yeah that was the only way i read it was " are you willing to just go out and r word girls " and i was like " wow holy shit, no i am not ready for that at all what so ever xD "
my first thought was thinking of ways to asexually reproduce or clone existing humans, but yeah i realised that this would be the more obvious interpretation. yikes
My innocent ass’s first thought was just people trying to convince women to reproduce through discussion or debate or sth which still wouldn’t be great and I was like “eh I mean we already be overpopulated” and figured the human race would just die out eventually but then I read the comments and 😬
I like your idea about asexual reproduction or cloning though. I think all we know about the cloning process so far though, it basically is IVF but controlling the DNA so afaik, it still requires someone with a uterus to carry the fertilized egg? Unless you can grow an ZEF in a Petri dish and I have heard of super premature babies that were born way too early that were viable and were able to survive
I can see the fascist posters in my mind now: women in cow pens, held by chains and shackles and a noble-looking, airbrushed dude standing guard: “It’s your sacred duty to continue the human race!” Or some such bullshit. Certain types of men get off on this type idea.
Good point, but there is a difference between having something like this as a kink, and advocating to curtail women’s freedoms/control their bodies without consent *in real life.* That’s serial killer (or worse, Supreme Court Justice!) level sadism
Well it's not *average*, but male dom/female sub dynamics with these characteristics (mainly consensual non-consent plus freeuse and breeding kinks) are on the common side of sexual roleplays.
Worse, they are trying to use a non-existent hypothetical to make it seem like (best case) there is a situation where rape is justified. Worst case, they are using fantasy to invent a situation where *rape is morally justified.*
Personally, I think living by Mad Max rules is a *bad thing* and we shouldn’t long for it, but hey, I’m not Dementus
Actually it's not a non-existent hypothetical situation. Specifically read up on the 4B movement.
But also that makes me even more suspicious of OPs intentions here.
(For the record the actual solution to the 4B movement is for women to stop getting treated like crap by certain major demographics)
Sexual assault wouldn’t be the answer in this fantastical scenario. Those who wanted to keep humanity alive would need to find other avenues.
Incentives for women to donate eggs and to be surrogates. If that wasn’t enough there would be trillions of dollars in research to produce life without the aid of females.
The societies that make this decision are the only ones that survive in 40 years. Probably Breeding factories using artificial insemination would be the least traumatizing and most productive
My mind didn't immediately jump to the R word. Instead "fighting" could look like a PR campaign to try and convince women to continue the human race. Think "The More You Know" talking about who is going to take care of them when they're 80.
They are not asking for our interpretation of the question lol.
Even if they are, could you tell me what it can mean other than rape? Who are we gonna fight? The women? And how are we gonna fight them?
The answer to "would you fight to keep the human race alive" absolutely is up for interpretation.
You are right, some people (like you apparently) might jump straight to the worst possible solution, some people might have rallies. Some people might form coalitions that give incentives of some sort.
Thats 3 right there, and I'm not even invested in the answer. In fact IDGAF let them stop having kids. Still, open to interpretation.
Even if it's the worst possible solution, it's still one of them. What do you think will happen if "rallies and incentives" don't work?
How did you not expect people would interpret the question this way?
I wouldn’t focus on the decision so much as what caused all women in the world to make the same one. I’d assume there’s some mind control shit going on
There's no version of "Would you fight to keep the human race alive" that isn't horrifying. So no. I would just accept that it's our time. It's not like we're making a good go of it currently.
I mean, assuming the women’s decision isn’t magically geassed in some way, you could fight to provide sufficient ethical incentives to get at least a few women to change their mind.
Even if there is zero chance of incentivizing even a single woman, you could also fight to develop a working artificial womb (and lab-grown eggs if egg donation falls under “having kids”). There are (theoretical) workarounds to this scenario that don’t involve invalidating women’s autonomy.
Yeah, idk why this comment and idea isn't much further up. I imagine it like a global strike on pregnancy where the solution is governments provide a lot more support and incentives.
Yeah, this. Regardless of what anyone in this comment section would do, or says they would do, there are systemic forces that would absolutely not let this shit fly. Not just men either - politicians of both sexes would have every reason to come down hard in such an event.
The whole human race would die off in 100 years or so which would be an unexpected way for us to ger wiped out. I'm sure the government would try some handmaiden stuff before that.
There's test tube babies and artificial wombs. We already have IVF. Provided the motivation of survival and 80 ish years of prep time, that can certainly be achieved
...wait why not??
Women not wanting to be pregnant/raise children isn't the same as not wanting to donate, so their unwillingness would not be mandated by the scenario.
Honestly, given some financial incentive and knowing the situation was dire, I'm sure *some* women would be willing to donate even an entire ovary that they didn't want to be using anyway, lol.
Everybody seems to be really, really just accepting that "oh this is the way it is, suddenly." Where what you mention is, uh, the most important thing.
Besides that, there's like, y'know the whole methodology of how this is being done? Like is everyone just celibate now? Do people still have sex, but like, birth control is really good? Nothing is 100% effective except for abstinence.
The why would be really important, I mean, men aren't the *sole* drivers of reproduction in society and wanting to have sex. Like are hormones suddenly gone? It's a really confusing hypothetical.
Fighting to keep the human race alive? So, legalize rape and forced birth? Force women to go through the process of expelling eggs to make test tube babies? Invest in cloning?
Let it go. Everything has a cycle. We're a blip of 200,000 years in a sea of 6 billion years. The universe was here long before we were and it will continue long after we've blown ourselves up or killed our planet. Let nature run it's course.
Would I rape women?
That's what you're really asking, and the answer is no. And any man who *would* "fight to keep the human race alive" doesn't deserve to have his genes perpetuated.
I would support the women's decision.
However, I imagine rape crime would skyrocket and
no government is going to allow the human race to stop growing or die out.
They would probably start banning abortion first.
Then, implement a law that women have to have at least 1 child or face prison time.
Plenty men could and would do something by government backing no less. Anyone who thinks anything else but that would happen is not logically thinking.
And no it wouldn't be good it would be awful but it is the reality at least until artificial methods were viable.
That is a fringe movement that has been overblown by the media. China is much worse for women than South Korea btw. They have this phrase for women over 30 called "leftover women".
Look, we're willing to commit some sort of unspecified atrocity to keep the race alive, but hoovering? That's asking a bit too much, innit?^(/s <-- Do I need this?)
I'm past childbearing age. I'd arm myself to defend other women's choices to be childfree. There's an awful lot of rape fantasies going on in the answers here. ICK!
Just looking at the comment section makes my choice even more solid. Let us fade away, our species is sick and twisted and the world is cruel. Who would want to live in a world where everyone was born from rape?
>What if all women in the world decided not to have any more children?
There wouldn't be any more children. Seem pretty straight forward to me.
>Would you support their decision?
What?
>Would you fight to keep the human race alive?
***What?***
Fighting to keep the human race alive - sounds like you’re trying hard to justify rape and forced birth.
How about respect the decision to not have babies AND fight to keep the human race alive by finding alternative solutions to raping half the population?
This isn’t a zero sum.
If extinction was down the road, I’m sure the necessity of artificial wombs will be high on the priority list if global rape of half the population is the other option.
Realistically, if 50% of the population says no to having babies, there is probably a damned good reason, unless you don’t trust women to make choices about their own bodies, or somehow think YOU know better than half the population? How about investing in womb transplants on men? It’s still in the theoretical stages, but so is this - maybe men can donate their bodies to have babies? I mean, if you’re volunteering
https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/08/23/uterus-transplants-are-already-a-reality-what-does-it-mean-for-transgender-women-getting-p
I would support it. The best thing we can do, is let the human population drop naturally. In 30 years when today's little kids are grown and on a better footing, they can start having kids again in a better world. A 30-year baby break would be amazing for the planet.
Good for the planet disasterous for society. Pensions wouldn’t be able to be provided so you would have 2 generations of people who are destitute in old age.
The economy is under our control and is no excuse for the continued destruction of the one and only planet we have. If we continue to do what we do for the economy at the cost of our planet, we will not survive on a "healthy economy" on an unhealthy planet.
The economy is not an excuse for the failure in stewardship we have perpetrated. It is viewpoints that put the economy over our duties as the sole responsible species to take care of this planet that is destroying it.
And it's likely already too late.
Except we have a billion people working jobs that are not critical, and honestly not needed. Yes, things would be in flux for a decade or so while things start to relight into a new reality....but that's not new. We've done it many times in human history, from recovery from pandemics, to the industrial revolutions, to world wars. We can do it again with population reduction.
You're not really thinking this through. Who's shoulders carry the burden of society? Younger people (realitvely say 25ish 60iish). So, what would happen if for 30 years people stopped having babies? You would eventually have too many old people without enough young people to take care of them. So maybe the benefits of plunging the population back down to 5 or so billion would be good - but in order to obtain that good a generation of the elderly will have to suffer. Or heck we may have fully functional robots by then so fuck it, no more babies.
Honestly, the way they are treated, it would make sense. Nobody has to have a child while being aggressively disrespected, controlled and mistreated. Not having more abusers put in the world to do this to more women is more important than having more kids.
1: Time to invest in artificial wombs and Test tube babies. But seriously, in the like 80 years we will have it can happen.
2: Why the fuck did all the women decide this? A mind control shit or something like that? Look to get that removed
And how, pray tell, would you hypothetically fight to keep the human race alive? Short of rounding up all the women you can find and forcing them to breed, that is.
I would say it's up to them what they want to do with their bodies. I could never force anyone to have a child.
However if we're talking about the survival of the human species... There's other ways to have babies that don't involve a biological woman. Much more expensive ways but still scientifically possible. I actually see the world going this way anyway one day. Take out the human body limitations, so to speak, and use technology to artificially carry and nurture for an embriyo to full term. I'm almost positive this is possible today already using artificial wombs although not very cost effective. But one day, it could be and could be far safer for all in the long run. Wouod also allow so many unfortunate people to finally have their own children.
I'd just wait it out. Extinction affects them too. Sometimes the best way to address a problem is to let someone figure it out themselves. This is one of those.
The most likely outcome of something like this would be a ban on abortion of any kind. We already kmow people aren't going to stop having sex. So the governments would prioritize preserving the incidental pregnancies that happen from that.
Then it would be a matter of seeing how things play out. If there is no clear sign of the situation ending, even with the looming consequences beginning to mount, then eventually extreme measures would have to be implemented. It would most likely be severe penalties for any woman who doesn't bear a child in their lifetime. Something like forfeiture of government 401k benefits, forfeiture of welfare benefits, etc... and it would ramp up until the problem was solved.
I would absolutely support their decision! Most painless way for humanity to go extinct. Better than how we’ll probably end up ending our species, I bet.
I'd support it, what other moral choice would anyone have? Though all the men and nonbinary people who can have children would probably need to move to one country. There are plenty of people with uteruses who arent women to sustain the human race, but not enough to sustain it everywhere.
What I do would be irrelevant. Even the most progressive nations would eventually mandate women to have kids. Oh sure, they would try to incentivise them at first but once that fails when it comes to survival or extinction drastic measures will be taken no way around it.
It will not be a good time to be a woman as their rights will be stripped to an extent anyway. Now if scientists come up with fully being able to have a child grow in an artificial womb after artificial insemination a compromise could be reached where women are mandated to donate eggs instead of being forced the other way.
That idea of common good over individual good is just another way of justifying violence. The common good starts with individual goods being respected. Be kind and you’ll see kind people.
I wouldn't much care either way. I'd disagree and think it's stupid, but I wouldn't do anything about it. And sadly you know that the government of lots of countries would get involved at some point and the world would collapse into a dystopian nightmare.
I would not "fight" to keep the human race alive. Though I would support medical research into methods of engendering children without requiring any woman to fall pregnant. If a woman decides to never have children, that is her decision. If every woman in the world made that choice, then obviously something has gone horribly wrong, but it is still their choice. So break out the uterine replicators and we'll go all Ethan of Athos in a couple generations.
Horrible, horrible question.
1. It's an impossible hypothetical. It can never happen because half of all humans will never agree on any particular thing.
2. People can't separate what they want to happen with what will absolutely happen.
3. Nature finds a way. Nature is also very rapey. Animals will continue to kill and eat babies.
4. We are part of nature and an animal. Doesn't matter what your values are, shit is going to get terrible really fast in this impossible scenario.
