No one is talking about forcing anyone. The fact just is that women who do use their bodies as vehicles for cultural transmission are better at cultural transmission. People who don't care for cultural transmission are free to stay away.
The act of giving birth is indeed very different from the process of maintaining interest in a language and a way of life. But the act of raising children is very much about maintaining interest in a language and a way of life. Any culture that finds any other way of raising many children than giving birth to them can certainly be viable too.
And of course there are other ways for culture to be transmitted. The parent-children way is just the most common.
Having children is a reasonable way to maintain culture. To be honest, it is one of the most important, however, in this current climate I would not advice procreation 😂 ( unless you really want kids).
I read a book called spider touch. I sadly can't remember the author. Anyways, it made me realize that having children genuinely makes you an easier target.
You can't just quit a job if you have kids.
You can't go on the streets to join a dangerous protest knowing that you have children waiting.
You are more likely to conform as a parent.
I think that's why I remain anti-natalist in this era.
Building institutions, laws and enforcing ideology might be a better way to maintain culture. Political and economic power is the best way to maintain culture. Unfortunately, for most women having children reduces their authority and even gets in the way of maintaining said culture.
I could write an essay on this to articulate my thoughts better.
Basically, democracy is the problem. If one person has one vote, then the most child-rich populations will double their share of the votes in every generation.
Representative democracy can reduce the possible tyranny of the majority. Politicians could use their rationality to apply harm principle or at the very least protect people’s equal access.
Modern technologies are accelerating the transmission of these ideas though. I was recently in Mexico and was astounded at the night and day difference of the kids there today vs. of when I would go to Mexico as a child myself. Every kid was on a cell phone, watching Netflix at home (my nephews), they had Amazon, loved Taylor Swift, used social media, and more. They weren’t as distinguishable from teens in the USA.
I'm still thinking about this, but in a conversation elsewhere Tove said:
> I'm not a Christian. The idea of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit seems indeed very attractive, but I don't get it. I think Christianity is a successful viral idea because missionaries managed to sell in Christianity to everyone from the Inuits to the Amazonian native Americans. Somehow, people of very different backgrounds traded their traditional religions for Christianity. Like if Christianity is the easy part of Western culture while most of the rest is rather difficult to adopt.
This isn't an attempt at a refutation of your main idea, but, wasn't a major factor the pressure from *within* the religion, combined with the material culture associated with Christianity? Earlier religions seldom encouraged conversion like Christianity did, which gave Christians an incentive to export their beliefs elsewhere. Although prospective converts may have been interested in the religion on its own terms, much of the attraction for prospective converts may have been the aura of success associated with it. The Mediterranean had long been a center of wealth and learning, and for many, accepting Christianity may have just been a side factor in the issue of whether you want more civilization or not.
>Although prospective converts may have been interested in the religion on its own terms, much of the attraction for prospective converts may have been the aura of success associated with it.
I very much agree. Still, Christianity seems to be the easiest part of the successful West to adopt. For example, I rather recently read anthropologist Jean Briggs book Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family. Briggs found a group of Netsilik Eskimo who led a very traditional life. They lived in iglus, they hunted, they moved with the prey, they visited a town to trade stuff about twice a year. And still, they were adamantly Christian. Briggs wanted very much to find someone who could tell about the old shamanic religion. That proved to be impossible. Shamanism was seen as old-fashioned and embarrassing. If Jean wanted to talk religion, she had to talk about Christianity.
Should western women or liberal women be forced to use their bodies as a machine for cultural transmission?
No one is talking about forcing anyone. The fact just is that women who do use their bodies as vehicles for cultural transmission are better at cultural transmission. People who don't care for cultural transmission are free to stay away.
The act of giving birth is very different to the process of maintaining interest in a language and way of life.
By your argument, feminist should have never existed in the first place because their mother's were okay living under the patriarchy.
Cultural transmission is usually enforced through a mixture of fear and education.
Technology has also allowed ideas to spread beyond the walls of house.
The act of giving birth is indeed very different from the process of maintaining interest in a language and a way of life. But the act of raising children is very much about maintaining interest in a language and a way of life. Any culture that finds any other way of raising many children than giving birth to them can certainly be viable too.
And of course there are other ways for culture to be transmitted. The parent-children way is just the most common.
Having children is a reasonable way to maintain culture. To be honest, it is one of the most important, however, in this current climate I would not advice procreation 😂 ( unless you really want kids).
I read a book called spider touch. I sadly can't remember the author. Anyways, it made me realize that having children genuinely makes you an easier target.
You can't just quit a job if you have kids.
You can't go on the streets to join a dangerous protest knowing that you have children waiting.
You are more likely to conform as a parent.
I think that's why I remain anti-natalist in this era.
Building institutions, laws and enforcing ideology might be a better way to maintain culture. Political and economic power is the best way to maintain culture. Unfortunately, for most women having children reduces their authority and even gets in the way of maintaining said culture.
I could write an essay on this to articulate my thoughts better.
Basically, democracy is the problem. If one person has one vote, then the most child-rich populations will double their share of the votes in every generation.
Representative democracy can reduce the possible tyranny of the majority. Politicians could use their rationality to apply harm principle or at the very least protect people’s equal access.
Modern technologies are accelerating the transmission of these ideas though. I was recently in Mexico and was astounded at the night and day difference of the kids there today vs. of when I would go to Mexico as a child myself. Every kid was on a cell phone, watching Netflix at home (my nephews), they had Amazon, loved Taylor Swift, used social media, and more. They weren’t as distinguishable from teens in the USA.
I'm still thinking about this, but in a conversation elsewhere Tove said:
> I'm not a Christian. The idea of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit seems indeed very attractive, but I don't get it. I think Christianity is a successful viral idea because missionaries managed to sell in Christianity to everyone from the Inuits to the Amazonian native Americans. Somehow, people of very different backgrounds traded their traditional religions for Christianity. Like if Christianity is the easy part of Western culture while most of the rest is rather difficult to adopt.
This isn't an attempt at a refutation of your main idea, but, wasn't a major factor the pressure from *within* the religion, combined with the material culture associated with Christianity? Earlier religions seldom encouraged conversion like Christianity did, which gave Christians an incentive to export their beliefs elsewhere. Although prospective converts may have been interested in the religion on its own terms, much of the attraction for prospective converts may have been the aura of success associated with it. The Mediterranean had long been a center of wealth and learning, and for many, accepting Christianity may have just been a side factor in the issue of whether you want more civilization or not.
>Although prospective converts may have been interested in the religion on its own terms, much of the attraction for prospective converts may have been the aura of success associated with it.
I very much agree. Still, Christianity seems to be the easiest part of the successful West to adopt. For example, I rather recently read anthropologist Jean Briggs book Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family. Briggs found a group of Netsilik Eskimo who led a very traditional life. They lived in iglus, they hunted, they moved with the prey, they visited a town to trade stuff about twice a year. And still, they were adamantly Christian. Briggs wanted very much to find someone who could tell about the old shamanic religion. That proved to be impossible. Shamanism was seen as old-fashioned and embarrassing. If Jean wanted to talk religion, she had to talk about Christianity.
Yay! Just as I was starting to worry about when the next WFE post was coming out, it came out! And it's a huge argument for pronatalism!