Raising fertility

Singapore has terminal fertility – a fertility rate so low that it is likely to end Singapore. Smart people go to Singapore, and just do not reproduce. Black hole dysgenesis. The Singaporean government has issued a bunch of laws and incentives intended to raise fertility, with rather small effect.

Similarly, the emperor Augustus, noticing that Romans were on a similar path to oblivion, passed a bunch of laws to encourage marriage and fertility, with similar lack of effect.

I have a lot of hope in Singapore as a place where technologically advanced civilization might continue as the rest of the world slowly slides into another dark age, but that is not going to happen if Singaporeans do not reproduce

What is the highest fertility country in the world (ignoring black African countries, since they achieve high fertility by methods we cannot emulate and should not want to emulate):

Afghanistan, 7.07, increasing the population three and half times every generation, where they artificially lower female status by drastic and brutal methods in accordance with the Koran and Islamic tradition. Right up with the highest fertility black African countries. Afghans are caucasians, light skinned, dark haired, but a reasonable proportion of them have green eyes or blue eyes. They are generally white enough to pass if dressed in a business suit rather than Islamic costume.

OK, we might not necessarily want to go full Taliban. What is the highest fertility non black Christian country?

Timore Leste, 6.53, Nearly the same as Afghanistan and the high fertility black African countries, still increasing the population three and half times ever generation – and their generations are pretty fast.

OK, Christian, not black, normal IQ race, and they are giving Afghans and African blacks a run for their money, how do they do it?

They don’t do it by brutal means. They have benevolent patriarchy in accordance with the bible and Christian tradition. Women are not allowed to own most kinds of property. Women are subject to their fathers until they marry, whereupon they are subject to their husbands. Under the one flesh tradition, a man and his wife are legally one person, and that person is the husband – the husband effectively owns all family property. While in Afghanistan, wives are almost property of their husbands, in Timore Leste, in accordance with the Christian tradition, the wife is the ward of her husband. He is responsible for her welfare, and she is expected to submit to him. And the practical effect of the laws on property is that she is in effect legally compelled to submit to him as well as socially compelled. If she wanders off, she has nothing, and necessarily finds herself dependent on someone who, unlike her husband, is not legally and socially required to care for her welfare. Also, finds herself in social disgrace.

But, Timore Leste is third world. Do we have examples of high fertility in an advanced first world nation in recent times?

Well, as a matter of fact we sort of do: The baby boom among Mexicans in California following the 1986 amnesty.

What happened was a bunch of single male Mexicans got green cards, and promptly sent off for Mexican fiancees. Because of laws and procedures intended to prevent fake marriages, when a woman came to America on a fiancee visa she was, under the laws then prevailing, at first very much under the power of the man bringing her in. He could send her back if displeased.

If you imported a bride, you had a lot legal power, because she needs continuing paperwork to turn a fiancee visa into a green card visa, and because she was not legally entitled to welfare, and a lot of social power, because, you are at home, and she is in an alien country.

During the short period that the new brides were relatively powerless, they were extremely fertile, creating a baby boom that knocked the hell out of the California school system, a baby boom that swiftly subsided as they legally and socially got a stronger hand. I assume the husband said “No oral contraceptives for you, no abortions for you, no condoms for you, and we are having sex whenever I am up for it.  Also, toast me a sandwich.”

And the bride said “Yes dear”

 

Comparing these examples with Singapore, it is obvious what Singapore is doing wrong. What did Augustus do wrong?

Under the marriage laws of Augustus, a wife was legally part of her father’s household, rather than her husband’s household. Not only could she own property independently of her husband, she could not even give her property to her husband, because it was part of her father’s family property, rather than her husband’s family property. So when a man married, he did not have his own household, rather he had a household shared between two people. His wife was theoretically subject to her parents’ authority, rather than her husband’s authority, though obviously, in practice out of reach of her father’s authority.

This really cannot have been much fun for husbands.

Wife, fetch me a beer, or else I will complain to my mother in law.

And so Rome eventually fell for lack of Romans, though it took a few hundred years.

70 Responses to “Raising fertility”

  1. Red says:

    How well understood are these facts by the worlds elites? I would have thought we’d see policies run on this basis for places like Russia if such things are well known.

    I’ve read from progressive sources that they’re pushing feminism in India as a method of birth control so it’s pretty clear that they understand that high status for women reduces birth even if it’s crimethink that reducing women’s rights is the way to increase population growth.

    • peppermint says:

      Not really. It’s crimethink to think it’s a good idea to increase populaiton growth in one country when there is a surplus of people elsewhere, because the obvious solution is mass immigration, and to argue against that you need all these theoretical racist arguments instead of caring about human need not corporate greed.

      Pushing feminism and female education and stuff to reduce population growth is great, because it’s supposed to be good for the people there now, and it really is good for them in the long term to not be overpopulated.

    • giganticfaggot says:

      I bet they understood it, but most of them would consider promoting it to be evil.

