78 Comments

Very well researched. And the findings are clearly stated.

This needs to go viral enough that at least 35% of young men and women have read and understood it.

Feminists of every "wave" must be made to wear these truths around their neck.

Expand full comment

I mean, why would they?

Men and women are separate groups with disparate interests. In a democracy, groups will organize to promote their interests. The problem is not that there is a women's movement, but that there is no men's movement.

Expand full comment

Excellent essay.

Expand full comment

Excellent essay. So many things to digest. Though not completely related, I don't understand why you insist on Western European marriage patterns when Eastern European marriage patterns were the same and are also similarly eroded today as in the West. I am from Serbia, 41 years of age, and have been cohabitating with the same partner for 16 years, with 10 years of marriage. We have only 1 child, aged 8. The reason being all of the things mentioned above: long female education, husband's reluctance to commit due to social pressures of modern marriage, and "bad" experiences of his peers. I am now sad that we didn't start having kids earlier, meaning we would have had more kids. Also, all our worries were nonsense. We are happy in marriage in every way and not sure why people overcomplicate this so much. I sadly notice that a lot of my female friends (probably 50%) are still unmarried and will remain childless even though that was not the plan initially. The "modern" way made all the women chase elite men as potential long-term partners and thus delay serious commitments (because education is supposedly huge social capital that they bring into the marriage while at the same time they expect potential husband to outperform them bith socially and financially). They tell themselves all sorts of stories of how they are happy single or that their career was worth it, but I sincerely doubt it primarily because I know these women. Our generation is literally willingly written out of evolution.

Expand full comment

Wow!

“Our generation is literally willingly written out of evolution.”

It’s one thing to see this described in a graph; it’s something quite different to see you put it in words because that’s how you feel.

I think it was Stehlin who said “A million deaths is a statistic but one death is a tragedy.”

Expand full comment

Is it possible that apart from feminism there are two other main drivers of the decline of marriage: First and perhaps foremost, the universal availability of effective birth control, so that it's possible for women to have sex without necessarily having children; and second, welfare, which (as touched upon in the article) allows those women who do have children to rear them without having a man around, allows men to have children without taking any responsibility for them, and allows the children of such unions to survive and reproduce, thereby perpetuating the problem?

Expand full comment

This is a great post. I've added it to my homepage. https://zerocontradictions.net/#dating

Another thing that's worth talking about is what can be done to re-establish a cooperate/cooperate society. The best solution would probably be to require reproduction licenses in order for men and women to have children. Reproduction licenses would incentivize monogamy, disincentive defection, reduce welfare states, and cause child-rearing to be associated with higher social status. I've written an FAQs page to talk about these causes and effects. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics

Expand full comment

Good heavens, Zero. Everyone would have to register and contribute to the political party in charge, or become outlaws and burn the whole thing down.

I favor the latter.

Good luck enforcing the reproductive licenses though.

Expand full comment

You should read the FAQs before responding. You haven't given presented any good arguments against reproduction licenses, so you probably have none. Your opposition to reproduction licenses is based on emotions, not rationality.

Expand full comment

The day the state starts requiring reproduction licenses is the day I start killing officers of said state. But don't worry, I'll kill them RATIONALLY

Expand full comment

You don't exhibit any rationality. You are clearly very triggered by my ideas. I really don't understand how you or anyone could be so opposed to ensuring that all children will have decent parents. As I've said before, the requirements for obtaining a reproduction license are very easy to meet for anyone who puts in some effort. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#reproduction-license-reqs

The day you start killing police officers is the day you die.

Expand full comment

Your views make sense in a world where people still want to have children. That world is gone. You could try this in Nigeria, but in the West, you are creating a solution for a non-existent problem. We need to increase births. How does your idea INCREASE births?

Expand full comment

Night clubs do this all the time.

Create a queue of aspirants trying to get in.

Create an exclusive zone (…in the VIP!) where people have to measure up in order to be admitted.

Expand full comment

What if no one applies? The problem is not enforcing such systems. The Chinese have clearly done this (and I assume that it what inspired you), but how to you stop the rapid decline in births? Germany, Italy, South Korea,..., these are disappearing cultures. How do you force young people to apply for the reproduction licenses?

In the West and developed East Asia, the problem is collapsing birth rates. I do not see how restricting reproduction yields more births.

Expand full comment

No, I was no inspired by the Chinese implementation of population control. I explained in the FAQs that I very strongly detest how China enforced population control: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#chinas-one-child-policy

> What if no one applies?

As the FAQs explain, the reproduction tax gets set to $0.00 when that happens (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#reproduction-tax-conditions), and the government may start policies to increase the country's fertility rates via voluntary means: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#boosting-western-fertility

> How do you force young people to apply for the reproduction licenses?

Cultural reforms. Natural selection. Natural population decrease.

> In the West and developed East Asia, the problem is collapsing birth rates.

Yeah, so? The world population *has to* decrease to some extent, since the current world population is unsustainable: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#nowhere-close-bogus. Infinite growth is impossible, and it cannot continue forever.

Expand full comment

> Good luck enforcing the reproductive licenses though.

Lol, thanks for the luck, but I don't need it. China and Singapore have both enforced population control before, so we have historical evidence that it can be done with ease. The system that I'm proposing is also much less authoritarian than what they did, and it will cause better outcomes, so more people will support it. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#chinas-one-child-policy

Expand full comment

In America this has no chance 😂

Nor should it.

Expand full comment

You still haven't given any arguments against reproduction licenses. You simply declared that it's "immoral" and dismissed it.

> In America this has no chance

People will change their minds as people realize that population control is necessary without mass death. People will change their minds as more people accept race realism and eugenics. The requirements for obtaining reproduction licenses are minimal and easy to meet. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#reproduction-license-reqs Licenses are already required in order for people to adopt children. It's contradictory to not require licenses for having children in general.

Very few people believe that it's problematic to prevent incest and to require parents to take care of their own children. You're just delusional.

You're clearly just a time waster, so I won't respond to your messages any further. You have no rational arguments to defend your beliefs.

Expand full comment

You’re getting this from ai bot, right?

Ta

Expand full comment

Lol, imagine being so incredibly stupid that you perceive rational arguments as originating from an AI, while appealing to emotions to oppose common sense.

I am a real person, whether you believe me or not. I can guarantee you that there is no AI out there would write FAQs pages the way I do (https://zerocontradictions.net/#faqs), because there is no AI out there that has sufficient training data for writing about these topics, especially since most AIs strongly lean leftist.

Expand full comment

> Reproduction licenses would incentivize monogamy, disincentive defection, reduce welfare states, and cause child-rearing to be associated with higher social status.

Okay, but this is a sure way to halve our fertility rate again, by basically tomorrow.

You realize that 20-33% of kids are "accidents" and that throwing up MORE barriers to reproducing is going to tank the fertility rates still further, right?

Like you can pretty much predict a straight 1/3 drop in fertility just from whatever mechanism you have to enforce the licenses (IUD's, presumably), and then on top of that you're going from "reproduction is the default" to "reproduction is a hard thing you apply for only when you're completely on top of your game," and you're gonna get an even bigger drop from that?

Because that dynamic writ small is what's been powering the fertility crisis to date - relationships and kids becoming a "capstone" thing instead of a foundational thing, to be considered only after your career is just where you want it to be, and after you've used up all your fertile years grinding to that point.

Expand full comment

> This is a sure way to halve our fertility rate again.

No, that doesn't follow. If you read section 7 of the FAQs, there are dozens of things that the government could do to raise the fertility rates, even in spite of enforcing reproduction licenses: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#boosting-western-fertility

> You realize that 20-33% of kids are "accidents".

