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.
"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.
"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.
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."
"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.
"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.
"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.
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."
"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?