Declining birth rate

[aurum]

17 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

people have children when they have a credible image of a future worth inhabiting. 

To some degree, but I'd say that's a largely incomplete theory if we were just to stop there.

People in poverty often have some of the highest birth rates.

Birth rates are some complex mix of biology + contraception availability + needing children for economic reasons + cultural narratives + gender equality + environmental constraints.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

To some degree, but I'd say that's a largely incomplete theory if we were just to stop there.

People in poverty often have some of the highest birth rates.

Birth rates are some complex mix of biology + contraception availability + needing children for economic reasons + cultural narratives + gender equality + environmental constraints.

Fair point. I was specifically thinking about the declining birthrate context, where material survival isn't the driver.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Nothing this absurd is being proposed.

Free speech absolutism is obviously wrong.

The purpose of the example wasnt to show that it is right, the purpose of it was to question and to challenge how and when slipperly slope and caution is applied.

The question is when a new thing is proposed like  "x should be implemented" what set of heruistics you go through so that you can say "X can actually be implemented" rather than delaying x and saying "there is more work and thinking needs to be done before X is implemented".

Im asking what herustics you use (if any) when you think about these things, where the cost of delaying is calculated and not ignored.

Edited Friday at 09:28 PM by zurew

[Lila9]

53 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I wonder if the debate about patriarchy vs matriarchy misses something. What if the question isn't just "who rules?", but "what architecture?" A system that makes care visible, shares its costs, supports diverse family forms, and learns from parents' experience. That's not necessarily rule by women or men, more like good governance design applied to the foundation of society. Either way, how do we get from A to B? From patriarchy to matriarchy if that's what is preferred, and/or to a new architectural design of civilization? Maybe the multiple crisis will trigger enough will to change? Maybe I'm thinking too much in a linear fashion.

Patriarchy is about the domination of fathers, while matriarchy is not about domination at all. Matriarchy is about cooperation. This is more natural to humans and this is the reason we are so powerful. Because of our ability to cooperate. 

If you look at the diagram I shared above, patriarchy is more like a pyramid, while matriarchy is more like a sphere. The architecture of matriarchy is more friendly toward sustainable life and does not include the oppression of any group, unlike patriarchy. Children are the true foundation of society, and society is better built on them rather than on capital.

I believe that we have come to the point where patriarchy has become so unsustainable for human life that it naturally collapses. This is why birth rates will continue to decline until society changes toward a more matriarchal structure. This will happen gradually. It may take hundreds of years.

The balance between individualism and collectivism can exist in matriarchy.

Like in patriarchy, there are more individualistic patriarchal societies and more collectivistic ones.

While matriarchy is more inclined toward collectivism, it doesn’t have to be absolute collectivism (like purple).

[aurum]

31 minutes ago, zurew said:

The purpose of the example wasnt to show that it is right, the purpose of it was to question and to challenge how and when slipperly slope and caution is applied.

The question is when a new thing is proposed like  "x should be implemented" what set of heruistics you go through so that you can say "X can actually be implemented" rather than delaying x and saying "there is more work and thinking needs to be done before X is implemented".

Im asking what herustics you use (if any) when you think about these things, where the cost of delaying is calculated and not ignored.

I don't think I have some simple set of heuristics.

I mostly think in terms of tradeoffs, feedback loops and what will lead to greater societal development / holism. I prioritize depth of sense-making, not immediately actionable solutions.

Edited Friday at 09:58 PM by aurum

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

46 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I believe that we have come to the point where patriarchy has become so unsustainable for human life that it naturally collapses. This is why birth rates will continue to decline until society changes toward a more matriarchal structure. This will happen gradually. It may take hundreds of years.

Yes, change might take a long time. Orange did consolidate gradually: the Scientific Revolution, then Enlightenment, then Industrial capitalism, each wave destabilizing the previous blue order before the new center of gravity settled. That took roughly 200-300 years to become culturally dominant.
If that's the template, expecting yellow/turquoise to consolidate quickly seems optimistic.

What gives some hope is that the information environment is genuinely different now. That could compress the timeline, or it could just mean the destabilization is faster too.

[zurew]

38 minutes ago, aurum said:

I don't think I have some simple set of heuristics.

I mostly think in terms of tradeoffs and what will lead to greater societal development / holism. I prioritize depth of sense-making, not immediately actionable solutions.

I didnt think of simple heruistics, I was thinking more about general herustics.  This is similar to all issues, in that you can always go one level of abstraction higher, check what set of issues you need to deal with each and  every time a tradeoff discussion comes up and somewhat formalize and create a general template for it.