The parents can keep the fetuses if they apply for a reproduction license and they meet the requirements. The requirements are easy to meet: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#reproduction-license-reqs. And if they don't meet the requirements or don't want the child, then it's probably for the better that they get an abortion.

> 1/3 drop in fertility just from whatever mechanism you have to enforce the licenses.

So? That's actually a good thing. If people can't meet the basic requirements (no criminal record, no full-time job, no high school education, no incest, etc), then it's probably for the better that they don't have children. Not everybody should have kids. This will have good eugenic outcomes for society.

> Because that dynamic writ small is what's been powering the fertility crisis to date - relationships and kids becoming a "capstone" thing instead of a foundational thing.

You haven't thought this through all the way. People put off having children nowadays in large part because having children gives lower social status, compared to graduating from college and obtaining a prestigious career. People and especially men are driven to pursue social status. If it becomes harder to have children, then having children will be associated with higher social status. Ergo, people will want to have more children.

Also, if women have to have a male partner who will raise children with them, then this will eliminate single mothers. All women will have to have a partner if they want any children. This will likely cause more women to become stay-at-home mothers, rather than entering the labor force. This would help get rid of the incel problem (few people want to date single mothers for understandable reasons), it will raise wages (by temporarily reducing the supply of labor), it will increase social stability, etc.

I encourage you to actually read the FAQs if you want to have a serious conversation about this. All of your objections are probably already addressed on the webpage.

Expand full comment

Your FAQ remarks have not worked in countries where they were tried. There is evidence that any public policies SERIOUSLY do not work. There currently have not been any confirmed ways for governments to increase births. This is where your position fights for relevance. You need to fix that FIRST, then make your arguments for reproduction licenses. Unless your target countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, there is zero demand for reducing the birth rate. Go check on birth rates in Europe, East Asia, Latin America,..., they are all collapsing. Newspaper articles describing Japan's low birth rates from ten years ago look ridiculous now that Japan's birth rates are higher than many European countries. Japan simply kept better data. We are all Japan now. The US is only safe because of immigration, and some of our leaders have not been so good at maintaining that (not that I am in favor of illegal migration, but there are far more tasteful ways of handing that).

If you want to push your idea, either tailor it to Sub-Saharan Africa, or address the birth collapse crisis in the beginning, then explain why your idea is important. Your ideas would have been great in the 1950's up into the 1980's, but the world changed.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, I have to respond on an alt account. Performative Bafflement blocked me, so I can't see your comment and respond to it (also note that he never responded to my final comment response to him).

> Your FAQ remarks have not worked in countries where they were tried.

Again, as I already told Performative Bafflement in a different comment before he blocked me: "Most countries haven't tried most of the measures that I've listed, so I'm not surprised. Most countries tend to do really dumb things like giving tax breaks or welfare to people who have more children. Those policies fail to raise fertility rates much because they're not effective. They aren't even eugenic, and those policies are unlike anything that I actually listed on my list of pro-natalist policies. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#boosting-western-fertility"

> You'll have to make up an additional 20-50% of existing fertility you're cutting out, and literally no country on earth has managed that yet.

You need to learn to read more and write less. I already explained that this is not a problem in the FAQs!: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation

> If you want to push your idea, either tailor it to Sub-Saharan Africa, or address the birth collapse crisis in the beginning, then explain why your idea is important.

There are plenty of good reasons why low-fertility countries should enforce reproduction licenses: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#low-fertility-countries-and-EPC. How about you respond to these arguments?

Expand full comment

> If you read section 7 of the FAQs, there are dozens of things that the government could do to raise the fertility rates

I read it, and am skeptical. In general, across every country that has tried significant fertility-rate raising measures, nothing has worked for more than a year or two. The downward trends keep going down.

A lot of your measures are going to specifically cut off large tranches of the baby-producing population from producing those babies, too, so not only will you have to make up the current downward trends, you'll have to make up an additional 20-50% of existing fertility you're cutting out, and literally no country on earth has managed that yet.

> People and especially men are driven to pursue social status. If it becomes harder to have children, then having children will be associated with higher social status. Ergo, people will want to have more children.

Okay, so why hasn't this dynamic played out this way so far? Empirically, it's become much harder to have kids overall, all across the world. Yet it's not higher status to have kids anywhere, even in the face of it being more rare. If anything, fertility has continued declining everywhere it's gotten harder and more noteworthy to have kids at all, like Korea, Singapore, etc.

Sure, you can point to the fact that wealthier men have slightly more kids in the US, but you can't support a population-wide fertility rate on only the top 2% breeding or breeding a little more. Fertility rates are aggregate things that need to be taken part in by the majority of society.

I mean, your whole deal at the 40 thousand foot view is "don't let crappy people have babies." That's a laudable goal, but fully the majority of people having babies are crappy by some measure, and selection effects means that it's mostly lower income (https://imgur.com/JSY4xo9), higher time preference (https://imgur.com/a/D1cPiGK), and more criminal people (https://imgur.com/a/ERApKB2) with higher fertility rates. It's pretty likely that a near majority of babies comes from those people. You can't whack the majority of people having kids and expect it to *increase* the amounts of kids your country has.

Any time you introduce more friction and barriers to something, fewer people are going to do that thing, and your whole proposal is basically "let's prevent most people from breeding, and then nibble around the margins in ways that haven't worked anywhere else in the world to make up for it." Like the math just doesn't work, in the aggregate.

Expand full comment

> In general, across every country that has tried significant fertility-rate raising measures, nothing has worked for more than a year or two. The downward trends keep going down.

Most countries haven't tried most of the measures that I've listed, so I'm not surprised. Most countries tend to do really dumb things like giving tax breaks or welfare to people who have more children. Those policies fail to raise fertility rates much because they're not effective. They aren't even eugenic, and those policies are unlike anything that I actually listed on my list of pro-natalist policies. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#boosting-western-fertility

> A lot of your measures are going to specifically cut off large tranches of the baby-producing population from producing those babies.

I already addressed this, but you ignored my response. Also, the world's current population is sustainable. Lower populations would consume fewer natural resources, cause less climate change, etc. It would make for a more comfortable living across the globe. This is a good thing. Populations can't grow forever. The world population is over 4 times larger than what it was 100 years ago. The potential for overpopulation is a very dangerous predicament. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#overpop-threat

> so why hasn't this dynamic played out this way so far?

I already told you. Having higher education and a career is associated with higher social status. Having children is currently associated with lower social status. Plenty of celebrities and our culture have normalized (or even bragged) about having no children.

On the other hand, if we can normalize everybody having an average of 2-3 children or more, then people will associate having more children with higher social status. I know Mormon families who compete with each other over who has the most children. Such competition and positive views towards child rearing were also normal during the 1950s.

> I mean, your whole deal at the 40 thousand foot view is "don't let crappy people have babies".

Dude, that's bullshit. I never said that, so don't place that phrase in quotes. I have no problem with anybody having children as long as they meet the requirements for obtaining a reproduction license. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#reproduction-license-reqs These requirements obviously wouldn't exclude a majority of the population from having children. Most people who can hold down a job, get married, and who want to have children would have no problems meeting the requirements.

> "let's prevent most people from breeding, and then nibble around the margins in ways that haven't worked anywhere else in the world to make up for it."

You're strawmanning me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jif_6hXT7kU). If you keep shoving words in my mouth, attributing quotes to me that I never said, and misrepresenting my positions, then I will have to end this discussion. Please don't bother responding unless you actually read the webpage. You clearly didn't read any of it. There's no way you have read much of it, given how quickly you responded and how long your response was. You obviously lied when you said that you read it.

Expand full comment

> The best solution would probably be to require reproduction licenses in order for men and women to have children.

Is this "reproduction license" just a re-branding of what a "marriage certificate" used to be?

