https://www.amren.com/news/2020/12/east-asias-looming-demographic-crisis/
One of the reasons we need a 'year 0' revolution where we reevaluate everything is this article. In Japan, last year, even before Covid hit and lowered birth rates even further, they had the lowest births on record. Not just birth rate, lowest births. Fewer Japanese children were born in 2019 than in 1899. Given how much the green revolution has advanced yield per acre since 1899, it is unimaginable that Japan's economy can't support as many kids as it did in 1899. There is no physical, material, economic reason for so few children to be born. It is purely a matter of misguided cultural values, the culture of feminism, that says women should prioritize their own careers over marriage and family.
Japan is dying, but even Japan looks healthy compared to South Korea. There the fertility rate has sunk to .92 in 2019, (with Covid it's down to .84 in 2020). Taiwan, China, Singapore and Thailand are more or less equally doomed. These countries have a wide range of per capita gdp, democracy, freedom, liberalism, etc. metrics, but the one thing they all agree on is that women should prioritize careers over family. Every country that takes a bite of that apple withers on the vine. There are no exceptions, and there are no other policies that ultimately matter -- because without children there is no country to enact policies upon.
In this world there are some policies of existential importance, that literally mean the life or death of everyone inside your borders. It is these policies I would most like to reform with a 'year 0,' and it is these policies which no red state secession or Republican party would address, making them totally useless.
The three burning issues of the modern world are: stemming the black-muslim tide from taking over and drowning out the world, restoring family formation, and ensuring everyone has a minimum standard of living through a basic income. I can't enact any of these policies without a 'year 0' revolution, and all three are necessary to avert the end of the world.
In order to stop the black-muslim world takeover, some combination of policies must be enacted -- either we could conquer them first and get rid of them directly, finesse the situation by convincing them to lower their own birth rates, or ban immigration and let their teeming hordes starve to death at the edges of 'fortress 1st world.' We have instead chosen to do nothing. The Republican party has equally chosen to do nothing. A red state secession would not solve this crisis just like of course Biden won't. Only a 'year 0' revolution can. To convince people of the need to enact one of those three policies, we would first need to explain to people the actual insane numbers of births and population growth that is occurring in black-muslim areas, convince them that the threat is real and the U.N. projections are accurate (or actually underestimates), and finally convince them that blacks and muslims are not ideal fungible replacements for whites and Asians which can be slotted in interchangeably at no cost.
To explain that last point we would need to explain the genetic, inherent inferiority of these two populations, which means that no, they can't replace us and no, they can't enrich us. All they can do is destroy us, then destroy themselves, and ultimately leave the world a barren desert. This is the limit of their spiritual, conceptual capacities, as endlessly displayed by their own histories, genetic science, and endless educational and IQ testing. And the only way to do that is for white/Asian supremacism to be a bedrock foundation of our country so that such important knowledge can be disseminated in the schools and press regularly. Thus the need for a 'year 0' white nationalist nation, the only place that could conceivably survive the coming year 2100's demographic projections.
Even if blacks and muslims were dealt with -- say a red button was pushed and they all keeled over tomorrow, we'd still go extinct. Right now East Asia barely has any black or muslim problems, they're nearly homogenous, all high IQ, highly conscientious folks. They're still dying. They have a woman problem that's just as big or even bigger than the looming peril of black world. We made a fundamental mistake when we told women to act like men, or even worse when we went transgender and abolished the very categories and concepts of women and men. Women have a duty to marry and reproduce that no amount of man's work can make up for. Without women marrying and having at least two children, nothing else matters. How could something so elementary go unnoticed for so long?
Only women can reproduce. With great power comes great responsibility. They have the power to reproduce, therefore they have the responsibility to actually do so. They are shirking their responsibility to the future of mankind and the future of life in general (if we don't get off-planet, then all life in the universe ends when the sun goes red giant, even the cute dolphins and giraffes.)
But this is only a theoretical worry, right? Even if the populations of the world dip below what they were in 1800 (as our current birthrates mandate will occur soon enough.), that's still plenty of people, right? It might even be an improvement, right?
Wrong. A lower population is a good thing, but that's only if they were a low population of well adjusted happy people. The exact sort of people that are produced via families, nowhere else.
Study after study has shown that aside from having access to basic necessities like food and shelter (which I'll address in the third necessary 'year 0' reform), the most important factor in human happiness is the amount of close ties you have with others. How do you think those close ties form? By chance? By drunken parties? Of course not. The only known way to tie people closely together is via marriage and children. Everything else is impermanent, as people variously move away to seek other jobs in other places and live near other people. Only family remains. Only living together creates strong bonds, and only the assurance that you will keep living together. The more people you live together with as a family, the happier you become. The larger the family, the more children, the more siblings, the better. (I would argue the more wives the better too, but that's a side issue.)
There is a loneliness epidemic in the world much worse than covid-19. It manifests itself, ultimately, in deaths of despair (suicides, alcohol, obesity-caused-illnesses, drug overdoses, STD's, murder, 'accidents,') But long before that final breaking point there are multiple clear steps towards oblivion. Where people are clearly miserable and all because they have no one to turn to in this world. The amount of people on anti-depressants is at an all time high. Likewise, the amount of people diagnosed with a mental illness, and the amount of people seeking therapy. All of this, every drop of it, is due to the isolation trap we have put ourselves in by eliminating the nuclear family. No one (aside from a few genetic wrecks who are doomed no matter what anyone else does) falls to despair surrounded by sympathetic loved ones who depend on you, enjoy your company, trust you, rely on you, need you, and listen to you with deepfelt understanding and tenderness.
Every married couple has an ally literally in bed with them. Every parent with children has people who need them, admire them, and believe in them. Everyone with a sibling has someone to talk to or play with. Every time a woman decides instead to pursue a career, all these events shrivel up and die, like Tinkerbell's wings.
To be replaced by what? A spreadsheet? A sushi bar outing? A pat on the back by your boss saying good job filling out said spreadsheet? Utter nonsense. Your co-workers come and go as they get fired or find a better job elsewhere, or you get promoted or demoted, or reassigned to a new branch in a different city, blah blah blah. There is nothing you can seriously do or feel with them. There will always be an invisible barrier saying they are not 'home,' not your oasis, not your iibasho. Work cannot fill the gaping void left by a lack of family. Not for yourself, the woman, and not for the man you deserted, and not for the unborn children you never had, and not for the siblings you never gave your first child. You left a giant gaping crater in all of their lives, and all for nothing. A slightly higher bank account.
Don't tell me careers are fulfilling. If that were true men never would have sought marriage for the last 10,000 years. They all had careers, and yet their happiness was always in their wives and children once they got back home. If careers were so fulfilling why didn't men boycott women from the beginning?
Careers are not innately and obviously better than families. For all of history no man anywhere on Earth thought that way. Certainly happiness polls do not find that to be the case -- as women have worked more their happiness has been steadily dropping since 1950.
Happiness in life can almost directly be measured by the number of other human beings you make a meaningful connection with. It's how full your heart is at the end of the day. There is only one known way to make a strong connection with anyone -- start a home with them. Nothing else lasts, because nothing else is designed to last.
It's possible to form pseudo-bonds with fictional characters by piping them straight into your home and imagining living beside them. To the extent that you truly connect with the authors of those works, either as the writer with fans, or the fan with writers, you can simulate a heart full of taisetsu no hito. But it's a pale shadow of the real deal -- the real deal the actual characters in the stories get to live. No character in any story wanted to read romances for a living. They're our inspiration and joy because they're actually in a romance worth having.
Just because art exists so we don't live entirely banished from connections with the outside world does not mean families are no longer necessary. The claim that work can replace love is even more preposterous and discredited.
Birth rates are synonymous with marriage rates. On average, married white couples have two kids. A measure of declining birth rates is a measure of declining marriage rates. It's a measure of loneliness, isolation, failure, misery, and ultimately death rates.
It's not really about the declining birth rate. The population going down isn't necessarily a bad thing -- more open space, more natural resources, more opportunities, more capital for the survivors. It's about what that birth rate signifies -- a higher and higher proportion of humanity living out their lives isolated, miserable, unneeded and unheard.
Humanity evolved to marry and have kids. Our happiness is inextricably intertwined with this reality. We cannot build a working society that does not address this basic natural instinct. So long as happiness relies on the number of loving ties we have with other people, we must mandate marriage and children to fulfill those roles we need of each other. As a utilitarian, I seek the greatest good for the greatest number. The highest utility we can give any person is a gaggle of life partners, which spouses and children and siblings, and only spouses and children and siblings, represent.
If happiness comes from family why do women, who could so easily have families, continuously pursue careers and singlehood instead? This is because women especially have an agreeableness instinct that wants to stay in the good graces of the community. If all the authority structures and institutions in a country unanimously preach that women should pursue careers first and children only second as an optional afterthought, or even actively preach against children as environmental hazards, then of course that's what women will do. They can't help it. It's like how scorpions sting, women do whatever it takes to rise in the public opinion. So long as we link status to STEM jobs instead of motherhood and wifehood, the tragedy of women choosing their own destruction will repeat indefinitely.
A 'year 0' break in the cycle, a complete reset of values, where women are taught by all authorities and all public speeches that their status depends upon being good wives and mothers, would quickly see all women in the country breathlessly competing to be good wives and mothers. It's that easy and that simple. And lo and behold, after said reset, where the women would be vigorously volunteering, they would also find themselves incredibly happier than the women in modernity currently volunteering to STEM jobs in lieu of families.
Nature taught women to be agreeable because they were weak by nature and dependent upon others (especially during pregnancy and early child rearing.) If the community wouldn't support them they and their children would die. Likewise, nature taught us to be happy around loved ones because it was the reward nature gave us for properly reproducing our genes and continuing the cycle of life into the future which of course evolution requires. These two natural instincts should not, and need not, be in conflict with one another. We have artificially forced them to be in conflict with each other over the last fifty years to our great detriment. We can return to nature and harmony with nature at any time.
If everyone on Earth is miserable it hardly matters if the lower birth rates are sustainable. Let's say we could have 1.0, or .5 birth rates for the next ten thousand years without sacrificing our technological capacities. Who cares? Ten thousand years of hell is supposed to be a good thing? We need life to be worth living or we're putting the cart before the horse. Am I supposed to care that blacks and muslims, once they've conquered the world, could continue living in it for ten thousand years? They'll make a cesspool of it. Am I supposed to look forward to that?
An existential crisis is as much about the circumstances of human life as the physical reality of it. A dystopia is worse than a meteor.
A simple reading of the data shows that the more often you attend religious services, the happier you become, in a straight line from 'not at all' to 'every day.' But of course religious services are not the cause of happiness. It isn't Jesus that's making people happy, since Jesus has never interacted a single time with a single human anywhere on Earth, or the amazing entertainment on offer at church. It's the correlates to that -- the more you attend church, the more likely you are married and have lots of kids and siblings and even close church friends.
As the world's secularism increases, our misery increases. Our secularism cannot help but increase because no one can believe in fairy tales and miracles unsupported by any scientific evidence. Reality screams in our face every day there is no God, only the deterministic, callous and cruel laws of Nature. If we do not transplant the benefits of church-going into the secular lifestyle we will have no recourse, no escape. We cannot go back. We cannot lie to ourselves or others. We cannot live in a dreamland of superstitious nonsense filled with self-mockery and self-loathing over how stupid all these nonsense rituals and beliefs are. Humanity must move forward into the bright light of the truth, grapple with it and overcome it, and stay happy doing it. We need what religious people have, but we don't need their religions. We just need the close loving ties formed by families, the secret sauce that's been staring us in the face all along. What do religious people have? Higher marriage rates, higher birth rates. The more conservative and traditional and orthodox, the earlier marriage and more children, the happier. Why can't we have that too? Cut out the middleman. Mandate the family and who needs the faith?
I'd actually argue that the world is underpopulated -- given that we can't even find 32 decent field goal kickers to man the NFL with, or fill up a day with good new books to read, etc., there's clearly the need to keep having more children until enough lucky rolls are made that geniuses prevail in every field and achieve all known achievable goods. We know it's possible to kick a field goal at 30 yards reliably. Other human beings have done it before. So now we need a large enough population that we can do that 32 times. Until then the population should increase, not decrease. How many other gifts could the talented give us if only they were born and alive in our world today? But the argument is neither here nor there. We must have children because we are designed to have children and only happy when we do. Whether objectively the world has the right number of people in it or not is therefore irrelevant.
The third existential crisis facing mankind is job (and thus status and subsistence) insecurity. In the past everyone had job security, either as a farmer, a laborer in a guild, or as a soldier. There was always a use for you and a place for you and a need for you. As technology improved, however, these job openings quickly closed up. When machines are doing virtually all the work mankind used to do, there's a lot of excess workers laying about.
Technology is inexorably going to improve -- just like how we can't go backwards with regards to stupid old religions, we cannot go back down the technological curve. We must go forward, grapple with technological improvements and be happy with them. The future is futuristic -- deal with it! Any issue we have today with technological displacement will be amplified geometrically in the decades and centuries to come. We cannot pretend it isn't an issue and ignore it, saying it only affects a small minority. Even if that were the case, it won't be for long.
The first problem of unemployment is in America today the unemployed have no means of basic subsistence. Only unmarried women with children are given anything at all, a horrible incentive program that encourages the most feckless women to have the most children and for men to be absent entirely. A citizen's dividend would solve both of these problems -- for no greater price than the current welfare system, we can give everyone a means to survive while not incentivizing feckless single motherhood. Whether you're a single mom or a married man, your basic income is the same, $12,000 a year, $1,000 a month. Whether you have a job or don't, it's the same. Whether you're young or old, it's the same. Everyone is cared for, everyone is covered. This is the only safety net worth suspending because it's the only one that actually works and does its job.
The greatest good for the greatest number. The easiest way to improve people's lives is to give them the bare necessities that make life livable -- comfort and good health. With $12,000 a year every American can afford every basic necessity. Food, water, shelter, electricity, internet, entertainment, transportation, health care, education, whatever. No longer must anyone go into debt over anything. Nor can you 'lose it all,' because every month another $1,000 is deposited. The security is continuous and everlasting.
Incidentally, any economic argument any woman makes, saying, "I need a career because men's income is no longer reliable, not for himself, not for me, and certainly not for children." Well this solves that. The man and the woman both have a reliable income even without a career, and the children will too. There is no economic need to forego children. In a country this rich, this productive, with these technological marvels, it is an insult and a crime to say we cannot economically support the number of births we had in 1899. It's outrageous we ever allowed such an argument to sprout and didn't solve this issue long ago.
The jobs are going away whether we like it or not. AI is improving at a meteoric pace -- before it could only win at chess, but now it can win at Go. There is nothing our minds can do that a computer cannot theoretically replicate. Our brains are physical constructs and so are computer chips. And we don't need the full power of the human brain to do 99.99% of jobs. Most jobs are extremely simple, like stocking shelves or driving cars. Honestly computers can already do that right now and are only being held back by red tape.
Computers have already displayed the ability to sow and harvest crops entirely on their own, which when we get down to it already displaces 100% of necessary human labor. Soon enough we'll be able to 3d print houses with no human intervention. There are pilot programs doing this already. There are already 'dark factories' churning out cars or whatever without a single human being on the premises. There is nowhere to run or hide, no job retraining that computers cannot simply overtake with another AI advance.
This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. For the same reason farmers loved tractors so they didn't have to push the plows by hand, we should welcome and love every labor saving device that comes online. It frees up leisure time and the life of the mind instead of pointless painful drudgery. Ideally we shouldn't have to do any work in our entire lives. Everything should be a hobby, our whole lives doing what we love. For workers who currently have a job doing what they love, nothing would change. For everyone else a citizen's dividend is the difference between heaven and hell.
In the future job security will be everyone pursuing a hobby they enjoy. In the future income security will be a monthly check in the mail. And in the future status security will be based on virtue, not work. This is the third prong of the tripod. The citizen's dividend should be renamed the virtue dividend, as a reward for a life well-lived. For the same reason we should have zero tolerance for malingerers and thugs, we should be generously rewarding towards people who start a family, follow the law, do the right thing and make others happy.
Again and again I see people complaining about the basic income going to people who 'did nothing' to earn it. But simply by being a citizen of my 'year 0' country you've already agreed to do a great many things, many of them trying. You've agreed to follow ten commandments that are by no means easy or 'lazy.'
1. There is no God but Cute-sama. Thou shalt have no other Gods before her.
Thou shalt not rebel against God's chosen one, the Mayor. Nor shalt thou rebel against reality by denying verifiable facts.
2. Thou shalt not murder, rape, assault or otherwise physically discomfort others.
3. Thou shalt not steal, vandalize, breach a contract, or otherwise impugn people's property.
4. Thou shalt not, out of malice, defame, bully, harass or otherwise emotionally discomfort others.
5. Thou shalt not have sex outside of marriage and thou shalt not divorce. Thou shalt marry a member of the opposite sex by the age of 20 and have at least two children by the age of 25. Marriage is the gift of eternal consent -- thou shalt not withhold physical or emotional intimacy from those to whom it was promised.
6. Thou shalt not take recreational drugs other than alcohol. Thou shalt not overindulge even in alcohol outside of special celebratory occasions.
7. Thou shalt not become overweight, or otherwise disfigure your God-given forms, which are in the image of God. Thou shalt not cause needless harm to the environment, plants, animals or scenery, which are also gifts from God.
8. Thou shalt not deny or counsel against anyone's right to a citizen's dividend yielding sufficient means to live a dignified life. Parents are responsible for children's wellbeing up until the day of their marriage.
9. Thou shalt perform to the best of your ability any task assigned to you by City Hall.
10. Thou shalt not sanction, promote, conceal or forgive the sins of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment