Every ideology has a corresponding narrative that attempts to explain the world to its adherents while giving them a basic blueprint of how to live. This task is made more difficult in a world that changes rapidly enough that the best blueprint of the 1990’s may cause you severe harm not 20 years later. Even the manosphere’s collective narrative has problems in explaining the purpose of why we are all here.

Almost every part of the manosphere believes in evolution, where the purpose of humanity is to survive and reproduce up to the limits of the food supply, with the implication that the most adaptable will win this game in a way that passes their genes on to the next generation more than the least adaptable. Many men are firm adherents of ideas stemming from the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, which suggests that we are mere puppets for DNA molecules that only care about their own perpetuation, driven by their “selfish” need to replicate, as if they were conscious themselves.

At the same token that a man uses evolutionary theory to explain or justify behavior of men and women, he is purposefully going against its rules by not reproducing, or at least deliberately trying not to. There are many excuses given for this, some of which I’ve used myself:

  • modern women don’t know how to be good mothers
  • marriage and divorce laws are set up to encourage the destruction of your marriage with an outcome of your own destitution
  • the culture is so damaged that you wouldn’t want to bring kids into this world
  • being a provider is like slavery; it’s better to be a free man
  • the state will try to tell you how to raise your kids

Reproduction is painted in a way where the costs far outweigh the benefits, especially after constructing rational lists like the one above that are strong enough to defeat the urgings of DNA puppet masters. We are in the middle of deevolutionary dysfunction where most men are consciously deciding to be genetic dead-ends while structuring their lives in ways that can be directly at odds with reproduction. They have made a firm decision never to have a family.

It’s important to ask why men had a family in the past. Some men, especially those of royalty, were conscious of their legacy and had children to pass on their blood line so that the family could continue to hold power. Other more fecund rulers, such as of the Mongolian or Aztecan variety, reproduced at such a rate that they must have had a direct line to Darwin himself, fully realizing that they had to spread their genes as much as possible. But it would take a great leap to claim that a man of average or below-average socioeconomic status—and whose survival was always a pressing concern—had a family principally to fulfill his genetic destiny. There were other factors at play that drove him to creating a family:

  • tribal codes required him to marry a woman because it would aid the family (dowry)
  • he wanted access to sex
  • he feared loneliness
  • he wanted to satisfy his god(s) to experience a heavenly after-life
  • he wanted to increase his survivability

The last point is often not considered, but having a family in the past would have aided you in survival for the long run, strongly tilting your decision to have one. A man could focus single-mindedly on labor that maximized his resources at the same time a loyal wife at home attended to all his domestic needs. While having children incurred costs, it was only during the early portion of their lives. There was no social welfare or nursing homes in the past to aid a man once he aged, so his children was social welfare for him, especially once they got old enough to earn their own income. This ensured a life of less suffering.

It’s easy to see that a 40-year-old ancestral man with no family would’ve had a harder time surviving than a 40-year-old man with a family and three children in their teenage years who could perform basic labor, even if it was as simple as gathering wood in the winter.

In the past, having a family was, more than today, about creating your own personal tribe to help survive an existence that had fewer comforts. I have trouble believing that these ancestral men had a desire to reproduce for the sole reason of passing on their genes for posterity. They had a need to survive, which a family helped them with, and a need for sex, which feels good and is fun and I imagine was significantly harder to gain when there wasn’t a culture of nightclubs, Tinder, and post-Freudian sexual emancipation. The need to pass on your genes is actually so weak that even modern men who specifically know of the existence of DNA and how it’s the only part of us that can possibly survive after we are long gone effortlessly make the decision to not reproduce at all because of a handful of logical reasons that can come and go with the signing of a new law by politicians in the nation he resides in.

A man’s need to reproduce can’t only be to pass on his genes. If you can agree with this then that means society was structured in the past where having a family would help you survive and achieve the basic pleasures of being human, such as sex and companionship. Therefore we are not here to “survive and reproduce” but to “survive and reproduce if certain conditions are met.” But since modern society has eliminated those conditions that would have made reproduction a good bet, or at least a natural one, men are easily and quickly deciding to opt out of it entirely, oftentimes without any regret because of the many entertainments and pleasures he can still attain in its stead. In fact, having a family in some countries and with certain women can harm his survivability if, for example, he’s imprisoned after a divorce from refusing to pay alimony.

To accept that we are not here to blindly reproduce contradicts every narrative that takes evolution as fact. While I’m not attempting to completely claim evolution as false, it’s obvious that you and your peers are not actively structuring your life solely to reproduce, meaning reproduction can’t be your main purpose in life. It is a definite reason you’re here, and the need for sex is great, but your need to have babies is far lower than even trivial needs like listening to music, drinking alcohol, and checking your email. The fact that we are freed from the singular program of “survive and reproduce” gives us leeway to ascribe our own meaning in life to suit our particular nature, and many people do just that, but there is a big problem when that happens.

Nearly any purpose you can ascribe to your life, once you do it for enough years, will eventually become “boring” to you. You get your fill and then you stop doing it. Many people who believe they are living out their “purpose” are actually living out short or medium-term projects that only provide temporary meaning, and I can give you two examples which show this.

When I was in my early 20’s, all I wanted to do was have sex. Since I was a firm believer in evolution at the time, I easily concluded that having sex with a lot of women was compatible with evolution since my seed was being spread to as many women as possible (I ignored the part of me consciously not trying to reproduce with those women). Over the course of 10+ years, I had a lot of sex and structured my life where I could gain that sex from a variety of women across several continents. And then it got old.

Another purpose I found was to accumulate resources. I wanted to have a lot of money to be able to enjoy the finer things in life and also as a way to keep score against other males in terms of my own achievement. What I did not account for in this goal is what my money need was. It turns to be quite low. I prefer living in Eastern Europe where expenses are so modest that I can’t spend more than $2,000 a month no matter how hard as I try.

For many years I thought the best purpose I could ascribe to my life was getting laid with a variety of women while accumulating resources, but as I type this, I have a low desire to get laid with a random woman and less of a need to gain more resources than to simply maintain what I already have. Due to the experiences I’ve had and the increased income I earned, my needs changed and the “purpose” of my life no longer became a purpose but something in the background, a sort of maintenance program.

This brought out a lot of confusion for me, because evolutionary I was supposed to have the most amount of resources to reproduce, which was simulated at least partly by stacking a lot of cash and sleeping with many girls, but doing those above my true need was leading me to burn out or simply lose interest. If you are able to lose interest in something that is deemed a scientific and biological purpose of your life then how can it possibly be a true purpose? There had to be something else.

I looked into other things I was doing. I found one behavior that regardless of how much I did it, I never got tired of it. That need is to help other men through my writing and also to share information that aids them. As long as I had the ability to write, I did so in a way that was meant to achieve those ends, and the purpose I’m writing this right now is still aligned with that. The men who I help share a lot of beliefs with me, so I believe this is the “tribe” that I would have had in ancestral times, which is why I get a lot more satisfaction with writing that is intended for men similar to me than helping a random homeless man in the street who is in greater objective need.

Earlier I stated that ancestral man must have had other reasons to reproduce beyond only sharing his genes, and gave other ideas of what those reasons could be. Could we not also add that he reproduced to create his own personal tribe of people that he could help and share information and experiences to? Is having a family in the past that different from having a blog in the present?

These questions contradict directly with selfish theories of human behavior, which state we do absolutely nothing out of truly altruistic reasons that don’t, through some arduous mechanism, personally increase our own survivability and ability to reproduce, but such a theory can be discarded if we look at how mindlessly altruistic humans are in a way that has zero benefit to their survivability or reproduction. Maintaining a blog and forum is actually reducing my urge to have a family in the same way a woman is less likely to have a child if she owns a cat, which is not genetically related to her. Both blog and cat ease a human desire to have a child, and I’m sure there are many things in your life that do the same. For many people, it can be as trivial as spending an hour a day on Facebook.

A problem with the “survive and reproduce” model is that modern humans are doing everything they can to purposefully not reproduce even though they definitely have the resources and Darwinian strength to do so. The reason for this, I propose, is that modern life has allowed humans to achieve the things they need most in life that was only given through family in the past. Those include access to sex, alleviation of loneliness, easier survivability, and multiple methods to help fellow peers and share with them.

If we accept the proposition that there is no innate and all-encompassing desire in you to pass on your genetic material, that they are not the “gods” within you that direct and supervise all your behavior, and that the act of reproduction served multiple purposes that can now be achieved in ways without actually reproducing, it’s much easier to understand why Westernized countries have citizens who have stopped reproducing above their society’s death rate while the poorest countries in the world like Yemen and Niger are experiencing logarithmic birth rates.

People in Niger need to have a family to fulfill their basic human needs while people in the United States don’t. This means that until you, a Western citizen, stop getting those needs from outside of a family construct, there will not even be a nagging itch for you to have one. As long as I live in countries where sex outside of marriage is easy, where I can help thousands of men with the click of a button, and where gaining income is so simple that I can do it from the confines of a comfortable chair in my heated home, I will unlikely to make the sacrifices needed to raise a family. Even people without internet businesses have apps in their computerized phone that simulate instant communities and human connection, making it effortless to receive the attention and bonding that would otherwise have only been given by a family in the past.

Our purpose here is not only to reproduce. Humans are constructed so that reproduction and having a family is the most reliable means to get a host of essential life benefits, but those benefits and ends can now be achieved in artificial and virtual ways thanks to a modern life that includes high personal freedom, lack of rigid moral or living codes, frictionless pursuit of short-term hedonistic pleasure, and high adoption of technology that creates simulated tribe communities.

The more that a nation adopts the Western model, the more that their citizens will come up with their own “purpose” in life that does not include family, and so reproduction will not take place. This purpose, whether it’s chasing women, accumulating money, or becoming a social justice activist, is but a means and not an end, meaning than modern humans will constantly shift from one self-satisfying project to the next, looking for some sort of deeper meaning that can be found, but never fully satisfied as long as their own tribe is missing.

Read Next: The Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply To Modern Human Beings

102 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrian TQM
4 years ago

I like your observation on how humans in their pursuit of personal freedom will succumb to short-term hedonistic pleasures and get rid of moral codes. The thing is that you don’t take into consideration the importance of human bonding and connection, which unfortunately, cannot be satisfied by those short term solutions.

My prediction for the future is that the majority of the population will experience an individualistically driven virtual reality that will satisfy most of the needs mentioned. Higher status and intelligence humans will most probably find other ways to connect with each other and will form their own isolated communities.

p.s. All these until we all become robots and eventually get rid of our primitive instincts and embrace a different form of living that cannot be perceived with our current knowledge base.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

That sounds horrible. I love my primitive instincts.

