Fertility Collapse - Simone Collins | Maiden Mother Matriarch 10
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- My guest today is Simone Collins, co-founder with her husband Malcolm of pronatalist.org, an advocacy organisation whose mission is to empower families who choose to preserve and expand human cultural, ethnic, and genetic diversity. They are also the authors of ‘The Pragmatist’s Guide’ series of books, the most recent of which is The Pragmatist’s Guide to Crafting Religion.
We spoke about why progressives ought to care about birth rates, why a demographic ‘hard landing’ could look really ugly, and why laws requiring the use of car seats act as contraception.
In the extended version of the episode we spoke about Simone’s plan to have seven children, why you don’t need to be a tradwife in order to be pro-natal, and the ethics of polygenic embryo screening. You can find extended episodes, bonus episodes, and the MMM chat community at louiseperry.substack.com
If you value what we’re doing, you can also support the show by subscribing on TH-cam, liking our episodes, and rating and reviewing us on Apple podcasts. The MMM podcast can also be found on Substack, Apple, Spotify, and all other podcast platforms.
00:00 Intro
01:10 Why progressives should care about birth rates
04:21 How does fertility vary within nations?
07:55 Fertility collapse is already happening
12:20 How do we create a culture that is both progressive and pro-natal?
14:55 Do we exaggerate the importance of house prices in fertility decline?
19:01 The limits of the nuclear family model
23:40 What about the environment?
29:05 Why fertility collapse won’t solve the climate crisis
33:36 The cost of giving birth in America
36:24 Effective pro-natal policy
39:40 What does a ‘hard landing’ look like?
43:21 Changing the cultural message on parenthood
50:39 Satisfaction versus hedonism
53:30 How can we create pro-natal cultures within families?
56:03 Outro
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maidenmothermatriarch
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: / maiden_podcast
Instagram: / maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: tiktok.com/@maiden_podcast
Keeper - Meet the person who meets your standards with the world’s most advanced matchmaking solution. Driven by AI and relationship science. Guided by human care. Learn more at keeper.ai
#LouisePerry #ProNatalism #MaidenMotherMatriarch
My wife and I weren't really planning on having kids. Then we were sloppy with things and she got pregnant. I am very grateful that happened. We had another kid because we didn't want to have an only child. I feel grateful for our children and other than food they really aren't that expensive. I spend time teaching them how to fix things and it has been fun spending time with them doing various things. Don't get me wrong, there have been sacrifices, but it has totally been worth it.
They are expensive for most people . I can understand why many younger people are scared to have kids . For starters you have to worry about what they get taught as school, you have to worry about them being jabbed, there is social media and pornography. I have a disability and there is no chance I could afford this or navigate these other issues. There are so many more people these days who have disability, physical and mental illness.
Studies have shown that children with multiple siblings tend to be better socialized than those with none or only one. I don't think it is a coincidence that rates of difficulties like Social Anxiety have exploded as family sizes have shrunk.
I’ve often wondered about this - but what about the fact that neurotic people tend to have fewer children ? They can be more cautious, future oriented, fearful of what ifs. I’m surrounded by folks like this in the urban environment. They have fewer kids, if any. In settings that are simpler to navigate, folks have more kids. My parents were simple folk, I mean that in the best way, and they had 8 kids. I’m the youngest and moved to the city and tried to live a more complex life, blah, blah, and I found myself just capable of having 1 child. So maybe people who are more worried and uptight - for whatever reason / have fewer kids and those kids inherit their parents traits from genes/environment.
@ForbiddenMiloVideos
Downey, D. B., Condron, D. J., & Yucel, D. (2015). Number of Siblings and Social Skills Revisited Among American Fifth Graders. Journal of Family Issues
J, M., Madigan, et al. (2019). The Development of Empathic Concern in Siblings: A Reciprocal Influence Model. Child Development
White, N., & Hughes, C. (2018). Why siblings matter : the role of brother and sister relationships in development and well-being.
There is a similar theory that increasing hikikiomori numbers happened partially from Japanese family sizes declining during the Showa Era...
@@Warsie Well, isn't the Showa era where parents decided to have fewer kids, but send them to as much cram school as possible?
@@skylinefever like after the 60s I guess
I work in a nursing home. I have an entire building full of people whose kids have abandoned them. I find this idea of children as a retirement plan rather naive.
Well said. Not a good reason to have kids.
Yes, but many of those parents were abusive or neglectful. You only see them as pitiful and helpless elders, not as the adults their children experienced.
So you're undergoing more of a filter selection - more bad and unworthy parents are dumped into nursing homes.
I think characterizing conservatives as anti-environmentalist is not only deeply unfair, ita also absurd given the historical track record going back well over 100 years of conservatives being the conservationists.
The left has long since given up caring about the *environment* and now funnels 100% of their fervor into *climate change* activism which is NOT synonymous with environmental activism. It might help to actually go out to rural areas and talk to real life conservatives who are fishing, hunting,hiking, enjoying national parks and having lots of kids and ask them what they think about protecting the ENVIRONMENT as opposed to reducing emissions and becoming vegan.
In fact veganism is a great example of the left's climate change myopia. Popular vegan foods are very harmful to the environment in a multitude of ways through how they are processed and created. Solar panels are another instance of massively prioritizing climate change, with calous disregard for the environment. Solar panels and the batteries required to store them are two of the most environmentally dirty products in the modern world requiring strip mining, massive pollution, not to mention slave labor in most cases. Ask a conservative if they prefer the environmental poisoning that is caused by Solar panels or to set up an alternative like wood gasifer or even hydroelectric dams or modern nuclear power plant and see who is the environmentalist.
Point is, the weakest part of the argument is that moving to a conservative majority future does not spell demise for the environment .
Well, climate change *does* affect the environment, except instead of a lithium mine or whatever which might cause a small amount of environmental destruction locally, the equivalent fossil fuel plant will cause *global* environmental damage. Which is worse?
Environmentalism =/= never doing anything ever. On the contrary, if we want a green future we will actually have to build it, even if that means chopping down the odd tree here and there.
Preach 🙌
Great comment. As always with the left, they are good at characterizing the problem, very bad at coming up with the solution.
I live in rural Australia and the green left is bulldozing ancient forest near my town to build a solar farm to replace hydro electricity. Absolutely insane even by their own ideology. Until you dig a little deeper, the hydro plant was built a century ago and provides affordable electricity. The solar farm will produce expensive intermittent electricity. And the greens stated goal is to destroy capitalism..
I often talk about "Environmental elite" vs everyone else. Al Gore goes flying around the world in his private jet, telling us plebs to save fuel.
My mother passed away when I was 5 and I’ve grown up in this “compassion” culture that seems to place compassion everywhere except towards children. As a guy I’m also naturally biologically distant from feminine compassion. With that being said words can’t describe how much this podcast means to me I listen to every episode. Thank you Louise for doing this you’re an incredible person I hope you get to become a role model to millions of young women and men
@@janemoore4395 agreed but you wouldn’t exist if your parents didn’t decide to have you. Unless you’re worthless id say that was pretty important
I can't help but think that sometimes you just have to let nature run its course. If people have such extreme views that they die out, maybe their way of life isn't sustainable. 🤷♀️
As a contented grandfather I feel sorry for couples who choose lifestyle over a family. How many fabulous trips, meals, experiences can you have, before the novelty wears off? I imagine such a life might be like only having chocolate to eat. But that’s just me. 🙏🏻
@@kc6810 Maybe? I didn’t grow up in a terrible situation, but it was unlike the one I find myself in. I understand your point, but if you turn it on it’s head you could say, maybe many who choose not to have annual overseas holidays and eat regularly at fabulous restaurants came from a not so desirable upbringing & just don’t see the future as you have it.
In summary, I spend a lot of time feeling grateful. I hope you have a life, or end up with a life, which makes you feel grateful. 🙏🏻😊
I fear for the elderly without devoted children when grifters try to hustle them, nursing facility workers abuse them, or when the State comes round (it's coming, no doubt) with the Final Jab.
I’m a manosphere kind of guy but I find your content and manner very accessible. I found you via Chris Williamson and I am glad I did.
This is a great discussion with lots of food for thought. Thank you and I look forward to more.
I was raised in an intellectual and progressive environment and I was very liberal for my entire life until now. I would say I am politically homeless now, but my values are more conservative. I have three children and all my liberal friends hate children and are very antinatalist. Over time being liberal made less and less sense to me especially since I am rejected by liberals for having children. Most of feminism and sexual liberation hurts women and families. I am on the side of family. Family is everything.
It's weird how this antinatalist impulse among liberals coexists with a sort of starry-eyed youth worship ("oh they're so much more enlightened than the older generation" etc). Where do they think young people come from?
With time you start to grok why cosetvative values are what they are.
I agree that feminism is against women and families. We used to say if you are not a socialist at twenty you have no heart, if you are not conservative at thirty you have no brain.
Why be liberal or conservative ? Why do our identities need to be dictated by political parties?
@Sarcodon Blue I didn't see any mention of political parties....where dud you see that?
11:03 "It's more difficult right now for gay couples to have kids if they want them." Pretty sure that's been the case since the first vertebrate flopped out of the ocean 300 million years ago. It's not just about money.
I'm not against gay couples raising kids, but I think it's very clear that the only moral way for a gay couple to "have" a child is either 1) if it's one of their own biological children from a previous relationship or 2) they've adopted/fostered. Surrogacy and artificial insemination are such a blight on any society, and to see so many gay/lesbian couples I know speak so flippantly about these procedures is so dehumanizing to any future child they claim to want to take care of. Children aren't commodities, you don't just get to pay some poor or deluded woman to grow a human being inside of them and then pick it up at the hospital when it's done like you're picking up your furniture from Ikea. Children aren't science experiments either, and they deserve more respect than to be so removed from the sanctity of life by having a doctor turkey baste them into existence with some random guys spunk or mixing them in a test tube with the DNA of two men (like what the fuck? this will never be a scientific reality without major consequences).
The act of a man and woman making love and an egg being naturally fertilized from that love making is sacred. The act of carrying that conceived life in you for months is sacred. Going through the pain of birth and then getting to hold that baby close to your skin while you watch their little face that is a perfect amalgamation of yours and your husband's is sacred. Feeding that child with your own breast milk and instinctively getting up in the middle of the night because your hormones have completely rewired and you know even in your sleep when your baby's breathing patterns change is sacred.
And of course not all children are born out of love and their biological parents fail them, and that is why it is essential for any society that there are good natured couples, regardless of their sexuality, who are willing to take these children in and show them unconditional love.
You arguments apply a lot more to gay men than they do to lesbians. It's the motherhood bond, forged through pregnancy, that's most important. Lesbians do not require to rent another woman's womb for nine months in order to have their own baby. If you have an issue with artifical insemination then why does that only apply to lesbians and not straight couples who can't conceive naturally?
If we just zoom way, way out and look at this, perhaps we should ask the obvious question;
If one ideology reliably results in its adherents avoiding participation in humanity's existence in the future and opting into genetic and species wide extinction, whereas the other ideology reliably results in its adherents actively looking forward to the future and ensuring humanity continues to exist beyond their own lives......why are we sure the inherently extinctionist ideology is the good one?
Well, good =/= successful, for starters.
Well is unsuccessfull => good really possible?
For sure, successfull => good is not true. Not all successfull cultures are good. However, can it be claimed that a culture leading to unsuccessfull outcomes for it’s members is indeed good?
@@mstorgaardnielsen In context, I meant "successful" as in "achieves political hegemony" rather than "furthers human flourishing".
I think it's pretty obvious that some good ideas get ignored or demonised, while some bad ideas get adopted by both the masses and the establishment.
@@alexpotts6520
The odd thing in this context, why is progressiveness seen as good, when it obviously leads away from human flourishing.?
Why is it never questioned that perhaps some of the progressive ideas and ideals might be bad?
I think about how in businesses over the past 40 years, it seems success is determined by how much narcissism and sociopathy the c-suite has.
It was refreshing to see you interview someone I both dislike and disagree with. I haven't gone two for two on this podcast yet! It was interesting all the same, keep up the good work.
I was a bit horrified how they were both giddy over arriving at an old U.S.S.R. policy about heavily taxing those who choose not to have children. It should wake them up to the true roots of their beliefs. Anointing themselves as superior, both intellectually and morally, is at the core of these beliefs and I find it very, very ugly. True liberalism in the ether of objective reality will make good ideas thrive and bad ideas die. No heavy handed, iron-fisted authoritarianism is needed.
Yes, it does boil down to “I know better than you. Here’s my degree to prove it. Now get back on your knees”.
It’s sounds totally different in the context of our system here in Scandinavia.
Here the tax is done entirely on the earner on a year by year basis. The tax system is - for reasons of “fairness” - progressive with earnings above 50.000 being taxed 65%.
This means that a familiy of two earning 2x80.000USD/year is taxed less than a family earning 1x40.000USD/year + 1x120.000USD/year.
The eact same taxation for a family of 5 with two earners.
Effectively, a youngster earning 45.000 USD/year with only him or herself to supporr is getting “lightly” taxed wheras the breadwinner dad earning on 40.000 USD/year behalf of 5 family members is a rich b*** and has to hand over 65% of his marginal earnings to society.
@@mstorgaardnielsen That sounds like typical bureaucratic leadership. In the U.S., I was paying 53% (State and Federal) income tax until Trump's tax cut brought me down to 51%. I pay $1100 a month for health insurance. No kids, never use any public services except the roads which are taxed on gasoline. Once, the police came because of a false alarm. They charged me a $175 penalty.
@@jtkilowatt9941
It’s very difficult to compare.
Taxes in Denmark also covers health insurance and primary, secondary and most of tertiary education, base level pension, base level parental leave, most of day care costs, base level unemployment benefits.
So there’s a lot in the typical wellfare state package that’s not in the US style package.
I agree, I just think about how many awful parents would pop out a kid as a tax break, and treat that child with as much respect as a piece of accounting paperwork. There is no benefit to a high birth rate if it just means more resented children treated like shit.
The point you raised about Israel is only half correct. The high birth rate in Israel is primarily being driven by high fertility among religious Jews whereas secular Jews seem to have a birth rate right below replacement level.
great talk. However, Simone and her partner are very wealthy and very privileged in terms of social class and education. Her world view and perspectives on family clearly reflect this. Interesting but niche.
The cost of childbirth comes up often on this channel. As an American I'm aware it is expensive but if your income is low and you're without insurance the government steps in with a program called Medicaid. Also if you have an emergency and can't afford your treatment there are charities and other programs that step up to help. If the hospital requires you to pay the entire bill And you don't qualify for any charity or program the hospital is required to be satisfied with small payments. When i was a child my family didn't have insurance. My parents sent five dollars a month for years on one treatment. I certainly don't want a single-payer government plan. Our government is very inefficient and doesn't care about its citizens. I prefer what we have now.
The Amish double in population every 20 years. The family that prays together breeds together. The fertility rate in the US has not changed much since the 70's (1.7-1.9) with most of the pop increase due to immigration and their first gen children. In no time in history have we experienced an extinction level event of certain character traits that have been maintained in the past through of selective breading rather than natural selection.
This channel is very underrated. The fact that you do not have more subscribers is a crime.
I really appreciate Simone's perspective here and support her goals. However the progressive worldview carries so much doom and gloom. When my first was born I felt like I had to break permanently from that ideology, honestly. some of the self-loathing and anti-human tenets seem so integral to it, that worldview essentially says you are selfish if you choose to raise children. Hard to imagine them turning that around.
Well, it can be argued that since no child chooses to be born, choosing to reproduce is selfish.
I have a problem with characterizing conservatives as close minded here.
Yes, I've frequently described myself as a very open minded right winger, (since I conceded there's little point trying to dismiss or transcend the left-right spectrum when talking to other political people); however I would concede that there may well be an average aggregate difference that justifies the characterisation generally.
@@GodsOwnPrototype Conservative thinking is by definition closed minded.
@@sarahrobertson634
Thank you for being an epitome of an example of the closed mindedness that made prior commentators object to the characterisation.
Conservatives are definitionally concerned with Preservation & a cautious balance of values (see the moral foundations analysis of Jonathan Haidt)
@@GodsOwnPrototype Conservatives consistently score lower on trait openness on big-five personality model tests. So instead of saying conservatives are closed minded, it's more accurate to say that conservatives are less open minded than progressives.
@@GodsOwnPrototype Preservation and caution are...the opposite of openness. Duh.
"Have more liberal babies to counterbalance those evil conservative babies", or as my mother always says, "the wrong people are having kids".
Either way you say it, it's disgusting. And children do NOT always believe what their parents believe, it's a ridiculous argument.
I often joke about convincing geniuses to have kids to keep the Idiocracy in check. Nevermind if people want children or not.
The Collins' time horizon is 200+ years. Any method that does not produce great grandchildren is a failure by that metric. The only culture that succeeds by that metric is one where people voluntarily want to have children and those children do not resent them for being born and want to continue the line.
Her mentioning Blippi got me chuckling. Both of my toddler sons enjoy Blippi a whole lot and have a love for construction equipment and fire trucks! Ha. All that aside, it's really refreshing to see someone from a progressive background (which is also my experience but that changed after I became a parent) who is Pro-Natalist. I know so many friends/family who are vehemently anti-natalist and now that I am expecting my 3rd child in 4 years (my 4th child all together) I was shocked by the reception the announcement ended up having. "Don't you want to travel before your 60?" "But you'll never have time and money for yourself!" "Big families are so bad for the climate!" and on and on. I sit back and smile and encourage child-rearing and procreation as much as I can. I did plenty of traveling and did the hedonism thing in my early 20's and was quickly over it. I have my children, my husband and plenty of intellectual and faith-based pursuits that are so much more fulfilling. Great conversation!
We had 8 children. I had three brothers, one had no children, the other two, one each. Total grandchildren 10, ÷ by 4 'parents', 2.5 children per son. I rest my case.
USSR did not tax childless people, USSR taxed childless men. The policy was known as "the nuts tax"
Compering Blippi to Andrew Tate was so sudden, but so accurate that left me bursting with laughter :D Good one!
great episode, thank you!
38:26 If you massively tax people who don't have children and give enormous tax breaks to people who do have children, you're only going to end up further punishing low status men, who are already deemed unattractive to women, whilst further rewarding billionaires like Elon Musk, who have multiple children to multiple women.
I can't see how this sort of policy would ever work, since you'd be further disenfranchising men and giving them little incentive to become productive members of society. The talented and productive men would likely emigrate to somewhere that values them more highly, while the less productive men would likely just drop out of society altogether or turn to crime.
It also punishes women who don't want kids. NO ONE should have children who does not want them.
@@devilkitty6725 Indeed. The welfare class often pops out dysfunctional kids because they have an incentive to. That is thge last thing that ever needs to be incentivized.
@@skylinefever They don't have an incentive to have children though. Child benefit doesn't even come close to covering the financial costs of raising a child. Nobody is having children just so they can claim benefits. As ever, I can't help thinking that those who think there are people out there who actively seek a benefits lifestyle have never lived on benefits themselves.
@@alexpotts6520 Ever see the welfare rats of section 8?
V interesting conversation as always
I don't want more money from the government or better childcare. I want to be home with my child.
Fair enough for having her on but she certainly has a warped perspective on things. Can't say I agree with her on many things.
I'm glad you caught that. It's like every insightful thing she said refuted the value of her progressive ideals in the first place.
@@MisyeDiVre Exactly
which of her perspectives are most warped?
yep the hypocrisy is amazing - "throwing money at problem is bad ....... free daycare would be awesome.".
6:44 I’ve had a few Israeli friends, cross training with military guys at the time when I was in the marines. Every one of them said that they’re taught something along the lines of “have whatever number of kids you wanted already, and then have one more for those ‘lost.’”
Interesting discussion, another great interview
That Blippy = Andrew Tate comparison made me lol
I'd still let me kids watch Andrew Tate before Blippi 😂
As a social conservative, I had to laugh at parts of this episode as progressives lament that their ideology ultimately results in loneliness and sterility (although I would appreciate a definition of "progressive" here because I think Perry's definition of the term could be very different from others!)
I am glad I gave this episode a shot still because Collins made great points about our society having a teenage mindset and needing to take it's foot off the neck of parents!
I think the real problem is that our society really looks down on women who sacrifice career for family, we will never fix birth rates if we can't change that.
Why aren’t software engineers or many other critical fields asked to provide their labour for free to society for the benefit of others… why are only women demonised for wanting to be remunerated for their labour. Until raising kids is economically beneficial to individuals then you’ll see low birth rates continue.
I have been a stay at home wife and mother most of my adult life. It was not people who looked down on me for this role it was women. To be more specific it was childless women in their 30s with careers in middle management. I'm Australian, but I don't think it's different in the UK or North America.
@@Coastpsych_fi99In Australia in the 1980s there was an allowance paid to married mothers who didn't work, but stayed home with their children. However time and inflation means it's a mere pittance now. Feminists don't demand it being raised. Instead they demand free daycare.
High birth rates existed before industrialization and urbanization. Now that children are not labor forces and pension plans for their parents, why bother?
@@grannyannie2948 Firstly, feminism is not a homogenous movement with a singular school of thought. Specifically liberal feminists push a pro-work agenda and are given the most support by the capitalist classes but plenty of other types of feminists have been critical of the system and want women’s work respected such as motherhood.
Feminists have researched and written articles on motherhood, domestic work and other difficult topics but in a capitalist system not all discourse is valued.
Taxing childless people would mean penalizing involuntarily childless people. “Tax on childless” framing is cruel.
Well in either case it's still fair because even the unvoluntarily childless still escaped the cost of raising children and will still depend on the taxes of other people's children for their pensions.
Society literally exists for the benefit of the subsequent generation, don't get it twisted. It's in the govts interest to perpetuate the species.
It may not feel nice, but if you are childless, you still benefit from others having children - those kids'll be your doctor when you're 60-death and fund your pension.
“Parenting is all joy and no fun.” I really like that.
46:00 Exactly! Extended adolescence seems to be a major thing now.
Its also the Economy, How is a Man supposed to feed a Family with these low wages? and if both Parents work they can not look out for the Kids.
@@BigRussianCatWithFloppyEarsThis is why I am for remote work and gain global skill sets that will make that possible.
Coming from Australia, there will never be incentive to have children because there are so many peoples of the world who are willing to emigrate - why pay for home grown children when you have young, educated professional people from other countries ready, willing and able to work and contribute to the economy? It's not a perfect system, but with such high immigration rates in this country we will never see 'generous' support for women to have babies. (I'm speaking in relative terms, our support for babies and children might appear to be generous compared to other countries. A woman who has invested up to $100,000 on her education and is on the cusp of earning a six figure income is not going to choose the measly couple of hundred bucks a month the government provides to have children). I am not anti immigration, I am exploring the issue from an Australian perspective.
I didn't mention the tax rebates for having a baby that are granted in some cases. It all helps, but honestly given the cost of raising a child it's a drop in the ocean.
Very nice interview with Ronald Mael of Sparks.
Children born to an affluent family in the western world will use 400-800 times more resources, have 400-800 times more destructive effect on the planet, than one born in Bangladesh, or another poor country. Gosh, it's such a tragedy we're having less children.
Collins has a myopic upper middle class viewpoint of childless lifestyle. Plenty of singles and childless couple don't travel internationally and don't go out to restaurants. Either it doesn't interest them or they can't afford it.
Indeed, reddit's childfree is full of people who are still broke because the job market and economy is bullshit. They don't have nice cars, they don't have Apple tech, they don't have avocado toast, and they don't get to travel.
Looking at things from a slightly different perspective: Economics rules all, but policy and planning is a part of economics and the endurance of communities. When it is lacking, we get cascading repercussions of endless unsynchronized citizenry finishing out their own individual races. For myself, a lack of funding for college, lack of a reliable backup or secure financial foundation as a young adult, and the massive financial event of 2008 just when I was getting some ground under my feet all managed to put my life back by about ten to 15 years. To hear Simone talk about people staying "stuck" in a cycle of travel and health and dating and lacking fulfillment, I can understand the charge, but for me, it would be nothing but an upgrade. There are legions of us who wish we could travel or be financially secure enough to even date. For us, it's been like a life under financial house arrest. As a man, once and 'if' I ever get out of it, marriage will be the last thing on my mind because I've never known what 'fun' even is. And I know some will see that as tragic or immature, and I can't predict the future, but it should be somewhat understandable.
On this note, I see a lot of overlaps with Mary Harrington, because it makes sense that such an incredibly reckless set of policy, economic and energy planning confluences that prioritized corporations and deprived citizenry of reliable income, assets, affordable housing, gardens or common spaces, leads to a civilization that sucks autonomy out of the family unit. There is, of course a profound connection here between distressing climate prospects and the incoherence of our social system viability. When surplus energy via the advent of oil is able to create industrialization, industry and globalization, with all of its aspects of capital concentration, centralization and division of labor, then the family unit that would otherwise be nested within a community bound to its own local resource sustainability and trade and domestic production, (as Harrington noncommittally references the middle ages for instances of), completely disappears.
This brings me to Nate Hagens, a thinker and educator on the topic of ecological economics and energy, who predicts that we will see a "great simplification" once this energy boom ceases. In short, Nate Hagens believes that we will face a simplification of our way of living either by planning for it in order to survive without killing the planet, or by necessity once the finite surplus energy that our industrial system relies upon runs out. In this sense, the re-localization of our society and economies at least to some extent or another is inevitable from an ecological perspective, but should also be planned for if we are to have a goal of re-centering our work lives around family and community. In any case, I would highly recommend perusing some of the work and interviews from Nate Hagens on u-tube if you are not familiar with him, and/or watching his presentation to GITA (Global Impact Tech Alliance) to help to round out your perspective and resources on issues of ecology, energy and eventualities.
Indeed, much of it stinks of "You young people just need to stop buying Apple phones, Starbucks, and avocado toast."
Regarding tax incentives: adopt a 30-year-phase-in to change how Social Security pays out. Keep payroll taxes the same, but 30 years from now, your benefit will be 100% paid by the contributions of your descendants. No descendants, no payout.
I think this conversation highlights that if you associate with the left or the right or some other ideology it’s low level thinking. Stop identifying with group think and actually think for your self.
Thank you!
I have been doing that ever since moron Bush II created loads of government bloat and debt from the "Party of fiscal responsibility and small government."
Family car uses 110 tons of oil per lifetime of use. One containers of objects transported from China to the UK uses 500 tons of oil per hour.
It shows me what a fraud many "environmentally sustainable" movements are. These companies just make the same junk in the same toxic factories in China. They then end up in the same landfill around the same time as the rest of the Chinese junk. About the only difference is in the marketing department.
Would you sell me 500 tons of oil for $2650, because that is all it costs to ship a 40ft container.
Please do not assume that large families are poor families. There are many well-educated & wealthy couples that have large families. They do so by choice & often religious faith.
Don't assume that poor families have more children through ignorance. They too have children because they value them. I am part of a group of people where the average family size is 5
& incomes vary from struggling to rich.
The world is more insane than it was 20 years ago . I can see why a lot of young people are afraid to have children. Why aren't we looking into the causes of the rise in disability and illness?
The upfront costs are very minimal to having children. You don’t need to go to a hospital or have a c section! Or get IVF, start you g, be fit, prepare for birth, be active, stay flexible and birth your children at home with a midwife. The traditional way that didn’t involve corporations medicalizing pregnancy and childbirth. It starts with changing your perspective and your choices.
Yeah, and women used to be much more likely to die in childbirth! Home birth works out well only in some cases; not in all. And even a seemingly uncomplicated pregnancy can take a sudden turn for the worse and require a c section or other hospital services. And IF there’s a problem, isn’t it best if you’re already AT a hospital rather than having to rush there mid-delivery?
I have thought about this as well. How we're affecting human evolution through these choices. I didn't think of so much from a cultural perspective, but from the fact that if only the most maternal humans have children then our species will become even more maternal overall.
Childfree is a self correcting problem.
@@skylinefever I agree, but it'll be one hell of a ride to get to the point to where it starts to correct itself.
@@rathelmmc3194 Yes, it will involve the fall of the biggest pyramid scheme economy.
Simone’s more recent views have come a long way. It’s about culture. Create a culture that celebrates and takes pride in marriage and having children. All these socialist bandaid quick fixes don’t solve the root problem.
The disgust of Andrew Tate by people like her is what makes him popular
Tate is a classic douche.
No, evil men is what makes him popular.
And all the women buying 50 Shades of Gray made Tate's view popular?
The most hilarious thing about her using Tate as a poor example of a man is that he consistently advocates for men to have lots of children!!! 😂 He even says that for *most* men marriage and family is good for them - if they can find the right woman.
@@susieare Tate is a pimp and a sex trafficker, and he used to teach other men to pimp as well through his online courses, called Hustler University. He talks about men owning their wives, like slaves, and advocates cheating on them. Is that the kind of man you want having lots of children? You're ret@rded.
Interesting discussion, but I think some things said are wrong.
First, pension systems do not depend on population growth, but productivity growth. The reason why everyone is richer now than they were 60 years ago, despite the fact that the population is much older, is because of productivity growth. If productivity stops growing, then, yes, aging is going to be a huge problem, regardless of pension systems, private individuals and private consumption will also suffer to care for old people.
Second, in order to preserve cultures, I agree that you want a higher fertility rate for the developed world, but also, you want strong boundaries between different kin-cultural groups. You preserve different cultures and groups, despite any differences in fertility, by having separate countries with strong borders. Less immigration is what the West needs for this.
Third, I found it amusing how Simone Collins starts talking about Japan as an example of a catastrophe due to low fertility, and then switches to Detroit. lol. This comparison proves the opposite. Japan has not collapsed and its infrastructure is not falling, because its population has high human capital, therefore it manages to maintain a very nice country. Detroit, on the other hand, collapsed not because of low fertility, but because its high human capital population was replaced by low human capital population, that is, productive people left and unproductive people entered. Which goes to the heart of the issue. Big cities in the West look much worse than big cities in Japan, because the West has allowed third world immigration and Japan has not, so low fertility, while a problem, is less of a problem than third world immigration.
I often joke about what would happen if the Idiocracy went childfree in large numbers.
52:00 I always describe parenting as being like working on an amusement park. Is a lot of fun but also a lot of work.
There is a large economic history literature on family structure in Western and non-Western cultures going back millennia. The nuclear family has been the standard in most of Europe since the Dark Ages.
More generally, Simone Collins has many interesting points, but she also speculates in areas where there is real scholarship, where at least 20-30 years ago these were papers that were taught in history and economics courses, although maybe they have now been forgotten. For example, while between countries we see birthrate fall as female education rises, but this isn't as clear within countries -- where high income families actually have as many or more kids, and these tend to be families where the women have high education (although they may not work.) Family formation, marriage, is higher among the educated, and that correlates with higher birth rates.
THIS >>>>>>> For example, while between countries we see birthrate fall as female education rises, but this isn't as clear within countries -- where high income families actually have as many or more kids, and these tend to be families where the women have high education (although they may not work.)
I think about Jolly Heretic Dutton's "All that she wants" video. It explains how even the desire to have children can be heritable. The people who actually want children are being selected for, thanks for birth control and changing social norms.
Earlier, people ended up with kids, whether they really wanted them or not.
Interesting how libertarian ideas are what makes a larger family possible. "Take you feet of the necks of parents." It's that idea that "just one more law, one more penalty" will fix society. You can't have a corporate family, the multi-generational household if there are legal burdens to more people in a living space, and buying property as something OTHER than a nuclear family.
Thank you, Miss Perry, for another great episode about an existential issue that affects us all.
I believe there are several ways we can deal with fertility issues as a society, whether we choose to have children or not. We can all contribute in some way. One is through open and civil debate.
First, gay marriage and child-rearing are not equal to traditional marriage and families. Children learn by mirroring male and female parents, something same-sex couples cannot replicate since each gender has unique and inherent qualities that have evolved over millennia to raise healthy, well-balanced, adaptive children and ensure the survival of our species.
I empathize with gay couples. I've had several gay and trans friends. But gay marriage and parenting is a social experiment with unintended consequences for future generations, or worse, a selfish way to promote a radical agenda and destabilize society.
Since families are the cornerstone of civilization, they should be revered, encouraged, and given preference in government policies. Unfortunately, society pushes an adversarial, win-lose narrative between men and women and tries to redefine gender, biology, and evolution to promote a woke agenda.
Second, based on empirical evidence and simple math, ESG, and climate change are outright scams subsidized by the government and promoted via government policies, regulation, and collusion with big tech, large corporations, academia, the entertainment industry, NGOs, and many others. They would not be viable in a genuine free market economy.
Like traditional families, reliable, inexpensive, and abundant fossil fuels are the cornerstone of civilization and progress. Without this energy, we revert to systemic deficiencies and struggle for our basic needs, and society becomes more unstable, chaotic, and dangerous.
Third, a bloated, wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient government are the cause of almost every problem you discussed in this episode. They distort the free market and the price of money, waste precious resources, prints money out of nothing, create inflation, run up massive debts and deficits, and corrupt everything it touches, which affects every aspect of society, especially the ability to raise a family.
In conclusion, no government or individual can micro-manage a complex system, such as an economy or human nature, and reliably predict the future. The only solution is limited government, a genuine free market, the rule of law, traditional families, and a merit-based society with equal opportunity, but not the outcome.
A society that discourages superficial relationships and pursuits and instead encourages real human connections and tangible goods and services. Every aspect of modern life can only be made possible with cheap and abundant fossil fuel as its foundation until new nuclear technologies compete in the free market and are widely adopted.
There is no such thing as a perfect society or system of governance. And human nature doesn't change. But the United States founding documents and principles has the best empirical track record for success with the most equitable outcome.
@@kc6810 I agree. It's too complicated to go into a lengthy discussion here. But I'd like to respond to a few of your points.
I also agree that a gay couple can be loving and good parents with the best intentions. My point was more about the inherent, biological, and evolutionary advantages of heterosexual couples perfected over millennia. Regarding having family and others to compensate for the lack of a male or female parent, it lacks the necessary time and context to be of equal benefit. Not even close.
And would you want a child to be adopted by a gay couple, knowing the inherent disadvantage and challenges?
Regarding companies. They are obligated to their shareholders and customers, not some government-mandated ESG scam, saving the planet, or social engineering. And a genuine free market without government interference, honest money, the rule of law, competition, empirically based regulations, win/win deals, and the threat of criminal or civil litigation form the rules and foundation on which companies operate.
And those same companies consist of regular people with families, friends, and strong community ties. So I'm sure they have an interest in clean air and water. Furthermore, people vote with their money. If a company lacks integrity, doesn't share the same values as its core customers, discriminates against certain groups, or doesn't provide quality products or service, without government interference, they go out of business.
Finally, regarding your comment, it all sounds lovely if people would just behave. That will never happen because human nature doesn't change. We are all fallible, imperfect creatures driven by intense emotions, primal instincts, and rapidly advancing technology that distorts reality and fuels discord. That's why we need the rule of law, strong families and communities, virtue, social norms, shared history and values, wisdom, and common goals and interests to keep us from killing each other.
I'm agnostic. But consider the story of Adam and Eve. I assume they were beautiful and didn't age, know hard work, hunger, cold, or lack anything. And the sex must have been amazing! They lived in paradise in harmony with nature. Yet they managed to fuck that up, and now all of humanity has to pay for their stupidity. It's human nature to screw things up.
@@kc6810 I agree that successful, ambitious individuals have sociopathic characteristics, but many start businesses or enter a career that benefits society. But politicians share the same traits, and instead, most enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
In a free society and genuine free market, individuals and companies have limited power or influence over others and impact. And they are accountable for their actions to their families, neighbors, communities, shareholders, customers, etc. But people in government have enormous power and influence to affect everybody and almost no accountability.
Consider government waste, fraud, abuse, debt, and deficits. And the Twitter files, ongoing coup against a former president and likely candidate, Biden and Clinton crime syndicates, Obama and many others weaponizing government agencies, the Ukraine and other unconstitutional wars, Patriot and Restrict Act, Covid, ESG, and affirmative action scams, etc. Companies and individuals could never get away with that.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that perfection or a utopian society is attainable. I just prefer individual freedom, free markets, and limited government rather than statism, tyranny, and bloated, inefficient bureaucracies.
Regarding gay couples and children, I don't think they're better off being adopted by a gay couple. Empirically, gay people have much higher drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness. Also, consider several high-profile gay murder-suicides and severe abuse involving multiple adopted children, several trans mass shootings and continued threats (also involving children), trans story time at libraries, trans and gays in the sex trade, children at trans strip shows, etc.
We want children raised in an ideal environment. But we live in a free country. And in a free country, people often make bad choices, and children suffer. Or a parent dies, or they divorce, or one doesn't take responsibility for his child. All of that is out of our control. But gay adoption and its inherent disadvantages and unknowns are within our control. That said, gay couples can have children via a surrogate, or when a family member is incarcerated or dies, they should have the option to adopt their kin.
I've worked with children via Child Protective Services, in a youth home, and across the country in countless schools and with law enforcement and local politicians. I also read a lot and have a unique and extensive history. Sadly, I've witnessed the worst of humanity, including my childhood traumas.
We should support the traditional nuclear family, strong values and work ethic, meritocracy, Rule of Law, limited government, and free markets that created the freest and most prosperous country in human history. That will give kids the best chance at a happy, healthy upbringing. The radical Progressive agenda and secular, anything-goes narrative do not.
You seem to have a negative opinion of companies and free-market capitalism in general. I suggest you read the article and visit the link below and check out the free content of several of my favorite writers. Bill Bonner (Bonner Private Research), James Hickman [aka Simon Black] of Sovereign Man, Brian Maher [The Daily Reckoning], Daniel Horowitz [Blaze Media], David Cole and Ann Coulter [Taki's Magazine], and the work of Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, and Walter E. Williams.
dailyreckoning.com/what-if-socialism-worked/
energytalkingpoints.com/
@@kc6810 Regarding companies, you vote with your money in a free market. No coercion, just lots of choices.
@@kc6810 What creates those monopolies? Why are there systemic distortions throughout society? Why do we have high inflation? What destroyed the middle class? Government interference in the free market.
They distort the price of money (interest rates), back a 100% FIAT currency (not backed by gold or other tangible assets), over-regulate to crowd out small businesses that cannot afford to comply, offer subsidies for non-competitive business products (ESG), bail out their friends, and reward their big donors and lobbyists for supporting their campaigns. And there are many more examples.
Regardless, you still have choices, but you may not like them. I shop at Trader Joe's, a private grocery chain. They're far less “woke” and respected my rights during Covid tyranny. I also purchase supplements from small private companies with high-quality products and similar values. But as the government's power grows, my choices are greatly diminished.
@@kc6810 Wow, where do I even start? I rarely, if ever, read anything blatantly partisan and fueled by ideology. My time is too valuable, and decades of reading (trusted sources), critical thinking, and life experience have served me well, but I made an exception this time.
We've already agreed that the comment section, chat, email, etc., is insufficient to debate complex and existential topics. So, I'll keep my response brief.
First, the article made numerous empirically false assertions and consistently blamed Republicans and, indirectly, free markets. But correlation is not causation. And when you're motivated by ideology it's impossible to think critically and challenge your bias.
Second, Reagan supported free markets and limited government. But as President, according to his former budget director, David Stockman, and others, the swamp forced him to compromise, and he made some obvious mistakes.
Third, almost every problem cited in the article was caused in some way by going off the gold standard (dishonest money, which affects EVERYTHING) and a bloated, corrupt government with a provable record of massive waste, fraud, and abuse.
Finally, as I suggested before, it comes down to who should decide, a bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy thousands of miles away or individuals closest to the facts who have the most to lose?
Besides the authors I mentioned in my previous post, perhaps the links below will provide additional clarity.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I always value and appreciate civil discourse.
bonnerprivateresearch.substack.com/p/here-comes-the-sun
bonnerprivateresearch.substack.com/p/louis-14th-has-a-toothache
dailyreckoning.com/the-most-dangerous-man-on-earth/
www.theburningplatform.com/2023/02/19/march-of-folly-american-empire/#more-292812
wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Fantastic episode. It’s so important!
Btw.: The marriage ritual used (in some cultures) to be a rite of passage transitioning from youth to parrnthood.
Perhaps we should put a bit more of that content back into this rite.
Sounds like a way of confirming the permanent adolescence of those who remain unmarried.
@@alexpotts6520 Indeed.
I think about all the people who reach adulthood, show up to their job on time, pay all their bills on time, but are still "Perpetual adolesents" for not marrying and popping out kids.
Just imagine how much worse things will get when all the unmarried people are seen as people who never show up to work and never pay bills. The system would grind to a halt. After all, people used top get some degree of social validation from those two things., Taking that away will make things worse.
Louise, you mention on Gad Saad podcast that 2-5% of sexual assault victims are male. Does this include prison and military populations? I read if you include these two large populations the numbers are wildly different. 🤔
Simone is a queen!
Dunno, she looks like an oddball to me. She's wearing a coat indoors, why? And she's got those weird 'problem glasses'. She also has quite erratic mannerisms and overly exaggerated facial expressions, almost childlike, as if she either hasn't matured enough to be able to control her emotions, or she does it for effect, like a kind of attention seeking behaviour. None of that is very queen-like behaviour, if you compared to an actual queen like the late Elizabeth the 2nd, for example.
Anyway, I thought you were writing a book about how women can manipulate their boyfriends or something, Diana? When's it coming out?
It would be wonderful - though I don't know how likely - to have Michelle Goldberg on here, talking about the difficulties feminism faces in the States, and US journalism in particular.
"Disgust" response? No. Surrogacy and artificial wombs are treated with disfavour BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD FOR BABIES. Much of interest here, but the interviewee is often glib and superficial.
Thank you.
Yup
Human life is not sacred to materialists. They often let the mask slip.
Please don't raise my taxes for being autistic and bad with women, I'd love to have a kid but ladies don't want me 😭
Step off the neck of parents. I believe Work From Home would have one those stepping on the neck of parents, which is ironically not supported by Elon Musk who called out population collapse.
We don't live on a 'planet', the CC (can't say it, comment will disappear) is overstated (and may even be a good thing!) and the best way to economise the environment (as with everything else) is by respecting property rather than confiscating it and giving it to a nefarious managerial elite.
So much nonsense advocacy of 'free' healthcare here, too.
"We don't live on a planet".
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.
Think what you want, but I looked at the thumbnail for this episode, and the eccentric glasses just screamed "progressive liberal".
You want progressiveness, feminism but don't want there long term results
You want oranges to grow on an apple tree.
They want everything without compromise, just like everyone else.
4 kids under 30 here. Conservative and Very very Christian. It’s a good start.😅
I hope you don't become the kind that forces your children into it, and end up making rabid atheists.
I think my kids will be intelligent enough to make the logical choice@@skylinefever being that logic is dependant upon a teleological axiom (God) I think the answer is easy. Also it helps that I love them a Lot.
These rich people are crazy
Even with the worst-case scenario, there will still be four billion people in 100 years.
It is the irony of ironies that the people are more likely to eschew evolutionary theory are conservatives. Yet, it is the conservative emphasis on having families that confers upon them an evolutionary advantage over progressives who subscribe wholeheartedly to evolutionary theory.
Sure, but progressives hate any concept of heritibility of IQ, or the Idiocracy scoring Darwin Awards.
Why should individuals think on a macro level?
They shouldn't. But someone (ie the government) should think about how to organise society to avoid tragedy of the commons/prisoner's dilemma scenarios where the best choices at an individual level are bad for society when you add them all together.
Because we all die and believing that life can carry on without you is important to the health of the soul.
@@RCCarDude I’m sure that may be true for some people. But for me, it’s not important at all.
@@blafonovision4342 Okay, great? You have less self awareness than animals that procreate for the sustained existence of their species. Hang your cap on that, I guess?
Secular Israeli BR is not very high. It’s nearly all due to Ultra Orthodox
I often joke that the population will be the theocracy and Idiocracy, and sometimes there is significant overlap.
Fertile progressive culture!!! Okay so you want these suffering last till eternity what a solution🙂🙃
Who can afford a child realistically?
Apparently all the conservatives.
Plenty of people
Not the people who prioritize lifestyle over family!
Why not ask your patents?
@@jonahtwhale1779 If I was going to canvass the public for dumb answers, I succeeded
Who could afford children in previous generations, say a hundred years ago, in an era of much lower GDP and no welfare state? But they still had them!
Obviously it's not for me or anyone else to criticise any individual who genuinely believes they can't afford to have children. It just seems odd to me that, at the population level, concern about the affordability of children is seemingly at an all-time high, given how very much poorer our ancestors were than us. I can only conclude that those previous generations believed that children born into poverty were still children worth having, and I'm glad they had that attitude because otherwise we would not exist.
Plants love carbon right?
Carbon dioxide specifically is used for photosynthesis to create food. So, yes, I would say they love it and need it in order to survive and thrive.
This has been debunked endlessly....
Yes CO2 helps plants grow. Increased temperature reduces that growth despite more CO2.....
It's a tedious climate change deniers talking point. Just not relevant. .
They certainly do, and the more carbon dioxide in the air the less the pores in the leaves need to open in order to breathe. The less the pores open the less water the plant requires. Increased carbon dioxide will lead to arid regions becoming green and prosperous.
I love heresy. You are my hero.
pristine protection of the environment where conservation and prudent development are best clearly. also there is no climate crisis and won't be one until the start of the next ice age caused by milankovitch cycles.
Climate... all the studies show prosperity brings about people who care about the environment. Make Africa prosperous by reliable access to cleaner burning FF like natural gas. Same for any country reliant on Coal. These actions alone would reduce CO2 by half if not more. Then stop the nonsense in the developed world around nuclear. Nuclear tech is now safer than solar and doesn't kill millions of birds like wind. Nuclear would be far cheaper without all the regulations that have been put in place to de-incentivise it. Then we just wait a few more decade until the get fusion on board. Spending 250 Trillion globally for net zero when we know fusion is coming is asinine, but even if it doesn't the aforementioned changes would be enough.
In actual fact people don't like being cold and hungry, which is already happening in first world countries due to climate policies. Germany is reopening coal power stations. As populations shrink, so to will globalisation. Coal is one of the few fuels fairly accessible around the globe. I agree with you about windmills. Solar farms are also environmentally harmful. One of the many idiot ideas of the greens is to replace my states totally renewable hydro power stations in favour of wind and solar. This is clearly ideological (possibly fascist as it's often corporate backed as well) and entirely illogical.
You’re speaking too much truth. Tell men with beards they are actually women and take your meds like the rest of us!
This is why many people argue that environmentalists are more interested in controlling others than actually saving the environment.
50: 00 she doesn't even know what andrew tate speak about he promotes family centric life style have you even watched his interviews
Stop making assumptions
56:56 Why in the past ONE Civilation Dominate the others
It will be like the Old days
I agree that indeed having more open mindness tendencies and more aversion to change tendencies have some genetic bases, however I think this nonsense about because gay do not pass on genes makes the support for gay marriage low. They can adopt kids and those kids will be in favor of gay marriage. If it is for support for gay marriage and LGBTQ+ issues. This is for me lies more in the cultural ideals. Beside progressive politics doesn't mean open mindedness. What is was considered progressive today was not the progressive of past nor will it be the progressive of the future. This arugment have a lot holes in it. If though I agree that we should have childern. I never agree with culture don't have children. I get that one is making a case to "progressive" to have children. But this just has many holes. Besides gay marriage, laws passed not just because of gay people but also because many non gay people also advocated for it.
Among the causes for the fertility collapse, we should not neglect the fact that allowing them to travel on planes has given a very bad reputation to children.
Just let the children go outside and play - at 10,000m!
I like that Scoot airlines of Singapore has nobody under 12 sections on their planes. More airlines need it.
You don’t have to “think through”. You simply have to be observant of people and the way actual life works. Get out of your head… that would be an excellent start.
This is why so many people aren't having kids, they saw the shit their parents had to deal with, and say "No way!"
This might be the weirdest woman I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
Women not liking the long term consequences of their emotionally driven choices?
Colour me surprised!
OMG, the best comment here 🏆
41:34 "Your children are your retirement plan". May I point that where you are not a parent, you can effectively spend all of the capital that you have accumulated and inherited, since your non-children are also your non-heirs?
Hopefully, you get a nice immigrant to wipe you when you're 80. My guess is with all hate thought against traditional populations in the West, those new immigrants won't be too kind. And you deserve it
The pronatalists are counting on the entire economy to collapse so that all retirees without children are out of luck. Fiat money hyperinflated, stock market crashes, asset bubbles popping, and so on.
Pew survey indicates much heritability in political allegiance. Secular conversion(I love that) is not so strong. As a Rabidly anti-Woke individual I’m obviously not too concerned at Ms Redlips lagrimas
Blippy is not a good thing to allow your kids to watch. Children need to spend time with their adult relatives and community members. Learn to grow up by doing grown up things and being around grown ups. It is a collective lie that kids need to be coddled, catered to and put in institutions with other kids all day long (run by the government).
NO CAPES
Man, never say never on the heavier taxation on the childless. That is actually a policy of the third positionists and one that people on the dissident right talk about. So you might actually get some bipartisan support there. How's that for conservatives being "close minded". 😜
“Dissident right” meaning far right, of course. No kidding. Fascists always love the idea of taxing the childless heavily.
@@terry9238 Dissident right argues for protectionist economists, the right spent so much time arguing unlimited free trade is great.
No matter what you say women are very beautiful even if nerdy like her. Sometimes I really jealous of these women i never get a chance to be mom
Can you be dad?
@@jayjaydubful i don't know
We can all intuitively understand that smart people need to outbreed dumb people? Yes, I guess, maybe. But we train ourselves away from this rash idea because it's wrong and unwise.
Here's the rub: smart people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are.
Mike Judge make Idiocracy to joke about it.
I saw if you worry about dumb people breeding, bribe the Idiocracy to get sterilized and show them how awesome not having kids is.
Ermmm just started and you're right into eugenics.....hummmm
Who might be harmed by the policy and cultural proposals suggested here by Simone and Louise?
@@dfleischman
All of humanity because it rejects being human.
Progressivism is a program of human abolition.
@@dfleischman oops when DF replies I need to up my game....good challenge. Something I have been telling my late 20s daughter goes along with this narrative. I am in my 60s btw for context. I think there's a lot of unintended consequences for any life choice / pathway. It seems there's been a big push to tell young women, no hurry girl, you have plenty of time, do your career, you can always freeze your eggs.....which seems a broadly leftie mis advice for a few generations now. While the right recognised this was a bit foolish. Leading to unintended childlessness mainly on the left (I suppose). So if one is to get to the cure, it's a good start to be clear on the causes.
Eco anxiety and the end of days apocalyptic mind set has catastrophised a generation. Rather than there's serious stuff going on here, let's grapple with it....
Even the founders of XR have moved direction to ' be the change' now the alarm has sounded.
Anyways respect DF. Good to see you here...
@@dfleischman Louise suggests that we should heavily tax people who don't have children so we can give enormous tax breaks to people who do. Bear in mind that some people are not able to have children even if they wanted them, including many men who happen to be incels, whereas billionaires like Elon Musk can have multiple children to multiple women and receive all those lovely enormous tax breaks.
@@charlieweaver6322 you’re a smart person. Too smart for 2023.
If population in the global north is declining and the global south will be uninhabitable because of climate change can those in the global south just move to the global north and keep society running here?
No, because we're not meat Legos and a Pakistani just can't take the place of a Welshman, despite what the globalists think. The neoliberal worldview will die from this.
Sure, if nations were made of magic dirt.
How about one vote per kid you're currently raising?
I think this is a good idea in its own right, but its impact on birth rates would be basically zero.
@@alexpotts6520 Tying your voting rights to childbearing? Disgusting. Nobody should be penalized for choosing not to have children.
@@sarahrobertson634 The argument in favour is that this is a way of giving children a vote. At the moment society "punishes" people for being under eighteen, by not giving them any say in how they are governed. I'm sure we'd both agree that kids shouldn't be able to vote themselves, but this is the next best thing.
@@alexpotts6520 That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
And progressive tax for all with the ability of freely sharing income.
So parents with three kids can split their income in five chunks all taxed in the low tax bracket.
Two adults can only spiit in two thus ends up inthe higher tax bracket.
If you need to support your old mom, you can pool your income with her.
So what if a child has the eyes of your rapist?
Why is this lady keeps saying “my husband Malcom”? Does she have another husband (Steve, maybe?)?
Sorry, i should have clarified. The interviewer said “how wonderful is to look at your baby and realize the baby has your eyes”. This was from her perspective the awesome part of motherhood. And I understand that. But would the interviewer have the same comment if it was a baby from a rape and the baby had the eyes of the man who raped her? I imagine it would not be wonderful…
two conservatives chatting away
Yeah, when you are so far to the left, everything else is “right wing”.
@@Locke350 😂 I am a conservative. Chicks become increasingly conservative as they move out of their 20’s
@@TV-oc4ml Not millennials and zillenials as most of them are still voting for left wing parties.
I like conservatism, if free markets and capitalism mean hookers and blow.
33 minutes into it and no mention of abortion.
We need PLANNED pregnancies involving 2 financially stable and married adults
I’ve heard the word abortion at least once, if not twice, and I’m not even 1/3 of the way through.
Indeed, currently 575 surgical abortions in the UK each day and over 10M since 1968.
@@krischette4108
“Planned Parenthood” is premeditated murder. ✂️ 👶
I'd much rather raise birth rates by building a society where people want more kids, rather than forcing women to give birth to and then raise kids they don't want.
Israel is progressive 😂
They have plenty of anti-male laws so it’s not that inaccurate.
@@Locke350 it's an apartheid jewish supremacist state
@@ntm3970Doesn’t disprove that there are anti-male laws there too.
I dont trust her (Simone)
It’s true that USSR and former soviet republics had a tax for being married/having a family. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax