How do we Solve Birthrate crisis?

[Danioover9000]

@martins name

5 minutes ago, martins name said:

Thank you to everyone who has replied❤️  After taking it all in I've come to this conclusion:
I've put too much emphasis on Western culture. My attachment to "Western culture" is really just a surface manifestation of my value of healthy vBlue, vOrange and vGreen. What really matters is spiral development. Immigration is the obvious solution here. The key is: what immigration? Two filters should be applied to screen out good fits for Western countries.
The first one is economic. Have money or employment, and education.
The second is cultural fit. This boils down to orthodox religion, mostly Islam, being incompatible with Western European countries. Muslims should be filtered out and it should be made clear that no mosques should be built in Western nations, and people may burn Qurans. Secular people can all easily move up the spiral but Islam is very good at hindering development. Also, the blue vMeme subvalue of a nation should be primarily loyalty to the nation and not to religions.
I feel so much clarity now. Feels good.😀

   You're welcome! Yes, spiral development, but also the transformational dilemma from one stage going into another stage. True, I'd agree if it's caliphate interpretations of Islam, but other forms that are less orthodox and more secular is okay, seems like as time goes on Islam is getting more and more secular, Even in Indonesia there's a vast diverse range of religions that coexist with Islam in some of the Islands. Also true that vmemes subvalue of a nation should be for the nation/country first, this happens when in that country's history secularism has spread just enough that a good chunk of population want state and religion separate. Some countries still have some religious ties, and both nation and religion are part of the blue meme, as stage blue is heavily conformist.

[BlueOak]

14 minutes ago, martins name said:

The second is cultural fit. This boils down to orthodox religion, mostly Islam, being incompatible with Western European countries. Muslims should be filtered out and it should be made clear that no mosques should be built in Western nations, and people may burn Qurans. Secular people can all easily move up the spiral but Islam is very good at hindering development. Also, the blue vMeme subvalue of a nation should be primarily loyalty to the nation and not to religions.
I feel so much clarity now. Feels good.😀

Religion is not stopping people from procreation. It was a direct factor responsible for encouraging people to procreate.
More development has little to do with increasing birthrate. The opposite is true if anything.

I am no big fan of religion, but I think you are trying to make a cultural argument, even though I am not sure what that is exactly.
 

Edited December 4, 2023 by BlueOak

[martins name]

21 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

On one hand you say homeless or having a home the right size isn't a big factor, and on the other, you say it's a factor. Do you see the contradiction? Unless by urbanization you mean something other than less space or less competition for resources.

I was wrongly equating highrises and urbanization in my mind.
I'm saying Nordic countries are proof that even if you fix economic conditions it still doesn't solve the problem. I think we are in agreement, but just how much you emphasized it seemed like you thought it was the whole solution.
 

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Religion is not stopping people from procreation. It was a direct factor responsible for encouraging people to procreate.
More development has little to do with increasing birthrate. The opposite is true if anything.

I am no big fan of religion, but I think you are trying to make a cultural argument, even though I am not sure what that is exactly.

Immigration from poor Muslim countries to Europe has been a disaster. This gives the dilemma: how do we have immigration that works? I'm no longer looking for long-term solutions, just a series of short-term solutions until world population has decreased to sustainable levels, after which culture, education, politics, and tech have increased so far that long-term solutions might emerge naturally. Or at least we will have more means at our disposal to solve the problem.

[martins name]

37 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I think it was in the past the left party opened up boarders too quickly and started to abide by the EU rules concerning immigration.

It has been bipartisan from the orange right and green left. There hasn't been a blue right until two decades ago when the Sweden Democrats started to rise.

41 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

IMO they went stage green too quickly without a strong stage blue/orange foundation

We have a strong orange foundation hence the 16th highest GDP per capita.
With regards to blue, we have a strong nation-state and national cohesion but at the same time expressly blue values are seen as cringe from greens. We act blue but don't think blue. It's strange.  I think we need to go to yellow to understand how to integrate blue, like how JP does it.

47 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

it got so bad that they instructed the female population there to wear this 'don't rape me', band. Sorry, but in the southern states of America, if rapey daves made a move on a hottie, and said hottie has a piece, she'd open fire, ask questions later

Some dumbass politician suggested that, but it has never been public policy or public recommendations, just headlines. I don't think firearms would do much. Rapes don't usually happen to random people at night but among aquatints in social settings. Random assaults usually target younger people who seem meek, who wouldn't carry arms either way, but that way the bad guys would for sure have guns.

