Wednesday, February 3, 2010

A Case Against Gene Preservation: Forum Post

By "forum post" I mean that this is really more or less something I'd appreciate read, and then posting why you think it is wrong, right or in between.

Where to begin... I've been thinking of this topic since Christmas or a little before, and have hit brick walls occasionally with where the logic ends or where it goes from there and IF we really want things to turn out that way. Welmer's recent post on The Spearhead inspired me to write this piece and get it discussed. I know there are great writers in the MRM/MGTOW, but I can't write something of this magnitude alone, it needs to be discussed and dissected from every perspective of the old, the young, the in between, the pro-natal, and the lifelong bachelors. So after reading my case, feel free to say what's on your mind. If I could get this posted on The Spearhead, that'd be great, but writings on The Spearhead a bit more thought out than this one, if a talented writer would like to take this after its processed and run with it, feel free. I don't "own" ideas or writing, at least I don't think I do.

This post is mostly intended for a male audience, because... well parts of it are only experienced by mostly Men, and Women trying to vicariously write may not understand the entire picture of what Men go through, especially since Men and Women have completely different expectations, desires toward and outlooks on rearing offspring. Feel free to post if you're Woman, but understand if you're disagreed with or supported but for reasons you didn't expect.

Anyway, my topic today is about gene preservation; bringing future generations into the world.

Now, personally, I think it is GREAT to have your own offspring, it's up to the individual if he/she wants kids, but I've always kinda imagined what it would be like, and not imagining nightmares.

"But AmStrat, this is the case AGAINST gene preservation!"

Correct, and I don't want to drive yet another difference between Men in the MRM/MGTOW/FRM (F stands for Fathers), but this needs to be dealt with, at least in a philosophical sense.

We are all familiar with the Catalog of Shaming Language, if not, click and you will be. What I see on forums occasionally is yet another series of words that seems to only really serve a purpose in argument only in shutting down opposition... that's shaming language to me. It usually goes along the lines of "The future belongs to those who create children, so your philosophies and achievements will die with you." or something to that effect.

First off, there are plenty of Men who used to strive for the "white picket fence" fantasy of a wife, children, job and being a pillar of the community (to borrow a phrase from The Fifth Horseman), but the vitriolic Man-hatred, changes in law and general trend of any Man getting married and having kids going through hell in family court, losing all or most of what they own, and never seeing their kids again have proven to these Men that perhaps it's better not trying, the statistics and risk weighting certainly say so. What good is passing on genes if 1. you'll never see them, 2. they'll grow up in a misandric household or have THEIR ideals of marriage broken just by watching what just happened and 3. they may never pass on THEIR genes, which is actually one of the main points of you passing on yours.

I want to say that to call those who don't pass on their genes "genetic losers" or "losers" is kinda irrelevant. What did they (perhaps we) lose? I don't want to sound Keynesian, but in the as n approaches infinity, the likelihood of your genes passing on (since it is not ensured) approaches zero. Calling someone a "loser" just because "their" genes won't directly show up in the next generation is like judging someone solely based on how fast they can eat, it doesn't actually matter and here's why.

I was inspired to write this topic in the first place by Biblical Manhood (I think that's the post that did it, not sure.) because he makes a point whether you're atheist or Christian; Your genes are very very VERY similar to your neighbor. Heck, biology textbooks place the genetic difference between any two people on Earth as .1%. This means that you are, at worst, 99.9% the same genetics as anyone else, and even more if that person is the same race as you, or comes from the same ancestral country. Passing on general things like your skin color, your polydactly, or your interest in engineering WON'T be in short supply from others, so why does it have to be you? (Note: It didn't mention if the people could be of different genders, seeing as how different the Y and X chromosome are, even if Men have one)

But I'm getting ahead of myself, I want to emphasize that quite a few in the MGTOW and Marriage Strike wouldn't feel this way if the laws and attitudes were different, we have nothing against kids, but to throw oneself into a meat grinder in hopes of offspring emerging is a fool's game.

"Finding a good church" and settling down with "the right Woman" isn't absolute. Women change, and though some look at them as horrific past mistakes there were regulations to keep her from breaking the marriage contract selfishly in the past. As long as there are divorce courts and the no fault divorce laws (and many others) on the books, it doesn't matter how devout you are, or how traditional you thought your wife was when you married her, you're a potential target. Change the system, then we'll see.

I want to make a point that genetic legacy SHOULDN'T be that important to a man, it's okay to want, but disadvantageous to need. If you absolutely HAVE to "get your genes passed on" you can be screwed any which way to make the deal happen. But if you only WANT offspring, you can take or leave any trashy deal, and that's precisely what many Men are doing. To me, genetic legacy is really maintenance. Some say that passing on genes is one's truest or only purpose... why is that? You live to pass on life to others? Who's purpose will be to pass genes on to more? When does something get done that isn't just about continuation? That's why I believe that gene preservation is a maintenance function, and not the "purpose of why we're here", it's something that, for a species to continue, needs to be done, but not by every individual. The ones who don't pass on a genetic legacy will pursue other callings. If we all just bred and bred and bred, what else would get done? Precisely. If a truck is traveling from Washington to Canada but needs to refuel every so often, is it's "grand purpose" to refuel, to use that fuel, and refuel again? No, it's to deliver whatever needs to be delivered, but refueling is an essential function to this. THUS, I conclude (at your discretion) that populating is an important function, but not "the grand scheme", and that those who opt not to for whatever reason are not necessarily "losers" of any sort. Feel free to call them "genetic losers", but that is a shortcoming in one field, by the same logic you are a "chemical engineering loser", a "furniture designing loser", a "satellite trajections specialization loser" and various other kinds of loser, anything you don't "do". Loser then loses any sharp point edge it had and you might as well have not even brought it up.

Still not convinced? I'm not surprised, everyone has a different idea on "how things should be" or how things are ranked. Let me tell you why I am against gene preservation as an individual NEED. It places all the power in the hands of Women. Are you saying that Women inherently know which genes are superior? To what purpose? Is every Woman getting impregnated by biker thug making the best choice? Okay, maybe (for evolutionists) in evolutionary psychology she is because (well, the short of it) is that in pre-civilization times, he would best defend her and her children, at least in theory. But are said genes the best genes for NOW? Is living a lifestyle that drains the rest of civilization good for present day? Probably not.

Now for my first brickwall: Some SMBCs (single mothers by choice, NOT Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal) and SMBC advocates (surprise surprise, usually other Women) argue that single Men should be up for marrying SMBCs even with no chance of creating a legacy of his own due to whatever limitations. They argue that such a proposition is a "ready made family". I've just argued that genetic preservation shouldn't matter to a Man, but if a Man WANTS this but doesn't NEED it, he should be able to walk away. I don't want my argument to bolster SMBCs because Women just don't get the difference between Men and Women in this regard, they get the long end of the stick. Yes, they get pregnant, then have to give birth, but to know 100% for sure that the offspring that emerges is YOURS makes it worth it and then some... with interest! Men don't have this guarantee, even if/when paternity tests become mandatory and the Man leaves the cheating and cuckolding harridan, it just means a failed trial, a broken heart, and a betrayed sense of self. This is why I don't think Women can really understand the viewpoint of the Man in this context. Gen tics don't matter to Women because they CAN'T matter to Women! You're asking the Ocean what it's like to be dry, it'll never know! Women will never understand the pains of cuckoldry.

This post is subject to edit when I think of what else I thought while thinking of this post, BUT feel free to begin posting!

Thank you.


  1. Anyone, everyone willing to post. My policy is relatively open, but please don't break the generally accepted commenting policies... whatever they are.

    I don't necessarily want "traffic" just to have this idea discussed. If you begin discussing this idea elsewhere and it catches on, please let me know. I don't need the credit, just to explore this idea from the general Men's perspective.

    I need to know about this, and not just from a few, but from as many as possible, tell your friends, tell your bloglinkers, rewrite this better into a Spearhead article and get it published, THAT'd get a lot of disemination, but like I said, I don't want to insult Welmer/The Spearhead with a weirdly written half idea post.


  2. Hi AmStrat, a lot to digest here.

    First, after my PEW snatched my kids, I didn't necessarily want to procreate again, but I did want to have a family again. So I seriously considered adopting as a single guy. But since that would make me little better than a choice-mommy (note that I lump man-not-included mommies and optional-divorce chicks in this group), I opted to not do it.

    With Mrs Wapiti, I felt driven to have more kids. Partly because I wanted a family, but also partly because I have come to see having children as a vote of confidence in the future...your future, the future of your union with your wife, the future of society as a whole.

    I don't think that guys should need to have kids. As you say, that puts the steering wheel in women's hands, and there's already enough of that already. But they should want to and, more importantly, the society as a whole should want them to, for it is the children of natives who carry on the culture. And a culture that loses the will to reproduce itself is a culture that is a failure.

    And this is where I draw the distinction. Men should want to have children. But more importantly, society as a whole should want them to--as evidenced by their father-friendly policies--for without men siring and raising their own children, the society collapses.

    So to me, it is not so much the concern of the man or the responsibility of the man to have kids, but the responsibility of the society as a whole to create a climate in which men are able to pair off, marry, and have a legally/socially guaranteed tie to their children as to ensure their paternal investment.

    The society that fails to do so is the real "loser" in my book, 'cuz there is no reason for men to expose themselves to the risks of having children otherwise.

    "They argue that such a proposition is a "ready made family"."

    I once came across a study that convincingly found that men are fundamentally concerned, on an instinctual level, with whether the children in their home look like them. In other words, are they related to them. Women did not have such hardwired concern.

    Thus I think that the "ready-made family" is self-serving choice-mommy propaganda.

  3. Thanks for the quick and thorough response, Elusive Wapiti. Hopefully there is more to come!

  4. What's the point of reproducing if the children who are your mark on the world, will be raised by someone who completely spits on your values, downplays your achievements and belittles your contributions?
    What's the point of reproducing if they're brought up by someone of low character with poor/no self-control? I know people can escape this cycle, but the odds are not good.
    "Ready made family" makes me hurl, Outcast Superstar's post makes me laugh at all the men that think Princess is going to put them above the children.
    If the other party in the relationship isn't willing to do what it takes come hell or high water to honour their marriage vows and treat it as a love covenant... well... what's the point in prolonging the agony through a next generation? It's not going to "bring you together sincerely", if anything having a child is going to be seen as an obligation to hold together a marriage where both people hate each other.

    P Ray

  5. Am Strat, you raise some good issues.

    The revolution began years ago. It had been brewing for decades, and the first shot of the revolution was fired circa 2000 by Fred Reed, who called for a marriage strike on

    The marriage strike has been going on for about 10 years. It's working.

    Now, when men give up on marriage, they still have long-term friends - male ones. In my case, I pal around with scientists, technicians, engineers.

    Imagine me twenty years from now. I've been working out consistently, so I'm quite healthy for my age. I've been accumulating technical expertise and tools and resources. I've been studying history and writing up contingency plans. And my address book is full of time-tested, competent technologists. I'll be ready to survive alone, or in a small community, or in a large community. And my policy will be PATRIARCHY. That includes reverence for virginity, a confinement of sex to marriage, disdain for promiscuity, disdain for infertile women, respect for celibacy, preference for monogamy over polygamy, etc.

    Conversely, all the women who didn't marry me are going to be grossly dependent on complicated societies. Their former friends are going to be gone, their plans are going to be in ruins, and they still won't be able to change their own oil. They will mostly be infertile.

    Who will the leaders be? Who will restart civilization? Who will have the obvious competence that will attract followers? It will be the new patriarchs.

    Now, does this mean that my genes won't go onward? I suppose. My relatives might fail to reproduce. I won't reproduce. The entire white race might fail to reproduce. That's fine. The human species will return to patriarchy eventually. There might be only 100 million humans left alive, but those 100 million can breed up the difference fast if they regard reproduction as a duty, not as a pleasure.

  6. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention:
    ' SMBC advocates (surprise surprise, usually other Women) argue that single Men should be up for marrying SMBCs even with no chance of creating a legacy of his own due to whatever limitations.'

    SMBC advocates will be powerless in a few years.

    Reproduction is the assertion of YOUR genes, personally. Men have no duty to take care of other peoples' children. Men have no business getting sentimental about adopted children. If you want to adopt, get a dog. It will be more loyal than a child.

    If, on the other hand, you must deal with orphans, prepare an orphanage and whip them into shape. Those that survive will be well-trained to advance the ideals of patriarchy. If they are less happy than non-orphans, that will serve to reinforce patriarchy.

    "The future belongs to those who create children, so your philosophies and achievements will die with you."

    The genetic future does indeed belong to those who breed, and the mental future mostly belongs to those who teach (the rest belongs to the new discoveries of the next generation).

    That is exactly why a man must never adopt children as a substitute family. If it's not made by your own sperm, it's not yours.

  7. Thank you, Anonymous.

    Yeah, I also really don't like the lack of "natural authority" to discipline your offspring. I mean, if it is your child, not only is it culturally sanctioned, but it just comes naturally, I can imagine some hestitation to disciplining an adopted child. That and "you're not my father, so you can't tell me what to do!"... ugh.

  8. There is no reason to call somebody a "loser" if they fail to procreate. It's their choice. What have they "lost"? Children? But how can they "lose" what they never had?

    Any time you choose Option A instead of Option B, you will "lose" whatever Option B might have given you. Ergo, you are a "loser". Ergo, we are ALL "losers" in one way or another because we all go through life choosing between options. Big deal.

    Calling somebody a "loser" for any reason is merely shaming language directed against people who have nothing to be ashamed of. It is just plain bad manners to use such a word, and not very intelligent either. If you merely don't like somebody, you need to make it clear WHY you don't like them. Calling the person a "loser" implies that you either have no respectable reason for hating them, or that you are too friggin' lazy to offer something more informative in the realm of justification.

    Aside from that, it is nowadays not a good idea for any man in Western society to get married or beget offspring. Full stop. SOME people may choose to call a man a "loser" for making the wise choice, but I myself would never say any such thing.

    I believe it is human nature to desire offspring who are " flesh of your flesh and blood of your blood. " Most people seem to want that, and in cases where they make an exception, that almost universally want to make that exception by CHOICE - and not by deceit. Men specifically want to know that the kid is not theirs BEFORE they commit to parenting it. They do not appreciate "surprises" several years along.

    I would personally come down hard on paternity fraud in whatever form it occurs.

    I endorse the marriage strike because it puts the heat on, socially and politically. It is a method of empowerment.

  9. Thanks, Fidelbogen!

    Now, how to get more coverage...

  10. I only skimmed what you said but until recently I thought I would never pass on these very awesome genes I have. However, I have found a woman who is worthy of receiving them into her womb, lol, and now I'm considering how strange it will be to be a father one day. I've always had a natural desire to pass on my genes combined with a natural aversion to passing them on with most Western women.

    I think part of it lies with the fact that one can only achieve so much in one's lifetime, but with children there is the opportunity for someone very much like you in many ways, with some of the same strengths and weaknesses, to achieve further when you are dead and gone. I think I have some pretty unique genes and so I'd like to see what they can come up with next!

    Passing on one's genes is also one way to be remembered, which I think is what most men really want. We die, but if properly cultivated our memory does not. To be known, respected, and remembered for our achievements, I believe, is what drives men to push the boundaries of what human beings can do with the resources available to them.

    If I could impregnate every girl I thought was attractive or worthwhile on some account, without any fear of STDs shutting down my ability to continue procreating, without an obligation to pay for that child, and without the given that the child would be disadvantaged from birth by growing up with a single mother, then I'd have an army of babies by now.

    But because STDs exist, women will take you for all your money, and children without fathers get the shaft, I can't do that. My only quality choices are to either choose to not reproduce or to find one fine example of woman and give her all I've got.

    Now, since that one fine woman is exceedingly rare it is unlikely that she will also be willing to allow another fine example of woman into our bed, if I ever did find another, or that the second fine example of woman would be willing to share me with the first. If this polygamy were feasible and legal it would be a better situation in that my DNA could mesh with more than one woman's DNA while still guaranteeing that I can remain healthy, be involved in the children's lives, and not be taken for all my money.

    Therefore the only good options within the confines of Western society today are to find one quality woman to share your life - and your offspring - with, or to refrain from procreating. I will say that I much prefer the prospect of having a family with a wife - legally or otherwise - than the prospect of living in solitude and seeking sexual outlets in sub-par women.

  11. Hmm, good points Hammers. Do let me know if you find the time to read the whole thing as there are things that may or may not have been missed that you could further demonstrate on or against.

    You bring up a thought I had on this, and that is that just like an aspect of "Game", you get more opportunities to procreate when you're not actively seeking that outcome, but some other. This benefits two fold as

    1. if you DO eventually receive such an opportunity, it's a bonus, and you were likely more able to do so because you weren't looking into it so hard and being too desperate as to accept ANYthing.

    2. If you don't receive this opportunity, and you were not in the mindset of expecting it anyway, but pursuing other things, then it's not really that troublesome for you.

    I think the "If the perfect conditions were right and I had no chance of STDs... etc." example is a bit extreme, but you can't study concepts unless you understand the context in purity, i.e. what you mentioned and what would happen. The perfect situation perhaps never happens, but we can learn from it still.

  12. Greetings; here by way of Elusive Wapiti.

    I just wanted to throw something into the fire here, and see whether it explodes, burns, or just fizzles.

    If you're a materialist, there's no particular reason to reproduce. It only takes away from your own resources.

    And in the end, if you don't believe in anything and this life is all there is, there's no logical reason to care what happens after you die, now is there? Nobody matters but you.

    ...Which is why I often wonder why people who believe such even participate in these discussions.

  13. I have always felt the same way. Leaving a genetic legacy is worthwhile only if you can enjoy it, which is not possible in the current system.

  14. Indeed, the current system destroys any incentive to do so.

    I think I shall see if I can add on to any of this in the coming week.

  15. Maybe those that don't reproduce are genetic winners because they reap all the benefits of being raised but never have to raise children themselves.