Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Emasculation = Population Collapse
When men stop being men, and women, women, people stop procreating. Civilizational collapse ensues. We are seeing both the cause and the effect across the “Civilized” World.
Is this merely correlation?
I am pretty sure the association is causal. After all, men are attracted to conventionally feminine women. And women are attracted to conventionally masculine men. Less attraction = less nooky. Which in turn leads to fewer babies.
I am aware, of course, of the other factors — societal acceptance of the uncoupling of sex from committed relationships; all forms of birth control; the wealth effect; the narcissism that leads to an unwillingness to invest in a spouse or children, etc. Yet I posit that the ungendering of people remains a leading cause of the accelerating population freefall. Ungendered people are simply not attractive.
Published in General
Population collapse is the goal.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-population-resources-paul-ehrlich
Mrs Nohaaj and I are in a remote mining town in Northern Quebec this weekend. We went to a restaurant and observed an “ungendered person”. At least we think we did, perhaps not, it was confusing. Neither of us could pinpoint or objectively declare that this person was either male, or female, or one in the process of morphing to the other. We didn’t ask, of course (well to Mrs Nohaaj’s credit, of course she wouldn’t ask, I wanted too, and occasionally Mrs’ Nohaaj can keep the reins short enough that I yield to her much better sense of judgement. Thus it was tonight).
But we would both agree that the person could have been a perfectly normal young man, capable of chopping wood, or washing dishes. Or a woman perhaps taking testosterone, or something else. We couldn’t tell. And in todays culture, we also saw how easily this person would be wholeheartedly encouraged and supported by cohorts to embrace a different vision of whatever it was, to something much more chic, but perhaps less genuine. Or not. We couldn’t tell.
Sadly this person would never be able to live up to society’s image of either an attractive female, nor a strong male. It wouldn’t matter which role was selected.
But to be sure, there would be very strong forces by society to encourage a transition from whatever it was to the other, because that is de rigueur.
I ran into a friend of mine this evening at a benefit spaghetti supper; She said her daughter (thirty-five ish) is building a house, happy…but wants a husband. “Do you know any single men?”
“Hmnnnnnn….” I said. “Let me see if I can find her a game warden. They’ve got good jobs, health insurance, they can do anything, fix anything, and kill stuff for her to eat.”
My friend is a nice, normal, progressive-ish person, but her eyes lit up. ‘Do you think you can get one of those for us?”
I didn’t even have to say how handsome they are.
There are young couples in our neighborhood, with young children, who actively support school board candidates and teachers who actively promote this behaviour. I desperately want to ask them: What life do you envision for your children? Do you want them to live as you do – in this kind of neighborhood, educated and healthy, married and having professional jobs that enable them to care for their families? Do you want grandchildren like we have? Or do you want to help your children neuter themselves and be isolated and forever angry and sterile? What outcome do you seek for the children of others?
What are these people thinking?
And when small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri stop being small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, . . . .
Did it have purple hair? Lot’s of that in San Francisco.
There are a lot of facets to this, one of the most disappoint to me is the people – especially men – who seem to put all the blame on men not adapting to the Modern Woman while seemingly not having any similar expectation for Modern Woman. And ignoring that, if Modern Women still want (so some claim, anyway) Traditional Men, not only are Modern Women not attractive to Traditional Men, but if the men changed, Modern Women would no longer find THEM attractive!
And I think “Mr Spock” even mentioned that problem, in his One Hit Wonder.
Why would a game warden want that, when he could probably get someone younger etc?
no, it was a normalish looking mostly masculine looking, but had a pear shaped, shorter femalish physique. No evidence of lower jaw hair, but possibly a long sideburn shadow.
We tried not to stare. But we could not accurately define this person with a gender. It was reminiscent of the old SNL skit on Pat. You could guess either way and have a 50% chance of being correct.
You’re not wrong. It works backwards too. The current easygoing, no rules, everything goes, dating market will also lead to fewer children overall. To go back to the Copybook Headings:
It seems odd that the poem goes straight from more adultery direct to fewer children. On the face of it you’d think that more adultery means more sex is happening means more babies are being produced. Well, for starters it’s not clear to me that adultery means more sex, rather than a similar amount is being transferred to other people. But even if it were, sex outside of a marriage won’t produce children that have a loving home to raise them, which means that the folks having the illicit sex will take whatever means they have available to avoid having kids. But even if we assume that people don’t respond to obvious incentives like that, the current dating market will lead to fewer children overall.
When someone says “no rules” that’s always a cheat. There are rules, even if they’re as simple as “kill or be killed” and “gravity still works.” When you say ‘no rules’ about the dating market, then even if that were true (and not just “We won’t tell you the actual rules”) then you’d be forced to negotiate them for yourself. With each prospective mate. In short, our easy-going culture has imposed a massive transaction cost on sex that simply isn’t there in more traditional societies. As price goes up, quantity goes down.
Whaddaya mean “One Hit Wonder”?
One major factor, I think, is the destruction of civilizational self-confidence in much of the Western world, including the US…if you believe your society is bad and has no future, not only will this affect your conscious desire to have children, it also seems likely to affect the regard in which you hold other members of that society, including those of the opposite sex.
That loss is the theme of Koestler’s 1950 novel of ideas, The Age of Longing. The central character is a woman named Hydie, an American living in Paris. She was once a devout Catholic, but has lost her faith…and, while she finds herself unable to be attracted to any of the American or European men she knows, she falls hard for a committed Russian Communist.
I reviewed the book and explored its themes at some length: Sleeping with the Enemy.
When I posted an earlier version of the above-linked review in 2010, the blogger ShrinkWrapped linked and added some of his own thoughts. Particularly relevant to this discussion:
Societies, as in Europe and parts of Asia, who transition from the potential of empowered individuals to a cheap narcissism risk demographic collapse. If there is nothing more important than the self, sacrifices for another (ie, offspring) are unthinkable and undone. They are then left with no ability or inclination to defend against the predations of more confident Collectives, an apt description of Islam in its current incarnation. A warrior willing to die for his beliefs is always more appealing to a young woman, who owns the future after all, than an effete, dedicated narcissist.
Time once again for the Best Interview Ever.
https://www.adrive.com/public/RaM8Mj/NARN%2012-02-06%20NARN%201%20Hour%202%20Mark%20Steyn.mp3
Much of the issue is with feminism. The whole point of pushing careerism with women was to subvert the family. Betty Friedan was a Marxist who (correctly) saw the family as an impediment to implementing Marxism in society.
Corporate America happily forged a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with feminism, as they saw (correctly) that it would suppress wages. The corporate world has been in bed with the left for some decades now.
I think the reasons are really complicated, for both young men and young women.
I interacted with a woman on Twitter today. She publishes some excellent memes, and I complimented her on them. She told me that she is one of ten children. And she has seven of her own! All is not lost yet.
The fecund shall inherit the earth.
Yup. The future belongs to those who are there for it. See also:
https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2006-013.pdf
This study from the Max Planck Institut on the correlation between religious convinction and fertility in the U.S. and Europe. The focus is largely on the Protestant/Catholic churches vs. secular/non-religious in that study.
And on the effects of the climate change cult on fertility:
https://salvomag.com/post/climate-policy-reckoning-in-europe
It is also important to consider basic economic and logistical matters: housing costs, school costs & quality, the clumsiness of car seats & the limited number you can get in any particular car, etc. There are many couples that stop at one child, or at any rate at fewer than they would ideally have liked, due to these factors.
Schumer asserted that the US needs a lot more immigrants because fertility rates are so low; he made no attempt to address policy factors that might be able to help Americans have more kids.
Most of the comments are about social/sociological reasons. Noone is focusing on supermarket counts and our food supply.
I was working at an independent video store in 1986 when those sketches were popular. We had a regular customer who fit the “It’s Pat” bill perfectly. I remember the owner of the store telling me he finally found an excuse to have them show ID [probably membership renewal time] so he could see their Drivers License. He was male.
My neighborhood is going through the standard turnovers of families that happens in long-established neighborhoods. An older couple put their 4-bedroom home up for sale and the parade of interested young couples is quite gratifying. A neighborhood with more kids is a happier neighborhood – assuming they have homes that raise them properly (i.e.; respect for their elders! Love one another.) It sure helps to have a moral framework to support that process.
Just to put things into perspective.
Currently the population of the United States of America is 331.9 million.
It is estimated that by 2050 the population of the United States of America will be 375 million and 394 million by 2100.
The world population is 7.8 billion. By 2011 the world population is estimated to be 11.2 billion.
It’s a little encouraging, but I wouldn’t quickly dismiss the possibility that they want the “extra” bedrooms for something other than children.
Also, statistically, an overall fertility rate of just over 2 per female is required. Even if the couple who buy that house have 4 kids, it only takes 2 other couples who have fewer or none to cancel them out.
I’ve also read that, recently, only 80% (or less – it seems to be dropping) of women have children at all. So to cover the overall average of 2 per woman, that means the 80% of women who do have kids need to have about 3 each, just to stay even. And since many will have just one or two, that shifts the burden even more to the rest.
Couples might not be having 4 to 12 children like they used to. But people are still having children. Some couples adopt children if they are not capable of having biological children.
The population of an area can continue to increase for a while even with declining birthrates. But once the older generations are dying off without sufficient replacement, the decline can be drastic. As is sometimes said about bankruptcy etc, “slowly, then all at once.”
Sure, but 2100 is 80 years from now.
So, if the USA does end up with about 43.1 million more people (375 million minus 331.9 million) 80 years from today, that’s not exactly a population collapse. That’s a slow and steady increase in population.
But adopting children does not alter the overall fertility/reproduction rate.
If a couple adopts children from Central or South America or from China or India, this will boost the population of the United States even if the fertility/reproduction rate isn’t impacted by this.