53 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

True, I'd agree if it's caliphate interpretations of Islam, but other forms that are less orthodox and more secular is okay, seems like as time goes on Islam is getting more and more secular, Even in Indonesia there's a vast diverse range of religions that coexist with Islam in some of the Islands.

Sure, but it's hard to find secular Islam in the Middle East. I'd rather have atheists as it indicates orange and green values.

58 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

both nation and religion are part of the blue meme

Yes but I'm critical of religions as a whole, they keep people at blue, in a way nationalism doesn't.

[Buck Edwards]

1 hour ago, martins name said:

It depends on the type of immigrants. Poor immigrants from Muslim nations don't mix well with European nations. In Sweden, immigrants from the Middle East as a group do none of the things you listed. They strain public resources, have high unemployment, and commit lots of crimes.

I thought about this. I thought of the following measures to solve the immigration putting a strain on resources. 

• Make immigration completely legal. No illegal immigration through the border. Illegals need to be deported back. Only legal documentation allowed. 
• No permanent residence to legal migrants. They can come but work for a limited time. Only a few years 
• If they overstay their documentation then they should be deported. 
• Migrants who commit crimes should be immediately sent back or held in detention for long periods and not released until they vouch for good behavior. 
• Heavy penalties for offenses against neighborhood security. 
• Quota distribution in Job applications. Only 1% quota of jobs to be given to migrants. Whereas the rest should be for the original natives of the country. 
• Extremely limited intake of legal migrants. I mean a very tiny percentage and never beyond that. 
• Set up an immigration colony. Legal migrants will be allowed to live in these government housing colonies but won't get any other free benefit. 
• Their human rights will be secured. Forfeited if they're committed crimes 
• Make the legal immigration process extremely and deliberately messy, difficult and extremely expensive. This will ensure that only wealthy immigrants can come in so they have sufficient money to return back, they can't claim being stranded. Also it will discourage them from wanting to immigrate on a whim. They will carefully reassess their need to immigrate and weigh the benefits of their decision. 
• If they do good as an upstanding citizen and have a clean record and absolutely no crime or offenses and are very hard working and ethics oriented, then retain them and give them amnesty permanently. 
• Immigrants who are not hard working and have not shown allegiance to ethics, they should be given security jobs, that is security guard at restaurants and similar places 
• No higher positions or high income jobs even for legal migrants. It undermines the capabilities of the natives. 
• No political positions to be afforded to migrants or the children of migrants. 
• No permanent residency or citizenship even to the children of legal migrants. 
• It should be advertised to potential migrants that even if they are ready to pay an extremely expensive fee for their migration process, they will still not be guaranteed affordable wage jobs. Most that they will get is security guard jobs so they will reassess their reason for spending to come. 
• No special privileges to migrants. 
• Migrants should receive much longer sentences for the same crimes as natives because they are taking the privileges and system for granted. Longer sentences means a deterrent to commuting crimes. 

 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, martins name said:

I was wrongly equating highrises and urbanization in my mind.
I'm saying Nordic countries are proof that even if you fix economic conditions it still doesn't solve the problem. I think we are in agreement, but just how much you emphasized it seemed like you thought it was the whole solution.
 

Immigration from poor Muslim countries to Europe has been a disaster. This gives the dilemma: how do we have immigration that works? I'm no longer looking for long-term solutions, just a series of short-term solutions until world population has decreased to sustainable levels, after which culture, education, politics, and tech have increased so far that long-term solutions might emerge naturally. Or at least we will have more means at our disposal to solve the problem.

It doesn't completely eliminate all factors slowing birthrate to give people space to have a family, or a home at all, but it certainly provides the conditions required for it to happen.

I am not talking about sticking people in a large highrise, I am thinking of small apartment complexes that house a few families at once in a large area, with a garden, as opposed to single houses. Most land is not taken up by skyscrapers, or large buildings at all. Most land is taken up by single-family houses across estates in the UK and much of Europe (*and non-vertical farmland). Again the reason people don't see that as the residence to raise families, is because they've been taught it. Generally, apartments are designed to be small, with no garden. The Western culture at least supports the preconceived notion of an ideal family home, in America with picket fences, in the UK with hedgerows as an example. So people feel inadequate when they cannot afford this culturally established ideal and put off having a family till they can.

