The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[godelian]

...men increasingly avoiding relationships because they do not want to invite the government into their bedrooms.

It has nothing to do with the government or with democracy. It has to do with prosperity. When people can be wealthy and have advanced education, they tend to have fewer than the replacement rate of children, because they marry later in the fertility cycle, abort more before that, and only have as many children -- if they do -- as they happen to want to manage. It turns out that that's, on average, fewer than two.

The reproduction rates of all societies fall as they grow in wealth, leisure and options. That's not good, but it's cross-cultural and universal.

I concede that prosperity has a devaluing effect on how women perceive men.

If money is easy to get, just pick it up from the floor by yourself, no need for a man to do that for you, then it is obvious that men, with their traditional provider role, do not have a particularly important role in that environment.

But then again, government does play a role.

Modern women claim that they do not need a man. However, they are also still quick to make financial claims in court against men. That is why it is so important to seal off all avenues to financial claims from otherwise supposedly strong and independent women who don't need a man:

No marriage, no cohabitation, and no children.

I am more than happy to do all of that outside the West. Here in SE Asia, I am fine with these things.

Over here, there is no government that will try to extract money out of men in order to financially support strong and independent women who don't need no man.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think women should not have the same economic opportunities that men do then you're living in the Stone Age.

Nothing I presented to you said that. Stop being silly, Gary.

Try to answer the question, if you can. Or at least say something that reflects something I actually said, not something you made up.

[Immanuel Can]

...men increasingly avoiding relationships because they do not want to invite the government into their bedrooms.

It has nothing to do with the government or with democracy. It has to do with prosperity. When people can be wealthy and have advanced education, they tend to have fewer than the replacement rate of children, because they marry later in the fertility cycle, abort more before that, and only have as many children -- if they do -- as they happen to want to manage. It turns out that that's, on average, fewer than two.

The reproduction rates of all societies fall as they grow in wealth, leisure and options. That's not good, but it's cross-cultural and universal.

I concede that prosperity has a devaluing effect on how women perceive men.

Well, they don't need providers...that much becomes the case. But it also damages how men see women, because it also makes women economic rivals instead of mates or partners. And it makes relationships a mere convenience, not a necessity, and sex cheap, and children disposable...

Wealth corrupts. And one place it corrupts is in the attitude to family.

[godelian]

Well, they don't need providers...that much becomes the case. But it also damages how men see women, because it also makes women economic rivals instead of mates or partners. And it makes relationships a mere convenience, not a necessity, and sex cheap, and children disposable...

Wealth corrupts. And one place it corrupts is in the attitude to family.

Yes, but the problem only occurs in the West and only for the time being. So, the problem is eminently avoidable. Money is still scarce enough in SE Asia.

Good times make weak men (and promiscuous women).
Weak men (and promiscuous women) make bad times.
Bad times make strong men (and virtuous women).
Strong men (and virtuous women) make good times.

Hence, we are now just waiting for a massive economic and financial crisis to destroy the economy in the West. It will lead to poverty, destitution, and starvation. It will decimate the weak men and humble the promiscuous women. That should solve the problem and restart the cycle.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, they don't need providers...that much becomes the case. But it also damages how men see women, because it also makes women economic rivals instead of mates or partners. And it makes relationships a mere convenience, not a necessity, and sex cheap, and children disposable...

Wealth corrupts. And one place it corrupts is in the attitude to family.

Yes, but the problem only occurs in the West and only for the time being.

It happens to everybody, from every culture, when they move to the West and become affluent and have leisure and education.

Hence, we are now just waiting for a massive economic and financial crisis to destroy the economy in the West.

The Middle East is in more trouble than the West. It's just in different trouble, but worse trouble.

[godelian]

The Middle East is in more trouble than the West. It's just in different trouble, but worse trouble.

I don't visit the ME particularly much. It takes quite a bit of flight hours to get there from here.

SE Asia is enough for me, for the time being.

The problem does not occur particularly much here. There is a very small middle class here too but their typical delusions do not dominate society yet. For example, over here, you won't easily run into strong independent women who don't need no men.

[Immanuel Can]

There is a very small middle class here too but their typical delusions do not dominate society yet.

But as it grows, the same thing will happen in every place. Wealth an leisure lead to selfishness and materialism. Selfishness and materialism lead to fewer and 'more dispensable' children. Fewer children leads to relationships not being about family, but about self-actualization. And that leads to the destruction of relationships.

It's not just women. The men have their own pathologies in this equation. But prosperity does it.

[godelian]

Wealth an leisure lead to selfishness and materialism

Living beings are selfish and materialistic to an important extent. That is not a problem. In fact, they have to be, within reason, for reasons of survival. The real problem is that wealth and leisure is taken for granted. Why would anybody respect a provider when providing is considered very easy? If the economy has been too good for too long, making money is no longer a flex. But then again, there are enough areas on the globe where money is not particularly abundant. A provider is respected because he is doing something that is considered hard to do.

[Gary Childress]

There is a very small middle class here too but their typical delusions do not dominate society yet.

But as it grows, the same thing will happen in every place. Wealth an leisure lead to selfishness and materialism. Selfishness and materialism lead to fewer and 'more dispensable' children. Fewer children leads to relationships not being about family, but about self-actualization. And that leads to the destruction of relationships.

It's not just women. The men have their own pathologies in this equation. But prosperity does it.

Apparently, the only good human is a miserable human. Yeah. Let's worship "God".

[Immanuel Can]

There is a very small middle class here too but their typical delusions do not dominate society yet.

But as it grows, the same thing will happen in every place. Wealth an leisure lead to selfishness and materialism. Selfishness and materialism lead to fewer and 'more dispensable' children. Fewer children leads to relationships not being about family, but about self-actualization. And that leads to the destruction of relationships.

It's not just women. The men have their own pathologies in this equation. But prosperity does it.

Apparently, the only good human is a miserable human.

Gary, Gary…you’re so binary about these things.

The choice isn’t materialism or misery. It’s quite observable that rich people are often very unhappy, in fact. What’s the old saying? “Money cannot buy happiness?” Well, if it could, then the materialist West would be the happiest place on earth, wouldn’t it?

[Gary Childress]

But as it grows, the same thing will happen in every place. Wealth an leisure lead to selfishness and materialism. Selfishness and materialism lead to fewer and 'more dispensable' children. Fewer children leads to relationships not being about family, but about self-actualization. And that leads to the destruction of relationships.

It's not just women. The men have their own pathologies in this equation. But prosperity does it.

Apparently, the only good human is a miserable human.

Gary, Gary…you’re so binary about these things.

The choice isn’t materialism or misery. It’s quite observable that rich people are often very unhappy, in fact. What’s the old saying? “Money cannot buy happiness?” Well, if it could, then the materialist West would be the happiest place on earth, wouldn’t it?

You don't understand shit. It's a waste of my time talking to you.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently, the only good human is a miserable human.

Gary, Gary…you’re so binary about these things.

The choice isn’t materialism or misery. It’s quite observable that rich people are often very unhappy, in fact. What’s the old saying? “Money cannot buy happiness?” Well, if it could, then the materialist West would be the happiest place on earth, wouldn’t it?

You don't understand shit.

And yet, I seem to understand that materialism doesn’t equal happiness. It’s hardly PhD stuff, Gary. Everybody knows it.

[Immanuel Can]

Wealth and leisure lead to selfishness and materialism

Living beings are selfish and materialistic to an important extent. That is not a problem.

Actually, it really is. It’s not the only one, of course; but to the extent that one is a materialist (the consumerist idea, not the philosophy) one is not going to be motivated by anything higher than materials. So things like love, relationships, duty, fatherhood, motherhood, family, having kids…these are going to be pushed increasingly aside in the pursuit of material prosperity.

In fact, they have to be, within reason, for reasons of survival.

“Survival” is not a Western problem. For a long while now, the West is well beyond the level of mere subsistence, and well into consumerism.

If the economy has been too good for too long, making money is no longer a flex.

I have yet to see any place on earth where that’s the case.

In fact, when Nelson Rockefeller was once asked, by a journalist, “How much money is enough money,” he famously responded, “A little bit more.”

That’s just how it goes. The same anxieties over status that afflict lower-class people tend to affect the upper class, because there’s always a higher level to which one could aspire. There seems to be no end to material greed, once one sets out on that path — and no satisfying that desire.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, Gary…you’re so binary about these things.

The choice isn’t materialism or misery. It’s quite observable that rich people are often very unhappy, in fact. What’s the old saying? “Money cannot buy happiness?” Well, if it could, then the materialist West would be the happiest place on earth, wouldn’t it?

You don't understand shit.

And yet, I seem to understand that materialism doesn’t equal happiness. It’s hardly PhD stuff, Gary. Everybody knows it.

It doesn't equal misery either. You live in a world of fairy godfathers and whatever. I live in a world where, despite our best efforts, we humans cannot win against an indifferent universe. All we can do is try and that's about as far as we'll get.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't understand shit.

And yet, I seem to understand that materialism doesn’t equal happiness. It’s hardly PhD stuff, Gary. Everybody knows it.

It doesn't equal misery either.

Right. What the studies show is that money only matters up to around a middle-subsistence level; after that, it has a weak negative relationship to happiness...in other words, beyond a certain point, it actually detracts from happiness, though only mildly. And this explains why so many rich people are also miserable human beings: the "more money" strategy just isn't working for them.

So let's forget the nonsense about economic advantage leading to happiness. It's just not true.