The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Birth Rates and the Unhappiness Explosion
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Births surged during the immigration/housing bubble of the Bush years, especially among unmarried Mexican immigrants, then fell sharply during the Great Recession. Births rose slightly in 2014, seemingly due to economic better times, but have fallen ever since. Despite the strong economy, the total fertility rate (estimated births per woman per lifetime) dropped 2% in 2018 to 1.73.

Births to teenage mothers have been falling steadily since the spike upward during the Crack Era of around 1991, which is mostly good news. But now the declines in births are drifting up the age ladder, with the 2018 birthrate dropping all the way up into the mid-30s, rising only in the 35-44 range.

I’m starting to wonder if this recent downturn of 2015-2018 is less due to the economy than to the Unhappiness Explosion of the Late Obama Age Collapse, which seems to be hitting younger women hardest. Whether the rise in unhappiness is due to social media, wokeness, or something else is still up for debate.

 
Hide 302 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Whenever you see an establishment ideologue talk about the great success of the post-WW2 liberal world order and wonder what all the populists are so mad about, show him this. It’s the birthrates, stupid. Your system fails to produce human beings.

    • Agree: Travis, bomag, Prodigal son
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    Feature not bug. Haven't you been reading the NYT? We have to make room for the billions of Africans on the way. O Brave New World...
    , @Desiderius
    To them (and most of the readers of this blog) that’s feature, not bug. Those Ws stand for world war after all. In the post- era the best and brightest were tasked with preventing another. We’re living in what they came up with (cf. the Jaffe memo).
    , @J.Ross
    This. Prior to this excellent formulation there has been at least a hundred gig of 4chan comments, never acknowledged by the Nazi-finders, saying different versions of this same idea.
    Congratulations, universal masters and SXSW trendies, you found a way to make people hate sex.
    Tatyana Tolstoya (descendent of Leo) had a short story about an all-knowing doctor who takes a free spirit as a lover and is exaperated to learn how ungrateful he is for her help. He discovers he has cancer and giddily announces he has no intention of fighting it. In our society this is met with insipid re-education efforts which never address the problem and make the assumption that people simply don't know basic things, as well as namecalling. In fact one of the most remarkable things about the sensitivity crowd is that their signature comeback is to mock supposed virgins for not being able to get laid, because that would solve no problems but the idea is it would be like soma.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Your system fails to produce human beings.
     
    Or, maybe it just fails to produce the right kind of human beings.
    , @Mike_from_SGV
    If the sick and twisted and suicidal liberal world order is indeed an evolutionary dead end, this strikes me as a good thing.
  2. Anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m starting to wonder if this recent downturn of 2015-2018 is less due to the economy than to the Unhappiness Explosion of the Late Obama Age Collapse, which seems to be hitting younger women hardest.

    I think rapid onset gender dysphoria explains the numbers. Those “young women” have turned their vaginas into “straplesses” (or “frontpoles”). Of course they cannot have children. They are men. Actual, real men.

    • Replies: @Logan
    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.
    , @follyofwar
    They may be biological males, but they are not Real Men.
    , @Alden
    Most of the surgical trannies are men turned into women.
  3. In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.

    • Agree: HammerJack, Prester John
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    I was about to say "Cue the stupid Boomerposters chiming in with how wonderful a declining population is," but a stupid Boomerposter beat me to it.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "...good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends."
     
    Oops.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing.
     
    That option isn't on the table.

    Global population and birth rates are booming. This post focuses on low birth rates in the US. Birth rates in Africa are surging and that isn't our choice.

    IMO, this crowd should focus on having more children themselves and worry less about the rest of the world.

    Does Steve Sailer have a plan to grow or mold or influence a future generation of similar writers?
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Well, that certainly applies in places that are overcrowded, like Japan. As long as they maintain a tough immigration policy, a declining population is a good thing for them.
    , @(((Owen)))

    a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities
     
    Exactly. We need and have lower birth rates because the Earth is full with an unprecedented overpopulation of humans. The people of the civilized world who are capable of restraining themselves don’t want to make it worse.
  4. @IHTG
    Whenever you see an establishment ideologue talk about the great success of the post-WW2 liberal world order and wonder what all the populists are so mad about, show him this. It's the birthrates, stupid. Your system fails to produce human beings.

    Feature not bug. Haven’t you been reading the NYT? We have to make room for the billions of Africans on the way. O Brave New World…

    • Replies: @IHTG
    It'll get them too, eventually.
    , @Oleaginous Outrager
    But what about all the carbon footprints?!?!?!?!?!?!
  5. I was young during both of those periods. I was quite young during the Early Housing Bubble for dual-high-earner parents and the concurrent Government Paid Sex And Reproduction Bubble for legal & illegal immigrants (and single moms). They’re tied together, those bubbles.

    I will never forget hanging an exhibit for a customer in a gated community. This neighborhood was stocked to the brim with massive palaces under construction, built on tiny plots of land in a very rich area of the city. There were only 3 English speakers around: me and two designers. But the aristocratic neighborhood was awash with construction workers—all noncitizens. Unless it was a foreman who was taking some family-friendly time off, not one American citizen got a trickle down of money from all of that building activity.

    Before the Housing Bubble Era, palatial residences were restricted to a few super-rich enclaves, and there were far more middle-class neighborhoods. During the housing bubble, the middle-class neighborhoods mostly disappeared from the city. Noncitizens took those neighborhoods over. In one area taken over by immigrants, a huge mall that was a bastion of middle (and upper middle class) activity closed after many years.

    But you sure can build a quantity of bigger Barbie palaces for feminist-princess moms in dual-earner households when you have access to hordes of super-cheap laborers. And those moms in dual-earner households—holding down their family-friendly / absenteeism-friendly / crony-parent jobs—deserve it, no matter what it does to the rest of society.

    They deserve it even though there would be twice as many middle-class households if one of the parents raised the kids instead of leaving that work to low-wage daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters or elderly grandparents. Instead, the dual earners take two above-firing, household-supporting jobs with benefits out of the economy, taking large stretches of time off beyond their PTO and pregnancy leave (days, mornings, afternoons and weeks of crony-parent time off).

    [MORE]

    By flooding the USA with cheap foreign laborers, above-firing dual-earner parents can afford more palaces and more cheap servants to keep up the grounds of those palaces, while huge numbers of college-educated citizens are underemployed, with large slices of them unable to afford the dignity of a one-room apartment.

    And mostly non-college-educated citizens who used to successfully pursue self-employment in various industries inundated with cheap immigrant labor have just given up. There is no way to compete with the big boys, employing noncitizens who are able to work cheaply mostly because of their extra pay from the US government for womb-productive sex.

    Years after hanging that exhibit, I worked at the Department of Human Services, where I found out why those foreign workers can afford to work so cheaply. Their wives and girlfriends are paid in increasing amounts per birth by government, getting as much as I was paid in a week as a college grad just in free food for their US-born kids.

    In some states, they get monthly cash assistance in an equivalent amount, in addition to housing assistance and electricity assistance, topped off with a big old sex-and-reproduction check at tax time, a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431.

    When you are not pumping out kids that you can’t afford, getting your major monthly expenses paid by Uncle Sam and a yearly check from US Treasury Department that takes you 3 to 4 months to earn, it’s a bit harder to be happy, particularly since wages have not perceptively risen in 4 decades. But rent and other major expenses have risen exponentially, pricing you out regardless of how hard you work or how many quotas you meet.

    And no, it is no better to live in states with lower housing costs when you are not in a high-wage category, a dual-earner household, a household with a rent-covering child support check or a single-breadwinner household with multiple streams of pay from government for womb-productive sex.

    When you have one earned-only income stream to cover all household bills, rent is completely unaffordable even in “low-cost” states since wages are also much, much lower—drviven lower by so many womb-productive citizens and noncitizens who just need to stay under the earned-income limits for welfare programs by working part time or in temp jobs, dropping their welfare during months when their income goes over the programs’ limits.

    To stay under the prograns’ limits, some of the welfare-eligible womb producers don’t report all of their income, including many of the illegal immigrants who work under-the-table.

    There are many ways for womb producers to maximize their unearned-income till, but not so much for non womb producers to increase their earned-income till in this part-time churn-gig economy that caters to parents with a second income and parents with access to welfare and child tax credits.

    It is a particularly brutal economy for those outside of the corrupt, frequently absentee, cutthroat, back-watching Crony Parent Job Network. For non culture fits, trying to navigate the many openly discriminatory, nearly all-mom, voted-best-for-moms, female-dominated, low-wage office jobs, it is……an awful economy.

    In “individualistic” America, if anyone is concerned about the Happiness Index, it is not the quality of life for women (or men) without children that is at issue. Happiness only matters as it relates to sex and reproduction…on…a…planet with 8 billion people, where many liberals lie about their passionate concern for the environment. If environmental damage is manmade, it is due to more humans consuming resources.

    These people also undermine their social-engineering goals by discarding the economic interests of the non-womb-productive citizens.

    When you set up a welfare-rigged and crony-parent labor market, you don’t just make single earners who must support themselves on one earned-only income stream unhappy, reducing their quality of life to near zero. You also limit new household formation among non-welfare-eligible citizens, undermining the constant quest to ramp up births in the Womb Centric Fake Feminist Era.

    That is because those raised in middle-class households are under a lot of social pressure to be able to support any children produced on earned-only income. They are also under intense keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ social pressure from multiple sides, as many of their siblings and friends pursue the Barbie-princess / feminist / DNA dynasty lifestyles that absenteeism-friendly above-firing jobs for dual-earner parents and at-their-beck-and-call grandparent babysitters make possible.

    This is a long-standing, dug-in set of social standards that evades the multi-decade attempt at Total Cultural Revolution via a broad array of media glorifying the single-mom welfare-state lifestyle.

    Putting the womb-productive sex ahead of the independent household formation does not work to reach the goal of the social engineers on the Left and the Right. It does not work to increase the birth rate in the middle. It does, however, work to destroy the lives of many single & childless citizens outside of a handful of fields that are rewarded by the marketplace beyond the manipulation of the Crony Parent Job Nerwork.

    After their kids hit 18, the single moms in low-paying female-dominated jobs, too, face this brutal situation. They have one, inadequate, earned-only income stream from temp, part-time and churn jobs to cover unaffordable rent and all other household bills. Happy—-ugh, no.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    In one area taken over by immigrants, a huge mall that was a bastion of middle (and upper middle class) activity closed after many years.
     
    Don't fret. It will be an Amazon "fulfillment center" before too long.

    Don't you feel fulfilled already?

    you don’t just make single earners who must support themselves on one earned-only income stream unhappy, reducing their quality of life to near zero. You also limit new household formation among non-welfare-eligible citizens
     
    It's irresponsible for irresponsible people to have children. It's irresponsible for responsible people not to.
    , @Jack D
    You give a mostly cogent analysis of the perverse incentives that infect our society. The whole system stinks from top to bottom and I don't know how we are ever going to be able to cut out the rot before the whole clown show collapses.

    But I'm not sure you can blame immigrants for that shopping mall closing. Immigrants LOVE to shop. Probably the mall was affected by the same factors that are affecting retail everywhere. The #1 factor is the rise of online shopping, especially Amazon.
  6. @HammerJack
    Feature not bug. Haven't you been reading the NYT? We have to make room for the billions of Africans on the way. O Brave New World...

    It’ll get them too, eventually.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    They way it's getting them in South Africa?
    , @Tony
    Well that'll be good news.
  7. @Peter Johnson
    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.

    I was about to say “Cue the stupid Boomerposters chiming in with how wonderful a declining population is,” but a stupid Boomerposter beat me to it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    We need a stable sustainable population. Not the entropy of #mass immigration

    Ask yourself why, "the infrastructure" is decayed. It was conscientiously designed for 250 million people.

    Americans reproduce at roughly their replacement rate. A little more when things are good and less when bad. Why are we being second guessed ?
    , @adreadline
    In my view, he's right. Population growth rates like those found in African countries today, specially if selecting for lower than average intelligence (which is apparently what's happening, albeit slightly so), would probably be a disaster for Western countries, or for any country. Sub-replacement level fertility rates, as long as they aren't close to zero (even Singapore and South Korea have them above 1.0 last I checked), combined with even weak selection for above average intelligence and below average violent/ psychopathic tendencies would be ideal, I think, at least for a while. And, of course, no significant immigration from anywhere.

    Fertility rates aren't everything. The reasons they are decreasing in Western countries (and in non-Western countries too, like mine -- Brazil) are worthy of attention. Like it was said, not all appears to be well. Buncha people feeling hopeless. But low and decreasing fertility rates among those of above average intelligence and below average criminality predisposition, if true, might be more of a symptom than a cause of the state of the Western world.

    , @istevefan
    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.

    The key is to hit some sort of equilibrium with regard to needs and scale.
  8. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Is the economy really “strong,” especially for those foregoing children?

    Even among those couples with decent incomes, many are saddled with student loan debts, or can’t afford to purchase a home in the area where they’ve snagged that job. Having someone stay home to parent rather than earn that salary is becoming more exceptional. None of these factors precludes babies, but they discourage it.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    I think crippling student loan debts are a part of it. Also the current dependence on online dating. It makes it seem like there’s a giant pool of potentials out there so no one is valuable. At this point, it’s difficult to date the old fashioned way. Meeting someone at work is harassment. People don’t do bars and clubs for this type of thing anymore. So there’s the online stuff which doesn’t help most people find someone they can settle down with.

    A big part of the problem is people not having any kids. But it seems like another problem is that so few have more than 2 kids. It’s a bigger lift for the person without a spouse or partner to find one and have a kid than it is for someone with two kids to have a third. Perhaps the concentration of jobs in expensive urban areas is the problem here. Affording a 4 bedroom house in a good school district in the Silicon Valley or near nyc is no small feat.
  9. @Anon

    I’m starting to wonder if this recent downturn of 2015-2018 is less due to the economy than to the Unhappiness Explosion of the Late Obama Age Collapse, which seems to be hitting younger women hardest.
     
    I think rapid onset gender dysphoria explains the numbers. Those "young women" have turned their vaginas into "straplesses" (or "frontpoles"). Of course they cannot have children. They are men. Actual, real men.

    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Has anyone informed Jazz "farewell to penis" Jennings that he/she/it will still have to register with Selective Service next year?


    https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/videos/i-am-jazz-trailer-reveals-surgical-challenges-introduces-new-boy/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDaO7ZYbRrY&t=142s

    , @Lot
    Majority of committed trannies taking hormones etc are MtF.

    Majority of people who identify as trans/genderqueer etc might be biological females.
    , @AnotherDad

    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.
     
    Lot's comment gets at it, but it's worth being clear:

    Actual transitions--sure. But the huge rise in people claiming they are the wrong sex--gender dysphoria--is hugely skewed to young women.

    Basically this scam is tapping the unhappiness/confusion surrounding being a young woman in today's age when a young woman is not supposed to do the things young women are designed to do--i.e. find a good man who can support them and start bearing his children--and young men are discouraged and denied the chance to be a guy ready to provide thoose things.
  10. How many thousands (millions?) of millennials are followers of leftist nut AOC? If twenty-somethings believe, like her, that human life will end in 12 years, then why bring children into a crumbling world?

    Ecologist Guy McPherson has been preaching for years that human life is facing short-term extinction due to global warming, and that it is now too late to do anything about it. I don’t know how big his following is, and I find his claims hard to believe, but I imagine that intelligent young people who have viewed his YouTube lectures may come away thinking that it is crazy to have children.

    When I was coming of age in the late 1960’s Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” was a runaway best seller. Johnny Carson was a fan, and had Ehrlich on his show a few times. I believed Ehrlich, thus wanted, at most, 1 or 2 children (my wife and I had two). No doubt millions of boomers felt the same way, hence had far fewer children than our WWII era parents. Too bad the exploding Third World populations knew nothing of Ehrlich.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I've talked to many boomers who only had 1 or 2 kids. The general sense I get from them is that they wished they had more kids - and they could have - but they decided against it for some reason.
    , @dfordoom

    I believed Ehrlich, thus wanted, at most, 1 or 2 children (my wife and I had two). No doubt millions of boomers felt the same way, hence had far fewer children than our WWII era parents.
     
    The problem with the environmentalism scare stuff is that it contributes to making a pessimistic society even more pessimistic. So you get more greed (you might as well get what you can now before everything falls apart), more nihilism and more pessimism.

    And that's why birth rates matter - low birth rates are a sign of a society that does not believe it has a future and does not believe it deserves one.

    Boomers were the first generation to really experience pessimism verging on existential despair. Hence the turn toward degeneracy and drugs.
  11. @Peter Johnson
    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.

    “…good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.”

    Oops.

    • Agree: ic1000
  12. > Unhappiness Explosion

    I’ve been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it’s getting worse. Kids today aren’t spoiled; they’re sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don’t think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Good observation.

    But is it a cause or effect?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    https://youtu.be/OvQ5F6GCfgI

    The cats on the raw-food diet thrived while those eating the cooked meat developed health problems – and the effects persisted in their offspring. While the cooked-meat cats of the first generation developed degenerative diseases later in life (and reportedly became lazy), the second-generation cats started to get sick in mid-life.

    By the third generation, the cats developed degenerative diseases very early in life, had a shorter lifespan, and some were born blind. Many of the third-generation cats could not reproduce, and those that did produced even sicker offspring that often died within six months. By the fourth generation, the “junk food” cats died off completely.
     
    , @densa
    Spot on, and I can no longer believe it's an accident. Children are made sick by vaccination, then the illnesses caused are treated with drugs. No attention is made to the healthcare system's uncanny ability to create expensive longterm disease. Feature, not a bug. No attention is paid to what used to be called environment, which would include the invisible pollution of technology. Global warming. Climate change. Global warming. Climate change. Nothing else is of consequence.
    , @J.Ross
    That one sequence in Tomlin's Incredible Shrinking Woman where the bearded guy lists household goods is probably the clue, especially if you include modern food. Paleo, oily fish, lifting, and ancestral connection restore T pretty reliably.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.
     
    A very real and systemic phenomenon is going on that is way beyond the endemic complaints about "kids today" or simple nostalgia. The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital "animal spirits" of the West.

    It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits -- both biological and cultural -- and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And another big problem with getting a grip on the issue is the "Sapir-Worf" problem: No one has yet coined a term or phrase that can tie all the disparate strands together into a single intelligible phenomenon.

    In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.


    Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year. This means, for example, that a 60-year-old man in 2004 had testosterone levels 17% lower than those of a 60-year-old in 1987. Another study of Danish men produced similar findings, with double-digit declines among men born in the 1960s compared to those born in the 1920s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#6e3a81908b7f
     
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    Not to mention a myriad of autoimmune diseases, and bizarre allergies. I think maybe one out of every ten kids my son knows has either a peanut or gluten allergy.
    , @obwandiyag
    Capitalism my friend. Capitalism. We pay them to kill us. And thank them for it. Smart.
  13. @IHTG
    It'll get them too, eventually.

    They way it’s getting them in South Africa?

  14. @Anon

    I’m starting to wonder if this recent downturn of 2015-2018 is less due to the economy than to the Unhappiness Explosion of the Late Obama Age Collapse, which seems to be hitting younger women hardest.
     
    I think rapid onset gender dysphoria explains the numbers. Those "young women" have turned their vaginas into "straplesses" (or "frontpoles"). Of course they cannot have children. They are men. Actual, real men.

    They may be biological males, but they are not Real Men.

