Unfortunately true on the aging. I think it’s the lack of sleep - I didn’t sleep a full night until my daughter was 2 years old. But fear of pregnancy and childbirth put me off having kids for years. If I were a man, I think I would have been pretty willing to have kids, assuming my partner wanted them (and men generally do less of the childcare too, of course). Now that I have my daughter, I appreciate the close relationship we have and feel like it was worth going through all the pain, sickness, crushing fatigue and various bodily changes, but I didn’t know that going in.
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer anyway. I’d be delighted to learn there are still healthy humans living in societies based on shared secular values and mutual respect. I might be slightly sad about the Jews, but overall, I’d be thrilled by that outcome.
Fair enough. In that case, you are hardly going to care about the prospect of this happening to South Koreans, or to every country in Europe.
Does being thrilled about that outcome imply you think it’s unlikely? If so, why?
I’m not @puzzlegal, but to quote you:
I’d be ELATED to find any societies based on shared secular values and mutual respect. It doesn’t look like that’s the direction we’re heading, instead I expect a Babel-like fracturing with purges on ever more minor points of disagreement.
Speaking only for myself as a secular Jew, FWIW.
I think we are likely to have some catastrophes related to environmental disaster, war, and/or infectious disease. Any of those could be very bad for the societies i most value. There’s a reason i strongly favor a slow, gradual decline in the human population. I think that will reduce the risk of both environmental disaster and massive pandemic, and environmental stress seems like one of the more likely triggers of war, as well.
Is this about White Genocide?
Not very much. I would be far more thrilled with the news than anything else.
I do believe that having a variety of cultures maintaining independent traditions makes for a more vibrant and interesting whole. My fantasy is not homogeneity. My bias is that Jewish culture has a place in that future. But maintaining those traditions or not is a decision for my descendants (should I be blessed with any grandchildren and beyond) to make. I’m okay as long as they are good people trying their best and hopefully enjoying life some.
Having children increases the life expectancy of women:
Not @puzzlegal but I’ll throw my answer here. Yes I think it is not highly likely to be the single system of a future world. Why? History of humanity and its apparent need to have various groups of us and thems. Could the model still exist in some of the world. I am hopeful for that. Just because I think the model has some distinct competitive advantages.
Weird summary, since the linked article says the effect is stronger for men.
Are you guys serious? I’m honestly shocked to hear this from people living in a liberal society.
I am a liberal not only because I believe that liberalism is the most moral philosophy (it is); I am also a liberal because I believe it is, by far, the most effective society as well.
Since the rise of the Printing Press, the world has changed. Information is at a premium. And time after time, liberalized societies outcompeted both their predecessors (traditional and monarchical societies) as well as their attempted replacements (fascist and communist societies).
There’s a reason why the Nazis lost the second world war, and why the Soviet Union collapsed. It’s that neither Fascism nor Communism can hold a candle to Liberalism. Not economically, not socially, not scientifically. It’s the same reason that Russia is unable to defeat Ukraine.
Countries are run by systems, and the philosophies behind illiberal ideologies lead, time after time, to the creation of shitty systems. And those shitty systems lead illiberal countries to fail.
If America becomes illiberal, America will fall from its dominant place atop the world order. A Fascist America isn’t a global superpower; it’s a failed state.
It would be a lot better if the United States does not fall to illiberalism, because that would lead to a whole lot of pain, suffering, and death what Le the world order gets shaken up. But when the dust settles, an illiberal America won’t be on top; a Liberal society will. Because the tenents of liberalism are what gave America its strength; abandoning them would weaken it.
I think you’re putting too much emphasis on shared values and not enough on the mutual respect element.
I would assume any society based around mutual respect is going to have a wide variety of accepted philosophies, cultural values, and acceptance of other points of view. IE something similar to what America, Canada, and much of the West -can- be at the best. You may not agree with all of the wide range of shared values, but you respect those that don’t have a 100% overlap with your particular circle.
As opposed to where I explained where I think we’re going.
A hydra-esque splintering of sub groups (most likely of conservatives) who are only united by a hate of some “other”, and as each other is identified and purged, finds a new subset they can find not sufficiently pure.
I’m not sure I understand this point? What do you mean by “mutual respect”? Is it something distinct from liberalism’s enshrinement of individual rights, which would include the right practice one’s own cultural and religious beliefs? What could be more "respectful" then enshrining someone’s right to do something?
Sure, and when America, Canada, or other countries act in this way, it’s because they’re acting in accordance with liberal values. When they fail to live up to those values, bad things happen, both to the people who live in these countries (or nearby), and to the countries themselves.
Sure, that might be where the US is headed. In that case, I expect that the US will rapidly diminish in global importance (precisely because it became illiberal), potentially even falling apart, and the world will plunge into chaos. It would almost certainly mean a world war.
But I’m confident that whatever society does come out ahead in this conflict will be some variety of liberal, because liberalism is successful for a reason.
It’s not so much that reality has a liberal bias as it is that liberalism is biased towards reality.
I’m pretty sure we’re talking past each other, because I don’t see anything in my statements which eliminates the possibility of a liberal society as you define it. So, happy dance?
I agree it is. Again:
But the best team doesn’t necessarily win any given Sunday. I don’t have your absolute confidence. It is hard to look at current events across the world and not have confidence shaken at least a bit. I do believe this attempt to push the United States into an autocracy will ultimately fail, but it is not a sure thing. And neither is it a sure thing in all of the many other countries with far right movements ascending.
You give lots of credit to liberalism as the reason for Nazi’s ultimate loss. I fear that it could easily have gone the other way with a just a few less mistakes made by their side, or a few more by ours.
Anyway. Within any large group there will be problems. When there are human nature will have some labelling another group as the other and blaming them. No society has completely avoided that yet.
Oh, you’re absolutely right. But the nature of the errors made by the Nazis, or by the Soviets, stems from their ideology. Which is why I’m not so sure it would be so easy to just have Nazis who magically don’t make the sorts of errors that were ultimately fatal to the Nazi regime. People who weren’t prone to those errors wouldn’t be Nazis in the first place.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that the below description of a society is one compatible with liberalism as I define it?
Because if so, I strongly disagree.
No, that’s how the world works, groups come and go. And dying out just due to a low birthrate and lack of interest isn’t a tragedy. If anything that’s a likely outcome of such a society; historically Jews were never allowed to assimilate. Plus of course it logically implies that there was never another genocide of Jews.
No, that’s what I -expect- is going to happen in the USA, oh, not with certainty, but say a solid 60/40 chance. What I would surprised to see is:
Which is by far my preference, even if it meant the end of the history of my own group as a distinct entity, as I’m a secular Jew. This is response to @DemonTree’s hypothetical:
Which, to be clear, ties back into the cultural effects on birthrate, which is the OP. If we accomplish such a society, with shared (important to be shared, not mandated) secular values, supported by mutual respect, I’d mildly mourn the history inherent in a distinct Jewish identity, but I would accept is as a more than fair sacrifice for a society that should be better able to value everyone in said society.
Such a society should hopefully be able to better raise children to whatever the eventual target population is the goal, given the lower chances for internal conflict and counterproductive efforts to impose such conflicts to the betterment of any single group.
Not that I think it would work that perfectly, but that was the hypothetical.
No, unless I’m mistaken I think he is saying…
This would be a liberal society. Which he would embrace.
An illiberal society. Where he fears we are actually heading.