Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:49 pm So you're saying that the greatest family value is reproduction. And possibly the passing on of knowledge from parents to children?

What I said is that if families do not reproduce, society collapses, as for example in Japan and Italy today.

The point being that the institution of the family is central to culture and civilization.

I would rather say that the primary family value is recognition of the primacy of the family. Specific values communicated within the family is another topic.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:49 pm So you're saying that the greatest family value is reproduction. And possibly the passing on of knowledge from parents to children?

What I said is that if families do not reproduce, society collapses, as for example in Japan and Italy today.

The point being that the institution of the family is central to culture and civilization.

I would rather say that the primary family value is recognition of the primacy of the family. Specific values communicated within the family is another topic.

Japan and Italy have not "collapsed". Their fertility rates have dropped below their replacement rates to where their overall population is declining. China is experiencing much the same thing from what I hear as are most developed countries.

There are 8 billion people in the world and we're choking our seas with pollution and our air with carbon to support those 8 billion people and using resources at an unsustainable rate. decreasing baby production, all other things equal, is not a bad thing.

ULTIMATELY, it should be the goal of humanity to stop doubling it's population at the rate it's been doing it and even decline to whatever modest extent. That is not a bad thing. What is bad is that tribalists are fearing that they're losing the war of babies with certain demographic groups. So they think we should artificially stimulate fertility rates for "us" and hope that "their" fertility rates are less. We're caught in a death spiral, a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

Poverty, promotes increased birthrates as a natural defense mechanism for species that are struggling to survive in harsh circumstances, because mortality rates are generally higher in harsh conditions, so it normally pays to have more children. However, world food programs are reducing mortality rates but keeping some cultures impoverished and dependent upon others. The dependent ones are still reproducing under conditions of poverty.

The only rational solution to the problem is for all countries to become self sufficient and cooperate in reducing ecological degradation by keeping birthrates lower by making people less prone to be barefoot and pregnant (give women more options than being baby factories) so there is better quality of life for all. Most of the alternatives to lowering the birthrate are unthinkable unless someone discovers a way for many billions of people to use resources at a sustainable rate.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:49 pm So you're saying that the greatest family value is reproduction. And possibly the passing on of knowledge from parents to children?

What I said is that if families do not reproduce, society collapses, as for example in Japan and Italy today.

The point being that the institution of the family is central to culture and civilization.

I would rather say that the primary family value is recognition of the primacy of the family. Specific values communicated within the family is another topic.

Given your interest in mystic mumbo jumbo, I expected something a bit more profound.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:42 pm Japan and Italy have not "collapsed". Their fertility rates have dropped below their replacement rates to where their overall population is declining. China is experiencing much the same thing from what I hear as are most developed countries.

It depends on the emphasis placed on the word “collapse”. But for the sake of clarity I do not have a problem with “decline”. And therein is the primary point I attempted to make: that the family, at the core of society, has had and has now primary importance. That is the first brick in the construction of a specific edifice.

And I further said, or pointed out, that in the post-Sixties both feminism and (I also suggest) homosexuality and deviant, alternative forms of sexual expression, were politicized. I.e. fashioned into political tools for revolutionary ends. And that is why I referred to “attack on the family”. Was it an absolute attack that destroyed the family? No. We speaking in terms of tendencies. Absolutist thinking does not serve us well, it seems to me.

Now, you seem to be arguing other dimensions of human and world civilizational problems. But that was not my domain of concern. You could argue that homosexuality should be promoted do that planetary population is reduced. But that is a whole other ball of wax.

What is bad is that tribalists are fearing that they're losing the war of babies with certain demographic groups.

I am not convinced necessarily by your statement, but I do understand that you are expressing what you believe is bad. But you are opening the issue to obviously contentious questions. And these will (likely) divert the thrust of the conversation into other contentious areas, as often happens.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:54 pm Given your interest in mystic mumbo jumbo, I expected something a bit more profound.

Oh you should have let me know beforehand you were seeking mystical profundity! I can deliver it up but I am concerned that your finances won’t sustain the necessary direct withdrawals.

For the simple, simple statements grounded in the tangible.

No room for charity with communism.

Mayor Mumdani doesn't need charity, he's "a rich 'en.*"

When times get tough, charity and philosophy become luxuries.


* James Dean, Giant

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 6:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:42 pm Japan and Italy have not "collapsed". Their fertility rates have dropped below their replacement rates to where their overall population is declining. China is experiencing much the same thing from what I hear as are most developed countries.

It depends on the emphasis placed on the word “collapse”. But for the sake of clarity I do not have a problem with “decline”. And therein is the primary point I attempted to make: that the family, at the core of society, has had and has now primary importance. That is the first brick in the construction of a specific edifice.

And I further said, or pointed out, that in the post-Sixties both feminism and (I also suggest) homosexuality and deviant, alternative forms of sexual expression, were politicized. I.e. fashioned into political tools for revolutionary ends. And that is why I referred to “attack on the family”. Was it an absolute attack that destroyed the family? No. We speaking in terms of tendencies. Absolutist thinking does not serve us well, it seems to me.

Now, you seem to be arguing other dimensions of human and world civilizational problems. But that was not my domain of concern. You could argue that homosexuality should be promoted do that planetary population is reduced. But that is a whole other ball of wax.

What is bad is that tribalists are fearing that they're losing the war of babies with certain demographic groups.

I am not convinced necessarily by your statement, but I do understand that you are expressing what you believe is bad. But you are opening the issue to obviously contentious questions. And these will (likely) divert the thrust of the conversation into other contentious areas, as often happens.

I figured you'd have reservations about critiquing tribalism. Speciesism doesn't fly, does it?

Whatever. I have no children. I've spared my children from this shithole and now just have to wait for my turn to get out. I want no part of this miserable place after that. Your posterity can continue the job of fucking up a fucked up world as much as they want. Create minorities to shit on and squabble over skin color, ethnicity, religion or nationality to their hearts' contentment.

Having read your thoughts and feelings for years now I understand where you are coming from. Naturally one wonders if your attitude could be changed by changing the way you think. Don’t feel obligated or inspired to respond. You will remember that I do not think this forum is the proper place for the externalization of your psychological-existential problems. No one is qualified for counseling.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 8:26 pm I do not think this forum is the proper place for the externalization of your psychological-existential problems. No one is qualified for counseling.

Oh, the irony...the irony...

There is this as well.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 8:39 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 8:26 pm I do not think this forum is the proper place for the externalization of your psychological-existential problems. No one is qualified for counseling.

Oh, the irony...the irony...

Would you kindly speak more about your view?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 8:26 pm Having read your thoughts and feelings for years now I understand where you are coming from. Naturally one wonders if your attitude could be changed by changing the way you think. Don’t feel obligated or inspired to respond. You will remember that I do not think this forum is the proper place for the externalization of your psychological-existential problems. No one is qualified for counseling.

Apparently IC is 'qualified' in the field. He's so good at it that he managed to give Gary a complete mental breakdown that took him months to recover from.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:42 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:49 pm So you're saying that the greatest family value is reproduction. And possibly the passing on of knowledge from parents to children?

What I said is that if families do not reproduce, society collapses, as for example in Japan and Italy today.

The point being that the institution of the family is central to culture and civilization.

I would rather say that the primary family value is recognition of the primacy of the family. Specific values communicated within the family is another topic.

Japan and Italy have not "collapsed". Their fertility rates have dropped below their replacement rates to where their overall population is declining. China is experiencing much the same thing from what I hear as are most developed countries.

There are 8 billion people in the world and we're choking our seas with pollution and our air with carbon to support those 8 billion people and using resources at an unsustainable rate. decreasing baby production, all other things equal, is not a bad thing.

ULTIMATELY, it should be the goal of humanity to stop doubling it's population at the rate it's been doing it and even decline to whatever modest extent. That is not a bad thing. What is bad is that tribalists are fearing that they're losing the war of babies with certain demographic groups. So they think we should artificially stimulate fertility rates for "us" and hope that "their" fertility rates are less. We're caught in a death spiral, a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

Poverty, promotes increased birthrates as a natural defense mechanism for species that are struggling to survive in harsh circumstances, because mortality rates are generally higher in harsh conditions, so it normally pays to have more children. However, world food programs are reducing mortality rates but keeping some cultures impoverished and dependent upon others. The dependent ones are still reproducing under conditions of poverty.

The only rational solution to the problem is for all countries to become self sufficient and cooperate in reducing ecological degradation by keeping birthrates lower by making people less prone to be barefoot and pregnant (give women more options than being baby factories) so there is better quality of life for all.

Besides that being not a rational solution to the problem at all, it is also a very irrational solution to the problem.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:42 pm Most of the alternatives to lowering the birthrate are unthinkable unless someone discovers a way for many billions of people to use resources at a sustainable rate.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 6:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:42 pm Japan and Italy have not "collapsed". Their fertility rates have dropped below their replacement rates to where their overall population is declining. China is experiencing much the same thing from what I hear as are most developed countries.

It depends on the emphasis placed on the word “collapse”. But for the sake of clarity I do not have a problem with “decline”. And therein is the primary point I attempted to make: that the family, at the core of society, has had and has now primary importance. That is the first brick in the construction of a specific edifice.

But there is no 'decline', to begin with.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 6:03 pm And I further said, or pointed out, that in the post-Sixties both feminism and (I also suggest) homosexuality and deviant, alternative forms of sexual expression, were politicized. I.e. fashioned into political tools for revolutionary ends. And that is why I referred to “attack on the family”. Was it an absolute attack that destroyed the family? No. We speaking in terms of tendencies. Absolutist thinking does not serve us well, it seems to me.

So, 'it' was not an actual 'attack on the family', at all.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 6:03 pm Now, you seem to be arguing other dimensions of human and world civilizational problems. But that was not my domain of concern. You could argue that homosexuality should be promoted do that planetary population is reduced. But that is a whole other ball of wax.

What is bad is that tribalists are fearing that they're losing the war of babies with certain demographic groups.

I am not convinced necessarily by your statement, but I do understand that you are expressing what you believe is bad. But you are opening the issue to obviously contentious questions. And these will (likely) divert the thrust of the conversation into other contentious areas, as often happens.

Well if you did not divert the conversation into contentious areas, in the beginning, then further contentious areas might not have been added on to your contentious areas.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 12:28 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 8:26 pm Having read your thoughts and feelings for years now I understand where you are coming from. Naturally one wonders if your attitude could be changed by changing the way you think. Don’t feel obligated or inspired to respond. You will remember that I do not think this forum is the proper place for the externalization of your psychological-existential problems. No one is qualified for counseling.

Apparently IC is 'qualified' in the field. He's so good at it that he managed to give Gary a complete mental breakdown that took him months to recover from.

There's an old quip among the mentally broken concerning the requirement of therapy to overcome damage produced by "therapists".