  15. I’m glad women are unhappy. They’ve had quite a nice ride for decades, living longer than men, sponging off men, Title IX, preferential divorce and custody laws, shorter prison sentences for the same crimes, to say nothing of never paying for drinks. I’d say they’re due for a little unhappiness, call it a market correction.

    • Agree: L Woods, jim jones
  16. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    Good observation.

    But is it a cause or effect?

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
    It is an effect.
  17. Momma, I’m leaving the mine and Coalwood and heading to a place called, um, “KAM-bridge” up in Massachusetts!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

    New score comes as college admissions decisions are under scrutiny

    The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.

    This new number, called an adversity score by college admissions officers, is calculated using 15 factors including the crime rate and poverty levels from the student’s high school and neighborhood. Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

    Fifty colleges used the score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board plans to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year.

    How colleges consider a student’s race and class in making admissions decisions is hotly contested. Many colleges, including Harvard University, say a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school. A lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard is awaiting a judge’s ruling. Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.

    The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.

    “There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,” said David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    As Mark Soane said, "The SAT was the last bastion of objective measurement in the sea of subjectivity that makes up a college application."

    You can add 200 or 300 points to the SAT score of every black and hispanic applicant if you want. It's essentially what we've been doing anyway. But when they arrive at Princeton or Yale (or even USC), they'll still be unable to do the work, much less handle the workload. They'll all go Jerelyn Luther in some way or other, and stage hate-crime hoaxes in order to get the attention and disruption they crave.

    https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/CFR-RA-Education-Scorecard-20130615.png

    USA! #1 in race hustling!

    , @L Woods
    (Western) Civilization: best see it before it's gone.
    , @gman
    wow , a comment on Hacker News

    'Equality of opportunity over outcome for me. Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max) to afford to live in a good school district shouldn’t penalize us. My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving...I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.'

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19930923

    I feel like this new adversity scores is going to subject to a lot of iSteve posts
  18. Women who don’t have children end up going crazy.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Olorin
    So you're claiming then that of the full 1/3 of inside-the-Hajnal-Line/Northern/NW European populations that didn't produce offspring but instead supported sibs', a good 17% were mad?

    Damn, that's some Ingmar Bergman movie running in your head.

    You really don't understand how a genetic legacy gets passed along, dude. But hey, don't let me stop you from passing along atoms of the fashionable New Misogyny of 4chan and similar comic book forums.

  19. One solution to this problem is more immigration.

    Not only will increased immigration counteract reduced birthrates — and therefore satisfy the religion of Economics’ commandment for continuous growth — it will also cause even more unhappiness, thus even lower birthrates, which will then require even more immigration.

    This solution will therefore sustain itself — like an addiction.

    (Note that this comment uses for form “will,” and not “would.” That is because now the Kushner Immigration Plan ensures that even more people will come to the United States.)

    The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    If you keep large stocks of animals, I imagine at some point you expect them to be self sustaining and no longer require outside augmentation to keep up their numbers. If that doesn't happen, you will probably call in the vets to figure out the issue instead of blindly making more purchases.
  20. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I was about to say "Cue the stupid Boomerposters chiming in with how wonderful a declining population is," but a stupid Boomerposter beat me to it.

    We need a stable sustainable population. Not the entropy of #mass immigration

    Ask yourself why, “the infrastructure” is decayed. It was conscientiously designed for 250 million people.

    Americans reproduce at roughly their replacement rate. A little more when things are good and less when bad. Why are we being second guessed ?

  21. History belongs to those who show up for it.

    I’ve got three already on the ground and me and the missus are working on number four. We’re doing our part.

    Their education is both classical and comprehensive. We’re studying farming, medicine and small arms armoring, among other useful subjects.

    My kids are not awkward, ‘prepper’ shut-ins. On the contrary, they’re as delightful and engaging a band as you will meet. But I am teaching them to whack you in a hot second if it goes that way.

    Warrior poet monks is what I want. Warrior poets monks is what this country will need.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Disciples worked for two millennia.
  22. @Peter Johnson
    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.

    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing.

    That option isn’t on the table.

    Global population and birth rates are booming. This post focuses on low birth rates in the US. Birth rates in Africa are surging and that isn’t our choice.

    IMO, this crowd should focus on having more children themselves and worry less about the rest of the world.

    Does Steve Sailer have a plan to grow or mold or influence a future generation of similar writers?

    • Replies: @bomag

    That option isn’t on the table.
     
    It should be.

    We should be in charge of our fate to that extent.
  23. @IHTG
    Whenever you see an establishment ideologue talk about the great success of the post-WW2 liberal world order and wonder what all the populists are so mad about, show him this. It's the birthrates, stupid. Your system fails to produce human beings.

    To them (and most of the readers of this blog) that’s feature, not bug. Those Ws stand for world war after all. In the post- era the best and brightest were tasked with preventing another. We’re living in what they came up with (cf. the Jaffe memo).

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    They don't have a real answer for the collapse of their pyramid scheme, which is now outpacing their planned expansion of taxation.
  24. I think a big part of it was some of the people who were in their late 20s at the time of the crash recovering slightly by 2014 enough to make a go at starting a household.

    Everyone below them has seen no recovery at all. And thus people are waiting to the very last minute to have a family often with the assistance of their parents in terms of money.

    Humans work by expectations. If things are bad, people will be happier if they are getting better than if things are good but ‘from now all I is watch myself lose things’. Now younger cohorts have no real fixed roots, no job security and atomised social worlds of post-graduate adult life combined with the demoralised effects of social media making everyone feel more like a loser than they really are. A lot of them are single because the world keeps them that way.

    If you think in terms of individuals to populations. Let’s say pick Germany as an extreme example. When a German thinks in terms of his community or tribe, he gets hit a bit with the mental state of Germany, which is a depressive. From the DSM

    thoughts and feelings of worthlessness, inappropriate guilt or regret, helplessness, hopelessness, and self-hatred

    This can be applied to all Western European countries. They all suffer from cultural cringe now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cringe

    So whilst individuals may be happy and non-depressed when they engage their mind with their collective ethnicity or tribe, the current Zeitgeist exerts a pressure downwards. Loss of control of immigration is loss of control over your own environment and government, it’s deeply depressing.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    What is the DSM? Can you send a link?
  25. I think we have only scratched the surface of the catastrophic effect diversity has had on society (Robert Putnam and his analysis) nor the economic impact such that people just can’t afford a reasonable sized property in a reasonable area with reasonable schools.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "people just can’t afford a reasonable sized property in a reasonable area with reasonable schools"

    Agreed. White Brits in London, say, have to be either mad, wealthy or violent* to want to raise kids there. Which is why half a million got out between 2001 and 2011.

    * people tend to leave you be if you've demonstrated a capacity for serious violence


    (Anyone know if Roissy's surfaced elsewhere yet?)

  26. The number of babies born in America reached a 30 year low last year..but white births hit an 85 years low.

    CDC data —- 1988 — 2018
    White births* – 3.1 M – 1.9 M
    Non-White —- 0.8 M — 1.9 M

    * Births to white mothers

    of the 1.9 million White births last year, 12% had a non-white father. Thus 225,000 of the white births will be children who are not white. This is one way the CDC manipulates the data to avoid provoking more scare stories in the NY times about whites being a minority of births. After reporting that whites were a minority of all births in 2012 the CDC has backtracked and changed their reporting methodology because they realized white people are more likely to vote GOP when they realized whites are already a minority of births and non-whites are the majority of children under 18 today.

  27. @Almost Missouri
    Good observation.

    But is it a cause or effect?

    It is an effect.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Of what?
  28. OT – We often talk here about the (implicit) Wokemon points that the Left assigns to people and which help explain the outcome of various social interactions. But, the College Board is going to reify (a Gouldian term) this system in something called the “Adversity Score”.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

    The “adversity score” is calculated by assessing 15 factors that can better help admissions officers determine an individual student’s social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.
    Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student’s adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student’s family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual’s adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

    A score of 50 is considered “average.” Anything above 50 proves “hardship” while anything below 50 is considered “privilege.”

    For college admissions officers, this is a godsend. It’s been very hard explaining, up until now, why applicant Wong needed to score 300 points higher on his SATs than applicant Tyshaun just because of his skin color – somehow it didn’t seem fair or right. But, once you understand that Wong has an Adversity Score of 82 while Tyshaun only scores a 36, then it all makes sense and is COMPLETELY fair – how could you even expect someone from a redlined community to understand algebra on the same level as someone from a 2 parent household? And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination. For really busy offices, you can simply say multiply the applicant’s SAT score by his Adversity Score. Without this valuable explanatory factor, Tyshaun’s 950 looks a LOT worse than Wong’s 1540, but once you run the math, Tyshaun is the objective favorite – ADMIT. No longer will we have to admit snot assed white kids from Lake Forest who are just drowning in privilege. Their “1” Adversity Score will completely negate their SATs.

    This will really simplify everyday interactions, as well as college admissions. If, for example, you get into a little fender bender with another driver, you will no longer have to worry about such outdated concepts as “fault”, “right of way” and so on. You will simply each whip out your Adversity Score and the accident will be the “fault” of whomever had the lower score. This will really take the ambiguity out of awkward social situations involving rude customers or employees, parent-teacher interactions and so on.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination.
     
    It's a nice trick, isn't it?

    It works because it leaves out the causes of those "objective factors." I.E., pretty much all of the factors are the result of the people who make up the neighborhoods, families and high schools.

    If anybody really wanted to get down to the roots of the differences between scores, they would measure characteristics of the people themselves. (Of course, we know that has already been done and ignored.)

    Thank you for the Fox News Alert.

    , @Desiderius
    A caste system under glass.
    , @res
    The WSJ article (paywalled) adds this little tidbit:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

     

    Interesting.

    Has anyone seen details of the actual score calculation? I am guessing that is top secret, but it would be interesting to see how they weight those different components and how some typical people score.

    I wonder if colleges will start publishing statistical data on the adversity scores of their incoming classes.

    P.S. Will they be incorporating the adversity score into class grading as well?
    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    This looks like a preemptive workaround for when the Roberts Court eliminates Affirmative Action.
    , @Clyde
    There will be plenty of room for lying on this adversity score. Lying about your family situation. Lies from minorities will not be prosecuted or even looked at. Lies from responsible middle class white Americans will be looked into.

    Jose can lie about having no father at home and that his mother is an illegal Guatemalan who cleans offices at night and having three sisters who got on DACA. --- NO INVESTIGATION

    White Henry can state that he has a disabled sister and no mother. THIS WILL BE LOOKED INTO

    De'onte can claim that while on the High School football team he had nooses hung in locker locker for every game. --- THIS LIE WILL NOT BE CHECKED OUT.
  29. Watching women around me, I’d say people aren’t getting married very quickly. When they do finally marry, they’re older and either less fertile or have careers that don’t allow for babies. Single women know that having a baby without a husband is a disaster so there’s less sex… and that with tons of contraception.

    We’ve been telling women to have careers and exciting lives, not husbands and children. What do you know? They’re listening.

    • Replies: @Mike_from_SGV
    And they are evolutionary dead ends. Their sick genes will not pollute the pool. This is good.
  30. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    The cats on the raw-food diet thrived while those eating the cooked meat developed health problems – and the effects persisted in their offspring. While the cooked-meat cats of the first generation developed degenerative diseases later in life (and reportedly became lazy), the second-generation cats started to get sick in mid-life.

    By the third generation, the cats developed degenerative diseases very early in life, had a shorter lifespan, and some were born blind. Many of the third-generation cats could not reproduce, and those that did produced even sicker offspring that often died within six months. By the fourth generation, the “junk food” cats died off completely.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    My uncle taught at Cambridge and a friend of his is a food scientist and he thought what we do to our food has had unforeseen consequences. When I lived in Russia I lost well over a stone within a couple of weeks and kept the weight off, so I am very open to this suggestion.
    , @Jack D
    This is junk science. Pottenger did his studies in the 1930s before taurine was identified as an amino acid important to animal health (technically it is not an "essential" amino acid since your body is capable of making it from other amino acids but it's pretty darn close). The diet he fed his "junk food" cats was deficient in taurine so they sickened and died as does any animal that is fed a diet that is lacking in a key vitamin or nutrient. Modern cooked pet food contains adequate taurine and cats fed this diet thrive. Pottenger's studies prove nothing other than that taurine is an important nutrient and animals will not thrive on a diet that is lacking in it.
    , @El Dato
    How the Western Diet Has Derailed Our Evolution: Burgers and fries have nearly killed our ancestral microbiome.

    And once it's gone, it's SERIOUSLY gone.

    Like, rainforest gone.

    You child won't have it either.
  31. The economic situation for those under 30 has been bleak. The Fed bailed out the banks by re-inflating home prices. High home prices discourage family formation. Today young adults are faced with higher debts from education , much higher costs for health insurance and higher home prices compared to their parents. Homes with good schools are difficult to find. Working class wages have been stagnant due to our open borders , which allowed 50 million foreigners to migrate into America since 1991.

  32. Why are fertility rates lower? I’ll throw in my $.02:

    – Feminism brainwashed women into thinking soul-crushing cubicle drudgery for a faceless corporation is more fulfilling than having a family. By the time women figure it out they’re barren.

    – Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)

    – High taxes push down fertility for responsible taxpayers, transfer payments jack fertility for underclass

    – More diversity raises housing costs as Whites flee for “good schools”

    – Young ppl taught that abortion is no biggie, just a blob of cells

    – Extended families spread across geography, aunts, uncles, grandparents unable to help out

    There’s more. You get the idea.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Alden
    well, well, well, a man who seems to be under 50 and has children. It's sooooo refreshing to hear from a man who isn't 90 years old and still thinks in terms of 1955 housing, utility property tax costs, wages and the days when 4 kids could crowd up on a single bench type back seat. I doubt most of the codgers ranting about women who"refuse" to have children even have grandchildren. If they did, they would know about why more than 2 kids families need those big SUVs. Of course, never having been parents or grandparents, they don't realize that parents often drive with more than their own kids in the car.

    Sometimes, actually often, the ignorance about the realities of raising children on this site by the ancient bachelors is unbelievable.
    , @Jack D

    Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)
     
    Most of your points are valid but this one is ridiculous. You don't decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat. Assuming your kids are somewhat spaced out in age, you will keeping handing them down - the oldest is in a booster seat (or just the regular seat). His sister has inherited his toddler seat and his baby brother has inherited his infant seat. After a couple of years they will each graduate to the next step up but you only need one of each.

    Getting all of those kids buckled into all of those seats is a pain in the ass but that's just how it goes. It's the same as putting them in snow suits. You know that the minute that you have finished doing up all the million zippers and snaps and buttons and boots and hats, the kid is going to want to go to the bathroom and you are going to need to repeat the whole process. But that's not a reason not to have kids either.

    Most people are products of their society. If people in your society, your friends and relatives, have lots of kids, you will too - gotta keep up with the Joneses. Car seats be damned. Do you think the Mac Daddies in the ghetto and the Hasids in Monsey give a damn about car seats? But if none of your friends have kids or maybe just one, then there is no shortage of excuses for why you shouldn't have any either.
    , @Paleo Liberal
    Other issues:

    Child care costs, even with government help, are so expensive that it is extremely difficult to have more than one kid in day care.

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.

    Housing costs jump up enormously as the family size increases. This is on top of the massive amounts of money spent on living in an area with nice schools.

    So you have all these massive extra expenses, and the young families have to deal with this when they have record setting student loans.

    On top of this, the parents are worried about how they will pay for their own kids’ college.

    A number of years ago Ms. Warren and her daughter showed that a middle class family today with two workers has less disposable income than a middle class family a generation earlier with one income. Steve mentioned the extra housing costs in one of his posts.

    Ms. Warren also pointed out the extra costs of education (summer and part time jobs don’t pay for school anymore), healthcare (insurance costs more than my first job paid), and transportation (two workers need at least two cars). Add child care to the mix, and the middle class is dying fast.
  33. @Jack D
    OT - We often talk here about the (implicit) Wokemon points that the Left assigns to people and which help explain the outcome of various social interactions. But, the College Board is going to reify (a Gouldian term) this system in something called the "Adversity Score".


    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

    The "adversity score" is calculated by assessing 15 factors that can better help admissions officers determine an individual student's social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.
    Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

    A score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege."

    For college admissions officers, this is a godsend. It's been very hard explaining, up until now, why applicant Wong needed to score 300 points higher on his SATs than applicant Tyshaun just because of his skin color - somehow it didn't seem fair or right. But, once you understand that Wong has an Adversity Score of 82 while Tyshaun only scores a 36, then it all makes sense and is COMPLETELY fair - how could you even expect someone from a redlined community to understand algebra on the same level as someone from a 2 parent household? And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination. For really busy offices, you can simply say multiply the applicant's SAT score by his Adversity Score. Without this valuable explanatory factor, Tyshaun's 950 looks a LOT worse than Wong's 1540, but once you run the math, Tyshaun is the objective favorite - ADMIT. No longer will we have to admit snot assed white kids from Lake Forest who are just drowning in privilege. Their "1" Adversity Score will completely negate their SATs.

    This will really simplify everyday interactions, as well as college admissions. If, for example, you get into a little fender bender with another driver, you will no longer have to worry about such outdated concepts as "fault", "right of way" and so on. You will simply each whip out your Adversity Score and the accident will be the "fault" of whomever had the lower score. This will really take the ambiguity out of awkward social situations involving rude customers or employees, parent-teacher interactions and so on.

    And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination.

    It’s a nice trick, isn’t it?

    It works because it leaves out the causes of those “objective factors.” I.E., pretty much all of the factors are the result of the people who make up the neighborhoods, families and high schools.

    If anybody really wanted to get down to the roots of the differences between scores, they would measure characteristics of the people themselves. (Of course, we know that has already been done and ignored.)

    Thank you for the Fox News Alert.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Of course it's a trick. Almost all of the factors are really proxies for race - if you score a 1 it's almost certain that you are white. If you score 100 you are almost certainly black. In the middle, some Asians may do better than they do under the current explicitly race based system which treats the son of a black corporate executive better than the son of an Asian restaurant worker, but ultimately they are still going to be outscored by blacks because they come from intact families, because Asian neighborhoods are less crime ridden, etc.
  34. A lot of the kids who were drugged with ADHD and antidepressants in grade school are in their prime childbearing years. And the drug cocktails they wind up on tend to worsen their outlook over time.

    Maybe I’ve been reading too much of the lonely impotent dysfunctional people over on Reddit but I just don’t recall this level of insanity even in the 60s. The only normal ones are the Silent Gen and older who either rejected drugs outright or weaned themselves off long ago.

  35. @Peter Johnson
    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.

    Well, that certainly applies in places that are overcrowded, like Japan. As long as they maintain a tough immigration policy, a declining population is a good thing for them.

  36. @anonymous
    Is the economy really "strong," especially for those foregoing children?

    Even among those couples with decent incomes, many are saddled with student loan debts, or can't afford to purchase a home in the area where they've snagged that job. Having someone stay home to parent rather than earn that salary is becoming more exceptional. None of these factors precludes babies, but they discourage it.

    I think crippling student loan debts are a part of it. Also the current dependence on online dating. It makes it seem like there’s a giant pool of potentials out there so no one is valuable. At this point, it’s difficult to date the old fashioned way. Meeting someone at work is harassment. People don’t do bars and clubs for this type of thing anymore. So there’s the online stuff which doesn’t help most people find someone they can settle down with.

    A big part of the problem is people not having any kids. But it seems like another problem is that so few have more than 2 kids. It’s a bigger lift for the person without a spouse or partner to find one and have a kid than it is for someone with two kids to have a third. Perhaps the concentration of jobs in expensive urban areas is the problem here. Affording a 4 bedroom house in a good school district in the Silicon Valley or near nyc is no small feat.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “Affording a 4 bedroom house in a good school district in the Silicon Valley or near nyc is no small feat.”

    I was surprised when I saw that the NYC area gets cheaper pretty fast as you move away from the prime parts of the city. Queens, SI, and Westchester aren’t cheap, but in the Bay Area stays expensive for a long time as you get further out, despite having half the overall population.
  37. @Intelligent Dasein
    I was about to say "Cue the stupid Boomerposters chiming in with how wonderful a declining population is," but a stupid Boomerposter beat me to it.

    In my view, he’s right. Population growth rates like those found in African countries today, specially if selecting for lower than average intelligence (which is apparently what’s happening, albeit slightly so), would probably be a disaster for Western countries, or for any country. Sub-replacement level fertility rates, as long as they aren’t close to zero (even Singapore and South Korea have them above 1.0 last I checked), combined with even weak selection for above average intelligence and below average violent/ psychopathic tendencies would be ideal, I think, at least for a while. And, of course, no significant immigration from anywhere.

    Fertility rates aren’t everything. The reasons they are decreasing in Western countries (and in non-Western countries too, like mine — Brazil) are worthy of attention. Like it was said, not all appears to be well. Buncha people feeling hopeless. But low and decreasing fertility rates among those of above average intelligence and below average criminality predisposition, if true, might be more of a symptom than a cause of the state of the Western world.

  38. Western Civ was a set of rules that allowed a particular “group of people” (google HBD to learn more) to spectacularly achieve, but those people are mostly gone or denatured now. Or maybe changed by the epigenetic effects of new social rules that force women to be 2nd rate men and force men to be 2nd rate women. Some people even try to trans from one to the other. And so those rules just don’t work anymore. The people they were written for are mostly gone now. These rules puzzle and annoy the new people.

    Our “immigration problem” is just the rest of the world sensing our weakness and they’re coming for our stuff, and they’ll keep coming until it’s all gone.

  39. Can the birth rate decline really be attributed to Obama? Hasn’t it declined during trumps time as well? It seems that the us birthrate is gradually converging to the level of most developed countries. Only Israel is the exception.

    The us birthrate was higher for a while because of Hispanic immigration but their birth rates converge to the us norm among Hispanics born in the us. Plus, Hispanics in Central America are seeing their birth rates decline, certainly relative to the 90s.

    When women start having children in their late 30s, they can’t have that many. Fortunately, that problem has a solution on the horizon. Soon we will be able to produce egg cells from any stem cells. We can already do it in mice. Once that happens, advanced age won’t be the barrier it is now to more children.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    "It seems that the us birthrate is gradually converging to the level of most developed countries."
    Meanwhile Japanese and German TFR has grown in the last decade. Thus actually most industrialized seem to converge to a TFR of around 1,5-1,7. That's what the UN and other international organizations projected some years ago. Though I think they just did it for practical reasons - they just didn't what to say else - they were right. Then again Japan might also converge to the East Asian average (PRC true numbers, Taiwan, South Korea) which is around 1,0.
  40. I am certain the immediate cause is decline in sperm motility, which is systematic in at least two species, humans and canines.

    Of course, that is still an effect, not the cause. Take your pick: diet, disease, vaccine toxicity accumulation, females wee-weeing estrogen into the water supply, EM exposure due to the electronic “bath” we all live in, toxic chemical accumulation, radiation poisoning at a low, but persistent, level.

    That is a lot of possibilities, but my guess is estrogen + Roundup + EM radiation is bad for guys, regardless of species.

    Also another issue: promiscuity is bad for females. The more random guys blast jazz into them, the more health issues they are likely to have.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Roissy was saying sunscreen.
    , @Spangel
    Enough with the anti vaccine crap. Vaccines are everywhere and have been for decades. Vaccination rates in even the poorest African countries are reasonably high. And yet some places have much lower fertility rates than others. It happens that vaccines have nothing to do with tfr.

    Sadly the establishment lies about all sorts of things. Men can be women. Black sat scores are the result of institutional racism. People with Y chromosomes are women with naturally high testosterone. Climate change means we must take in climate refugees. So people are easily led to assume that the establishment is also lying about vaccines.

    Well they are not. Vaccines greatly reduce dangerous epidemics. They don’t do anything else. They don’t make you autistic or your sperm slow. I don’t care about any of the supposedly toxic materials they inject with the vaccine. It’s in microscopic quantities anyways and people used to consume copious amounts of all of those toxins all the while the west had a very high fertility rate. People used to think mercury was a medical cure and eat it by spoonfuls. Obviously that’s bad in the long term but the fertility rate while they were doing this in the 18th century was furiously high.

  41. Young women are unhappy because T-levels and sperm counts are crashing. Wouldn’t young men be unhappy if estrogen levels and egg counts were doing likewise?

    Not complcated. Refugees with normal T-levels welcome.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    Ew. I’m guessing the “refugees” of cologne weren’t lacking in testosterone. Needless to say they are not welcome here.
  42. @Jack D
    OT - We often talk here about the (implicit) Wokemon points that the Left assigns to people and which help explain the outcome of various social interactions. But, the College Board is going to reify (a Gouldian term) this system in something called the "Adversity Score".


    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

    The "adversity score" is calculated by assessing 15 factors that can better help admissions officers determine an individual student's social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.
    Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

    A score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege."

    For college admissions officers, this is a godsend. It's been very hard explaining, up until now, why applicant Wong needed to score 300 points higher on his SATs than applicant Tyshaun just because of his skin color - somehow it didn't seem fair or right. But, once you understand that Wong has an Adversity Score of 82 while Tyshaun only scores a 36, then it all makes sense and is COMPLETELY fair - how could you even expect someone from a redlined community to understand algebra on the same level as someone from a 2 parent household? And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination. For really busy offices, you can simply say multiply the applicant's SAT score by his Adversity Score. Without this valuable explanatory factor, Tyshaun's 950 looks a LOT worse than Wong's 1540, but once you run the math, Tyshaun is the objective favorite - ADMIT. No longer will we have to admit snot assed white kids from Lake Forest who are just drowning in privilege. Their "1" Adversity Score will completely negate their SATs.

    This will really simplify everyday interactions, as well as college admissions. If, for example, you get into a little fender bender with another driver, you will no longer have to worry about such outdated concepts as "fault", "right of way" and so on. You will simply each whip out your Adversity Score and the accident will be the "fault" of whomever had the lower score. This will really take the ambiguity out of awkward social situations involving rude customers or employees, parent-teacher interactions and so on.

    A caste system under glass.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    An upside down caste system - the "worst" thing is to come from a high achieving home with an intact family in a good neighborhood with rigorous schools, etc. To achieve the "American Dream" means that your kids will be punished as class enemies and sent to the countryside. No way should they be allowed to attend the universities where future party cadres are trained. This is reserved for those who have engaged in class struggle. It's really the Chinese Cultural Revolution model brought to America.

    This is even worse because the ideology is boiled down to a pseudoscientific "objective" score - this is not just the victors in a culture war taking revenge on their former oppressors, it's just basic American fairness that we give a leg up to the underprivileged.
  43. @Desiderius
    Young women are unhappy because T-levels and sperm counts are crashing. Wouldn't young men be unhappy if estrogen levels and egg counts were doing likewise?

    Not complcated. Refugees with normal T-levels welcome.

    Ew. I’m guessing the “refugees” of cologne weren’t lacking in testosterone. Needless to say they are not welcome here.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    And your vote cancels that of exactly one young woman starving for masculinity.

    How about we sove the underlying problem and get you back on the same team?
  44. http://a.msn.com/r/2/AABrwix?a=0&m=en-us

    “Privileged” students to have SAT scores adjusted.

  45. res says:
    @Jack D
    OT - We often talk here about the (implicit) Wokemon points that the Left assigns to people and which help explain the outcome of various social interactions. But, the College Board is going to reify (a Gouldian term) this system in something called the "Adversity Score".


    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

    The "adversity score" is calculated by assessing 15 factors that can better help admissions officers determine an individual student's social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.
    Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

    A score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege."

    For college admissions officers, this is a godsend. It's been very hard explaining, up until now, why applicant Wong needed to score 300 points higher on his SATs than applicant Tyshaun just because of his skin color - somehow it didn't seem fair or right. But, once you understand that Wong has an Adversity Score of 82 while Tyshaun only scores a 36, then it all makes sense and is COMPLETELY fair - how could you even expect someone from a redlined community to understand algebra on the same level as someone from a 2 parent household? And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination. For really busy offices, you can simply say multiply the applicant's SAT score by his Adversity Score. Without this valuable explanatory factor, Tyshaun's 950 looks a LOT worse than Wong's 1540, but once you run the math, Tyshaun is the objective favorite - ADMIT. No longer will we have to admit snot assed white kids from Lake Forest who are just drowning in privilege. Their "1" Adversity Score will completely negate their SATs.

    This will really simplify everyday interactions, as well as college admissions. If, for example, you get into a little fender bender with another driver, you will no longer have to worry about such outdated concepts as "fault", "right of way" and so on. You will simply each whip out your Adversity Score and the accident will be the "fault" of whomever had the lower score. This will really take the ambiguity out of awkward social situations involving rude customers or employees, parent-teacher interactions and so on.

    The WSJ article (paywalled) adds this little tidbit:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

    Interesting.

    Has anyone seen details of the actual score calculation? I am guessing that is top secret, but it would be interesting to see how they weight those different components and how some typical people score.

    I wonder if colleges will start publishing statistical data on the adversity scores of their incoming classes.

    P.S. Will they be incorporating the adversity score into class grading as well?

    • Replies: @Jack D

    P.S. Will they be incorporating the adversity score into class grading as well?
     
    Potentially, you could incorporate it into EVERYTHING - it would be like your social credit score in China. Want to book a plane flight - sorry you can't your adversity score is too low - it's time to let the less privileged ride in the front of the bus.

    Realistically (at least in the short run) they realize that is really a shameful anti-American thing (thus they are keeping the scores secret) and will try to keep the number hidden within the confines of the admission office only.
  46. It’s a feature of decades of free trade and open borders that plastic trinkets from Asia are very cheap in inflation-adjusted terms, but the “commodities of life” for lack of a better term are much more expensive.

    I’d say the costs of housing, transportation, healthcare and education are the “commodities of life” which are far more expensive, and their increased expense is anti-natalist in effect.

    The usual progression of middle class milestones is interrupted by putting these commodities out of reach for young people – as a consequence they stop planning or dreaming about the marriage>home>children type of life and instead indulge in more immediate but fleeting sensual pleasures as a palliative experience which leads to cycles of emptiness and despair. I’m not even necessarily writing about sexual experiences, but looking at the phenomenon of the explosion of “foodie-ism” among younger adults – the $18 hamburger etc. When a long term goal is out of reach, you might as well enjoy something.

    For young adults who have had children in the last 15 years or so, some are looking at the prospect of still paying their own student loans while taking on additional student loan debt for their children.

  47. OT, but has the US has just made sure that revolutions ain’t gonna emerge from US embassies anymore, because they will be cleared out first?

    The mind boggles.

    Bad news for dissidents who are not Assange seeking “refuge”, too.

  48. @res
    The WSJ article (paywalled) adds this little tidbit:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

     

    Interesting.

    Has anyone seen details of the actual score calculation? I am guessing that is top secret, but it would be interesting to see how they weight those different components and how some typical people score.

    I wonder if colleges will start publishing statistical data on the adversity scores of their incoming classes.

    P.S. Will they be incorporating the adversity score into class grading as well?

    P.S. Will they be incorporating the adversity score into class grading as well?

    Potentially, you could incorporate it into EVERYTHING – it would be like your social credit score in China. Want to book a plane flight – sorry you can’t your adversity score is too low – it’s time to let the less privileged ride in the front of the bus.

    Realistically (at least in the short run) they realize that is really a shameful anti-American thing (thus they are keeping the scores secret) and will try to keep the number hidden within the confines of the admission office only.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    ...it would be like your social credit score in China.
     
    Exactly.

    In a way, this has been happening for some time, only not so arithmetically. Making it pretend math now is a way of fooling people into thinking it is not based on inherent racial differences. Preferences have been promoted and given across American activity, as we here know. Now there is a new fake math tactic that could potentially be programmed into anything.

    FAKE MATH

  49. @Jack D
    OT - We often talk here about the (implicit) Wokemon points that the Left assigns to people and which help explain the outcome of various social interactions. But, the College Board is going to reify (a Gouldian term) this system in something called the "Adversity Score".


    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

    The "adversity score" is calculated by assessing 15 factors that can better help admissions officers determine an individual student's social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.
    Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

    A score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege."

    For college admissions officers, this is a godsend. It's been very hard explaining, up until now, why applicant Wong needed to score 300 points higher on his SATs than applicant Tyshaun just because of his skin color - somehow it didn't seem fair or right. But, once you understand that Wong has an Adversity Score of 82 while Tyshaun only scores a 36, then it all makes sense and is COMPLETELY fair - how could you even expect someone from a redlined community to understand algebra on the same level as someone from a 2 parent household? And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination. For really busy offices, you can simply say multiply the applicant's SAT score by his Adversity Score. Without this valuable explanatory factor, Tyshaun's 950 looks a LOT worse than Wong's 1540, but once you run the math, Tyshaun is the objective favorite - ADMIT. No longer will we have to admit snot assed white kids from Lake Forest who are just drowning in privilege. Their "1" Adversity Score will completely negate their SATs.

    This will really simplify everyday interactions, as well as college admissions. If, for example, you get into a little fender bender with another driver, you will no longer have to worry about such outdated concepts as "fault", "right of way" and so on. You will simply each whip out your Adversity Score and the accident will be the "fault" of whomever had the lower score. This will really take the ambiguity out of awkward social situations involving rude customers or employees, parent-teacher interactions and so on.

    This looks like a preemptive workaround for when the Roberts Court eliminates Affirmative Action.

    • Replies: @Alden
    If you don't mind my asking, were there any anti affirmative action lawsuits filed recently? Its my bete noire and I haven't seen any. As long as ADL AJC has one dollar and there is one jewish attorney in the country, affirmative action will stand forever.
  50. @Buzz Mohawk

    And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination.
     
    It's a nice trick, isn't it?

    It works because it leaves out the causes of those "objective factors." I.E., pretty much all of the factors are the result of the people who make up the neighborhoods, families and high schools.

    If anybody really wanted to get down to the roots of the differences between scores, they would measure characteristics of the people themselves. (Of course, we know that has already been done and ignored.)

    Thank you for the Fox News Alert.

    Of course it’s a trick. Almost all of the factors are really proxies for race – if you score a 1 it’s almost certain that you are white. If you score 100 you are almost certainly black. In the middle, some Asians may do better than they do under the current explicitly race based system which treats the son of a black corporate executive better than the son of an Asian restaurant worker, but ultimately they are still going to be outscored by blacks because they come from intact families, because Asian neighborhoods are less crime ridden, etc.

  51. @Desiderius
    A caste system under glass.

    An upside down caste system – the “worst” thing is to come from a high achieving home with an intact family in a good neighborhood with rigorous schools, etc. To achieve the “American Dream” means that your kids will be punished as class enemies and sent to the countryside. No way should they be allowed to attend the universities where future party cadres are trained. This is reserved for those who have engaged in class struggle. It’s really the Chinese Cultural Revolution model brought to America.

    This is even worse because the ideology is boiled down to a pseudoscientific “objective” score – this is not just the victors in a culture war taking revenge on their former oppressors, it’s just basic American fairness that we give a leg up to the underprivileged.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It's only upside-down for purposes of admission to the mismatch factories that employ it. Don't kid yourself that that score won't find other, right-side up, uses...
  52. @Jack D

    P.S. Will they be incorporating the adversity score into class grading as well?
     
    Potentially, you could incorporate it into EVERYTHING - it would be like your social credit score in China. Want to book a plane flight - sorry you can't your adversity score is too low - it's time to let the less privileged ride in the front of the bus.

    Realistically (at least in the short run) they realize that is really a shameful anti-American thing (thus they are keeping the scores secret) and will try to keep the number hidden within the confines of the admission office only.

    …it would be like your social credit score in China.

    Exactly.

    In a way, this has been happening for some time, only not so arithmetically. Making it pretend math now is a way of fooling people into thinking it is not based on inherent racial differences. Preferences have been promoted and given across American activity, as we here know. Now there is a new fake math tactic that could potentially be programmed into anything.

    FAKE MATH

  53. @Intelligent Dasein
    I was about to say "Cue the stupid Boomerposters chiming in with how wonderful a declining population is," but a stupid Boomerposter beat me to it.

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.

    The key is to hit some sort of equilibrium with regard to needs and scale.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @bored identity
    The real issue is Who-Whom of What is declining;

    Having less of Nice White Ladies, and more Somali Colonels' Child Brides should accelerate Minnesota's transition to pre-Columbian harmony & simplicity of life.
    , @Jack D

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.
     
    Yes and no. It depends in part who's growing and who is declining. In places like Turkey and Iran, the high IQ Westernized urban population declined and the low IQ religious fundamentalist population from the countryside grew, and the results were not good.

    In modern Western nations, a lot of our institutions (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Even wars did little to slow population growth. Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan. But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year - no one really has any experience with what this does to a society (though on an actuarial basis it's clearly not good for funding pension systems).

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded and maybe were better places to live when their populations were smaller, so it would not be the worst thing in the world for Japan to have the population that it had in 1970. But this also ignores the composition of the population - having 100 million people 1/3 of whom are over 65 and 1/8 of whom are under 14 is not the same as vice versa.
  54. @Buzz Mohawk
    One solution to this problem is more immigration.

    Not only will increased immigration counteract reduced birthrates -- and therefore satisfy the religion of Economics' commandment for continuous growth -- it will also cause even more unhappiness, thus even lower birthrates, which will then require even more immigration.

    This solution will therefore sustain itself -- like an addiction.

    (Note that this comment uses for form "will," and not "would." That is because now the Kushner Immigration Plan ensures that even more people will come to the United States.)

    The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY

    If you keep large stocks of animals, I imagine at some point you expect them to be self sustaining and no longer require outside augmentation to keep up their numbers. If that doesn’t happen, you will probably call in the vets to figure out the issue instead of blindly making more purchases.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    If you keep large stocks of animals, I imagine at some point you expect them to be self sustaining and no longer require outside augmentation to keep up their numbers. If that doesn’t happen, you will probably call in the vets to figure out the issue instead of blindly making more purchases.
     
    Farmer: "Half of my Wagyu cattle are too thin and can't calve, and the other half are dead of starvation. No one will buy my cattle and I'm going broke!"

    Goat Salesman: "How about all of the goats I've sold you?"

    Farmer: "They're all plump and well fed. The Nannies are having three and four kids a piece!"

    Goat Salesman: "Seems like you've got a lucky hand with goats! I'll sell you more to double goat flock - I'll give you a great price!"

    Farmer: "S0ld!"
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows. They have always had approximately 100 cows, living and eating in the barn, who walk through the milking parlor twice a day, happy to be relieved of their product.

    There is one bull on the farm. There has always been one bull on the farm. He has his own, large pen. Whenever I see him, he acts like a bull: snorting sometimes, never friendly. He lives to fuck cows. The new, young calves live outside, eating and growing in pastures, as happy as calves can be.

    This is a sustaining, productive population. There is no immigration. There hasn't been as long as I've known the place.

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don't have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

  55. @Daniel Chieh
    https://youtu.be/OvQ5F6GCfgI

    The cats on the raw-food diet thrived while those eating the cooked meat developed health problems – and the effects persisted in their offspring. While the cooked-meat cats of the first generation developed degenerative diseases later in life (and reportedly became lazy), the second-generation cats started to get sick in mid-life.

    By the third generation, the cats developed degenerative diseases very early in life, had a shorter lifespan, and some were born blind. Many of the third-generation cats could not reproduce, and those that did produced even sicker offspring that often died within six months. By the fourth generation, the “junk food” cats died off completely.
     

    My uncle taught at Cambridge and a friend of his is a food scientist and he thought what we do to our food has had unforeseen consequences. When I lived in Russia I lost well over a stone within a couple of weeks and kept the weight off, so I am very open to this suggestion.

  56. OT 2:

    French not amused by US pressure to withdraw Cannes award from ‘racist, misogynist’ Alain Delon

    “Alain is an old, depressed ex-movie star who goes on TV shows and spouts misogynistic and homophobic insults,” actress Carole Raphaelle Davis, the co-founder of #MeToo France, told the Daily Beast. “Cannes should ditch the old white guy syndrome and honor a woman, not a sexist homophobe.”

    According to Wikipedia: “In 1978, Davis posed for Playboy. In 1980, she posed for Penthouse magazine under the name Tamara Kapitas, becoming Penthouse Pet of the Month in January 1980 and a runner-up for Pet of the Year in 1981. … Davis is also a writer. She has written a series of articles on anti-Semitism in Europe for The Jewish Journal. As a novelist, she is the author of The Diary of Jinky, Dog of a Hollywood Wife, a non-fiction humour book about Hollywood excess and human status anxiety written from the point of view of a death-row dog.”

    Activist Melissa Silverstein of Women and Hollywood was likewise outraged, saying that Delon “hits every single button embodying everyone in the world agrees are not values we want to have anymore.”

    “You’d think French people would be up in arms about this. It is so tone-deaf,” she added.

    Okay.

    Her Twitter is full of oppressed minority issue of the day, just with more movie context. Including oppressed mothers in the movie industry.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    #MeToo gangsters trying to deplatform, keep Alain Delon from getting his lifetime achievement award at this year's Cannes Film Festival. Why? Because has expressed misogynist (according to #metoo) and anti-immigration views.
    Thanks for the links.
    https://www.rt.com/news/459435-cannes-delon-award-petition/
  57. @Daniel Chieh
    https://youtu.be/OvQ5F6GCfgI

    The cats on the raw-food diet thrived while those eating the cooked meat developed health problems – and the effects persisted in their offspring. While the cooked-meat cats of the first generation developed degenerative diseases later in life (and reportedly became lazy), the second-generation cats started to get sick in mid-life.

    By the third generation, the cats developed degenerative diseases very early in life, had a shorter lifespan, and some were born blind. Many of the third-generation cats could not reproduce, and those that did produced even sicker offspring that often died within six months. By the fourth generation, the “junk food” cats died off completely.
     

    This is junk science. Pottenger did his studies in the 1930s before taurine was identified as an amino acid important to animal health (technically it is not an “essential” amino acid since your body is capable of making it from other amino acids but it’s pretty darn close). The diet he fed his “junk food” cats was deficient in taurine so they sickened and died as does any animal that is fed a diet that is lacking in a key vitamin or nutrient. Modern cooked pet food contains adequate taurine and cats fed this diet thrive. Pottenger’s studies prove nothing other than that taurine is an important nutrient and animals will not thrive on a diet that is lacking in it.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Its not "junk science"; at worst, it is science that has since become dated due to new discoveries. Still, its interesting of the specific effects.


    Bones became soft and pliable and the cats suffered from adverse personality changes. Males became docile while females became more aggressive
     
    One cannot help but draw parallels with modern society.
  58. @Daniel Chieh
    https://youtu.be/OvQ5F6GCfgI

    The cats on the raw-food diet thrived while those eating the cooked meat developed health problems – and the effects persisted in their offspring. While the cooked-meat cats of the first generation developed degenerative diseases later in life (and reportedly became lazy), the second-generation cats started to get sick in mid-life.

    By the third generation, the cats developed degenerative diseases very early in life, had a shorter lifespan, and some were born blind. Many of the third-generation cats could not reproduce, and those that did produced even sicker offspring that often died within six months. By the fourth generation, the “junk food” cats died off completely.
     

    How the Western Diet Has Derailed Our Evolution: Burgers and fries have nearly killed our ancestral microbiome.

    And once it’s gone, it’s SERIOUSLY gone.

    Like, rainforest gone.

    You child won’t have it either.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    Barely a mention of the actual destroyer of gut microbiomes - the widespread use of antibiotics, which are the metabolic equivalent of dropping a 2000lb bomb on a village because one of its 1000 inhabitants wrote a nasty blog post.

    Perinatal antibiotic use (for things like ear infections) alter the infant’s gut and surface microbiome in ways that are not remedied by the age of 7 (especially if the kid is subsequently fed a low-fibre, high-sugar diet).

    The impact of diet is second-order: the SAD/SWD preferentially encourages growth of ‘bad’ bacteria, and so the microbiome gets tilted towards metabolic dysfunction. In the normal course of events, ‘bad’ bacteria are a minority and compete for position with this slight advantage due to ‘poor’ host diet: once the antibiotic MOAB hits the village and the earth is scorched, those ‘bad’ bacteria can overgrow without competition.

    And those ‘bad’ bacteria? They also express a range of chemical signals that drive cravings for sugars, affect mood, and do a range of other things to the host. They also signal each other (quorum signalling - a fascinating mechanism for communication within and between bacterial species) and engage in what appears to be joint strategies.

    (I put ‘bad’ in scare quotes because the bacteria have no intention or agency; they are generally not seeking to do us harm... they prefer sugary shit, ask for it chemically, and we comply - to our metabolic cost).

    When I first heard about the ‘paleo’ nonsense, my response was that gut biota evolve over timescales measured in weeks, not millennia; that they drive system-wide behaviour; that (very) high fibre diets (especially high insoluble fibre) was more important than macronutrient structure. I wrote a comment to that effect on Mark’s Daily Apple... no swears, no name-calling, none of my usual invective... it didn’t pass the scrutineers.

    The appropriate countermeasure is “Weed, seed and feed” - rehab the gut in stages... first stage is to eat in ways that starve baddies... then eat in ways that introduce good guys... then feed the good guys what they want. No pharma products required.

  59. @istevefan
    If you keep large stocks of animals, I imagine at some point you expect them to be self sustaining and no longer require outside augmentation to keep up their numbers. If that doesn't happen, you will probably call in the vets to figure out the issue instead of blindly making more purchases.

    If you keep large stocks of animals, I imagine at some point you expect them to be self sustaining and no longer require outside augmentation to keep up their numbers. If that doesn’t happen, you will probably call in the vets to figure out the issue instead of blindly making more purchases.

    Farmer: “Half of my Wagyu cattle are too thin and can’t calve, and the other half are dead of starvation. No one will buy my cattle and I’m going broke!”

    Goat Salesman: “How about all of the goats I’ve sold you?”

    Farmer: “They’re all plump and well fed. The Nannies are having three and four kids a piece!”

    Goat Salesman: “Seems like you’ve got a lucky hand with goats! I’ll sell you more to double goat flock – I’ll give you a great price!”

    Farmer: “S0ld!”

  60. Anonymous[733] • Disclaimer says:

    “Whether the rise in unhappiness is due to social media, wokeness, or something else is still up for debate.”

    Well, how can a liberal girl be happy these days when even Daenerys Targarien who was the beloved liberator of third world masses, destroyer of the armies of the blue eyed white walkers and incinerator of her own white people, that is the very dream life of a liberal woman, is still considered a monster unworthy of adoration?

  61. Unhappiness explosion. I think you might be on to something there, Steve. Everyday we turn on the news, it’s nothing but bad news, because good news is not news. And we are surrounded by news, 24×7, on TV, online etc.

    I read on Zerohedge that a recent survey found that 30% of young men between the ages of 25-34 have not had sex in the past year. The number for young women are slightly lower, something like 24%. The article concluded that the reasons for men are two fold: 1) more young men than young women are living at home; and 2) young men now have a lot more distractions for their time – video games, social media, online entertainment etc.

    The hookup culture doesn’t help. I know two young men in that 25-34 age group, one even has a really good job, neither are married. One is a serial monogamist not looking to get married, the other said he’s having a hard time finding the right person to settle down, seems all the women he meets are only interested in “hooking up”. Young women today are being fed too much narcissism and victimhood mentality. They either think they are victims of sexism, or think they can have a kid anytime they want, like in their 40’s. They are trying to deny nature.

    • Replies: @George Taylor

    I read on Zerohedge that a recent survey found that 30% of young men between the ages of 25-34 have not had sex in the past year. The number for young women are slightly lower, something like 24%. The article concluded that the reasons for men are two fold: 1) more young men than young women are living at home; and 2) young men now have a lot more distractions for their time – video games, social media, online entertainment etc.
     
    More specifically to online entertainment the free porn, add in legalized marijuana and that modern college educated available females are way too demanding. Why bother?
  62. @Logan
    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.

    Has anyone informed Jazz “farewell to penis” Jennings that he/she/it will still have to register with Selective Service next year?

    https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/videos/i-am-jazz-trailer-reveals-surgical-challenges-introduces-new-boy/

  63. @istevefan
    If you keep large stocks of animals, I imagine at some point you expect them to be self sustaining and no longer require outside augmentation to keep up their numbers. If that doesn't happen, you will probably call in the vets to figure out the issue instead of blindly making more purchases.

    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows. They have always had approximately 100 cows, living and eating in the barn, who walk through the milking parlor twice a day, happy to be relieved of their product.

    There is one bull on the farm. There has always been one bull on the farm. He has his own, large pen. Whenever I see him, he acts like a bull: snorting sometimes, never friendly. He lives to fuck cows. The new, young calves live outside, eating and growing in pastures, as happy as calves can be.

    This is a sustaining, productive population. There is no immigration. There hasn’t been as long as I’ve known the place.

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don’t have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It’s a cute allegory but not a complete picture. Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination. And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead. Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter. And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Adding to Jack D's comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover - I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.
    , @Redneck farmer
    I'm all in favor of culling those who can't earn their feed, but I am afraid the necessary laws won't get passed.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows.
     
    The hundred-cow farm has been the rule-of-thumb for a family operation, for at least a half-century. It ought to be a ceiling.

    We need to find ways to allow rural children to flourish where they were born. Constraining farming "efficiency" would be the first item on the path to rebuilding rural America.
    , @Miro23

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don’t have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for.
     
    That would be if they were running a farm. They're not. It's seen as more of buffalo shoot (mostly for fun) and they'll keep doing it until there are none left.
  64. @Buzz Mohawk
    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows. They have always had approximately 100 cows, living and eating in the barn, who walk through the milking parlor twice a day, happy to be relieved of their product.

    There is one bull on the farm. There has always been one bull on the farm. He has his own, large pen. Whenever I see him, he acts like a bull: snorting sometimes, never friendly. He lives to fuck cows. The new, young calves live outside, eating and growing in pastures, as happy as calves can be.

    This is a sustaining, productive population. There is no immigration. There hasn't been as long as I've known the place.

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don't have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

    It’s a cute allegory but not a complete picture. Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination. And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead. Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter. And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination.
     
    But the cows I know at my friends' farm really get fucked, or sometimes at least get the sperm from the resident bull.

    And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead.
     
    My friends raise some of theirs for veal. That's not a good life, though, because those calves are prevented from exercising. It makes the meat better or something. I hate to say it, but I've seen them chained to posts with their legs broken for that purpose. Maybe this is why I don't like veal. Farming can be cruel.

    Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter.
     
    I grill delicious steaks every weak from cattle that have been slaughtered. Should I care?

    And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).
     
    Yes I know, Captain Obvious. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Do you have to shit on everything?

    , @216
    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.
    , @Paleo Liberal
    Bovine sperm is a big deal here in Wisconsin. I am serious. I’ve known people who make their living off of bull semen.
    , @anon
    The bobby calves either get hit on the head with a hammer or they get separated from the cow and taken down the back paddock to starve to death.

    It wasn't always so.
    Until the animal welfare lobby stopped it, bobby calves were sent to the meatworks at a week old.

    Large dairies cull older cows, smaller ones will separate her from the herd, and it's down to the back paddock. Cows are vicious animals, an old one will be getting knocked about by the others.
  65. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    Spot on, and I can no longer believe it’s an accident. Children are made sick by vaccination, then the illnesses caused are treated with drugs. No attention is made to the healthcare system’s uncanny ability to create expensive longterm disease. Feature, not a bug. No attention is paid to what used to be called environment, which would include the invisible pollution of technology. Global warming. Climate change. Global warming. Climate change. Nothing else is of consequence.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Vaccination doesn't make you sick - it prevents horrible diseases that used to kill or cripple millions.
    , @Alden
    Another naive idiot who believes that thousands of deaths yearly from diptheria scarlett fever, whooping cough and polio are a good thing and that global warming is real.

    Shouldn't you be posting on Salon and Huffington with all the other brainwashed liberal morons?
    , @megabar
    > Children are made sick by vaccination

    While I'm sympathetic to anti-vaxxers, I am not one of them. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that vaccines are a problem, and they undeniably do great good. Again, I'm sympathetic, because parents are seeing their children wilt in front of them, and nobody can provide answers. That must be infuriating.
    , @densa
    Reply to myself: Children are made sick by vaccination. I'm talking about the side effects listed by the manufacturer on their own drugs. Asthma, for example, which they then sell drugs to also treat the listed side effects.
  66. OT, I think Niccolo Soldo has tweeted this to Steve. Orban is channeling Steve and Enoch Powell here.

    “The most important issue that history has confronted us with is migration. I call this mass population movement, a massive movement of humans. The basis of this is a demographic fact: there are ever fewer Europeans; and there are ever more people in the Sahel, in the Arab world and in sub-Saharan Africa. They are on the move, and are migrating in order to settle here. When there are acts of terrorism or other extraordinary crimes, people wake up and see how crucial the subject of migration is. However, when there are no such spectacular events – and, thank God, at the moment we’re not experiencing them – people’s worries subside; but this doesn’t mean that the phenomenon has disappeared. The responsibility of a leader is to draw attention to the problem and to take preventive action to stave off problems before the next wave arrives – because it will definitely arrive. This was the case in 2015, and it will be in the future. We must expect massive population outflows; and if they are not prevented, they must be stopped in their tracks. This is why I think that Salvini is the most important person in Europe today”

    https://www.lastampa.it/2019/05/02/esteri/victor-orban-money-safety-market-today-there-are-already-three-europes-but-we-pretend-there-is-only-one-LpGkFQpBBo8xWuge3nuYTI/pagina.html

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Thank you for the link to the Orbán interview. He is a smart leader. Here is a nice little part:

    Blue shirt, casual blue jacket, jeans. He looks down on the capital city from a hill in Buda which rises from the West bank of the Danube; he radiates “patriotic” pride suffused with identity (as explained later in this exclusive interview with La Stampa) as he explains to us that the whole of Budapest has been renewed: “shattered by bombing, but rebuilt by us”.
     
    I've walked along that hill and stopped in front of the prime minister's residence. The contrast with Washington D.C. was unreal to the point of being funny. The front door was ajar, and there was one, friendly little guard standing out front. My wife took a picture of me and him standing together, shaking hands and smiling in front of the door.

    Down the street there is a building preserved with the scars from WWII bombing. The blast marks have been left on the walls as a history lesson. The bombing was done by "our" side.
  67. Women are happier under (wise) male guidance and leadership. Sexual freedom among women eventually leads to unhappiness. Traditional societies know this, western civilization has forgotten this, especially after the 1960s, but it will come around – post sixties western civilization is socially unsustainable, we are already seeing the cracks.

  68. @istevefan
    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.

    The key is to hit some sort of equilibrium with regard to needs and scale.

    The real issue is Who-Whom of What is declining;

    Having less of Nice White Ladies, and more Somali Colonels’ Child Brides should accelerate Minnesota’s transition to pre-Columbian harmony & simplicity of life.

  69. @Jack D
    It’s a cute allegory but not a complete picture. Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination. And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead. Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter. And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).

    Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination.

    But the cows I know at my friends’ farm really get fucked, or sometimes at least get the sperm from the resident bull.

    And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead.

    My friends raise some of theirs for veal. That’s not a good life, though, because those calves are prevented from exercising. It makes the meat better or something. I hate to say it, but I’ve seen them chained to posts with their legs broken for that purpose. Maybe this is why I don’t like veal. Farming can be cruel.

    Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter.

    I grill delicious steaks every weak from cattle that have been slaughtered. Should I care?

    And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).

    Yes I know, Captain Obvious. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Do you have to shit on everything?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    "They're people! Mohawk's steaks are people!"
    , @Jack D
    I'm sorry but you painted a dairy farm as a sort of idyllic self-sustaining system where "immigration" is not needed but it was a misleading and incomplete picture. A dairy farm is more like 19th century Europe or modern Africa where the surplus population (esp. male youth) has to be constantly exported for the system to sustain itself because there are sufficient public health measures in effect to keep them from mostly dying from disease like in the good old days. Those places didn't (and don't) need immigration either but they had other problems instead.
  70. @Jack D
    It’s a cute allegory but not a complete picture. Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination. And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead. Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter. And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).

    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I am really against calling the various nut and seed based beverages "milk" - I think it's highly misleading and should not be allowed as a matter of consumer protection. Margarine is not "Canola butter" and a beverage made from a few ground up almonds and a lot of water (and often sugar) should not be sold as "milk". It doesn't have the protein and nutrition of milk nor the taste of it. They really need to fix the law. They can keep selling the stuff but call it "almond drink" or something, not milk.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society. Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.
     
    No way. We buy our milk whole from a farmer up the road whose handful of cows live well and eat right. There is no comparison with anything we have ever bought at any store. If you think milk is "declasse," you haven't been here. This is an affluent area, complete with gentlemen farmers. It's just another argument for small-scale living.

    AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.

    Of course, I could be wrong. This is just what I've seen. Someone like Jack D. might come in now with a history of dairy farming and show how little I really know.

    , @Anon
    Milk joins mayonnaise and white bread as something only the proles eat.
  71. J.Ross says: • Website
    @IHTG
    Whenever you see an establishment ideologue talk about the great success of the post-WW2 liberal world order and wonder what all the populists are so mad about, show him this. It's the birthrates, stupid. Your system fails to produce human beings.

    This. Prior to this excellent formulation there has been at least a hundred gig of 4chan comments, never acknowledged by the Nazi-finders, saying different versions of this same idea.
    Congratulations, universal masters and SXSW trendies, you found a way to make people hate sex.
    Tatyana Tolstoya (descendent of Leo) had a short story about an all-knowing doctor who takes a free spirit as a lover and is exaperated to learn how ungrateful he is for her help. He discovers he has cancer and giddily announces he has no intention of fighting it. In our society this is met with insipid re-education efforts which never address the problem and make the assumption that people simply don’t know basic things, as well as namecalling. In fact one of the most remarkable things about the sensitivity crowd is that their signature comeback is to mock supposed virgins for not being able to get laid, because that would solve no problems but the idea is it would be like soma.

  72. @istevefan
    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.

    The key is to hit some sort of equilibrium with regard to needs and scale.

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.

    Yes and no. It depends in part who’s growing and who is declining. In places like Turkey and Iran, the high IQ Westernized urban population declined and the low IQ religious fundamentalist population from the countryside grew, and the results were not good.

    In modern Western nations, a lot of our institutions (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Even wars did little to slow population growth. Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan. But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year – no one really has any experience with what this does to a society (though on an actuarial basis it’s clearly not good for funding pension systems).

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded and maybe were better places to live when their populations were smaller, so it would not be the worst thing in the world for Japan to have the population that it had in 1970. But this also ignores the composition of the population – having 100 million people 1/3 of whom are over 65 and 1/8 of whom are under 14 is not the same as vice versa.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Many of us feel that the quality of life in America is falling as the population is rising.

    You could say, and it would be true, that our low-intelligence population is the bigger part of the increase, and, as we all here probably would agree, this this is not such a good thing.

    However, there is a simple, hard-to-measure reduction in quality that is occurring simply because there are more people. This might be hard to sense for those who did not grow up in, or have not lived in, environments outside the urban or suburban.

    We who have lived and do live this way understand the quality of life in the United States that comes from open spaces. We like having lots of land around a modest population. Americans produced what is arguably the greatest, most successful country in history while living this life of open spaces.

    We should not ever allow our country to come anywhere near the population density of, say, Japan.

    America has had all of this open land, in spades. Now much of it is in danger of being lost forever. Is this not worth preserving?

    , @Johann Ricke

    Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan.
     
    They were trivial compared to earlier multi-decade wars where 30% or more of the population died.
    , @istevefan

    (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
     
    Was that the assumption, or was it that a significant part of the population would not live much beyond their age of retirement? You can offer lifetime guarantees loosely when the lifetimes are not so long.
    , @Oleaginous Outrager

    But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year
     
    Boomers were the first generation to have little experience with a noticeable infant mortality rate while their parents did have such experience, which is an unmentioned, perhaps even unthought of, factor in declining family size.

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded
     
    Italy, at least, is not overcrowded, it's underhoused and underemployed. This is also true many areas in the US to a somewhat lesser extent (so far).

    though on an actuarial basis it’s clearly not good for funding pension systems
     
    No realistic amount of economic or population growth could cover the pensions promised to public employees, and many private ones.
  73. @Desiderius
    To them (and most of the readers of this blog) that’s feature, not bug. Those Ws stand for world war after all. In the post- era the best and brightest were tasked with preventing another. We’re living in what they came up with (cf. the Jaffe memo).

    They don’t have a real answer for the collapse of their pyramid scheme, which is now outpacing their planned expansion of taxation.

  74. @Jack D
    This is junk science. Pottenger did his studies in the 1930s before taurine was identified as an amino acid important to animal health (technically it is not an "essential" amino acid since your body is capable of making it from other amino acids but it's pretty darn close). The diet he fed his "junk food" cats was deficient in taurine so they sickened and died as does any animal that is fed a diet that is lacking in a key vitamin or nutrient. Modern cooked pet food contains adequate taurine and cats fed this diet thrive. Pottenger's studies prove nothing other than that taurine is an important nutrient and animals will not thrive on a diet that is lacking in it.

    Its not “junk science”; at worst, it is science that has since become dated due to new discoveries. Still, its interesting of the specific effects.

    Bones became soft and pliable and the cats suffered from adverse personality changes. Males became docile while females became more aggressive

    One cannot help but draw parallels with modern society.

    • Replies: @kihowi
    This makes some sense. Specialization is layer of complexity on top of a less complex shared base. When bodies break down, as with the elderly, men and women should become more alike.
  75. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    That one sequence in Tomlin’s Incredible Shrinking Woman where the bearded guy lists household goods is probably the clue, especially if you include modern food. Paleo, oily fish, lifting, and ancestral connection restore T pretty reliably.

  76. @Buzz Mohawk
    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows. They have always had approximately 100 cows, living and eating in the barn, who walk through the milking parlor twice a day, happy to be relieved of their product.

    There is one bull on the farm. There has always been one bull on the farm. He has his own, large pen. Whenever I see him, he acts like a bull: snorting sometimes, never friendly. He lives to fuck cows. The new, young calves live outside, eating and growing in pastures, as happy as calves can be.

    This is a sustaining, productive population. There is no immigration. There hasn't been as long as I've known the place.

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don't have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

    Adding to Jack D’s comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover – I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Adding to Jack D’s comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover – I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.
     
    This is true but bulls are extraordinarily dangerous animals to maintain so keeping a single bull to do whole farm duty makes sense from a rancher/farmer's perspective in terms of limiting the danger. It's also economical to feed only a single, largely non-marketable animal if you can.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well"

    Whiskey comment incoming.... 10...9...8...
  77. @Buzz Mohawk

    Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination.
     
    But the cows I know at my friends' farm really get fucked, or sometimes at least get the sperm from the resident bull.

    And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead.
     
    My friends raise some of theirs for veal. That's not a good life, though, because those calves are prevented from exercising. It makes the meat better or something. I hate to say it, but I've seen them chained to posts with their legs broken for that purpose. Maybe this is why I don't like veal. Farming can be cruel.

    Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter.
     
    I grill delicious steaks every weak from cattle that have been slaughtered. Should I care?

    And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).
     
    Yes I know, Captain Obvious. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Do you have to shit on everything?

    “They’re people! Mohawk’s steaks are people!”

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
  78. @Buzz Mohawk

    Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination.
     
    But the cows I know at my friends' farm really get fucked, or sometimes at least get the sperm from the resident bull.

    And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead.
     
    My friends raise some of theirs for veal. That's not a good life, though, because those calves are prevented from exercising. It makes the meat better or something. I hate to say it, but I've seen them chained to posts with their legs broken for that purpose. Maybe this is why I don't like veal. Farming can be cruel.

    Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter.
     
    I grill delicious steaks every weak from cattle that have been slaughtered. Should I care?

    And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).
     
    Yes I know, Captain Obvious. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Do you have to shit on everything?

    I’m sorry but you painted a dairy farm as a sort of idyllic self-sustaining system where “immigration” is not needed but it was a misleading and incomplete picture. A dairy farm is more like 19th century Europe or modern Africa where the surplus population (esp. male youth) has to be constantly exported for the system to sustain itself because there are sufficient public health measures in effect to keep them from mostly dying from disease like in the good old days. Those places didn’t (and don’t) need immigration either but they had other problems instead.

    • Replies: @Lot
    They now screen bull semen such that at large dairy farms 90% of births are cows. This development is one of the major reasons milk prices have not increased the past 15 years.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    You take me way to literally.
    , @Anonymous
    That dairy farm in "Tess of the d'Urbervilles" was not just idyllic but downright edenic, that is, until they hired in the thot from the alcoholic family. Of course, she'd been given the opportunity to stay in a good tradcon arrangement with a high-T male but her Victorian-era SJW pride bollixed that up

    Personally I am a skeptic of the wholesomeness of the industry; the lactose tolerance is way dysgenic
    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/01/582370199/whats-the-real-story-about-the-milkmaid-and-the-smallpox-vaccine

  79. Birthrates are not always indicative of an unhealthy society. I would argue Japan and Singapore are quite healthy (despite low birth rates) while Greece is not healthy at all. The US is an unhealthy society. It is barely a nation any longer (thanks to unlimited immigration and increasing tribalism), although its institutions have gathered enormous power to themselves. It is starting to remind me of the Aztec Empire, without the human sacrifice. Anyway I am surprised there are any children being born at all as heterosexuality is demeaned as some kind of second rate option in life and young men are being taught that one false move with a girl and their life is destroyed forever.

  80. @Buzz Mohawk
    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows. They have always had approximately 100 cows, living and eating in the barn, who walk through the milking parlor twice a day, happy to be relieved of their product.

    There is one bull on the farm. There has always been one bull on the farm. He has his own, large pen. Whenever I see him, he acts like a bull: snorting sometimes, never friendly. He lives to fuck cows. The new, young calves live outside, eating and growing in pastures, as happy as calves can be.

    This is a sustaining, productive population. There is no immigration. There hasn't been as long as I've known the place.

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don't have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

    I’m all in favor of culling those who can’t earn their feed, but I am afraid the necessary laws won’t get passed.

  81. @Logan
    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.

    Majority of committed trannies taking hormones etc are MtF.

    Majority of people who identify as trans/genderqueer etc might be biological females.

  82. @Daniel Chieh
    Adding to Jack D's comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover - I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.

    Adding to Jack D’s comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover – I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.

    This is true but bulls are extraordinarily dangerous animals to maintain so keeping a single bull to do whole farm duty makes sense from a rancher/farmer’s perspective in terms of limiting the danger. It’s also economical to feed only a single, largely non-marketable animal if you can.

  83. @Jack D

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.
     
    Yes and no. It depends in part who's growing and who is declining. In places like Turkey and Iran, the high IQ Westernized urban population declined and the low IQ religious fundamentalist population from the countryside grew, and the results were not good.

    In modern Western nations, a lot of our institutions (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Even wars did little to slow population growth. Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan. But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year - no one really has any experience with what this does to a society (though on an actuarial basis it's clearly not good for funding pension systems).

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded and maybe were better places to live when their populations were smaller, so it would not be the worst thing in the world for Japan to have the population that it had in 1970. But this also ignores the composition of the population - having 100 million people 1/3 of whom are over 65 and 1/8 of whom are under 14 is not the same as vice versa.

    Many of us feel that the quality of life in America is falling as the population is rising.

    You could say, and it would be true, that our low-intelligence population is the bigger part of the increase, and, as we all here probably would agree, this this is not such a good thing.

    However, there is a simple, hard-to-measure reduction in quality that is occurring simply because there are more people. This might be hard to sense for those who did not grow up in, or have not lived in, environments outside the urban or suburban.

    We who have lived and do live this way understand the quality of life in the United States that comes from open spaces. We like having lots of land around a modest population. Americans produced what is arguably the greatest, most successful country in history while living this life of open spaces.

    We should not ever allow our country to come anywhere near the population density of, say, Japan.

    America has had all of this open land, in spades. Now much of it is in danger of being lost forever. Is this not worth preserving?

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Many of us feel that the quality of life in America is falling as the population is rising.
     
    The population increase is entirely due to immigration.

    It's the kind of population increase that matters in this case.

    Instead of five brothers and sisters and dozens of cousins, we have cultural aliens competing for dwindling opportunities and resources up and down the class scale.
    , @Jack D
    I liked the 200M people America of my youth better than the more crowded 300M people of America today too, but probably old geezers when I was growing up like the 100M people America of 1920 even better. Where do you draw the line?

    Honestly, America is still pretty empty compared to a lot of places (not that it should get more full). NYC fits over 8.5 million people into 300 square miles or almost 30,000 people per square mile. So you could fit the entire US population into 1,000 square miles and leave the entire remaining 3,796,000 square miles as an agricultural/nature preserve. There are lots of rural areas that have fewer people now than they did in 1900. Our sprawling suburban land use pattern is a choice (and a byproduct of low energy costs and prosperity) and not a natural outcome of increased population. You could have fit the entire increase from 1960 until today by building a dozen more NYC's that would be little dots on the map and left 99% of the countryside alone.

  84. @Jack D
    I'm sorry but you painted a dairy farm as a sort of idyllic self-sustaining system where "immigration" is not needed but it was a misleading and incomplete picture. A dairy farm is more like 19th century Europe or modern Africa where the surplus population (esp. male youth) has to be constantly exported for the system to sustain itself because there are sufficient public health measures in effect to keep them from mostly dying from disease like in the good old days. Those places didn't (and don't) need immigration either but they had other problems instead.

    They now screen bull semen such that at large dairy farms 90% of births are cows. This development is one of the major reasons milk prices have not increased the past 15 years.

  85. The Pewitt Baby Boom Is On Its Way, If You Vote For Pewitt.

    The Pewitt campaign for President states that the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) plan will immediately create a baby boom for White people.

    Once elected to the presidency, the Pewitt administration will order the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Treasury to conjure up massive amounts of fiat currency dollars and then distribute TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS a month to each American citizen who has 4 grandparents that were born in the United States — or arrived in the United States — before 1924.

    The Pewitt administration will make AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION an act of state power to advance the interests of White Core America.

    Some Americans are sad and they ain’t making babies? Give the Americans who are eligible for the PCLP ten grand a month and watch their spirits improve and watch the tens of millions of White babies be flown in by the stork.

  86. @Daniel Chieh
    Adding to Jack D's comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover - I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.

    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.

    • Replies: @Tired of NOT Winning

    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.
     
    Undesirable for whom? For those who want more votes, cheap labor and customers, sure. For everyone else, it is highly desirable.

    America had a 40 year immigration moratorium between 1924 and 1964. It was then that we came together as one people, one nation. It's what we sorely need today, another 40 year moratorium. But our owners don't want that, they want more votes, more cheap labor, more customers, more divided electorate hence easier to manipulate, until this country becomes completely ungovernable. In fact, 54 years since the Immigration Act of 1965, we are already there.

    , @(((Owen)))

    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere
     
    Yes; negative net immigration is the ideal for every nation.
  87. @216
    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.

    I am really against calling the various nut and seed based beverages “milk” – I think it’s highly misleading and should not be allowed as a matter of consumer protection. Margarine is not “Canola butter” and a beverage made from a few ground up almonds and a lot of water (and often sugar) should not be sold as “milk”. It doesn’t have the protein and nutrition of milk nor the taste of it. They really need to fix the law. They can keep selling the stuff but call it “almond drink” or something, not milk.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society. Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.

    • Replies: @216

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.
     
    That's more along what I was implying, calling it "lab milk" gets the point across clearer. I call "soy milk" a "milk substitute".

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society
     
    There was a viral documentary called "cowspiracy" that showed up a few years ago. I recall a lot of women sharing this. Cows are considered a major cause of global warming.
    , @(((Owen)))
    Real milk is racist because only white people can drink it. Adulteration is progress and the various artificial substitutes are there to encourage our vibrancy.

    Go to a supermarket in China or Mexico or Africa and milk is a weird niche product hiding in the corner in warm, sealed boxes. It’s not a wall of refrigerators like in the USA. And we are making more and more progress becoming like China and Mexico and Africa every day thanks to immigration.
    , @Hypnotoad666
    I tried "Almond Milk" once.

    I would vote to label it as: "Disgusting Non-Milk Drink." That would be truth in advertising.

    , @bomag

    Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.
     
    Agree.

    European dairies are much more mechanized than their US counterparts; another example of what is possible when you don't fall back on cheap labor.
  88. @Buzz Mohawk
    Many of us feel that the quality of life in America is falling as the population is rising.

    You could say, and it would be true, that our low-intelligence population is the bigger part of the increase, and, as we all here probably would agree, this this is not such a good thing.

    However, there is a simple, hard-to-measure reduction in quality that is occurring simply because there are more people. This might be hard to sense for those who did not grow up in, or have not lived in, environments outside the urban or suburban.

    We who have lived and do live this way understand the quality of life in the United States that comes from open spaces. We like having lots of land around a modest population. Americans produced what is arguably the greatest, most successful country in history while living this life of open spaces.

    We should not ever allow our country to come anywhere near the population density of, say, Japan.

    America has had all of this open land, in spades. Now much of it is in danger of being lost forever. Is this not worth preserving?

    Many of us feel that the quality of life in America is falling as the population is rising.

    The population increase is entirely due to immigration.

    It’s the kind of population increase that matters in this case.

    Instead of five brothers and sisters and dozens of cousins, we have cultural aliens competing for dwindling opportunities and resources up and down the class scale.

  89. @Jack D
    I'm sorry but you painted a dairy farm as a sort of idyllic self-sustaining system where "immigration" is not needed but it was a misleading and incomplete picture. A dairy farm is more like 19th century Europe or modern Africa where the surplus population (esp. male youth) has to be constantly exported for the system to sustain itself because there are sufficient public health measures in effect to keep them from mostly dying from disease like in the good old days. Those places didn't (and don't) need immigration either but they had other problems instead.

    You take me way to literally.

  90. @Jack D

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.
     
    Yes and no. It depends in part who's growing and who is declining. In places like Turkey and Iran, the high IQ Westernized urban population declined and the low IQ religious fundamentalist population from the countryside grew, and the results were not good.

    In modern Western nations, a lot of our institutions (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Even wars did little to slow population growth. Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan. But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year - no one really has any experience with what this does to a society (though on an actuarial basis it's clearly not good for funding pension systems).

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded and maybe were better places to live when their populations were smaller, so it would not be the worst thing in the world for Japan to have the population that it had in 1970. But this also ignores the composition of the population - having 100 million people 1/3 of whom are over 65 and 1/8 of whom are under 14 is not the same as vice versa.

    Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan.

    They were trivial compared to earlier multi-decade wars where 30% or more of the population died.

  91. 216 says:
    @Jack D
    I am really against calling the various nut and seed based beverages "milk" - I think it's highly misleading and should not be allowed as a matter of consumer protection. Margarine is not "Canola butter" and a beverage made from a few ground up almonds and a lot of water (and often sugar) should not be sold as "milk". It doesn't have the protein and nutrition of milk nor the taste of it. They really need to fix the law. They can keep selling the stuff but call it "almond drink" or something, not milk.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society. Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    That’s more along what I was implying, calling it “lab milk” gets the point across clearer. I call “soy milk” a “milk substitute”.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society

    There was a viral documentary called “cowspiracy” that showed up a few years ago. I recall a lot of women sharing this. Cows are considered a major cause of global warming.

  92. @IHTG
    Whenever you see an establishment ideologue talk about the great success of the post-WW2 liberal world order and wonder what all the populists are so mad about, show him this. It's the birthrates, stupid. Your system fails to produce human beings.

    Your system fails to produce human beings.

    Or, maybe it just fails to produce the right kind of human beings.

  93. @Jack D
    An upside down caste system - the "worst" thing is to come from a high achieving home with an intact family in a good neighborhood with rigorous schools, etc. To achieve the "American Dream" means that your kids will be punished as class enemies and sent to the countryside. No way should they be allowed to attend the universities where future party cadres are trained. This is reserved for those who have engaged in class struggle. It's really the Chinese Cultural Revolution model brought to America.

    This is even worse because the ideology is boiled down to a pseudoscientific "objective" score - this is not just the victors in a culture war taking revenge on their former oppressors, it's just basic American fairness that we give a leg up to the underprivileged.

    It’s only upside-down for purposes of admission to the mismatch factories that employ it. Don’t kid yourself that that score won’t find other, right-side up, uses…

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Any "right side up" use (e.g. we are going to charge you lower insurance premiums because people who have less "adversity" in their lives also tend to have fewer car accidents) will be called racist and declared illegal in a NY minute.
  94. @Buzz Mohawk
    Many of us feel that the quality of life in America is falling as the population is rising.

    You could say, and it would be true, that our low-intelligence population is the bigger part of the increase, and, as we all here probably would agree, this this is not such a good thing.

    However, there is a simple, hard-to-measure reduction in quality that is occurring simply because there are more people. This might be hard to sense for those who did not grow up in, or have not lived in, environments outside the urban or suburban.

    We who have lived and do live this way understand the quality of life in the United States that comes from open spaces. We like having lots of land around a modest population. Americans produced what is arguably the greatest, most successful country in history while living this life of open spaces.

    We should not ever allow our country to come anywhere near the population density of, say, Japan.

    America has had all of this open land, in spades. Now much of it is in danger of being lost forever. Is this not worth preserving?

    I liked the 200M people America of my youth better than the more crowded 300M people of America today too, but probably old geezers when I was growing up like the 100M people America of 1920 even better. Where do you draw the line?

    Honestly, America is still pretty empty compared to a lot of places (not that it should get more full). NYC fits over 8.5 million people into 300 square miles or almost 30,000 people per square mile. So you could fit the entire US population into 1,000 square miles and leave the entire remaining 3,796,000 square miles as an agricultural/nature preserve. There are lots of rural areas that have fewer people now than they did in 1900. Our sprawling suburban land use pattern is a choice (and a byproduct of low energy costs and prosperity) and not a natural outcome of increased population. You could have fit the entire increase from 1960 until today by building a dozen more NYC’s that would be little dots on the map and left 99% of the countryside alone.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    It bleeds out. I've seen it on hiking trails, interstate highways, beaches and in national parks. We are more crowded, and it bleeds out of the concentrated areas.

    I'm with you on 200,000,000. We're the old geezers now.
    , @Lot
    Flight from diversity chaos has so completely distorted residential patterns you cannot really compare.

    Take 1960 USA, increase that population to 320 million through natural increase, and I don’t think most people would find things crowded.

    In general people are living in less dense areas than they’d like due to bad policy. Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools. The few dense urban areas that don’t have serious crime and school problems are extremely expensive due to high unmet demand.
    , @Travis
    America would be a great place with 400 million if the white population was still 90%

    census ---- 1950 -- 2000 -- 2050
    Whites ---– 135 M - 196 M – 186 M
    Non-white — 15 M -- 85 M — 212 M

     

    The White to Non-White ratio
    1950 = 9 - 1
    2000= 3 - 1
    2050= 1 - 1

    The US census predicts the Black population will increase by >100% over the next 40 years, as the white population falls by 9%. We have already reached peak white population , the white population of America has declined since 2015 and will be lower in 2050 than today

  95. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT, I think Niccolo Soldo has tweeted this to Steve. Orban is channeling Steve and Enoch Powell here.

    "The most important issue that history has confronted us with is migration. I call this mass population movement, a massive movement of humans. The basis of this is a demographic fact: there are ever fewer Europeans; and there are ever more people in the Sahel, in the Arab world and in sub-Saharan Africa. They are on the move, and are migrating in order to settle here. When there are acts of terrorism or other extraordinary crimes, people wake up and see how crucial the subject of migration is. However, when there are no such spectacular events – and, thank God, at the moment we’re not experiencing them – people’s worries subside; but this doesn’t mean that the phenomenon has disappeared. The responsibility of a leader is to draw attention to the problem and to take preventive action to stave off problems before the next wave arrives – because it will definitely arrive. This was the case in 2015, and it will be in the future. We must expect massive population outflows; and if they are not prevented, they must be stopped in their tracks. This is why I think that Salvini is the most important person in Europe today"
     
    https://www.lastampa.it/2019/05/02/esteri/victor-orban-money-safety-market-today-there-are-already-three-europes-but-we-pretend-there-is-only-one-LpGkFQpBBo8xWuge3nuYTI/pagina.html

    Thank you for the link to the Orbán interview. He is a smart leader. Here is a nice little part:

    Blue shirt, casual blue jacket, jeans. He looks down on the capital city from a hill in Buda which rises from the West bank of the Danube; he radiates “patriotic” pride suffused with identity (as explained later in this exclusive interview with La Stampa) as he explains to us that the whole of Budapest has been renewed: “shattered by bombing, but rebuilt by us”.

    I’ve walked along that hill and stopped in front of the prime minister’s residence. The contrast with Washington D.C. was unreal to the point of being funny. The front door was ajar, and there was one, friendly little guard standing out front. My wife took a picture of me and him standing together, shaking hands and smiling in front of the door.

    Down the street there is a building preserved with the scars from WWII bombing. The blast marks have been left on the walls as a history lesson. The bombing was done by “our” side.

  96. @Jack D
    I liked the 200M people America of my youth better than the more crowded 300M people of America today too, but probably old geezers when I was growing up like the 100M people America of 1920 even better. Where do you draw the line?

    Honestly, America is still pretty empty compared to a lot of places (not that it should get more full). NYC fits over 8.5 million people into 300 square miles or almost 30,000 people per square mile. So you could fit the entire US population into 1,000 square miles and leave the entire remaining 3,796,000 square miles as an agricultural/nature preserve. There are lots of rural areas that have fewer people now than they did in 1900. Our sprawling suburban land use pattern is a choice (and a byproduct of low energy costs and prosperity) and not a natural outcome of increased population. You could have fit the entire increase from 1960 until today by building a dozen more NYC's that would be little dots on the map and left 99% of the countryside alone.

    It bleeds out. I’ve seen it on hiking trails, interstate highways, beaches and in national parks. We are more crowded, and it bleeds out of the concentrated areas.

    I’m with you on 200,000,000. We’re the old geezers now.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    Getting back to 200MM would be a great achievement. We won the world wars with under 100MM and there’s no good reason to have any more than that here on our land mass.

    It’s true that city land is only artificially scarce, but mountain and beachfront and wide open places are getting harder for ordinary people to enjoy without crowding. Fewer and fewer of us are hunters and outdoorsmen because the best places and game now require scarce permits and limited tags from lotteries (or commercial guides at millionaire prices).

    And a country is in trouble when only a few percent can make a living off the land. Interchangeable drones with no link to the soil aren’t likely to fight to keep what’s theirs when it’s threatened.
  97. @Desiderius
    It's only upside-down for purposes of admission to the mismatch factories that employ it. Don't kid yourself that that score won't find other, right-side up, uses...

    Any “right side up” use (e.g. we are going to charge you lower insurance premiums because people who have less “adversity” in their lives also tend to have fewer car accidents) will be called racist and declared illegal in a NY minute.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Your naïveté is touching, Jack.
  98. @Daniel Chieh
    Adding to Jack D's comment, it should be noted that it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well. It may not be for your friend but this is true even historically when breeding was done by live cover - I have quite a bit of it from historical books on herd management, which are incidentally an excellent exploration into wrongthink and hereditary.

    “it is pretty common for ranchers to seek new bulls with more desirable characteristics for their herds as well”

    Whiskey comment incoming…. 10…9…8…

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  99. @Peter Johnson
    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing. As long as it is not combined with dysgenic trends.

    a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities

    Exactly. We need and have lower birth rates because the Earth is full with an unprecedented overpopulation of humans. The people of the civilized world who are capable of restraining themselves don’t want to make it worse.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    The people of the civilized world who are capable of restraining themselves don’t want to make it worse.
     
    That's the problem - the people who SHOULD be restraining themselves aren't and vice versa. The result is not going to be fewer people overall but that the civilized world is going to be replaced by an uncivilized world.
  100. So, the women who weren’t giving birth at sixteen twenty years ago still aren’t giving birth twenty years later?

    (No, I did not do the maths)

  101. @216
    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.

    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.

    No way. We buy our milk whole from a farmer up the road whose handful of cows live well and eat right. There is no comparison with anything we have ever bought at any store. If you think milk is “declasse,” you haven’t been here. This is an affluent area, complete with gentlemen farmers. It’s just another argument for small-scale living.

    AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.

    Of course, I could be wrong. This is just what I’ve seen. Someone like Jack D. might come in now with a history of dairy farming and show how little I really know.

    • Replies: @216
    https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/61046/june14_data-feature_bentley_fig01_450px.png?v=9153.4

    AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.
     
    The average family farm has grown in size over the decades, around the size of what used to be a corporate farm. The consolidation, decreasing consumption and profit margins, is what has driven the increase in illegal labor. Working in dairy is less seasonal than other types of farming, making it preferable to illegals, but supposedly ineligible for the unlimited H-2A agricultural visa.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Leblanc2/publication/284703950/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Average-size-of-dairy-cattle-herds-in-selected-countries-Data-sources-New-Zealand.png
    , @Anon
    What's the price per gallon of that milk? I suspect it's at a price point that most people could not afford as a regular staple. Most major grocery chains these days carry expensive organic milk. The people who buy them are wealthy people or people who just don't drink much milk and thus buy the expensive organic milk sparingly. Regular folk who buy milk as an everyday staple cannot afford it, and they would stop drinking milk altogether or cut down drastically if the expensive organic stuff was their only option. Presumably your local farmer's milk is even more expensive.

    American milk was pretty disgusting, adulterated stuff before corporate farms:

    "When Milk Was Full of Calf Brains"

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/crushed-bugs-calf-brains-and-other-wholesome-staples-of-the-past/570793/

    We tend to think of our 19th-century forefathers thriving on farm-fresh produce and pasture-raised livestock, happily unaffected by the deceptive food-manufacturing practices of today. In this we are wrong. Milk offers a stunning case in point. By mid-century, the standard, profit-maximizing recipe was a pint of lukewarm water for every quart of milk—after the cream had been skimmed off. To whiten the bluish liquid, dairymen added plaster of paris and chalk, or a dollop of molasses for a creamy gold. To replace the skimmed-off layer of cream, they might add a final flourish of pureed calf brains.

    Fakery and adulteration ran rampant in other products as well. “Honey” in many cases proved to be thickened, colored corn syrup, and “vanilla” extract a mixture of alcohol and brown food coloring. “Coffee” might be largely sawdust, or wheat, beans, beets, peas, and dandelion seeds, scorched black and ground to resemble the genuine article. Containers of “pepper,” “cinnamon,” or “nutmeg” were frequently laced with pulverized coconut shells, charred rope, or floor sweepings. “Flour” routinely contained crushed stone or gypsum as a cheap extender. Ground insects could be mixed into brown sugar, often without detection; their use was linked to an unpleasant condition known as “grocer’s itch.”
     
  102. @Jack D
    It’s a cute allegory but not a complete picture. Most dairy cattle nowadays are fertilized by artificial insemination. And half of the calves (the male ones) have to be disposed of (taken away to be raised for veal or beef) shortly after birth. Those are the lucky ones. In the UK, where there are strict animal cruelty laws which make it difficult to raise veal, male calves are often shot at birth instead. Spent cows (those over around 5 years of age) are also taken away for slaughter. And there is 1 alpha male but lots of females. It really doesn’t make a good allegory for a desirable human society (nor should it because the goals are completely different).

    Bovine sperm is a big deal here in Wisconsin. I am serious. I’ve known people who make their living off of bull semen.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Oh, absolutely. It's impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd (very expensive) but you can improve the genetics (milk production, etc.) of your herd just by buying sperm from a prize winning bull with a proven track record. And you don't have to keep a dangerous bull around your farm. There are some old fashioned or smaller farmers like Buzz's friend who still keep bulls but 80% of dairy cattle are produced thru AI.
  103. @densa
    Spot on, and I can no longer believe it's an accident. Children are made sick by vaccination, then the illnesses caused are treated with drugs. No attention is made to the healthcare system's uncanny ability to create expensive longterm disease. Feature, not a bug. No attention is paid to what used to be called environment, which would include the invisible pollution of technology. Global warming. Climate change. Global warming. Climate change. Nothing else is of consequence.

    Vaccination doesn’t make you sick – it prevents horrible diseases that used to kill or cripple millions.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It could do both, depending on the competence of the vaccination system. Prudence would dictate not taking the latter for granted.
    , @J.Ross
    So the drug companies are lying in their own documents and the government handed out millions in compensation because of fraud. Okay.
    Vaccination doesn't make "you" specifically well, it (unless it's yet another bad batch or yet another FDA naptime or yet another unnecessary overmedicalization) makes the People more protected against targeted diseases. In the pat children's version you offer there are still outlier victims but their ailment is (we're still in the official version here) acceptable collateral damage. Hence compensation payments and warnings.
    Public health was a scheme to make totalitarianism natural and inevitable, and neither it nor a vaccination regime would be completely bad if you had a relatively homogeneous and orderly society with sovereign borders. Assuming vaccines are responsibly prepared and prescribed, they still have a less steep climb if they are for a Swiss canton and not all of Africa. We can't be the world's doctor and it is an abdication of government responsibility to use taxpaying citizens as guinea pigs for the virulence of every little variation of humanity that wants to collect welfare from us. Anti-vaxxer hysteria is like Nazi-finding and complaining about virgins, it's a dodge of a simple issue.
  104. @Buzz Mohawk
    It bleeds out. I've seen it on hiking trails, interstate highways, beaches and in national parks. We are more crowded, and it bleeds out of the concentrated areas.

    I'm with you on 200,000,000. We're the old geezers now.

    Getting back to 200MM would be a great achievement. We won the world wars with under 100MM and there’s no good reason to have any more than that here on our land mass.

    It’s true that city land is only artificially scarce, but mountain and beachfront and wide open places are getting harder for ordinary people to enjoy without crowding. Fewer and fewer of us are hunters and outdoorsmen because the best places and game now require scarce permits and limited tags from lotteries (or commercial guides at millionaire prices).

    And a country is in trouble when only a few percent can make a living off the land. Interchangeable drones with no link to the soil aren’t likely to fight to keep what’s theirs when it’s threatened.

  105. @Spangel
    Ew. I’m guessing the “refugees” of cologne weren’t lacking in testosterone. Needless to say they are not welcome here.

    And your vote cancels that of exactly one young woman starving for masculinity.

    How about we sove the underlying problem and get you back on the same team?

    • Replies: @Spangel
    I haven’t heard any of the assaulted women on New Year’s Eve in cologne claim they wanted that masculine attention.
  106. OT on SAT scoring change — Via UK Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7038037/Students-taking-SAT-adversity-scores-effort-level-playing-field.html

    SATs will now contain secret ‘adversity scores’: Students will be rated on deprivation and crime in effort to level playing field for poor and minority teens – but nobody will be told the numbers

    Every student taking the SAT will now be given an ‘adversity score’ to help equalize the college admissions system for minority and low-income teens
    The College Board, which administers the test, established the new system
    The new system will use 15 different factors to determine a student’s adversity score, based on things such as the crime, poverty rates and home values

  107. @Jack D
    Any "right side up" use (e.g. we are going to charge you lower insurance premiums because people who have less "adversity" in their lives also tend to have fewer car accidents) will be called racist and declared illegal in a NY minute.

    Your naïveté is touching, Jack.

  108. @Buzz Mohawk
    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.

    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.

    Undesirable for whom? For those who want more votes, cheap labor and customers, sure. For everyone else, it is highly desirable.

    America had a 40 year immigration moratorium between 1924 and 1964. It was then that we came together as one people, one nation. It’s what we sorely need today, another 40 year moratorium. But our owners don’t want that, they want more votes, more cheap labor, more customers, more divided electorate hence easier to manipulate, until this country becomes completely ungovernable. In fact, 54 years since the Immigration Act of 1965, we are already there.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    NO, RUSH, WE DIDN'T HAVE A MORATORIUM! We did have greatly reduced immigration, though, with a quota system to keep the demographics from changing.
  109. @Daniel Chieh
    Its not "junk science"; at worst, it is science that has since become dated due to new discoveries. Still, its interesting of the specific effects.


    Bones became soft and pliable and the cats suffered from adverse personality changes. Males became docile while females became more aggressive
     
    One cannot help but draw parallels with modern society.

    This makes some sense. Specialization is layer of complexity on top of a less complex shared base. When bodies break down, as with the elderly, men and women should become more alike.

  110. Lot says:
    @Spangel
    I think crippling student loan debts are a part of it. Also the current dependence on online dating. It makes it seem like there’s a giant pool of potentials out there so no one is valuable. At this point, it’s difficult to date the old fashioned way. Meeting someone at work is harassment. People don’t do bars and clubs for this type of thing anymore. So there’s the online stuff which doesn’t help most people find someone they can settle down with.

    A big part of the problem is people not having any kids. But it seems like another problem is that so few have more than 2 kids. It’s a bigger lift for the person without a spouse or partner to find one and have a kid than it is for someone with two kids to have a third. Perhaps the concentration of jobs in expensive urban areas is the problem here. Affording a 4 bedroom house in a good school district in the Silicon Valley or near nyc is no small feat.

    “Affording a 4 bedroom house in a good school district in the Silicon Valley or near nyc is no small feat.”

    I was surprised when I saw that the NYC area gets cheaper pretty fast as you move away from the prime parts of the city. Queens, SI, and Westchester aren’t cheap, but in the Bay Area stays expensive for a long time as you get further out, despite having half the overall population.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    It’s true. Nyc is much more affordable than Silicon Valley. The affluent suburbs of nyc are even slightly less than Seattle.

    But it’s still a lot. It’s unusual to afford a good school district on one income these days.
  111. OT: I found this podcast conversation encouraging. These are lefties but they’re just as aware as those of us on the “far right” that the Bush, Blair, Clinton, Merkel, Macron, “end of history” consensus was smothering us:

    /71/ Trustworthy Propaganda ft. Glenn Greenwald
    May 16, 2019
    On ‘neoliberal order breakdown syndrome’ and the media. Glenn Greenwald talks to us about Russiagate and fake news, and is unimpressed with same old propaganda. We discuss about left-wing self-criticism, Bolsonaro and transgression, and ask how to be sceptical without sliding into cynicism.

    https://aufhebungabunga.podbean.com/e/71-trustworthy-propaganda-ft-glenn-greenwald/

  112. @Jack D
    I am really against calling the various nut and seed based beverages "milk" - I think it's highly misleading and should not be allowed as a matter of consumer protection. Margarine is not "Canola butter" and a beverage made from a few ground up almonds and a lot of water (and often sugar) should not be sold as "milk". It doesn't have the protein and nutrition of milk nor the taste of it. They really need to fix the law. They can keep selling the stuff but call it "almond drink" or something, not milk.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society. Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.

    Real milk is racist because only white people can drink it. Adulteration is progress and the various artificial substitutes are there to encourage our vibrancy.

    Go to a supermarket in China or Mexico or Africa and milk is a weird niche product hiding in the corner in warm, sealed boxes. It’s not a wall of refrigerators like in the USA. And we are making more and more progress becoming like China and Mexico and Africa every day thanks to immigration.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Fresh fluid milk was always a problem due to sanitation and lack of refrigeration (even in the US Borden invented condensed milk because he saw kids dying from drinking fresh milk) but most places consumed dairy in cultured form. Even in Beijing (and most of China is not dairy loving - they'd rather eat their legumes directly rather than feed it to the cows first) there is a tradition of consuming yogurt or kefir that is sold in little reusable clay pots with paper covers (no refrigeration but they keep long enough to be consumed). Mexico (thanks to the Mennonites) has a rich tradition of fresh cheeses, sour cream, etc. America was a little overboard the other way because we insisted that little kids (especially) consume gallons and gallons of fresh milk as one of the main components of their diet - that was not "normal" either.
  113. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I'm sorry but you painted a dairy farm as a sort of idyllic self-sustaining system where "immigration" is not needed but it was a misleading and incomplete picture. A dairy farm is more like 19th century Europe or modern Africa where the surplus population (esp. male youth) has to be constantly exported for the system to sustain itself because there are sufficient public health measures in effect to keep them from mostly dying from disease like in the good old days. Those places didn't (and don't) need immigration either but they had other problems instead.

    That dairy farm in “Tess of the d’Urbervilles” was not just idyllic but downright edenic, that is, until they hired in the thot from the alcoholic family. Of course, she’d been given the opportunity to stay in a good tradcon arrangement with a high-T male but her Victorian-era SJW pride bollixed that up

    Personally I am a skeptic of the wholesomeness of the industry; the lactose tolerance is way dysgenic
    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/01/582370199/whats-the-real-story-about-the-milkmaid-and-the-smallpox-vaccine

  114. @Buzz Mohawk
    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.

    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere

    Yes; negative net immigration is the ideal for every nation.

  115. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    A very real and systemic phenomenon is going on that is way beyond the endemic complaints about “kids today” or simple nostalgia. The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital “animal spirits” of the West.

    It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits — both biological and cultural — and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And another big problem with getting a grip on the issue is the “Sapir-Worf” problem: No one has yet coined a term or phrase that can tie all the disparate strands together into a single intelligible phenomenon.

    In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.

    Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year. This means, for example, that a 60-year-old man in 2004 had testosterone levels 17% lower than those of a 60-year-old in 1987. Another study of Danish men produced similar findings, with double-digit declines among men born in the 1960s compared to those born in the 1920s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#6e3a81908b7f

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    " The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital “animal spirits” of the West."

    It's not surprising, when on both sides of the Atlantic, 'our' elites, 'our' schools and colleges, 'our' books, magazines, adverts, TV, radio, newspapers, films are teaching us that not only is it not our country any more, it never was.
    , @J.Ross
    The most cooperative guy who ever lived opens his trap and bothers you about alternate techniques, the most opposition-defiant disorder woman nods her head and does it (even her grumbling is not out loud). From Metternich on, even system, consciously or otherwise, prefers female subordinates.
    , @Charles
    Mr. HToad, you "put your finger" right on it - the completely pervasive feminizing of all aspects of modern life. One admittedly minor example: look at the colors and color schemes of collared golf-type shirts for men now on sale from high-end manufacturers like Nike, Adidas, and the rest. At least (at the very least) one-fourth of them are either 1). solid pink/pastels or 2). some combination thereof. This is not because of high consumer demand; it is simply one aspect of the relentless drive to force men to identify as feminine rather than masculine.
    , @megabar
    > It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits — both biological and cultural — and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And yet maybe the answer isn't really that complicated. Scurvy mystified people for years, even after a solution was discovered. Yet from our vantage point it is a simple disease, with a simple cure.

    The scientific community insists on looking in the wrong places. The majority of research that I come across blames bad genes, low willpower, or bad luck. Proposed treatments are confined to self-punishment or drugs.

    > In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.

    Yes. I think it's an effect.

    One hope I hold for the West is that we figure out how to be healthy and vital again, and then this modern nonsense will vanish. Of course, there will remain much work to do to clean up the mess.
  116. Lot says:
    @Jack D
    I liked the 200M people America of my youth better than the more crowded 300M people of America today too, but probably old geezers when I was growing up like the 100M people America of 1920 even better. Where do you draw the line?

    Honestly, America is still pretty empty compared to a lot of places (not that it should get more full). NYC fits over 8.5 million people into 300 square miles or almost 30,000 people per square mile. So you could fit the entire US population into 1,000 square miles and leave the entire remaining 3,796,000 square miles as an agricultural/nature preserve. There are lots of rural areas that have fewer people now than they did in 1900. Our sprawling suburban land use pattern is a choice (and a byproduct of low energy costs and prosperity) and not a natural outcome of increased population. You could have fit the entire increase from 1960 until today by building a dozen more NYC's that would be little dots on the map and left 99% of the countryside alone.

    Flight from diversity chaos has so completely distorted residential patterns you cannot really compare.

    Take 1960 USA, increase that population to 320 million through natural increase, and I don’t think most people would find things crowded.

    In general people are living in less dense areas than they’d like due to bad policy. Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools. The few dense urban areas that don’t have serious crime and school problems are extremely expensive due to high unmet demand.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Agree, except that "white flight" began even before the '60s and was driven by blacks (and in some places by US citizen Puerto Ricans) and not by immigrants. But, you did end up with a couple of generations of middle class whites exiled from the cities into suburbialand (and atomized from any kind of cultural or political cohesion) and blacks squatting on real estate near the downtown core that would be extremely valuable in any other country.
    , @J.Ross
    This. The Sun People attitude towards common areas, the outdoors, littering, tolerating crime, and so on means that space lost to them is truly lost.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools.
     
    If we had pre-60's laws in urban areas, crime would be less of a problem. Executing convicted murderers in 5 years would probably take murders and maimings from attempted murder way down. Frankly, given the improvements in critical life-saving techniques on trauma victims due to the all the things learned in Vietnam, it's a travesty that murder rates aren't a fraction of what they were in the 50's. The major symptom of the rise in violent crime rates is the tripling in aggravated assault per capita since the 50's.

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
  117. @Paleo Liberal
    Bovine sperm is a big deal here in Wisconsin. I am serious. I’ve known people who make their living off of bull semen.

    Oh, absolutely. It’s impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd (very expensive) but you can improve the genetics (milk production, etc.) of your herd just by buying sperm from a prize winning bull with a proven track record. And you don’t have to keep a dangerous bull around your farm. There are some old fashioned or smaller farmers like Buzz’s friend who still keep bulls but 80% of dairy cattle are produced thru AI.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    It’s impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd
     
    With a bit of patience and time, its entirely possible to grow a new herd of cows. Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics, this suggests a reduction, not an improvement, in cattle fitness from the "old ways" on levels approaching disturbing.
    , @Alden
    Farmers breed their best cows. If the best cows have a female calf every 2 years, then the entire herd will soon be at top productivity. By now, most of the low producing sickly female genes have been bred out of most herds. Both dairy and beef cattle are more like living robots than natural animals any more. Farm animal genetics and breeding are amazing.
  118. @Desiderius
    And your vote cancels that of exactly one young woman starving for masculinity.

    How about we sove the underlying problem and get you back on the same team?

    I haven’t heard any of the assaulted women on New Year’s Eve in cologne claim they wanted that masculine attention.

  119. @Lot
    “Affording a 4 bedroom house in a good school district in the Silicon Valley or near nyc is no small feat.”

    I was surprised when I saw that the NYC area gets cheaper pretty fast as you move away from the prime parts of the city. Queens, SI, and Westchester aren’t cheap, but in the Bay Area stays expensive for a long time as you get further out, despite having half the overall population.

    It’s true. Nyc is much more affordable than Silicon Valley. The affluent suburbs of nyc are even slightly less than Seattle.

    But it’s still a lot. It’s unusual to afford a good school district on one income these days.

  120. @Massimo Heitor

    In my opinion, a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities so this is a good thing.
     
    That option isn't on the table.

    Global population and birth rates are booming. This post focuses on low birth rates in the US. Birth rates in Africa are surging and that isn't our choice.

    IMO, this crowd should focus on having more children themselves and worry less about the rest of the world.

    Does Steve Sailer have a plan to grow or mold or influence a future generation of similar writers?

    That option isn’t on the table.

    It should be.

    We should be in charge of our fate to that extent.

  121. @Lot
    Flight from diversity chaos has so completely distorted residential patterns you cannot really compare.

    Take 1960 USA, increase that population to 320 million through natural increase, and I don’t think most people would find things crowded.

    In general people are living in less dense areas than they’d like due to bad policy. Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools. The few dense urban areas that don’t have serious crime and school problems are extremely expensive due to high unmet demand.

    Agree, except that “white flight” began even before the ’60s and was driven by blacks (and in some places by US citizen Puerto Ricans) and not by immigrants. But, you did end up with a couple of generations of middle class whites exiled from the cities into suburbialand (and atomized from any kind of cultural or political cohesion) and blacks squatting on real estate near the downtown core that would be extremely valuable in any other country.

  122. @Jack D
    I am really against calling the various nut and seed based beverages "milk" - I think it's highly misleading and should not be allowed as a matter of consumer protection. Margarine is not "Canola butter" and a beverage made from a few ground up almonds and a lot of water (and often sugar) should not be sold as "milk". It doesn't have the protein and nutrition of milk nor the taste of it. They really need to fix the law. They can keep selling the stuff but call it "almond drink" or something, not milk.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society. Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.

    I tried “Almond Milk” once.

    I would vote to label it as: “Disgusting Non-Milk Drink.” That would be truth in advertising.

    • Replies: @Lot
    If you are expecting something rich and delicious almond milk isn’t. But it tastes 90% as good on cereal IMO. It is often oversweet which can be fixed by buying unsweetened and adding sugar or saccharine if needed.
    , @Jack D
    There are other vegetable "milks" that perhaps taste better - cashew, rice, coconut, etc. but none of them are really substitutes for cow's milk. Unless you are concerned about animal cruelty, in terms of health you can get cow's milk at any fat level, with or without lactose, etc. so there's little reason not to drink it if you prefer the taste.
    , @Kratoklastes
    Try Macadamia milk. I don’t go in for milky coffees (doppio espresso, twice, each morning), but a flat white made with MacMilk is like a dessert.

    As a Kiwi my first 7 years of life involved vast amounts of unpasteurised in-homogenised milk, so I love the taste of full-cream milk - but Macadamia milk is some superb shit. (When we got to the middle of Straya in 1972, milk was hard to come buy... my parents tried powdered milk but that was awful).
  123. @Jack D
    Oh, absolutely. It's impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd (very expensive) but you can improve the genetics (milk production, etc.) of your herd just by buying sperm from a prize winning bull with a proven track record. And you don't have to keep a dangerous bull around your farm. There are some old fashioned or smaller farmers like Buzz's friend who still keep bulls but 80% of dairy cattle are produced thru AI.

    It’s impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd

    With a bit of patience and time, its entirely possible to grow a new herd of cows. Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics, this suggests a reduction, not an improvement, in cattle fitness from the “old ways” on levels approaching disturbing.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Of course it's not just one or the other but on the fatherhood side the process is quick and relatively inexpensive - in one year you can change the paternity of all of the newborn calves on your farm, whereas making changes on the maternal side is a much longer and more expensive process. Nevertheless over the long terms changes are made. For example, Holstein cows (the black and white ones) are now over 90% of American dairy cattle, rising from 0% in 1852 because they are the breed that offer the best economics (milk production vs feed and other costs) and almost all the other breeds have been driven out of the market. Farm economics are ruthless and unsentimental.
    , @res

    Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics
     
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but the cow breeding being discussed looks for bulls that sire high producing daughters. For example, see https://hoards.com/article-4750-bulls-dont-do-it-better.html

    A typical metric is Net Merit $: https://hoards.com/article-23717-net-merit-$-index-updated-to-include-health-traits.html

    https://cms-static.wehaacdn.com/hoards-com/images/CDCB-Traits-chart.14191.jpg

    P.S. One disadvantage of the single bull approach is inbreeding over time. Does anyone know how the AI breeders deal with that?
  124. 216 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.
     
    No way. We buy our milk whole from a farmer up the road whose handful of cows live well and eat right. There is no comparison with anything we have ever bought at any store. If you think milk is "declasse," you haven't been here. This is an affluent area, complete with gentlemen farmers. It's just another argument for small-scale living.

    AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.

    Of course, I could be wrong. This is just what I've seen. Someone like Jack D. might come in now with a history of dairy farming and show how little I really know.

    https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/61046/june14_data-feature_bentley_fig01_450px.png?v=9153.4

    AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.

    The average family farm has grown in size over the decades, around the size of what used to be a corporate farm. The consolidation, decreasing consumption and profit margins, is what has driven the increase in illegal labor. Working in dairy is less seasonal than other types of farming, making it preferable to illegals, but supposedly ineligible for the unlimited H-2A agricultural visa.

  125. @Jack D
    I am really against calling the various nut and seed based beverages "milk" - I think it's highly misleading and should not be allowed as a matter of consumer protection. Margarine is not "Canola butter" and a beverage made from a few ground up almonds and a lot of water (and often sugar) should not be sold as "milk". It doesn't have the protein and nutrition of milk nor the taste of it. They really need to fix the law. They can keep selling the stuff but call it "almond drink" or something, not milk.

    If they can produce real actual dairy fats and proteins and taste without the cow, that would be great but I think we are a long way from that.

    Humans have been consuming dairy products for thousands of years, mostly without regard to class background so if milk is suddenly declasse then it is just another symptom of the weirdness and sickness of our society. Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.

    Modern farms are highly mechanized and with proper labor law enforcement there is no need for illegal immigrant labor to staff them.

    Agree.

    European dairies are much more mechanized than their US counterparts; another example of what is possible when you don’t fall back on cheap labor.

  126. @Rob Lee
    History belongs to those who show up for it.

    I've got three already on the ground and me and the missus are working on number four. We're doing our part.

    Their education is both classical and comprehensive. We're studying farming, medicine and small arms armoring, among other useful subjects.

    My kids are not awkward, 'prepper' shut-ins. On the contrary, they're as delightful and engaging a band as you will meet. But I am teaching them to whack you in a hot second if it goes that way.

    Warrior poet monks is what I want. Warrior poets monks is what this country will need.

    Disciples worked for two millennia.

  127. @Jack D
    Vaccination doesn't make you sick - it prevents horrible diseases that used to kill or cripple millions.

    It could do both, depending on the competence of the vaccination system. Prudence would dictate not taking the latter for granted.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Sure, you need competence and eternal vigilance in everything or civilization falls apart. The natural state of things is entropy - you have to fight the good fight every day or else it all goes to hell.

    But these fears are exaggerated. Maybe a "bad" batch of vaccine might not confer immunity but it's not going to make your kid autistic - there is zero basis for that belief. Ensuring a safe vaccine supply is a lot cheaper and easier than burying your kids or taking care of thousands of people in iron lungs for the rest of their life. The "anti-vaxxer" nuts are just too young to remember a time when deadly epidemics would sweep the land.
    , @densa
    Exactly. Mandating removes the prudence. Profits, ho.
  128. @Jack D
    OT - We often talk here about the (implicit) Wokemon points that the Left assigns to people and which help explain the outcome of various social interactions. But, the College Board is going to reify (a Gouldian term) this system in something called the "Adversity Score".


    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/

    The "adversity score" is calculated by assessing 15 factors that can better help admissions officers determine an individual student's social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.
    Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

    A score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege."

    For college admissions officers, this is a godsend. It's been very hard explaining, up until now, why applicant Wong needed to score 300 points higher on his SATs than applicant Tyshaun just because of his skin color - somehow it didn't seem fair or right. But, once you understand that Wong has an Adversity Score of 82 while Tyshaun only scores a 36, then it all makes sense and is COMPLETELY fair - how could you even expect someone from a redlined community to understand algebra on the same level as someone from a 2 parent household? And since the adversity score is not based on race but on objective factors, there are no legal concerns about racial discrimination. For really busy offices, you can simply say multiply the applicant's SAT score by his Adversity Score. Without this valuable explanatory factor, Tyshaun's 950 looks a LOT worse than Wong's 1540, but once you run the math, Tyshaun is the objective favorite - ADMIT. No longer will we have to admit snot assed white kids from Lake Forest who are just drowning in privilege. Their "1" Adversity Score will completely negate their SATs.

    This will really simplify everyday interactions, as well as college admissions. If, for example, you get into a little fender bender with another driver, you will no longer have to worry about such outdated concepts as "fault", "right of way" and so on. You will simply each whip out your Adversity Score and the accident will be the "fault" of whomever had the lower score. This will really take the ambiguity out of awkward social situations involving rude customers or employees, parent-teacher interactions and so on.

    There will be plenty of room for lying on this adversity score. Lying about your family situation. Lies from minorities will not be prosecuted or even looked at. Lies from responsible middle class white Americans will be looked into.

    Jose can lie about having no father at home and that his mother is an illegal Guatemalan who cleans offices at night and having three sisters who got on DACA. — NO INVESTIGATION

    White Henry can state that he has a disabled sister and no mother. THIS WILL BE LOOKED INTO

    De’onte can claim that while on the High School football team he had nooses hung in locker locker for every game. — THIS LIE WILL NOT BE CHECKED OUT.

  129. @Hypnotoad666

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.
     
    A very real and systemic phenomenon is going on that is way beyond the endemic complaints about "kids today" or simple nostalgia. The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital "animal spirits" of the West.

    It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits -- both biological and cultural -- and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And another big problem with getting a grip on the issue is the "Sapir-Worf" problem: No one has yet coined a term or phrase that can tie all the disparate strands together into a single intelligible phenomenon.

    In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.


    Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year. This means, for example, that a 60-year-old man in 2004 had testosterone levels 17% lower than those of a 60-year-old in 1987. Another study of Danish men produced similar findings, with double-digit declines among men born in the 1960s compared to those born in the 1920s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#6e3a81908b7f
     

    ” The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital “animal spirits” of the West.”

    It’s not surprising, when on both sides of the Atlantic, ‘our’ elites, ‘our’ schools and colleges, ‘our’ books, magazines, adverts, TV, radio, newspapers, films are teaching us that not only is it not our country any more, it never was.

  130. @Jack D
    I liked the 200M people America of my youth better than the more crowded 300M people of America today too, but probably old geezers when I was growing up like the 100M people America of 1920 even better. Where do you draw the line?

    Honestly, America is still pretty empty compared to a lot of places (not that it should get more full). NYC fits over 8.5 million people into 300 square miles or almost 30,000 people per square mile. So you could fit the entire US population into 1,000 square miles and leave the entire remaining 3,796,000 square miles as an agricultural/nature preserve. There are lots of rural areas that have fewer people now than they did in 1900. Our sprawling suburban land use pattern is a choice (and a byproduct of low energy costs and prosperity) and not a natural outcome of increased population. You could have fit the entire increase from 1960 until today by building a dozen more NYC's that would be little dots on the map and left 99% of the countryside alone.

    America would be a great place with 400 million if the white population was still 90%

    census —- 1950 — 2000 — 2050
    Whites —– 135 M – 196 M – 186 M
    Non-white — 15 M — 85 M — 212 M

    The White to Non-White ratio
    1950 = 9 – 1
    2000= 3 – 1
    2050= 1 – 1

    The US census predicts the Black population will increase by >100% over the next 40 years, as the white population falls by 9%. We have already reached peak white population , the white population of America has declined since 2015 and will be lower in 2050 than today

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))

    America would be a great place with 400 million if the white population was still 90%
     
    No. America would be a badly overcrowded disaster with 400MM, no matter the demographics. More white people would just mean even more competition for the wild places, free-flowing rivers, game, beachfronts, and mountains that white people treasure so much.
  131. @(((Owen)))
    Real milk is racist because only white people can drink it. Adulteration is progress and the various artificial substitutes are there to encourage our vibrancy.

    Go to a supermarket in China or Mexico or Africa and milk is a weird niche product hiding in the corner in warm, sealed boxes. It’s not a wall of refrigerators like in the USA. And we are making more and more progress becoming like China and Mexico and Africa every day thanks to immigration.

