Clavicular is, to my mind, clearly a tragic figure. I’m honestly horrified that a fourteen-year-old boy was able to access that sort of body modification. He was far too young to be making decisions, apparently in isolation, with potentially permanent consequences for his future.
We are not all Clavicular, and that matters. I’m inclined to think that the truly conservative approach to helping people form marriages and have children is to consider the ways that people are already continuing to do this, and figure out how to grow them. As much as people complain about online dating, for example, it would be a disaster if it suddenly became impossible given that many people still meet partners there. We should of course also push meeting in person and creating broader social networks; partnerships and the wider community are more likely to reinforce each other than compete with each other. The current practice of university entrance discrimination in favour of men is controversial, but on a strictly practical level it’s probably good for helping partnerships to form. Stable jobs for young people would probably also make a difference.
I’m very sceptical of Shadi’s exemption of “elites” from earlier family formation. If you can’t imagine doing it yourself, what makes you think it will work better for anyone else? Wouldn’t it be better to think about the barriers involved and consider how to remove them? In particular, if the most competitive and meaningful careers are incompatible with children in their early stages, what would it take to change that? Can we make it easier to combine children with postgraduate study, for example?
So, no, we don’t have to go “full Taliban,” fortunately! But if we want modern ways to support family formation then we have to be looking at the society we already have, and taking that as our starting point.
Interesting that the Taliban came up, something Shadi said about Islam awhile back around original sin has stuck with me (correct me if I'm wrong Shadi) but this idea in the faith that civilization can be a force for evil and corrupt us, contrasting with a more Christian view that we are corrupt and therefore ruin civilization. But the motivation behind the Taliban seems to support this idea that society must be controlled to control evil and keep it at bay (which in itself seems evil to the western mind)...
Might I step on a minefield though and ask where the conversation around birth control and abortion fit into this population decline? It seems to me to correlate nicely with the advanced societies' declining birth-rates, but never really gets the spotlight. Reflecting on that, it seems to me we have the answer to our 'why?' AND the answer of what to do about it. When humans have the ability to control and restrain the outcome of reproduction, we choose not to, because we no longer need children as a support mechanism for our later years. We are essentially saying that we're selfish and want declining birthrates to prop up our own convenience, even if we can't reason our way to it, our actions speak loudly. And there's your half answered solution! (half b/c we've already ruled out abortion again in the US.) Ban birth control. How's that for a social Taliban nightmare?
Interesting aside, I bet Japan and Korea are both doing better than we will in the following decades, not because we have a lower view of the welfare state, but because in our increasingly atomized country, we no longer have the cultural impetus of honoring our elders, which if I recall from world history class is a pretty big deal over there.
Returning to our immanent demise, I have to say the image of the prodigal son kept popping in my head as Christine was mentioning what the kids really want and need. He ran away for riches and freedom and that's not too bad a description of our own consumerism. Even actively avoiding this in favor of family life and a faith community, I find myself sucked into putting my hope of comfort in the next purchase. If the kids are not alright, it's because from the boomer onward, we prodigals have run our course, and the kids find it terribly wanting.
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines strikes again.
Clavicular is, to my mind, clearly a tragic figure. I’m honestly horrified that a fourteen-year-old boy was able to access that sort of body modification. He was far too young to be making decisions, apparently in isolation, with potentially permanent consequences for his future.
We are not all Clavicular, and that matters. I’m inclined to think that the truly conservative approach to helping people form marriages and have children is to consider the ways that people are already continuing to do this, and figure out how to grow them. As much as people complain about online dating, for example, it would be a disaster if it suddenly became impossible given that many people still meet partners there. We should of course also push meeting in person and creating broader social networks; partnerships and the wider community are more likely to reinforce each other than compete with each other. The current practice of university entrance discrimination in favour of men is controversial, but on a strictly practical level it’s probably good for helping partnerships to form. Stable jobs for young people would probably also make a difference.
I’m very sceptical of Shadi’s exemption of “elites” from earlier family formation. If you can’t imagine doing it yourself, what makes you think it will work better for anyone else? Wouldn’t it be better to think about the barriers involved and consider how to remove them? In particular, if the most competitive and meaningful careers are incompatible with children in their early stages, what would it take to change that? Can we make it easier to combine children with postgraduate study, for example?
Within the US, women’s education is not necessarily associated with lower rates of marriage and motherhood. The old pattern of lower class people having more children may even be starting to reverse: https://darbysaxbe.substack.com/p/is-too-much-education-causing-the
So, no, we don’t have to go “full Taliban,” fortunately! But if we want modern ways to support family formation then we have to be looking at the society we already have, and taking that as our starting point.
We need constraints, but it's hard to get consensus on just what the constraints should be.
Interesting that the Taliban came up, something Shadi said about Islam awhile back around original sin has stuck with me (correct me if I'm wrong Shadi) but this idea in the faith that civilization can be a force for evil and corrupt us, contrasting with a more Christian view that we are corrupt and therefore ruin civilization. But the motivation behind the Taliban seems to support this idea that society must be controlled to control evil and keep it at bay (which in itself seems evil to the western mind)...
Might I step on a minefield though and ask where the conversation around birth control and abortion fit into this population decline? It seems to me to correlate nicely with the advanced societies' declining birth-rates, but never really gets the spotlight. Reflecting on that, it seems to me we have the answer to our 'why?' AND the answer of what to do about it. When humans have the ability to control and restrain the outcome of reproduction, we choose not to, because we no longer need children as a support mechanism for our later years. We are essentially saying that we're selfish and want declining birthrates to prop up our own convenience, even if we can't reason our way to it, our actions speak loudly. And there's your half answered solution! (half b/c we've already ruled out abortion again in the US.) Ban birth control. How's that for a social Taliban nightmare?
Interesting aside, I bet Japan and Korea are both doing better than we will in the following decades, not because we have a lower view of the welfare state, but because in our increasingly atomized country, we no longer have the cultural impetus of honoring our elders, which if I recall from world history class is a pretty big deal over there.
Returning to our immanent demise, I have to say the image of the prodigal son kept popping in my head as Christine was mentioning what the kids really want and need. He ran away for riches and freedom and that's not too bad a description of our own consumerism. Even actively avoiding this in favor of family life and a faith community, I find myself sucked into putting my hope of comfort in the next purchase. If the kids are not alright, it's because from the boomer onward, we prodigals have run our course, and the kids find it terribly wanting.
I want the Epstein episode!! Finally some sanity possibly.
But generally great, though it would be great for the FP links in the description even if I'm never going to pay for them.