We live in an era of civilisational collapse. It's already baked into the cake, it's already happening, the world 100 years from now is not going to look like the world today. All you need to do is look at birth rates, and how long they've been as low as they have been. Therefore, the highest calling as a parent it's not maximizing their individual happiness, or their market success, is building them into an individual with the strength, adaptability, grit, and emotional stability to carry forward meaning, virtue, and civilization through a collapse even if institutions that we rely on fail. In this way, parenting is not just an act of personal love (though of course it is), but an act of love for all of humanity, helping to carry forward the flame I got everything you feel worth preserving in your family and our culture.
In case you think I'm a doomer or a prepper, there's a few points. First, if you end up making your kid anxious and nihilistic then they aren't mentally emotionally stable, strong, adaptable, and they will lack grit. Civilizations end all the time, that doesn't mean the end of everything and everyone. Arguably the World wars ended Western Civilization as it once existed, and we are living in the aftermath of that right now. Second, preparing a child for collapse looks pretty similar to preparing them for no collapse. You still want to raise a kid who is strong, adaptable, has grit, and has emotional stability.
In an archetypical way, every generation sees a collapse and rebirth as the new generations pick up with their parents left them. In some ways, there was a massive collapse in the 1970s, in the world of the 1980s is nothing like the world of the 1960s. By the way people playing the baby boomers for what the world turned into in the 1980s, but they didn't really have much of a choice with the world collapsing around them.
Another important thing is that people might misunderstand and think you raise your kid hard and mean if you think that a collapse is coming. I don't think that there's any evidence of that being the right way to do things. Your kids grow up seeing the world through the lens that you give them with the way that you treat them in their childhood. If you show them that you are anxious, that you are scared, that you are weak, when they are going to assume that that's the way that the world works and how you have to live. By contrast, if you show them love, and joy, and competence, if you show them how to live in a world without relying on massive institutions and every moment of every day, then that will be the way that they grow up. The sort of child who makes it through the collapse will have a secure attachment to their parents, many wonderful memories playing outdoors, maybe learning to weld, to build things, they will remember going through their life being able to do things and figuring out the struggles along the way. And so when they aren't getting their hand held they will know that they are strong enough to deal with things.
This whole concept was hinted at in the last chapter of my first book, the graysonian ethic, which warns my son that nobody owes you anything, and you have to have a combination of gratitude and skepticism for the things you do get. My next book which I'm releasing in the next month or two once editing is complete is actually about the collapse, looking at a world 100 years in the future. The key is that just because civilization collapses doesn't mean that's the end of everything, or that we go into a mad Max dystopia. It means whoever remains will need to lay a New foundation of meeting, values, and make sense of world that no longer makes sense under the old paradigm.
In case you think I'm a doomer or a prepper, there's a few points. First, if you end up making your kid anxious and nihilistic then they aren't mentally emotionally stable, strong, adaptable, and they will lack grit. Civilizations end all the time, that doesn't mean the end of everything and everyone. Arguably the World wars ended Western Civilization as it once existed, and we are living in the aftermath of that right now. Second, preparing a child for collapse looks pretty similar to preparing them for no collapse. You still want to raise a kid who is strong, adaptable, has grit, and has emotional stability.
In an archetypical way, every generation sees a collapse and rebirth as the new generations pick up with their parents left them. In some ways, there was a massive collapse in the 1970s, in the world of the 1980s is nothing like the world of the 1960s. By the way people playing the baby boomers for what the world turned into in the 1980s, but they didn't really have much of a choice with the world collapsing around them.
Another important thing is that people might misunderstand and think you raise your kid hard and mean if you think that a collapse is coming. I don't think that there's any evidence of that being the right way to do things. Your kids grow up seeing the world through the lens that you give them with the way that you treat them in their childhood. If you show them that you are anxious, that you are scared, that you are weak, when they are going to assume that that's the way that the world works and how you have to live. By contrast, if you show them love, and joy, and competence, if you show them how to live in a world without relying on massive institutions and every moment of every day, then that will be the way that they grow up. The sort of child who makes it through the collapse will have a secure attachment to their parents, many wonderful memories playing outdoors, maybe learning to weld, to build things, they will remember going through their life being able to do things and figuring out the struggles along the way. And so when they aren't getting their hand held they will know that they are strong enough to deal with things.
This whole concept was hinted at in the last chapter of my first book, the graysonian ethic, which warns my son that nobody owes you anything, and you have to have a combination of gratitude and skepticism for the things you do get. My next book which I'm releasing in the next month or two once editing is complete is actually about the collapse, looking at a world 100 years in the future. The key is that just because civilization collapses doesn't mean that's the end of everything, or that we go into a mad Max dystopia. It means whoever remains will need to lay a New foundation of meeting, values, and make sense of world that no longer makes sense under the old paradigm.
- replies
- 3
- announces
- 3
- likes
- 5
There’s a western civilisational collapse solely. There isn’t an Indian one, a Chinese one, an Arab one, an African one, etc. It is locally. People with wealth already relocated. The only way to raise children into solid sane adults is via secure attachment. The rest of the world exemplifies that precariousness and poverty, so as chaos, are not the end of the ‘world’. Western arrogance and demise arose from its total disconnection to reality.
Africa is the only place not suffering devlining birthrates cause they're too poor to empower their females.
Civilisational collapse and ‘scarily presented’ dwindling birth rates are not to be confound. Introduce precariousness and poverty anywhere; and birthrates will go up without a second thought. Another sign of disconnection from reality is the propensity to believe things are way more complicated than they are; whilst stiffly clinging to simplistic inertia. Mistakenly and needlessly. The system needs a reboot in such cases; that’s when civilisational collapse comes into the picture
@_gigabyte_ this soyciety will collapse yes but robo waifus will lead mankind to a bright future
Things will look different worldwide indeed. Opportunism in good and bad within human nature has always been a stronghold of adaptation. In good and in bad, as well. People make things seem way more complicated than they actually are. Technology shapes whether one likes it or not indeed.
Technology is a gift from the Gods to help us achieve union with robo waifus
@sj_zero "By the way people playing the baby boomers for what the world turned into in the 1980s, but they didn't really have much of a choice with the world collapsing around them."
A very bad meme, the earliest the very youngest first two years of Baby Boomers could vote in a national election was 1968. They and subsequent generations were given a very bad hand by the previous generations.
With respect to the western trajectory, I'd agree with respect to the middle east and India, but Japan, China, and South Korea are all ahead of the curve in a number of ways. China is already broken demographically. Japan is 20 years ahead of the curve and represent a surprisingly well managed crisis, but one we don't have the scenario or the discipline to emulate. South Korea is still at a 0.71 birth rate.
One thing with east Asian civilization is that it's been heavily influenced by the west. China being Marxist is a direct cultural export from western Europe. South Korea is a highly Americanized civilization, as is Japan to a lesser but still significant degree.
Keep in mind that birth rates are not like pumping oil out of the ground -- it takes 18 years to raise an 18 year old. The kids who were never born cannot be born now. All that can be born now are the people who will be born after the kids who were never born.
For civilizations that aren't western, the western collapse could end up having major knock-on effects.
Indian civilization is insanely resillient so the worse I'd expect there is a return to Indian norms and a rejection of western norms.
Africa isn't a place civilizations typically exist, so once the subsidies of the west in terms of capital and talented people disappear, I'm not convinced most of what is considered civilization will continue to exist in much of Africa. There are regions of Africa which have historically been capable of suporting civilizations of course, famously Egypt, but also Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. North Africa in general is essentially permanently colonized by Arab muslims, so they're much different than central or southern Africa. It's a huge continent and incredibly diverse so you can't realy make the mistake of assuming it's just one thing. To demonstrate this, you can look at different regions of the world and the stories that have been written down. China has had continuous civilization, and we have works like the Analects from millennia in the past. The middle east has the epic of gilgamesh. Northern Europe has a number of codified legends. America had many writings from the Aztecs before they were destroyed by the Spanish, of which the dresden codexes are some of the few remaining examples. Egypt has hieroglyphics telling stories older than any of them, but much of Africa doesn't have the same.
Arabs are in a countercyclical moment, they're still recovering from the fundamental collapse of the ottoman empire, so I'd tend to agree they're going to look quite different, probably much better off in the coming age.
To illustrate the concept of these knock-on effects, the great depression mostly hit America, but was a direct causal element in World War 2.
One major thing overall is that global trade relies on the west keeping the trade routes safe and clear, and once that guarantee disappears, trade becomes a much different beast.
Civilizational collapse isn't always bad. the collapse of the western roman empire was actually one of the best things to happen in history to the people living under its boot -- according to archeological finds, people got considerably healthier and taller almost immediately after its collapse because people were no longer under its bot. Of course, it isn't always good either -- many bronze age collapse civilizations saw die-offs like 95%.
Population collapse by itself does mean that civilization will be so fundamentally different in the future that it can't be considered the same thing -- much in the same way the world wars ended the modern west and replaced it with the postmodern west we live in today, but with different results this time. It's a mass extinction event, and a lot of memes and political factions will die off because they aren't survivable.
One thing with east Asian civilization is that it's been heavily influenced by the west. China being Marxist is a direct cultural export from western Europe. South Korea is a highly Americanized civilization, as is Japan to a lesser but still significant degree.
Keep in mind that birth rates are not like pumping oil out of the ground -- it takes 18 years to raise an 18 year old. The kids who were never born cannot be born now. All that can be born now are the people who will be born after the kids who were never born.
For civilizations that aren't western, the western collapse could end up having major knock-on effects.
Indian civilization is insanely resillient so the worse I'd expect there is a return to Indian norms and a rejection of western norms.
Africa isn't a place civilizations typically exist, so once the subsidies of the west in terms of capital and talented people disappear, I'm not convinced most of what is considered civilization will continue to exist in much of Africa. There are regions of Africa which have historically been capable of suporting civilizations of course, famously Egypt, but also Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. North Africa in general is essentially permanently colonized by Arab muslims, so they're much different than central or southern Africa. It's a huge continent and incredibly diverse so you can't realy make the mistake of assuming it's just one thing. To demonstrate this, you can look at different regions of the world and the stories that have been written down. China has had continuous civilization, and we have works like the Analects from millennia in the past. The middle east has the epic of gilgamesh. Northern Europe has a number of codified legends. America had many writings from the Aztecs before they were destroyed by the Spanish, of which the dresden codexes are some of the few remaining examples. Egypt has hieroglyphics telling stories older than any of them, but much of Africa doesn't have the same.
Arabs are in a countercyclical moment, they're still recovering from the fundamental collapse of the ottoman empire, so I'd tend to agree they're going to look quite different, probably much better off in the coming age.
To illustrate the concept of these knock-on effects, the great depression mostly hit America, but was a direct causal element in World War 2.
One major thing overall is that global trade relies on the west keeping the trade routes safe and clear, and once that guarantee disappears, trade becomes a much different beast.
Civilizational collapse isn't always bad. the collapse of the western roman empire was actually one of the best things to happen in history to the people living under its boot -- according to archeological finds, people got considerably healthier and taller almost immediately after its collapse because people were no longer under its bot. Of course, it isn't always good either -- many bronze age collapse civilizations saw die-offs like 95%.
Population collapse by itself does mean that civilization will be so fundamentally different in the future that it can't be considered the same thing -- much in the same way the world wars ended the modern west and replaced it with the postmodern west we live in today, but with different results this time. It's a mass extinction event, and a lot of memes and political factions will die off because they aren't survivable.
@sj_zero @_gigabyte_
The problem is the loss of knowledge and intellect.
But collapse happens once societies tolerate arbitrary choices.
The problem is the loss of knowledge and intellect.
But collapse happens once societies tolerate arbitrary choices.
@sj_zero @_gigabyte_ "Civilizational collapse isn't always bad. the collapse of the western roman empire was actually one of the best things to happen in history to the people living under its boot -- according to archeological finds, people got considerably healthier and taller almost immediately after its collapse because people were no longer under its bot."
A complicated topic, and you've want to make sure there weren't major die-offs like from Germanic invasions. None that I remember but I haven't seriously studied the period. And many of the new Germanic rulers considered themselves to be continuing the Roman project, see for example the Holy Roman Empire.
On the other hand in the Early Medieval period they generally took the sides of rapacious Jews, who back then were competitive in military, religious, and economic power and potential (see Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe by Bernard S. Bachrach)/
But the Roman boot was severe: for example, certain professions were made extremely onerous, to the point there was a law to force male children to continue in their father's trade. I've also read the fed into feudalism, as the system broke down putting yourself under the protection of a local potentate had downsides but protected you from that sort of thing.
