Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Epistemic Advantage

My last post had the slightest tinge of trollishness, and not surprisingly it has gathered a lot of comments. Of course my trolling is very sophisticated, and the comments are of the most exceptional quality.

I want to clarify that I don’t want Europe to adopt Islam. I don’t want Eurabia. I really don’t. I don’t like Islam. I’ve been to Muslim countries and I didn’t enjoy them. I’d rather my homeland didn’t become Muslim. But at this rate it will, through the physical replacement of the original white population by foreign Muslims, either recent or born there. Remember this? Well, do the math.

And for those who may think that I’m in Japan so I’m just trolling and sneering at Europe without skin in the game. Look at this.

In 2001, there were only 34,000 Muslims living in Korea; today there are more than 150,000.[1] Furthermore, there are over 45,000 ethnic Korean Muslims.[2]

Given modern transportation, if Korea or Japan opens the gates to foreign labor, it could be filled with 100 million Indonesians or Pakistanis in a matter of weeks. If Europe, or god forbid America, falls to Islam, the pragmatic East Asians will most certainly soon follow suit, as they did before when adopting Chinese and American culture. So no joke. We need a new religion, all of us. All civilized peoples.

So in that topic, how do new religions happen? There was a good comment by Rhetocrates arguing that Christianity lost to empiricism. So a provisional model could say:

Revelation is superior to Tradition; (empirical) Science is superior to Revelation. What is superior to Science?

Or let’s do it another way:

1. Revelation won over Tradition when it became obvious that the guardians of Tradition didn’t know what they were doing, were acting by inertia and corrupting the old traditions for personal gain. Besides, the old traditions were increasingly transparently false. A god can’t make children with a cow. And nobody has seen a god either. So groups that claimed to have direct access through scripture to the word of God had the epistemic advantage.

2. Then Science won over Revelation because it became obvious that the guardians of Revelation didn’t know what they were preaching, were acting by inertia, corrupting the meaning of scripture for personal gain. Besides, the scriptures were increasingly transparently false. The world isn’t 6,000 years old. There are no miracles. So groups that claimed to have direct access through scientific experiments to the Laws of the Universe had the epistemic advantage.

3. Then X won over Science because it became obvious that the guardians of Science don’t know what they are doing, they are writing bogus papers by inertia, corrupting the scientific method for personal gain, getting grants and cozy political jobs. Besides, official science is increasingly transparently false. The human brain is not a blank slate. There is no global warming. So groups that claim to have actual understanding of Evolutionary Processes have the X advantage.

The problem with 3. is that there is no epistemic advantage. A book holds more accessible knowledge than an oral tradition spread by a pagan priest. The scientific method produces reproducible results, unlike a book of stories. But evolutionary theory, for all its explanatory power, does not produce more immediately obvious knowledge than empirical science. Of course the point is that the scientific method isn’t applicable to all areas of knowledge; you can’t experiment with people or with abstract ideas or with things on the past. Social Science is generally a cargo-cult scam using long words and equations to obfuscate naked attempts at fooling the public to argue to send tax money to some political faction.

Of course all of this is rather limited to Western history. China never had Science. But it never had Revelation either. Confucius’ books are revered as sagely accounts on human nature, but they are by no means the word of a superior being. Confucius himself was completely ignored during his lifetime, died a frustrated man, and the Confucian orthodoxy was enforced by the state. Not because the emperors felt attached to Confucianism, or understood much about it. But what kind of man would deny the orthodoxy promoted by the state? Does he mean the state, that we are doing something wrong? For generations? Such a contrarian is obviously up to no good. And so mere bureaucratic pragmatism produced something eerily similar to organized religion.

So anyway, either this model is not very good, or I’m missing what will trump the epistemic advantage of modern science.



41 responses to “Epistemic Advantage

  1. Frog Do May 17, 2016 at 14:30

    X beats Official Science by not having false knowledge. Having false knowledge implies you’re going to maximize on some variable that either doesn’t really exist or that you don’t fully understand. This maximization makes you fragile, and either Nature will break you or a smarter investor will.