      Aren’t most Harvard professors (on some level) aware of the Cathedral? But they’ve been trained to obey it, and so their dissent is never explicit. Most have grown to love the Cathedral.

      People often don’t say impolite things everyone knows is true. This habit is present is all areas of society, not just politics.

      • peppermint says:

        they do push feminism and education in India and Afghanistan, and they do say that it gives women more options, which they do understand and heavily imply that they understand means less births.

  2. spandrell says:

    Timor has normal IQ? You’re kidding, right? Last time I checked it was sub-90.

    • Red says:

      Pretty good run down on Timor:
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tt.html

      Guess the CIA is no longer allowed to publish IQ data like they did 10 years ago. I also like the bit where they list women 16-49 as a military asset.

    • jim says:

      I stand corrected

      • Handle says:

        Does that leave any >=100 IQ populations?

        And what about different fertility rates amongst ethnic groups in countries where the de jure relationship between men and women is the same.

        Or, the converse proposition that fertility rates across the US are remarkable stable when correcting for ethnicity and SES, even though there is still a decent amount of variance in family law between the states.

        • Red says:

          How free women feel themselves to be is based on popular culture which is transmuted through the internet, TV, and movies. The actual law maters less than the mass perception when it comes to women. This is the reason that nations with very strict levels of subjection of women such Saudi Arabia are seeing more and more bad behavior by their women as they watch more and more American TV.

          To control female behavior you have to first control culture, which is why not educating girls is so high in the priority lists for Islamist. Alternatively the Christan method was about making sure Christan women only consumed and were part of christian culture which kept them low status and unfree without the need of much compulsion. It made for happy women and strong families.

          • jim says:

            This is the reason that nations with very strict levels of subjection of women such Saudi Arabia are seeing more and more bad behavior

            Saudi Arabia no longer has female subjection. It pro forma has female subjection, but also has government policies to raise the status of women. Thus, as in the US, more women than men are going to university, and, as in the US, university is Sodom and Gomorrah

            Its universities are outposts of the Cathedral. They wanted MIT, got Harvard.

            Television tends to be unrealistic about sexual promiscuity, for example “Sex and the City” tells her she can remain hot and popular forever, “Grease” tells her the way to have that unattainable alpha male eating out her hand is to offer him unconditional no strings attached sex, whereupon he will be instantly transformed by true love.

            Sexual promiscuity gives women inflated ideas about their status, not realizing that their sexual market value as a friend with benefits is way higher than their sexual market value as a girlfriend, and, past twenty two, their sexual market value as a girlfriend is way higher than their sexual market value as a wife – the best boyfriend they can get is apt to be a good deal hotter than the best husband they can get.

        • B says:

          Uh…er…ahhh…well…

          • jim says:

            So, tell us what to do to raise fertility among high IQ people.

          • B says:

            Well, we propose two options-either the 7 Noahide Commandments as a social basis for non-Jews, or conversion to Judaism. That’s the short version. The long version is just the expanded version of the above.

            Your problem isn’t just how to raise fertility among high-IQ people. Your problem is that having a high IQ is not the be-all and end-all. People can be shitty or good at all IQ levels, and compared to even a theoretically slightly improved human IQ (say, 150 average,) we’re all pretty dumb-and that’s before you get into omniscience, compared to which we aren’t even worth calling dumb. So just boosting IQ while not doing anything else doesn’t solve your problem, which is Moldbug’s Dire Problem, roughly speaking. Just so happens we’ve got an app for that. Th

            • jim says:

              Well, we propose two options-either the 7 Noahide Commandments as a social basis for non-Jews,

              The Noahide commandments are worthless and useless: There is nothing in them that conflicts with progressivism. They leave out from the ten commandments the prohibition against coveting, and the commandment to honor thy father and mother.

              What is needed to get fertility up, however, are the Pauline prescriptions on marriage and relationship between men and women, which you guys swiped back from Paul and pretended to be your idea all along.

              So what I was really asking is: how do you get your women to submit the Pauline rules in the face of the hostility of the surrounding society?

          • B says:

            The problem with you neoreactionary guys is hubris. You assume that nobody has ever thought of anything beforehand. If they had, obviously, you guys would be using it, so if an idea is not obvious to you, nobody has ever had it. It’s like dealing with officers in the military-“obviously, we are much smarter than you lot, because we are in charge. If you knew more than us about anything, you’d be in charge, wouldn’t you?”

            The Noahide commandments are, in practice, expanded upon in the same way as the 613 commandments are for the Jews, to where you get a patriarchal society with all that stuff. They expand out to 66 rules, which in practice turn into a developed SOP. The short version of the 66 is here: http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/66_commandments.html

            You will notice that the prohibition against coveting your neighbor’s stuff is directly derived from the prohibition against theft. I suspect that the practical application of the commandment to have a functional justice system involves a command to honor your parents.

