The Baby Bust Generation

[Crotch Sniffer]

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
I like your definition of seuality, I really do - I didn't think such simple profundity can come from a 'crotch sniffer'! You proved me wrong!! In four words you summed it up, in what essays of writings would only confuse.

Sex and the vagina now brings forth death when it was naturally created to bring forth life. Something is wrong! As I stated before, the thing that is wrong is that sex has become sought for its' pleasure seeking qualities and not for its' intended purpose - procreation and to unite and bond husband/wife and family!!

The root of this sexual distortion lies in the fag/hor/feminist agenda of the last 40 years!

Thanks PRL. You are one of the few posters I respect on this forum. Your years have brought you wisdom (unlike some other old bastards I know) Nice to get some recognition for a change.

People underestimate me because of my username all the time, and yes I am a bit of a clown. But honestly, I am just as concerned about this social problem as you are.

Curious to hear Pooks feedback on this. Although I get the impression that he shies away from me whenever I confront him. I think Mr. Goody2shoes just doesnt like having to type in my nasty name, LOL!

Anyone else notice this guy NEVER curses? Admirable and at the same time quite weird. I mean, is it really so bad to say sh!t? Must you resort to "poo" or "crappy-doodies" all the time? Very fukking strange, oops I mean, thats quite odd there old chap...

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Originally posted by Crotch Sniffer
Sexuality = Duality that creates life.

We have stripped the creation out of sexuality in favor of the pleasure factor. The hedonistic individualists of modern society fear procreation almost as much as they fear a death sentence! "I can’t have kids or my life will be over!" Folks nowadays are beginning to value career and personal affluence over family.

This is what the real problem is IMHO. You can quote philosophers and lengthy volumes of literature till the cows turn to fertilizer, but I really believe this is much simpler than we are making it out to be.

For the record, the above quote is DJ Crotch's elegant (in the true sense of the word) definition of sexuality...

Definition of "elegant"...

Elegant (el’?-g?nt) adjective

Combining simplicity, terseness, efficiency, and subtlety.


Microsoft Press® Computer and Internet Dictionary © & ? 1997, 1998 Microsoft Corporation.


Actually crotch, on a different note, using curse words is a poor substitute for the English language, when expressing one's thoughts and sentiments in a clear and effective manner. If someone does not use coarse language, he should be commended and not rebuked.

I use words like 'hor' or 'bastard', but these are actually legitimate words. The 'Hor' word is used in the bible hundreds of times and I see no better word to describe many of the women that the DJ's are pursuing.

I always strive to use my best language, but sometimes my tongue, in this case fingers, strike without restraint! I need to improve!

 

[DrMetallica]

Why do you keep typing "hor". Is "*****" filtered or something?

 

[Pook]

Shortimer

So, anyway, give a shot to my other question: "what would a health sexuality look like?" How about in a individual or in a society or both? Or even start with a better one "what is sexuality?"

Life is a Gift

We hold from Nature the gift which includes all others. This gift is life- physical, mental, and social life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. Life has been given marvelous faculties to recreate itself, to grow, and to continue on Nature’s cycle. Just as Nature has given fire to the cosmos so it can render itself again, with supernovas, with suns, with stunning explosions of life, so too has Nature given her earthly creatures the same fire of stars. This tool for earthly creatures to render themselves again is called sexuality.

What is Sexuality?

The answer is obvious. Or is it? Is it lust? Is it pleasure? What is this sexuality whose name makes men tremble, mothers shriek, and is the ultimate political question for this century?

It is Nature’s tool for creating life. But I do not mean procreation, as that would be too simple. The combination of sperm and egg create only the physical life. Science can confirm this. But science cannot tell us what makes art, or what is the path for Human happiness.

Because of these limitations, we must look beyond and examine history, literature, art, religion, everything.

To define sexuality as merely intercourse is as erroneous as to define society as merely a transaction. Just as society extends well beyond the trading of goods, so too does sexuality extend beyond the bedroom. It wasn’t too long ago when sexuality was in language, was in clothing, was in male and female behaviors, and in the arts. Only today, when men do not know how to be men, and women do not know how to be women, does this question concern us.

Sexuality’s Extensions

We are born into a gender of one we did not choose. Like it or not, Nature has divided us up into male and female. But this division has purpose for it is necessary for Nature to continue her process of life.

Life thrives not because it obeys philosophy, art, and science. To the contrary, it is the fact that life thrives in the first place which allowed philosophy, art, and science to exist as faculties and mirrors. They are obedient to life; life is not obedient to them.

Harmony of Sexuality

When life is prioritized, one’s life ebbs and flows through a cycle, of youth, of courtship, of marriage, of children, of grandchildren, and so on. Sexuality is not merely the attraction and interplay between the sexes, it is the cycle of life itself.

It is absurd for young men to be scared of desiring young women. It is just as absurd (and disgusting) for old men to prey on women.

Like it or not, life follows a cycle. When we get older, we cannot ‘free’ ourselves by being young. Our young days are already past. We cannot ‘free’ our lustful days by playing the role of the philosopher, that role comes later. No, the cycle must be obeyed.

Those who rebel against it will find their lives entering a state of hell, of which they cannot pinpoint the source. And, oddly, those who embrace such cycle will find their lives unfolding in joy.

Who would argue that Nature intends for us to possess joy at being lustful in one age, at being a father/mother in another age, at being a child in one age, and so on?

When such cycle of sexuality occurs, not only does one’s life feels correct, but a societal ripple occurs. Your parents looked after you, your grandparents smiled behind their backs. Soon, you will look after your children, and your parents become grandparents. As one generation blends into another, a geneology is formed which shows the triumph of your family name.

Sexuality is morality. With this, the ‘morals’ become not law codified decrees but compass marks for life.

Perversion of Sexuality

How, then, does sexuality and life get perverted? It is when people force themselves to obey a philosophy (or art, or science) at the expense of life. However, the perverted individual will not see himself as extinguishing his flame of life, he will see the philosophy as life (or art, or science). Once this occurs, he will be amiss to understand why he is so unhappy, why his world seems out of control, and so clings tighter to his perversion to get himself out. How common is it that a frustrated philosopher keeps on philosophizing? Or the frustrated artist keeps wallowing in on his work? Or the unhappy scientist takes a trip to Antarctica or a lab to ‘solve’ his frustrations?

We must submit our ways toward life. It is only then that philosophy ceases to become sterile, that art becomes immortal, and science becomes useful.

The "Don Juan in Hell" polarizes this so correctly. In the play, Heaven is 'life worshipping', Hell is anything but life worshipping.

To Don Juan or not to Don Juan is not the matter before us. Rather, the matter is to follow life or not to follow life.


There is an ebb and flow to life, one that is beyond your control. Most guys are here because they did not pursue women when they were younger. They probably focused on other interests.

However, Nature has other ideas. Melancholy increases within them until they act.

Just as this urge, all of a sudden, came to be with women came from nowhere, so too will others. One day, you will probably want to settle down and have a family. An internal pressure will come from within you.

Shakespeare despised melancholy people. I can see why. If you are unhappy, something is wrong. If you look at happy couples and feel a burning within you, something is wrong.

People attempt to rationalize this new unhappiness in their lives: "I NEED a girlfriend." Actually, having the girl is not the problem. The real problem is that you are in war with yourself. You are cutting yourself off from emotions, from dreams, from desires that you have. This is the source of the unhappiness.

Everyone has their dreams. What happens is that they will project those dreams of themselves onto other people they believe are successful. I understand this far too well. Many people paint me in the most elaborate brush. The truth is that what they imagine of me is actually themselves, their dream seperated from the day. People so love imagining don juans because they see themselves as that.

Guys are not scared of women, they are scared of themselves. Nice Guys do not hate Jerks, they actually hate themselves.

"I need success in the REAL WORLD." There is no world, it is just your world. You can study the 'real world' all you want with its evolution theories, seduction techniques, so on and so on, but you will still be in front of your computer. By uniting your 'soul', your mind, your dreams, to reality, you finally become awake in this world, no longer scared of yourself.

You blink, feeling like you have just come out of a deep sleep, that you are now finally awake

It's because you are. Most people sleepwalk through lives, dreaming the same dreams they always have. But now you are finally being yourself!

For you have united dream and day.

 

[HB_Hunter]

Let me ask you a question pook , what is the difference in your opinion between God and nature ???? not being religious here Just Curious .

 

[ShortTimer]

Well Pook, your post seems to allude to more than just sexuality. It seems to me that self-esteem is a deeper layer to your post about healthy sexuality. What I mean is, the qualities you are talking about are also the qualities required for a healthy self-esteem. Our sexualities are only part of those things we identify as "self" and I'm not sure I could imagine a person who's self-image was poor who did not also have sexuality issues.

Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment — happiness — are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.

You can find that here.

So if I read you correctly it would seem the issue here is even larger than your initial presentation.

 

[ShortTimer]

This is mildly on a tangent, but is still related to "distorted sexuality."

There is little doubt anymore that women have the ability to succeed in traditionally male fields of endeavor. The debate persists about the extent to which workplace discrimination is still holding women back. But few people would deny that the unequal division of labor in the home continues to be a major obstacle to equal achievement outside the home.

As an answer to this dilemma, many feminists want to see the state free women from the burden of child-rearing. In the March issue of The American Prospect, Brandeis University women's studies scholar Margaret Morganroth Gullette calls for "affordable, high-quality child-care and after-school programs, run by well-paid and well-trained and caring teachers." Others blame men for shirking responsibilities at home.

But does the feminist approach ignore many women's desire to care for their children? So says a new book by clinical psychologist Daphne de Marneffe, Maternal Desire: On Children, Love, and the Inner Life. De Marneffe is no conservative calling women back to their traditional roles. She embraces much of the feminist heritage, and she writes powerfully about the happiness that can be gained in integrating work and motherhood. But her case for "maternal desire" is an important corrective to feminism and a must-read for anyone concerned with family and gender issues.

Full-time motherhood, de Marneffe writes, is often framed in terms of female self-sacrifice—but such rhetoric ignores the pleasures of this way of life. "There is the sensual, physical pleasure of caring for small children; the satisfaction of spending most of our waking hours...with the people we love the most, taking care of their needs."

Maternal Desire does not paint a rosy, Hallmark-greeting-card picture of motherhood or shy away from its more frustrating aspects. But the author chafes at the not-uncommon feminist assumption that women who stay home have been merely guilt-tripped into giving up their own lives for domestic misery. Often, she points out, it's working women—even ones who love their jobs—who feel terrible when they have to leave their children.

De Marneffe, a mother of three, herself temporarily left her clinical practice when she realized that she was too torn between the demands of her profession and the need to mother her children. She writes movingly about the total immersion many women feel in the mother-child bond. To her credit, she does not downplay many women's need for professional accomplishment or their struggle to maintain an individuality separate from motherhood. But she also challenges the idea that only work outside the family is "real work." In de Marneffe's view, establishing an intimate connection with a child and tending to his or her development can be a rich form of personal expression.

De Marneffe's argument has its weaknesses. At times she seems to see the spontaneous rhythms of maternal life in almost mystical terms. She can also be overly negative toward Western culture's emphasis on autonomy and achievement, even turning a critical eye to mothers who focus on educational activities rather than emotional interaction with their children. She underestimates, I think, the pitfalls (for both mothers and children) of wallowing in emotions. But much in her account of "maternal desire" rings true.

"Many people," writes de Marneffe, "would rather put their money toward funding their own 'high quality' care of their children than toward a publicly funded system." This simple fact, not the desire to keep women down or mistrust of government, is the primary reason for the lack of subsidized day care.

Unlike most writers on motherhood—conservatives and feminists—de Marneffe does not ignore or downplay fatherhood. In a passage sure to raise feminist hackles, she recognizes a man's willingness to shoulder the burden of breadwinning as a "gift" to his wife. But she also urges women to include men more fully in family life, to recognize and confront their resistance to sharing the power and pleasure of being the primary parent.

Yet de Marneffe notes that for now, child-rearing is done primarily by women—and that is a reality our discussion of work and motherhood has to recognize, instead of imposing an abstraction of equality on everyone. Striving toward equality while recognizing reality, and seeking the best possible balance: That's a good prescription for change.




Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor. This column appeared in the Boston Globe on April 12, 2004.

 

[Deep Dish]

Hey Pook, you've talked about Rousseau here and in the past. But what do you think about Blake? He was the only Romantic who opposed androgyny as a solution to rigid sex roles. From what I've read, he wanted to free sex from religious and social constraints, but he also wanted "to escape the domination of the Great Mother of chthonian nature."

 

[CyranoDeBergerac]

I have much to say but very little time to say it in, so I'll be breif...

I do not agree with the assessment that we are just now questioning our sexuality.

The seeds for questioning were actually laid with the disillusionment with victorian principles after WWI which brought about the jazz age.

As thought and time progressed the excesses died down and we momentarily forgot these lessons thanks in large part to having other things on our minds like The Great Depression and WWII.

The baby boom led us to re-evaluate our morality as it no longer seemed practical to waiting to consumate your love if your love had a good chance of getting shot before you had the chance to. Sex was suddenly back on everyone's minds, but instead of the rigid moral prudery of the victorian era, the conventional morality borrowed a line from Hemingway; "What is moral is what you feel good after; What is immoral is what you feel bad after." With this, hardly dogmatic definition more exploration ensued.

The next interesting development in the understanding of sexuality occured when the civil rights movement caused us to question opression of all types. If the blacks were to be treated as equals, why not the women and the men? This laid the groundwork for the second Sexual revolution. Now women, suddenly enraged by the times and about three thousand years of 'oppression' responded by throwing off traditional roles and endevouring to become more masculine. Men, still not comprehending the nature of their sexuality thought this was a good idea on paper and we were off to the races. What ended up happeneing though is that in order to compensate for the increased masculinity he found in his possibly mates, he inevitably came to assume more traditionally feminine traits. Next came free love and vietnam which only cemented the defiance of traditional mores.

Skip ahead two decades. The sexual revolution spawned the ugly baby of Political correctness. Women were now paragons of independence and men were reduced to the simpering welt of the 'sensitive 90's guy', read on this site AFC.

Now everyone's beginning to notice the decline of the macho man and we are finally coming back around to that point where we can honestly examine our sexuality, what it means to be a man or a woman. What is natural and right for us and what is just an idealogical yoke.

I believe that the supreme difference between men and women in a mutually altruistic society deals with the focus of their energies as they contributed to the continuation and mutual benefit of their society.

Men focussed their energy externally and exercised their nature in the protector/provider role. We became the hunters, warriors, explorers, leaders of nations, the builders of empires and the protectors of their society.

Women focussed their energy internally and exercised their nature in the nurturer role. They become the mother figures, the wise old women, the keepers of home and hearth, the rearers of children, the builders of emotional webs and the caretakers of their society.

Now suffice it to say men can be nurturing, and women can be providers as if it were the most natural thing in the world. But deep down, you cannot deny thousands of years of programming and even the most sensitive of men will feel the need to protect and even the most fiercely independent of women will feel the need to nurture.

-CyranoDeBergerac

 

[squirrels]

I'm extremely interested in what you're saying, but you're losing me completely when you start talking about minds GENERATING resources. The human mind can't FABRICATE matter or energy, it can only change one thing into something else.

We have a limited amount of food on this planet, a limited amount of oxygen, a limited amount of resources. This planet can only sustain so much life. The addition of extra people to the mix forces people to contend for resources. We can come up with innovative solutions to these resource shortages, we can take one thing on this planet that we don't need and turn it into something we DO need, but we can't create more "things" and there are a limited number of those on this planet. And whether you like to believe it or not, human beings need "things" to survive. Not material toys, but basic stuff, like food, oxygen, water...even SPACE to exist. We can't just continue to breed at an exponential rate. The planet cannot sustain the population. If we keep breeding like this, sooner or later this whole planet will be "standing room only."

It's like the classic predator-prey model. You have so many rabbits and so many foxes. When the rabbits thrive, there is more food for the foxes, so the foxes thrive. But if you get too many foxes they over-consume the rabbits and soon there aren't enough rabbits to go around, thus the foxes die off as well. But when they do, the rabbits thrive and are fertile, so the cycle continues over and over again.

We're in a situation right now where there are too many consumers and not enough resources. And the worst thing is that WE are a consumer generation, whereas those before us were producer generations.

I'm starting to think that the reason there's such a focus on consumerism in Western society today is BECAUSE there aren't enough resources to go around, so the idea is "grab what you can." That's why there's such a "gap" between the rich and the poor these days...because if you took the world's resources and distributed them evenly to all people in the world, there wouldn't be enough to sustain a single one of us. Thus, if you want to be part of the "survivor" class, you need to acquire as many resources as possible.

I have trouble seeing how you think that breeding MORE people is the answer to this. Certainly reproduction is "life-affirming" and as living things we're driven to do it, but as THINKING creatures, we also have to acknowledge that our ecosystem can only sustain so much of us, despite our desire to spread human life. There's just nowhere left for it to spread to.

I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.

 

[Pook]

squirrels

What you're referring to is the point of view from biologists. What I'm referring to is the point of view from economists. Resource collecting and distribution is very much a part of the economic field.

The human mind can't FABRICATE matter or energy, it can only change one thing into something else.

We can split the atom and have been able to tap into energy we've never dreamed of. This is an example of the human mind harvesting more types of energy.

We do not thank the atom for the energy, we thank the minds that split it.

We have a limited amount of food on this planet, a limited amount of oxygen, a limited amount of resources.

There are particular reasons why I rejected the biological model long ago.

We grow more food from less area of land. Today, only like 1% of the population farms. A century ago, it was, what? 50%?

All resources keeps getting cheaper and more plentiful. Metals such as copper, iron, and all keep getting more competitive and more abundant.

Everything keeps getting better. If the biology model was true, then it should be the opposite.

What happens when we're able to extract oil from shale? Or what happens when we can go into Pook's backyard and obtain the teeny tiny pieces of copper and gold strewn all about? One day, it will happen.

It's like the classic predator-prey model. You have so many rabbits and so many foxes. When the rabbits thrive, there is more food for the foxes, so the foxes thrive. But if you get too many foxes they over-consume the rabbits and soon there aren't enough rabbits to go around, thus the foxes die off as well. But when they do, the rabbits thrive and are fertile, so the cycle continues over and over again.

In the biology model, human beings (who have minds) get compared to beings with no minds (such as rabbits and foxes) (also, in biology's eyes, humans "breed" like dogs or rats). Often, the biology model focuses on islands for this effect to occur.

It makes a nice textbook exercise but the outside factual history doesn't match it. Civilization keeps getting more plentiful, not less.

Remember, population numbers increased not because we were breeding like rabbits, but rather because we stopped dying like flies.

This planet can only sustain so much life.

I love to go survival camping where its just me and a knife. When I go out into the forest (or desert, or mountain, or beach, etc.), I must use my mind to survive. I must figure out a shelter, imagine up the materials, and so on.

If I want food, I have to go get it. Hamburgers do not grow on trees.

But based on the Biology model, the earth created my shelter, not me, and the earth caught my food, baked it, and cut it up, not me.

Good thing I'm not a potter. With the biology model, it would be said that the clay made the pot instead of the potter!

This is the big difference between the models. Biology model says oil comes from the earth. Economist model says oil was discovered by man. Black goo, which later became known as oil, was nothing until Man discovered how to utilize it.

The addition of extra people to the mix forces people to contend for resources.

But has this occurred in history? Let us leave our theories behind. The swell in world population came about because of the industrial revolution. Now, if what you say is true, we should be poorer for the addition of these new people.

Rather, the last couple of centuries were so technologically frenzied we can barely keep up.

The reason why I'm a follower of the economist model of resources instead of the biologist model is because there isn't a shred of evidence in history or the current world of the biology model and humans.

From any indicator, resources are getting cheaper and more plentiful. Our life standards keep improving. Each generation gets taller, stronger, and healthier. Life expectancy keeps rising. Everything is getting better.

And there is no sign of this progress stopping or slowing down. Everything seems to be getting better almost everywhere.

Faced with this, I had to make a choice. At first, I thought the world was wrong and the biology model was right. Because anyone can come up with 'statistics' he or she wants. But when I found it was government data that can be accessed by anyone, I had to question the theory.

What sounds more objective: the theory being correct and the world being wrong OR the theory being incorrect and the world being correct?

 

[Pook]

Cyano

I do not agree with the assessment that we are just now questioning our sexuality.

Here's how I got to my conclusion:

The reason why the population numbers swelled centuries ago was not because Mankind was breeding like rabbits, but rather that we stopped dying like flies. Knowledge of sexuality had no impact for or against the growing population numbers. By eliminating disease and hunger, mankind stopped dying in such vast numbers.

I still believe we have a way to fall until sexuality begins to be examined without the political/religious/personal bias.

This is the typical sexuality argument:

"Oh no! Girls as young as 9 are reading these magazines in school and are becoming sexualized at an early age. It is robbing them of their childhood."

"You are a religous old lady who wishes to impose your views on the rest of society."

"And you are a hedonist who wants to destroy society."

"The problem with society is with you!"

"No, it is with you!"

No, gentlemen, your little problems have no matter in this. It is this pattern of debate that now dominates the politico-social environment.

But a new twist has been added: collapsing birthrates. Right now, there are intellectuals and academic thinky heads trying to figure out, "How do we increase the birth rates?" Yes, you can have a 'lotto' and throw money at people who have children. But this doesn't address the situation.

What's going to happen is that the collapsing birthrate will signal the states to respond in some manner. No nation will let itself die out.

Serious inquiries are going to be made into what it takes to increase birth rates. One thing for sure is going to happen: citizens' private lives become an interest to the states.

As thought and time progressed the excesses died down and we momentarily forgot these lessons thanks in large part to having other things on our minds like The Great Depression and WWII.

Speaking of the WW II generation, did you know that the higest rates of divorce (even higher than today) came during WW II?

but instead of the rigid moral prudery of the victorian era, the conventional morality borrowed a line from Hemingway; "What is moral is what you feel good after; What is immoral is what you feel bad after." With this, hardly dogmatic definition more exploration ensued.

I can find no evidence, historical or otherwise, that the 60's generation did anything revolutionary with sexuality. You might be referring to loss of stigma, but sex and orgies were everywhere and even centuries ago.

There is an opinion that the 60s invented sex. Of course, this is ludicrous and should be noted that if people were so scared of sex in the 50s, where did the baby boom generation come from?

Now women, suddenly enraged by the times and about three thousand years of 'oppression' responded by throwing off traditional roles and endevouring to become more masculine.

The entire rock of the feminist movement is this:

"Our theory ought to shape society."

This is Roussean in origin.

Contrast this to from the words of Locke. His rock was: "Society ought to shape the theories/political forms."

Which brings me to Rousseau:

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by Deep Dish
Hey Pook, you've talked about Rousseau here and in the past. But what do you think about Blake? He was the only Romantic who opposed androgyny as a solution to rigid sex roles. From what I've read, he wanted to free sex from religious and social constraints, but he also wanted "to escape the domination of the Great Mother of chthonian nature."

I've quoted Blake here and there. I haven't thought too much about him, like Byron and others, because they're standing on giants' shoulders. Guys like Shakespeare, whose plays still dominate the theater and who all poets afterward are influenced by, I put in a lot more time in trying to figure out. Shakespeare ends up with most people mirroring back whatever they want to see in him. Once I got below that, he had a huge influence on me.

Many people spew beliefs and ideas where they have no idea their origin. Most of these beliefs come from Rousseau.

I'd even contend that all our modern 'out of whack' ideas come from Rousseau. It is not that I do not like Rousea, I despise him.

Here are some of Rousseau's beliefs that he started:

Political idealogies should replace religions (even if you think people worshipping in church is crazy, nothing compares to absurdity of people worshipping in a state capitol!)

Society is convention and artificial (actually, he didn't start this one. He just continues it from the classical roman idea.)

Morality is based solely on consent (Nothing wrecked sexuality more than this idea.)

Education became focused on 'freedom of expression' rather than hard study.

Everything nature = good. Things manmade = bad.

Masculinity is evil. (Rousseau ends the line of male dominance over nature and says that male ought to be passive to nature. He obeys an older mistress, does her bidding. He sits in boats and lets "nature" guide him about without rowing or paddling.)

And of course the worst one: Civilization is a fall from grace! According to Rousseau, the more civilized we become, the more fallen we become. The more technology, the worse off we get. Caveman was when man was happiest. (And look at how many people compare their unhappiness from not being in the 'caveman' era? "We are biologically programmed to do this but civilization puts stresses that deny who we really are...")

So much bad fruit has been grown from that idea that it can't be understated.

But I'm not the only one who sees Rousseau as the originator of many of our current modern plagues. The author of the excellent "War against Boys" ends with discussion of Rousseau and his dismantling of masculinity in the philosphical circles.

The main difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution was that the ideas of Rousseau greatly influenced the French while were nonexistant in America (until 1900 or so).

One revolution ends with general peace and growth. The other revolution ends with the Reign of Terror and Napoleon.

Here is a nice little nutshell summary of the philosophers. Check out Rousseau. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdistan/howp_7.html

 

[CyranoDeBergerac]

Originally posted by Pook
Cyrano

The reason why the population numbers swelled centuries ago was not because Mankind was breeding like rabbits, but rather that we stopped dying like flies. Knowledge of sexuality had no impact for or against the growing population numbers. By eliminating disease and hunger, mankind stopped dying in such vast numbers.

I'm with you. Though, to this effect, who's to say the easing of our declining birthrate will be seen as a swell again and similarly mismanaged?

I still believe we have a way to fall until sexuality begins to be examined without the political/religious/personal bias.

This is the typical sexuality argument:

"Oh no! Girls as young as 9 are reading these magazines in school and are becoming sexualized at an early age. It is robbing them of their childhood."

"You are a religous old lady who wishes to impose your views on the rest of society."

"And you are a hedonist who wants to destroy society."

"The problem with society is with you!"

"No, it is with you!"

No, gentlemen, your little problems have no matter in this. It is this pattern of debate that now dominates the politico-social environment..

Now, while this may be true I'm not entirely sure that's possible. We are all casualties of our paradigms. Who was it that mentioned religious people see the problem as a lack of religion, feminists as a lack of feminism, et al.?

Moreover I'm not sure that total objectivity is the goal here or even that it needs to be. The goal here is wisdom, not cold theory. Understanding, not just knowledge. I do not believe that can be fully attained without points of reference (such as politics/religion/personal experience), We cannot completely discard the prisms through which we percoieve life and its workings. The great danger I think you are alluding to is the substitution of theory and anecdotes for the pursuit of knowledge in which case what is holding us back is not our paradigms, but how rigidly and dogmatically we focus on these brushes to the exclusion of the painting.

But a new twist has been added: collapsing birthrates. Right now, there are intellectuals and academic thinky heads trying to figure out, "How do we increase the birth rates?" Yes, you can have a 'lotto' and throw money at people who have children. But this doesn't address the situation.

What's going to happen is that the collapsing birthrate will signal the states to respond in some manner. No nation will let itself die out.

Not so long as ponzi entitlement schemes need a bigger base.

Speaking of the WW II generation, did you know that the higest rates of divorce (even higher than today) came during WW II?

I did not, though I do find that interesting. Must've been the GIs running off after the USO girls and women getting tired of waiting for the boys to come home. Heartless harlots!!!

I can find no evidence, historical or otherwise, that the 60's generation did anything revolutionary with sexuality. You might be referring to loss of stigma, but sex and orgies were everywhere and even centuries ago.

There is an opinion that the 60s invented sex. Of course, this is ludicrous and should be noted that if people were so scared of sex in the 50s, where did the baby boom generation come from?

The sixties did not invent sex, but we're not discussing sex here, but rather sexuality. They simply turned feminine sexuality into its own anti-establishment subculture, resulting eventually in women rebelling against the Madonna/wh0re dichotomy of wife/mistress. As women began trying to make massive inroads to be personally and professionally fulfilled, this newfound assertiveness naturally found its way into the dating and mating spheres and men, in the face of this increasingly difficult competition men were now finding their dominant/external roles grevously challenged if not idealogically debunked. It was as if an entire generation (and subsequent generations) of men were emasculated en masse.

-Cyrano

 

[NMMWCR]

The economic model does NOT require more people to achieve higher utility.

The economic model only requires that we achieve ever higher levels of utility. This can be accomplished by harvesting additional raw materials (LAND), employing more people (LABOR), accumulating more tools and machinery (CAPITAL), or doing something ingenious to work smarter instead of harder (ENTREPENEURSHIP).

Our access to LAND category resources has become more or less fixed. Our access to ENTREPENEURSHIP category resources is essentially unlimited. LABOR and CAPITAL resources are cumulative and built over time. For most of human history, there has been a strong preference for accumulating LABOR to accumulating CAPITAL. This changed dramatically with the Industrial Revolution (IR). While it is true that the IR allowed previously impossible accumulation of LABOR, this was accomplished through more aggressive accumulation of CAPITAL.

The preference since the IR has thus been for CAPITAL over LABOR. There was an unintended consequence of LABOR accumulation, largely credited to increased food security, but the effect was short lived. The preference for accumulating CAPITAL remains. The inevitable conclusion of this substitution must eventually be declining fecundity. This is observed across all cultures. As personal wealth increases, average fecundity falls. Fecundity rates below replacement have yet to topple any of the European nations that have been at that point for decades.

Why must this be a bad thing? CAPITAL accumulation has become the way of things. I find the argument that we must put the accumulation of LABOR ahead of CAPITAL lest we become like Rousseau to be paradoxical. For decrying the CAPITAL accumulation model is the core of the arguments of the Romantic era authors. "Return to nature, abandon the soul sucking pursuit of machinery, baubles and trinkets!" But such accumulation is the very foundation of the modern world. We improve our lot in life by enhancing our ability to do useful work; no longer by increasing the number of ignorant unskilled laborers available for exploitation by the lucky few. Luddism serves only the short term interests of unskilled laborers. It is time we rose above such sentiments.

=========

On the environmentalist angle, at some point, we must accept that John Malthus was correct. Our population cannot continue to grow forever. In a few thousand years, the average historical population growth rate of 2%, will result in the total weight of living humans to exceed the mass of the planet. In only 18,000 years, a 2% growth rate will require that the cumulative weight of living humans exceed the estimated mass of the entire universe. This is clearly not physically possible. To say things another way, seven billion people is a lot. What need do we have for more LABOR? It is the accumulation of CAPITAL resources that have freed us improve our standard of living.

 

[squirrels]

I kind of have a problem with the way you talk about the "standard of life improving for everyone" when you yourself are quoting articles about more and more men in their 30s living at home. Do you know WHY they live at home? Because they can't afford a house. Do you know WHY they can't afford a house? Because housing prices are through the roof...because housing is becoming a scarce commodity. Look at the way real estate is almost guaranteed to appreciate. WHY? Because space itself is a dwindling resource. Not just space, USEFUL space.

Now we'll always be thinking of more creative ways to use space, that much is correct. Look at Japan and how they build up. But if population continues to increase EXPONENTIALLY, we WILL run out of space (unless we colonize Mars or something). It may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. And we're already feeling the pinch from that because we haven't had as much innovation and creativity in making resources USEFUL as we did in prior times.

What new technologies have been developed in the last decade? Sure, we've made enhancements here and there in efficiency of resources, but who's really been developing a solar power system, or a cost-effective way of refining oil from shale? Sure, we WILL do it, but will we do it IN TIME to keep population growing and thriving? Will we find a way to replenish the rainforests or colonize Mars before the population of Earth grows so big that the finite amount of oxygen we have is depleted faster than plants can replenish it?

People in America supposedly have better lifestyles...why? Because they have more "things"? Because they have more money and more luxuries? Because they live longer and have better medicine? They work 80 hours a week (the equivalent of TWO jobs since one doesn't provide them with enough monetary resources to support themselves any more), they never see their families, some never HAVE families, don't travel, don't have time to enjoy luxuries other than TV, always have work or something else on their minds so they never enjoy conversations like these, spend their lives drinking and chasing tail, but somehow they've got it BETTER than people did hundreds of years ago?

And does your assessment also include people OUTSIDE of your own class? The poorer classes? Those people forced to work for meager wages, the ones that are less educated, educated in poorer educational systems, can only hold down one job, and have to struggle under a pathetic minimum wage to TRY to help mom pay the rent?

You say people have better lives...can you qualify that?

Don't get me wrong, I hear a LOT of the things you're saying and some of them have really got me thinking in the past day or two, but I can't support a claim that YOU created the rocks and the metals and the food and the water. You didn't create them. You just made use of them.

And maybe our standard of life HAS increased. Mine has, my family's has, but I'd ask that you not only consider humanity as a whole when you say that, but also reconsider your definition of "quality of life."

 

[HB_Hunter]

Hahaha!

As if I typed in Indian or French ....LOL

 

[ShortTimer]

Dear NMMWCR,

I've not read much when it comes to economics, but your explaination of things has me absolutly intrigued. Could you perhaps make some recomendations as to what is good reading? Maybe share your sources so that those interested could read more about it.

Thanks,

ST

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by squirrels
They work 80 hours a week (the equivalent of TWO jobs since one doesn't provide them with enough monetary resources to support themselves any more), they never see their families, some never HAVE families, don't travel, don't have time to enjoy luxuries other than TV, always have work or something else on their minds so they never enjoy conversations like these, spend their lives drinking and chasing tail, but somehow they've got it BETTER than people did hundreds of years ago?

Maybe you should actually try living here, because you really don't know what you're talking about. MOST Americans are lazy sob's that barely do any work at all. Actually I think the average for the general population is something like 50 hours a week. I know of NO ONE who works 80 hours a week. This isn't Japan, we don't sleep at the office.

Originally posted by squirrels
And does your assessment also include people OUTSIDE of your own class? The poorer classes? Those people forced to work for meager wages, the ones that are less educated, educated in poorer educational systems, can only hold down one job, and have to struggle under a pathetic minimum wage to TRY to help mom pay the rent?

The poor are ABSOLUTLY better off here in America. When's the last time you've heard of people starving to death here? The poor don't starve in America and with rare exception everyone has a place to live (and most of the homeless are mentally ill -- that's why they are homeless). There are charities to help out the poor along with governmental help, things like soup kitchens and free clinics.

Of course they don't have it as well as the rest of the population, but our poor are FAR BETTER than the poor living on the majority of the planet; American poor are rich compaired to the poor in places like Somolia.

Originally posted by squirrels
but I can't support a claim that YOU created the rocks and the metals and the food and the water. You didn't create them. You just made use of them.

He didn't say we made them, we just made them usefull. Nature doen't care about gold the way humans care about gold. Gold is only valuable BECAUSE WE SAY IT'S VALUABLE and for no other reason. If gold disapeared tomorrow the universe would not collapse upon itself.

Besides, people don't really even want gold: they want shiny things that are pretty. People don't want cars: they want cheap efficient transportation that gives them the freedom to go places quickly.

 

[squirrels]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
Maybe you should actually try living here, because you really don't know what you're talking about. MOST Americans are lazy sob's that barely do any work at all. Actually I think the average for the general population is something like 50 hours a week. I know of NO ONE who works 80 hours a week. This isn't Japan, we don't sleep at the office.

I do live here.

That's what I'm saying. Is the "lazy SOB" who never works and lives with his parents and goes out and parties on the weekend living a BETTER life than the person who goes out and busts his azz for 40 a week and supports a family and takes pride in his trade and his accomplishments and his legacy? Is the "quality of life" limited to one dimension, such as how much money you have, how many hours you work, etc?

The poor are ABSOLUTLY better off here in America. When's the last time you've heard of people starving to death here? The poor don't starve in America and with rare exception everyone has a place to live (and most of the homeless are mentally ill -- that's why they are homeless). There are charities to help out the poor along with governmental help, things like soup kitchens and free clinics.

Of course they don't have it as well as the rest of the population, but our poor are FAR BETTER than the poor living on the majority of the planet; American poor are rich compaired to the poor in places like Somolia.

You DO have a point there, I'll give you that. But then again, when you discuss resources, you have to discuss them on a global scale, so Somalia is lumped in there. As are the overpopulated countries like China.

He didn't say we made them, we just made them usefull. Nature doen't care about gold the way humans care about gold. Gold is only valuable BECAUSE WE SAY IT'S VALUABLE and for no other reason. If gold disapeared tomorrow the universe would not collapse upon itself.

Besides, people don't really even want gold: they want shiny things that are pretty. People don't want cars: they want cheap efficient transportation that gives them the freedom to go places quickly.

It's funny, because this is what REALLY got me thinking. You're right-on with this. Human beings don't want food, they want to supply themselves with usable energy. They don't want oxygen, they want to perpetuate their body chemistry. Things ARE just means to an end. But without the means, the end isn't accomplished. Yes it's possible one day we'll be able to transform dirt into water. The question is, will it happen in time to sustain us?

Certainly the universe has enough resources to sustain humanity, but will the innovation exist to make these resources into a form we can use for our actions and processes in time to keep the population growing, considering the rate at which it IS growing? That's the question.

I think we're starting to outgrow our technology in these times.