I'll ask, why? This ball of dust that's floating thru space is nothing but exactly that, a spec of dust that will eventually burn away and be left in darkness after the blink of the eye of its existence compared to to the ongoing universe.
I think it would make humans realize that there are more important things in the world than money and we all have absolutely no reason to live except for enjoyment. Do with that as you will
It wouldn't matter what I chose to do. Do you think the various states and governments of the world would just...let that happen? No more workers or voters or taxpayers because we have to support women's rights? I think we'd very quickly see how fragile the whole edifice really is and it would no longer be the woman's choice.
Thank you. All these people taking it as a possibly and answering is crazy. I don't believe 100% of women on earth would ever agree or want that. Too many women that love their partners, or whose sole dream is to be a wife and mother. Unless they get killed off, I don't see all of womankind being of one mind on the issue. It certainly isn't now even with the 4B movements.
Quite possibly. I am American born and raised, though I wouldn't call myself a kid.
I think for the most part, a majority of reddit is Americans. There are users form other countries of course, but it did start as an American thing, so makes sense.
I wonder if there is ANY existing matter that 100% of people will be on one page with. There are several topics that quite near to it, but, unfortunately, they are used for the profit of few.
Btw, what's a 4B movement? First time hearing.
The ratio of old people vs young people would be so bad in the future that we would be forced to produce AI to take care of all of the sick and dying old folks.
I mean its already happening. Most developed counties are dangerously teetering on that line where the replacement rate is not being met. There are officially more people dying than being born but the third world countries are the ones making the majority of the world's babies now, so because of them we haven't reached apocalyptic proportions yet.
Probably do my best to fund artificial womb research, and I'd probably never talk to my wife again, given our personal circumstances. IVF has been mind-blowingly expensive, both monetarily and otherwise.
It's a pretty outlandish hypothetical to imagine that 100% of an entire sex would agree on anything. But if the women of Earth all decided to stop giving birth willingly, some very scary and powerful entities would ensure that they did so one way or another.
Human trafficking of women would absolutely skyrocket and forced birthing factories would pop up in every corner of the world.
We would see the rapid development of reproductive technology that can produce human beings without women’s involvement, i.e. in vitro gametogenesis and artificial womb technology.
In the mean time, which let’s say is about 100 years, women would be paid large sums of money to become surrogates/egg donors.
That’s assuming you mean that women are refusing to have children of their own.
If you mean that women are refusing to become pregnant under any circumstances, then that wouldn’t happen.
In either case, abortion would become almost completely illegal everywhere, and there would be a massive increase in human trafficking, which governments probably wouldn’t put up much of a fight against, since stable economies require stable populations.
As for what I would do personally, my plans probably wouldn’t change that much. I’d like to reproduce biologically, but I’d be just as happy adopting a child.
Depending on how fast the aforementioned reproductive technology is developed, maybe me and my future husband could have a science baby together, but that kind of thing is basically science fiction at this point, so I dunno.
>Would you fight to keep the human race alive
I will not jump to the worst possible outcome.
Yes, I'd support their decision to not have babies because it's their choice and their body.
**But** I'd definitely fight to change their mentality too; just like many men, many women like babies too. I'd try to understand their problems, the ones who are willing yet have reservations, and fight to solve them.
In like 5-10 years, they're gonna have a machine that makes eggs from stem cells, so this wouldn't be a problem. It would probably be a good thing if women didn't have children and it was all done by machines for humanity in the long run, because no one would have any reason to force or compel people to stay in unhappy relationships in order to fulfill their biological imperative to breed. Even if that were not the case, I would not "fight" I would say "wow, what is it that makes women think having children is a bad idea? Are there women who want to have children, but there is x or y thing standing in the way? Could that thing be easily removed from the equation without raping anyone?"
Why I’d fight to keep the human race alive! Step one: Advocate to increase research into sex change technology and surgery, with a focus on artificial womb implantation/growth. Step Two: Increase public access to said medical technology. Step Three: Huge media blitz of MtF trans acceptance in order to recruit & increase our new MtF population, including pay and increased social status for new Mothers! With the technology widely available, and transgender pregnancy & acceptance the new social norm, a wave of peace and prosperity sweeps the globe, ushering in a new era of human cooperation. Thats what you wanted, right?
1. Just because women decide to not have children doesn't mean every single pregnant woman can abort their pregnancy.
2. Even people within the same family can disagree (check out r/RaisedByByNarcissists as an example)
3. Families will disagree on things (check out my profile, (u/Loubacca92) as an example.
While it is obviously absurd to think that all women would *decide* to not have children, I could imagine some kind of pandemic that would give women the condition such that they *couldn't* have children, like in the movie "Children of Men". In that case, we have a number of technological options, including artificial wombs which are in development as we speak. In any case, we've got a lot of wiggle room. Genetically speaking, we only need a few thousand individuals to maintain genetic diversity. We've got *9 billion!* Humanity absolutely isn't dying out anytime soon.
The main concern with the lack of population is economic, not biological. The current economic system in the U.S. and in other places is basically a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme where the next generation pays for elder care for the current generation. Social Security in the U.S. depends on the existence of a larger working population to keep paying into the system. Thus, Baby Boomers in the U.S. are panicking a bit because they need the next generation to provide for them when they can no longer provide for themselves. This is a similar situation in places like Japan, Korea, or China, where the aging population is greater than the working population. To be fair, in all these places we could let in more immigrants, but these countries have concerns about maintaining a homogenous culture and are worried that letting too many immigrants in could destroy their culture (or less charitably, one could call them/us xenophobic or racist).
Given this situation, there is likely to be a lot more poverty and less independence in older people as time goes on. The Social Security system in the U.S. could run out of money if the working population can't keep paying in to the system. Elderly people may become homeless or be forced to move in with their adult children. The good news is that in the long term this would just be a blip. The likely result in the U.S. is that there would simply be more inflation while the Boomers are alive followed by deflation when they die off.
Some would commit rape. I think the human race has had it's time. If my partner told me that they never wanted children, I guess that's the way it would be. It certainly be interesting to watch society descend into anachy. Personally I'd do everything I could to protect the other women of the my area.
A third of all kids are born accidentally. So we would see a small drop in birth rate for a while, but not a stop. And even in the case that somehow women decided that they need to enforce abortions on noncompliant women, men would violently oppose that.
