Much better formatting of the article I wrote (with graph) is here (also feel to subscribe to my minds account for other red pill style articles some of which I don't post here because irrelevant):

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/756158913941872640

Shitty reddit format (without graph):

This is a two part article discussing the current and future state of affairs for human reproduction. The first part illustrates that a rapidly changing environment benefits the young, which causes a natural increase in promiscuity and thus increased rates of divorce and single-parenting. The second part discusses how single-parenting and the decline of reproductive rates in first world countries has positive benefits and could even lead to higher innovation due to increased wealth distribution.

Rapid change causes promiscuity

A rapidly changing environment for humans leads first to an advantage toward the young. We are seeing this now in the information age where the entire world has changed at an exponential rate. With the invention of computers the richest people in the country aren't experienced elders, but innovative youth such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Zuckerberg. This makes perfect sense, in a rapidly changing environment the knowledge and expertise gained by the elderly becomes outdated and useless. In a static environment, the elderly are regarded highly, as they have had more time to become experts. For example, in a hunter-gatherer environment the elder has a gigantic advantage over the youth, the elder knows all the best hunting and gathering spots, deeply understands the nature of the plants and animals in the environment, has connections to neighboring tribes for trade, etc. But in a rapidly changing environment such as the information age the youth have the advantage; they can type magnitudes faster than their parents, they can intuitively learn how to use computers, and they can rapidly adjust to changes in socializing such as mastering internet prescence on facebook or instagram. My own parents for example brag about their ability to do arithmetic rapidly which is now basically useless with phones in our pockets 24/7.

One of the repurcussions of a youth centered culture is promiscuity. The youth are naturally sexually adventurous, have raging hormones and often rather experiment than stay in a stable long term relationship. In an elder focused society the youth would respect their elders enough to control their hormones and remain at least somewhat chaste, but in our current culture, elders are disregarded. This leads to escalating divorce rates, unplanned children, and single-parenting. This in turn leads to decreased performance among children in every way: higher rate of criminal activities, worse grades, lower incomes(1). But, this is evolutionarily advantageous. A rapidly changing environment, requires rapidly changing genes. The only way to increase the spread of adaptive genes is through female hypergamy and limiting the number of males that reproduce.

When things are stable, the current genes are "good enough", and so the bottleneck becomes aquiring as much capital to raise as many kids as possible. This motivates marriage, which gives females a stable increased flow of income from the husband. But if the average person's genes aren't "good enough" it doesn't matter how much a man provides, genes take precedence. This leads to women advocating for welfare and ailimony, so they can divorce or remain single and gain access to the best male genes while still getting steady income. It even motivates women to work themselves, because that lets them have complete freedom in mate selection. With modern technology they can just goto a sperm bank and get the best genes they can find, as long as they have the income to support the child.

Humans are simply not quite optimized for our current technology, we need rapid genetic change, and the only way to do that without total collapse in birth rates is to limit the number of males reproducing to only the best of the best. Overall the number of births still decreases, children are financially and emotionally worse off, but the genes are better which is worth it in the long run. Afterall, what's the point of spending all that money on a child if their genes destine them to misery because the behavior that makes them happy is now maladpative; just look at the increasing rates in depression and other mental disorders(2).

Decreased population can bring about increased innovation

With birthrates rapidly decreasing in first world countries(3), people are in a panic. However, they fail to realize decreases in population are actually often a good thing.

This is a graph of wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is usually a very bad thing, it implies corruption and exploitation, but even without that, it means less innovation. If the pay for an average worker is only enough to pay for basic surivival, there isn't enough savings to invest in entrepeneurial companies or innovative technologies. It can even lead to working overtime constantly which means less time for the worker themselves to research and innovate. Notice in this graph how WW2 caused a rapid decrease in wealth inequality. This has been the case for every rapid decrease in population, including things are horrendous as plagues(4). This is because lower supply of workers means less competition for jobs, that workers are able to leverage for higher pay. In fact we have the black plague in europe to thank for an end to surfdom, with such few workers left the workers actually managed leverage enough to get rights we now take for granted(4). With higher pay the worker can now invest in startups, spend time on side projects, and obtain new skills and knowledge.

Imagine you only need 10 workers for your factory. With an abundance of workers, you can get away with paying them only $20000 a year, assuming 20k is the minimum required to survive. You can also demand they have insane work hours with no increase in pay. WW3, a plague, or a mass decrease in fertility cause the population to plummet. Now when a worker threatens to leave you can't just say "there is a line of people begging for this job" as those people are dead, and so you are forced to give the workers increased pay. Lets say you only give the top best of your workers higher pay, eventually they leverage enough to now make 30k. You now have 5 people who can innovate or invest in innovation 10K a year when you previously had 0. Decreased population can result in more innovation.

It's speculated the population will grow to about 10 billion, and then plummet(5). Similar to how Japan's population is already starting to plummet. Countries in Europe are attempting to deal with this by mass importing immigrants. This is resulting in horrific culture clashes, rape, violence, and chaos. Unsurprising as many of these immigrants are illiterate (even in their own language), and come from societies where exploitation is the norm. Its sad to say that many people victims of exploitation, turn to it when finally given power "I suffered so much, I deserve to exploit others myself!" similar to the cycle of hazing in fraternities. These desperate attempts to increase fertility rate and population are actually bringing about inequality. We must follow Japan's example, in a few generations they will have a decrease in population, which will then cause an increase in wealth distribution and more rights as workers will become cherished instead of taken for granted. Of course if you're already wealthy and in the top 1% right now, you may want to maintain population so you can continue to obtain cheap labor.

References: Note I didn't want to link the actual papers these works are citing because these works are much easier to digest. They in turn list their own references which are more scienfitic if you want to fact-check.

(1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um3EmS9DKsI

(2): http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/03/for-80-years-young-americans-have-been-getting-more-anxious-and-depressed.html

(3): https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/

(4): https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227

(5): http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

(6): (Took for banner): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-mean-less-people-more-profit-contact-centre-peter-elliot