I’m not defending TradCon Social Conservatives, either. They’ve all lost the plot by pretending old life scripts are feasible while also fully buying into Feminist Empowerment values;
But we can’t keep kidding ourselves— Alexander Datepsych speaks of “delusion”, but what is modernity if not deluded about the costs of the sexual revolution? What was the revolt? Ask any feminist; it was women being able to make sexual choices *unconstrained by men’s opinions*
The earliest days of the sexual revolution meant lots of freewheeling sex (ask Boomers) but *also* eventually marriage, even if many ended in divorce (ask GenX). That’s not what it’s meant for Millennials and Zoomers.
We’ve the most unmarried and/or childless women in their late 20s and early 30s than ever before, in all records kept, on track to enter their late 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, 70s and end of life in the same state—but so too men, absent /DRASTIC/ changes (cf. projections) in relations;
Curiously, Alexander DatePsyche recapitulates an argument that is heard in American Churches — that men must forgive women their sexual pasts, and that men who use porn are degenerate. The latter half of that statement is true. But is the former half going to happen? I doubt it.
I can close only with the greatest take on this subject I’ve ever seen — which is likely what will have to happen to produce a close of the marital gap in the preceding graphs.
We should insulate future generations from what Boomers unleashed on their children.
"For the first time, the number of births in a year fell below 400,000 – 1.25 babies per woman.
This means that the replacement rate is now negative, since the number of deaths currently exceeds the number of births – 12 deaths for every seven births."
Here's roughly Italy today, and Italy in 2050. They're already having trouble funding public pensions (16% of GDP!), but things will come apart at the seams beginning in the 2030s:
"women’s participation in the labor force had a consistently negative and powerful impact on their childbearing..those choosing a civil marriage—had lower birth transition rates than...married in church"
The changes responsible are via technology (the pill), law (no fault divorce), social mores (premarital sex, unmarried cohabitation, partner count), health (obesity), economy (housing costs), etc.
Some won’t change back—US society would have to collapse to admit divorce laws/family court aren’t great, plus it’s politics; Winning means buying elections and media. 👎
Some are within our control (many could lose some, some could lose much; all could move to low COL areas)
But the rest are kind of a function of who you meet and what rules you set for yourself and other. They’re the social expectations and personal histories and group norms of whomever you’re with—they’re some combination of deep culture and superficial fads.
Interesting data from Pew, showing TFR declines by US State. The US as a whole shows reduced fertility over time, but it is worst in Western states (Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and California leading decline)
Though Arizona is the largest decline, the most dramatic is surely America's No. 2 in fertility reduction, Utah: from almost 100 births per 1,000 women in 2007 (!) to just under 65 today.
Ten percent of all women giving birth to a child in a given year is a remarkable figure.
There are a few States like the Dakotas or Alaska that show material deviation from the general US Trend post-2008 GFC, but these States are so small and undeveloped that relative insulation from the putatively causal financial crisis is unsurprising.
Elon Musk is totally right to be alarmed.
The changes wrought in the 1960s (birth control, abortion, sexual liberation, etc.) have remained in effect, with a result similar to higher concentrations of antibiotics on bacteria growth. It looks just like an extinction curve:
In the long run, fertility conferring traits are selected for against infertility conferring traits - those who have more kids have more kids, those who don't, don't.
But we're completely altering what humanity is; neither intelligence nor attractiveness now mean more births:
We say what we want is more fertility - but our long range ideals are subverted by short term reward pathways: people start doing just a bit better and turn the money into consumer spending, not more children:
This is the honest reason to be against artificial meat, but it applies entirely to all meat people don’t hunt for themselves, all non-meat food people don’t grow for themselves, and reliance on others in general. @RepThomasMassie , whom I respect, is a doctrinaire libertarian—
But libertarians, for all their admirable qualities, think there’s a way to have civilization without rules, a way to depend on dependable people but not be rendered in some way dependent
They’re all like this—from the 14 year old reading Mises to the 50 something billionaires
But it is not possible. Not even within a family can you really have any kind of relationship without obligations, or even the chance to be disappointed. That’s life, and it’s what Libertarians don’t understand about the world/deeply wish would not be true about it it.
Women freezing their eggs to ‘signal’ commitment to upper management should understand IVF success (i.e having a baby via ANY sperm, regardless of any marriage or a father in the picture) almost certainly requires five cycles, and should budget accordingly.
Even $20,000 is a joke compared to the real costs of long term egg storage and going through multiple cycles of IVF — the $1200? Delusional.
Try ~$60k (not including flights, hotels, hospital fees, etc.) to become a single mom to ONE kid from anonymous donor sperm;
The set of people—more a web of corporate incentives interacting with media coverage and employment law, and her own social group’s notions of prestige—involved in a successful job offer to a smart 22 year old woman isn’t her family.