I have read some of the economic forecasts of demographic declines and I have experienced the very intense "short the market!" doomerism that I suspect is the usual consequence of reading such reports. And yet, calling it "a problem" seems somehow inappropriate to me.

Yes, it's a problem for governments trying to balance budgets and for churches/communities trying to fill seats (i.e. remain sustainable). But, as you mention, it is such a marked and complex reality across so many vectors of culture, science, technology, politics, economics, that at a certain point, it just is. Perhaps the flaw you found in the conference — the lack of a theory of everything natalist — is not just a reflection of complexity and futility, but of entropy.

I just had my first child less than 2 years ago (at the age of 43). It's been awesome. Beyond awesome. And yet, at the individual level — meaning as I relate to others who may want or have already had kids — I am not pro-natalist.

But, this isn't about me. This is about the fact that everyone, suddenly, chose not to have kids(or to do it much less). And the fact is that, unless ordained from above, it's a very individual and profound decision. Giving life is different than most activities covered by economics and other social sciences. So treating it as "a problem", or as an aggregate statistic, is sort of beside the point. Which is, of course, kind of what you're saying when you list the laundry list of individual problems that add up.

But my sense is that even those individual problems have a life of their own outside of the natalist realm. The fact that 80% can't find a romantic partner (I'm guessing some selection bias is at play at this conference) is a problem outside of the natalist angle. The deteriorating of communities is a problem outside of the natalist angle. Maybe putting natalism first, is putting the cart before the horse.

Also — what was the Caddyshack reference? I can't say that I was a huge fan of Tommy Boy, but it's had a lasting impact on me as a sales coaching artifact... And fat guy in a little coat has truly been a transformational force in my life.

Expand full comment

All religions and their various "god's" whether singular (mono), plural (poly-theistic), and male or female in their naming, and their self- justifying "theologies" and self-serving belief systems are creations of, and projections of their adherents group-mind or ego.

As a matter of interest poly-theistic religions are much closer to or aligned with the intrinsically indefinable open ended psycho-physical nature of the world process.

Mono-theistic religions, especially the three "great" world-dominant religions of the Middle East are, by their very nature politically expansive, each claiming that they have a "god"-given right to convert all human beings to the "one-true-way" as defined by them.

Christians have their bogus "great commission" to convert all beings.

Moslems pretend that the presumed "revelation" given by their prophet is the final "revelation".

There are similar justifications and motives to be found in Judaism - such is of course the case with their bogus claim to be the "chosen" people, and that their tribalistic "god" promised them exclusive ownership of the Biblical lands.

Expand full comment