Polygamy is the Future

[Mr S]

http://www.angryharry.com/esMoreWomenTh ... quired.htm

Polygamy is the Future

More Women Than Men Required

Over the past week I have spent some considerable time mulling - and arguing - over the issue of whether or not we will, one day, start to reproduce more females than males of our species - something which I call jiggering the gender ratio. And, as a result, I am now even more convinced that this will happen, and should happen, largely because the counter arguments to such a proposition seem to remain incredibly weak in comparison to those that favour it.

There are plenty of objections that can be levied against the proposition that people should be allowed to choose the gender of their own offspring and also against the notion that it would be beneficial to humans if this was to lead to a surfeit of females over males. But these objections seem so trivial in comparison to the benefits that seem likely to accrue as a result of altering the gender ratio that they are unlikely to carry much sway for very long.

Broadly speaking, the question can be divided into two parts.

1. Would creating a surfeit of females be of benefit to us?

2. Will we actually create a surfeit of females eventually?

And, in my view, the answer to both parts is Yes.

1. Would creating a surfeit of females be of benefit to us?

There are numerous reasons why human societies might be better off if there was an excess of females over males - perhaps around the order of 15%.

Here are two of them.

i. When it comes to crime, violence, war and general delinquency, males are clearly more involved in such things than are females. And they seem more prone to engaging in them at an early age.

Boys like guns. Girls like dolls.

A reduction in the proportion of males is therefore likely to reduce the amount of mayhem that generally takes place.

Furthermore, the evidence strongly suggests that young men who have established steady relationships with women are far less prone to delinquency. And with a female surfeit of some 15%, young men are far more likely to find themselves in steady relationships.

ii. Given that sex and intimacy are both extremely powerful motivators for men, a surfeit of females would also likely lead to a reduction in sex-assault, domestic violence, rape, prostitution and a host of other associated evils.

The counter-argument that women are just as bad as men but that they simply tend to use different mechanisms to achieve their wicked ends is almost certainly a valid one, but unless it is the case that women are actually worse than men in provoking disorder, disharmony and mayhem, then altering the gender ratio in their favour is not going to make matters worse.

The three fears most commonly expressed concerning the altering of the gender ratio seem rather overblown and largely unwarranted.

i. Men will always be needed to do the jobs that they are particularly good at doing.

the kind of intelligence and skills that men possess are gradually being replaced

This, of course, is true. But the kind of intelligence and skills that men possess are gradually being replaced by computers and their muscles are being replaced by machines. As a consequence of this women are becoming more able to carry out the tasks that originally could only be done realistically by men.

Furthermore, as women need to devote less of their lives to reproduction and child-rearing (for a number of reasons; e.g. artificial wombs) they will increasingly move into the workplace. Overall, therefore, the particular skills and inclinations that were once found mostly in men will increasingly be found in women.

As such, men will become relatively less important than they once were (vis-a-vis women) when it comes to maintaining and progressing the societies in which they live.

For example, driving a car nowadays is just as easy for a woman as it is for a man.

(In the old days, this was not the case.)

Furthermore, the argument that men will always be needed for tasks that are best suited to men (perhaps programming computers) because the human race will always keep striving in order to better its situation is somewhat irrelevant to the issue, because the argument is not that men will be completely redundant, it is simply that a gender imbalance of around 15% would be of benefit.

And given that the overlap between men and women in terms of the jobs that can be done just as effectively by either has increased - and continues to increase - the fact that some jobs will remain more suitable for men is not a particularly good argument for maintaining a gender balance of one-to-one.

ii. Evolution (or Nature) has determined that a one-to-one ratio of gender births is best for human survival and that, as such, it is best not to tinker with this ratio.

This argument fails on many fronts.

Firstly, there is no real evidence to suggest that Evolution has any interest in being of benefit to human beings.

Secondly, the 'natural' one-to-one ratio is the result of simple Mathematics rather than because of anything else.

Given that human reproduction is sexual, that the duration of human childhood is relatively long, and that human females are unable to conceive more than one or two offspring at a time, the one-to-one ratio arises because this is the optimum way in which human genes can reproduce themselves.

In other words, groups of humans that produce a near one-to-one ratio will reproduce more of their own genes than will those that do not.

Besides which, the ratio is not exactly one-to-one. Some 5% more males than females are born; with the balance being somewhat restored by the higher death rates for male infants.

Thirdly, arguments of the type that suggest that 'Nature knows best' could equally be applied to just about everything that humans do when it comes to tinkering with Nature. And so, for example, from this simplistic notion it could be argued that all forms of contraception should be banned, diseases and infirmities should not be cured, and natural environments should never be cultivated.

In other words, the argument that Nature knows best when it comes to benefiting humans does not always carry much weight.

Fourthly, the evolution of humans has largely taken place in environments and circumstances that differ massively from those that exist today. As such, it is not necessarily the case that what was beneficial to human development in the past as a result of evolution will necessarily be beneficial in the future.

Fifthly, given that humans are the product of evolution, it is just as valid to argue that any direction that they take as a result of their minds (e.g. jiggering the gender ratio) is, itself, a product of evolution.

the simple argument that 'evolution knows best' does not actually say anything worth saying.

In general, therefore, the simple argument that 'evolution knows best' does not actually say anything worth saying.

This is not to say that evolution is not a powerful force and that the understanding of it does not illuminate the processes that gave rise to what inhabits the Earth today, but, on its own, the argument that evolution knows best is completely vacuous when it comes to determining what might be best for humans as they move into the future.

iii. If there were more women than men then women would be more powerful than men and they would oppress them in various ways.

Well. There are a number of points to be made here.

Firstly, it is not the case that a larger group of people will always be able to exert undue power over a smaller group of people. Indeed, there are numerous examples both present and past where minorities, even small ones, have wielded huge power over those in the majority.

Current examples of this would include the way in which various minority groups such as feminists and gays have wielded power over non-feminists and heterosexuals.

Similarly, men have managed to exert power over women even when their numbers have been drastically reduced e.g. through war.

And, of course, the various governing elites that have existed throughout history have wielded enormous power over their majority subjects.

Secondly, it is very often the case that power accrues to those people in the minority precisely because they are in the minority. Indeed, the more rare are types of desirable persons or objects, the more do they tend to be valued.

If, for example, there is a shortage of plumbers, then their value rises - as do their earnings. And the same sorts of things would be true if there was a relative shortage of men.

As such, the argument that a small surfeit of women would necessarily reduce the power of men seems somewhat tenuous.

Indeed, the very fact that men seem so 'expendable' in many circumstances today surely supports quite strongly the notion that there are just too many of them.

Thirdly, given that women wield their power mostly through manipulating men, then it follows that if there are fewer men for them to manipulate then this power will be correspondingly reduced.

Fourthly, it seems reasonably clear that psychology determines to a very large extent the way in which people acquire and exert power. And it is through psychology that people can be influenced. And so, for example, even one person alone can exert huge power and influence over the way in which people conduct themselves.

For example, when the Pope or the President speaks, millions of people will listen.

In summary, the power and influence of a particular group does not correlate particularly well with its size.

2. Will we actually create a surfeit of females eventually?

Yes, for a number of reasons; some of which have been alluded to above and which, basically, boil down to this.

There is much to be gained by creating a surfeit of females and nothing to fear from it.

There is much to be gained by creating a surfeit of females and nothing to fear from it.

But there are further factors at work which will add significantly to the impetus to create more females. And these largely stem from the fact that both men and women would likely feel far happier if there were more females than males.

From the female point of view, an excess of females would not only lead to a more peaceful existence, it would allow women to have more choices when it comes to the workplace and in terms of child-rearing - much as it does in polygynous situations.

From the male point of view, an excess of females would help to reduce the enormous number of problems that they experience in association with sex and relationships.

women who join dating agencies receive 32 times more approaches than do men

For example, women who join dating agencies receive 32 times more approaches than do men. And the same sort of gross imbalance probably arises in most other circumstances involving matters to do with finding relationships. As such, women would barely notice the tiny 'decline of interest' in them that might result from them being in a majority by 15%.

But men could benefit significantly from it.

However, even more importantly, there is the positively enormous drive that men, as a whole, have when it comes to wanting intimate relationships or just plain sex with women.

For example, women are highly sexually attractive to men. So much so is this true, that thousands of men every year do not seem to think about the consequences of their sexual actions. Hundreds of thousands will lose their careers, or their marriages, or their children, or their liberty, or their status, or their credibility, or their health, or their money, or their lives, just for some sex!

This probably arises from the fact that all men currently living on the planet are the direct descendants of men with very powerful sex drives. Those men who did not have such powerful sex drives produced far less offspring and, statistically speaking, their descendants are just not here.

So, it is very clear that thousands of men are suckers for sex. But they will also risk a great deal simply to be able to fantasise about sex e.g. they are often caught smuggling pornography through customs or hauling down photos from the Internet and risking their jobs.

And, as we know, pornography is one of the major attractions on the internet.

It is worth billions of dollars.

there will always tend to be a huge force that will be created by men that will be designed to give them greater access to women.

And because women are so desirable in the eyes of men, there will always tend to be a huge force that will be created by men that will be designed to give them greater access to women.

Indeed, the enormous production of porn is, in fact, the very beginning of the production of more females - yes, just images of them, for the moment - but it's a start!

And the revolutions taking place currently in both technology and biology will give men the opportunity not only to increase the number of images, but also to increase the number of specimens!

Indeed, the technology will also allow them to create a psychological force of unprecedented magnitude and the biological know-how will allow them to bring about what they desire.

How, exactly, this will all unfold is anybody's guess. But, broadly speaking, the following scenario seems likely.

a. In the near future people will demand the right to choose the gender of their own offspring. They will win this right eventually whether the powers-that-be like it or not. Furthermore, at some stage, choosing the gender of one's offspring will simply involve something like ensuring that the sperm of the chosen gender is the one that ends up fertilising the egg. In other words, the procedures involved in choosing the gender will be relatively simple and they will not involve aborting embryos.

b. When people start choosing the gender of their offspring the actual choices that they make will mostly depend upon the psychology that prevails at the time. If this causes people to choose in favour of one gender over the other, then, quite simply, this will happen, and the result will be that more of one gender than the other will be born.

This will occur even if only a significant proportion of the population decides to make any choice at all. In other words, the gender ratio could be altered even if most people decided not to choose the gender of their own offspring.

The Men's Movement (or, if you prefer, the organism that caters for 'men') is going to grow and grow.

c. The Men's Movement (or, if you prefer, the organism that caters for 'men') is going to grow and grow. And (more ordinary) 'men' are going to exert much more power over Nature and over the population than they have ever done before. One consequence of this will be a massive drive towards the creation of means whereby men have greater access to women. And one (non-aggressive) method through which this can clearly be achieved is by creating a psychology which gives rise to significant numbers of people choosing to give birth to more females than males.

How, exactly, this latter will come about, I do not know.

But, come about, it will!

Marriages Are Crumbling Everywhere

Marriage In Japan About half Japan's single women from 35 to 54 have no intention of ever marrying.

As I have often said over the past two years, marriage (just like all traditional institutions of 'coercion' and restriction) are crumbling.

As such, readers ought to discount the pontifications of various men's activists who argue that the solutions to our societal problems lie in the promotion of marriage.

They are looking backwards rather than forwards.

And they are living in a dream world.

The solutions lie in the spread of information and the growth of the men's movement.

And when it comes specifically to gender relations, they also lie in disempowering government (the enemy of all men) in the area of intimate relationships, jiggering the gender ratio and destroying most of the burgeoning abuse industry.

And with regard to the gender ratio issue, I do not want to receive any more emails concerning the notion that if there were 15% more women than men then men would be further disempowered.

This is just not the case.

For example - and generally speaking - a bunch of 20 men would not find it very hard to exert huge power over 23 women; should they desire to do such a thing. Further, the power that these men could exert would actually be LESSENED if there were also 23 of them!

And it would lessen even further if there were 26 of them!

In other words, up to a point, the more men that there are, the less power over the women do they have.

No. Not in every single circumstance that one can imagine.

Yawn.

But, on balance, in the main, and on the whole, this would be the case in most of the circumstances that actually occur in the real world.

Loosely speaking, and within limits, the fewer men that there are, the more power over the women will they have.

no more emails please suggesting that a 15% surfeit of females would inevitably disempower men

So, no more emails please suggesting that a 15% surfeit of females would inevitably disempower men; because this is utter nonsense.

And, presumably, it derives from the simplistic notion that men and women compete with each other. Well, yes they do, to some extent, but nowhere nearly to the same extent as is the competition among themselves.

Men, by and large, compete with men, not with women.

They also compete for women.

And they are also hugely influenced by women, in one way or another.

And the same sort of thing can be said about women vis-a-vis men.

As a result of these three factors - and without going into detail - in the real world, 20 men would have relatively much more power - both individually and collectively - in comparison to 23 women than would 26 men.

Fundamentally, with 20 men and 23 women, the men would need to compete less with each other while the women would need to compete more. And if such an imbalance was reflected throughout the whole of society, the effect would be enormous.

And, while on this subject, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the more that men are happy with their lot, the more happy will everyone else tend to be. There can surely be very little doubt about this.

As such, if it is also the case that men would be happier if they were in a minority, then there is absolutely no strong reason not to head into this direction. And if there were any problems that did arise from this, then, firstly, it seems likely that they would be exceedingly minor, and, secondly, so what?

So, there might be some problems!

Big!

Deal!

You deal with the problems.

That's what you do!

And the official view of this website, henceforth, is that jiggering the gender ratio to provide a 15% surfeit of women would make people much happier.

The Women Will Always Out Vote The Men

Angry Harry

I just made a donation in the hopes it will further the WONDERFUL work you are doing...my most fervent desire is to achieve financial self-sufficiency so that I may spend my days, full-time, advancing the same cause. I can think of no better gift of philanthropy to society.

I do have a question for you: You've often advocated intervening in the male/female birthrate ratio to someday engineer a world in which women outnumber men, and have cited the positive impact this relative supply/demand imbalance would have on men's lives.

But my overwhelming fear, given women's propensity to vote for even worse candidates than men do, is that we'd end up in a world run by nanny-state power grabbers who feel they "know best" what society needs, rather than the empowering, liberating politicians we need most desperately. Have you considered this in your view, and if so how do you reconcile it?

Kind regards,

T

Hello T

Firstly, thank you indeed for your kind donation. It is **very much** appreciated.

And I couldn't agree more with these sentiments of yours ... "my most fervent desire is to achieve financial self-sufficiency so that I may spend my days, full-time, advancing the same cause. I can think of no better gift of philanthropy to society."

With regard to your question concerning any major problems that men might have to endure if, by arrangement, they were significantly fewer in number than women, I have to say that I do not really think that there would be many problems worth worrying too much about if this situation was actually brought about.

I keep racking my brains over this issue and watching the viewpoints concerning it discussed occasionally in various men's groups, but I never come across any arguments that really carry much weight - in my view - because, generally speaking, these arguments seem mostly to presume that nothing else would automatically change - or could purposely be changed - should such a situation come about; the most obvious example being that if there were comparatively fewer men than women in the future then the value of men to women, to men themselves, and to society as a whole, would rise.

And this would make men more powerful.

For the most part, jiggering the gender ratio itself is something that very few men's activists seem able to consider properly at the moment. I think that they view such a thing as being so far beyond the realms of possibility that they believe that there is no point in them even addressing it seriously.

we could start doing this tomorrow if we wanted to.

And yet we could start doing this tomorrow if we wanted to.

Nevertheless, they do quite often discuss issues that are in some way related to a situation wherein there is an excess of women over men. But, once again, these discussions rarely go beyond an adamant refusal to believe that things could be different even if society **chose** to make them different.

For example, if you monitor the various discussions on the pros and cons of polygamy, the pros are mostly hotly countered with little more than simplistic retorts; e.g. of the following kind.

1. One wife is bad enough. Who would want two?

2. Polygamists are often sexual abusers.

3. How could a man afford the alimony in the event of divorce?

And so on.

Well, of course, with regard to any notions similar to those expressed in the first two points above, those who rather like the idea of polygamy do not actually propose that men and women should be **forced** into polygamous marriages against their will!

And, of course, being pro-polygamy does not mean that one is prepared to tolerate sexual abuse.

And the third point is simply to do with the law - something which is not set in stone.

Laws are made by men and they can always be changed.

Laws are made by men and they can always be changed.

Generally speaking, the arguments brought forth to oppose the notion that a surplus of women would be of benefit seem to me to be extremely weak and based mostly on some kind of inherent prejudice rather than on any rational basis.

Further, given that multiple partnerships and same-sex relationships seem to be quite common these days - despite the lack of legal recognition of them - in many ways it is clear that similar issues are already being addressed **in practice**.

And yet, for example, it is not uncommon to see someone on the men's forums hotly denouncing polygamy on the one hand, while at the same time proclaiming or suggesting elsewhere that sex with many partners - serially or otherwise - is a great idea.

I am not suggesting that these two things are identical, but there does seem to be some kind of moral confusion here.

The implication here, for example, is that for a man to have a string of sexual relationships with many different women, year in year out, is perfectly acceptable, whereas for a man to commit himself to two women is not.

There seems to be something wrong here.

The point I am driving at with regard to your specific question regarding the problems that might ensue if there were more women than men in the population is that these problems are likely to be very small in comparison to the problems of changing people's attitudes towards jiggering the gender ratio in the first place.

And I think that the well-known Monkey and Banana story that follows gives some indication of what is going on.

The Monkey and the Banana

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a short while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm!

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, no monkey ever again gets near the banana.

Well. I cannot personally vouch for the above experiment with regard to monkeys - though the outcomes described in it seem to me to be quite believable. But when it comes to humans they most certainly **do** behave **very often** as the monkeys described above.

The current illegality of ***medical*** marijuana is an example of this.

The medical marijuana is the banana that no-one is allowed to reach for.

Simply because it isn't allowed!

And this is partly why a large section of the population supports the view that medical marijuana should be illegal.

As in the case of the monkeys, there is no real thought concerning why this particular banana - medical marijuana - should remain out of people's reach.

And the same kind of processes seem to be involved when it comes to issues such as polygamy or to altering the gender ratio - and to many other 'moral' issues as well.

They immediately elicit hostile reactions based on precious little thought.

And part of the solution, of course, is to try to encourage people to open their minds a little wider so that they can better appreciate the various possibilities rather than remain blind to them.

But there is also another way to change people's minds - and probably a far better one in practice. And this is to alter the way that people think about certain issues through a process of indoctrination. And this is where the real answer to your specific question lies.

Your fear is that if there are significantly more women voters than men voters in the future then women will dictate the future to the detriment of men. But the way to avoid this is to ensure that 'men' influence so much the way that people think that, quite simply, the people end up voting for policies that 'men' want. In such a situation, women would not vote for policies that are detrimental to 'men'.

for the past four decades or so, the feminists and the politically correct have dominated the media

For example, for the past four decades or so, the feminists and the politically correct have dominated the media and, as a result, they have been able to influence very heavily the thoughts, beliefs and values of the population. But if, in the future, 'men' begin to dominate the psychology of the people through the media (and through other things) then the people - both men and women - will be influenced to vote accordingly. In other words, if 'men' dominate the psychology of the people then the people will vote for policies, politicians and parties that cater for the needs and desires of 'men'.

At the moment, however, we are dominated not by 'men' but by 'feminism', 'political correctness', 'nationalism', 'consumerism' - and goodness knows what else.

And the point that I am trying to make with regard to your specific question is this.

Once 'men' have acquired sufficient dominance to achieve a jiggering of the gender ratio they will **already** have the power to save us from having to live "in a world run by nanny-state power grabbers who feel they 'know best'" etc etc. and they will **already** have the power to influence women away from voting for policies, politicians and parties that are detrimental to the well-being of 'men'.

In a nutshell: If men have the power to jigger the gender ratio then, in my view, they already have enough power to avoid the possible pitfalls suggested by your good self.

Indeed, in such a situation, politicians and parties that acted against the interests of 'men' would end up being so undermined that they would cease to be visible or relevant.

And so, generally speaking, ...

Step One is for 'men' to take control of the media and, hence, take control of the way in which people think.

Step Two is for 'men' to open their eyes to the **many** benefits that would accrue to societies that had a surplus of women and to bring such a situation about.

At the moment, however, Step Two seems somewhat harder to achieve than Step One!

Monkeys and Bananas!

LOL!

"Hey, I want to improve the world for **me**"

However, when 'men' finally begin to say to themselves, "Hey, I want to improve the world for **me**," and they also realise that the world would be a much more pleasant place for them and for their loved ones if there was a surplus of women and, further, that this is something that they can actually achieve, and, further, that they have every right and many good reasons to bring this surplus about, then, my guess is that they will conspire to bring about this surplus.

After all, why not?

And if they dominate the thought processes of the general population then, surely, they will have their way.

At the moment, however, men still do not value themselves - or see themselves - as 'men'. And very rarely do they focus their minds on trying to make the world a better place for 'men'.

And yet if men focused their attention on this notion, nearly everything else would fall into place.

even if men simply refused to treat other men badly then there would be far less violence around.

For example, even if men simply refused to treat other men badly then there would be far less violence around. There would be fewer wars. Fewer people would be cheated or harmed. Major and minor aggravations would all diminish. The benefits for everyone would be positively enormous. And there would be a wholesale change for the better in the way that the entire world operated.

It's so f##ing simple.

And yet what we have to endure is the complete opposite thanks to the self-serving machinations of feminists, governments, the abuse industry and many other groups.

These groups - these huge powerful organisms - are continually and purposely fuelling hatred towards men - and, hence, between men - thus forever stirring up more problems for everybody.

I'll say that again.

These groups are continually and purposely fuelling hatred towards men - and, hence, between men - thus forever stirring up more problems for everybody.

But if men can take control over the media and invade the consciousness of the people so that the needs and desires of 'men' can be put at the top of the agenda then the enemies of 'men' will very quickly begin to collapse.

Furthermore, given that when it comes to the needs and desires of 'men', an increased availability of women will almost certainly be a high priority, when 'men' do finally take control over the media - which they will - then it will surely not be too long before the gender ratio starts to be jiggered.

Well. Let's hope so!

Thank you again T.

Harry

[Kunold]

I agree if countries like Germany, South Korea,Japan,Italy,Russia,Taiwan want to increase their floundering birth rate/economies

http://www.doki.net/tarsasag/novedelem/ ... _Italy.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 16,00.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... sis_of_age

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 45496.html

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpop ... siapop.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 37,00.html



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... obal_aging

[djfourmoney]

I didn't bother to read the entire thing when people say that I know where its going.

Two extremes don't make things better it makes for chaos.

Europe's low birth rate problems are not linked to Women's Rights but World War I/II. Women had to work when the countries were rebuilt after WWII and Russia in all honesty has never recovered from the massive murders and deaths before, during and after the war.

When you have more Women than Men, what happens is some women never have children, others in more industrial/urban environments just have fewer children than rural mothers do. Multiple that out a few decades and you have the low birth rate problems that Europe is struggling with.

America has been insulated from much of this, never had massive sickness, massive death from brutal dictators or wars directly on its shores. Combine that with massive illegal immigration since the middle 1970's and you don't have birth rate problems.

What you have in America is dysfunctional social system. A political culture that flat ridiculous, a social structure that's ass-backwards and the only place in the world where there's a 39 year old battle over Women's reproductive rights, lies told through the media and a class war that is finally being uncovered by alternative media but its far too late for Gen X (which is most of us).

The solution if you want to save Europe or America that is, is to have children that are no screwed up. The solution to America's problem specifically creating an environment that's healthy for both families and gives opportunity to both men and women via strong consumer protections and family friendly work conditions.

[Kunold]

The only young women left in the future will be in Nigeria and Sub Sahara Africa at this rate DJ are you going to Ex pat to Nigeria?


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... obal_aging


Thailand,Vietnam and many Latin American countries now have below replacement level birthrates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_age.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition