“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.

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.

“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

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?

“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.

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.

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.