Etc
Etc
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

I agree. Our primitive instincs is what makes us feel alive. That doesn’t mean I agree with hedonism. Hedonism is short lived and tends to destroy our soul. I am a woman so my primitive instincs is to nurture. To rid this of me is to destroy my spirit. If we rid ourselves of our primitive instincs we will evolve to robots. We are not robots and were never meant to be.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Etc

I do not think we are ‘meant’ to be anything. But there are definitely many options.

As for the instinct to nurture, I remember having read an article about a woman whose child had been taken away directly after birth. It was such a horrible trauma that she repressed the memory and for 20 years, completely dissociated from her feminine sides along with the memory. Truly barbaric.

But. I bet nurturing is not the only primitive instinct of yours.

Etc
Etc
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

Well your right there is more. However, I am old now and my hubby and I have are children. At this age my drive is to take care of things. Everything else is just gravy.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Etc

Too bad. There I was hoping for a little dirty comment exchange.

Well, all good to you anyway!

Etc
Etc
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

Oh you are flirting with me? Sorry, been married for 23 years so now I am oblivious when it comes to that.. Lol

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Etc

I hear that marriage makes one even more receptive for it. Yours must be a truly good one.

Etc
Etc
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

If what you hear is right than that’s sad. I wouldn’t be surprised though. These days everyone seems to have gone bonkers. Yes my marriage is a good one but it has not been without challenges. Both of us have old school thinking and so we get through it and get over it.

Andrian TQM
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

The robots will have a different opinion.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Fair enough. But I am not a robot. Why would I want to give away the essence of my life?

Let me rephrase the question: Why do you like the idea?

Andrian TQM
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

I never said that I like it, but now that you mention it I am not really against it. My answer was actually inspired by Ray Kurzweil’s predictions (more info here: http://bit.ly/1XPOrbB). When the robots develop a form of superintelligence and be able to transfer it to us, I think that our primitive instincts will become redundant and we will experience reality in a way we cannot really comprehend at the moment.

Needless to say that primitive instincts are the regulators of two main mechanisms: pleasure and defense. Despite their importance to our survival, the combination of the two is very destructive. If we could find a way to establish the right balance that would allow us to experience their benefits without destroying our species, that would be great. And I think that robots will find a way to do that.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

You sound a bit like Carl Sagan there, in the sense of pessimistic and concerned about the destruction of the human race. Maybe there is something to it. I prefer not to focus on it.

But tell me, what use is the experience of reality without the sensation of pleasure, awe, humility, love, violence? I dare say that these are quintessential components of reality as it is perceived. And without perception, reality does hardly exist anyway.

Andrian TQM
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

I like your reasoning. It’s just my whole life I have been trying to find ways to amplify the positive and minimize the negative and with our current tools it is very difficult to achieve such a thing. Therefore, I believe that another form of intelligence will allow us to experience something in that respect.

Etc
Etc
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Everything you need to lead the life you hope for is already within you. Once you realize how powerful and wise you truely are then you will be able to amplify the positive. If I were you, I would spend less time seeking alternative intelligences for profound epiphanies and more time searching within myself.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Ah, I see. Frankly, if I had the choice today, I would not like to eradicate the negative. It is absolutely necessary in my eyes. To shape and strengthen the soul. It is an important part of life. This belief is the reason why I always look with suspicion at all those heroic masculinity sites. I find it too one-dimensional. What is utopia without dystopia? I find it too hectic, to stressful to push away the pain. I rather enjoy and feel it fully.

Etc
Etc
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Historically speaking we have yet been successful in destroying our own species. I have no doubts that humanity is heading for another difficult and challenging time but I think our specifies will pull through. Like every other time we will without the aid of robots.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Do you mean like Rise-of-the-Machines/technological-singularity sort of thing?

Morrison
Morrison
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

I hear ya Tom. Thought this might be interesting on Artificial Intelligence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TRv0cXUVQw

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Morrison

I never thought of it with any real focus, but yes, it makes sense that robots would simply get rid of us. Would need to build in some failsafe. Or just watch the world burn – could be fun, too. But with all the robot talk, I do never want to become a robot.

Great point about the moral vagueness. Has plagued me my whole life.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Morrison

Actually, think of how we always use to blame people for our tragicalities. How we talk of morals. How we call psychopaths ‘predators’. Evil.

Now, if we programmed robots to procreate and care for their own race, what would likely be the outcome? Of course, they would just eliminate us. But could we look at it with shame and call them evil? No, we would be forced to see it just as a logical decision. This thought may be helpful to meditate about. If you imagine others as robots, is it not plausible to take responsibility of your own life? And since I actually believe in determinism, this analogy is a very good one.

Morrison
Morrison
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

“Actually, think of how we always use to blame people for our tragicalities”

Good point. I also think that Humanity is essentially an animal that is a “smart idiot”. That is to say that we know enough to be able to tinker with the elements of our biology and environment, yet stupid to realize there is some things we have no place meddling. This is the drawback and the price to pay for our curiosity and pursuit of knowledge.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago
Reply to  Morrison

yet stupid to realize there is some things we have no place meddling.