Expand full comment

No, and it's not clear how you came to that conclusion. Marriage certificates don't necessary imply children. And as stated in the FAQs, people don't necessarily have to be married in monogamous relationships in order to obtain a reproduction license. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#why-require-marriage

Expand full comment

Then I see no point to them.

Expand full comment

Modernity won't survive without reproduction licenses. We need them in order to prevent overpopulation (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#overpop-threat), to enforce eugenics (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics), to re-stablize the sexual market (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#effects-on-society), and to end single-parent households. There's not a single issue that we're facing right now that wouldn't benefit from reproduction licenses.

Expand full comment

The problem we're facing today isn't *overpopulation*.

Expand full comment

Yes, overpopulation is a major problem and threat to humanity. You should read the FAQs before responding. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis of the demographics conundrum.

Expand full comment

Feminism didn't kill marriage. Technology did. Well researched, well presented, and once again incomplete. Look at every one of the chronological graphs in this article. every cultural shift can be traced back to 1965 to 1971. What new technology was introduced/popularized around 1965? Hormonal birth control. This created the Men Cooperate / Women Defect state of the sexual marketplace we live in now, and that you conspicuously avoided in this essay.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this essay. I'll share it with my female friends who are in co-habiting situationships and are wondering, why their "men" won't commit. The women waste their youth and the males use them for companionship and easy sex.

Expand full comment

And the worst part is that both of them are worse off. No one is "winning" in the current situation. Even many of the bad zoning and housing regulatory problems that have caused the affordability crisis could never have happened if there were families everywhere. People put up with it because it is bearable as single adults.

Expand full comment

Excellent write. I would add, as it is both sexes non cooperative, in worklife we are always competitors in every situation, even in married people, as someone could quickly divorce and poach that person (at least on paper but that still changes dynamics and motivations.... so common to hear young women poach married hardworking men, not single men, as there is no consequnce). So expectations of women have skyrocketed. Having a job is not enough. Need to have bunch of other qualifications + earn a lot as married + invest lot of time at home too.

But biggest dynamic is to jobmarket and how it works. Also it has consequences everyone knows. Add to that, being constantly competitive mood, raises stresslevel and studies show it makes us -20IQ points dumber in daily life. Of course introducing in europe, long homogenous societies, bunch of those africans and others, who follow very different life and "mating strategy" is sure to mess things.

Add to why marriage is better for having kids: kids nowadays, in cities but also rural, need constant care even after being nominally self sufficient (go to school, go to hobbies) as getting a job and some training is requirement along other filtering factions to avoid nonsense rampant in media and elsewhere. Quarreling parents cannot do that anymore, kid has to always then suspect is that advice legit or did they think something else and is other parent saying opposite and how to sail these waters.

Mostly it shows in how men are "hostages" in cohabit or marriage: if divorce happens, it is very bad, worse than bankcruptcy of your business these days, and husband has few cards there. Sure very wealthy men can manage but result is still not optimal.

While welfare state works for women, single, with or without kids, it certainly doesnt serve men, as old labels still stay strong for majority. So unemployment is devastating. Sometimes to the social stigma that even money isnt factor (incase living costs are low or girlfriend earns so much with academic degree job, providing for both). This is strong biological urge from both sides that cannot be changed by societal structures, not in big picture. With job I dont mean high paying flashy CEO, but simply any job offering focus and avoiding that stigma and shame.

"Old system" until 1980s had problems but also education in many western countries have become to replace false gods for women. Young men have been faster to switch ships when education degrees have inflated recent decades. This opium of education works especially well for women but has no correlation to any of these topics in article, helping family and kids. It is still job that provides income to family. Although in rural setting it is more asset based than "job" that provides income potential, thus they are free'er to choose to use their time. Job concept has been muddled so much in recent times that practically many do exact same things nonpaid as paid, but for society it is necessary longterm that people can earn their living somehow.

Expand full comment

I think the bigger component is that adding women to the job market has made it more competitive with lower wages, all things being equal (the ole ceterus paribus). I think we could have managed this without the poisoning of the culture. We lost Christianity with nothing to fill the void. Those who demand some kind of public moral virtue have been adopting more predatory forms (social justice, self-declared trans "allies", pseudo-green activism,...). Women have been plagued by this more, with an ever-growing number of men choosing to numb themselves with drugs and alcohol.

Niall Ferguson has called this late Soviet America, and the parallels are terrifying. We need something, almost anything to get a proper public spirit back. We need to stop with the international BS activism schtick and find some way to get women active in local communities again and men back in work, even if we must draft them. I think a mandated labor draft for public works would be ideal, with wealthy men who do not work taxed in exchange for avoiding service. Once men get used to a pay check it gets hard to be a bum again. I think it would be worth a try. Of course, everyone on disability who was capable of some kind of work should also be brought in, thinning out the ranks of those scamming the system.

Expand full comment

Very well researched!

The marriage contract is doomed. AI and co-parenting trends make marriage an irrational contract. This is unfortunate because the next generations will be even more isolated/depressed as a result.

Expand full comment

AI will not change this problem for good or ill. Other than stock jobbers and con men will get richer…

Expand full comment

Edit needed: “Not only are we *are* the product of millennia of selection for marriageability; social norms are sticky.”

Expand full comment

Fixed

—NC

Expand full comment

Great job as always @arctotherium

Expand full comment

This article taught me nothing that I hadn't already read on these subjects, but it might be the best collection of concepts I know of. Bookmarked for sharing.

I did have one original thought while reading it, which is that the "marriage premium" might be more than just a response to marital incentives. Given that marriage has become an upper-class institution, it could also be somewhat of a cause-and-effect reversal, wherein the married are simply better people. Yes, I know that some "marriage premium" data compares before/after marriage incomes rather than just comparing married and unmarried people, but one might still be primed for an income spike once a stay-at-home spouse appears to enable new career choices.

Expand full comment

At present we cannot consider them better people. Better networkers and grifters, this system and the society it preys on are throughly corrupt- at least the upper class.

The solidly religious have excellent marriages and large families, however it isn’t a matter of money.

The solution is in the article, however it’s not to be found by economists or frankly anyone who indulges the lunacy of game theory in real life.

Game theory is morally insane, moreover in any real dangerous situation discussing “defect” as an option is justly lethal.

Too long a peace, weak men bought hard times. Here we are…

The replacement rate is irrelevant.

That’s economics…. Utter nonsense.

Expand full comment

Lol 😝 ok bye 👋🏻

Listen anyone who knows you think this way will get away from you.

Expand full comment

Not a valid argument. Again, your beliefs are based on emotions, not rationality. You're so dogmatic that you can't even listen to opposing views.

> Listen anyone who knows you think this way will get away from you.

To the contrary, all of my friends understand my perspective on morality, and we all share the same views. You simply just don't understand my beliefs.

Expand full comment

Lol . Belief? Suffer, kill, die for something it’s a belief.

Elsewise an affectation.

I understand perfectly, you’re empty in that never alive way.

To put it bluntly; if it’s a life or death situation and someone starts mentioning “defect” as a valid option instead of hissing it in contempt that someone is dead.

Also by the way this someone can’t have friends.

Nor allies.

Nor cooperation.

Nor marriage.

Hopefully no children.

TFR 0<

Nash was insane, his equilibrium the mathematical expression of schizophrenia. Actual delusion.

Clinical. Committed.

Reality? Morals are survival.

Meatspace is coded in Blood. 🩸

Have a nice day.

Expand full comment

No, you don't understand my position. You're just triggered by letting go of morality.

> Also by the way this someone can’t have friends.

Not true. I have dozens of friends. Being amoral doesn't imply being a psychopath. It only implies understanding that moral values are not cosmic. You're strawmanning my position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jif_6hXT7kU

Anyway, you're clearly not intelligent enough to make rational arguments. Talking to you is a waste of time, so I will not read any further messages from you, and won't respond to you any further.

Expand full comment

You are conflating "upper class" and "top 0.01%".

I am upper class. My parents are not, but we are, as you say, "religious". For all the complaining about certain types of wealthy people - the $900k/year faculty and government flunkies - they are vastly outnumbered by people who are simply above average in their intellect and discipline. And yes, many such people foolishly trust the New York Times, but millions of others don't. And either way, they are very likely to marry, raise children, and demonstrate superior personal responsibility.

Internet caricatures are outliers, not norms.

Expand full comment

All norms now are the weak men who bought hard times.

Good luck.

And don’t mention “defect” as an option in real life- real people think it’s Defective.

Expand full comment

About Catholic: it’s Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus… not ala Carte Ecclesia Salus buffet….

Catholic is an entire rigorous program but the family isn’t a maximum earnings economic unit. Family is a sacred vocation of the Church and duty to God.

That’s G-O-D not G-D-P.

Perhaps you can try Evangelicalism?

No sin, no punishment, guaranteed salvation.

Oh and prosperity gospel.

It’s great for GDP, and productivity. N stuff.

Cuz Insects 🐜 are God’s creatures too.

Very productive creatures.

Amen 🙏🏻

Expand full comment

Easy divorce..."presented as an advance in human freedom...ignores the benefits and freedoms associated with trust and security."

So we find a society in which consent is a momentary action: we consent to get married for a while, and we then divorce when it suits. Suddenly we have abolished the mechanisms for long-term consent. A borrower can arrange a mortgage with a lender covering a period of many years; two business associates can make a formal agreement covering a span of several years; we can even enter into a  two-year car lease: but we deny a man and a woman a mechanism for long-term agreements.

Normal contracts bind both parties: either party may enforce the contract if the other party breaches its terms." But in the case of marriage it is not a contract because all mechanisms for enforcement are denied. One can see the reasons for denying enforcement, to enable the ending of marriages where there is gross misconduct. But shaping the law for the worst conditions impoverishes the majority. 

Mathematically, marriage was once a Boolean OR function: the agreement continued if husband OR wife wished it. Now it has become an AND function, resulting in divorce unless both husband AND wife wish to continue: so divorce is therefore much more likely to happen. 

Other aspects of marriage can be similarly analysed, most obviously sexual relations. The biblical canon, that neither husband nor wife is in charge of their own body but the spouse is, lies behind Church tradition that marriage involves agreement by both spouses to tend to the sexual needs of the other, to the exclusion of other parties. So, until recent decades, marriage has promised availability in exchange for exclusivity. That is an OR function: if either party wants sex, the agreement is that the other will consent. Instinctive arithmeticians will have already calculated that, in a marriage where both parties feel like having sex three times a month, sex will happen about six times a month. 

However, again, society has been heavily influenced by the grossest of marital misconduct. The new norm is that sex in any circumstances other than both parties feeling frisky is tantermount to marital rape. Sexual relationships have now been subject to the AND function: both husband AND wife must feel frisky for them to happen. Again the arithmeticians will have calculated that under this regime, where both parties feel like having sex three times a month, sex will happen about three times a year. The agony columns of broadsheet newspapers give ample testimony of that being a concern for both men and women. Again, protection for the worst of situations has impoverished the many. One may think that it has infantilised men and women. No longer is there a mechanism for them to agree for anything other than an instant: sexual consent is now considered to be a momentary action, which can be given or withdrawn at an instant. 

Expand full comment

Interesting. I view it as a mostly positive development. Why do you want to reverse the trend of population decline? It is clearly sensible for us to become less numerous. Just look at the declining resource base. Better to adjust through cooperate/defect than through starvation and war. Also there are still people with honour and even wisdom. It is not the worst thing when these people contribute a larger share of the children for the next generation.

Expand full comment

This is a really fascinating read. Thank you for writing it

Expand full comment