1) If # of kids is social, lower fertility will reinforce lower fertility.
2) As people have less kids, the solution space of almost everything becomes oriented towards that.
3) As the burdens of gerontocracy grow, there is less resources for raising kids.
4) Replacement with high fertility people might mean replacement in more ways then fertility preference.
The simple issue is that the childless are free riders. You can get some of the joys of children vicariously through other peoples children without bearing the burdens. Nobody really wants to experience "children of men" type scenario.
It's time to make the childless pay a fair price for their free riding. Once that externality is internalized we will see peoples true preferences.
"Maybe it will happen naturally based on who reproduces."
The how did we get the floofies in the first place? Conversion. And that conversion will continue as long as liberalism remains the dominant moral paradigm.
I would posit something else. The more "normal" childlessness or single children are, the more people will do it. And the more society will orient its solution space around such people. And the more of a gerontocracy we have the less money people will have for children.
"Most people do not like to have their personal autonomy restricted, no matter how much sensible argument and good reason is presented to them."
As a damaged person from a dysfunctional family who bought 100% into the sexual freedom bullshit, you don't need to use logic or reason. Promiscuity makes women miserable, and no matter how many walks of shame you try to massage into an act of "empowerment", turning sex into a transaction will never get you the love and intimacy you desire. I began respecting the power of sex all on my own, and now am in a monogomous marriage to a wonderful man with children.
All of those bitter cat ladies screaming "NO I AM REALLY REALLY HAPPY DAMMIT, I AM! EFF YOU!" aren't fooling anybody. My daughters aren't exactly traditionalists, but both of them hope for a monogomous loving relationship as adults and they know blowing the entire football team like a Girl Boss ain't going to get them that.
Just to be clear, I didn't marry a man with children and I didn't change recently. I shifted into a healthier mindset in my mid-20's, started being better and dating better men in my late 20's, then married a man with a similar trajectory as my own, and then had kids with him. Married 17 years now and kids are near grown. I'm in my 50' now.
I fear this is more because they are afraid of sex in the unhealthy way. As in, they are too confused and gender damaged to want it as opposed to waiting to engage in healthy forms of it.
"Where does meaning come from? The adoption of responsibility." Rob quotes Jordan.
People want meaning, but also want pleasure and ease and status. Usually with a minimum of effort.
Pertinent to both personal and economic reality is more Jordan on the usual trade-off, paying a price:
“You’re going to pay a price for everything you do and everything you don’t do. You don’t get to not pay a price. You only get to choose which poison you’re going to take. That’s it.”
Prices are trade-offs. And I disagree with Jordan about them being poison, yet recognize he's a far better speaker & thinker than I because of his metaphor, literally false, feels true in a meaningful way.
Similarly, Freddie deBoer, a great critic of many current problems, is nevertheless a magic thinking Marxist believing in a possible human world without poison, without trade-offs, without paying a price for your decisions. Ain't gonna happen.
Rob suggests an important & personal reason about how (often rich) Americans have "profound difficulties in forming long-term relationships is that something like half of young people witnessed their parents’ divorces, separations, remarriages, and betrayals. Or their single parent had a revolving door of different boyfriends or girlfriends. "
Having a good long term relationship is hard - it helps, a LOT, if your spouse is also a good friend.
My own thought: Homosexual culture has destroyed hetero same-sex friendship. I had close male friends when young, no thought nor fear that they were homosexual. Today, it is often assumed that same sex friends are lovers, sexually active with each other. This is a bigger problem than many more discussed problems.
I didn't see it among the reasons for more mental illness among liberal girls, but now feel sure it is a significant (5%? 25%?) issue BECAUSE it reduces the ability of normal hetero girls to hold hands and cuddle, innocently (non-sexually), with other hetero girls, in genuine friendship.
Sexual pleasure is nice, but the meaning is based on the deeper relationship between two people. Jordan's "responsibility" is expressed as commitment in marriage.
"Marriage for sexual pleasure" is different than "Marriage to protect children that come from enjoying sex".
Gay partnerships should be the legal, tolerant way to avoid unjust issues shown in the '93 movie Philadelphia, and "marriage" should be socially & legally reserved for the optimal method of raising kids: monogamous marriage between mother & father of the children.
Most religious "morality" was an attempt to create a social norm that incorporated the various sum-of-individual desires into a functional social optimum. Socially supported promiscuity is NOT optimal.
"I didn't see it among the reasons for more mental illness among liberal girls, but now feel sure it is a significant (5%? 25%?) issue BECAUSE it reduces the ability of normal hetero girls to hold hands and cuddle, innocently (non-sexually), with other hetero girls, in genuine friendship."
Let's assume you are correct that homosexuality reduces same sex friendship and therefore decreases mental health. If so, I would think it would affect conservatives far more than liberals and boys more than girls. But the greatest mental health issues are showing up in liberal girls. It seems something is wrong in that chain of events.
If we DO assume that homosexuality 1) reduces same sex friendship, and 2) decreases mental health, then the DATA says it affects liberals far more than conservatives. With 1 & 2 true, those thinking it affects conservatives more are wrong according to the data.
Since you don't justify your own assumption of more affect for conservatives, I don't know what's wrong with it, but I wouldn't have assumed it.
My own just-so story is that conservative girls have more conservative parents with stronger ideas of right-wrong, and religious explanations for the question "why are we here". Girls becoming women in puberty is a natural, tho drastic change. Such conservative girls have more conservative girlfriends, who each assume the other is naturally hetero and normal, so holding hands or dancing together or spending large amounts of time together is fine, and not sexual. The puberty problems are normal girl-into-woman "growing pains" that they'll get over with. A few of these problems they can even talk with their mothers about, and many others to their other mostly normal friends.
Liberal girls with usually more rebellious friends going thru similar growing pains might well be uncomfortable with boys, and boys' attention to their breasts changing, and are less sure that they're normal hetero girls - with the alternatives being lesbians or trans.
My non-data ideas might be true, or there might be some other dominant reason for more liberal girls being more mentally unstable. Or the whole homosexual vs. friendship idea might have 0% influence or something insignificant (<2%?), or might be barely significant around 5%, and be worse for conservatives, yet there would be other social changes far more dominant worse for liberals. Here at AK's place, we all get our own opinions! :)
First, you are correct that both of our opinions have little basis in fact. The supporting evidence is weak at best.
That said, let me explain my opinion a little more. Girls are much less likely to care whether another girl is gay or not than boys about boys. Likewise, liberal girls vs conservative girls. All in all, I'd argue strongly that young liberal straight girls who have become friends don't care at all whether another girl is lesbian or not.
As for your opinion, Gallup says LBGTs are about 3X as likely Democrat vs Republican but not much more than twice as likely liberal vs conservative. That makes sense since an LGBT girl is more likely to shift party to the left than ideology. I don't know if these differences are big enough to make conservative girls assume another girl is hetero while a liberal girl doesn't make that assumption. I'd guess not but that is just an opinion. In either case the percentages of lesbians is somewhat small but far from insignificant.
Re: "These non-profits are not like old-fashioned charities that give assistance to poor people. Instead, they spend money on causes and salaries. "
Non-profits (esp. NGOs and think tanks) have become vehicles for US/NATO influence in many countries; for example, in eastern Europe. A substantial fraction of educated youths there get on the train of "causes and salaries."
More specifically, NGOs have become vehicles for fomenting and facilitating 'colour revolutions' (real insurrections, in contrast to J6) in many countries; for example, the Orange revolution and Euromaidan movement in Ukraine.
"In 2016, non-profits brought in $2.62 trillion in revenues, constituting over 5.7 per cent of the US economy."
That appears to be apples and oranges. I would assume "the US economy" refers to GDP. This is goods and services bought/sold. The 2.62T mostly refers to capital and much of that is retained, not spent. Capital held by non-profits is growing exponentially.
Unless I'm missing something, Rob Henderson is detailing self-reported happiness and meaning. And he notes the correlation is far from perfect. AK has then drawn a conclusion that another group not mentioned might become happier but with less meaning as a result of their choice (never mind that it might not be a choice). How does one reach that conclusion?
If I correctly interpret "floofy gender identity," these people are reportedly less happy than others not more. If so, does it follow their lives have more meaning?
1) If # of kids is social, lower fertility will reinforce lower fertility.
2) As people have less kids, the solution space of almost everything becomes oriented towards that.
3) As the burdens of gerontocracy grow, there is less resources for raising kids.
4) Replacement with high fertility people might mean replacement in more ways then fertility preference.
The simple issue is that the childless are free riders. You can get some of the joys of children vicariously through other peoples children without bearing the burdens. Nobody really wants to experience "children of men" type scenario.
It's time to make the childless pay a fair price for their free riding. Once that externality is internalized we will see peoples true preferences.
"Maybe it will happen naturally based on who reproduces."
The how did we get the floofies in the first place? Conversion. And that conversion will continue as long as liberalism remains the dominant moral paradigm.
Indeed.
I would posit something else. The more "normal" childlessness or single children are, the more people will do it. And the more society will orient its solution space around such people. And the more of a gerontocracy we have the less money people will have for children.
"Most people do not like to have their personal autonomy restricted, no matter how much sensible argument and good reason is presented to them."
As a damaged person from a dysfunctional family who bought 100% into the sexual freedom bullshit, you don't need to use logic or reason. Promiscuity makes women miserable, and no matter how many walks of shame you try to massage into an act of "empowerment", turning sex into a transaction will never get you the love and intimacy you desire. I began respecting the power of sex all on my own, and now am in a monogomous marriage to a wonderful man with children.
All of those bitter cat ladies screaming "NO I AM REALLY REALLY HAPPY DAMMIT, I AM! EFF YOU!" aren't fooling anybody. My daughters aren't exactly traditionalists, but both of them hope for a monogomous loving relationship as adults and they know blowing the entire football team like a Girl Boss ain't going to get them that.
Just to be clear, I didn't marry a man with children and I didn't change recently. I shifted into a healthier mindset in my mid-20's, started being better and dating better men in my late 20's, then married a man with a similar trajectory as my own, and then had kids with him. Married 17 years now and kids are near grown. I'm in my 50' now.
I fear this is more because they are afraid of sex in the unhealthy way. As in, they are too confused and gender damaged to want it as opposed to waiting to engage in healthy forms of it.
"Where does meaning come from? The adoption of responsibility." Rob quotes Jordan.
People want meaning, but also want pleasure and ease and status. Usually with a minimum of effort.
Pertinent to both personal and economic reality is more Jordan on the usual trade-off, paying a price:
“You’re going to pay a price for everything you do and everything you don’t do. You don’t get to not pay a price. You only get to choose which poison you’re going to take. That’s it.”
Prices are trade-offs. And I disagree with Jordan about them being poison, yet recognize he's a far better speaker & thinker than I because of his metaphor, literally false, feels true in a meaningful way.
Similarly, Freddie deBoer, a great critic of many current problems, is nevertheless a magic thinking Marxist believing in a possible human world without poison, without trade-offs, without paying a price for your decisions. Ain't gonna happen.
Rob suggests an important & personal reason about how (often rich) Americans have "profound difficulties in forming long-term relationships is that something like half of young people witnessed their parents’ divorces, separations, remarriages, and betrayals. Or their single parent had a revolving door of different boyfriends or girlfriends. "
Having a good long term relationship is hard - it helps, a LOT, if your spouse is also a good friend.
My own thought: Homosexual culture has destroyed hetero same-sex friendship. I had close male friends when young, no thought nor fear that they were homosexual. Today, it is often assumed that same sex friends are lovers, sexually active with each other. This is a bigger problem than many more discussed problems.
I didn't see it among the reasons for more mental illness among liberal girls, but now feel sure it is a significant (5%? 25%?) issue BECAUSE it reduces the ability of normal hetero girls to hold hands and cuddle, innocently (non-sexually), with other hetero girls, in genuine friendship.
Sexual pleasure is nice, but the meaning is based on the deeper relationship between two people. Jordan's "responsibility" is expressed as commitment in marriage.
"Marriage for sexual pleasure" is different than "Marriage to protect children that come from enjoying sex".
Gay partnerships should be the legal, tolerant way to avoid unjust issues shown in the '93 movie Philadelphia, and "marriage" should be socially & legally reserved for the optimal method of raising kids: monogamous marriage between mother & father of the children.
Most religious "morality" was an attempt to create a social norm that incorporated the various sum-of-individual desires into a functional social optimum. Socially supported promiscuity is NOT optimal.
"I didn't see it among the reasons for more mental illness among liberal girls, but now feel sure it is a significant (5%? 25%?) issue BECAUSE it reduces the ability of normal hetero girls to hold hands and cuddle, innocently (non-sexually), with other hetero girls, in genuine friendship."
Let's assume you are correct that homosexuality reduces same sex friendship and therefore decreases mental health. If so, I would think it would affect conservatives far more than liberals and boys more than girls. But the greatest mental health issues are showing up in liberal girls. It seems something is wrong in that chain of events.
If we DO assume that homosexuality 1) reduces same sex friendship, and 2) decreases mental health, then the DATA says it affects liberals far more than conservatives. With 1 & 2 true, those thinking it affects conservatives more are wrong according to the data.
Since you don't justify your own assumption of more affect for conservatives, I don't know what's wrong with it, but I wouldn't have assumed it.
My own just-so story is that conservative girls have more conservative parents with stronger ideas of right-wrong, and religious explanations for the question "why are we here". Girls becoming women in puberty is a natural, tho drastic change. Such conservative girls have more conservative girlfriends, who each assume the other is naturally hetero and normal, so holding hands or dancing together or spending large amounts of time together is fine, and not sexual. The puberty problems are normal girl-into-woman "growing pains" that they'll get over with. A few of these problems they can even talk with their mothers about, and many others to their other mostly normal friends.
Liberal girls with usually more rebellious friends going thru similar growing pains might well be uncomfortable with boys, and boys' attention to their breasts changing, and are less sure that they're normal hetero girls - with the alternatives being lesbians or trans.
See detransitioner Chloe cole.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/detransitioner-chloe-cole-announces-intent-to-sue-kaiser-permanente-for-experimental-hormones-and-surgery
My non-data ideas might be true, or there might be some other dominant reason for more liberal girls being more mentally unstable. Or the whole homosexual vs. friendship idea might have 0% influence or something insignificant (<2%?), or might be barely significant around 5%, and be worse for conservatives, yet there would be other social changes far more dominant worse for liberals. Here at AK's place, we all get our own opinions! :)
First, you are correct that both of our opinions have little basis in fact. The supporting evidence is weak at best.
That said, let me explain my opinion a little more. Girls are much less likely to care whether another girl is gay or not than boys about boys. Likewise, liberal girls vs conservative girls. All in all, I'd argue strongly that young liberal straight girls who have become friends don't care at all whether another girl is lesbian or not.
As for your opinion, Gallup says LBGTs are about 3X as likely Democrat vs Republican but not much more than twice as likely liberal vs conservative. That makes sense since an LGBT girl is more likely to shift party to the left than ideology. I don't know if these differences are big enough to make conservative girls assume another girl is hetero while a liberal girl doesn't make that assumption. I'd guess not but that is just an opinion. In either case the percentages of lesbians is somewhat small but far from insignificant.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/174230/lgbt-americans-continue-skew-democratic-liberal.aspx
Re: "These non-profits are not like old-fashioned charities that give assistance to poor people. Instead, they spend money on causes and salaries. "
Non-profits (esp. NGOs and think tanks) have become vehicles for US/NATO influence in many countries; for example, in eastern Europe. A substantial fraction of educated youths there get on the train of "causes and salaries."
More specifically, NGOs have become vehicles for fomenting and facilitating 'colour revolutions' (real insurrections, in contrast to J6) in many countries; for example, the Orange revolution and Euromaidan movement in Ukraine.
"In 2016, non-profits brought in $2.62 trillion in revenues, constituting over 5.7 per cent of the US economy."
That appears to be apples and oranges. I would assume "the US economy" refers to GDP. This is goods and services bought/sold. The 2.62T mostly refers to capital and much of that is retained, not spent. Capital held by non-profits is growing exponentially.
Unless I'm missing something, Rob Henderson is detailing self-reported happiness and meaning. And he notes the correlation is far from perfect. AK has then drawn a conclusion that another group not mentioned might become happier but with less meaning as a result of their choice (never mind that it might not be a choice). How does one reach that conclusion?
If I correctly interpret "floofy gender identity," these people are reportedly less happy than others not more. If so, does it follow their lives have more meaning?