-1
$\begingroup$

Lets say 50% of human males or females decided to reject human sexual relationships and avoided reproducing.

I'm very interested about this set-up in our modern world, could the MGTOW movement or extreme feminism destroy human society? If so, how. And if not, why not?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by JDługosz Feb 26 '17 at 2:18

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

7
$\begingroup$

Actualy, this would probably be very helpful.

With increasingly limited resources, overwhelming overcrowding and the strife caused between nations because of these difficulties, 50% of the worlds population suddenly deciding not to reproduce would be great for humanity.

We are not short on capable people at the moment and even if we were this population decrease would not drive up that shortage as there would be less people who require services from those capable people anyways. In otherwords what's so great about human societies is that they are capable of catering to both extremely large population bases and much smaller ones in the same degree.

Further more, human beings have a desire to mate and care for offspring. Even though those urges are somewhat reduced in certain individuals (making your scenario semi-realistic) letting said-individuals win over them, this is not the case for all human beings. And by the brilliance of natural selection, those individuals who do not have sufficiently strong urges to reproduce will be gradually (but rather quickly in this case) weeded out of the gene pool. What remains within the pool would be the genes which do promote breeding.


Thus this event would not only be wonderful for a world descending into choas at an alarmingly rapid rate because of overpopulation (perhaps even according humans enough surplus resources to kick start us up into a golden age) but it would also be over relatively fast.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But if taken too far, we will have no humans left. $\endgroup$ – spark Feb 26 '17 at 2:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @spark Given the range of sexual proclivities of humanity, I'm certain that if society raised the death penalty for anyone who had breeding sex, even then, someone would still decide to do it. And if they held out for 50 years or so, they (or their kids) would be running the world. $\endgroup$ – SRM Feb 26 '17 at 4:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There would be a lot of short term problems though as the current population aged and the new population half their size was supposed to somehow support them. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Feb 28 '17 at 13:39
2
$\begingroup$

Exactly this issue is problematic for Western Europe and especially Japan. People choose to have fewer children or none at all.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/retirement/retire-planning/how-japan-is-coping-with-a-rapidly-aging-population/article27259703/

The reproductive rate is not enough to replace people who are aging out of the workforce. There are a variety of reasons for this, one among several being a departure from traditional female roles. An overall aging of society definitely changes the society. To the point of destruction - I think not. Rich old people are crafty too and they will figure out something.

The USA does not have so much of a problem in this respect because of immigrant populations (read Hispanic) with high birthrates. One reason that crafty rich old people Germany and Sweden have been willing to take in so many refugees is to accomplish this in their own countries,

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It already is*, but not for the reasons you mention. Sex feels good. Sex is a basic human drive. (These are of course generalizations, people who avoid sex don't typically leave heirs to continue their avoidance). Modern birth control (the pill), dramatically reduced infant (and child) mortality, and the increasing educational level, and social standing of women are all leading to plummeting birth rates. These are having dramatic impact on our laws and society. For instance, most people in the USA believe it is OK for a woman to be unmarried or simply childless at age 35. Compare this to 100 years ago, when it was expected that women would produce heirs. * "destroy" is hyperbole, any meaningful change in the structure of human society takes generations to have its full impact felt. Let us say that the change in human society to be person-centric rather than family-centric is underway, and has been for some time.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.