    • R7 Rocket May 17, 2016 at 23:04

      The advantage of the new religion is that its manifestations (Falcon 9 Flyback Booster, iPhone 6, etc.) can be seen and touched… unlike Official Science, egalitarianism, and (((Jesus Christ))).

  2. Just Sayin' May 17, 2016 at 14:48

    Maybe it won’t a new religion, so much as a a heresy or back to basics revival of the old religion; progressivism. A religion that, I’ll remind you, used to be far more racist (and willing to follow through on that racism) than Christianity ever was.

    Science is the trump card, as you describe, but the progressive establishment has increasingly abandoned science in the pursuit of moralism and as a result, they find themselves increasingly incapable of delivering progress, delivering instead poverty, sexual perversion and lots of disruptive brown people in your neighborhood.

    They’re ripe for replacement, but nobody really has any better ideas than “progress”. So the obvious replacement for the progs is… a different group of progs who are actually willing to engage with science, notice hate facts and deliver progress (think Sci-Fi stuff) for some specific constituency… call it a nation.

    Delivering progress for a specific constituency is very doable for the time being. Admittedly, the potential for progress will eventually run out, but that’s not really our problem, we’ll be long dead. And hopefully the browns will be long since deported, since, as it turns out, they’re a major obstacle to progress.

    • Leonard May 17, 2016 at 18:55

      I agree with this. “X” might be called “reformed Science”. Its advantage over Science would be in a better model of human nature. This would be quite useful for governing. But obviously governing is what happens after it wins, not before. Right now, its advantage is in convincing smart autodidacts that it’s true, because it is true.

      • gilbertodorneles May 18, 2016 at 23:00

        I doubt you should call what comes next “Reformed Science” anymore than you can call Plato a “Reformed Sophist”.

  3. Howard J. Harrison May 17, 2016 at 14:50

    > I’m missing what will trump the epistemic advantage of modern science.

    A orthodox Christian who is not especially impressed by Hume, I believe that the serious rediscovery—by Europe’s intellectual elite—of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas will trump the epistemic advantage of modern science.

    I follow Hilaire Belloc and C. S. Lewis in this.

    It would greatly help, of course, if Roman Catholic clergy would themselves start taking St. Thomas seriously again. There has too much emphasis these past 50 years on St. Augustine.

    Since you are not, as I gather, a Christian of any stripe, I do not know how much my comment will mean to you; but that is what I believe, at any rate.

    • Howard J. Harrison May 17, 2016 at 14:52

      > A orthodox Christian …

      … who evidently cannot spell.

    • spandrell May 17, 2016 at 14:59

      I wonder how do you think we’ll get from here to there. How the European elite “will rediscover Aristotle and Aquinas”. How exactly?

      • Frog Do May 17, 2016 at 20:35

        Same way they did last time, cosmopolitan Islam. (This is mostly a joke, as I don’t think Aristotle and Aquanius will help. Rediscovering proper usury laws could be useful, though.)

      • Howard J. Harrison May 18, 2016 at 01:41

        As far as I know, the European elite will rediscover Aristotle and Aquinas by reading them, or by reading secondary sources like Feser that competently summarize them.

        Your three-step proposal is most thought provoking. Since I actually believe the Gospel, I would from your perspective be the loser of step 2. This leaves me in the position of the zoo animal trying to explain something to the zookeeper (you) regarding the zoo exhibit (your article). Since the zoo exhibit is about the zoo animal (me), there is nothing for the zoo animal to explain.

        All I can tell you is what the Thomist of the postmodern era believes: Science has won over Revelation by forfeit, because Christians had grown bored with St. Thomas and had stopped bothering to learn, and therefore had stopped being able to teach, what St. Thomas had explained. Vanity kept our best minds trying to solve anew the problem St. Thomas had already, fully solved, so eventually you get Pascal, Hume, Voltaire, Russell, Dennett and postmodernism. Leibnitz, Goedel and Weyl tried fitfully to put us back on the right track but, still coasting on the vast civilizational momentum of decaying Christendom, we weren’t listening.

        Now that the momentum is all but spent, now that our vanity is exposed as vain, is it impossible that our best minds should rediscover Aristotle and St. Thomas?

        I do not know.

        I could try to elaborate further, but, you know: zoo animal; zookeeper. Besides, Edward Feser explains it far better than I.

        • Rhetocrates May 18, 2016 at 14:37

          Much more likely to my mind is that we collapse into a barbarism even more complete than after the fall of the Roman Empire, and if we’re lucky (to my mind) when the last lights are spluttering even in Rome the Church finally gets her shit together and takes hold of the reins of civilisation-building again.

          Which frankly sucks for all of us, because we’ll all be brown by then.

  4. chris May 17, 2016 at 16:06

    3. Computer Simulations won out over Science as the untestable social theories could be tested.

    The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

    Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

    • gilbertodorneles May 18, 2016 at 23:01

      Nice try, but global warming keeps failing on trying to predict using computer simulations.

  5. Pingback: Epistemic Advantage | Reaction Times

  6. Candide III May 17, 2016 at 18:32

    I don’t think it’s a good model, or maybe ‘epistemic advantage’ is not the way to put it. If you’re talking epistemology, in tradition you have tradition as the primary source of knowledge, in revelation you have revelation, in science you have the scientific method (which by the way does not necessarily rely on experiment; experiment doesn’t play much role in astronomy, geology, paleontology etc.) i.e. the feedback loop between systematic observation and formulation of hypotheses. How is ‘evolutionary processes’ a source of knowledge? As for newer systems winning over older systems, just saying “epistemic advantage did it” doesn’t explain much. How does it work in terms of status competition? Is it because people, and especially smart people, want to avoid appearing clueless or stupid? Did it actually work that way historically? (We might be dealing with scientist myths like this famous picture.) Also, just a thought, there was this odd period between the collapse of Scholasticism and rediscovery of pseudo-profound bullshit around the turn of XIX century when people actually paid attention to the content of arguments, which coincided with the victory of science over revelation. Maybe it wasn’t a coincidence.

    • spandrell May 17, 2016 at 18:37

      That’s what I’m saying, that whatever can be used to oppose the present scientific establishment, the biggest force of which tend to be evolutionary theorists, don’t have an epistemic advantage, because evolution makes sense and is useful to shoot down most modern theories about human nature, but it isn’t obviously so.

      What happened around the turn of the 19th century?

      • Candide III May 17, 2016 at 20:47

        Opposing the present scientific establishment is not the same as opposing science itself. I.e. maybe the appropriate model is Reformation (or, even better, the Avignon captivity) and not the defeat of revelation 300 years later.

        Romanticism, basically. Fourier, Fichte, Hegel, etc.

  7. Jefferson May 17, 2016 at 21:00

    Orthodox Jews and the Amish. Anything that is going to compete needs to be born from a religion that is functioning right now. New religions tend to start as cults of personality from within a religion confronting change.

    A religion is basically a set of rules that restrain status competitions to arenas that are, at a minimum, not actively destructive to civilization. Rules are the primary tool set that a good leadership group use to keep the rest in productive endeavors.

    I’m not super interested in airing personal experiences in public, but I strongly suspect that any area taken over by Islam is in trouble, regardless of the genetic stock; as a religion it just doesn’t offer enough of a toolkit.

  8. porphyrogenitus May 17, 2016 at 21:44

    “What is superior to Science?”

    It is something that is sketched out here:

    And I’d seriously recommend Peterson’s book “Maps of Meaning,” and his Maps of Meaning 2015 lectures and Harvard course lectures. (I’d save the 2016 lectures to after watching those, and some of his side videos. Indeed many of the one hour videos are good, I specifically recommend only the one, above).

  9. Alf May 17, 2016 at 22:26

    Models help make sense of the world but it is science that serves religion, never the other way around. A new religion will come in the form of a prophet or it will not come at all.

