Marko’s thread I linked put the fertility rate problem into a very clear perspective. If society doesn’t course correct, there won’t be that many people in the future. South Korea will be around 4% of its current population within 3 generations.
I saw this news story out of North Korea recently that explained how the government is forcing people to get married: > A source in South Pyongan province told Daily NK recently that the party committee of Nampo “recently began arranging forced marriages of women over the age of 28, regarding the act of remaining unmarried despite reaching marriageable age a non-socialist phenomenon.” [https://www.dailynk.com/english/nampo-forces-unmarried-women-into-marriage-as-socialist-duty/]
Basically they are forcing people to have children or they will be sent to the mines. This is one strategy, hopefully there are better ones. Does anyone have good resources on solving this issue or ideas on how to achieve healthy populations? I’ll probably post some of my thoughts in a reply.
Noble species typically don't breed in captivity. The promise for a young man is that they get smothering domesticity, no power, and most likely a fat wife or a divorce. The promise for a young woman is to get a weak-willed husband who is unable to lead you, the unending judgement of your peers under the guise the they who forewent children have the better life (a lie, but an easy one to make and convince women of in today's age), and you still most likely have to wage-slave in addition to being a mother.
Any individual ought to marry only for selfish love, and give no regard to what "society" needs. The world as we know it will change, and the lower population will give the next generation of men an opportunity to escape the gynocracy. Or maybe they won't. Either way, the arguments for "incentivizing procreation" are nonsense. If you want that, then you must reduce women to breeding stock. BAP already had the answer over a decade ago, but you thought he was joking.
>>2942 this only makes sense given the rise of feminism and its minions (no fault divorce, sex without pregnancy via pills, and abortion), freely available internet pornography, the shift of socializing from purely physical to online, and, yes, some of what >>2943 refers to. However, I don't think the latter is a factor but merely a result of the former, and economic reasoning doesn't make sense considering the universal birth rate collapse across all variations and strata of society. Reducing women to breeding stock is a porn-tier fantastical "solution", and would require a great deal more proof of concept given historic western societies absolutely did not follow that (not inherently opposed but it sounds fucking ridiculous and women, while unsuited to greater work, are not actual animals and shouldn't be treated as such).
But given even North Korea and the entire Moslem world are apparently collapsing in birth rates, I don't think I have the full story either. Surely the internet and whatever black market abortion gets through can't account for all of that?
>>2943 >Noble species typically don't breed in captivity. This meme is getting stale. It's a self-serving rationalization for low sexual agency. The state of men and women both is admittedly dismal, as is the state of marriage culture, and this is a lot of what's gone wrong with fertility, but from the individual perspective this is what's called a "skill issue". The "wifemale" meme and others is good to roast those who use family as a comfort blanket substitute for self-respect, but too many people are just using this kind of logic to justify their own lack of sexual success.
>Any individual ought to marry only for selfish love, and give no regard to what "society" needs. Actually you should think foremost of the race and marry for eugenic reasons. Individual concerns are fleeting. Any attempt at self-justification is already haggling about social obligations. To say there aren't any is just to give up on the whole concept of having a society, and accept defeat. Free people have strong social codes, and both enforce and live by them.
So what is right for society and the race? It is right for the best to have more children than others, and it is your duty to play your part in that. Any people who fails to live by the laws of selection and fertility will lose its right to exist. Yes it's harder these days, no that's not an excuse that reality will accept.
I actually like the "an America of 100 million" meme that implies we don't need to worry about overall birthrate. I think that's correct. Populations decline sometimes and that's OK. But *which* 100M? We still have to worry about quality-relative birthrate to get there from here. "Noble beings don't breed" is is the worst possible self-defeating retardation.
>the arguments for "incentivizing procreation" are nonsense This is true for a different reason: it's just not about incentives.
>>2942 There's something crooked about this whole fertility discourse. It's all from the perspective of the pensioner-state doing post-national human capital farming, and can't acknowledge what's actually going on. "Oh no we need more taxpayer slaves how can we convince them to breed?". But fertility is about intrinsically-felt bio-culture, not technocratic marginal incentives and certainly not about the needs of the pensioner class. No one is going to change their whole life path for that.
The western post-national state just spent the last 100 years thrashing any notion of bio-cultural power. The single most important axiom of modern life we were taught from birth is that we must not think in bio-cultural terms (that would be racist, sexist, and antisemitic for example), with corollary of that being that women must not be assumed to have any special reproductive role to play in society. The post-national state obviously feels itself existentially opposed to its bio-cultural substrate (and seemingly increasingly so). But since fertility comes from bio-cultural logic, this creates a massive contradiction: the state needs more of the kind of people who are productive and prosocial without ever acknowledging or legitimizing their bio-cultural existence or interests.
This is what leads to all the weirdness where everyone is anxious about fertility but all the discussion has to tiptoe around to avoid being eugenicist or racist or sexist. We end up with stupid things like this latest Trump proposal to give $5000 to every single mom who pops out a marginal welfare recipient, instead of obvious incentive schemes like 5% off the tax rate per kid which at least isn't actively dysgenic. It's not about incentives, but they can't even do the incentives right because the whole thing is stuck in an ideological contradiction. To be able to see clearly enough to design an incentive scheme that might actually help (but again it's not about incentives), they would have to acknowledge forbidden bio-cultural realities.
So for that reason, it's pointless to talk about fertility policy. It's not about policy. It's about the fundamental commitments of the modern state being at odds with the cultural and political conditions necessary for eugenic fertility. What is needed is not clever policy ideas but a cultural revolution to make eugenic fertility and therefore the bio-cultural interests of the right people into the formal central legitimizing commitment of the state. Or if not that, at least an end to the situation where the central legitimizing commitment of the state is the suppression of that worldview.
>>2957 As for how this theory explains the newness and globalness of the fertility crash, I think it's the obvious cultural homogenization happening via the internet. Everyone is converging on a single "westernized" global aspirational culture which is formed downstream of these ideological constraints. So you get both media saturation and economic initiation into the infertile lifestyle pushed into even remote villages teaching people to think and act like "modern" people.
It's probably quite multicausal as with any complex balance of behaviors, but as long as there's this big ideological taboo squatting the center of the issue menacing everyone, it's not going to get studied properly and therefore not corrected either.
The last time any of this was studied and reacted to in earnest was back in the 1960s when global overpopulation was legitimately a serious looming threat, we had just 20 years prior come out of a terrible war in which the eugenicists lost, we were engaged in a further cultural revolution against bio-cultural heritage, and a totally new lifestyle mythos was being laid down which has since become the prototype of modern culture. We have low fertility because the people who designed our culture back in the 1960s wanted it that way. There is simply not going to be any effective response to fertility issues from within that cultural and political frame of reference, which is why I say we need a cultural revolution to overturn those commitments.
>>2956 You completely miss the "captivity" part of my claim. Obviously we are not literally in captivity, but for exactly the biological type you seem to care most about, the modern west is stifling and offers nothing for the "responsible family man that does his duty."
>Any attempt at self-justification is already haggling about social obligations. To say there aren't any is just to give up on the whole concept of having a society, and accept defeat. Free people have strong social codes, and both enforce and live by them. These social codes sound great, but they seem unenforced on the populace that needs them most, WOMEN. Ah yes, tell me more of a "man's duty to society" and say nothing of a woman's duty to remain chaste, loyal, and behave properly. The erosion of social norms for women is the source of this mess. I agree we need strong social codes, but you are targeting the wrong people!
> I think that's correct. Populations decline sometimes and that's OK. But *which* 100M? We still have to worry about quality-relative birthrate to get there from here We completely agree on this matter.
I originally use the "breeding stock" meme not as a policy proposal, but an exaggeration of the actual solution, which is to impose tighter social norms on women. We disagree less that you seem to think.
>>2963 >You completely miss the "captivity" part of my claim. I'm not quite ignoring it. I agree we live in metaphorical "captivity" to gynocracy, and that this is much of the cause of the problem. I'm saying though that this is a skill issue, and if we don't relentlessly interpret it as a skill issue, it becomes a rationalization and normalization of failure. No you can't fully and openly defy gynocratic social norms, but you can substantially liberate yourself and your family from the cage, and impose your preferred social order around yourself. If you apply your agency and charisma, you can find a good woman who wants to bear you many children and follow your lead. Even if most people fail, you don't have to be most people.
>These social codes seem unenforced on the populace that needs them most, WOMEN. Yes and whose job is it to enforce them? I'm not targeting the wrong people, but I'll be clear about what you're correctly arguing against and that I'm not saying: I'm not saying the usual bullshit of "man up and marry these shrews because it's your duty as man *to woman* to do so". I'm saying its your duty to your ancestors and your people to find a way to make it work, including enforcing proper reproductive order on the women in your life.
>We disagree less that you seem to think. I don't think we disagree very much. I just insist on getting the agency accounting right here. To bring this back to OP, the only possible "what now" that I can see is that we need the cultural revolution I describe, but that can only start from *actually living that way*, and insisting upon it as a proper way of life. And that matter is firmly in our hands. It's on us to figure it out.
>>2969 I suppose the crux here is not the cause or even what action must be taken, but the likelihood of real change.
Yes, any given individual ought to create the environment around them to create the proper order. As an individual, I do exactly this. Maybe I see my motivation as a selfish desire where you see higher service but we take the same actions. I hope this is enough to affect change population-wide, it is easy to blackpill but maybe it would be better to embrace optimism.
