Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology, Thoughts on Economics > Toxic Societies Will Always Shrink, Shrivel and Die Out

Toxic Societies Will Always Shrink, Shrivel and Die Out

One of the main set of problems which occupies the minds of, and causes frequent hand-wringing among, people in ‘developed’ countries goes something like this..

Why do ‘affluent’ and ‘developed’ societies shrink in numbers? Why is the fertility rate in ‘developed’ countries functionally sub-replacement? Why do financial incentives to have more kids not work? Why does increased levels of ‘wealth’ translate into people having far fewer or no kids?

There are those who believe that these behavioral changes are linked to people becoming more materialistic, secular and hedonistic. Others suggest that people are not having kids due to concern for the environment or other altruistic sounding reasons. Another group blames it on the cost of raising children and sees not having kids as a rational response to destruction of living standards due to following the cult of neo-liberalism.

But are any of these reasons real, large or widespread enough to account for what we see all over the world? While I do not deny that economic calculations and realities have an impact on fertility rates, they are at best a partial explanation. Countries with relatively stable living standards and decent prospects such as Germany, Sweden or Austria are not much better off that countries with decent but stagnant economies such as Japan or Italy. Furthermore, economically depressed countries such as Greece have very similar fertility rates to still booming countries such as South Korea or Taiwan. Culture can also be excluded from the list of major factors affecting fertility since Japanese culture has very little in common with any of the Italian sub-cultures which in turn has little in common with Swedish culture.

So how can we explain this drop in fertility to sub-replacement levels across a number of cultures and societies? While we could say that sub-replacement fertility in any given culture is due to its own unique set of circumstances and reasons, there are two problems with that type of explanation. Firstly, sub-replacement fertility can occur rather quickly (within a generation) in countries or regions that once had very high levels of fertility such as Mexico, Brazil, Iran and South India. Basic cultural assumptions and mindsets simply cannot change that fast, even if they really wanted to. Secondly, it is hard to ignore that the patterns of fertility change and their linkage to educational levels and occupational status is eerily similar across various countries and cultures.

So let me suggest another way of looking at this issue.

Have you ever though about what motivates most people to work towards a better future? Is it the threat of bad consequences or a reasonable chance at happiness? Unless you are a CONservative, LIEbertarian or otherwise delusional, it is obvious that it is the desire for happiness that drives people to work towards a better future. Sure, you can make most people work like slaves for a generation or two, but then things stop working and society slowly but surely comes apart. You simply cannot get people to care about the future through overt or covert force.

Could it be that the structure of social structure and organization in ‘developed’ and ‘affluent’ countries make people feel unhappy.

Here is a question- When is the last time you felt happy and optimistic about the future for more than a few hours? I am not asking you about the last time you acted as if you felt like that, but rather when you actually felt like that. So why is it so hard for people to feel happy in societies that are by measures very safe, secure and easy places to live in? Hardly anyone starves in developed countries (except maybe certain parts of the USA), goes with reasonably decent medical care (again.. expect parts of the USA) or lives very precariously (once again.. except the USA).

So why do high levels of personal security and relative affluence not translate into happiness?

There are those CONservative morons and LIEbertarian subhumans who say that people are desensitized to happiness by having all their basic physical needs met and only people who don’t have stuff can appreciate getting stuff. However I have yet to see CONservatives or LIEbertarians who want to willingly become poor so that they can happiness over every small gain in their life. Clearly these scumbags are preaching something they don’t believe in, let alone practice. Let us now consider an explanation that most people find too embarrassing and unpleasant to think about, let alone admit.

Maybe ‘developed’ and ‘affluent’ societies are built on and enforce rules, mores and behaviors that are for the lack of a better word- unnatural.

To be clear- I am not talking about ‘naturalness’ or ‘unnaturalness’ based on whether hunter-gatherers did it or not. Nor am I defining ‘naturalness’ based on any continuity with older cultural traditions. My definitions of both are based upon whether the rules, mores and behaviors in any given society are in direct conflict with what human beings really are- irrespective of race, culture, level of technology or any similar externality.

Almost every single human being desires certain things and experiences beyond immediate survival and safety. We desire human company, sex with other people, entertainment and doing other things to feel more happier. A person who cannot indulge in these activities is an incomplete and unhappy person at best, regardless of how safe and affluent the rest of their existence may be. Did you notice a common thread that runs through all of the things I just described? They require people to think, choose and act on their own.

Therefore any society that tries to suppress human agency will be filled with people who are perpetually unhappy, regardless of how comfortable and materially well provided they are.

All ‘developed’ and ‘affluent’ societies, without exception, are constantly involved in trying to suppress and subvert the human agency of people who live in them. While the precise mix of reasons behind doing that varies from one society to the other, the end results are rather similar and people just end up disconnecting from that society to the maximum extent possible. While most of them will go on living and pretending to be ‘normal’, deep down they just don’t care. In that respect people who live in rule and protocol-based societies from Germany, Switzerland and Sweden are very similar to those in Japan, Korea and Singapore or anglo- countries such as the USA, Canada, UK and Australia.

Suppressing and destroying human agency under the guise of ‘tradition’, ‘efficiency’, ‘conformity’ or ‘competition’ results in a system where almost nobody is happy or invested in the future viability of the system. People in such societies then try to act ‘normal’ when it is plainly obvious that their actions lead to rather abnormal outcomes.

You might have seen rich childless professionals striving to buy the biggest houses in the most expensive neighborhoods even though neither they nor anybody they care about or know can enjoy the fruits of their labors. Then there are people who attend multiple social events every week, routinely talk to hundreds of ‘friends’ and actively participate in society yet are incapable of basic trust in the person they live with- let alone those they call their ‘friends’. You also might have seen people who commute to work for almost 2 hours a day in large and expensive cars and SUVs just so they can live in a neighborhood filled with people who do the same. What about the physician or surgeon who makes half a million dollar an year only to spend most of their waking hours working and trying to extract more money from patients and insurance companies. Or the lawyers who spends the best decades of their lives trying to maximize their billable hours rather than enjoying life?

And what about the elaborate and worthless scams of European and East-Asian social etiquette. Do they make people happy or achieve anything worthwhile? Do they create societies that make people want to contribute to them? Is living you entire life as a passive-aggressive german (or canuck), an autistic swede, a deceptively rude french, a hatefully polite japanese or an insecure self-hating but obedient korean worth it? Even societies that are less socially rigid such as the USA are full of people who are openly phony and willing to stab their nearest and ‘dearest’ for small and temporary gains. These toxic and dysfunctional societies survived for a longish time only because they had a supply of new and naive suckers. Modern and effective methods of contraception put an end to that mode of survival and expansion.

We are therefore now observing and experiencing what should have occurred a long time ago- namely the shrinkage, shriveling and death of toxic societies.

what do you think? comments?

  1. P Ray
    January 24, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Those toxic societies shrink, shrivel, and die out because:
    average men see the women awaiting their labours and notice they are demanding ex-sluts being catered to by Alpha f*ckers who try to get them to take on the yoke of labour sure/often to produce either a “legitimised” bastard or an “Eat Pray Love” wife.
    If people wanted the average man to “give a f*ck” … they should ensure the average man “gets a f*ck”.
    Like the Scorpions song goes, “What you give, you get back”.

  2. jackal
    January 24, 2013 at 9:38 am

    Regarding Western fertility rate: Women just are not healthy enough to produce sufficient concentrations of hormones required for fertility. Everything about affluent society, from GMO, gluten-dominant snacks, and other food or environmental issues such as glyphosate, “2,4-D” to phthalates, is a hormone disrupter and, by extension, a libido buster. Western woman aren’t having kids because they don’t have the hormones that make them want to have kids. That’s all.

    • P Ray
      January 24, 2013 at 9:58 am

      Western woman aren’t having kids because they don’t have the hormones that make them want to have kids. That’s all.
      2 2 word segments against that:
      Teen Mom , Single mother.
      They are perfectly capable of having kids, as long as …
      1) it’s with a man they are attracted to (read Promises I Can Keep) or
      2) society/”convenient idiot husband that I disrespect” pays for it (read Promises I Can Keep.

      • jackal
        January 24, 2013 at 10:25 am

        No one is saying the fertility rate is zero. This post is about reduction in fertility. Keep in mind, during the past 30 years a huge fertility industry has sprouted in response to millions of hormone-challenged women who want kids but can’t actually have any, no matter how hard they try — or how big the balls of their better half.

  3. Matt Strictland
    January 24, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Modern affluent societies are crowded. Thats part of the problem,

    feminism which is unnatural is also part of it.

    More importantly, actual traditions that work to give people a sense of place and history and people and family have been suppressed or twisted for the needs industrial society.

    A lot of the stuff people do, often that makes no sense to outsiders (like say Morris Dancing or Halloween or whatever) even if its historically newish (like the current Christmas) is vital to the well being of civilization. Its not rational or useful and its often wasteful but its good and anything that interferes with is an end game.

    In essence, TV and to a lesser degree the Internet are going to kill society since they preclude the development of real cultures.

    Its not “people getting more information” or “less nonsense” but them being cut off from what matters, other people

  4. webe
    January 24, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    On a related note, I have always been intrigued at the number of “promising” young people whose development suddenly stops dead in a flux of alienation and disorientation that never really goes away. They are incapable of continuing their fortuitous progress and simply abandon the “game”, running out of real inspiration or motivation, feeling they have to manufacture motivation. I’ve always felt there is some ineffable contamination by the inert culture they discover themselves inhabiting.

    • EvilOne
      January 24, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      Young people or young men? Im honestly not sure, and asking a genuine question.

      • Webe
        January 25, 2013 at 10:22 am

        More young men, since women tend to adapt more to what is expected and are generally more oriented towards fitting in than standing out, but I don’t think of this as an exclusively male/female thing.

      • P Ray
        January 25, 2013 at 10:45 am

        ^You mean women have their pussy to trade while young which excuses any unsociable behaviour they may have.
        It’s no coincidence that female spinsters with cats are usually: ugly, old, poor.

    • whatever
      January 25, 2013 at 11:08 am

      They realize you ain’t ever going to pay them shit. Because you is needing it more.

      • P Ray
        January 25, 2013 at 11:26 am

        If someone is getting paid, they may be able to find a job that pays even more … or take over the responsibilities of their boss.
        Hence why employees move sideways and not upwards now.
        Dumbo boss gotta keep their job, and they do that by understating employee efforts, exaggerating own importance, deflecting blame downwards and stealing credit.

  5. DschinDschin.
    January 25, 2013 at 3:04 am

    Very good posting! There are hardware plagues ( cholera, pest, influenza) and there are software plagues (cultural plagues). Toxic societies, that’s it.

    But there ‘s a solution: evolution.

    Humans with the wrong mindset become extinct. For women feminism is a lethal plague.

    The new man will rise, but not as expected.

    DschinDschin

    • jackal
      January 25, 2013 at 8:36 am

      Before agriculture, there was polygamy, where only the best male genes survived in a multiple-wives model. But the arrival of agriculture made it possible for any village idiot to produce bounty and attract a mate, paving the way for monogamy and obsolescing crack hunters and polygamy. As nature cleans house in a population now swamped by village idiots and misshapen physiques — products of technology — polygamy will see a comeback, nature’s mechanism that will refine the gene pool, which has been shipwrecked ever since ancient bachelors had figured out how to bait their own pussy by way of planting grain and making bread.

      • EvilOne
        January 25, 2013 at 8:59 am

        Simplistic as fuck.

      • P Ray
        January 25, 2013 at 10:47 am

        nature’s mechanism that will refine the gene pool, which has been shipwrecked ever since ancient bachelors had figured out how to bait their own pussy by way of planting grain and making bread.
        Your alphas wouldn’t stand out if not for the betas,
        and would probably kill each other without the hand of justice to hold them in check – administered by a horde of betas.
        You seem to have overlooked that.

      • P Ray
        January 25, 2013 at 11:29 am

        Don’t forget that the women the alpha has discarded need to either be suckled by a beta guy, or she may develop ideas in her head about killing her competition. Or the alpha guy. There is a reason women are complaining that beta guys won’t marry them.
        They’re wondering if they’ll go nuts not having someone to dump their problems on, that pays for their life and lifestyle.

  6. whatever
    January 25, 2013 at 11:06 am

    When you say “wealth”… do you mean wealth for old people? I mean, naturally, that’s what old people care about. And, equally naturally, it hardly benefits old people to admit that the young are even poor. But the difference in wealth is insanely large. One old person was rambling insanely about how “old people oftentimes have little money, unlike the young” and I told him that he was mentally deranged to think that old people don’t have tremendously more wealth than the young. That he was a delusional idiot. Since he was a delusional idiot, he actually shut up for a moment. But he is also still selfish. So he continues his campaign of Old First, and Old Only.

    But anyway, in countries with falling birth rates, do THE YOUNG actually have money? Or instead elaborate debt slavery mechanics? Like “college”?

  7. misterinfinite
    January 25, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    long time reader, first time commenting.

    I also recently wrote a piece on our crumbling societal infrastructure

    http://welcometothelifestyle.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/adapting-to-a-new-era/

    do you think that we will manage to adapt to changing times or will there be a collapse and rebuilding?

  8. Matt Strictland
    January 25, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    EvilOne :
    Unka Diaboli,
    Do me an article on this:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/scientists-rewrite-rules-of-human-reproduction-7624708.html

    It might allow some women to have a career and a kid later in life but it won’t make anyone interested in her sexually enough to be the father of her kid unless it can reverse aging and make a 40 year old biologically 23 and be a decent human . It is not even a stopgap really

    • EvilOne
      January 25, 2013 at 8:22 pm

      You’re missing the greater point.
      The adage for evolutionary psychology is “Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive”.

      If this condition fails to hold, humans wont be humans as we know them in just a generation or two.

      Think of the massive changes a minor ultrasound machine has done to China’s Birth Ratio. It probably costs less than a used Playstation on ebay. And this change, is far far more basic than that piece of technology.

  9. webe
    January 25, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    P Ray :
    ^You mean women have their pussy to trade while young which excuses any unsociable behaviour they may have.
    It’s no coincidence that female spinsters with cats are usually: ugly, old, poor.

    No, I didn’t mean anything like that — I was talking about running out of steam early but not for lack of potential to get “ahead”, and certainly not for lack of access to owmen.

  10. EvilOne
    January 26, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    These toxic and dysfunctional societies survived for a longish time only because they had a supply of new and naive suckers. **Modern and effective methods of contraception** put an end to that mode of survival and expansion.
    =====================================================

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/women-are-mostly-in-make-work-jobs/

    =====================

    Tradcons will say that they have an answer to this. They will say that women shouldn’t be out working like that and instead should be in the home raising large families. This is another form of a make work job for women. In the past it was necessary for women to have a lot of kids because most of them wouldn’t reach adulthood. If you wanted three children to reach adulthood, you would have to have six children or nine children to make sure that happened. That is no longer necessary since a person’s kids are now likely to all make it to adulthood. There is no reason to have a large family except as an unproductive make work job for women. The tradcons try to hide this fact from everyone (including themselves) with appeals to tradition, to God/Jesus, and/or nature. That is a fallacy because if you wanted to have large families in the way tradition, God/Jesus, and/or nature intended, only some of your kids should reach adulthood. If you have nine kids, for example, and nothing else kills six of them before adulthood, then you have execute six of your kids before they reach adulthood. It’s the only way to be consistent with tradition, God/Jesus, and/or nature. This shows us that large families are just a useless make work job for women since tradcons aren’t having large families for the reason they are supposed to have large families (which no longer exists in the modern world).

  11. Matt Strictland
    January 27, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    EvilOne :
    You’re missing the greater point.
    The adage for evolutionary psychology is “Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive”.
    If this condition fails to hold, humans wont be humans as we know them in just a generation or two.
    Think of the massive changes a minor ultrasound machine has done to China’s Birth Ratio. It probably costs less than a used Playstation on ebay. And this change, is far far more basic than that piece of technology.

    If it works the issue isn’t going to change things as much as people think.

    Keeping people fertile longer or making them fertile again won’t put food on plates or get people from children to adults. These are the issue facing us, not aging harridans who put off child rearing too long

    The era of good jobs is basically over and near the entirety of womens modern work (traditional work exempted) is functionally welfare. No money, no jobs, no kids. Sooner than later all those jobs are gone.

    Yes yes, women could go all clone-tastic or something. A world peopled by single moms of single kids (most single moms can’t handle 2 or more kids) sex selected female who work for a lifetime and an have the kids real late won’t work for… well period. The X,Y and XX chromosomes aren’t going to change and the unique mind states that each gender bring will still be needed, Make society less masculine and bring them being able to poach from some other masculine society (such as in a ghetto) the more feminine society won’t be able to be sustained for that long or at least progress very much. We have plenty of men and can’t maintain the complexity we have anywhere. Less men means more worse

    The issue facing us, ecological damage, food shortages and work shortages are the killers and no matter what great “hacks’ those loons in Scotland come up with, they’ll slow things down at best.

    Just like cloning that sheep Dolly. So what? Worlds got more than a billion of the things . what one gene damaged clone. Too many clones and there is no market for them (sheep breeders need different breeds) and one little plague your antibiotics don’t work on and no more sheep and people starve

    same here, 7 billion humans and a few more to old moms with dubious genetics won’t matter a lick.

    What’ll matter are the 50% of your neighbors with too few prospects who are stealing the copper from your pipes and are eying your stuff and the fact that the power is out more than not and that shiny new designer kid your still feeling everyone of your 50 years

    well unless you can stop human aging somehow, than its game on,

    • EvilOne
      January 28, 2013 at 9:17 pm

      There are other aspects to this as well. Men can have offspring without women, if you factor in artificial wombs. Its not as simple as older career women having kids all by themselves.

  12. EvilOne
    January 27, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    What’ll matter are the 50% of your neighbors with too few prospects who are stealing the copper from your pipes and are eying your stuff and the fact that the power is out
    ========================================

    Psssh…. typical day in a third world country…where *have* you been?
    —-

    But third world countries do not have the fragility of first world societies. You cannot go back to a third wold existence from a first world one.

  13. January 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Bad cultures don’t always die out. Coloreds in africa worship river gods, bark at the moon, fuck monkeys and keep their rotting ancestors’ diseased corpses propped-up the corner of ther grass hut houses.

    They’ve survived – with a lot of Foreign Aid UNICEF bucks from your taxes. They’ll be here…long after amerexica’s gone..

    • LOL
      January 28, 2013 at 9:18 pm

      I stole LOL’s nick so he cant reply to j00.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers

%d bloggers like this: