing the game. These parents may be at the bottom of the social scale, but they are the most biologically fit in a post-industrial society. They produce the most offspring for as little effort as possible. They have a model of survival in which they don’t have to be smart, skilled, fast, or strong to reproduce. Thus, they are the truly efficient survivors who exemplify fitness..,
    Competing socially in an attempt to squeeze some happiness out of existence is a rather illogical approach, but it’s what we’re taught and what we’re pressured into doing all through our lives. “

    You apply your argument against economic social climbers, but I have long seen additional significance.
    Such as the meaning of spending time and effort on game or conventional dating when no or few offspring result from these efforts…

    I lost my virginity with hookers and at one time seriously considered the path you took for the same reasons.
    It’s one of the reasons I’ve been keeping an eye on your activities here.

  2. jackal
    January 30, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    The rich aren’t having kids for the same reason toxic societies aren’t — they don’t have the hormones that make them want to have kids, only more so than the general population because the affluent have greater free time and disposable income, risks factors that translates to greater hormone imbalance. This doesn’t have to be complicated.

    • January 30, 2013 at 7:35 pm

      I was just thinking of you Mr. Jackal since it’s been awhile since I commented here. Our last argument definitely had an impact on me.

      I will never worship unadulterated zero sum competition and self-interest like you do…

      However, your mindset is pretty much necessary if one wants to stay alive in the USA.
      Your lessons have served me well these last months.

      I’ve spent more time living alongside proles and yes, it becomes ever more obvious that you could pour endless millions of dollars into them and never see any returns.
      They are fundamentally unable to create or retain wealth.

      They thrive on being followers and have no self direction, no agency. The ultimate dependents, they will always need someone to give them a “job.” They pride themselves on bottom feeding off of crumbs. It’s even what they boast about…how hard they can strain themselves stooping to do someone else’s dirty work.

      It’s reality, but I would that it could be some other way…

      This said, the predatory order of affairs that you idolize will only last a little while longer in the pure form you find so delightful.

      A Nash equilibrium inevitably self corrects against distortions. Defection only pays off when most people still cooperate.

  3. P Ray
    January 31, 2013 at 12:26 am

    Could it be that humans prefer to have sex and kids with other human beings rather than things that look and sometimes behave like humans?
    The amount of single mothers or children out of wedlock suggest differently.
    Women want one set of men for sex (the f*ckers)
    and
    Another set of men to pay for the children and “rebuilding their faith in the goodness of males” (suckers).

    • January 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      thats right, the man she want to be the father of her children is almost always different from the man she wants to raise the children with her. In most traditional societies, the suitor is picked by a matchmaker or her parents. If it were up to her completely, she will run off with the local ruffian

      • P Ray
        February 2, 2013 at 4:57 am

        The thing is, in the old days she wouldn’t be supported by the community if she ran off with the ruffian.
        Now it’s called a “social safety net”.
        How much sympathy does the “social safety net” have for men who undergo paternity fraud or scorched earth divorce?
        It’s a good thing men judge women by how they look like on the outside.
        Many are frankly horrific when it comes to the character ripening from a life of unearned-but-awarded opportunities.

  4. January 31, 2013 at 1:26 am

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Crunc Tesla has 200 wives without having a gazillion dollars. Put that in your pipe, and smoke that, oil sheiks.

  5. Webe
    January 31, 2013 at 3:42 am

    > the inability of rich and well-off men to make women wet?
    This may not be the relevant factor. Not everything can be reduced to the alpha/beta male divide. Throughout human history the rich have been less fertile; there are many examples of cultures where the dominant (ethnic) group has been supplanted by outsiders/underdogs by dint of numbers (of babies): Sumerians supplanted by Semites; Egyptians afraid the Israelites would overthrow them through breeding; the revenge of the cradle in Québec. Since it is not just the upper crust in these examples, but the whole “tribe”, I am assuming something else is at play. It’s conscious behaviour and choice, not just on the part of the women (Roman patrician women, as well as large parts of the population at large, used abortion and herbal contraceptives routinely), perhaps a decision to invest in other things than children, or perhaps children is the only avenue open to the poor to invest in the future.

    What is true about children though is that they represent human-being in its most elemental form, and those who shun children, in my experience, tend to be generally misanthropic.

  6. popinin
    January 31, 2013 at 9:19 am

    I think you are mistaken in assuming large numbers of children is the sign of reproductive success. A well-off couple is more likely to be confident that their small brood will successfully reproduce, and with good reason. A poor couple has less opportunity to ensure any individual child’s success, and so turns to a more buckshot approach. Both take the path to genetic immortality that is more efficient for them.

  7. Just sayin
    January 31, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Simply put, because we (the successful) have to pay for all of the useless dead-beats breeding like frickin’ rats…

    Of course, I reproduced before I was twenty with a number of those women who’s husbands were clueless. Of course, these days having a child is just too costly and risky to me – since the draconian Government wants to take 1/3 of my income for each screaming rug-rat…

    I will wait till I’m out of the US and breed a couple of sweet young foreign women and call it good… But to do that in the US would preclude me from having those sweet young things and enjoying them to their fullest later in life… :)

    • February 1, 2013 at 3:03 pm

      You piece of shit, you are the useless dead-beat who share responsibility in cuckolding the useful men in society.

      In a more civilized society, they would have you publicly executed.

      It’s much more honest to cuckold the productive men up front through impregnating single women and send the bill to the taxpayers, than cuckold an unwitting beta. The taxpayers can always vote to stop financing your bastards, but the beta has no such option.

      So fuck you.

  8. January 31, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    You left out one group of well to do people that are very successful with women with high reproductive rates: high ranking and successful athletes in competitive/physically intensive sports. A lot of them have so many illegitimate children . It is also important to note “hot guys” often lead athletic lifestyles for the obvious reason.

    I made another post about this matter that involves the encounter with my asshole neighbor on my blog. Check it out.

    Also, have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? That film talks exactly about this topic

  9. January 31, 2013 at 11:07 pm
    • jackal
      February 1, 2013 at 8:42 am

      A generation and a half ago, any woman who wanted a family could do with any man, no matter his income. But today, if she wants to be a wife and mother, she can’t unless she finds a very rich man, because everything costs 10 times more; that $35,000 car of yours today, cost $3,500 back then. Electricity was a penny per kWh. Burger King was 25 cents. These hookers today, who pride themselves in how much they charge, can’t find a rich husband to settle down and have a family, because only 1 in 100 men are rich. So they improvise and do the next best thing. They timeshare themselves, making it possible to attain the same affluence of women lucky enough to find a genuine husband who is rich. They even flaunt their lifestyles, living in penthouses and spending weekends in London, sending the message that an expensive hooker has freedom while her married counterparts are chained to children and a lifelong husband. I mean, how else does a woman save face in a world where parasitic One Percenters have robbed her of every opportunity to ever settle down with a soul mate and actually have a family? Even if she decides on a legitimate, high-income career, she’s still a mere hireling, devoid of freedom.

      • P Ray
        February 1, 2013 at 1:40 pm

        Important difference:
        Many Women don’t chastise women for being prostitutes,
        but criminalise men for their use.
        It’s almost as if …
        they want to be paid for sex,
        but reserve the right to call you a loser,
        when the only value most women bring,
        is the sex in a relationship.

  10. February 1, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Advocatus. This is why you need to pay for sex. You think too bloody much. Take my advice. Join a shaky company. Once it lays you off, go on the dole. And a little bit of effort will allow you to stay on it a little longer. With the time that is thus released, use it to game women, my man. Thrilling, I tell ya. Thrilling. Having a soceity pay you to sleep with it’s women. As sociopaths go, you are not much of one. You are just all talk, no action! Now as for me, heheheheheheh!

    • February 1, 2013 at 9:27 pm

      pussyhoundonthedole dot blogspot dot com/2013/01/the-numbers-game.html

      On your blog, you mention that you have an approach-to-success ratio of 1% (which is typical), you have one lay every 10 days on average, and the percentage of women that are 8s is only 2%, and 9s or 10s is 0%. What is the point of all this, if you can get a job, make much more money, and have sex with hotter escorts (8s-9s-10s) more frequently (at least once a week)?

      • February 2, 2013 at 12:16 am

        or he could just be celibate….

      • February 2, 2013 at 3:24 am

        It’s just a lot more fun to approach a strange woman you do not know and convince her to have sex with you. Let’s just say I’m a thrill seeker. I know different strokes for different folks and all that. I tried escorts in the days I used to work. It just did not thrill me and I did not like their attitude. My comment to the Advocatus was half tongue in cheek. I like to pull his leg and take the piss off of him.

  11. February 2, 2013 at 3:28 am

    Stoner, Sure man! Whatever explanation gives you a boner. Hahahaha!

  12. hans
    February 2, 2013 at 5:04 am

    Who says they have no large families?

    http://www.henrymakow.com/nuclear-family-need-larger-loy.html

    You try finding one fucking person between your acquaintances that can get such a family picture done. Something that is in fact the norm for “THEM”.

    Though the picture clearly shows that even they prefer “quality” to the rat-like quantity approach.
    And I think you already answered WHY even normal high-middle class couple aren´t as fecund as the ghetto dwellers.

    Simply the higher life expectancy and even in old age relatively assured health means that creating lots of young kids means creating lots of rivals competing for the same resources.
    Mostly the almighty JOBS.

    Isn´t it apparent? The baby-boomers are sitting everywhere, still hogging the best left-over jobs as our dear elites have efficiently “outsourced” most others to overseas.

    • jackal
      February 2, 2013 at 7:37 am

      Quote: “The baby-boomers are sitting everywhere, still hogging the best left-over jobs…”

      You’re hung up on “hireling disease,” the preferred career route for slackers. Just because boomers are infected with this disease doesn’t mean you should follow in their footsteps. There’s a huge shortage of dentists, for example, the lions share of whom are independent entrepreneurs — not hirelings. Go to dental school, or any one of thousands of other professions, rise above the slacker mentality that is epidemic, put hireling disease behind you. A man who works for himself is a whole man; a man who submits to another is half a man.

  13. hoipolloi
    February 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    @P. Ray
    “Important difference: Many Women don’t chastise women for being prostitutes,
    but criminalise men for their use.”

    Thanks for the insight. I never realized that. Feminists if they are honest should chastize their own kind for porn and prostitution rather than put all the guilt on men and patriarchy.

  14. February 2, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    PussyHoundontheDole :
    Stoner, Sure man! Whatever explanation gives you a boner. Hahahaha!

    hahahahahaha,

    have fun with those “personal trainers” from the healthfood stores…..

  15. February 5, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Occam’s Razor: the reason for the drop in fertility is the fact that people have more entertainment options. Argue about racial “treachery”, nihilism, increased costs of living/status seeking, etc., it does nothing to detract from my point. Given the option, women prefer to have fewer than three children (regardless of social class, race, culture…) Given the option, people would rather engage in selfish hedonism than self-sacrifice and discipline (the hallmarks of being a *serviceable*, never mind *good* parent.) When you’re living on a farm, every extra set of hands helps. When you’re overseeing an entire country, you can’t have too many heirs. But when your “average” daily dilemma works like this: “Should I log onto Orbitz to purchase tickets to Tahiti, or have my batman ready the yacht for a trip to St. Croix?”, children tend to cramp your style.

    I’ll even put up a personal example: the happiest day of my life involved lying naked in the sun with a €100 bottle of wine, a pack of Gauloises, a perfectly maintained pool and a plate of handmade mozzarella/vine-ripened tomato/sweet Galician onion sandwiches. If my child had lived, I wouldn’t have had the free time to fly to another country, find a resort with access to freshly made cheese/ripened vegetables/less than an hour old bread/50+ year old wine, schedule child care for the 6-your span, etc.

    • P Ray
      February 5, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Agree with you on the entertainment option,
      but it’s also true that you can’t build a relationship … with someone who doesn’t want you.

      What has happened is that it’s less harrowing for the wallet, emotions and sanity, than to deal with the strains of an average relationship if you’re an average guy.
      The women who complain about men who cheat only really have 2 rational options (if they choose to be):
      – Be with the “lesser”(in their minds) men
      – Be alone.

      A difficult relationship is a sign you’re with the wrong person.

      • P Ray
        February 5, 2013 at 8:33 pm

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274123/Transition-long-term-relationship-takes-22-meals-holidays–3-000-gifts-major-arguments.html

        “In love? Transition to long-term relationship takes ’22 meals out, two holidays, £3,000 in gifts and several major arguments’
        The number of single adults in the UK rose by more than 3million
        Researcher: People invest less time and cash in love”

        I wonder how many of those relationships will be together 20 years later …

      • February 6, 2013 at 7:47 am

        Replace “doesn’t want” with “doesn’t need”, and your post makes more sense.
        I’m actually friends with an “Orbitz or yacht?”, man (divorce lawyer in NYC, hasn’t earned less than $200,000 in a year since the turn of the millennium.) The guy has over $1million in the bank, and his current goal is to marry a fellow Filipina when he turns 40. To him, marrying (never mind raising children with) an American woman is as sensible as breeding vipers for house pets. There are *plenty* of women who see him and day, “He’s good enough and I’m 30″, who he’ll never marry due to the potential cost(s).

  16. Karl
    February 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    It’s all from conditioning, options, perceptions of advantages and common sense. Like the previous poster alluded, many people are so bored they just drink and screw. Kids happen. Having a plan for life and thoughtful use of birth control, including routine surgeries will result in more planned vs. unplanned kids. Also, childbirth is VERY painful as I understand it. More dumb kids = more low cost labor, low information voters… What political party needs union money contributions anymore if fear gets votes. A democracy is ALWAYS an aristocracy. Voting sentiment is always shaped my the various media (left and right and other) to align with the desired election results. It’s all covered. Why have kids when you can have slaves?

  17. July 2, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    First of all, I don’t think the might-destroy-humanity fertility problem is in the rich but in the high-quality middle- and lower-class people. Show me two people with 130+ IQs and sub-$100,000 incomes, and I’ll show you people who aren’t having children.

    The rich don’t have many kids, but the lack of fertility among the high-quality middle class is of more concern because that’s a much larger set of people.

    Reason? Humans have two sex drives. One is r-selective. One is K-selective. The r-selective drive peaks at 17, is probably stronger in men than in women, cares more about proliferation than mate quality, and becomes stronger under stress. The r-selective animal doesn’t give a shit about its social status or whether it has the resources to support progeny. The K-selective drive peaks around 35, is stronger in women, cares immensely about mate quality, and responds negatively to stress.

    Less intelligent people have stronger r-drives, and are produced by the r-selective drive because that drive cares not one mote about a sexual partner’s intelligence. More intelligent people have stronger K-drives, and K-driven sexuality produces smarter children. (The test-prep and private admissions counseling business is financed by rich men’s r-selective, not K-selective, couplings.)

    Once socioeconomic injustice reaches a certain critical point, the r-drive goes haywire (especially in the lower classes) and the K-drive gets turned off, and this affects most the fertility of high-quality people: reflective people who don’t want to bring children into an unfair and broken world, or who realize that the quantity of resources it’ll take to guarantee a half-decent life for the child has become astronomical.

    Even in the wealthy, the advanced level of moral decay and general socioeconomic stress (the truth is that inequality exacerbates stress on both sides, after a certain point) has activated the r-drive. Rich businessmen assert themselves (“mid-life crisis” pattern) through affairs and debauchery with low-quality women, treating their wives and children badly. The good news is that, at least in the middle and upper classes, r-selective sexuality no longer produces children thanks to birth control. Birth control may have slightly increased the amount of r-selective sexuality, but the really good news is that that debauchery no longer leaves a huge lasting mark in terms of the humans that are created.

    Social conservatives have this belief that economic punishments will have a Darwinian effect on the population, but what actually happens is the opposite. Severe social inequalities shut off the K-selective drive and power up the r-drive, which leads to lower quality humans being born.

    Yes, but a lot of credentialed and supposedly clever people overlook that fact. Magical thinking can be very seductive.

  1. June 29, 2013 at 3:41 pm
  2. October 20, 2014 at 8:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: