There are two possible solutions to the childlessness that is slowly killing the West. One model is the Scandinavian liberalism where women are equal or superior and people stopped living in traditional family frameworks; the other model that is demographically succeeding is the Amish, Mormons, Haredi and Islamic on the other. The middle course is not working.
Japan is the first nation in modern history to tip over into outright demographic contraction, pioneering a path that will soon be followed by Italy, Germany, Spain, and most of Eastern Europe, with China close behind. The dynamics of decline are already contaminating every aspect of the economy. The trend rate of growth has dropped to 1.5%. Wages have fallen complicating the efforts to stave off deflation. In Japan here is no feminist movement to talk about and society has not created the framework where a woman may have a child without marrying.
Israel is changing fast. In Tel Aviv we have a Scandinavian type society, where gays marry and contract surrogates to have children, and the "New Family" is more or less an accepted and legal part of the scene. They have about zero growth, but are not dying off. In Jerusalem we have a compact, disciplined society of religious families, very successful in increasing their numbers. Soon society will be dominated by these two extremely oppposed social solutions. The Arab minority fall in with the large Jewish majority, and is becomeing westernized and therefore, demographically weak. I dont know if a country fractured into two so different societies is gobernable. Younger people will see (not me).
Addenda: A deeper examination of the figures shows that the Scandinavian model may not be viable. About 15% of the new born Swedes are not from old Swedish stock but Iraqis and Somalis. What the apparently healthy demographic statistics hide is population replacement. If so, there is only one viable model for continuity: religion.
Corollarium: Individuals and political parties that want to strengthen their nations should favour organized religion. Religious instruction should me made compulsive, Churches and synagogues should be subsidized by the State, married men with children should be favoured and promoted. I am against the dark side of a pro-family policy but has to be mentioned: repression of feminism, dissolution of family courts, and limitation of female civil rights (the vote).
The Ethnocentric Viewpoint: As a lifelong Zionist Jew, it is only natural (and unavoidable) that I pose the question if it is good or bad for the Jews. Western decay is absolutely bad for the Jews. First, contra antisemites, we are part of the Western world and cannot lift ourselves up from a decomposing society. On the contrary, as the elite of the West, we feel more acutely all its ills, and Jewish demography in the West is a tragic, ongoing, dramatic catastrophy. From 18 million Jews in 1900 we are now about 10 million at most and that is only partly because of the Holocaust. In Russia, once the five or six million strong reservoir of the Ashkenazic Jewry, there are only tens of thousand Jews left. Western Judaism is disappearing. Secondly, there are more "Jewish" genes among the European masses than concentrated in Jewish bodies. Thirdly, Western religion, once ferociously antisemite, has changed and it is friendly to us. In fact, the Catholic Church and Southern Protestants are strong allies of Israel. They are good for us. They changed, we should change too. The Enlightment movement of the nineteen century was a historic mistake and is killing us, in the twenty first century we Jews should reject liberal ideas and join the clerical (Christian and Jewish) reaction.
18 comments:
Jews only became elite, to the extent we actually are (and that is really only the Ashkenazim these days), by accepting secular and Enlightenment ideals. Our ancestors prior to the early 19th century were poor, backward and not particularly notable for anything useful. Who gives a crap if there are more Jews if they are a mass of worthless ignorant schnorrers. And wouldn't it be nice to more space and less pressure on resources in that overcrowded strip of miserable desert, Israel?
The argument of not having childen to avoid pressure on resources makes no sense to me.
Increased population doesn't require increased water and energy resources?
Water - there are illimited quantities of water in the oceans. It is being desalinated and made drinking water at a cost of 0.50 for 1000 liters. In the future it will be cheaper.
Energy - The sun sends us illimited quantities of energy. It can be made electricity by photoelectric cells or by plants or algae. Nuclear fusion and fission is available, it is reliable and cheap and promises to improve even more. Coal and oil seem to be abundant.
Why should humanity limit itself?
Anyway, you can limit yourself but the neighbor will not.
Our ability to convert energy from the sun to usable forms is limited at present, and the photoelectric cells are expensive (and toxic) to produce. If we were to carpet the earth with our current models of solar panels, we would get only a tiny fraction of the energy needed for daily use. And massive reliance on desalination will also be require a lot of energy production.
Humanity shouldn't limit itself, but it does face limits until technology improves beyond its current state. In this area, it may or may not do so fast enough to support your planned population growth. BTW, you still haven't said why we should care about having more Jews who are ignorant, good-for-nothing religious schnorrers. So that they can fight with the other ignorant, good-for-nothing non-Jewish schnorrers? Who can get excited about that?
Why should we care for having more Jewish schnorrers? Since I consider myself included in that category, and I think I need no justification for my existence, there is no need for an answer. If you insist for an answer, then my one is that I am worth at least like the next creature on Earth and I am not going to leave it to inherit it. You can interpret "The next creature" like the African Hottentot or the bonobo chimp or the fireant.
No, you are not part of the religious schnorrer group. You are a secular, educated engineer. However, you are advocating abandonment of secularism and return to Orthodox Judaism on the basis of its pro-natalism. I am arguing that the religious Jews are largely ignorant schnorrers, and I really believe that is the norm for the ultra-Orthodox at least (exemplified by Kiryas Yoel in New York)). There is no grand future for the Jews along those lines.
Speaking as a Westerner with a Christian background, I cannot possibly see a return to widespread religious belief in the Western world; people are simply too well educated against the degree of magical thinking required to go along with it.
We need something else; the only two alternatives that might rescue us from the demographic chasm which I can envisage are nationalism, and strong economic incentives.
Either plan will require a radical change in the Western "leadership".
Anon.
I assume that many readers here are familiar with David Goldman's arguments on the subject - certainly our gracious host has cited him at least on economic issues before.
Mr. Goldman's position is, in brief and all errors mine, that life is too painful for irreligious people to bear. The woes and failures of life are such that "whatever you do, you will regret it." Even philosophy is no escape, for your conscience will convict you, and even the greatest men will burn with shame that they cannot reach that to which they aspire.
Mr. Goldman then argues that pagan peoples are able to circumvent this through the belief that their attain immortality through their tribe. In my view, this is the Goldmanning approach to understanding, for instance, "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori;" the Republican Roman father did not lie in so exhorting his son, because the son, in truth, burned with the desire to place his life between the foe and the tribe. Of course, the later cosmopolitan Roman, father or son, had no such wish, since to serve in the Imperial legions was simply to be the Emperor's mercenary.
Pagan peoples, however, cannot survive the knowledge that their tribe will be destroyed. In such cases, they commit mass suicide, or become a despairing rabble. In such a death of peoples was Christendom born: as a citizen of the res publica Christiani, the Christian was saved from the inevitable death of the fleshly pagan tribe by adoption into the celestial and eternal Kingdom of God.
This is why, then, Jews have never felt much urge to become Christians. Since Jews truly believe that God has promised them that they will never be utterly destroyed, they are the single tribe that does not despair.
We might fondly dream of a secular, rational ethics that can take the place of the religions of blood and sinew. Christianity and Judaism rest on blood sacrifices and partially-understood commands from a "deus absconditus." Is it not the Enlightenment project to transcend such superstitious relics, proudly disdainful of the inquiries of reason?
Goldman, I think, would say that such a project is doomed to fail. The best bet of a disbelieving man is to seek an easy life and a peaceful death. This is what Europe has chosen, sinking into hedonism and childlessness, lacking the desire to continue fighting to exist. Meanwhile, the Jews of Israel are not yet ready to die.
-s.n.
I'm for a third option, get on board with some of the Scandinavian pro-fertility methods and do everything you can to discover new ways to increase the fertility of the modern secular masses.
The obscurantist way may be the easy way out, but modernity offers quite a lot of pleasures we shouldn't ditch too easily. Anyone with an IQ over 120 must feel suicidally alienated in carefully policed monotheist societies.
Anyone with an IQ over 120 must feel suicidally alienated in carefully policed monotheist societies.
Counterexample: the highest-IQ population in the world, Ashkenazi Jews, was evidently forged among the fundamentalists of the yeshivot. Did they really find their society so alienating? Compared to their modern descendants who don't bother to breed...?
-s.n.
"Counterexample: the highest-IQ population in the world, Ashkenazi Jews, was evidently forged among the fundamentalists of the yeshivot. Did they really find their society so alienating? Compared to their modern descendants who don't bother to breed...?"
As soon as the Ashkenazis could leave the ghettos and pale, they left en masse. They dropped their Judaism completely and joined intellectual life in awe-inspiring numbers, founded numerous ideological and political movements. It was the in-group policing that kept Jews who had lost their faith locked up. Now smart Jews want to get ahead in the world, move on in materialism, not shtetl superstition.
In Israel, the most fertile Jewish religious demograhic is the non-high IQ Mizrahi, not the high IQ Ashkenazi. I do not doubt that there are highly fertile smart Ashkenazim, but they're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Let's keep some perspective. Most Ashkenazim form Israel secular Zionist core, the backbone. Their wish seems to be to connect Judaic tradition with future progress.
I completely agree that modernity is as bad for a population (excepting SS Africans) as most STDs for its sterile effect, but modernity is still worthwhile. All those who hail reaction do not know what they're longing for. The whole of human history aimed at a few directions; the quests for truth, beauty and morality. We've come a long way, why long back for backwardness?
I'm not familiar with Orthodox Judaism, besides what I've read and watched on tv (which didn't appeal to me at all), but I have seen and experienced Muslim and Christian reactionaries in the flesh; their lifestyles are not that great. There's nothing wrong with enjoying life and materialist pleasures, religious fundamentalist believe the contrary.
Then why the fuck do jews so much to undermine us? I've battled with this question for so long it's made me loopy.
>The whole of human history aimed at a few directions; the quests for truth, beauty and morality. We've come a long way, why long back for backwardness?
Have we come a long way towards truth, beauty and morality? What I see outside or on TV says "no."
>We've come a long way, why long back for backwardness?
Because we're marching towards idiocracy, and then oblivion. The first thing to do when you notice your car is heading off a cliff is hit the brakes, not sing the praises of the wind in your hair.
>Anyone with an IQ over 120 must feel suicidally alienated in carefully policed monotheist societies.
I know a fair amount of intelligent Hasidim (programmers and such, male and female.) They don't seem to be suicidally alienated. In fact, I've had more stimulating intellectual discussions with them than with their secular counterparts, per capita. Perhaps it is because they are constantly forced to contemplate the great themes of life found in the Bible, whereas the secular nerd always has World of Warcraft, etc., to retreat to in his spare time from work/study. Also, their matrimonial system keeps the more intelligent members of their society from the dilemma of nerdly paralysis-by-analysis vs. Roissyan hedonism that smart Western males face. Since a major part of alienation comes from either not getting laid or viewing the opposite sex as toys/quarry (I mean, how many times have you been working some chick and found yourself totally bored?), this goes a long way to solving the problem.
What do you think?
>I've battled with this question for so long it's made me loopy.
Don't blame yourself-it's the Jews making you loopy, with their magical influences and superpowers and such.
"What do you think?"
Methinks that SS Africans and endogamous growth sects, such as Hasidim, Salafists and Amish, will inherit the earth if they keep breeding the way they do. I don't like the idea. At all. I'd like my grandchildren to grow up in a secular, mildly conservative, relaxed society where they can experience and appreciate the finer things in life. Stuff that actually makes life worth living; courtly love, science, peace, progress, curiosity, adventure, wealth. Not arranged marriages, superstition, friction, backwardness and poverty. I've seen the future of mankind, it migrates from the Third World into our countries' major cities; it ain't great.
You mentioned the intellectually curious Hasidim (I'm assuming they're mostly Ashkenazim), so let's stick to this example. They seem to be, with US Mormons, to be that rare combination of a fertile high IQ group, mainly because of their religiosity.I agree that religion offers more to mankind than video games such as WoW; they're not even in the same league. There seems to be nothing but religion to make mankind want to raise large families. Do these people have high achievements? That would be hopeful. Yet, it seems to me that their most talented members will tend to defact, despite the social consequences of such a move.
Now, one could suppose that it's better to join the demographic deluge of religiosity than face oblivion and one would be (with the contemporary impossibility of any known measure to increase fertility of the secular masses) completely entitled to do so. After all, survival is survival. Your metaphor about heading for a cliff is very apt, because we are heading for a cliff. But what makes life worth living? Mere survival doesn't cut it. Humanity has become worth more than just survival. Civilization must survive as well. These fundamentalists are not the hope of the future. Somewhat related: I've often seen Bruce Charlton writing at Mangan's blog arguing about what we just discussed. He believes the right must turn to reaction. Anyone attached to the actual benefits of modernity is described as hedonist, corrupt, materialist. I ask you: does this future outlook make you happy?
No, I see problems ahead. But we always managed, so we shall manage. Our descendants will manage. Muddle through.
Regarding the idea that there is something more than mere survival, something loftier, tell me what? if one does not believe in a trascendental God, there is nothing else.
The Hasidim are not endogamous, really, especially the Lubavichers, who are chock full of gerim (converts) and baalei teshuva (non-Orthodox Jews who joined the funny hat brigade-and remember, Judaism is determined matrilineally by the Orthodox, so there are quite a few with gentile fathers.) At least not in the same sense as the Parsis, Yezidis etc., are endogamous.
I don't think the 1950's Robert Heinlein ideal of a secular, conservative, relaxed future is attainable, unfortunately, due to human nature. I mean, we're programmed to desire peace AND adventure, and what's the ultimate adventure? You got it-war.
Arranged marriages vs. courtly love are probably a false dichotomy, sadly, again, due to human nature. In reality, the choice might be arranged/semi-arranged marriages vs. the meat market of today and all of its produce: whores, single mom cougars, the Rocco Siffredis and the betas who pay for it all. Courtly love is something they made up in the Middle Ages, and even then it mostly involved Sir Lancelot banging out other guys' wives (read the Arthurian Tales.)
I don't know if religious Jewish intellectual achievement is sustainable other than in an environment where it can crosspolinate with the secular world. On the other hand, a lot of the people who made the scientific discoveries that make today's world what it is were, by today's standards, religious whackjobs motivated accordingly. Look at Newton.
Beyond raising large families, there's not much but religion and the self-preservation instinct keeping people alive, it seems. I'm sure that the second the Matrix becomes available (Playstation 6?), the majority of secularists will sign up for it. So, what makes life worth living
is basically the key question.
Even if a reactionary future involved us living like the Pashtuns scraping by in the Afghan desert (and I don't think it will,) I doubt our lives would be worth any less to us. But I don't see religion and civilization being antithetical: they co-existed symbiotically for the last 6KY. The traditional religious groups whose members I've had close contacts with (Orthodox Jews, Yezidis, Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and the Muslims of Afghanistan) don't seem to mind the consumer goods of civilization, up to and including cell phones and internet. The ability of some of the above groups to produce those goods remains to be seen, but I've got a hunch that in the case of the Muslims, a gene pool capable of producing the architects of the Registan and the Topkapi palace can produce coders if need be.
Post a Comment