Declines in fertility (to sub-replacement levels in most of the West and Asia, and now increasingly in the Middle East and parts of Africa) represent a problem that has supposedly “perplexed” demographers, politicians, scientists, and the mainstream media. In reality, the problem of low fertility has a simple and straightforward solution: Total prohibition of contraception under penalty of death, absolutely without exception, and the adoption of supporting legislation to require men to provide for their wives and families. The problem of deadbeat fathers abandoning their wives and children, or failing to provide for their material needs, is second only to contraception itself as the greatest enemy of natural rates of demographic growth, and existing protections (for example, requirements for child support and alimony) are not nearly strict enough. Claims about the supposed intractability of demographic collapse – “we’ve tried everything – more maternal leave, more paternal leave, child subsidies, corporations financing egg-freezing programs for women, better fertility medicine, encouraging men to do more housework” – are absolute nonsense. It’s true, of course, that none of these approaches has produced meaningful results, but this isn’t evidence that the problem is intractable.
In fact, falling fertility and the self-genocide of nations, races, and cultures falls into a large group of problems characterized by the following five traits:
- The problem is “new” or at least sporadic – that is, it has not existed for all of human history, and, in most cases, has only existed for a very short time, usually much less than 1% of the ~170,000-year history of Man on Earth. This means that there are times and places in history where the problem did not exist (or at least was comparatively minor). Typically, societies where the problem was absent are proximate enough in space and in time that we have good documentation of them, and so we can say with high confidence that the problem does not stem from the laws of physics or any other unchangeable factor.
- The majority of politicians, business leaders, academics, scientists, and media who discuss the problem (and report on attempts to “solve” it) describe intricate political and/or technological “solutions”. Often, these ostensible “solutions” rely on technology which has not yet been invented (and may never be), expensive government programs which have not yet been funded (and may never be), or both of the above.
- Whenever an intricate political or technological “solution” is tested, it fails, or at least underwhelms. Curiously, a supposed “solution” which fails in one nation may then be adopted by a second nation, in which it also fails. Undeterred, a third nation will adopt the same approach, and likewise experience failure. Strangely, the fact that the “solution” has failed over and over again – often in a wide range of nations encompassing people of different languages, races, cultures, and religions – doesn’t deter a fourth nation from testing it – or a fifth, or a sixth, and so-on. No matter how much data is gathered, an approach which failed is imitated again and again, always resulting in failure. If the approach is technological, then the technology will be perpetually a year (or ten years, or one hundred years) away. The joke about fusion energy is apropos here: “Cold Fusion is only 30 years away – and always will be”.
- The problem is completely solvable through changes in human behavior, as can be enforced by government. The solution doesn’t require futuristic technology – in fact, in most cases, the solution doesn’t even require “modern” technology, and could be implemented with no more technology than existed ten, or one hundred, or one thousand, or ten thousand years ago.
- All of the technological research and policy experimentation supposedly aimed at solving the problem is nothing more than a smokescreen, a distraction. In reality, the problem could be solved easily by compelling changes in human behavior – but, the people supposedly trying to address the issue don’t want to compel such changes (often because they themselves don’t want to change their behavior), and hence engage in useless research, experimentation, and policy twiddling in an attempt to “look busy”.
Politicians and commentators who treat declining (and, in most of the West and Asia, sub-replacement) fertility as a complex, difficult-to-solve problem are similar to employers who whine endlessly about a “labor shortage”.
Ban contraception, and fertility will increase. Raise wages, and you’ll see more applicants. In both cases, the most obvious solution is treated as invisible. Preventing corporations from exploiting women through wage labor is also a key – in general, hiring of women into wage labor must be prohibited. Wage labor is exploitative of men as well, of course. The goal must be the American Dream, at least for Americans. This isn’t a white picket fence in a suburb; it’s being able to produce food and other essentials of survival as a family unit. The average man and woman must own the means of production for everything they need to survive.
FAQ: “Who hurt you?” – Stalker case, 20yo, taller and stronger and heavier than me, impulsive, drinker. But, overall, extremely positive experiences with women (and with men, as friends). Also, positive experiences with people of different races, religions, and nationalities. I know this angers Rightists. Now I’ll anger Leftists and say: I’ve had overall positive experiences with employers as well.