About a year ago I attended a book signing by Rob Henderson (former LA foster kid, Marine, and Yale psych PhD -- think a less right-wing JD Vance). It was a small group and there was a lot of Q&A. One of the questions was, "what to do about Western birthrates?"
After thinking about it for about 10 seconds, Rob's answer was interesting, I'm paraphrasing, but fairly accurately: "What if we don't have an instinct to have kids? [we all laughed] No, hear me out. We have an instinct to have sex (esp men). [more laughter] And we've known for millennia that sex produced babies. And when that happens, we have an instinct to take care of babies (esp women). Those instincts ensured the reproduction of the species for thousands of years, but the Pill interrupts that. Pregnancy is now a conscious choice instead of a natural consequence of an instinct, and based on our choices so far, it appears humans may be the only species on the planet that no longer has a reproductive instinct."
This squares with Mary Harrington's assertion that the Pill is the first transhumanist invention.
I have 3 teen daughters. I very much want this not to be true, because it implies that modern feminism is self-defeating. The first job of every human society is to produce and raise the next generation and acculturate them to do the same. Why? Because if you fail at this, your society dies. Your list of "we created" from the last paragraph misses it's logical endpoint: then a group of humans that still reproduce conquers us.
BTW: I wish I'd had this article 3 weeks ago for my econ students. We've been talking about birthrates for several weeks. When I ran the math on S. Korea's birthrate with them in class (100 S. Koreans born today will produce only 4 great-grand-children) they were appalled.
Yeah, I'm aware that evolutionary speaking those who reproduce will outcompete those who don't, and several smart people envision a future controlled by the Amish (6+ TFR).
The South Korea situation is startling to anyone who actually hears the numbers, but it's still not on people's radar. One of the guys I talked to at the Natalism Convention said he went around the streets of Austin asking people what they thought of when he used the term "population problem" and without exception everyone mentioned overpopulation.
There is a big contradiction between Pakaluk's horse view and Pooley's most valuable resource view. Which is it, did humans become more or less economically valuable to each other? Unless it’s not about value, but about netted or relative value, in which case, classic models of market distortion and failure become applicable, with some deeply unflattering implications for many actors involved.
Pets also substitute for children in being cute, sweet and vulnerable/needing to be cared for.
About a year ago I attended a book signing by Rob Henderson (former LA foster kid, Marine, and Yale psych PhD -- think a less right-wing JD Vance). It was a small group and there was a lot of Q&A. One of the questions was, "what to do about Western birthrates?"
After thinking about it for about 10 seconds, Rob's answer was interesting, I'm paraphrasing, but fairly accurately: "What if we don't have an instinct to have kids? [we all laughed] No, hear me out. We have an instinct to have sex (esp men). [more laughter] And we've known for millennia that sex produced babies. And when that happens, we have an instinct to take care of babies (esp women). Those instincts ensured the reproduction of the species for thousands of years, but the Pill interrupts that. Pregnancy is now a conscious choice instead of a natural consequence of an instinct, and based on our choices so far, it appears humans may be the only species on the planet that no longer has a reproductive instinct."
This squares with Mary Harrington's assertion that the Pill is the first transhumanist invention.
I have 3 teen daughters. I very much want this not to be true, because it implies that modern feminism is self-defeating. The first job of every human society is to produce and raise the next generation and acculturate them to do the same. Why? Because if you fail at this, your society dies. Your list of "we created" from the last paragraph misses it's logical endpoint: then a group of humans that still reproduce conquers us.
BTW: I wish I'd had this article 3 weeks ago for my econ students. We've been talking about birthrates for several weeks. When I ran the math on S. Korea's birthrate with them in class (100 S. Koreans born today will produce only 4 great-grand-children) they were appalled.
Yeah, I'm aware that evolutionary speaking those who reproduce will outcompete those who don't, and several smart people envision a future controlled by the Amish (6+ TFR).
The South Korea situation is startling to anyone who actually hears the numbers, but it's still not on people's radar. One of the guys I talked to at the Natalism Convention said he went around the streets of Austin asking people what they thought of when he used the term "population problem" and without exception everyone mentioned overpopulation.
Makes a whole lot of sense. Although at some point in the not-too-distant future, humanity will run out of people to drive all those cars!
There is a big contradiction between Pakaluk's horse view and Pooley's most valuable resource view. Which is it, did humans become more or less economically valuable to each other? Unless it’s not about value, but about netted or relative value, in which case, classic models of market distortion and failure become applicable, with some deeply unflattering implications for many actors involved.