Sounds like quite a cliche to me. If this was an obvious truism, surely humanity would be able to adapt. I think the truth is rather that there is some kind of superficial cultural awareness of past morals that forbid such practices; deep down, though, we know that it is on us to study life as deeply as we can and thus we never fail to – even if shamefully so – pursue what our intuition tells us to pursue.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

“Higher status and intelligence humans will most probably find other ways to connect with each other and will form their own isolated communities.”
.
They already do. QQV “The Bell Curve”

ginhivits
ginhivits
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Roosh, I’d rank you as a pretty important figure in my virtual tribe.

Here’s a long blog post that touches on the future of human evolution (and its current “pause”), modernity, purpose, the Future, ect. Very popular and thoughtful blog, hope you check it out. Long though. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Joel Joseph
Joel Joseph
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrian TQM

Transhumanism in a nutshell.

YosarriansRight
YosarriansRight
4 years ago

Yes, “human society” has devolved to the point where the vast, vast majority of it has strictly become bipedal livestock.

The term “sheeple” has never been more applicable.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago

The State is our shepherd and I shall not want. It makes me lie down in green pastures. It leads me to quiet waters. It restores my soul. . .
.
WAIT A MINUTE! WTF AM I SAYING?

George Nada
George Nada
4 years ago

Richard Dawkins is a philosopher posing as a scientist. He is all conjecture with nothing behind it. One writer who consistently exposes this in all of his books is former UC Berkeley professor PHILLIP JOHNSON, author of DARWIN ON TRIAL and many other books. Once you read how, and how often, Johnson exposes Dawkins as a bag of wind, you can never go back to Dawkins.

Brutus Maximus
Brutus Maximus
4 years ago
Reply to  George Nada

Dawkins is a mediocre clown and he’s not smart enough to be a philosopher.

Gil Galad
Gil Galad
4 years ago
Reply to  George Nada

Actually Dawkins was really, really great as a scientist in the 70s and 80s when he published The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. His later books are more mediocre. But it’s true that he seems to lack the depth and rigor required for serious philosophy.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  George Nada

I would argue the opposite: Dawkins is a scientist posing as a philosopher. He is, by all accounts, a top-notch scientist; however even an amateur like me (trained in business and law – including informal logic – but through independent study has looked at various aspects of philosophy but in particular the philosophies of science and religion) can see he is full of shit.
.
He is the least credible of the “Four Horsemen” of atheism, although Sam Harris gives him a run for his money in the arrogance department. Christopher Hitchens (RIP although he screams “fuck you” from his grave whenever somebody says that) is the best written, wittiest and most entertaining to read of the gang of 4, but a close look at his writings seems to indicate his anger is misdirected: he was an iconoclast who hated bureaucracy and ideology – certainly hallmarks of religion but also that of socialism and leftist thinking. Daniel Dennett is the most erudite and highest level thinker among them.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
4 years ago
Reply to  66Scorpio

My friend once told me to come over to this girl’s house to pig-roast her (yes seriously). I showed up and this girl brought us to her room where we got comfortable on her bed. I glanced at her bookshelf and noticed rows and rows of Daniel Dennett books.

“Are those your books?”
“Yes. I am an atheist and Daniel Dennett is a brilliant man.”
I got up off the bed and said “I changed my mind I can’t do this…”.
As I reached for the doorknob to leave this girl’s apartment she slammed her body against the door and spread herself out as if to say loudly and clearly “TAKE ME!”.
Something about the fact that I said no to having sex with her because she was a fan of Daniel Dennett really turned her on.
I seduced her away from the door and ran out as soon as there was an opening.
My buddy could not understand why I’d get up and walk away from a bukkake session just because some girl was obsessed with 21st century philosophy of mind. Oh and also she was married.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

Atheists believe they are soulless creatures derived from monkeys. . . and I tend to agree. Avoid Bonobo Babes.

Jeffersonian
Jeffersonian
4 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

Maybe, Superman, you should have popped a viagra and banged her til she saw God.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeffersonian

I’ve made mistakes in life.
Avoiding that chick is not one of them.

AngweRebootIRL
AngweRebootIRL
4 years ago

As someone who’s seen the early 90s ‘s late 80s and misses the remnants of tribe like community, I miss the days of going to the park with other youngsters like myself playing some pick up baseball, or soccer.

I just talked to a friend who has kids in their teen years and he’s told me the only time they go outside is when they have their cellular phone with them, and none if their friends on their gaming communities isn’t online,and then that’s to a place that has wifi, like starbucks or they mall. I can only imagine the awkwardness these kids have when they lack the social skills to strike up conversation with the opposite sex without looking at their phones every 3 minutes.

Titan000
Titan000
4 years ago

Men also have a family so they can build a dynasty. Hence he will continue to help conceive children until he has a son.

GoingSane
4 years ago

See, I’ve always thought men seek: Personal Survival and Proof of Existence (Legacy) which may be descendants for instance or a body of work/record of their deeds.
While the purpose of sex was more: to enjoy pleasure/intimacy and/or reproduce. Not always a personal driver even if necessary for the overall species’ survival. Even in polygamous monarchical environments, for example, where a man sires an army’s worth of sons it doesn’t necessarily equate to his own survival as he may be supplanted/usurped by such a son with the condolence that at least the bloodline (which is basically only one measure through which control over groups is established/maintained) continues.
Then again I’ve always maintained a cynical frame for evolutionary theory (and most other science/philosophies for that matter) in its entirety.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  GoingSane

Men seek immortality. You can do that through progeny, through monuments or through ideas.
.
The link between sex and progeny is all but shattered in this age because people can specifically avoid that while seeking intimacy, validation, or simply sport fucking.
.
Still, these can all work together.

John
John
4 years ago

Stick to social commentary. It is clear by this article and by the one written earlier this year that this man misunderstands the theory of evolution so deeply that it is pointless to even argue.

Read “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, then come back and we can talk.

P
P
4 years ago
Reply to  John

I thought you’d be smarter than this. Provide an example of the misunderstanding or STFU.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  John

Fuck OOS, evolutionary theory has gone way beyond that. It’s like you are trying to refer people to the Principia while discussion relativity or quantum mechanics.

Anon.
Anon.
4 years ago
Reply to  66Scorpio

Principia is still valid in most situations. You don’t study relativity before having looked at classical mechanics for years. Same with evolution. For most things discussed in game, the basic Darwinian principles are enough. You don’t need to understand the chemistry of mutations to realize that a large percentage of human behaviour stems from natural selection.

Jeffersonian
Jeffersonian
4 years ago
Reply to  John

You’re right, evolution is constantly misunderstood. Some mention of the economics of child-rearing then and now would also enlighten the conversation. We don’t need to elicit Government conspiracy theories to explain Westerners not raising children, this isn’t an agricultural society anymore.

Tom Arrow
4 years ago

As Andrian mentioned, you completely disregard human bonding and intimacy. Maybe that is the reason why you are so focused on sex.

People do not have families and generally do not live their lives out of ‘rational’ reasons, that is, by the book. They do it because their instinct and intuition tells them: Hey man, fucking do it.

Because it fulfills them.

Take some LSD and think about it again. Always helps me when I want to think about difficult questions.

Andrian TQM
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Arrow

I agree. Try some LSD and report back.

Brutus Maximus
Brutus Maximus
4 years ago

Great post. I would argue that western materialism has actually turned conscious human beings into biological robots. We’re living scripted lives, from paycheck to the next, being stuck in traffic 2hours a day and bitching about our corporate slave jobs, shopping in the same malls everywhere, eating the same food everywhere : bland standardization. Dawkins and co are pushing their silly atheist agenda so we’ll better accept the scientific tyranny to come, and I include transhumanism in it. Dawkins views don’t hold a candle to any decent and honest scientist or even philosopher. He’s a clown.
Roosh I suggest you have kids ASAP, you’ll get wiser by the day.Great posts to come !

Skoll
4 years ago

Just because humans have intelligence and consciousness far above mere survival and reproduction, it doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. People can easily override their natural instincts through artificial beliefs, evidenced by the fact that people have practiced complete celibacy and hunger strikes.

The same is true for altruism that has no direct benefit to the spreading of your genes. People are social creatures and naturally have an instinct for altruism. Just because people are practicing their natural instincts, it doesn’t mean that it’s going against the principles of evolution. Does the fact that people masturbate prove that humans are going against their evolutionary instincts and trying to reproduce asexually? Or does it just show that people will exercise their natural instincts in every outlet possible?

“This brought out a lot of confusion for me, because evolutionary I was
supposed to have the most amount of resources to reproduce, which was
simulated at least partly by stacking a lot of cash and sleeping with
many girls, but doing those above my true need was leading me to burn
out or simply lose interest. If you are able to lose interest in
something that is deemed a scientific and biological purpose of your
life then how can it possibly be a true purpose? There had to be
something else.”

The purpose of securing resources and having sex is to have as many children as possible so as to spread your genes. You have sex with women you have no intimate connection to and with whom you have no intention of having children with and you wonder why you feel burnt out and lose interest? Funny thing is that you go on to say that the one thing that does give you satisfaction is helping other men. Perhaps that’s your paternal instinct that was meant to be used on your children instead.

Also, brotherhood or men in groups is an evolutionary function. A tribe cannot survive without strong male-bonding as they are needed to hunt in groups and fight off enemies. I don’t see any contradiction to the survive-reproduce model. Refer to ‘Men in Groups’ by Lionel Tiger who coined the term ‘male-bonding’.

Life really is only about survival and reproduction as per evolution. Everything else is just an off-shoot or ‘mistakes’ in variations. Humans are just more intelligent to make their own decisions. Don’t listen to the garbage spewed by religious, anti-evolutionists.

Gil Galad
Gil Galad
4 years ago
Reply to  Skoll

Thank you for this, I hadn’t seen your comment when I wrote mine, which is pretty similar. It really is a problem of our time that so many people “heard about evolution” or very vaguely grasp natural selection, but so few actually have some understanding of it. The field is a goldmine, more intellectually stimulating than anything I studied at school, and yet people read one anti-evolution book and a couple articles bashing selfish gene theory and suddenly think they’re experts.

Hank
Hank
4 years ago

It’s not survive and reproduce as much as it is to survive and have sex which for our ancestors was pretty much the same thing. If Roosh would have lived 200 years ago and lived the same lifestyle as he has now he would have probably dozens of offspring. Genes via natural/sexual selection have not have had anywhere near enough time to adapt to the current contraceptive environment. They still make bodies with brains that reward sex with pleasure as if it was the same as reproducing.

ElHombre
ElHombre
4 years ago

I believe homosapiens were a hybrid genetic experiment between the ape man (homoerectus) and the creators of the ape man (and all other animals) and ourselves: the Anunnaki extraterrestrials.
*Why does every ancient civilisation have almost identical stories documenting everything in the bible THOUSANDS of years before the bible was written?
*Why is our solar system the ONLY one that has smaller plants close to the sun, and the largest ones are further away?
*Why do butterflies have numbers and letters on their wings? (one of many intelligence tests from our creators?)
The bible is a true documentation of history, only the concept of “God” is incorrect, as the Hebrew word Elohim was mis-translated. Elohim really means in Hebrew “those who came down from the sky”. Before you question my sanity I would advise visiting spaceagogo.com so you can contemplate what’s fact for yourself

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  ElHombre

Just for the lulz: “homoerectus”

Den
Den
4 years ago

In my opinion this is what man, at least most white man about:
Youtube: Ambition the film (only 6 min, worth checking out if you haven’t seen it yet)

To have goals, to have challenges and improve ourselves. Creating a Legacy, or at least helping form a collective and valuable legacy for the future, like NeoMasculinity.

GRock
GRock
4 years ago

Is focusing on getting laid only a precursor to naturally wanting to procreate? The hedonism we see run rampant in society now, to me, is only a natural response to the entire species world-wide taking note of what I call “fish tank scenario.”

1885 : 1B people on Earth, 2015 : 7.4B people on Earth. Along with the behavior of women, it seems understandable (not preferable per se) for people to not jump into breeding in their younger years, and extent the fuck fest into their 30s, even 40s.

I’m not saying its ideal for good men. Its often not. However, when enough fish fill a tank, they begin to realize more population isn’t the answer, and life starts to suck due to crowding. Banking on a massive natural disaster to wipe out huge population #s is a gamble. We’ll likely begin a fierce fight for finite natural resources before then.

It could be the desire to fulfill a genetic legacy in us is lacking the biggest picture of all. The world has a runaway population issue.. that’s not going away and exponentially increasing every second. You can add to it or not. Mathematically, having more than 2 kids nowadays is most definitely adding to a population issue. I guess I just don’t like traffic and everyone in my way when trying to perform basic tasks each day.

Morrison
Morrison
4 years ago

Stating that we in in “High personal freedom” is overstating things when you consider that we live in an ever Sovietizing America. Otherwise, great article.

And I think today more than 90% of newborn children today are a result of a broken condom, or a reckless one night stand. It is extremely rare today where a couple actually fornicates for the purpose of having a child.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  Morrison

And this is one of the problems with “sex education”: the people most likely to mess it up are the people least suited to be parents.
.
You can teach kids: “Don’t fuck unless you are, or are going to be, married.” Pretty clear, unambiguous and with no side effects if followed.
.
Or you can teach kids: “Fuck whoever you want, when you want and how you want, but just be ‘safe’ about it.” Holy shit, the potential for disaster is. . .well, happening.
.
Stupid people fuck other stupid people and misuse birth control devices. This is “Idiocracy” in the making.

GRock
GRock
4 years ago
Reply to  66Scorpio

There’s no argument to the song lyrics “only stupid people are breeding.” There’s also converts who buy into immoral widespread social change AFTER they’ve been married and have kids.

They think;”well this is the new way, I’m a dumb beta husband (with 3 engineering degrees I might add) and my wife says Sally Sue should be able to experiment with sex more than we did at her age, so teens will be teens, just give her condoms or birth control.” Ooopsie

greyghost1
greyghost1
4 years ago

A lot of men including MGTOW types desire a family. What has happened is the government has made it fool hardy for a man to do so. It is criminal for a man to have a family and actually guide and lead that family. Good men are not criminals.
I can tell by the tone of the article that is an issue you are aware of.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  greyghost1

MGTOW and family does not compute other than by way of wishful thinking.

greyghost1
greyghost1
4 years ago
Reply to  66Scorpio

The purpose of MGTOW is to not foolishly be a target drone for feminism and the government not to stop living as a man. Men make families and raise generations and build nations women are there to grow babies in. Men don’t wish for anything we just handle our business.

Belatucadros
4 years ago

Roosh. You are truly an inspiration. I think you are deeply connected to your soul and feelings. Keep on digging and share your discoveries. Maybe one day, some of us might grow an equally strong connection.

Greigio76
Greigio76
4 years ago

The simple answer to your question is Yes. We are alive to survive and reproduce. Anything short, we are selfish and dead enders. We are useless and we have no purpose. Casual sexual should be called unproductive sex. It is sex without purpose. It doesn’t fulfill any purpose that includes communication, love, joy, and respect. There is no morality with this lifestyle. You can argue that’s fine too, but our modern feminized society has declared this lifestyle is moral for its the most fairest and equitable between the sexes.

It is fine to look at the history of marriages, but we should look no further than ourselves and our own families. We were all in relationships and we probably were married before or married now. Ask them why they married? No one wants to be by themselves. It is life without purpose. It doesn’t motivate your progression. Marriage should lead to having children to create your family. It doesn’t always happen and divorce sucks. Yet we pick up where we left and continue. And casual sex doesn’t last for everyone and some don’t get any besides trying.

Action to Knowledge
4 years ago

Thought provoking post Roosh. One of Dawkin’s ideas for the another kind of “genes” is memes – or ideas, which take hold in the minds of men, cultures, societies and survives / transmitted through the generations.

If a man chooses not to biologically reproduce, perhaps he can achieve a legacy through passing on his ideas through art. Create great music, books, blog posts, paintings, sculptures, etc that will survive long after he is dead and continue to help his fellow man.

Countless great men who did not have children achieved immortality this way because their writings or inventions lives on long after their death

We are fortunate enough to live in an Information age with the Internet where spreading good ideas to an audience is easier than ever.

Rob
Rob
4 years ago

They achieved immortality at least until the sun becomes a red giant and swallows up the inner planets a fews billion years hence…that is.

Nikolai Vladivostok
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob

If a few more Einstein types are born we might overcome that, too. It seems likely that, over the course of the universe’s existence, many intelligent species have faced similar problems. Before I die I hope we discover where they are and what they became.

Nikolai Vladivostok
4 years ago

The legacy of childless men such as Da Vinci, Tesla, and perhaps Jesus dwarfs that of the fecund Genghis Khan. And then there are men like Einstein and Socrates whose significance is unrelated to their offspring.
Another interesting case is Nietzsche, who agonized over the unimportance of life and became important because of it.

Ryan
Ryan
4 years ago

I think “purpose” is a bit far-fetched. As geniuses like Beethoven, Newton, Tesla, etc. never reproduced yet they had a firm purpose and drive in their lives whereas people who breed alot of children find their purpose in their children’s lives. So who’s more important or successful Beethoven or Octomom? I think the answer is subjective. Everyone should do whatever they feel is right and whatever will give them the most happiness in their lives as we’re all temporary anyway. Your genes also get mixed down the line with others’ genes until they completely evaporate. If for example you had a scientific dna test with your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather you can be sure that the test will indicate that you’re not even related. http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/11/24/ask-ancestry-anne-where-is-my-native-american-dna/

GRock
GRock
4 years ago
Reply to  Ryan

There’s more purpose in finding the skill you’re greatest at, a true passion that drives you to be great at something unique. Is sex unique? Is procreating unique? Fuck no. Anybody can do either of those by default and often by accident. I don’t consider either of those life-plans or activities to be particularly valuable because any dipshit can do them and will.

If we needed population, more dads, more moms, more strip malls, more Staples and Applebees, as if there was a shortage, then it’d be a different story. 99% of people are resource users bringing nothing new to the table.

However, I digress, anyone with a conscious and a heartbeat has the same right I do to eat up resources, fill space, and breath air. The primary focus needs to be Quality life… and by default, quality life usually brings value to the masses, not just individuals.

Vince
Vince
4 years ago

@ Roosh The men in the Westernized culture who are still driven to make as many babies as possible are under the radar and getting to be a trivial percentage but their impact on evolution is huge. An article on them would be more enlightening fascinating

334
334
4 years ago

Hey Roosh, have you read Ecclesiastes lately? Sounds like you’re in the zone for it. I think there’s this crazy possibility that parents back in ancient days simply found themselves loving their families and doing what they did because it satisfied their need to love. They may not ever have consciously considered whether they were increasing their chances of survival by doing so. They may even have sacrificially figured that if they put their best into raising their family, whether they survived or not, at least someone they loved would go on, and that would be worth something.

As you have well articulated, evolutionary explanations for human behaviour don’t hold water in the long run. We just don’t operate that way.

Aleenum
Aleenum
4 years ago

Historically few ancestral men and many more women reproduced.
Meaning even in a world without birth control,feminism,internet,modern law or cubical dwelling women, most men still wouldn’t reproduce. Due either to not getting mates or weak offspring.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  Aleenum

It will be interesting to see genetic mapping when I am on my death bed, In the far past, polygamy or something like it was the norm before imposed monogamy and socialism came about. For the last thousand years or so, your AFC has been matched up with some bitch and pumped out a few kids. But the pendulum is swinging. . .so to speak.

anon
anon
4 years ago

The article has an observer bias and bad sample to draw conclusion its too westcentric. The West is not the rule it is the exception amongst the rest of the world civilizations. The rest of the world
when they have good conditions explodes their population. Exceptions are
Japan and China with one child policy which they have uplifted a few days ago.
So the question is why there is this European paradox? My personal conclusion
is that there is a simple difference between West and the other civilizations.
The ruling elite of the West, is different from the mass of the population, a
part in ethnicity and another part antichristian, not only now, but long ago
since at least the French revolution, look for example the Jacobins. This is
not happening in eg the muslim civilization. with that in mind everything is
easily explained.

66Scorpio
66Scorpio
4 years ago
Reply to  anon

China and Japan are examples of bad social policy. In Japan there is no reward to take on the role of husband and provider while feeding the state your tax dollars to support the previous generation (and that is where the west is headed). In China, the One-Child Policy was a waste of human productivity. A better policy goal would be to have the people provide for themselves – something Deng brought in in the 90’s and the reason why the USA will play second banana in about 2 decades.
.
Ok, so there was a drought in the early 60s but the socialist programs in place killed so many people. If left to their own devices people are, on balance, productive: especially when they have to provide for themselves.

BlueBot22
BlueBot22
4 years ago
Reply to  anon

“The West is not the rule it is the exception amongst the rest of world civilizations”.

It seems to me that the West is becoming the rule more and more with each passing year though. The younger generations in just about every country seems to be looking to imitate the western world over their parents or their own culture. This makes sense as the West is rich and strong, at the moment. Imitating our culture as seen in movies, on the media etc. helps them be more like us, which consciously or unconsciously they associate with being rich and strong.

While this would normally be quite a good association (historically, culture been a good indicator of the health and strength of a society), in this case it’s not as the western world is being propped up superficially by false economics and any true strength we do have is in spite of instead of because of our modern degenerate culture.

Gil Galad
Gil Galad
4 years ago

Roosh, you seriously need to think more carefully whenever you bring up evolution. It’s a subject so much more subtle (and vast) than people assume.
There are many points I’d like to comment on but I’ll try to focus on as few as possible, and just leave you with the advice of reading more, or more carefully, about this subject.
Sexual reproduction is the process by which a “recipe” to build a body is made by the merging of two halves of it. If the body they build – the foetus – has characteristics that facilitate the encounter with more half-recipes when that body becomes sexually mature, then reproduction will happen again and more bodies – “vehicles” for the DNA – are built. So it follows that through the generations, the bodies that are still around are those that have a DNA that codes for a “vehicle” capable of surviving, recognizing a potential mate, copulating with it, and possibly invest in increasing the survival chances of the offspring – the new vehicles of the DNA. That’s why genes “appear to have intentions”: simply because those that are still around after 1000 generations are logically those that coded for bodies and behaviors that allowed the replication (reproduction) to continue. There is nothing fancy about the metaphor of “selfish” genes: no serious biologist is claiming that they have a conscious will, but it is a consequence of how natural selection works that the unequal survival of genes through the generations creates the impression that they are “seeking” to ensure their survival.
Genes “code for” this or that behavior. A human – a vehicle for genes – needs to be taken care of when young: so genes code for the appearance of babies to be “cute” for adults and to inspire pity and nurturing instincts. A human needs to eat, so genes code for our sense of taste to give us pleasurable sensations when we eat foods that are high in energy and nutrients. A human needs to reproduce (for the genes to be passed on), so genes code for sexual intercourse to be supremely pleasurable.
It so happens that in humans, pair bonding and taking care of the children (while possibly having other children on the side who will get less attention but are worth fathering for “quantity”‘s sake) is a better strategy than just “pumping and dumping” all the time, because investing into a small to medium number of children increases their chances of survival beyond those of a high number of kids who would get little to no care. The genes’ strategy to make humans pair bond is to make sex not just a means of reproduction, but something we like to do all the time, and it works to seal bonds, as a social, not just reproductive tool.
A man will tend to “fall in love” every once in a while and want to invest much effort into just one woman (and eventually lose those feelings and breakup or start to cheat) because that is the strategy that generations of gene “shuffling” determined to be the best to strike a balance between number of children on the one side, and probability of survival of each child on the other side. In other species, different parameters gave rise to different strategies: turtles have tons of eggs and immediately abandon them; some bird species pair bond for life, etc.
So even casual sex, or non-reproductive sex between romantic partners, is also the result of a “strategy” of genes (in the metaphorical sense of course). Your mistake is to assume that what is not immediately linked to reproduction cannot be due to the influence of genes. There is also of course your recurring mistake of “appealing to nature”, that is, assuming that whatever our genes “want” is automatically the purpose of our life or “should” be.
Besides, you fail to understand that genes are not “omniscient”: for example, if you’re regularly having sex with your girlfriend (with condoms on), if we follow the metaphor then your genes “assume” that you’ll be having children soon, and so even without actually having children you’ll feel relatively fulfilled. You might yearn for kids but the sex will still achieve the psychological reward it is programmed to achieve. That’s why couples get bored of each other after 3-5 years regardless of whether they had kids or not: the genes don’t always have the luxury of coding for very complex situations, so after 3-5 years the “program” runs along as if pregnancy had happened and a kid was raised until weaning, so now it would be advantageous that at least one of the two lovers begin to get bored and seeks other potential mates.
You also continue to confuse your genes’ “purpose” and you own personal interests. The reason the two are often the same is that your genes need you for some time, but if they could, they wouldn’t care: you’re just the vehicle.
If you act in an altrusitic manner detrimental to yourself but good for your relatives, the genes won’t object provided that the trade is acceptable. If you act in an altruistic manner towards strangers, it is because you’re programmed to be generally well intentioned towards other humans who seem to be the same. Not because it benefits you, but because it STATISTICALLY proved to be advantageous: historically, cooperation has been more beneficial than systematic conflict to humans. So even though self-sacrifice to strangers destroys your genes, on the broader scale people predisposed to do this tend to belong to strong, prosperous and numerous tribes. And of course, people in tribes tended to be somewhat related, in prehistory, so there’s still some more direct genetic benefit.
There is also the subject of “memes” and “memetics” (by analogy with “genetics”), but this would be too long to talk about.
Listen Roosh, seriously, stop having such a simplistic view of evolutionary science. Your “evolutionary purpose” is nothing more than what your genes are trying to do, and there is no causal chain leading to the conclusion that it “should” also be your individual purpose, which your genes are oblivious to anyway because you’re just their temporary vehicle. You can invent your own purpose. What evolutionary science teaches isn’t what our purpose is, but what genetic influence we must take into account when looking for the answer to the question “How can I be happy ?” or “What should be my purpose ?” Sexually speaking, my personal impression is that both men and women are happiest when they pair-bond every 5-10 years for a few years while still having “some on the side”, preferably with as little lying and drama involved as possible (so open relationships would be better than cheating from this regard), with perhaps men having somewhat more tendency towards promiscuity. The reasons have to do with “calculations” that happened through generational “sieving” of behaviors (and the genes coding for them).
Just figure out what makes you happy short and long term, and use evolution only as a source of information and predictions (always to be taken with a grain of salt) of what that might be, not a rigid dictator of your “purpose”.