Regarding S. Korea, government policy of contraception and sterilization is unlikely to be prime driver of lower birth rate. Rather in the period of rapid economic growth, extreme pressure to get kids into college led to exorbitant spending on test preparation outside of school. High cost of education was much stronger driver of having fewer kids.
From what I understand, permanent celibacy and spinsterhood was common in Europe prior to the Baby Boom years. Those years are exceptional, not the years prior, at least for European countries (and some settler colonial nations like Australia and Canada). Most societies have had universal, very early marriage, but Europe didn't. I think the rates of permanently unmarried people were as high as 15%, and much higher for people in their 20s. During the Baby Boom there was a dramatic but brief shift to younger age at marriage and more universal marriage. So I'm sure I agree that this situation is unprecedented. What is unprecedented is married people not having children, or only having one child.
Great article. Interesting to trace low birthrate as the root cause, rather than a symptom, of estrangement between the sexes. I guess it should be obvious. Raising children together is the main way that men and women co-operate and build trust with each other and depend on each other. By having opposite sex children you also gain a true love and interest in the future welfare of someone of the opposite sex. Without this link, men and women don't have much in common. When women are denied their natural primary role of raising children, it is inevitable that they would become preoccupied with taking over the male role, making the sexes competitors instead of allies.
PS. I don't mean to quibble but I noticed that you used the recent propaganda term "gender" when you really mean "sex". This term was specifically repurposed and promoted by bad actors who are seeking to divorce sexual identity and roles from biological reality. I don't think there is any reason to use the word gender, unless you are discussing issues around transvestites.
There's a structural change that I think would do a lot to negate the effect of post-familialism on governance: in addition to their own votes, allow parents to cast an extra ballot for each of their minor children.
Yes, the term for this is "Demeny voting". I can't find much downside for the idea, at least if it's properly executed. It's hard to imagine it happening in the US, though it's more realistic than the dreams some have of limiting the franchise behind IQ tests. Unlike those ideas, it wouldn't hurt minorities disproportionately, for example --though the racial math would surely be influenced by the question of how unmarried parents are handled.
Thanks for sharing - didn't realize there was already a term for it. Agree that limiting the franchise is a non-starter, at least inasmuch as it involves disfranchising people who are already voting.
It would be a mess in our country with current marriage issues. It isn't just a problem for unmarried parents although that is a large number of households with kids. Who gets to vote for the kids in the households with the feminist wife and the husband who secretly votes Republican most of the time?
The HUSBAND "secretly" votes Republican? Are you suggesting this is a common scenario, where a conservative husband hides it from his own wife? What kind of cuck circles are you moving in?
I was specifically thinking of a couple I know where the wife posts all kinds of woke stuff on Facebook. In general based on polling results married men are 5-10% more likely than married women to vote GOP.
"Who gets to vote for the kids in the households with the feminist wife and the husband who secretly votes Republican most of the time?"
If there's an even number of kids, each parent gets to cast half of their ballots; if there's an odd number, a poll worker flips a coin to see who gets to cast it.
No, you just allocate a half-vote to each parent for each kid. It doesn't matter if they vote differently. If a popular vote total ending in a 0.5 bothers people, they can seek Christ or do yoga or something.
But one question is what do you do if dad is entirely out of the picture or is a nonvoting felon -- does mom get a full vote for each kid? I'd rather say no, still 0.5, sorry. But questions like that would be highly contentious.
I'm seeing growing concern in media about this. When does panic set in, and what does that look like? Manufacturing people in artificial wombs, Brave New World-style? Or just replacing everyone with robots? I'm curious what South Koreans think of all that Untact stuff floated in the wake of COVID? They don't seem to be panicking, at least from over here.
Well, I'll take the other side of any bet that says they'll use technology that doesn't exist before they use immigrants.
Of course, in SK's case the most easily integrated pool of immigrants live in a nearby country called "North Korea." Which, despite having half of South Korea's population, now accounts for the majority of births on the peninsula. SK is already making some use of NK's labor force, and negotiating the terms of further integrating their economies will be an issue that only expands in importance with every passing year.
Regarding S. Korea, government policy of contraception and sterilization is unlikely to be prime driver of lower birth rate. Rather in the period of rapid economic growth, extreme pressure to get kids into college led to exorbitant spending on test preparation outside of school. High cost of education was much stronger driver of having fewer kids.
From what I understand, permanent celibacy and spinsterhood was common in Europe prior to the Baby Boom years. Those years are exceptional, not the years prior, at least for European countries (and some settler colonial nations like Australia and Canada). Most societies have had universal, very early marriage, but Europe didn't. I think the rates of permanently unmarried people were as high as 15%, and much higher for people in their 20s. During the Baby Boom there was a dramatic but brief shift to younger age at marriage and more universal marriage. So I'm sure I agree that this situation is unprecedented. What is unprecedented is married people not having children, or only having one child.
You mean Europe west of the Hajnal line, right?
It's impressive to me that for single people who've put themselves first in their lives, it isn't enough. Everyone else has to put them first too.
Great article. Interesting to trace low birthrate as the root cause, rather than a symptom, of estrangement between the sexes. I guess it should be obvious. Raising children together is the main way that men and women co-operate and build trust with each other and depend on each other. By having opposite sex children you also gain a true love and interest in the future welfare of someone of the opposite sex. Without this link, men and women don't have much in common. When women are denied their natural primary role of raising children, it is inevitable that they would become preoccupied with taking over the male role, making the sexes competitors instead of allies.
PS. I don't mean to quibble but I noticed that you used the recent propaganda term "gender" when you really mean "sex". This term was specifically repurposed and promoted by bad actors who are seeking to divorce sexual identity and roles from biological reality. I don't think there is any reason to use the word gender, unless you are discussing issues around transvestites.
There's a structural change that I think would do a lot to negate the effect of post-familialism on governance: in addition to their own votes, allow parents to cast an extra ballot for each of their minor children.
Yes, the term for this is "Demeny voting". I can't find much downside for the idea, at least if it's properly executed. It's hard to imagine it happening in the US, though it's more realistic than the dreams some have of limiting the franchise behind IQ tests. Unlike those ideas, it wouldn't hurt minorities disproportionately, for example --though the racial math would surely be influenced by the question of how unmarried parents are handled.
Thanks for sharing - didn't realize there was already a term for it. Agree that limiting the franchise is a non-starter, at least inasmuch as it involves disfranchising people who are already voting.
It would be a mess in our country with current marriage issues. It isn't just a problem for unmarried parents although that is a large number of households with kids. Who gets to vote for the kids in the households with the feminist wife and the husband who secretly votes Republican most of the time?
The HUSBAND "secretly" votes Republican? Are you suggesting this is a common scenario, where a conservative husband hides it from his own wife? What kind of cuck circles are you moving in?
I was specifically thinking of a couple I know where the wife posts all kinds of woke stuff on Facebook. In general based on polling results married men are 5-10% more likely than married women to vote GOP.
"Who gets to vote for the kids in the households with the feminist wife and the husband who secretly votes Republican most of the time?"
If there's an even number of kids, each parent gets to cast half of their ballots; if there's an odd number, a poll worker flips a coin to see who gets to cast it.
No, you just allocate a half-vote to each parent for each kid. It doesn't matter if they vote differently. If a popular vote total ending in a 0.5 bothers people, they can seek Christ or do yoga or something.
But one question is what do you do if dad is entirely out of the picture or is a nonvoting felon -- does mom get a full vote for each kid? I'd rather say no, still 0.5, sorry. But questions like that would be highly contentious.
I'm seeing growing concern in media about this. When does panic set in, and what does that look like? Manufacturing people in artificial wombs, Brave New World-style? Or just replacing everyone with robots? I'm curious what South Koreans think of all that Untact stuff floated in the wake of COVID? They don't seem to be panicking, at least from over here.
Well, I'll take the other side of any bet that says they'll use technology that doesn't exist before they use immigrants.
Of course, in SK's case the most easily integrated pool of immigrants live in a nearby country called "North Korea." Which, despite having half of South Korea's population, now accounts for the majority of births on the peninsula. SK is already making some use of NK's labor force, and negotiating the terms of further integrating their economies will be an issue that only expands in importance with every passing year.