That means one or two things need to happen. Either a shift away from that stereotype AND/OR If we as a society sat down and properly designed family apartment complexes, we'd quadruple the available area for family homes, while not needing near as much additional infrastructure, or taking away land for things like farming or other industries. Again it would need a cultural shift, done through media, through education, and discourse such as we are having.

Because I still don't think you understood what I said in full. I don't blame you, everyone is conditioned to want that large detached family home, so the thought of something else gets immediate pushback, and that's the problem I am trying to highlight with solutions for.

So on immigration. WHY?
I understand what you are saying to me, but you've not said how it relates to birthrate. Why are Muslims bad for birthrate? 
Then you talk about reducing world population but wanting to increase the birthrate? I'd like the world population down too, but those two goals conflict.

Edited December 5, 2023 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

13 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

I thought about this. I thought of the following measures to solve the immigration putting a strain on resources. 

• Make immigration completely legal. No illegal immigration through the border. Illegals need to be deported back. Only legal documentation allowed. 
• No permanent residence to legal migrants. They can come but work for a limited time. Only a few years 
• If they overstay their documentation then they should be deported. 
• Migrants who commit crimes should be immediately sent back or held in detention for long periods and not released until they vouch for good behavior. 
• Heavy penalties for offenses against neighborhood security. 
• Quota distribution in Job applications. Only 1% quota of jobs to be given to migrants. Whereas the rest should be for the original natives of the country. 
• Extremely limited intake of legal migrants. I mean a very tiny percentage and never beyond that. 
• Set up an immigration colony. Legal migrants will be allowed to live in these government housing colonies but won't get any other free benefit. 
• Their human rights will be secured. Forfeited if they're committed crimes 
• Make the legal immigration process extremely and deliberately messy, difficult and extremely expensive. This will ensure that only wealthy immigrants can come in so they have sufficient money to return back, they can't claim being stranded. Also it will discourage them from wanting to immigrate on a whim. They will carefully reassess their need to immigrate and weigh the benefits of their decision. 
• If they do good as an upstanding citizen and have a clean record and absolutely no crime or offenses and are very hard working and ethics oriented, then retain them and give them amnesty permanently. 
• Immigrants who are not hard working and have not shown allegiance to ethics, they should be given security jobs, that is security guard at restaurants and similar places 
• No higher positions or high income jobs even for legal migrants. It undermines the capabilities of the natives. 
• No political positions to be afforded to migrants or the children of migrants. 
• No permanent residency or citizenship even to the children of legal migrants. 
• It should be advertised to potential migrants that even if they are ready to pay an extremely expensive fee for their migration process, they will still not be guaranteed affordable wage jobs. Most that they will get is security guard jobs so they will reassess their reason for spending to come. 
• No special privileges to migrants. 
• Migrants should receive much longer sentences for the same crimes as natives because they are taking the privileges and system for granted. Longer sentences means a deterrent to commuting crimes. 

 

Much of this already happens. 

The issue is consistent implementation. Though human rights by international law cannot be forfeited. If France wanted to publicly flog or torture migrant committing crimes, then it couldn't as it's a party to European and global human rights agreements. 

[martins name]

@BlueOak About 3% of the global land area is used for buildings and roads. We aren't running out of space. But sure, for economic reasons it's sensible. 

The reason I wanted to fix birthrates in the first place was to protect Western culture meaning nationalist blue, orange, and green. I've changed my mind in thinking that it's incompatible with immigration, as long as it's the right kind.

Edited December 5, 2023 by martins name

[BlueOak]

4 hours ago, martins name said:

@BlueOak About 3% of the global land area is used for buildings and roads. We aren't running out of space. But sure, for economic reasons it's sensible. 

The reason I wanted to fix birthrates in the first place was to protect Western culture meaning nationalist blue, orange, and green. I've changed my mind in thinking that it's incompatible with immigration, as long as it's the right kind.

Can you explain why you think its incompatible with immigration? Social unrest does happen from immigration, which is a factor in people feeling like it is a peaceful community to support families in the first place, I am not sure if you mean that though? It's offest by the economic benefit of having economic immigration fix gaps in the economy, without any substantial delay or problems within the domestic workforce. Without that, there will always be a delay before a shortage of jobs can be corrected, especially with manual industries which older people simply can't do. (AI Workers being a possibility)

Where are you getting that 3% figure? 

Uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/land-use-in-england-2022/land-use-statistics-england-2022

The only % of relevance when it comes to supporting the population, is what is left of the natural area.

In England just 6% of the land is protected. With 20% currently open land, forests, and water, some of that 20% is used for things like timber, or fishing, etc. Also without the forests supplying oxygen, and the natural biosphere being maintained much of the quality of life in the urban areas would be reduced.  Such as air quality, potential medicines, the quality of the soil, food/water etc. Increasingly a lot of the land that is left cannot be used effectively, which is why it isn't being used for anything. Marshland or flood plains for example

68% is agricultural, meaning vertical farms or less cattle could make a huge difference to space savings here.
With all the utilities other than farming it's about 12% give or take here, (If you add up all the other %'s including gardens) unlike other places we haven't serious environmental damage to any large areas making them unlivable.

If you want to make a new town, it takes more than just the housing to support the population, food being the biggest concern, although a fair chunk of that land goes to industrial products such as cotton or exports to support people's livelihood. We are straining the limits in many European countries as to what can be maintained with what we have. This is one reason we don't have enough money after expenses for the average person, meaning people are less likely to have a family.

Its not just about where people live, its about all the things that go into supporting that, especially food. If people are living more densely packed, generally speaking, it's easier and more efficient to provide services for them. Where I live out in the countryside my quality of life has reduced significantly due to efficiency savings on healthcare, schooling or public transport. I'd probably die before reaching a hospital for some conditions (we did campaign locally to keep the local hospital open partially, and won a temporary victory for now)

Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Land_use_statistics

If we look at all of Europe, including many of the less developed areas in the east, we are looking at about 39% agriculture (which surprises me)
35% forested areas, and a lot more timber industry as an example. 15% unused or abandoned. I'd like to see why so much is being abandoned and where.

Leaving about 11% either used or unlivable from environmental damage, excluding a small amount for fishing.

I think Sweden again might have biased your view on this, as it is an outlying case. Just like England might have biased mine based on farm coverage. Overall if we look at the places experiencing the most birth rate problems, they are the more developed, with higher populations, more competition, higher stress levels, and less space. They also get a healthy amount of immigration to maintain their workforce, which people are trying to reverse, amplifying the potential problems the country's aging populations face.

Edited December 5, 2023 by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

Well Timmy when a man and woman love each so much they do a "dance" and then babies come out of mommy's tummy! The more they dance the more babies! Woooo!

[bebotalk]

On 04/12/2023 at 7:48 PM, martins name said:

Thank you to everyone who has replied❤️  After taking it all in I've come to this conclusion:
I've put too much emphasis on Western culture. My attachment to "Western culture" is really just a surface manifestation of my value of healthy vBlue, vOrange and vGreen. What really matters is spiral development. Immigration is the obvious solution here. The key is: what immigration? Two filters should be applied to screen out good fits for Western countries.
The first one is economic. Have money or employment, and education.
The second is cultural fit. This boils down to orthodox religion, mostly Islam, being incompatible with Western European countries. Muslims should be filtered out and it should be made clear that no mosques should be built in Western nations, and people may burn Qurans. Secular people can all easily move up the spiral but Islam is very good at hindering development. Also, the blue vMeme subvalue of a nation should be primarily loyalty to the nation and not to religions.
I feel so much clarity now. Feels good.😀

So then Muslims have no right to freedom of religion? They'd have no human rights in Western countries, why? 

Not all Muslims are hardline or radical. If Muslims aren't allowed to practice, then neither should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. 

[Basman]

The reason for why birthrate is falling is because it is no longer an asset to have children. The incentives aren't there.

When we used to depend a lot more on our immediate community, in a society without social institutions, we relied on our family to survive. Kids helped out by doing tasks and took care of us when we got older. They made us money, so to speak.

Now we have children for more intrinsic/cultural reasons and having kids is a burden.

If the birthrate is to be reversed/stabilized than there needs to be more incentive for couples/women to want to have kids. Generally the more incentives you give people to want to have kids the more likely they are to and vice-versa.

• Affordable housing
• Better wages
• Affordable and convenient daycare and after-schoolcare
• Paternity leave for both mothers and fathers
• Cash benefits to parents

-All possible avenues for making people want to have kids. Economic uncertainty for the future is a major reason why people don't want kids, even if they are currently doing fine. 

[bebotalk]

On 05/12/2023 at 11:26 AM, martins name said:

@BlueOak About 3% of the global land area is used for buildings and roads. We aren't running out of space. But sure, for economic reasons it's sensible. 

The reason I wanted to fix birthrates in the first place was to protect Western culture meaning nationalist blue, orange, and green. I've changed my mind in thinking that it's incompatible with immigration, as long as it's the right kind.

Nearly half of all habitatle land on Earth is used for agriculture. With more people, then more land is required. This puts pressure on habitats and land for other uses. Whilst the urban land use total might be low, people still need food. 

https://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/article/half-of-the-worlds-habitable-land-is-used-for-agriculture

 

[BlueOak]

9 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Nearly half of all habitatle land on Earth is used for agriculture. With more people, then more land is required. This puts pressure on habitats and land for other uses. Whilst the urban land use total might be low, people still need food. 

https://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/article/half-of-the-worlds-habitable-land-is-used-for-agriculture

 

Yeah maybe I should be focused on vertical farms as my argument more than family apartment complexes when I speak about this. Efficiency is always being looked at but that usually reduces the nutritional quality of the food. The case for veganism is getting too much pushback (to reduce the land needed for cattle), its usually easier to change a business model than a person's belief about their cultural values, especially where they were born and raised. Even so, farming is probably one of the hardest industries to change, I grew up and spent most of my life around countryside farmers. Nothing much phases them, no drama, just steady people but not quick to change.

No easy solutions for this, if there were we'd have had more success.

 

21 hours ago, Basman said:

The reason for why birthrate is falling is because it is no longer an asset to have children. The incentives aren't there.

When we used to depend a lot more on our immediate community, in a society without social institutions, we relied on our family to survive. Kids helped out by doing tasks and took care of us when we got older. They made us money, so to speak.

Now we have children for more intrinsic/cultural reasons and having kids is a burden.

If the birthrate is to be reversed/stabilized than there needs to be more incentive for couples/women to want to have kids. Generally the more incentives you give people to want to have kids the more likely they are to and vice-versa.

• Affordable housing
• Better wages
• Affordable and convenient daycare and after-schoolcare
• Paternity leave for both mothers and fathers
• Cash benefits to parents

-All possible avenues for making people want to have kids. Economic uncertainty for the future is a major reason why people don't want kids, even if they are currently doing fine. 

Precisely yes. Thank you. I wonder if it's just for some of us as we get older we experience and can see it. Until you've seriously thought about having kids or a family, perhaps these things don't come into the equation so much in people's minds. The practical reality of actually being able to support the kids you or your partner wants cannot be ignored. In times of economic contraction, it must have an impact on people's willingness to have a baby. Changing cultural trends is a factor I should highlight even more than I do. So here goes.

I'm also going to say something that will never be talked about, and be very unpopular, understandably so for all the problems it brings. The vilification of casual sex going on, is certainly not helping the birthrate. People having accidental children was never ideal by any means, but it was the creation of a lot of imperfect marriages and families. Life just happens to us sometimes, and that would often temper economic issues in relation to birthrate, because people would seek solace in each other in hard times. Life is always going to be imperfect, and the trend towards waiting for the ideal marriage, the ideal partner, and the ideal set of circumstances is not helping anyone (See the dating problems in wanting ideal partners). If not casual sex, then removing the want for everything to be perfect or just so, according to a new arbitrary set of beliefs, has to be torn up in favor of just accepting life as it happens more.

The people trying to socially engineer liberal or individualist values out of the population to replace them with a new fixed, uncompromising perfect set of values (perfect in their mind), and I am speaking about everyone from conservative think tanks, to spiritual teachers, to movie producers, need to think about more than they are doing, when they are making these sorts of cultural shifts, according to a predetermined set of values (looking at you teal swan). Because everything they do impacts something else, and some days I think I am the only one on this earth who sees it. It's good today to read your posting about economic issues being a necessity. Gratitude.

*And yes, clinging to old beliefs, or trying to socially engineer them over life, doesn't always help either.

Edited December 6, 2023 by BlueOak

[Basman]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

I'm also going to say something that will never be talked about, and be very unpopular, understandably so for all the problems it brings. The vilification of casual sex going on, is certainly not helping the birthrate. People having accidental children was never ideal by any means, but it was the creation of a lot of imperfect marriages and families. Life just happens to us sometimes, and that would often temper economic issues in relation to birthrate, because people would seek solace in each other in hard times. Life is always going to be imperfect, and the trend towards waiting for the ideal marriage, the ideal partner, and the ideal set of circumstances is not helping anyone (See the dating problems in wanting ideal partners). If not casual sex, then removing the want for everything to be perfect or just so, according to a new arbitrary set of beliefs, has to be torn up in favor of just accepting life as it happens more.

The people trying to socially engineer liberal or individualist values out of the population to replace them with a new fixed, uncompromising perfect set of values (perfect in their mind), and I am speaking about everyone from conservative think tanks, to spiritual teachers, to movie producers, need to think about more than they are doing, when they are making these sorts of cultural shifts, according to a predetermined set of values (looking at you teal swan). Because everything they do impacts something else, and some days I think I am the only one on this earth who sees it. It's good today to read your posting about economic issues being a necessity. Gratitude.

*And yes, clinging to old beliefs doesn't help either.

It is definitely true that people value making "the right" choice and plan familyhood way more than before. I can appreciate it because I've felt the pain of divorce, incompatible parents, lack of resources. People are more savvy now because they've been taught that having a child is life changing and most simply lack the resources to make it something done on a whim. They rather "do it right" than at all.

[zazen]

We need more flexible ways to include women’s gift of motherhood along with their aspiration to work and express their intellectual and creative talents. Womens education and participation in the work force has meant motherhood and settling down have been pushed till later in life around late 20’s - 30’s which goes against the reality of fertility and the reality of meeting someone as easily as it gets harder - mostly due to logistical and practical reasons. Too busy with work, more tired, less sociable environment and places to meet - we’ll never been in a more sociable environment with similar aged single peers as in college.

Dating and hookup culture which perpetuate and extend adolescence and not to mention the time taken out from failed relationships and having to recover from breakups for both sexes which makes them jaded and take breaks from the opposite sex completely or get sucked into toxic ideologies. 

 

Theres also way more distractions and lifestyle options in today’s world. Huge segments of the population are swept up in a virtual exodus and away from the real world of social life, decide to be nomadic or fill their time with hobbies of all sorts that we didn’t have access to before.

 

Economics is a major reason. Before, a single wage could provide for a family of four, now even a dual income just about makes it. A lot of men just don’t feel ready for it.

 

The multiple factors contributing to it could be sexual health and polarity, structural, social and spiritual. 

- Sexual health and polarity: prioritise having children when younger and healthier, an culture that embraces a healthy masculinity and femininity to create more magnetism that draws the sexes together rather than androgynous feminised men and masculinised women.

- Structural: incentive structure to promote family formation and flexible work for women (work from home and 3-4 day work weeks could help), court system 

- Social: negative social ideologies that are misandrist (radical feminism) or misogynist (strands of the red pill) need to be pushed less by the algorithm due to their virality as they create a toxic dynamic between the sexes, getting more social / creating opportunities to meet more people for adults that don’t involve clubbing late which older people can’t recover from and can’t afford to mess up their work productivity for.

-Spiritual: honour parenthood and the gift of and perpetuating life.

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by zazen

[zazen]

A essay I came across on why men don’t want to pursue fatherhood:

“A lot of men aren't interested in being patriarchs anymore. They're forever teenagers. Just want to have sex all the time and socialise with their friends. They're not building anything. They're not sacrificing anything. There's no greater goal. It's just perpetual adolescence.

Just pleasure seeking for its own sake - at the cost of everything else. Hedonistic materialism as the ultimate value. A spiralling path to nowhere that consumes many years, a journey full of exhilaration that leads to a destination comprised of emptiness.

A modern day malady.

So it strikes me there are different classes of men, who can be differentiated by their connection to the transcendent as marked by their willingness to sacrifice. Call this metric "heroism" - the desire to transcend one's self by living for something greater than the self.
 

Heroes + extreme individualists thus inhabit opposite sides of a spectrum. The former are rooted in something greater than themselves, whilst the latter live only for themselves. One plants a tree to provide shade he won't enjoy, the other logs forests so he can party in Cancun.
 

