Posts Tagged ‘failure’

How and Why China Has Succeeded Where USSR Failed

June 13, 2019 11 comments

A few days, I started writing a post about why China will defeat USA in any long-term trade or ‘cold’ war. However, it quickly became obvious that many concepts in that post had not been well explained in previous ones. I then realized that an older draft post (abandoned over a year ago) contained enough elements for a prequel post. Readers should, therefore, see this post as a partial explanation for why the challenge posed by China to the terminally-ill american empire is fundamentally different from anything the later has encountered in the past, and indeed beyond what the anglo- mind is capable of imagining. As you will see in a future post, there is a reason why I chose to say that it is beyond the comprehension of “western” minds.

Let us now get back to the topic of this post, namely why China succeeded in spades at what the erstwhile USSR failed. USA, since its inception, has faced only two semi-credible threats, the first being Japan during WW2. However, as any person with a half-decent map and some basic stats about the two countries in 1940 can figure out, the manufacturing base of USA at that time was about 10 times larger than Japan. Moreover it’s land area was about 1/20th of contiguous (lower 48) USA and hence had far fewer natural resources. And ya, I am aware that Japan had occupied Korea and some parts of China- but it was never a close fight. Even Isoroku Yamamoto (of Pearl Harbor attack fame) was quite open about USA being the inevitable winner if the war lasted over one year. In other words, neither pre-WW2 nor post-WW2 Japan was ever a real threat to USA.

USSR, on the other hand, was land and resource rich (about twice the area of lower 48). While its population was a bit less than USA, especially in the immediate aftermath of WW2, it rivaled and often surpassed USA in areas ranging from high technology to the manufacturing and deployment of large numbers of diverse weapon systems. Furthermore, it was able to build its own sphere of influence in eastern Europe after WW2. So why did a country with more natural resources than USA, about the same population (in aftermath of WW2), tons of very smart scientists and military tacticians finally implode in 1991. Many Americans attribute it to all sorts of solipsistic bullshit, ranging from “socialism”, “Reagan”, “Afghanistan” to even more ludicrous ones such as “race” and “people yearning for human rights”.

In my opinion, the real reasons why USSR finally collapsed in 1991, but China just kept going and went on to become the world’s largest economy in real terms about a decade ago has to do with reasons which the vast majority of Americans are either unwilling or incapable of understanding. So let us start listing them, though not necessarily in order of importance.

1] China had both the size and population advantage. While is has about half the area of USSR, China is a bit larger than the lower 48 of USA. Moreover, unlike USSR (or Russia) it’s population has been at least 3-4 times larger than post-ww2 USA. Possessing a large enough landmass and population translates into a very respectable amount of natural resources and enough people to properly exploit those resources. With the exception of oil and a handful other minerals, China is large and populous enough to be internally self-sufficient. It also helps that most of China is neither too hot nor cold and the only limiting factor for human habitation is availability of water in its western half. But that is no different from the South-Western quadrant of USA being either a desert of semi-arid region. In other words, China is more than the equivalent of USA in Asia.

2] Issues surrounding race and culture. One of the most infrequently talked about, but important reason, why USSR seemed like a follower to the “West” and generally susceptible to its influences has to do with how most people in that country (and in Russia today) saw themselves. For a number of historical reasons, Russians have always seen themselves as white and western, perhaps a bit distinct from the “western” mainstream- but still white and western nonetheless. In my opinion, this inability to create a distinct cultural identity led to many other pathologies and bad decisions which shall be partially enumerated later in the post. Chinese, for obvious reasons, did not have that option and neither were they interested in being white (at least most of them).

3] Many of you might have noticed that post-1980 China seems to have stable and good to OK relations with a very diverse range of nation states all over the world. Contrast this to USSR, whose relations with countries in Africa and Latin America were colored with racial paternalism- though not as bad as USA. But why was that so? Well.. USSR (and Russia today) unfortunately bought into the whole white racial supremacy bullshit- which is ironic since we all know what Hitler thought of Slavic people. To be clear, I am not implying that Chinese people are not racist- just far more pragmatic and not so obsessed with race.

4] One of the other visible differences between China of erstwhile USSR concern administration. It is no secret that China, and east-asian countries in general, seem to have this bureaucracy thing figured out far better than the west. The most relevant differences between the two, in this area, concern how responsibility is delegated. More specifically, east-asian bureaucrats have far more latitude and autonomy to get things done- as long as they didn’t fuck up too badly and embarrass the central government. This translates into a far more robust, flexible and innovative system run by fairly competent people with skin in the game. There is a reason why China achieved in 20-30 years what took many other nations over a century.

5] Pragmatic and flexible ideology. Unlike USSR, China (except between late 50s-late 60s) was never obsessed with ideological purity. They just tried to solve problems facing them in the most optimal manner, given their resources and ability. That is why, for example, China was fine with people becoming rich after 1980s. They, correctly, saw the influence of capitalists on governance rather than its mere presence as the real problem. One of the reasons why things went so bad in Russia between 1991 and 2000 was that the system was run by capitalists at the expense of everybody else. China, on the other hand, focused on curtailing the political power of capitalists rather than making sure nobody got rich. We can all see who got it right.

6] China never really bought into western ideas of money, finance and “austerity”. Many of you heard about how material conditions for average citizens in USSR weren’t that good and quality of consumer goods were bad. But why was that so? Why couldn’t USSR spend enough to ensure that the quality of life for its citizens was good. Well.. it comes down to how they saw money and finance in general. Long story short, they bought in the “western” idea of money as a limited resource over which the government has little to no control. China simply decided to go down the MMT route, before it was even a thing. That is why China never seemed to be short of money to build new cities, apartment blocks, roads, airports, high-speed railways, factories, shopping malls, universities, research institutes etc. It is profoundly ironic that an allegedly communist country displays the best practical understanding of economics.

7] China understands censorship far better than USSR and the supposedly “free West”. One of the other realities of life in USSR, as told to me by former inhabitants, was that open humor and mockery of the establishment was not a good idea. Contrast this with how the Chinese system works, where polite criticism of the government (especially as far its ability to solve problems) is not especially problematic. While making off-color jokes about the government on the internet might get you temporarily banned or a visit from the authorities, very few end up in prison for being loud on social media. Also, unlike USSR, the Chinese government is not interested in regulating the private lives of its citizens beyond what is necessary to keep up external appearances. But by far the best censorship of dissent involves making sure that people have enough jobs, opportunities to make more money, reasonably good and affordable consumer goods and no persistent shortage of essentials.

And now I can write up the rest of that post about why China will prevail over USA in any long-term trade or ‘cold’ war.

What do you think? Comments?

Anti-Abortion Movement is Destined to Lose and Become Irrelevant: 2

May 22, 2019 21 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how the modern anti-abortion movement is going to end up like the failed, dead and forgotten temperance movement. Historically speaking, movements which originate in dying and declining regions of the world tend to almost always fail. Moreover, the extent of brain-dead religiosity necessary to believe in that bullshit is rapidly declining, even in retarded parts of the world such as USA. Both of these are, however, fairly minor in comparison to the other reasons which will doom that movement. To make matters more interesting, these reasons are far more systemic than the previously mentioned ones.

So let us enumerate the other reasons why the anti-abortion movement will become irrelevant..

In the previous part, I made a reference to how the modern anti-abortion movement’s origin in ex-slave owning, still impoverished and dying southern states would lead to its demise. But what are the mechanics of such a demise? Also, would it be a stand-alone phenomena or part of a much larger trend? Well.. let me ask you a seemingly unrelated question. Do you remember how, in the 1990s, many american idiots deluded themselves into believing that the rest of the world would become like them. I remember an era when rags-of-record such as the NYT and WP were full of opinion pieces masquerading as “news” which imagined a future where american brands and corporations such as McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut etc would prevail all over the world.

So how did that work out? While it might to tempting to attribute their failure in the global marketplace to american incompetence (partially true) or protectionism by other countries (also, partially true)- the meta reason for their abject failure outside USA (and vassal states like Canada or Australia) is far more basic. The product and services which they offered were simply inferior to local alternatives. I could never understand why, for example, american fast food corporations thought they had any chance in countries with decent indigenous culinary traditions- because most ‘american’ food tastes like salty flavorless crap. Similarly, it was hard to understand why Walmart and Target believed that they have any real hope in larger Asian countries.

But what does any of this have to with the anti-abortion movement meeting its demise? Let me put it this way- why would someone in Singapore, China or India eat American fast food when equivalently priced local offerings are vastly superior in taste and quality? Why would women in affluent and densely populated coastal states such as NY, CA, WA or even FL crimp their access to abortion and want to live as they reside in shitty, dying ex-slave owning states? An inferior option will always be rejected by most people unless enforced by legislation. Think about it this way.. why would anybody with more than half-a-brain want to keep living in shitty backward states? Now take that idea to the next step- who would want to move and work in those states?

One of the problems with running corporations that do stuff other than pack meat or assemble low-end automobiles is that you have to hire people with a minimum degree of competence. But what happens if the people you require to run the organisation cannot be found in a given part of the country? But surely, not everybody will desert those forsaken states and move to another part of the country. Well.. they don’t have to because even a gradual but continuous loss of talent is enough to ruin areas with an adverse demographic profile (think East Germany). More importantly, middle and upper management of corporations do not want to be associated with racist stupid white trash. Also why rich CONservatives are based in NY, CA or DC.

The gradual loss of talent and any remaining physical manifestations of success leads to the next reason why that movement is doomed. Almost nobody wants to be associated with repulsive losers and their ideologies. Ever wondered why most people today don’t want to identify as Nazis or hood-wearing racists? Remember that Nazism was once popular in many countries outside pre-WW2 Germany, including USA. The same is true for racists movements such as KKK. Long story short, those movements are not popular today because they lost (and not because of moral revulsion). The most ardent supporters of anti-abortion movement are on the losing side of history- for a number of social, cultural and economic trends beyond their control.

So let us talk about those reasons. While women have been aborting since the beginning of time, modern methods of abortion started coming into existence around the beginning of 20th century, though some came online as late the 1980s. Some might have noticed that this era coincidences with gaining the right to vote and entry of women into the workplace. There is also a reason that most countries legalized abortion between 1950s and 1970s. Hint: it is about women entering and staying in the workplace in ever larger numbers and irreversible breakdown of CONservative “family values”. The single biggest factor which drove the legalization of abortion is the need for Capitalism to extract an every increasing amount of value from workers. I cannot resist pointing out the irony of CONservatives decrying one of the major routes for expansion of Capitalism in 20th century.

Which brings me to another related reason for inevitable failure of the anti-abortion movement- an irreversible increase in Female agency. A lot of anti-abortion morons believe they have far more female support than they have in reality. See.. a significant minority of women might pretend to support the anti-abortion movement to look more virtuous, but it is just an empty display of virtue. Think of how Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare dozens of time only because they knew that it would be successfully vetoed. The vast majority of women who claim to support the anti-abortion movement will drop their support the moment it becomes obvious that such a measure might pass- even in shitholes such as Alabama and Georgia.

And don’t forget.. traditionally male-dominated jobs such as those in large factories, mines or involving hard physical work now constitute a minority of jobs. Now add in the fact that women can pick and choose the guy they want to sleep with and can make decent money without being married etc. Almost no woman below a certain age has any interest in changing the status quo- regardless of the party she voted for in last election. There is a reason why the most vocal female opponents of abortion rights are post-menopausal and osteoporotic white, black or hispanic women. The other supporters of the anti-abortion movement are obese and impotent southern white men, a group that is in irreversible decline and not especially popular. The remaining supporters of that doomed movement include mostly white young male losers who talk about traditional family values, but lack the job or looks to get women to have sex with them.

In other words, none of the groups who support the anti-abortion movement are ascendant. But there is one more reason why the anti-abortion movement is doomed to failure. Women of reproductive age are far more sympathetic than embryos and fetuses. Just wait till any of these stupid laws results in the death of a moderately photogenic (and white) woman with ectopic pregnancy, infections spreading to fetus, pre-eclampsia, infections due to botched attempts at abortions. You think that media goes overboard promoting the victims of mass shootings? You haven’t seen anything yet. Also, social media will amplify such tragedies in ways that stupid old southern losers cannot defend. Did I mention that every internet monopoly is run and staffed by people with pro-choice views. Of course, the anti-abortion losers are too delusional and stupid to understand how their actions will end up speeding the final public demise of that movement.

What do you think? Comments?

Anti-Abortion Movement is Destined to Lose and Become Irrelevant: 1

May 18, 2019 15 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a post about how the democratic party obsession with ‘gun control’ could cost them during the 2020 election cycle. It now seems that the republican party wants to one-up them by passing a series of hilariously bad anti-abortion laws in a few shithole.. I mean southern.. states. It has long been my belief that real differences between the democratic and republican party are largely restricted to socio-cultural issues such as gun and abortion rights. As many of you know, I have long held the position that trying to restrict or eliminate gun rights is not a winning strategy apart from 2-3 coastal states. We will now go into the many reasons why even attempting to pass laws which restrict the right to abortion is an even more stupid idea.

The temperance movement is an interesting, if peculiar, historical analogue to the modern anti-abortion movement. For those of you who aren’t interested in history, it was a big movement in the late 19th-early 20th century USA centered around banning the sale and consumption of alcohol. Its main promoters were male religious nutcases and proto-feminists (talk about weird alliances). Anyway, their campaign ultimately led to Prohibition in 1919 which led to a whole lot of unintended and highly counterproductive secondary consequences which then led to its subsequent repeal in 1933. So what did the decade (or so) of Prohibition lead to, other than the abject humiliation and almost total destruction of that movement. There is a reason why the only place most people have read about the Temperance movement is in history books.

Much of the night life we take for granted today is the result of the defiant public response to that futile and yes.. racist.. movement. Prior to Prohibition pushing public drinking underground for a decade, supposedly respectable women did not go to bars. The proliferation of speakeasies during prohibition changed drinking culture irreversibly and made it a cool activity which women started participating in rapidly increasing numbers. Also, previously most drinking establishments in USA served little other than a few popular types of beverages and greasy food. This changed after women started frequenting bars. Picking up women who weren’t prostitutes in a bar became possible only after bars became a cool place for women to visit. To make a long story short, it ended up normalizing and glamorizing drinking in ways previously considered impossible.

So let us now talk about why the modern anti-abortion movement is similar to the utterly failed and discredited temperance movement. The most obvious similarities between them are that they never enjoyed majority support and were dominated by loud zealots with racist/ nativist belief systems. But the similarities run far deeper. Both movements were fuelled by people who claimed to be solving some real world problem but were in fact about trying to control the lives of others and ruining their happiness. Have a look at the faces and read about personalities of people who pushed Prohibition. Did you notice a distinctive lack of physically attractive or intellectually gifted people among its ranks? Ever wonder why that was the case? Also, why didn’t most countries with similar levels of alcohol consumption never attempt Prohibition?

Now tell me something. Have you noticed that the anti-abortion types in USA are almost always obese older white men and post-menopausal white women living in ex-slavery southern states, old and fat black and Hispanic women and a small number of losers aka traditional conservative men? Some of you might counter my characterization by telling me about a couple of attractive young women who claim to be anti-abortion.. and you know what, I am sure they exist. However, it is undeniable that the anti-abortion movement derives most of its support from pudgy, sweaty, pre-diabetic, post-fertile men and women living in shithole.. I mean southern.. states. But why is that so? Why don’t you find anybody who looks half-attractive or has more than half a brain support the anti-abortion movement? And why is the anti-abortion movement so weak outside the heart of darkness.. I mean southern states? Also, why is it so weak outside USA?

The first obvious clue that the modern anti-abortion movement is doomed therefore comes from who supports it and who doesn’t. Let me put that in a different way, how many of you want to move to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri etc? If not, why not? Well.. the simple answer is that flyover states (especially in the south) are dying. There are no well paying jobs with decent future prospects in those places. Also, those parts of the country also have rapidly deteriorating infrastructure and are generally shitty places to live in- at many levels. Historically, movements whose largest support base exists in declining and dying populations/ regions tend to end up as failures. Now compare the anti-abortion movement to the popularity of yoga studios among women- guess which is on an inexorable decline and which one is booming.

The second clue that the modern anti-abortion movement has no future comes from its very limited geographical spread. Let me explain.. how many developed or even developing countries outside USA have an anti-abortion movement of any significance. Why not? Well.. as I mentioned in a post from almost a year ago- the CONservative and reactionary elements within many nations (other than USA) got preferentially culled in WW1 and WW2. Let me rephrase that, only populations with unusually high levels of belief in traditional religions are capable of supporting the anti-abortion movement. Interest and belief in traditional religion has declined sharply over past two decades and this trend is even more marked in the younger generations. Ever met a non- or low-religious person who strongly supports the anti-abortion movement? Me neither..

Since we are at almost a thousand words, I will leave the remainder of my analysis for the next and hopefully last part of this short series. In case you are wondering, it will be about how the losers in anti-abortion movement lack the mental capacity to appreciate the magnitude of the multiple public relations disasters they are walking into. Then again, those idiots deserve it.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on How TransGenderism Will Likely Lose Public Support

September 3, 2018 21 comments

In a previous post on this topic, I made the point that TransGenderism (as currently promoted) is almost certain to experience a disastrous and expensive blowback. The reasoning behind my prediction can be summarized as follows: TransGenderism, as promoted today, is going to result in a lot of litigation within the next decade as many of those who underwent medical or surgical gender reassignment as children, adolescents or young adults will sue those who mutilated them without consent or realize that they were promised something not even remotely close to reality.

It is hard to escape the feeling that a very significant percentage of adolescents and young adults undergoing such procedures appear to believe that becoming transgender will provide an almost magical solution to their mental issues- from serious depression, existential dread, living under late capitalism etc. Promotion of transgenderism by corporate media, some parts of academia etc is a perfect example of neoliberalism in action. Think about it.. there is much money to be made selling therapy, expensive surgery and lifelong drugs to people who want to be transgender.

This brings me to the part where I start discussing how the ideology of transgenderism will start to lose public support. To be clear, this part precedes the one where those who promote it start having to pay tons of money to all the innocent people they victimized and become permanently disreputable in public eyes. Readers might have noticed that elite rags.. I mean ‘magazines of repute’ such as The Economist and The Atlantic have, in past few months, started to question the narrative that promoting transgenderism among children and adolescents is “right” thing to do.

In my opinion, this push-back from elite neoliberal rags is probably the smallest component of a much larger trend. Indeed, many other parties who have harbored negative views on this topic.

1] Biological straight women, irrespective or race, have never been big fans of transgenderism. For starters, they rightly see trans “women” as imposters who are trying to get the privileges which come with being a woman without suffering most of the downside of being born as one. They, also, do not like any extra competition- especially from biological men pretending to be biological women. Changing the body of a Toyota Corolla (even an up-engined one) does not make it a Porsche 911 nor does changing the styling of an SUV make it a Econobox car.

Biological straight men, irrespective of race, are also not big fans of transgenderism- not only because of the imposter problem but also because they have little interest in having sex with transgender “women”. Furthermore, they are not happy with the amount of attention devoted to transgender issues, while their own and much bigger problems (chronic underemployment, punitive sexual environment etc) are openly ignored. Many see transgenders as attention seekers with mental issues and no amount of SJW propaganda will change that viewpoint.

2] Even the so-called allies of transgenderism, such as Gay men and Lesbian women, are not big fans of that ideology. Sure.. there are a few attention seeking activist types among them who pretend they are in the same boat as transgenders- but most don’t, and here is why. It is no secret that a significant percentage of gay men tends towards the feminine side while a similar percentage of lesbians tend towards the masculine side. However the vast majority of gay men and lesbian women are fine with their biological gender and is an important part of their identity.

Transgenderism, therefore, creates a philosophical inconsistency for gay men and lesbian women since it (once again) makes their same-sex sexuality a conscious choice rather than something inborn. And let us be honest, the gay and lesbian rights movement has spent decades reversing the popular notion that their alternative sexuality was a choice rather than something they were born with and I, for one, believe that sexual orientation is inborn. But there is an even bigger problem and massive conflict of interest..

People realize they are gay or lesbian because they are attracted to others of the same sex as they grow up. But what if a bunch of “psychologists” and “experts” supported by the corporate media tried to tell that being attracted to somebody of your own sex meant you were the “wrong” sex? And this is not just a theoretical question since gay men and lesbian women in Iran are forced to undergo sex change operations so they become the “right gender”. Don’t you think the perverse incentives of late capitalism and SJW-ism might create a similar situation in USA?

3] The extensive wall-to-wall positive coverage of transgenderism by corporate media at a time when half the people (with jobs) in USA make less than 30k/ year, most live paycheck to paycheck, a majority have less than one thousand dollars in savings and are one semi-serious illness away from bankruptcy does not bode well for the future of that ideology. Similarly, repeatedly celebrating the alleged “bravery” of some attention-seeker of no consequence on traditional and social media is slowly but surely alienating the general public from that cause.

Do you remember how Trump won the 2016 republican presidential nomination in spite of insulting and trash-talking establishment icons such as John McCain, George W Bush and his sad-sack brother Jeb? Ever wonder why he was able to win the general election despite his atrocious sexual history with women? Could it because his unfiltered and plebian talking points sounded more authentic to voters than other republicans or HRC? Maybe that is also why his approval rating among republican voters is still so high in spite of an almost two-year long incessant campaign by establishment media to mobilize public opinion against him.

My point is that trying to force a deeply problematic viewpoint, on something as central to human identity as gender, down the throats of an unwilling public is almost certain to make an increasing number of them swing the other way. Furthermore, they will do so regardless of what some made-up consensus by “experts” and “institutions” says- especially since the public has lost faith in both since 2008.

What do you think? Comment?

Using Children as a Front for Deceptive “Causes” is No Longer Viable

March 26, 2018 21 comments

By now, most of you have seen or read something about the new astroturfed campaign to ban guns known as “March for Our Lives”. Leaving aside a host of inconvenient facts such as school shootings are less common today than during the 1990s, most “gun deaths” in USA are suicides, many countries with strict gun control have a higher incidence of suicide than USA and so on, we are still left with the reality that there is co-ordinated campaign by democrats to use non-black children as a front to ban private ownership of guns in USA.

So what do I think about the chance for this campaign to succeed in achieving its objective? The very short version of my answer is that this campaign will fail in a spectacular fashion- especially if the corporate media attempts to keep on pushing it over the next few months. In fact, it might very likely end up costing democrats their potential victory and control of the house in the mid-term elections of 2018. The much longer version of my answer and explanations for my predictions can be found in the rest of this post.

So, let me start by pointing out something that is obvious but appears to have forgotten by most people. Using children as a front for advancing deceptive “causes” has ceased to be a successful electoral strategy in USA since the late-1990s. However, establishment democrats dependent on their highly paid and out-of-touch political “consultants” seem to believe that we are still in the 1990s. Even worse, they have not learned anything from recent history. You might recall that HRC campaign in 2016 ran an unbelievably large number of TV and internet ads which were some version of “Trump is a bad, bad man” and “Oh.. won’t somebody think about the children”.

We all know how that one ended.. and while many “pundits” and “experts” were shocked by the election results- it was clear to observers on the ground that the 2016 election was always far closer than “official polls” predicted. One might think that such a humiliating loss might have caused establishment democrats to go through a process of introspection and analysis. However it is hard to see problems when your paycheck or sinecure depends on pretending that there are no problems. Consequently, establishments democrats just doubled down on the “Trump is a bad, bad man” theme with the addition of “Russia hacked the election for Trump”.

As I have said in previous posts (link 1, link 2 and link 3), blaming Russia and “Putin” for why a candidate such as HRC lost to a reality show clown like Trump is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and rapidly approaching irrelevance on the part of accusers. This is not to say that Trump is a competent president. As some of you might recall- after predicting his victory in the 2016 election, I wrote a short series about how he was almost certain to fuck up badly regardless of whether he tried to keep his election promises or not.

Now, let us turn to how all of this and more is linked to the futility of using children as fronts for pushing deceptive “causes” after the late 1990s. Which brings us the question.. why was using children as a front for pushing deceptive “causes” a workable strategy until the late-1990s? Also, why did it start losing effectiveness after that and become virtually useless by 2016?

To understand what I trying to explain you next, ask yourself the following question- would you kill and eat a dog or cat unless you were in some extreme circumstances? If not, why not? And how is killing and eating a dog or cat different from doing the same for pigs or goats- two animals that are as intelligent as dogs and cats. The simple answer to that question is that dogs and cats are widely kept as pets unlike pigs and goats. In other words, extensive familiarity with dogs and cats is what allows most people to humanize and care about them. Now apply the same logic to understand why most people USED to care about the future welfare of children as a group.

Long story short- it comes down to the fact that in previous eras, most people had their own children with whom they had better-than-decent relationships. Empathy and caring for children is not instinctual for most people, especially men. The flip side is that people without their own children or those who have little contact with them simply don’t have an deep-seated desire to care for them or their future prospects. While they may be perfectly competent baby-sitters or otherwise normal in their interactions with the children of other people, they do not have any real attachment to them.

Perhaps more importantly, they are unwilling to sacrifice something which matters to them with the vague expectation that it might “help the children”. With that in mind, think about how many 30- and 40-something men today have a biological offspring with whom they enjoy a good and strong relationship. More importantly, how many men in those and younger age groups have a reasonable expectation of having children with whom they will enjoy a good relationship. And now think about how much this has changed since the 1990s.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for women. How many highly educated women have maybe just one child in their late-30s to show others that they are “normal”? How many either postpone it indefinitely or just choose to have none? To be clear, I am not pushing traditionalism or any similar bullshit ideology. My point is that the percentage of people with kids of their own is directly proportional to how many would give a flying fuck about some “cause” which might “help the children”. And that, you see, is why deceptive advertising campaigns based on “won’t somebody think of the children” have failed so miserably after the late-1990s.

What do you think? Comments?