            The full version is available here: http://asknoah.org/books/the-divine-code

            >you guys swiped back from Paul and pretended to be your idea all along.

            This would be offensive if it wasn’t so ludicrous. Paul took our functional system, made a sort of Chinese copy and sold it to you guys en masse at a discount, with the eventual results you see today. Good luck getting that warranty. Now you come along and go, “you know, I notice your Toyota, which is obviously a knockoff of my Hyundai Getz, inexplicable seems to be running on nothing more that fluid changes for 20 years, while bits kept falling off the Getz until it stopped running, period. How did you guys steal this brilliant engineering in such a clever way that it works? How can we get the Hyundai working as well as the Corolla?” Well, the answer is obvious-get rid of the Getz, buy a Toyota. In its best days the Getz didn’t work all that well, and now it’s a writeoff.

            You can notice major differences if you read Paul’s letters with an open mind, not skimming for “reactionary” stuff: for instance, we consider voluntary celibacy to be a BAD thing, not an ideal.

            Trying to reinvent the bicycle is a waste of time, especially when you end up trying to carve gears out of wood. There’s a reason the Toyota had a big warning stamped on the factory manual-“attempts to add or subtract from this manual will lead to poor results.”

            • jim says:

              The problem with you neoreactionary guys is hubris. You assume that nobody has ever thought of anything beforehand. If they had, obviously, you guys would be using it, so if an idea is not obvious to you, nobody has ever had it. It’s like dealing with officers in the military-”obviously, we are much smarter than you lot, because we are in charge. If you knew more than us about anything, you’d be in charge, wouldn’t you?”

              The Noahide commandments are, in practice, expanded upon in the same way as the 613 commandments are for the Jews, to where you get a patriarchal society with all that stuff. They expand out to 66 rules, which in practice turn into a developed SOP. The short version of the 66 is here: http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/66_commandments.html

              Which still minimizes coveting to one of sixty six, instead of several of ten, and does not contain any of the Pauline rules for patriarchy. Apart from the prohibition against gay sex, there is nothing there to trouble a progressive. There is not even the Pauline prohibition against trannies. What damned good are they if they don’t even prohibit trannies?

              Paul took our functional system, made a sort of Chinese copy and sold it to you guys en masse at a discount, with the eventual results you see today.

              Paul was faced with a Roman population that was conspicuously failing to reproduce, and, unlike Augustus, got the Christian part of that population to reproduce without doing anything very inhumane to women. That was a major improvement on the original, and those improvements are what you got from Paul.

            • jim says:

              You can notice major differences if you read Paul’s letters with an open mind, not skimming for “reactionary” stuff: for instance, we consider voluntary celibacy to be a BAD thing, not an ideal.

              Yes, Paul was wrong, and proto progressive (holier than thou) on that. But I asked you what you do to keep your women in line in a society hostile to keeping women in line, and you are not being helpful.

          • giganticfaggot says:

            The Noahide commandments are worthless and useless: There is nothing in them that conflicts with progressivism.

            Genesis 9:6

            Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed

            Although I don’t know the Jewish theological background to this, it sounds like a mandatory death penalty.

          • B says:

            If you guys followed the 1 commandment in 66 prohibiting covering your neighbor’s stuff to the same degree that we follow, for instance, the 1 commandment in 613 prohibiting wearing a mixture of wool and linen, your society would be pretty free of covetousness.

            I suspect that Jews knew how to have children before Paul’s appearance on the scene. Certainly, the Jews of Babylonia, who were never under Roman rule, didn’t have trouble in that regard.

            Trannies are, of course, prohibited by the Noahide rules as is homosexuality. Your nitpicking is like someone who looks at a gun training course curriculum and says, “why don’t they warn people about using the front sight post to pick their nose?!”

            The larger question is this-you want to know how to escape the historical cycle of rise and fall of asabiyya, of which fertility is just one manifestation (an atomized society is, by definition, one with no asabiyya.) There is no answer I can give you, or that one can get, from without a religious frame of reference. Once you step out of that frame, all you have is an amoral, descriptive, sociological or historical frame of reference, and then the impersonal cycle of hardness, conquest, flourishing, degeneracy, collapse rules supreme. The only people who are immune to the great cycle are Jews-if Carlyle could see us today, he’d eat his words about au’ clothes. And we are only immune insofar as we follow the Torah. Those who step off the path at best give off a brief flash of light and then are gone with no trace, like Feynman and Einstein. From my frame of reference, this is completely consistent with what the Torah says about itself, which suggests that it was written from a frame of reference far larger than history and encompassing it. From a historical frame of reference, it is inexplicable. Now you want me to explain to you how to get national Torah results without the Torah. This is like, pardon the comparison, demanding the building of a C-47 from coconut palm trunks without the use of math. It doesn’t work.

            • jim says:

              If you guys followed the 1 commandment in 66 prohibiting covering your neighbor’s stuff to the same degree that we follow, for instance, the 1 commandment in 613 prohibiting wearing a mixture of wool and linen, your society would be pretty free of covetousness.

              The reason you are going overboard on wool and linen woven together and boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is to cover the fact that you have ditched most of the rest of the commandments for pretty much the same reasons as the Christians did. Christians just got on with it two hundred years sooner, and did it all at once like ripping off a bandaid.

              I suspect that Jews knew how to have children before Paul’s appearance on the scene.

              Old Testament law does not directly support patriarchy, but rather takes patriarchy for granted. When Jews found themselves exiles in an empire that was abandoning patriarchy, would have been ideologically helpless.

              Certainly, the Jews of Babylonia, who were never under Roman rule, didn’t have trouble in that regard.

              You do not have record of the practices of Babylonian Jews until Christians got the upper hand.

              Trannies are, of course, prohibited by the Noahide rules as is homosexuality.

              Cite? Gay sex is banned, but the rest of the circus freakshow seems to get a pass. There is a lengthy, detailed and extremely specific list of forbidden acts, and wearing women’s clothing while hanging around in bars is not on it. The whole freakshow that does not directly involve genitals is ignored. Seems that according to Noachide law, one can only be perverted when using one’s genitals. Come to think of it, genital sex with females before puberty is not on the list either, consistent with the criticism that Judaism is apt to be subversive of its host society.

              -if Carlyle could see us today, he’d eat his words about au’ clothes.

              Secular Jews founded Israel, and religious Jews are still, for the most part, subverting it. You are comparing the actual western societies of today with your hypothetical religious Jews of tomorrow. Have Jews stepped outside the cycle? The Jews in the state department are working to destroy Israel. No country is as vulnerable as Israel to the demand by hostile forces that they just roll over and die.

              When Jews went into exile they established a new religion, dominated by rabbis, a self selected priesthood, rather than a hereditary priesthood subject to military oversight. In order to re-establish Israel, have to re-establish a theocratic state, with Judaism, rather than progressivism, as the state religion. If you have a rabbi dominated state religion, you will find yourself with the same self destructive problems as the puritans had and the progressives now have. The Judaism that developed in exile is ill suited to be a state religion. You would wind up with the secret police checking for dual dishwashing machines.

              Today’s Israel works because a secular Jewish state, which is a contradiction, and is in practice a progressive Jewish state. So I don’t think your problems are any more solved than ours are – if anything, more serious, since our left singularity is less likely to be completely suicidal.

          • B says:

            Will answer in detail later. In the meantime, here is the Cathedral talking about the latest developments in Christianity: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?mobile=1&URI=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F04%2F20%2Fmagazine%2Fits-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-he-feels-fine.html%3F_r%3D0%26referrer%3D

            And here is our local branch of the NYT talking about the cutting edge of Judaism: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.586728?v=C661B72DF53F1C13E4DFEC231F967906

            Whom do they adore, and who scares them shitless?

            And by the way, something like 40% of the officers in Israeli combat units are now Religious Zionist (meaning, keep all the commandments and follow rabbis) and those numbers are growing. The US military is about 15 years away from having its first tranny Chief of Staff. Draw your own conclusions.

            • jim says:

              And here is our local branch of the NYT talking about the cutting edge of Judaism: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.586728?v=C661B72DF53F1C13E4DFEC231F967906

              They interpret you as waiting for the Messiah to do the heavy lifting. If you are waiting for the Messiah to bring the Kingdom of Heaven, no threat to them, even if you were to get the temple mount back.

              Not scared shitless. Rather a little patronizing. They think you might provoke war with Muslims in the hope the Messiah would show up to rescue Israel, which hope they do not expect to be fulfilled.

              If you are going to restore the Kingdom of Israel by non miraculous means, restore the Kingdom of Israel rather than the Kingdom of Heaven, have to propose an undemocratic one state solution, in which a distinctly Jewish Israel rules over non Jews within the land of Israel, and expels or eradicates any non Jews that get difficult about that arrangement. Now maybe they suspect you of secretly harboring that plan, but if so, you have been keeping it so secret that they neglect to accuse you of it.

              Since I regard religions as at best useful pretenses, what I would favor for Israel is an official religion that does not have the secret police spying on people’s washers and does not send people who get wool lint mixed with linen lint to the gulag, but rather restricts participation in the state apparatus and the most prestigious universities to those that plausibly claim to have the correct washers. Those who attempt to subvert or overthrow this restriction get sent to the gulag, as do those who attempt to tighten up on this restriction so that only those as holy as their extremely holy selves get to exercise power.

              Your religion is not in fact all that well suited to such an arrangement, not well suited to coming out of psychological exile and becoming a well functioning state religion of a religious state, not well suited to coming home, and you seem to be relying on overtly miraculous divine intervention to close the gap.

              If relying on overtly miraculous divine intervention, I don’t think you are any great threat to the Cathedral, and even less is the Cathedral likely to think you are a great threat to the Cathedral.

              I think that your path to power is not overtly miraculous divine intervention, but rather that you need to tell people that Israel needs a one state solution, and a one state solution is incompatible with democracy and equality. If you are telling people that, the Cathedral has not noticed, for if it had noticed, would rocket through the roof like an exploding hot water system.

          • Jack says:

            “What to do to raise fertility among high IQ people?”

            Follow the example of Israeli Ultra-Orthodox and/or nationalist Zionists:

            Minimize academic education – avoid enrolling in university. (As more Haredim pursue higher-education, their fertility rates are destined to decrease)

            Financial incentives – bring more kids => receive more (significant) benefits from the state. Only applies to post-Socialist welfare states.

            Marry at around 20, immediately beget a child so as to accustom the woman to being a mother. Early marriage = more children. Eliminate / reduce to a minimum pre-marital sex by establishing sex-segregated institutions and heavily-regulate all activities of teenagers. No sex ed, period. If you feel horny, find a wife. Make it hard to divorce, no divorce if the husband objects.

            See it as a divine commandment to BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. Your deity / community will provide for you.

            Demographic strife – we can’t let the Palestinians outnumber us, must bring more children. The womb is a weapon just as the rifle is. Only works if you perceive a growing rival population to be hostile.

            A sense of impending doom and militarism: Iran wants to wipe us, Palestinians to throw us to the sea, Arabs to erase us, Europeans are anti-Semites -> everyone is against us mentality, therefore we must fight strong and fuck strong. Fear-mongering that appeals to survival instincts is welcome, and might get you (re)elected to Prime-Minister if you excel at it.

            Have a large, stable low-IQ traditionalist population that never votes Left, such as Mizrahi Jews who are the majority in Israel. Make sure never to allow these guys to become decision-makers, though.

            Last but not least: attract people of your nationality as immigrants, pressure them to integrate to your society by raising children to be similar to the natives.

          • Rev. Right says:

            Repeal the 19th amendment.

        • jim says:

          Or, the converse proposition that fertility rates across the US are remarkable stable when correcting for ethnicity and SES

          Is this true? I would like to see the data. I am pretty sure that high SES whites in Texas have way higher fertility than high SES whites in California.

  3. freeman says:

    Not to sidetrack the conversation, but I think you will be dissappointed with Singapore’s fate as the world fades. Singapore is too small to become self sufficient and relies massively on international trade. As international commerce fades, so too will Singapore.

    • Hurlock says:

      You got that backwards. It’s no coincidence that in ancient times just out of the primitive ages civilization was spearheaded by very small city-states. All major empires started from such city-states. If anything, Singapore is exactly small enough to survive in your described scenario much better than larger states.
      You should be more worried about those, because if international trade for some reason does fade away, fragmentation will surely follow as well, and in that regard states like Singapore are in fact quite far ahead.

      • spandrell says:

        Huh? Only Rome started from a city state. And maybe Muscovy. But Macedon was a large-ish kingdom, as was Persia, or Egypt, or China, or England.

        Singapore started living off transhipment of goods going from Europe to China; now it lives also off managing the money of the rich in Southeast Asia. It can’t feed, fuel or wash itself without outside resources. A breakdown of international trade would depopulate it in weeks.

        Unless they feel the cry of heaven and conquer Sumatra or something. But I don’t see it in them.

        • giganticfaggot says:

          Given their GDP, I don’t think it would be practically difficult for them to conquer and control Sumatra. Especially if they ran out of food, fuel, et cetera, and the stability of the city was dependent on conquest.

        • jim says:

          It can fuel itself, in the sense that it imports oil, exports petrol. It has a reasonable manufacturing sector, it is not just a shopping and banking center. Further, it is surrounded by economic colonies. The north coast of Australia is Singaporean dominated, in effect part of Singapore’s hinterland and exurbs, much as Hong Kong extends into China.

        • Hurlock says:

          Huh?
          Egypt was originally two cities (with small territories around them) in the north (Memphis) and the south (Thebes) which continually fought between each other until one of them won. Heard of Babylon by the way? Or Ur for that matter? And the other major city-states of ancient Mesopotamia. All major empires in there can in fact be traced to those, and the Persian empire is maybe the last one in that list. The macedonian empire was culturally entirely greek (*cough* city-states *cough*). And it was also an extremely small kingdom in it’s early period which continually tried to gain influence in the city states to the south (surprise, surprise). And in fact I am pretty sure that in its early period it had a smaller teritorry than Athens when you include the colonies. The macedonian empire is pretty much the result of the Peloponesian wars by the way, but that’s another topic.
          I don’t know enough about the history of China to comment on that.
          Now, I meant ancient empires and England doesn’t really fit that profile but if we are thourough enough we can trace all of western european civilization in the middle ages (and eastern for that matter) to the Roman Empire, which started as a city-state.
          The earliest documented civilizations were city-states in Mesopotamia.

  4. Alex J. says:

    What has the Swiss birthrate been?

    • Alex J. says:

      Looks like it peaked in the mid-60s at 2.7 and then fell to about 1.5. Women got the vote at the federal level in 1971. However, the TFR seems to track with Belgium’s, even though, I presume, the situation of women’s rights there is not so close.

      • Rev. Right says:

        Once women get the right the vote, it takes about a century for a society to fall apart. The Swiss are doing better because they are half a century behind us.

  5. J says:

    It all started with giving the vote to women. Big mistake.

  6. spandrell says:

    I wonder what actually drives the women to have more children.

    Say your Mexican example. The Mexican men had no real incentive for having more children. I don’t imagine them ordering their womenfolk to have more babies. Yet they had.

    So is it the men conscious or unconsciously seeing it to it that more babies are born, or do women react to their powerlessness by seeking more children (perhaps with an eye to using the children to eventually gain power over the husband).

    • B says:

      Holy cow, man, you guys have broken through to the other side, where being smart makes you stupid.

      Kids are natural to have. You put the fireman in and make him do pushups until he throws up. 9 months later, you have a fat little kid who makes you happy by virtue of existence. It takes massive sustained unnatural pressure from all sides to make people NOT do that. It’s not the fucking lunar landing, alright?

      • Handle says:

        This is my instinctive psychological impulse too, and I’m on my way to raising a large, happy family. But I think I was just born to be that way and really love having lots of kids, and I’ve made my decisions and selections accordingly.

        I notice that a lot of my smart peers who grew up with the same cultural influences seem really turned off by the idea. Then again, the fact that I’m here and not at Vox like they are probably means I’ve got an aberrant psychology in lots of ways.

        On the other hand, if there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, maybe it’s that culture-immune kid-loving is hereditary, and that the current smart fraction will be replaced by a new, highly fecund one, – by genes or by religion or by both – and that as a class they would tend to worry about long-term government insolvency and about all their kids having to contend with a gigantic, growing underclass.

        • Red says:

          “On the other hand, if there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, maybe it’s that culture-immune kid-loving is hereditary, and that the current smart fraction will be replaced by a new, highly fecund one, – by genes or by religion or by both – and that as a class they would tend to worry about long-term government insolvency and about all their kids having to contend with a gigantic, growing underclass.”

          I grew up with a highly religious middle class family that had 8+ kids. So far none of the kids have produced any grandchildren despite most having been married for 5+ years now. I can’t speak for the boy’s wives, but girls are all too busy with careers or schooling to bother with children. Having lots of kids seems to be more determined by the group think of the heard than by biology.

          Or alternatively high female freedom triggers a biological function to reduce population growth because free women are obviously no benefit to the tribe and their existence must be the result of overpopulation.

          • Red says:

            “I grew up with a highly religious middle class”
            Should have been: I knew a a high religious middle class family while growing up”.
            I wasn’t part of the family.

          • zephyrprime says:

            With social mobility, women’s ambitions are redirected toward career rather than family.

        • B says:

          So what you’re saying is that, like Lady Gaga, you were “born this way”?

          The Fort, and the rest of the military’s lower testosterone/higher IQ nooks and crannies, are basically outposts of the Cathedral in the same way as your average State U biology department. Nobody is running through the hallways in a feather boa with beads hanging out of them, but it certainly wouldn’t be considered morally reprehensible if they did it in their spare time. Likewise, having a big family with lots of kids is tolerated, but square, man. What are you, a Mormon? Not that there’s a Mormon shortage or anything, but still…

          So to do it, you have to not just be smart, but be a bit of a nonconformist-or, indeed, a Mormon. If you’re really smart, you will look beyond one generation and decide that you want your kids and grandkids and onwards to not just rely on inborn intelligence and contrariness to resist the contagion, but to put them in an environment where good choices are the default option, while hopefully not having to herd sheep in a Mennonite community in Montana or having to believe obviously crazy stuff. Hence, my life choices in the last few years.

          I’ve been saying that the current decadence will either select for a fraction which is decadence-resistant to inherit the West, or cause a total systemic collapse where everyone takes it in the shorts, a la Rome.

      • zephyrprime says:

        Unfortunately, you are still stuck on the stupid side of the smart wall. If the natural impulse rules all, why are birthrates falling? Why did the mexican birthrate itself fall? Why does Singapore and Japan have a below replacement rate birthrate? Why don’t women want to fuck betas? Betas have penises too. There is more at play than just impulse.

        • jim says:

          Over the last few thousand years, whenever women have been emancipated, birth rates have fallen below replacement.

          There are two problems with emancipation: One is that female hypergamy meets male polygyny, so they spend their hottest and most fertile years fucking high status males, as females perceive status. Unfortunately males who are high status as females perceive status have neither the desire nor the capability to support children.

          The other is that to raise children, needs a family unit. The father needs to be the boss, and needs to have security in parternity of his children, authority over his children, and authority over his wife. Emancipation destroys the family. No families, no children.

    • Red says:

      I’m a big believer that biology drives pretty much everything. That being said, I think that most sudden changes in human behavior are rooted in biological response to new conditions.

      For example: Women have more children when subjugated because men have enough resources to spend the energy to subjugate and care the women and their offspring. Women have fewer children when freer because it our native environment an abundance of resources would lead to men obtaining as many women as possible, thus the females automatically reduce the number of children they produce when given freedom.

      Human groups are quite well adopted to manage their own population numbers when grouped as hunter gathers. Warfare is very common when resources are suddenly reduced which reduces the population to more sustainable numbers. Homosexuality and pederasty seem to be the male biological reaction low resource conditions as seen in New Guinea, Afghanistan and prisons.

      • jim says:

        This makes sense: In the ancestral environment, female freedom => abandonment. Abandonment => insufficient resources to take care of females, thus, abandonment => don’t have children.

        So I conjecture that the driving force is that a free woman will freely choose to not have children, and an unfree woman will be glad to present her master with lots and lots of children.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Animals in captivity often display homosexual behavior. This explains why there are more gays in cities than in the country. The city mimics captivity. The harsher the captivity the more perverse the sexuality.

        • B says:

          Jews have been living in cities for a long, long time, yet there is remarkably high fertility and little perversion (out in the open-I put speculations about massive underground pedophilia in the same basket as he satanic ritual abuse stuff in the states-I haven’t personally seen any evidence, it’s unfalsifiable, so, off to the basket.)

          People are not pine trees or cod, as David Stove pointed out. We do not reproduce or not reproduce based solely on the availability of resources. Biology does not drive everything. Afghan pederasty has nothing to do with redirecting sexual drives from reproduction in a low-resource environment in order to conserve resources-you might notice the huge amount of children per family in Afghanistan, and if you go there, you will notice that they genuinely like their kids. Rather, I suspect it’s a cultural remnant from the Greek kingdoms that once covered all of Afghanistan and stretched into India-these things tend to linger longest in backwards regions.

          • B says:

            By the way, Jewish women have been working en masse for about 1000 years in Europe (the original decision to let them do so was driven by poverty and was documented, as was the debate, as I recall.) In many of the most religious communities, the men learn Torah full-time and the women work to support the family. Which hasn’t led to widespread promiscuity and illegitimacy, rains of frogs and cats sleeping with dogs (though it has significant other negative consequences.) So I think you guys are barking up the wrong red herring.

          • giganticfaggot says:

            Jews have been living in cities for a long, long time, yet there is remarkably high fertility and little perversion

            If cities incorrectly make people more perverted and less fertility, Jews would have undergone a period of selection for less perverted and more fertile genes. They should actually be the least perverted and most fertile city-folk. Genetically, at least.

            Also, Jews do have some strange psychological genes. Much higher incidence of psychopathy, for example. I was under the impression that these came from inbreeding, but I don’t know too much about Jewish genetics.

            Afghan pederasty has nothing to do with redirecting sexual drives from reproduction in a low-resource environment

            Why not? Suppose a person would like to have sex with either a women or a boy. In some countries, he has access to women, but not boys. In Afghanistan, he has access to boys, but not women. Which does he choose in each country?

  7. Have you read David Goldman (Spengler)’s book How Civilizations Die?
    He makes a persuasive case that what has historically caused people to stop reproducing was loss of religious faith.

  8. It would be interesting to see examples distinguishing Spengler’s model from yours.
    One question: Were men in a particularly strong situation during the baby boom, compared to previous times in history, eg pre-war?

    • jim says:

      Illegitimacy was at its lowest in the 1950s, so we may suppose that sexual promiscuity was at its lowest in the 1950s. Sexual promiscuity raises the status of women in their own minds, because they have sex with men way wealthier, higher status, and handsome than anyone likely to marry them.

      The men returned as heroes, and it was expected that women would stop having jobs, so that men could have jobs. There was powerful social pressure against women working in the formal sector. It was the reverse of the current situation where employers are so pressured to hire useless stupid women they find makework for them to do to keep them out of trouble.

      In order to integrate the returning soldiers into society, people felt that women had to be denied jobs, and they were denied jobs. At the same time, also no sex. So, outside of marriage, no money, no sex, dependent upon their husbands.

  9. giganticfaggot says:

    If Wikipedia is to be trusted, Singpore’s fertility was at near-replacement levels 30 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Births_and_deaths

  10. VXXC says:

    “It takes massive sustained unnatural pressure from all sides to make people NOT do that. It’s not the lunar landing, alright?”

    thank you.

  11. fnn says:

    From Spengler’s The Hour of Decision:

    People live for themselves alone, not for future generations. The nation as society, once the organic web of families, threatens to dissolve, from the city outwards, into a sum of private atoms, of which each is intent on extracting from his own and other lives the maximum of amusement – panem et circenses. The women’s emancipation of Ibsen’s time wanted, not freedom from the husband, but freedom from the child, from the burden of children…

  12. JS123 says:

    We all know that when women can provide for themselves and don’t need a provider, they ride the carousel instead of making babies. So you need to require women to have a provider by banning women from owning property ala Jane Austen. Why do you think they were all so desperate to attract husbands back then?

    • jim says:

      B gives his community as a counter example. Obviously it is easier to maintain patriarchal authority of women do not work outside the home, but the key variable appears to be patriarchal authority.

  13. The Observer says:

    “I have a lot of hope in Singapore as a place where technologically advanced civilization might continue as the rest of the world slowly slides into another dark age…”

    I don’t hold out very much hope for my fellow countrymen. They’re quickly sliding into demotism and degeneracy.

  14. asdf says:

    Not complicated. Religious high IQ people have high TFR. Secular high IQ people don’t. Given enough generations the high IQ become more religious. Only thing that can stop it is immigration.

  15. Van Phauc says:

    Africans don’t count because Africans quite literally are not the same species as the rest of us.

    High fertility data points: Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, Afghans, Russian Old Believers.

    The common theme should be obvious.

    A superficial religiosity draped over an increasingly modern lifestyle may be enough to maintain a moderate level of fertility as we see in the Arab countries or among Mormons, but it also looks unsustainable with a dramatic downward slope.

    Interestingly, we also see replacement level fertility among “secular” Jews in Israel. They’re not really secular but it’s still perhaps the most relevant data point since most of us aren’t going to be interested in joining extremist sects. Even if you leave religion out of the equation, Israel is quite different from Singapore.

    Israel is an ethno-nationalist state where the people are bound together by a shared identity (based on racial pseudo-science, culture, religion, pretending to share a history, etc), where the (Jewish) people are bound together by a shared struggle, where they are allowed to take pride in that identity and where they are allowed to express that identity in various ways that go beyond the superficial.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us are just liberal atoms who live in order to participate in the economy so that we can to obtain hedons and utiles. With the trend being perhaps more advanced in Singapore than in most places.

    If you want to raise fertility really high, do the opposite of Singapore. If you don’t want to go that far, find a way to do something really, really different from Singapore while keeping a couple of the features (like military tech) that you find necessary.

    • jim says:

      High fertility data points: Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, Afghans, Russian Old Believers.

      The common theme should be obvious.

      But Timor Leste fertility is as high as Afghans and higher than the rest, and they are not particularly religious. The common theme is not religion, but patriarchy.

      • giganticfaggot says:

        The two are closely connected. Patriarchy is legally persecuted most of the developed World. In these societies, maintaining Patriarchal norms requires separatism.

        To maintain separatism, you need something that binds a group of people together. Ethnicity and religion are the two obvious choices, and religion seems to work best.

      • Van Phauc says:

        I wasn’t suggesting that religion alone was sufficient.

        But I’m not sure that patriarchy alone is sufficient either.

        The ultra-high fertility groups I listed all seem to reject modern ways to some significant degree. Modern ways have not yet reached many people in East Timor, so I’m not sure how uniquely exceptional that data point is.

        Saudi Arabia is still pretty freaking patriarchal, but its rejection of modernity is only superficial. It’s slowly but surely turning into America with Burkas. And secular Jews are not necessarily that patriarchal.

        It seems like the only way to be sure is to reject the whole modern package. But then you’re doomed to be militarily inferior to moderns.

        It remains unclear to what extent you can keep aspects of the modern package while retaining acceptable fertility levels.

        • jim says:

          The ultra-high fertility groups I listed all seem to reject modern ways to some significant degree. Modern ways have not yet reached many people in East Timor, so I’m not sure how uniquely exceptional that data point is.

          The baby boomers got decent fertility in a society that set a high value on female chastity, and that had an overt policy of denying employment to women in favor of men.

          The beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty got impressively high fertility for a short time, not ultra high but plenty good enough to knock the stuffing out of the California education system, arguably because chain immigration required them to get married and stay married in order to be able to dispense green cards, and it was primarily males dispensing the green cards, thus males in the catbird seat. The amnesty made its mostly male direct beneficiaries higher legal status than its mostly female chain immigration beneficiaries. During this period we saw it claimed that the immigrants were socially conservative, though in the end it became obvious that the apparent social conservatism was merely a result of the most male direct beneficiaries having higher legal status than the mostly female chain beneficiaries.

          This suggest that if you simply make males higher legal status, as in Timor Leste, fertility will jump to levels at least as high, or higher, than the amnesty beneficiaries.

          Saudi Arabia is still pretty freaking patriarchal

          King Abdullah Science and Technology University is Sodom and Gomorrah with feminism. They are affirmative actioning women into the science and technology classes, so that classes that would naturally be all male are about fifty percent female.

          268,080 male and 368,165 female students were enrolled in higher education in 2006, indicating heavy handed state efforts to raise female status.

Leave a Reply