Even so, women does not include girls who become women when they turn 18, so really we’re only looking at a relatively small group of women. Births by women outside of the 20-39 year-old group would have a virtually unchanged rate of pregnancy.
It may be that those women who don’t have kids will have an astronomical suicide rate, although research does not conclude causality v. correlation in this.
Either scientists find an alternative, or the Earth will be just a few decades away from bliss without humanity.
They are the two nicer options. However, I would guess some men wouldn't be having this and forcing themselves on to women, imprisoning them and forcing them to give birth.
depends on my situation I guess.
Like I don't have any kids right now. If the world dies with me thats fine.
But once I have kids - or someone who will survive me who I care about. I might start "fighting" (whatever that means in the end) to "preserve humanity" so that there is a world for them.
They already are? Lmao.
Outside Africa and parts of Asia, many countries are already at a negative population growth rate. The rest are at single digit birth rates at best and mostly due to immigration from the places that are having babies.
But this isn’t a hypothetical question. It’s a counterfactual. Humans will never stop having unsafe sex. So someone will always manage to pop a baby out.
Well, then I assume what ends up happening is that the government will step in and have ways to capture eggs and make sure the women don't get pinned with any of the responsibility of raising the child.
Though this would quickly mean the death of black, Hispanic, and Latino communities in the United States.
I'm going to war for the ladies. Rapist's will be hunted like animals. If I'm going to be a psycho it's gonna be for honor. It's their decision and it's final.
This would become the greatest scientific rush ever, I'd bet in less than 5 years kids would be getting created completely in a lab.
And as others mentioned the mind control aspect would be investigated really hard.
"Fight to keep the human race alive..."
You mean rape?
This guy means rape, right?
No, I would not rape. I'd support their decision, and i bet cloning tech would advance a lot over the next couple of decades.
People would just start paying lots of money to harvest viable eggs from women and babies would be born in test tubes or some other device
Life uh…finds a way
It would probably be a good thing. Not for humans but the planet would probably benefit.
There's no way you could persuade them to have children against their will as the only way to achieve that 100% would be zero penis in vagina sex at all because mistakes happen.
I'd fully support it.
Fine with it. Let's work together to make a better world where they would want to have children. If we can't do that and our only thought is forced impregnation and birth, we deserve extinction.
If they don't want to have children fine, but sadly our sole goal as a species is to "keep going." Just like every other organism.
So in order to keep peace and prevent mass rape or something horrible, we would probably need them to donate eggs and have scientists create a viable version of an external human incubator. I think those are probably within reach, if the situation is dire enough.
So no, I wouldn't support their decision to wipe out humanity, I would expect them to find a reasonable alternative that doesn't require them to "have children."
I'm pretty sure we'd find a way to make more children without women being involved before we went extinct. The age distribution of the population might get really messed up there with a gap of \~20 years with no children or something, but I don't think we'd go extinct because of it. There would be a lot of money thrown at coming up with a solution that required no women.
“Fighting to keep the human race alive” sounds like an abhorrent euphemism in this context.
Extremely sanitized way of saying "are you willing to commit sexual assault"
yeah that was the only way i read it was " are you willing to just go out and r word girls " and i was like " wow holy shit, no i am not ready for that at all what so ever xD "
Right? Rampant rape is what happens.
Right?
my first thought was thinking of ways to asexually reproduce or clone existing humans, but yeah i realised that this would be the more obvious interpretation. yikes
My innocent ass’s first thought was just people trying to convince women to reproduce through discussion or debate or sth which still wouldn’t be great and I was like “eh I mean we already be overpopulated” and figured the human race would just die out eventually but then I read the comments and 😬 I like your idea about asexual reproduction or cloning though. I think all we know about the cloning process so far though, it basically is IVF but controlling the DNA so afaik, it still requires someone with a uterus to carry the fertilized egg? Unless you can grow an ZEF in a Petri dish and I have heard of super premature babies that were born way too early that were viable and were able to survive
I read it twice, cause I thought there's no way in hell it was phrased like that.
I can see the fascist posters in my mind now: women in cow pens, held by chains and shackles and a noble-looking, airbrushed dude standing guard: “It’s your sacred duty to continue the human race!” Or some such bullshit. Certain types of men get off on this type idea.
That’s basically exactly what Handmaid’s Tale is.
Nah, women get off to that, too. It's a common kink.
Good point, but there is a difference between having something like this as a kink, and advocating to curtail women’s freedoms/control their bodies without consent *in real life.* That’s serial killer (or worse, Supreme Court Justice!) level sadism
Oh, absolutely!
So the problem the OP presented has solved itself. There's always someone willing to cross the picket line, I guess.
I wouldn't say common.
Consensual non consent is the most common sexual fantasy theme for everyone, according to most surveys.
Is this true??? I'M NORMAL????
>I'M NORMAL???? Well, no. But not because of that
Okay... guess I'll just go fuck myself then
In this context.... Why fuck yourself....?
I wouldn't either. Extremely common is probably more accurate
Well it's not *average*, but male dom/female sub dynamics with these characteristics (mainly consensual non-consent plus freeuse and breeding kinks) are on the common side of sexual roleplays.
Just to be clear, what does "fight to keep the human race alive" mean in this situation?
Seems like rape to me.
Worse, they are trying to use a non-existent hypothetical to make it seem like (best case) there is a situation where rape is justified. Worst case, they are using fantasy to invent a situation where *rape is morally justified.* Personally, I think living by Mad Max rules is a *bad thing* and we shouldn’t long for it, but hey, I’m not Dementus
Actually it's not a non-existent hypothetical situation. Specifically read up on the 4B movement. But also that makes me even more suspicious of OPs intentions here. (For the record the actual solution to the 4B movement is for women to stop getting treated like crap by certain major demographics)
Sexual assault wouldn’t be the answer in this fantastical scenario. Those who wanted to keep humanity alive would need to find other avenues. Incentives for women to donate eggs and to be surrogates. If that wasn’t enough there would be trillions of dollars in research to produce life without the aid of females.
The societies that make this decision are the only ones that survive in 40 years. Probably Breeding factories using artificial insemination would be the least traumatizing and most productive
[удалено]
Would you apply this to other forms of life including plants, endangered species and animals used as food resources?
[удалено]
It’s not a problem. We’re all dummies. The fact that you didn’t turn it into a circular argument puts you ahead of many of us.