  10. Laguna Beach Fogey May 18, 2016 at 00:14

    Very good @ CYA. We get it. Is it enough? I hope not.


  11. Rollory May 18, 2016 at 06:40

    New religions happen when people believe a thing – not just believe, but make it a basic part of their identity, of their concept of self – and live it in their daily lives, and it isn’t properly integrated into the systems of the old religion. Then they formalize their ideas, in part by differentiating them from the old religion that isn’t working anymore.

    • spandrell May 18, 2016 at 07:00

      Oh please. This doesn’t mean anything at all.

      Why do people believe a thing and not another? How do they base their group identity on that instead of something else? Who exactly formalizes the ideas, based on what, and how does that formalization gain acceptance?

      • gaikokumaniakku May 18, 2016 at 16:07

        >Why do people believe a thing and not another?

        Most people are more in touch with their intuition than the average person who has never had a spiritual experience. But intuition gets mixed up with deceptive emotions and false intellect, so it’s not an easy road.

        >How do they base their group identity on that instead of something else?

        This will be partially explained by a narrow example, below.

        >Who exactly formalizes the ideas, based on what, and how does that formalization gain acceptance?

        Let’s take the example of Tacitus.

        Tacitus is the only religion that some people have nowadays – mostly white people who dislike homosexuals.

        The people who idolize Tacitus focus on one claim in particular – the claim that the ancient Germans used to drown their homosexuals in bogs as a punishment for the shameful sin of sodomy.

        This claim was never scientifically verified by anthropology. Tacitus wasn’t an expert. Tacitus didn’t necessarily know anything about Germany, or about the ancient Romans who were allegedly admirable and non-homosexual, like the Germans.

        But for whatever reason, Tacitus made this claim, and it has been seized upon by many, many people over the ages, who want a focal point for their anti-homosexual sentiment.

        This narrow example explains a bit about how religious/idolatrous tribes coalesce. They have a common motivation – in this case, to rally against pro-sodomy sentiments.

        They have a slogan – namely, “Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers, and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. This distinction in the punishments is based on the idea that offenders against the state should be made a public example of, whereas deeds of shame should be buried out of men’s sight.”

        Tacitus is the guy who formalized their slogan, but the emotional motivation to resist sodomy – a resistance that is probably rooted in disgust for sodomy – fuels this religious movement.

  12. Karl May 18, 2016 at 08:59

    I don’t understand why you think we’d need some X to win over science. Science explains the world as it is and predicts what will happen if some defined conditions are met. Science is the basis of all engineering.

    What science does not do -but religion does- is to tell people how the world ought to be and how they should behave.

    This part and only this part is where we are lacking. We need some sane, plausible and sustainable religion/philosphy/culture telling people what to do.

    • spandrell May 18, 2016 at 10:15

      80% of what passes for Science today is garbage. I just got a letter from the utility company saying my electricity bill is going up because of the new Global Warming Tax. That’s science for you.

    • Rhetocrates May 18, 2016 at 14:45

      You’ve missed the point. No-one’s claiming anything about the veracity of science as such. Rather, the claim is about how the propaganda of a faith works. Progressivism’s propaganda claims it is based on science, which is a more ‘truthy’ claim than Christianity’s claim to be based on historically-grounded revelation.

      By more ‘truthy’ I mean that it claims to have more immediate access to the truth because of its basis. Whether or not the claim is true itself is irrelevant – i.e. whether progressivism is actually based on Science or just some shamanistic amalgam that has a passing resemblance to science doesn’t matter, so long as our priests can dress the zombie up in lipstick and heels and make her twitch on command to convince us she’s a real woman.

  13. Karl May 18, 2016 at 11:03

    No, that’s not science. If it were science, it would never have won over revelation.

    • spandrell May 18, 2016 at 12:22

      No true Scotsman would ever publish a non reproducible experiment.

      • Karl May 18, 2016 at 13:38

        Not every scientist limits himself to science. Some also want to be priests. But that does not affect science in itself.

        Seriously, isn’t it evident (even to the layman) when a physicist stops talking physics or a chemist stops talking chemistry?

  14. ith May 18, 2016 at 18:44

    I take the central premise of this post and the prvious one to be that the current majority ethnic group/groups of western countries needs to remain dominant if the essential nature of western society is to be preserved. I’m pretty convinced religion is not the solution if that’s what you want. A secondary objective might be to get Western non-immigrant TFRs above replacement, I don’t think religion is the answer then either but am less certain and won’t go into it here.

    There are two major factors to consider when looking at the native-immigrant population balance:

    1. Number of new immigrants
    2. Relative TFR between immigrant and native population

    1. is relatively straightforward. If you don’t want immigrants, don’t let them in. It’s a political issue, all that’s needed is a more restrictive immigration policy. That is not impossible and is in fact happening in some countries; the trend now in the west seems to be towards more restrictions. The strongest opponents of immigration are the low-education whites who are afraid of being replaced by low-education non-whites, and they’re kicking up a fuss mostly everywhere. As the problems of unrestricted immigration becomes more apparent their support will grow and the elite pro-immigrant view will become increasingly discredited. Will it be enough? That is still uncertain, but it seems wiser to bet on right-wing populism/nationalism, an actually existing growing political force, rather than some new theoretical religious movement.

    2. is a bit trickier. Western TFRs are sub-replacement almost everywhere, ranging from levels causing problems now (Germany, Italy, the Baltics) to going to cause problems soon (most of Eastern Europe) to the long-term unsustainable (UK, Nordics). But sub-replacement TFR is happening pretty much everywhere people aren’t dirt poor subsistence farmers, not just in the West. Fertility rates are falling in Muslim countries, same as everywhere: Turkey is now at replacement level (the developed parts look just like Eastern Europe), Saudi Arabia just above, Iran below. Other countries like Egypt are higher but falling fast. Virtually every country not in sub-Saharan Africa is heading for sub-replacement fertility at a rapid pace if they’re not there already. This is a hard problem which no country has yet solved. (Israel is an exception for now, but doesn’t have a solution I consider fit for purpose).

    While non-western immigrants have lots more children than the native population, that’s most pronounced in the first generation. Rates start to converge markedly by the second generation; for the ones who get an education it’s virtually the same as the natives. So the most important step here is to reduce the number of first-generation immigrants (particularily poor uneducated ones) which is just point 1.

    In conclusion, if you want to preserve the existing ethnic makeup of Western countries, restrict immigration to a manageable level. Populist nationalism is already on the case, you don’t need religion. If you want to fix what’s wrong with society that’s a different and much harder set of problems and a different discussion.

    • spandrell May 18, 2016 at 19:46

      Egypt’s TFR is not falling fast. It’s growing. People keep saying that fertility is falling everywhere. It isn’t. In most of the, let’s call it the mediocre belt: MENA, South Asia, Southeast Asia, fertility has been between 2 and 3 for many years now, with no indication of falling below replacement. Their economies aren’t growing much, why do a demographic transition? At this rate they’ll go back to the Middle Ages before they catch up with Western levels of wealth. Might as well breed like medievals.

      Fertility is only firmly under replacement in the West and East Asia. The wealthy civilized countries. Everywhere else it’s pretty stably above replacement, even when it shouldn’t. Egypt is starving and at this rate they will really starve within our lifetimes.

      Of course stopping immigration would solve most of the problem, and yes we don’t need a new prophet for that. But if we want to solve the problem for good we’re going to need Europeans to have children sooner or later.

      • ith May 18, 2016 at 22:10

        I see sources differ on Egypt: CIA has it at 2.87 in 2014 from 3.15 in 2000, the World Bank has it at 3.3 from 3.6. Probably different models, since current TFR is based on projections. In any case it’s down about .3 from 15 years ago and down from above 4 in 1990. Other countries in the mediocre category are down more markedly; a few are at or below replacement: for example, Vietnam (hardly rich) is 1.85 now, 2.5 14 years ago, Turkey is at 2.06 now from 2.5 15 years ago. I can’t find any with strong sustained increase. Maybe the general trend won’t continue, and you’re right that there are some with a pretty stable above replacement rate.

        In any case, there is now no reasonably advanced economy that manages even the replacement rate, and the mediocres aren’t something to emulate. The religious solution is so far basically the Israeli one: the general population is more or less the same as elsewhere, but you have a poor really religious minority that grows like crazy. I’m not wild about this: Instead of importing a bunch of state-subsidized religious economically underperforming people from elsewhere you’re rolling your own, and they’re eventually going to want more of a say. If I was at all certain of HBD-type concerns I’d be even less keen on it.

        Nobody has any clear idea of what you need to do in order to attain sustainable demographics in a modern economy, since there are no examples of it happening any longer. Nobody really has any clear idea of what’s causing the problem, even; not being a semi-illiterate peasant pretty clearly matters, otherwise nice linear correlations are pretty thin on the ground. For that reason I find it a really fascinating problem. It ties into my more leftist concerns as well; I don’t think a reasonably equitable society is possible without at least replacement population growth. I have no really firm ideas yet, but I suspect that since the economic structure of society seems to be causing it, that’s where one should be looking for solutions.

        • A.B. Prosper May 19, 2016 at 22:13

          I think the panic is from the presumption that 1st, demographic trends will never stabilize or reverse and that 2nd, the entire edifice of the modern state and corporation is based on growth

          The first is unproven and the second is a flaw in the economic and social systems and could be patched. Steady state economies or even ones with small amounts of shrinkage work fine.

          I’m not going to speak for the East here but much of the West at least the pleasant to live in areas are densely populated.

          Assuming homogeneity and border security could be maintained , a decline in population would cause no problems whatever after the initial aging bubble. England was fine and English in 1840 with 25% of the current population. It would be highly productive with half current so long as they were essentially all White and English (Welsh etc, UK peoples not Muslims nor Poles or others)

          As for economic structures, yes and no. Many European nations are near replacement among native populations, the economic aspects of high unemployment is certainly based on excess efficiency in the system . Low demand for work basically.

          However curing the social ills is harder. The UK doesn’t have the political will to stop child molestation much less reorganize society among authoritarian nationalist lines.

          It could be done, a ruthless state akin to Northfire from V, very Right Wing and authoritarian who kept power from women could do it very easily. No abortion save for medical reasons, no birth control other than condoms for unmarried persons no female suffrage, difficult divorce, serve penalties for out of wedlock birth or cuckholdry for both parties and making it difficult for women to attend university or have highs status jobs would do nicely.

          Combine it with an economy that demands labor and allows early family starting and the natural drives of men will reassert themselves.

          Women is such a system will want the best husband possible and will compete for the best men, men will want better women and compete for them as well. Today’s women are often crap and no sane man wants some chundering feminist chavette

          There is no guarantee of a population boom but I suspect that the birth rate will go up to at least replacement, its not a huge jump.

          Also eliminating the pill is vital here, the pill isn’t just a fertility suppressor though it is but a “choose inappropriate mate.” drug. Women on the pill tend to be attracted to the wrong kinds of men. It might be wise to ban them though IUD and other mechanical means for family planning are a good idea,

          My guess is that between the difficulty of divorce, the legal penalties for being promiscuous and the lack of the pills choice distorting effects, the male/female relations will be improved

          The problem though is going to be wresting power from the Cathedral and keeping it.

          However the system I’m suggesting, basically taking modernity out behind the chemical shed and shooting it would handily repair the system it won’t be easy and nearly certainly requires an authoritarian state to prevent Cathedral subversion.

          A State willing and able to take the local versions FeMen or Pussy Riot , charge and try them with subversion and stash them in SuperMax for a couple of years is what is required.

          We don’t have that. If we did, we could fix things without a new religion but getting from where we are today to something like that isn’t easy if we even want it.

          • ith May 20, 2016 at 18:44

            Demographic trends in modern economies are now pretty stable at birth rates below replacement. They could go up again, but there is no evidence of that so far.

            Managed decline might work, but there is no solid blueprint for how to do it. Our current economic system requires profits, those either come from growth or from the populace. If they come from the populace (like we’re seeing now) inequality increases and living standards go down, which over time will lead to social decay and unrest. The alternative is a state-managed economy, those have so far not worked out all that well. At any rate, once you start discussing ways to manage decline you’ve essentially admitted defeat.

            Disenfranchising women is going to be impossible and would have big negative effects were it doable. As long as they can be economically independent they will not accept it. They are by now a significant part of the labour force everywhere; if they are forced to leave it the economy will shrink massively. Anything short of this is counterproductive: countries where women can viably be single mothers generally have better birth rates. Restricting their opportunities in the labour market does not seem to help.

            Essentially forcing people to have kids by removing all birth control options and outlawing divorce is unlikely to work very well, because people tend to avoid doing things they don’t want to do. Birth rates were headed down towards below replacement in the ’30s, back when divorce was hard and birth control didn’t really exist. This was probably because people couldn’t really afford to start families, which is also true now. When the economy boomed after WW2, birth rates shot up. The West in the fifties and sixties seems like a better social model than a repressive authoritarian state to me, at least.

            • A.B. Prosper May 22, 2016 at 22:45

              First, I doubt the .alt right will have this much power any time soon. However as a theoretical model it should be fairly effective at its limited goals, a small increase in the fertility rate and prioritizing married stable families.

              Economically outside of the traditional occupations (nursing, education and the like) and outliers like some police work and espionage and a few others women’s work is make work and wage arbitrage, they aren’t needed to do most things

              The consumption based system wants them because women spend a lot more per capita than men and are easier to manage and control . Female workers won’t pull a Battle of Blair Mountain or kidnap managers as has happened recently and regularly in France. less fear for the crooked elite.

              A society that ends up with a higher priority on masculinity is a healthier one.

              In any case, we could lose a huge portion of the economy and still have a healthy natal society.
              It might be more fertile if we have economic fixes as well but I didn’t discuss that at length . On those grounds in short I generally favor economic nationalism and distributism with a very minimal welfare state for the disabled. No money for out of wedlock kids

              As for birth control options, removing them from singles not married persons is designed to reduce promiscuity. Making them cheap for married people through national health service or whatever, allows actual family planning , how many kids do we want. This will often be two which is fine.

              Women aren’t entirely stupid, if you can’t easily get an abortion, can’t get birth control and won’t get benefits, many women will think twice before engaging in reproductive sex acts with multiple partners. Its slows the hypergamy train.

              I’m authoritarian enough to imprison women who repeatedly have out of wedlock children till the rest get the message wedding ring before you put in the thing.

              The reason condoms are OK is V.D, and nothing else, In any case people would just use sandwich bags or smuggle them. Such laws won’t work.

              Divorce isn’t meant to be illegal in any case, its occasionally necessary but it should be rare enough that when granted, a divorcee has some honor as it was utterly needful. Think Louisiana Covenant Marriage here.

              Also while yes single moms have better birth rates, their offspring are a future problem and liability not an asset. if all I cared about was quantity, I have limitless numbers of immigrants

              Simply put, children of single parents are worse off in every measure and I want less of that and more from married couple. If that didn’t happen but single parents dried up, its still a win.

              As Edward Abbey famously said Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. I think we will have to live without it. Amway social makeup is far more important than any economy , a society with strong healthy male led families , good IQ low time preference people with a functional ethical system will get richer by its own volition

              Still on managed decline. You have a point, To my way of thinking, significant future growth is no longer possible for a host of reasons however a society where people were as rich as say 1980 still is. In a technical sense they will have become poorer but will have resources they need which is fine.

              Birth rates will probably stay low, not depression “we are starving low” which was an anomaly in its period not a trend line nor “baby boom” high but a “most people want two with some other making it 2.1 or maybe if lucky 2.2 per family which is fine.

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s