52 Comments

1. Jeff Burton:

As is often the case in posts that touch a raw nerve, some of the comments are more interesting than the original entry.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:11 pm 2. Joshua:

It seems to me that this is a “pick your poison” situation. Marriage and childrearing has its own set of pitfalls, especially for men if the marriage goes bad. (Google “marriage strike”, or peruse Dr. Helen’s blog where this is a frequently recurring theme, and you’ll quickly see what I mean.) And even if you manage to avoid that, there’s any number of factors and circumstances that can land elderly parents in the same boat as single and childless elderly people. For instance, every U.S. soldier lost in Afghanistan or Iraq is one less person who can take care of his parents in their old age. Yet I’m not about to turn against either of those wars for that reason, and I doubt any of the other regulars here are either. (Well… maybe Teresita. :p )

If you’re single and without kids, you will have problems later in life if (1) you’re not prepared for it in advance and (2) you actually live long enough for that to become an issue in the first place. The former is up to you, but the latter is never guaranteed to anyone, especially as we enter the age of nuclear terrorism.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:59 pm 3. cjm:

sucks to be a beta. first clue that you are a beta: fear of women.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:04 pm 4. Leo Linbeck III:

To make a decision to forgo marriage and give oneself to others – to care for an ailing parent, become a nun or priest, or a missionary – carries with it an inherent nobility that can sustain the giver in later years. You end your days knowing that you have attempted to live a hero’s existence, a life worth living, a life worth remembering, a life of good memories. Yes, it is sad and unfair in some sense, like Ilyusha’s death in the Brother’s Karamazov, but it is also inspiring to everyone touched by such a life. That is why Alyosha’s Speech at the Stone reverberates across all time.

But to forgo marriage and childrearing simply because they might negatively impact your lifestyle of consumption – well, it shouldn’t be a surprise that their story ends in lamentation and woe. We should be kind and generous to those who made this terrible choice, but there is little we can do to stop their pain. Narcissism, alas, is its own punishment.

L3

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:22 pm 5. Morton Doodslag:

I’m in my mid 40s. I grew up in the sixties basically oscillating between a state of reverie for the future (mainly fueled by the Apollo moon missions and nascent technologies — all the wonderful expectations for the future…) and horrified at the grubbiness and violence of the hippie/women’s lib “counter-culture movement”. As I age I see more and more signs that we had a “cultural revolution” which was perhaps not as outright murderously destructive as the Chinese one, but extremely destructive to our society nevertheless.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:25 pm 6. exhelodrvr:

How is this issue affecting Europe? Much more strongly, I would imagine. Although they aren’t as spread out there, so distance isn’t as much of a factor.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:30 pm 7. Nomenklatura:

The first generation which acquires certain freedoms often screws up. The first generation of Europeans who got access to refined sugar ruined its teeth (the affluent presumably rotted their teeth fastest).

The kids observe learn, and adjust. This is how our culture adjusts over time to technical change and formerly unimaginable levels of affluence.

It’s happening now. The current younger generations where I live (West Coast) are in many ways more socially cautious and conservative than their parents.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:35 pm 8. whiskey:

CJM — among other “betas” would be the Apollo Moon Shot engineers and scientists. What is profoundly broken in our culture, world-wide in the West, is the preference by women for “Alpha” males which equates to high testosterone and social dominance. If you look at any Rap video or South Central LA, you see where this leads. There can be only one dominant male in the group and defacto “soft” polygamy with many women sharing a few socially dominant men is a recipe for instability and disaster.

Women pursue from teens well into their thirties the socially dominant male, with the result they end up alone, or compromising obviously with their third-fourth hand choice. Most men end up on the sidelines, becoming misogynist (what, women will continue not to sleep with them?) and resenting the women in their late thirties, who out of desperation choose them.

Women overlook perfectly good potential husbands in the pursuit of the Alpha male, because they discount the consequences (and court the tragedy of the commons). Men, sitting on the sidelines for entirely too long, pick up bitterness and bad habits, and regardless end up not as fathers but as bystanders.

If we deliberately designed a system designed to produce an ever-declining population living alone in bitterness, isolation, and desperation, we could not have done a better job. A few “win” in this system, high-status men with highly verbal attributes and enhanced testosterone risk-taking. And perhaps a few women. Just as our “globalized” economy produces a few finance and upper management “winners” but lots of losers.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:46 pm 9. dla:

The soggy-brained 60’s generation really hurt America. They married but divorced nearly half the time. A percentage chased their careers. In general that generation didn’t reproduce.

Now they are getting older and their influence is waning quickly. Personally, I say “good riddance”.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:48 pm 10. NahnCee:

If we can finally get legislation passed allowing doctor-assisted suicide, I don’t see a problem. If you end up old and alone and in pain, then you should be able to make the same sort of decision you made when you chose not to settle for the sorta dumb guy with no chin and bad teeth, and/or not to have a herd of children when it’s hard enough to make your own way by yourself.

If you end up old and alone, why is that any different from being middle-aged and alone? Presumably lots of people enjoy their privacy so why is there a dread of it simply because there’s a few wrinkles in the mirror? I just don’t think there is and that as an issue it’s blown out of proportion by the same sort of hysterical MSM types as are looking for a spin on every other facet of daily life.

Aug 5, 2008 - 9:00 pm 11. David Hecht:

This sort of discussion always brings to mind the scene in “The Breakfast Club” where the vice-principal is railing against the iniquities of today’s youth to Carl The Maintenance Guy. He concludes by saying, “…and what *really* scares me, is that these kids will be taking care of us in our old age!” Carl looks at him, and answers, “I wouldn’t count on it.”

Aug 5, 2008 - 9:09 pm 12. trangbang68:

Leo Linbeck, Sweet post, differentiating between “eunuchs by choice” in service to humanity and selfish D.I.N.K.’s, metrosexuals,etc.
It’s interesting that the latter are still self absorbed when musing on their barren futures. Who’s going to pay attention to me when I’m old?
Someone said “a man totally wrapped up in himself is a small package indeed.” The joy I find in my wife of 27 years and four children is the joy of shared life and posterity; it’s the antithesis of self absorption. We’re part of something grander; a family in church, community and nation. I daresay Western Civilization is dying on this battlefield. George Gilder’s “Men and Marriage” is a powerful treatment of this theme.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:04 pm 13. bobal:

hehehe, David H, that’s pretty good.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:14 pm 14. Brian H:

Joshua;
What? Nuclear terrorism? Get a grip. Drunk drivers are WAY more dangerous.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:37 pm 15. Charles:

In my extended family (ie cousins uncles aunts)the families that take their religion seriously tend to be stable fruitful and prosperous. The families who don’t have a religious life can be prosperous and fruitful but they are not stable. All across the lines there are fewer children. There are a lot of divorces among the unchurched. Among my own 6 brothers and sisters — none send their children to public school. All are home schooled. Public schools are thought to expose the children to the too toxic popular culture. This is the first generation not to go to public schools. (The SAT scores of home schooled children nationwide tend to be better than public school children.)

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:41 pm 16. Brian H:

whiskey;
the pursuit of Alpha males is genetically programmed, not socially. E.g.: All unaware, married women in public wear sexier clothes during their fertile days of the month. They’re “trolling” for some quickie Alpha genes.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:41 pm 17. cjm:

no way, those nasa guys scored like crazy during the 60’s (and not just the astronauts). here’s a quote for all the betas out there: “The world is full o’ complainers. An’ the fact is, nothin’ comes with a guarantee. Now I don’t care if you’re the pope of Rome, President of the United States or Man of the Year; somethin’ can all go wrong. Now go on ahead, y’know, complain, tell your problems to your neighbor, ask for help, ‘n watch him fly. Now, in Russia, they got it mapped out so that everyone pulls for everyone else… that’s the theory, anyway. But what I know about is Texas, an’ down here… you’re on your own.”

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:47 pm 18. Eggplant:

trangbang68 said:

“The joy I find in my wife of 27 years and four children is the joy of shared life and posterity; it’s the antithesis of self absorption.”

I was extremely fortunate to find a wife who has tolerated me for over 20 years (and still counting) and also provided me with beautiful children. My life would have been so empty and pointless if I didn’t have my wonderful wife and children. What I enjoy most about being a father is the license to be a kid again. I can go to the playground and ride the slide with my daughter or do shoot-em ups with my son at the Laserquest. The kids and I can sit around and watch cartoons together (something I’d never do if I was a single guy). It amazes me how many of the old Warner Brothers cartoons that I can still remember. Also some of the new cartoons are pretty darn good, e.g. “the Avatar” and “Invader Zim”.

I feel so bad for my friends and classmates who were unable to establish a family. I know that many of them would have made excellent husbands and fathers. So much of the family thing is driven by luck, e.g. finding the right woman, not having fertility or health issues, etc. It scares me to think of some of the women that I dated before I found my wife (Love is blind).

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:56 pm 19. Charles:

Interesting point made over at FreeRepublic about the assasination of the syrian general. The reports say the general was shot from the sea by someone in a boat. That was how the shooter was able to get past the high security syrian base. trouble is three kill shots scored at 1000 yards in a moving boat is not very likely.
Syrian general’s killing severs Hezbollah links

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:57 pm 20. whiskey:

Brian H — social controls used to exist in what Hillary terms “the village” it takes to raise a child. Older women and social circles would press women to make wiser choices than purely ones driven by status and testosterone. Just as men were pressed to make choices beyond pure physical beauty.

But, women make the fundamental choices. So they are usually where traditional societies placed the most guiding of choices.

One of the negative consequences of Western/modern life is the atomizing of individuals without mediating institutions. Qutb and others may have been nasty pieces of work, but as outsiders they certainly DID nail that aspect of modern Western life — rootless, disconnected, no sense of community and family and tradition and belonging and CONTROL over ordinary people’s lives.

In many ways this lack of control is good. It gave us Apple Computer, Linux, genetically engineered treatments, DNA analysis, most modern medicine and science, the airplane, and more. However, the guiding principal in Western/modern life is isolation, loneliness, and lack of any real social control on behavior even obviously negative ones.

Even thinkers fundamentally warped in their analysis of Western society (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Qutb) can have some insight into our ills, simply by being outsiders. This lack of social cohesion/control in any meaningful way is one of them.

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:03 pm 21. Joshua:

Brian H: What? Nuclear terrorism? Get a grip. Drunk drivers are WAY more dangerous.

Drunk drivers can’t wipe out whole cities, and thus thousands upon thousands of would-be future care providers, in a single blast. Unless of course, they happen to be carrying a nuke in their trunk, set to detonate on any sort of impact.

Whiskey: One of the negative consequences of Western/modern life is the atomizing of individuals without mediating institutions.

I’ve brought this up on a few occasions in the past, but from a cultural standpoint – the very concept of the nation is in serious danger, thanks to the advent of global, on-demand media such as the Internet which enable its users to, for all intents and purposes, create their own unique cultural experience. Common culture, without which no nation can survive as such, is going the way of the dinosaur. The kicker is, this means that even reproducing at well above replacement levels isn’t going to save America’s or anyone else’s national culture; all those kids, once they are introduced to this global “cafeteria culture”, will just become culturally atomized themselves.

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:20 pm 22. DWB:

Joshua:
“every U.S. soldier lost in Afghanistan or Iraq is one less person who can take care of his parents in their old age..” & “Drunk drivers can’t wipe out whole cities, and thus thousands upon thousands of would-be future care providers, in a single blast.”
You speak volumes with your statements. Many more people are killed on our highways over any given period of time than were ever killed in Iraq. On the second statement, If it’s your time, it’s your time. No amount of worrying, freting, or appeasement will affect that.

Aug 6, 2008 - 1:11 am 23. B'ham:

War, drunk drivers and “Hey–watch this!” stunts may deprive us of some of our hoped for comfort as we prepare to leave this world, but there’s a more dramatic cause. In the 50s and 60s, U.S. birthrates were nearly double what they have been since then. The pill, abortion and the infestation of the feminist movement by population controllers are the most obvious underlying causes of Ms. Gross’s anguish. Too many folks have drunk the Koolaid brewed from the ideas of Malthus, Sanger and Ehrlich.

Aug 6, 2008 - 4:34 am 24. 3Case:

The concluding riffs of the NYT headcase focus on the ideas of litigating/legislating “friendship”!!

The stunning ingratitude in her penultimate paragraph reflects a state of spirit that has to ensure a terrifying old age, family or no family…and must have been a factor, also, in her childlessness and that of her cohort.

“And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make.“

Aug 6, 2008 - 4:41 am 25. _Jon:

I have a few family members who work in nursing homes.
You would be *shocked* at the number of people housed there who do not have a visitor but once or twice a year. Even then, only for a few hours.

Having kids is not an assurance that one will be cared for later in life.
The better indicator is how well the children were raised and how much love is returned for the love given.

Aug 6, 2008 - 5:09 am 26. Joshua:

DWB: If it’s your time, it’s your time. No amount of worrying, freting, or appeasement will affect that.

Which is exactly why it’s a roll of the dice to rely on your offspring to care for you in your twilight years – for all you know, you could outlive them. Or you could die before ever needing such care. As pointed out by others here, leaving yourself to your own devices is also a crapshoot, but of a different sort. Either way, you literally bet your life on your future, and that of whatever family you have, unfolding in certain way.

Like I said, pick your poison.

Aug 6, 2008 - 5:22 am 27. wretchard:

Many parents are loathe to expect children to take care of them. Many would prefer, insofar as is possible to be as small a burden on anyone, especially on their own children, in their old age. Ironically those sorts of people may wind up least lonely of all, while those who gave the least in love may want the most of it. But who knows these things when you’re 25? Paul Simon once wondered whether it would be “terribly strange to be 70″. To some extent we carry the strangeness with us.

Oh when you were young
Did you question all the answers
Did you envy all the dancers
Who had all the nerve?

Aug 6, 2008 - 5:25 am 28. Joshua:

Oh, and one more thing, DWB (and Brian H): I’m using nukes and war to illustrate my points because that’s closer to the normal fare here at BC, and I thought it appropriate to illustrate my points in those terms. Remember, this is the same blog that gave us the Three Conjectures. This ain’t a drunk driving blog.

Aug 6, 2008 - 5:41 am 29. 3Case:

A man said to the universe:
“Sir I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”

— Stephen Crane

Aug 6, 2008 - 6:09 am 30. cjm:

the childless gene will have a tough time propigating.

Aug 6, 2008 - 6:11 am 31. Zim:

More babies were born in the U.S. last year than any year previous. 9 years for me and my wife tomorrow, we’re going to celebrate it by taking our two boys fishing.

Aug 6, 2008 - 6:52 am 32. Alexis:

wretchard:

According to Australia’s Daily Telegraph, babies are a burden on the economy.

You are touching on one of the most sensitive topics of the war we are fighting in the Middle East, for there are some aspects of western culture that are downright repulsive and nauseating to traditional societies, particularly to Middle Easterners. Our ability to fight this war depends upon not insisting on exporting the worst of our culture to theirs, and that includes the nursing home. It is really difficult to understate the horror Arabs feel when they become aware of the nursing home. Even when these institutions are clean and well-staffed, they strike at the heart of any traditionalist’s fears about America.

American society loves to vilify the son who lives in his mother’s basement, yet it also celebrates the RV with the bumper sticker saying “We’re spending our children’s inheritance”. This juxtaposition is toxic. Where is the sneering against the child who seizes the inheritance and shuts his parent into a nursing home, ignoring his mother for the rest of her life? This secret horror happens in family after family, with elderly parents thrown into de facto prisons that stink. I know people who would rather die than get stuffed into a nursing home.

If we really seek to win against the terrorists, we need to promote a vision of the future that is substantially better than either our enemy’s vision or the status quo. Secular hedonism (of either socialist or capitalist varieties) cannot and will not win against any form of Islam, for a vision of the future symbolized by the nursing home makes Arabs run the other way.

It may seem difficult for many westerners to comprehend, but a world where children love their parents and parents love their children is not only important in its own right, but also as a vision of the future that can appeal to a conservative traditionalist.

Aug 6, 2008 - 9:31 am 33. Alexis:

Ooops… I should have written, “It is really difficult to overstate the horror…”

Aug 6, 2008 - 9:33 am 34. gumshoe:

was Jane Gross writing about
Mo Dowd?

;0p

Aug 6, 2008 - 9:49 am 35. Mark:

Alexis wrote:

“I know people who would rather die than get stuffed into a nursing home.”

While this is true, medical care now enables people to reach the status of the “old old” demographic group. At this stage, assisted living (proper daily meds, skin care, personal care, etc.) becomes a humane option. And it’s pretty expensive. (I guess you could look at the enterprise as income distribution to the poorly paid, low-education care facility workers, just as yacht construction is income distribution to highly skilled boat craftsmen.)

Medical technology is taking us way beyond the traditional “three-score and ten.” Who will pay for the extension? The Village, I guess. At which point your being against increased entitlements will be the equivalent of killing off someone’s grandma.

As a culture, we don’t have a good relationship with, as St. Francis called it, Sister Death.

Aug 6, 2008 - 9:53 am 36. Steynian 217 « Free Mark Steyn!:

[...] go Kenneth, Grace, and Baby! Only 11 weeks until the sleep deprivation experiment ensues. Mind you, singleness is pretty scary, too– especially in old age …. [...]

Aug 6, 2008 - 11:41 am 37. Zim:

Only 1 in 5 elderly people spend any time in a nursing home. When you consider the population make-up of these residents (advanced Alziemers, various cancers, and just plane out living all of their relatives if they had any to begin with) most would realize that nursing homes provide a valuable service in society.

Aug 6, 2008 - 11:46 am 38. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”exhelodrvr wrote:

How is this issue affecting Europe? Much more strongly, I would imagine. Although they aren’t as spread out there, so distance isn’t as much of a factor.”"”"”

Europe’s solution will be to kill its old people. The Netherlands and Belgium are already providing a working model for the future. Aging EU bureaucrats and “statesmen” will be exempt, because they will be perceived as “fonts of wisdom.”

Aug 6, 2008 - 11:50 am 39. NahnCee:

Europe’s solution will be to kill its old people.

People have been hopefully wishing for Yurp to start killing its Muslims for years now. So far, nothing.

You think the Yurpizoids will have the stamina or the will power to kill a bunch of old people? I suppose they *could* just turn off the air conditioning every summer.

Aug 6, 2008 - 1:55 pm 40. spindok:

People dont make babies because of some sort of rational retirement plan or for the good of society. They mostly do it by one method (and thank the good Lord for that) and for one of two reasons.

Either:

1) “C’mon lets go make a baby”

or

2) “oops”

Either way there is that plunge from the cliff. You have seen it done before, and you know that is why you exist at all, your parents had the same fears, yet you think you might not be up to the task.

(hint: they were no better equipped than you are)

We are more than we seem to ourselves. We can do this and for the same reasons the ducks and fishes do. It is our nature.

We are trapped in the very nature of our own biological advantage as a species. We over think because we can.

None of us are up to the task.

Spin

Aug 6, 2008 - 2:04 pm 41. Joshua:

NahnCee: You think the Yurpizoids will have the stamina or the will power to kill a bunch of old people? I suppose they *could* just turn off the air conditioning every summer.

Well, the Netherlands has been flirting with legalizing outright euthanasia for some time now. (Or have they finally gone and done it?)

spindok: People dont make babies because of some sort of rational retirement plan or for the good of society.

You’ve touched upon another of my favorite observations, which is that from a societal and cultural standpoint, procreating is a lot like voting in a U.S. presidential election, in that your individual contribution (or lack thereof), taken by itself, means next to nothing in deciding the outcome. That is, you could have one child or ten, or none at all, and in the big picture that won’t make a dime’s worth of difference. Therefore you have next to zero incentive for giving societal/cultural impact any weight in your family planning decisions. “Rational ignorance”, I guess, is bliss.

Aug 6, 2008 - 3:53 pm 42. wretchard:

You’ve touched upon another of my favorite observations, which is that from a societal and cultural standpoint, procreating is a lot like voting in a U.S. presidential election, in that your individual contribution (or lack thereof), taken by itself, means next to nothing in deciding the outcome. That is, you could have one child or ten, or none at all, and in the big picture that won’t make a dime’s worth of difference. Therefore you have next to zero incentive for giving societal/cultural impact any weight in your family planning decisions.

This is truer in a tax collection/public benefits model than a private one. If you could appropriate the benefits of having ten successful children through an extended family system then your outcomes would be drastically different from a childless, unmarried person’s. While I don’t advocate returning to a clan or tribe system, we should mitigate the averaging out effect of collective social benefits so that a signal is sent to people to do the optimum thing. Without that signal you’ll have the tragedy of the commons.

Aug 6, 2008 - 4:00 pm 43. Joshua:

Wretchard, that does ring true to me from an economic standpoint but I was also thinking in terms of culture.

Say you’re a native of some EU country, the Netherlands for instance, that is undergoing demographic collapse/displacement. You’re aware that at this point, only a massive and sustained baby boom among the native Dutch will be enough to reverse this collapse, and you and your spouse want to do your part. Your problem is that you can only control your own “output”, not anyone else’s. In other words, you could have ten kids and raise them all to be good Dutch folk, but unless a critical mass of your fellow Dutch do likewise, again something you have no control over, the demographic collapse will continue unhindered by your family’s gallant but ultimately puny efforts. To make matters worse, when the collapse finally comes to a head and drags your country into the abyss, those ten kids are just going to be dragged down with it – assuming they (and you) haven’t long since fled Europe for other, friendlier shores by then. Either way, your original purpose for bringing them into the world in the first place has been defeated.

We may be able to avoid an economic “tragedy of the commons” as you suggested, but I’m not sure there is an equivalent demographic or cultural remedy, short of actually going to a clan/tribe system. And even that might not work if the clan/tribe system proves no more resistant than nation-states are now to the corrosive effects of the emerging “global cafeteria culture” I mentioned in a previous post.

Aug 6, 2008 - 5:31 pm 44. cjm:

europe is already euthanizing people without individual or family consent. they are also aborting babies without personal consent. they also deny medical treatment based on a patient’s political views.

the current crop of native europeans have crossed a threshold and will join the etruscans. they will be replaced by converted muslims; i.e. new christians. the departed will not be missed, their time is passed and it is time for them to leave.

i despise them completely.

Aug 6, 2008 - 9:07 pm 45. chiral:

The points I’m reading are strong, but they don’t change the female perspective (which – oh by the way – women are entitled to). You think betas are scared of women? Well very many women are terrified of betas.

“Everyone knows” how alphas treat women terribly, so what does it say about betas that women STILL prefer alphas notwithstanding? Either these women lack judgment, or this is just classic male jealousy at work. The alphas are not as evil as betas perceive. The betas are not as “beta” as they think themselves.

On the other hand, I’ve known many betas who have issues with women, and are especially hateful of alpha males. If you study them long enough, you will see that these betas are not so much jealous that alphas steal all of the women, but in doing so women are preventing alphas from developing quasi-homosexual friendships with betas. It’s profound immaturity… like a boy deserted alone in his tree-fort, throwing spitballs down at his buddy for daring to run off with girls.

Aug 6, 2008 - 10:16 pm 46. Bob Murphy:

I find that so-called postmodern secularists tend to be so self obsessed that there isn’t enough left over to make them worth knowing other than on a chatter mind level.
Many of the ones I know are never in the here and now, but flitting into the future, the past, up, down, whatever but never here and now.
There’s nothing on offer that interests anyone who is less egocentric.
Chatter mind is an ugly place to live, though I enjoy the occasional foray.
It’s quite appropriate that the article we are discussing was in the NYT which is little more than a postmodern projection machine.
I guess the neatest thing about people with that kind of self obsession is that they tend to fail to reproduce.
That makes them a self correcting aberration.
That’s all, folks. And it’s bye to them.

Aug 7, 2008 - 12:10 am 47. Salt Lick:

In the comment section to her post, Jane Gross replies that the issue is one of public policy, with the emphasis on giving “friendship” legal status. I seem to remember a saying that “Obligation and compulsion spell the death of friendship.”

In my experience, the ranks of those in Gross’ position are stocked predominantly with atheists (I don’t mean that pejoratively) because people with religious hope are less likely to choose solitary, self-centered lifestyles. Makes me wonder if people neglecting their childrens’ religious training are increasing their odds for dying alone?

Aug 7, 2008 - 8:35 am 48. spindok:

Joshua you make some good points:

“spindok: People dont make babies because of some sort of rational retirement plan or for the good of society.

You’ve touched upon another of my favorite observations, which is that from a societal and cultural standpoint, procreating is a lot like voting in a U.S. presidential election, in that your individual contribution (or lack thereof), taken by itself, means next to nothing in deciding the outcome. That is, you could have one child or ten, or none at all, and in the big picture that won’t make a dime’s worth of difference. Therefore you have next to zero incentive for giving societal/cultural impact any weight in your family planning decisions. “Rational ignorance”, I guess, is bliss.”

(me)

I think we have to get a bit more visceral here. I have procreated and voted and they are not anything alike in my experience.

We all know how babies are made and often under circumstances that are less than ideal (my cousins last one, he told me, should have been named “Crown Royal” after what inspired her. She is fine, unplanned, wonderful and very much loved and cared for).

“Rational ignorance” sounds a bit too much for me. Maybe “rational disregard” is better as I see it.

The descent of the west into a barren future is the result of over thinking of something as normal as eating or breathing. We can only do that because of our benefits. Most people on this planet do not have these options.

We have sex. There is not much in the sexual part of our brains that is rational. Therefore we are in constant turmoil over this and that is perhaps how it ought to be.

People need permission from society to go ahead and mate and make babies. They also do not need any sort of admission that “society” has anything to do with the responsibility that ensues.

Spin

Aug 7, 2008 - 11:37 am 49. buddy larsen:

The only betas that get forced to the sideline by alpha-seeking women are “10″-seeking men. Look at the numbers, 50/50. A beta bitter is a beta doing the same thing he’s bitter about ”10” women doing. In any case, surfaces ain’t gonna last long anyway. Seek a mate who laughs at your jokes.

Aug 7, 2008 - 11:49 am 50. Bravery and Sacrifice: The Ratnest:

[...] points to an old movie that I’ve never seen.  It inspires some thought. The «new old age» may have had its beginnings in the «new youth», a [...]

Aug 7, 2008 - 1:23 pm 51. ws1835:

Two relevant thoughts…..

First, traditional societies, by and large, pay homage to constructs that are larger than the individual. Things such as family, church, country, etc…. Our modern, baby-boomer driven culture (USA) pays homage to the whims of the individual. All other elements of society are expected to yield to each person’s sense of self fulfillment. It ain’t called the ‘me’ generation by accident.

Second, this change in cultural priorities naturally focuses an individual’s attention and energy away from group activities and toward self centered endeavors. If you are motivated primarily by a personal quest for fulfillment, it isn’t likely that anyone else will be your lifelong companion based solely on common interest. In a traditional society dissimilar people might stay together for the kids or because they were expected to be married or support their family or community out of a sense of obligation. Our modern society no longer supports these concepts. Instead, our culture sees the individual as completely independent of society at large, with an obligated only to their personal happiness. No wonder the end result is a lonely old age.

BTW, the emphasis on family in traditional cultures solves the alpha/beta problem. Traditional culure pressured folks to get married by a decent age. You settled for the best you could find regardless of alpha/beta status. The point was to get married rather than “bag” a ‘10′. One hoped for a good mate, but the primary purpose was to become part of a constructive, social institution that contributed to the community.

Aug 7, 2008 - 4:56 pm 52. Mark:

ws1835 wrote:

“First, traditional societies, by and large, pay homage to constructs that are larger than the individual.”

Fine posting.

Steven Pinker, by the way, has a new book in which he argues for the primacy of “autonomy” over “dignity.” ‘First Things’ has a review by Paul Griffiths of the book. The culture wars are creeping out of the shadows into mainstream confrontation, it seems.

Aug 8, 2008 - 11:49 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.