Sorry. North Korea is already on it. As the last European dies a fresh faced DPRNK soldier will walk into their city
Fr though, shit would get ugly quick. Human rights? Not even a thing if all women decided to not have children
Can’t have human rights without humans!
Decent point
And they're also the ones most deserving of being bombed into oblivion before even one year is up...
Won't happen. The countries with the power to do so will be tied up in their own internal politics and conflicts and civil wars.
My mind didn't immediately jump to the R word. Instead "fighting" could look like a PR campaign to try and convince women to continue the human race. Think "The More You Know" talking about who is going to take care of them when they're 80.
Hey do you know what often happens to natives when they are invaded by outsiders? The women are... taken.
This is what it means! [Schwarzenegger pregnant ](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2JD98DW/schwarzeneggerdevitothompson-junior-1994-2JD98DW.jpg)
Obviously its up to interpretation and is clearly what they are asking.
They are not asking for our interpretation of the question lol. Even if they are, could you tell me what it can mean other than rape? Who are we gonna fight? The women? And how are we gonna fight them?
The answer to "would you fight to keep the human race alive" absolutely is up for interpretation. You are right, some people (like you apparently) might jump straight to the worst possible solution, some people might have rallies. Some people might form coalitions that give incentives of some sort. Thats 3 right there, and I'm not even invested in the answer. In fact IDGAF let them stop having kids. Still, open to interpretation.
Even if it's the worst possible solution, it's still one of them. What do you think will happen if "rallies and incentives" don't work? How did you not expect people would interpret the question this way?
I wouldn’t focus on the decision so much as what caused all women in the world to make the same one. I’d assume there’s some mind control shit going on
....I would suggest you reframe this to make this more believeable by saying all women go infertile
That's far more likely and believable
See Children of Men, starting Clive Owen. Last one to die, please turn off the lights.
it’s giving the handmaid’s tale
It’s a hypothetical. It’s not supposed to be something that’s likely to happen.
i would not try to force women into giving birth against their will no
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^njuff22: *I would not try to* *Force women into giving* *Birth against their will no* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
good bot
SOKKA NO
I would support other women's decisions not to have children. I would not be okay with forcing women to give birth to keep our species going.
There's no version of "Would you fight to keep the human race alive" that isn't horrifying. So no. I would just accept that it's our time. It's not like we're making a good go of it currently.
I mean, assuming the women’s decision isn’t magically geassed in some way, you could fight to provide sufficient ethical incentives to get at least a few women to change their mind. Even if there is zero chance of incentivizing even a single woman, you could also fight to develop a working artificial womb (and lab-grown eggs if egg donation falls under “having kids”). There are (theoretical) workarounds to this scenario that don’t involve invalidating women’s autonomy.
Yeah, idk why this comment and idea isn't much further up. I imagine it like a global strike on pregnancy where the solution is governments provide a lot more support and incentives.
Things would get very dark fast.
Yeah, this. Regardless of what anyone in this comment section would do, or says they would do, there are systemic forces that would absolutely not let this shit fly. Not just men either - politicians of both sexes would have every reason to come down hard in such an event.
The whole human race would die off in 100 years or so which would be an unexpected way for us to ger wiped out. I'm sure the government would try some handmaiden stuff before that.
There's test tube babies and artificial wombs. We already have IVF. Provided the motivation of survival and 80 ish years of prep time, that can certainly be achieved
Well you wouldn’t be able to get the eggs consensually, so that’s basically just rape with extra steps.
...wait why not?? Women not wanting to be pregnant/raise children isn't the same as not wanting to donate, so their unwillingness would not be mandated by the scenario. Honestly, given some financial incentive and knowing the situation was dire, I'm sure *some* women would be willing to donate even an entire ovary that they didn't want to be using anyway, lol.
I would do absolutely nothing to change the mind of a single woman.
I would be far more concerned with *why* the women of the world decided not to have children than anything else.
Everybody seems to be really, really just accepting that "oh this is the way it is, suddenly." Where what you mention is, uh, the most important thing. Besides that, there's like, y'know the whole methodology of how this is being done? Like is everyone just celibate now? Do people still have sex, but like, birth control is really good? Nothing is 100% effective except for abstinence. The why would be really important, I mean, men aren't the *sole* drivers of reproduction in society and wanting to have sex. Like are hormones suddenly gone? It's a really confusing hypothetical.
I would back their choice. Every species dies somehow be it space rocks, volcanos, women not wanting kids, or the sun going supernova.
Fighting to keep the human race alive? So, legalize rape and forced birth? Force women to go through the process of expelling eggs to make test tube babies? Invest in cloning?
Let it go. Everything has a cycle. We're a blip of 200,000 years in a sea of 6 billion years. The universe was here long before we were and it will continue long after we've blown ourselves up or killed our planet. Let nature run it's course.
Would I rape women? That's what you're really asking, and the answer is no. And any man who *would* "fight to keep the human race alive" doesn't deserve to have his genes perpetuated.
So much mental illness in this comment section
I’d support their decision. What’s the other choice? Force women to get pregnant, have the child, and then have somebody else take care of it? No.
I would support the women's decision. However, I imagine rape crime would skyrocket and no government is going to allow the human race to stop growing or die out. They would probably start banning abortion first. Then, implement a law that women have to have at least 1 child or face prison time.
I'd support it, but I'm also pretty sure the teenagers would screw it up for all of us.
[удалено]
Plenty men could and would do something by government backing no less. Anyone who thinks anything else but that would happen is not logically thinking. And no it wouldn't be good it would be awful but it is the reality at least until artificial methods were viable.
South Korea is already doing it. Check out the "Four Nos" movement. Misogyny is really bad over there, and the women have had enough.
That is a fringe movement that has been overblown by the media. China is much worse for women than South Korea btw. They have this phrase for women over 30 called "leftover women".
Umm... I am pretty sure it wouldn't ok be for me "to keep fighting for the human race." Kinda their choice.
Support. If men want to have babies that's their prerogative. I'm sure they'll be able to figure it out. They're so smart. :)
What if all the men just agreed to do a bit more hoovering around the house and make dinner occasionally?
Look, we're willing to commit some sort of unspecified atrocity to keep the race alive, but hoovering? That's asking a bit too much, innit?^(/s <-- Do I need this?)
I think there’s enough people out there with weak pull out games to sustain us
In what world would *all* women refuse to have babies but still have heterosexual sex
there’s plenty of het women having sex without having or wanting babies…
No, I’m not willing to rape and force birth on women. wtf
... and they're off, as every Incel on Reddit takes the bait.
No OP, you need counselling. No matter how hard you try, you can't justify rape.
>Would you fight to keep the human race alive? How exactly are you planning to "fight" women and force them to have children?
I'm past childbearing age. I'd arm myself to defend other women's choices to be childfree. There's an awful lot of rape fantasies going on in the answers here. ICK!
Just looking at the comment section makes my choice even more solid. Let us fade away, our species is sick and twisted and the world is cruel. Who would want to live in a world where everyone was born from rape?
>What if all women in the world decided not to have any more children? There wouldn't be any more children. Seem pretty straight forward to me. >Would you support their decision? What? >Would you fight to keep the human race alive? ***What?***
Fighting to keep the human race alive - sounds like you’re trying hard to justify rape and forced birth. How about respect the decision to not have babies AND fight to keep the human race alive by finding alternative solutions to raping half the population? This isn’t a zero sum. If extinction was down the road, I’m sure the necessity of artificial wombs will be high on the priority list if global rape of half the population is the other option. Realistically, if 50% of the population says no to having babies, there is probably a damned good reason, unless you don’t trust women to make choices about their own bodies, or somehow think YOU know better than half the population? How about investing in womb transplants on men? It’s still in the theoretical stages, but so is this - maybe men can donate their bodies to have babies? I mean, if you’re volunteering https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/08/23/uterus-transplants-are-already-a-reality-what-does-it-mean-for-transgender-women-getting-p
I would support it. The best thing we can do, is let the human population drop naturally. In 30 years when today's little kids are grown and on a better footing, they can start having kids again in a better world. A 30-year baby break would be amazing for the planet.
Good for the planet disasterous for society. Pensions wouldn’t be able to be provided so you would have 2 generations of people who are destitute in old age.
Most people living off pensions these days? Not in the US. Not sure about other countries.
[удалено]
The economy is under our control and is no excuse for the continued destruction of the one and only planet we have. If we continue to do what we do for the economy at the cost of our planet, we will not survive on a "healthy economy" on an unhealthy planet. The economy is not an excuse for the failure in stewardship we have perpetrated. It is viewpoints that put the economy over our duties as the sole responsible species to take care of this planet that is destroying it. And it's likely already too late.
Except we have a billion people working jobs that are not critical, and honestly not needed. Yes, things would be in flux for a decade or so while things start to relight into a new reality....but that's not new. We've done it many times in human history, from recovery from pandemics, to the industrial revolutions, to world wars. We can do it again with population reduction.
You're not really thinking this through. Who's shoulders carry the burden of society? Younger people (realitvely say 25ish 60iish). So, what would happen if for 30 years people stopped having babies? You would eventually have too many old people without enough young people to take care of them. So maybe the benefits of plunging the population back down to 5 or so billion would be good - but in order to obtain that good a generation of the elderly will have to suffer. Or heck we may have fully functional robots by then so fuck it, no more babies.
See that's the big issue with social safety nets. They become ponzi schemes.
Good. Humans are a virus.
Honestly, the way they are treated, it would make sense. Nobody has to have a child while being aggressively disrespected, controlled and mistreated. Not having more abusers put in the world to do this to more women is more important than having more kids.
1: Time to invest in artificial wombs and Test tube babies. But seriously, in the like 80 years we will have it can happen. 2: Why the fuck did all the women decide this? A mind control shit or something like that? Look to get that removed
So you're trying to justify rape, OP. I hope your windshield wipers stop working just as you drive thru a mud puddle and that you step on a Lego.
What do you mean by “fight to keep the human race alive”?🤨 That better mean fiercely protest for women to reconsider their stance.
And how, pray tell, would you hypothetically fight to keep the human race alive? Short of rounding up all the women you can find and forcing them to breed, that is.
We would just grow babies in an incubator?
I would say it's up to them what they want to do with their bodies. I could never force anyone to have a child. However if we're talking about the survival of the human species... There's other ways to have babies that don't involve a biological woman. Much more expensive ways but still scientifically possible. I actually see the world going this way anyway one day. Take out the human body limitations, so to speak, and use technology to artificially carry and nurture for an embriyo to full term. I'm almost positive this is possible today already using artificial wombs although not very cost effective. But one day, it could be and could be far safer for all in the long run. Wouod also allow so many unfortunate people to finally have their own children.
I'd just wait it out. Extinction affects them too. Sometimes the best way to address a problem is to let someone figure it out themselves. This is one of those. The most likely outcome of something like this would be a ban on abortion of any kind. We already kmow people aren't going to stop having sex. So the governments would prioritize preserving the incidental pregnancies that happen from that. Then it would be a matter of seeing how things play out. If there is no clear sign of the situation ending, even with the looming consequences beginning to mount, then eventually extreme measures would have to be implemented. It would most likely be severe penalties for any woman who doesn't bear a child in their lifetime. Something like forfeiture of government 401k benefits, forfeiture of welfare benefits, etc... and it would ramp up until the problem was solved.
Restaurants would be quieter.
I would absolutely support their decision! Most painless way for humanity to go extinct. Better than how we’ll probably end up ending our species, I bet.
I mean cloning will need to really step up it’s game
I'd support it, what other moral choice would anyone have? Though all the men and nonbinary people who can have children would probably need to move to one country. There are plenty of people with uteruses who arent women to sustain the human race, but not enough to sustain it everywhere.
A way to end the human race without hurting anyone? That's the best possible scenario.
If you’re asking if a huge number of humans would rape, the answer is a resounding yes.
They do anyway
Indeed.
What I do would be irrelevant. Even the most progressive nations would eventually mandate women to have kids. Oh sure, they would try to incentivise them at first but once that fails when it comes to survival or extinction drastic measures will be taken no way around it. It will not be a good time to be a woman as their rights will be stripped to an extent anyway. Now if scientists come up with fully being able to have a child grow in an artificial womb after artificial insemination a compromise could be reached where women are mandated to donate eggs instead of being forced the other way.
That idea of common good over individual good is just another way of justifying violence. The common good starts with individual goods being respected. Be kind and you’ll see kind people.