The move isn't to turn one's brain off from then on and to not use any fluid thinking anymore, the move is to get a deeper and more systemic understanding of tradeoff issues and then given that deeper understanding , check whether the solutions (that worked in other trade-off cases) could be applied to this specific trade-off case as well.

 

For instance, a general herustic could be is to think through not just first order but second order consequences each and every case a trade-off discussion comes up. (Because  you might have  a realization after studying these issues in a systemic way, that the cost of delay usually turns out to be the best when second order thinking is applied and not when first or third or third+ order thinking is applied)

Edited Friday at 10:24 PM by zurew

[Lila9]

58 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

Yes, change might take a long time. Orange did consolidate gradually: the Scientific Revolution, then Enlightenment, then Industrial capitalism, each wave destabilizing the previous blue order before the new center of gravity settled. That took roughly 200-300 years to become culturally dominant.
If that's the template, expecting yellow/turquoise to consolidate quickly seems optimistic.

What gives some hope is that the information environment is genuinely different now. That could compress the timeline, or it could just mean the destabilization is faster too.

Yes, it may be faster than usual this time.

[Jordan of the Shire]

5 hours ago, Lila9 said:

Look where we are now: living in a world controlled by pedophilic, greedy, psychopathic, narcissistic, and misogynistic men who destroy the earth. This is patriarchy for you. This is not sustainable for human life or any animal we share space with.

I don’t understand the positives of patriarchy you stated; can you please elaborate more on them?

Masculinity can definitely exist in a matriarchal society and is part of it. 

The main distinction between masculinity in a patriarchal vs. matriarchal society is that masculinity in a patriarchal society is exploitative and dominating, while in a matriarchal society it is protective and nurturing, which is the healthy form of it. Ideally, masculinity should be channeled for the benefit of the community, not against it.

 

"Look where we are now: living in a world controlled by pedophilic, greedy, psychopathic, narcissistic, and misogynistic men who destroy the earth. This is patriarchy for you. This is not sustainable for human life or any animal we share space with."

I don't know enough to agree with you entirely. Are these qualities an absolute inevitable outcome of patriarchy, or a result of corrupted spirit and ethical/moral ignorance?

It is possible to run a patriarchal household which has structure, stability, success, love, patience, tolerance, accountability, etc. I think depending on the scale, the people within it, and the quality of spirit, ethics, morals, wisdom... that will determine the quality of patriarchy... if we are to create a binary between governing systems.

What about a system that fluctuates between matriarchal and patriarchal values? I'm not sure what that would look like. But character is a thing cultivated mindfully and with consistency, and it requires a genuine desire to do so. With people who don't do this, who let their desires and mind run rampant—whether matriarchal or patriarchal—you'll always find an imbalance, deviation, or extreme. Actually, this feels like the inevitability of anything we try to control.

"I don’t understand the positives of patriarchy you stated; can you please elaborate more on them?"

Yea forsure Lila, thanks for asking

This is more coming from the viewpoint of Neigong systems which say the spirit is a steel-hardened quality of father-like, no-bs firmness. And the soul is cozy, loving, nurturing, etc. The idea comes from a lecture I listened to on the topic last year. The idea was that when you touch the spirit, it's loving, but in a firm and possibly unpleasant way. When you come in contact with the soul, it is loving, caring, and not so strict. But... both these exist in the universe. What I was saying was that there is a place for both these structures, and their subsequent organizations and manifestations.

Outright banning one or the other seems like a way to miss the universality of things. But... this is a bit away from the topic of having children and how to increase birth rates hahahaha... fuck.

All I'm saying, Lila, is that trying to control things too much leads to an extreme. I'm not smart enough to know exactly how societies should be organized. But I think birth rates would benefit from social support, safety, structure, ethical and moral people who reflect on themselves, and tribe... but you know... not the appropriation of tribe... but an actual breathing, qualitative, self-recursive, reflective group of people who don't bullshit themselves with their own holiness. Tall order though haha... we can only have second best... no one's perfect. No body of people will be.

How to increase birth rates... yeah, complex question. But likeable people, security, social supports seem like things I might add... not much that other people haven't said already.

"The main distinction between masculinity in a patriarchal vs. matriarchal society is that masculinity in a patriarchal society is exploitative and dominating, while in a matriarchal society it is protective and nurturing, which is the healthy form of it. Ideally, masculinity should be channeled for the benefit of the community, not against it."

 

I'm not completely convinced. I don't think patriarchy is inherently exploitative... i think that is a character quality, which can aggregate and compound with groups of people who aren't held accountable, and whom run a culture of exploitation.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:46 AM by Jordan of the Shire

[aurum]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

I didnt think of simple heruistics, I was thinking more about general herustics.  This is similar to all issues, in that you can always go one level of abstraction higher, check what set of issues you need to deal with each and  every time a tradeoff discussion comes up and somewhat formalize and create a general template for it.

The move isn't to turn one's brain off from then on and to not use any fluid thinking anymore, the move is to get a deeper and more systemic understanding of tradeoff issues and then given that deeper understanding , check whether the solutions (that worked in other trade-off cases) could be applied to this specific trade-off case as well.

 

For instance, a general herustic could be is to think through not just first order but second order consequences each and every case a trade-off discussion comes up. (Because  you might have  a realization after studying these issues in a systemic way, that the cost of delay usually turns out to be the best when second order thinking is applied and not when first or third or third+ order thinking is applied)

I have frameworks and overarching principles which I use during sense-making.

I would not say I use any formal process. My sense-making tends to be highly informal.

[Basman]

On 3/6/2026 at 7:27 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Pay woman a wage to raise and have kids.

It's a risk to our bodies and a full time job to raise a child to adulthood. And do it WELL. Which isn't happening.

This would also stop women feeling so unsafe; they wouldn't be trapped in fear not having a living wage and being beholden to just their husbands earnings.

I'm telling ya, there are a TON of women who would love to do this, but cannot. 

It's a cute idea, but doesn't work. Welfare state give all sorts of benefits to women, including paying them, but they still have a birth rate below replacement. There's no substitute for communal bonds, that's the real issue in my opinion. The breakdown of communal bonds and subsequent atomization of society has made families too poor, both financially and socially, to effectively raise children.

You can pay to substitute those communal bonds, what daycare essentially is, but it is incredibly inefficient. Even when run on bare minimum cost, a daycare is incredibly expensive. The government would have to pay billions just to hope to incentivize more people having children just to mimic a fraction of the power that is grandma helping out with looking after your kids for you.

Daycare should really be seen as a luxury. We are so placid about our own survival as a culture that it doesn't occur to us that certain problems we can solve ourselves without big brother government telling us how to live. 

[Basman]

The end game of throwing money at the problem is the mom hiring immigrants to look after her child for her at least 50% of the time. At least the kid will have some good old fashioned blue Asian values instilled into them. They'll grow up with big red ears.

[Basman]

Another important point is that we are way too busy nowadays and spend too much time working. Our whole culture centers work as the reason why we are alive down to our language. We define the time we spend not working by its absence (IE. time off work, down time, etc.). Spending so much time working comes at the expense of communal bonds, relationships and learning about the world and ourselves. People are too busy trying to make ends meet to make sense of our politics for example, which has consequences for the kind of people we vote in. It makes the whole system opaque.

I think it is not possible to reverse the declining birth rate without also changing our work culture.

[enchanted]

18 hours ago, Lila9 said:

Look where we are now: living in a world controlled by pedophilic, greedy, psychopathic, narcissistic, and misogynistic men who destroy the earth. This is patriarchy for you. This is not sustainable for human life or any animal we share space with.

I don’t understand the positives of patriarchy you stated; can you please elaborate more on them?

Masculinity can definitely exist in a matriarchal society and is part of it. 

The main distinction between masculinity in a patriarchal vs. matriarchal society is that masculinity in a patriarchal society is exploitative and dominating, while in a matriarchal society it is protective and nurturing, which is the healthy form of it. Ideally, masculinity should be channeled for the benefit of the community, not against it.

 

You make interesting points and  much of what you say is largely true in that we could create a better world if we incorporated more perspectives including an especially the female perspective. 

This idea of everything would be perfect if there was a matriarchy could be just wishful thinking. Especially since you say it's never been tested on the large scale. Blaming all society's problems on a particular group is not a responsible or a conscious leadership trait. 

Under a matriarchy what is to stop the more greedy, aggressive, and corrupt women from running amok? What metrics would you use that would indicate that we are now living in a "matriarchy" and everything is finally ok? You could argue that the current system has become less greedy over time and more equitable and therefore it could be hypothesized that a better society can be run with a more conscious form of patriarchy too.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by enchanted

[enchanted]

21 hours ago, Lila9 said:

In those areas, like the Middle East and Africa, women are forced to marry and have children. If not by physical force, then by social pressure. Singlehood is seen as a threat. It is also more difficult and dangerous to survive as a single woman in those areas.

Iceland, despite having more equality, still has a patriarchal framework. There is not country in the world without a patriarchal framework. 

 

So patriarchy is cause both high and low birth rates? 

Edited 11 hours ago by enchanted

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Basman has it been done?