Extreme individualism, marked by irreligiosity + hedonism is the ultimate boomerism

It is the sacrifice of everything else for the temporary indulgence of the self, rather than the sacrifice of the self for the long-term improvement of everything else

Boomers don't plant trees.
 

In every great story that resonates deeply within the masculine psyche, is the archetype of the hero - a king of sorts, who combines the intellect of a magician with the ferocity of a warrior.

What does a king care for? His kingdom, his nation, his people. It's never about him.

Not all men are destined for greatness, but all men can be a microcosm of greatness. Most men won't become great statesmen, philosophers or scientists at the cutting edge of human management and development. Most men will not be a hero to the many, but they can be to a few.
 

They can be the heroes of their own families, the ultimate caretakers of their own people. The one people come to to manage affairs of the tribe. Small scale heroism is what it is to be a patriarch and it is through family most men will find their connection to the transcendent.
 

This is why a patriarch is objectively superior to low trust individualist mercenaries who live only for pleasure. He has more marks of heroic kingliness, because like all kings he is rooted in the transcendence of sacrifice.

He is the evolution of the boy

The greatest scam the decay of western civilization ever pulled on men, was convincing them it was foolish and pathetic to grow up by undermining if not out right removing their rights over women and children by penalising men who take up the mantle with easy + frivolous divorce.

Essentially, the architects of the system realigned incentives so that becoming a father and husband is "dumb" because years of sacrifice can be undone and ripped away on a whim, whilst making being a perpetual hedonistic teenager "smart" because that way you can't be punished.

The rights of women are therefore an imposition on the sanctity of family when they become so great they disrupt the rights of men.

Men will not grow up and leave boyhood, if their sacrifice isn't honoured. A king has a legacy. A hero has a legacy. A divorcee has a ruptured, derailed or no legacy.

So whilst I shun the number of men in perpetual adolescence who avoid the mantle by shirking the burdens that would lead to their spiritual growth - I am not entirely without empathy for their decisions. I understand how systemic forces have manipulated them into eternal boyhood.
 

The truth is, you haven't won.

Being an eternal pleasure seeking hedonist does not mean you win. It's just how you protect yourself from a system that is hostile to anyone trying to build anything that lasts.

You have not won. You have simply regressed so you can't be wounded.
 

And even then you're still wounded. Only it is the sheer swirling vortex of emptiness derived from an absence of anything meaningful in your life that wounds you, rather than a punitively immoral unjust legal system.

Winning this game is making sacrifices that result in legacy.

You can distract yourself with pleasures, you can laugh with dishonourable men, and sleep with dishonourable women. You can chase your thrills as a mercenary with no kingdom, thinking fast, quick on his feet - but in your quiet moments alone, there it is, haunting you.

The void.“

 

 

[ted73104]

7 hours ago, Basman said:

It is definitely true that people value making "the right" choice and plan familyhood way more than before. I can appreciate it because I've felt the pain of divorce, incompatible parents, lack of resources. People are more savvy now because they've been taught that having a child is life changing and most simply lack the resources to make it something done on a whim. They rather "do it right" than at all.

This guy has nailed it. The heroes of today just don't see having a child as a necessity, if they're going to do something they're going to do it right.

Countries that want to fix birthrate crisis should just find a way to legalize immigration I guess.

[BlueOak]

Further idealization of a handful of traits as being the definition of heroic masculinity will only make this problem worse.
@zazen

That's how people think right now. Rather than taking life as it comes and accepting imperfections or flaws.
People put an image in their head, the top 10% of partners, but ignore the 90% (also known as reality) People try to fake being whatever their preferred image is currently, and thus when imperfections to this ideal are revealed, people are intolerant to them.

If instead there was no ideal partner, just people, as complicated and messy as they are, there would be more acceptance of reality and what is. 

[Basman]

3 hours ago, ted73104 said:

Countries that want to fix birthrate crisis should just find a way to legalize immigration I guess.

I don't believe immigration is equal as a solution to actively working to better the birthrate since immigration doesn't tackle the underlying reasons for why people don't have kids. After a generation or two you are back to square one.

Immigration is a quick fix that can introduce its own set of problems in terms of the birthrate crisis. Especially if you import people from cultures that are less developed and you don't handle their integration well (or at all). Cultural identity should also be considered. If people feel like they aren't heard you get backlashes like Brexit.

Immigration is viable if done well but it shouldn't be your only playing card.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Basman