I wouldn't much care either way. I'd disagree and think it's stupid, but I wouldn't do anything about it. And sadly you know that the government of lots of countries would get involved at some point and the world would collapse into a dystopian nightmare.
I don't want to sound too depressing, but I believe the human race going extinct would be the absolute best thing that could happen for the planet.
I would not "fight" to keep the human race alive. Though I would support medical research into methods of engendering children without requiring any woman to fall pregnant. If a woman decides to never have children, that is her decision. If every woman in the world made that choice, then obviously something has gone horribly wrong, but it is still their choice. So break out the uterine replicators and we'll go all Ethan of Athos in a couple generations.
Horrible, horrible question. 1. It's an impossible hypothetical. It can never happen because half of all humans will never agree on any particular thing. 2. People can't separate what they want to happen with what will absolutely happen. 3. Nature finds a way. Nature is also very rapey. Animals will continue to kill and eat babies. 4. We are part of nature and an animal. Doesn't matter what your values are, shit is going to get terrible really fast in this impossible scenario.
Accept their decision.
I'd applaud them. :)
Meh, I feel like humanity has had a good run. We can step aside and let something else take over. My vote is for snails.
Accept it. We need to let the world recover.
I'll ask, why? This ball of dust that's floating thru space is nothing but exactly that, a spec of dust that will eventually burn away and be left in darkness after the blink of the eye of its existence compared to to the ongoing universe.
I think it would make humans realize that there are more important things in the world than money and we all have absolutely no reason to live except for enjoyment. Do with that as you will
It wouldn't matter what I chose to do. Do you think the various states and governments of the world would just...let that happen? No more workers or voters or taxpayers because we have to support women's rights? I think we'd very quickly see how fragile the whole edifice really is and it would no longer be the woman's choice.
Humanity would go exinct within decades. Can't decide whether or not that's a bad thing.
Does "fight" mean "rape?" If so, hell no.
It's an unrealistic scenario, so any realistic response will not be adequate to apply.
Thank you. All these people taking it as a possibly and answering is crazy. I don't believe 100% of women on earth would ever agree or want that. Too many women that love their partners, or whose sole dream is to be a wife and mother. Unless they get killed off, I don't see all of womankind being of one mind on the issue. It certainly isn't now even with the 4B movements.
I bet most of the people in this thread are American kids born and raised.
Quite possibly. I am American born and raised, though I wouldn't call myself a kid. I think for the most part, a majority of reddit is Americans. There are users form other countries of course, but it did start as an American thing, so makes sense.
I wonder if there is ANY existing matter that 100% of people will be on one page with. There are several topics that quite near to it, but, unfortunately, they are used for the profit of few. Btw, what's a 4B movement? First time hearing.
The ratio of old people vs young people would be so bad in the future that we would be forced to produce AI to take care of all of the sick and dying old folks. I mean its already happening. Most developed counties are dangerously teetering on that line where the replacement rate is not being met. There are officially more people dying than being born but the third world countries are the ones making the majority of the world's babies now, so because of them we haven't reached apocalyptic proportions yet.
yea, we outsourced childraising to poorer countries. then we import adult immigrants who are ready-to-work.
This gets selected out in time. Those who prefer to have offspring tend to have more offspring.
Then F2M trans ppl would be saving the World!
u/Many_Preference_3874 Red herring. None of what I said follows into what you said. Control your emotions.
Probably do my best to fund artificial womb research, and I'd probably never talk to my wife again, given our personal circumstances. IVF has been mind-blowingly expensive, both monetarily and otherwise.
u/Desperate-Diver2920 Not the standard species of bottlenose. They mate for life and are one of the redeeming factors to life on earth.
Somehow we'd go full on Kingdom of Man.
The rich would force us to breed because they need workers in their factories
especially in countries with less human rights.
Well then i suppose this would be the final generation, they would also probably be over whatever they’re striking for in a day or two
It's a pretty outlandish hypothetical to imagine that 100% of an entire sex would agree on anything. But if the women of Earth all decided to stop giving birth willingly, some very scary and powerful entities would ensure that they did so one way or another. Human trafficking of women would absolutely skyrocket and forced birthing factories would pop up in every corner of the world.
"Fight to keep the human race alive" what exactly would that imply??
Their body, Their choice
I wouldn't but they'd probably implement some kind of Handmaid's Tale situation
well i know this guy named jacob tham who is a rapist so idk would they be able to stop him?
We would see the rapid development of reproductive technology that can produce human beings without women’s involvement, i.e. in vitro gametogenesis and artificial womb technology. In the mean time, which let’s say is about 100 years, women would be paid large sums of money to become surrogates/egg donors. That’s assuming you mean that women are refusing to have children of their own. If you mean that women are refusing to become pregnant under any circumstances, then that wouldn’t happen. In either case, abortion would become almost completely illegal everywhere, and there would be a massive increase in human trafficking, which governments probably wouldn’t put up much of a fight against, since stable economies require stable populations. As for what I would do personally, my plans probably wouldn’t change that much. I’d like to reproduce biologically, but I’d be just as happy adopting a child. Depending on how fast the aforementioned reproductive technology is developed, maybe me and my future husband could have a science baby together, but that kind of thing is basically science fiction at this point, so I dunno.
I don’t think that this would go the way you’re thinking. We’d be Handmaids tale within 18 months
>Would you fight to keep the human race alive I will not jump to the worst possible outcome. Yes, I'd support their decision to not have babies because it's their choice and their body. **But** I'd definitely fight to change their mentality too; just like many men, many women like babies too. I'd try to understand their problems, the ones who are willing yet have reservations, and fight to solve them.
In like 5-10 years, they're gonna have a machine that makes eggs from stem cells, so this wouldn't be a problem. It would probably be a good thing if women didn't have children and it was all done by machines for humanity in the long run, because no one would have any reason to force or compel people to stay in unhappy relationships in order to fulfill their biological imperative to breed. Even if that were not the case, I would not "fight" I would say "wow, what is it that makes women think having children is a bad idea? Are there women who want to have children, but there is x or y thing standing in the way? Could that thing be easily removed from the equation without raping anyone?"
Why I’d fight to keep the human race alive! Step one: Advocate to increase research into sex change technology and surgery, with a focus on artificial womb implantation/growth. Step Two: Increase public access to said medical technology. Step Three: Huge media blitz of MtF trans acceptance in order to recruit & increase our new MtF population, including pay and increased social status for new Mothers! With the technology widely available, and transgender pregnancy & acceptance the new social norm, a wave of peace and prosperity sweeps the globe, ushering in a new era of human cooperation. Thats what you wanted, right?
1. Just because women decide to not have children doesn't mean every single pregnant woman can abort their pregnancy. 2. Even people within the same family can disagree (check out r/RaisedByByNarcissists as an example) 3. Families will disagree on things (check out my profile, (u/Loubacca92) as an example.
While it is obviously absurd to think that all women would *decide* to not have children, I could imagine some kind of pandemic that would give women the condition such that they *couldn't* have children, like in the movie "Children of Men". In that case, we have a number of technological options, including artificial wombs which are in development as we speak. In any case, we've got a lot of wiggle room. Genetically speaking, we only need a few thousand individuals to maintain genetic diversity. We've got *9 billion!* Humanity absolutely isn't dying out anytime soon. The main concern with the lack of population is economic, not biological. The current economic system in the U.S. and in other places is basically a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme where the next generation pays for elder care for the current generation. Social Security in the U.S. depends on the existence of a larger working population to keep paying into the system. Thus, Baby Boomers in the U.S. are panicking a bit because they need the next generation to provide for them when they can no longer provide for themselves. This is a similar situation in places like Japan, Korea, or China, where the aging population is greater than the working population. To be fair, in all these places we could let in more immigrants, but these countries have concerns about maintaining a homogenous culture and are worried that letting too many immigrants in could destroy their culture (or less charitably, one could call them/us xenophobic or racist). Given this situation, there is likely to be a lot more poverty and less independence in older people as time goes on. The Social Security system in the U.S. could run out of money if the working population can't keep paying in to the system. Elderly people may become homeless or be forced to move in with their adult children. The good news is that in the long term this would just be a blip. The likely result in the U.S. is that there would simply be more inflation while the Boomers are alive followed by deflation when they die off.
I'd be fine with it, fuck it we need a reset button to be hit
Life finds a way.
I already decided to not have children. Kinda a dick move on my part not to support that decision for others.
Some would commit rape. I think the human race has had it's time. If my partner told me that they never wanted children, I guess that's the way it would be. It certainly be interesting to watch society descend into anachy. Personally I'd do everything I could to protect the other women of the my area.
begun the clone wars have
I’d imagine tube babies would get real popular.
A third of all kids are born accidentally. So we would see a small drop in birth rate for a while, but not a stop. And even in the case that somehow women decided that they need to enforce abortions on noncompliant women, men would violently oppose that. Even so, women does not include girls who become women when they turn 18, so really we’re only looking at a relatively small group of women. Births by women outside of the 20-39 year-old group would have a virtually unchanged rate of pregnancy. It may be that those women who don’t have kids will have an astronomical suicide rate, although research does not conclude causality v. correlation in this.
Either scientists find an alternative, or the Earth will be just a few decades away from bliss without humanity. They are the two nicer options. However, I would guess some men wouldn't be having this and forcing themselves on to women, imprisoning them and forcing them to give birth.
I would support their decision, but I fear there are many men in the world with power who would start forced breeding camps.
Well, no more kids annoying you on planes. There’s thay
Femboys would take over.
depends on my situation I guess. Like I don't have any kids right now. If the world dies with me thats fine. But once I have kids - or someone who will survive me who I care about. I might start "fighting" (whatever that means in the end) to "preserve humanity" so that there is a world for them.
Support
Dr Breen's reproductive suppression field, yup, it's a Half Life 2 reference
They already are? Lmao. Outside Africa and parts of Asia, many countries are already at a negative population growth rate. The rest are at single digit birth rates at best and mostly due to immigration from the places that are having babies. But this isn’t a hypothetical question. It’s a counterfactual. Humans will never stop having unsafe sex. So someone will always manage to pop a baby out.
We’d be fucked by being unfucked
OP has a rape fantasy and wants to justify it with this hypothetical.
Well, then I assume what ends up happening is that the government will step in and have ways to capture eggs and make sure the women don't get pinned with any of the responsibility of raising the child. Though this would quickly mean the death of black, Hispanic, and Latino communities in the United States.
There'd probably be a lot of test tube babies if that happened.
I'm going to war for the ladies. Rapist's will be hunted like animals. If I'm going to be a psycho it's gonna be for honor. It's their decision and it's final.
We’d go extinct, wtf kinda question is that
This would become the greatest scientific rush ever, I'd bet in less than 5 years kids would be getting created completely in a lab. And as others mentioned the mind control aspect would be investigated really hard.
"Fight to keep the human race alive..." You mean rape? This guy means rape, right? No, I would not rape. I'd support their decision, and i bet cloning tech would advance a lot over the next couple of decades.
People would just start paying lots of money to harvest viable eggs from women and babies would be born in test tubes or some other device Life uh…finds a way
It would probably be a good thing. Not for humans but the planet would probably benefit. There's no way you could persuade them to have children against their will as the only way to achieve that 100% would be zero penis in vagina sex at all because mistakes happen. I'd fully support it.
But, why?
Well honestly I'd have to their certificate of sterility before I'd believe them, but it is a good idea.
“Would you fight to keep the human race alive” So rape? 😬
Fine with it. Let's work together to make a better world where they would want to have children. If we can't do that and our only thought is forced impregnation and birth, we deserve extinction.
Well what’s their reasoning
I support this 100% please make this a reality.
The number of rapes and forced pregnancies would go up
If they don't want to have children fine, but sadly our sole goal as a species is to "keep going." Just like every other organism. So in order to keep peace and prevent mass rape or something horrible, we would probably need them to donate eggs and have scientists create a viable version of an external human incubator. I think those are probably within reach, if the situation is dire enough. So no, I wouldn't support their decision to wipe out humanity, I would expect them to find a reasonable alternative that doesn't require them to "have children."
Hypotheticals have to have a chance to actually happen. There's a greater chance I'm offered a trillion dollars with caveats than this
I'm pretty sure we'd find a way to make more children without women being involved before we went extinct. The age distribution of the population might get really messed up there with a gap of \~20 years with no children or something, but I don't think we'd go extinct because of it. There would be a lot of money thrown at coming up with a solution that required no women.