    Fresh fluid milk was always a problem due to sanitation and lack of refrigeration (even in the US Borden invented condensed milk because he saw kids dying from drinking fresh milk) but most places consumed dairy in cultured form. Even in Beijing (and most of China is not dairy loving – they’d rather eat their legumes directly rather than feed it to the cows first) there is a tradition of consuming yogurt or kefir that is sold in little reusable clay pots with paper covers (no refrigeration but they keep long enough to be consumed). Mexico (thanks to the Mennonites) has a rich tradition of fresh cheeses, sour cream, etc. America was a little overboard the other way because we insisted that little kids (especially) consume gallons and gallons of fresh milk as one of the main components of their diet – that was not “normal” either.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Unrefrigerated Rock View Farms organic milk in tetra paks tastes better than fresh non organic milk, though not as good as fresh organic.

    I know this because I did a blind taste taste with myself and two family members, and our ratings were all in the same order.
    , @(((Owen)))
    Fresh milk requires a first world infrastructure to be safe and available. Our national leaders have decided that we must not remain a first world nation, so fresh milk will have to go eventually.
  132. @Spangel
    Can the birth rate decline really be attributed to Obama? Hasn’t it declined during trumps time as well? It seems that the us birthrate is gradually converging to the level of most developed countries. Only Israel is the exception.

    The us birthrate was higher for a while because of Hispanic immigration but their birth rates converge to the us norm among Hispanics born in the us. Plus, Hispanics in Central America are seeing their birth rates decline, certainly relative to the 90s.

    When women start having children in their late 30s, they can’t have that many. Fortunately, that problem has a solution on the horizon. Soon we will be able to produce egg cells from any stem cells. We can already do it in mice. Once that happens, advanced age won’t be the barrier it is now to more children.

    “It seems that the us birthrate is gradually converging to the level of most developed countries.”
    Meanwhile Japanese and German TFR has grown in the last decade. Thus actually most industrialized seem to converge to a TFR of around 1,5-1,7. That’s what the UN and other international organizations projected some years ago. Though I think they just did it for practical reasons – they just didn’t what to say else – they were right. Then again Japan might also converge to the East Asian average (PRC true numbers, Taiwan, South Korea) which is around 1,0.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))

    Thus actually most industrialized seem to converge to a TFR of around 1,5-1,7. That’s what the UN

     

    TFR always grows toward 6+ in all stable environments until disease and food supply creates famines and pandemics. It's basic Darwinism. The current trend is just a temporary blessing.
  133. @Hypnotoad666
    I tried "Almond Milk" once.

    I would vote to label it as: "Disgusting Non-Milk Drink." That would be truth in advertising.

    If you are expecting something rich and delicious almond milk isn’t. But it tastes 90% as good on cereal IMO. It is often oversweet which can be fixed by buying unsweetened and adding sugar or saccharine if needed.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I'd never drink almond milk by itself, or put it in tea. But it's okay in coffee if the cream or half-and-half is out, and not bad on cereal either. It qualifies as food, unlike margarine, or "textured vegetable protein". Just make sure to mix it with a stronger taste, not a subtler one. (Cashew milk is a bit milder in flavor.)

    Cow's milk itself seems like a stupid thing to drink. I won't. But it makes the most amazing stuff if you play with it-- butter, cream, ice cream, yogurt, kefir, DeGaulle's 265 cheeses...
  134. The different components of human flourishing don’t exist independently of each other. People who feel prosperous and safe also tend to want to share their good fortune with their kinfolk by making babies and investing resources into their healthy upbringing.

  135. @(((Owen)))

    a happy and healthy civilization on earth requires lower population densities
     
    Exactly. We need and have lower birth rates because the Earth is full with an unprecedented overpopulation of humans. The people of the civilized world who are capable of restraining themselves don’t want to make it worse.

    The people of the civilized world who are capable of restraining themselves don’t want to make it worse.

    That’s the problem – the people who SHOULD be restraining themselves aren’t and vice versa. The result is not going to be fewer people overall but that the civilized world is going to be replaced by an uncivilized world.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))

    the people who SHOULD be restraining themselves aren’t and vice versa. The result is not going to be fewer people overall but that the civilized world is going to be replaced by an uncivilized world.
     
    That's what borders are for. The low-IQ wogs can reproduce in filth massively to outnumber civilized people but as long as we have our own nations, we can keep our population down to sustainable levels without any troubles.

    We could help them by giving away free birth control to the world but leftys and rightys in America both oppose any limits to filthy 4th world population for their own blind ideological motives.
  136. @Jack D
    Fresh fluid milk was always a problem due to sanitation and lack of refrigeration (even in the US Borden invented condensed milk because he saw kids dying from drinking fresh milk) but most places consumed dairy in cultured form. Even in Beijing (and most of China is not dairy loving - they'd rather eat their legumes directly rather than feed it to the cows first) there is a tradition of consuming yogurt or kefir that is sold in little reusable clay pots with paper covers (no refrigeration but they keep long enough to be consumed). Mexico (thanks to the Mennonites) has a rich tradition of fresh cheeses, sour cream, etc. America was a little overboard the other way because we insisted that little kids (especially) consume gallons and gallons of fresh milk as one of the main components of their diet - that was not "normal" either.

    Unrefrigerated Rock View Farms organic milk in tetra paks tastes better than fresh non organic milk, though not as good as fresh organic.

    I know this because I did a blind taste taste with myself and two family members, and our ratings were all in the same order.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Hmm, I'll have to try it. I've never had shelf stable ultra pasteurized milk that didn't have a noticeable "cooked" taste that made it less desirable than regularly pasteurized milk. Ultra-pasteurization requires that you heat the milk to 275F (it's done under pressure so it can't boil away) while regular pasteurization requires only 160F which doesn't damage the taste as much.
  137. @Hypnotoad666
    I tried "Almond Milk" once.

    I would vote to label it as: "Disgusting Non-Milk Drink." That would be truth in advertising.

    There are other vegetable “milks” that perhaps taste better – cashew, rice, coconut, etc. but none of them are really substitutes for cow’s milk. Unless you are concerned about animal cruelty, in terms of health you can get cow’s milk at any fat level, with or without lactose, etc. so there’s little reason not to drink it if you prefer the taste.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    There are those who maintain--not without reason--that cow's milk is intended for calves. However I still use it in my coffee. Haven't found a substitute for that.
  138. @Lot
    Unrefrigerated Rock View Farms organic milk in tetra paks tastes better than fresh non organic milk, though not as good as fresh organic.

    I know this because I did a blind taste taste with myself and two family members, and our ratings were all in the same order.

    Hmm, I’ll have to try it. I’ve never had shelf stable ultra pasteurized milk that didn’t have a noticeable “cooked” taste that made it less desirable than regularly pasteurized milk. Ultra-pasteurization requires that you heat the milk to 275F (it’s done under pressure so it can’t boil away) while regular pasteurization requires only 160F which doesn’t damage the taste as much.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    Agreed. Fresh American milk is one of the few foods that is better in industrial America than in Mexico where industrial agriculture hasn't yet drained the flavor from everything.

    I've never had tetra-pack milk in Mexico that was worth drinking.
  139. @Jack D

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.
     
    Yes and no. It depends in part who's growing and who is declining. In places like Turkey and Iran, the high IQ Westernized urban population declined and the low IQ religious fundamentalist population from the countryside grew, and the results were not good.

    In modern Western nations, a lot of our institutions (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Even wars did little to slow population growth. Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan. But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year - no one really has any experience with what this does to a society (though on an actuarial basis it's clearly not good for funding pension systems).

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded and maybe were better places to live when their populations were smaller, so it would not be the worst thing in the world for Japan to have the population that it had in 1970. But this also ignores the composition of the population - having 100 million people 1/3 of whom are over 65 and 1/8 of whom are under 14 is not the same as vice versa.

    (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

    Was that the assumption, or was it that a significant part of the population would not live much beyond their age of retirement? You can offer lifetime guarantees loosely when the lifetimes are not so long.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Both.
  140. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    Not to mention a myriad of autoimmune diseases, and bizarre allergies. I think maybe one out of every ten kids my son knows has either a peanut or gluten allergy.

    • Replies: @Mike in Boston
    Yes! It is shocking that there is so little public discussion of long-term allergy trends. I can't remember more than a kid or two with serious food allergies in my elementary school forty years ago. But today in my kids' schools peanut allergies are commonplace, along with (as Hapalong Cassidy mentioned) allergies to gluten, eggs, food dyes, and all sorts of other stuff. I can't believe it's just better diagnosis; when I saw an allergist for severe seasonal allergies as a fifth-grader, he administered the same sort of subcutaneous tests that kids get today. No, something has changed. Of course acknowledging this doesn't fit any of the elite's agenda, so it is ignored, while instead we hear fairy tales about "climate change."
    , @dfordoom

    I think maybe one out of every ten kids my son knows has either a peanut or gluten allergy.
     
    It's more likely that one out of every ten kids my son knows has a fruitcake mother who has convinced herself that little Timmy has either a peanut or gluten allergy.

    We've become completely neurotic about food. And it gets worse when the neuroticism is combined with virtue signaling.
  141. @Desiderius
    It could do both, depending on the competence of the vaccination system. Prudence would dictate not taking the latter for granted.

    Sure, you need competence and eternal vigilance in everything or civilization falls apart. The natural state of things is entropy – you have to fight the good fight every day or else it all goes to hell.

    But these fears are exaggerated. Maybe a “bad” batch of vaccine might not confer immunity but it’s not going to make your kid autistic – there is zero basis for that belief. Ensuring a safe vaccine supply is a lot cheaper and easier than burying your kids or taking care of thousands of people in iron lungs for the rest of their life. The “anti-vaxxer” nuts are just too young to remember a time when deadly epidemics would sweep the land.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    You have to wonder what the anti-vaxxers will say when we have an effective vaccine for HIV. Imagine pitting the gay AIDS activists against the anti-vaxxer nuts.
    , @Alden
    Anti vaccine is just another dangerous and detrimental liberal fad.
    , @densa
    Anti-vaxxers? Please, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Mom, apple pie and vaccination. Does anyone bother to update their software? Sometimes vaccination is good. Letting the vaccine industrial complex mandate an unending stream of new vaccinations for everyone is a horrible idea. It's not even good capitalism, let alone good medicine.

    And, there is plenty of basis to believe the epidemic of autism may be caused, at least in part, by vaccination. You need to widen your information base to include someone not being paid by Bill Gates. But I promise not to stink up Sailor's thread with anymore of this stuff.
    , @Desiderius
    No, there is a deadly epidemic sweeping the land and the so-called experts and elites are totally out to lunch.
  142. @istevefan

    (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
     
    Was that the assumption, or was it that a significant part of the population would not live much beyond their age of retirement? You can offer lifetime guarantees loosely when the lifetimes are not so long.

    Both.

  143. @Moses
    Why are fertility rates lower? I’ll throw in my $.02:

    - Feminism brainwashed women into thinking soul-crushing cubicle drudgery for a faceless corporation is more fulfilling than having a family. By the time women figure it out they’re barren.

    - Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)

    - High taxes push down fertility for responsible taxpayers, transfer payments jack fertility for underclass

    - More diversity raises housing costs as Whites flee for “good schools”

    - Young ppl taught that abortion is no biggie, just a blob of cells

    - Extended families spread across geography, aunts, uncles, grandparents unable to help out

    There’s more. You get the idea.

    well, well, well, a man who seems to be under 50 and has children. It’s sooooo refreshing to hear from a man who isn’t 90 years old and still thinks in terms of 1955 housing, utility property tax costs, wages and the days when 4 kids could crowd up on a single bench type back seat. I doubt most of the codgers ranting about women who”refuse” to have children even have grandchildren. If they did, they would know about why more than 2 kids families need those big SUVs. Of course, never having been parents or grandparents, they don’t realize that parents often drive with more than their own kids in the car.

    Sometimes, actually often, the ignorance about the realities of raising children on this site by the ancient bachelors is unbelievable.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    It's hard to think of a single incentive for having children right now in most of the West. There are still many who would call any such rational accounting crass or even disgusting, but then they're rarely around to pitch in when the going gets desperate. Bootstraps and our sainted ancestors and whatnot.
    , @Anonymous
    The question is why all those things are necessary. There's no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids. "SUV" is an artificial concept created by car marketers that has only become mainstream in the past 20 years. People were having lots more kids before they'd ever heard of SUVs.

    The reality is that these various material and monetary costs do not reflect the real reason and cost of having kids. The real cost is women's expectations and demands. In the 1950s, the median age at which women got married was 20. A woman typically got married to the first boy or to one of the first few boys she would date, and he would be someone from her town, high school, or church. Women generally did not go to college, and divorce was frowned upon. The family typically owned one car, which the father took to work everyday while the wife was stuck at home all day, and they lived in a suburban house which was quite small by contemporary standards.

    Women's expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen. A woman today is not going to marry at 20 to the nice boy from church when she can go to college and meet boys from all over the state and country. And she's less likely to marry the nice boy from English 101 when maybe she'll go to law school and meet some ambitious law student who's going places or some high powered lawyer or law partner. Or maybe she'll move to the big city after college and work in media or publishing and meet some media mogul or investment banker. Etc. Women today have independent higher education and career opportunities, and expectations and demands have risen accordingly. The groups with high fertility rates today, like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Mormons, etc., are groups which eschew higher education and careers for women and whose women do not have higher expectations and demands.
  144. @Anon

    I’m starting to wonder if this recent downturn of 2015-2018 is less due to the economy than to the Unhappiness Explosion of the Late Obama Age Collapse, which seems to be hitting younger women hardest.
     
    I think rapid onset gender dysphoria explains the numbers. Those "young women" have turned their vaginas into "straplesses" (or "frontpoles"). Of course they cannot have children. They are men. Actual, real men.

    Most of the surgical trannies are men turned into women.

  145. @Jack D
    Sure, you need competence and eternal vigilance in everything or civilization falls apart. The natural state of things is entropy - you have to fight the good fight every day or else it all goes to hell.

    But these fears are exaggerated. Maybe a "bad" batch of vaccine might not confer immunity but it's not going to make your kid autistic - there is zero basis for that belief. Ensuring a safe vaccine supply is a lot cheaper and easier than burying your kids or taking care of thousands of people in iron lungs for the rest of their life. The "anti-vaxxer" nuts are just too young to remember a time when deadly epidemics would sweep the land.

    You have to wonder what the anti-vaxxers will say when we have an effective vaccine for HIV. Imagine pitting the gay AIDS activists against the anti-vaxxer nuts.

  146. @Daniel Chieh

    It’s impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd
     
    With a bit of patience and time, its entirely possible to grow a new herd of cows. Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics, this suggests a reduction, not an improvement, in cattle fitness from the "old ways" on levels approaching disturbing.

    Of course it’s not just one or the other but on the fatherhood side the process is quick and relatively inexpensive – in one year you can change the paternity of all of the newborn calves on your farm, whereas making changes on the maternal side is a much longer and more expensive process. Nevertheless over the long terms changes are made. For example, Holstein cows (the black and white ones) are now over 90% of American dairy cattle, rising from 0% in 1852 because they are the breed that offer the best economics (milk production vs feed and other costs) and almost all the other breeds have been driven out of the market. Farm economics are ruthless and unsentimental.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Actually, Jerseys are making something of a comeback. Better components (butterfat and protein) and due to small size, you can milk more of them for the same amount of feed and land. Some of the multi-family farms have switched to them.
  147. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    This looks like a preemptive workaround for when the Roberts Court eliminates Affirmative Action.

    If you don’t mind my asking, were there any anti affirmative action lawsuits filed recently? Its my bete noire and I haven’t seen any. As long as ADL AJC has one dollar and there is one jewish attorney in the country, affirmative action will stand forever.

  148. @Jack D
    Sure, you need competence and eternal vigilance in everything or civilization falls apart. The natural state of things is entropy - you have to fight the good fight every day or else it all goes to hell.

    But these fears are exaggerated. Maybe a "bad" batch of vaccine might not confer immunity but it's not going to make your kid autistic - there is zero basis for that belief. Ensuring a safe vaccine supply is a lot cheaper and easier than burying your kids or taking care of thousands of people in iron lungs for the rest of their life. The "anti-vaxxer" nuts are just too young to remember a time when deadly epidemics would sweep the land.

    Anti vaccine is just another dangerous and detrimental liberal fad.

  149. @El Dato
    How the Western Diet Has Derailed Our Evolution: Burgers and fries have nearly killed our ancestral microbiome.

    And once it's gone, it's SERIOUSLY gone.

    Like, rainforest gone.

    You child won't have it either.

    Barely a mention of the actual destroyer of gut microbiomes – the widespread use of antibiotics, which are the metabolic equivalent of dropping a 2000lb bomb on a village because one of its 1000 inhabitants wrote a nasty blog post.

    Perinatal antibiotic use (for things like ear infections) alter the infant’s gut and surface microbiome in ways that are not remedied by the age of 7 (especially if the kid is subsequently fed a low-fibre, high-sugar diet).

    The impact of diet is second-order: the SAD/SWD preferentially encourages growth of ‘bad’ bacteria, and so the microbiome gets tilted towards metabolic dysfunction. In the normal course of events, ‘bad’ bacteria are a minority and compete for position with this slight advantage due to ‘poor’ host diet: once the antibiotic MOAB hits the village and the earth is scorched, those ‘bad’ bacteria can overgrow without competition.

    And those ‘bad’ bacteria? They also express a range of chemical signals that drive cravings for sugars, affect mood, and do a range of other things to the host. They also signal each other (quorum signalling – a fascinating mechanism for communication within and between bacterial species) and engage in what appears to be joint strategies.

    (I put ‘bad’ in scare quotes because the bacteria have no intention or agency; they are generally not seeking to do us harm… they prefer sugary shit, ask for it chemically, and we comply – to our metabolic cost).

    When I first heard about the ‘paleo’ nonsense, my response was that gut biota evolve over timescales measured in weeks, not millennia; that they drive system-wide behaviour; that (very) high fibre diets (especially high insoluble fibre) was more important than macronutrient structure. I wrote a comment to that effect on Mark’s Daily Apple… no swears, no name-calling, none of my usual invective… it didn’t pass the scrutineers.

    The appropriate countermeasure is “Weed, seed and feed” – rehab the gut in stages… first stage is to eat in ways that starve baddies… then eat in ways that introduce good guys… then feed the good guys what they want. No pharma products required.

  150. @HammerJack
    Feature not bug. Haven't you been reading the NYT? We have to make room for the billions of Africans on the way. O Brave New World...

    But what about all the carbon footprints?!?!?!?!?!?!

  151. @Alden
    well, well, well, a man who seems to be under 50 and has children. It's sooooo refreshing to hear from a man who isn't 90 years old and still thinks in terms of 1955 housing, utility property tax costs, wages and the days when 4 kids could crowd up on a single bench type back seat. I doubt most of the codgers ranting about women who"refuse" to have children even have grandchildren. If they did, they would know about why more than 2 kids families need those big SUVs. Of course, never having been parents or grandparents, they don't realize that parents often drive with more than their own kids in the car.

    Sometimes, actually often, the ignorance about the realities of raising children on this site by the ancient bachelors is unbelievable.

    It’s hard to think of a single incentive for having children right now in most of the West. There are still many who would call any such rational accounting crass or even disgusting, but then they’re rarely around to pitch in when the going gets desperate. Bootstraps and our sainted ancestors and whatnot.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    It’s hard to think of a single incentive for having children right now in most of the West.
     
    It's what life does.

    You want to be a rock, that's your business.
  152. @Jack D
    Oh, absolutely. It's impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd (very expensive) but you can improve the genetics (milk production, etc.) of your herd just by buying sperm from a prize winning bull with a proven track record. And you don't have to keep a dangerous bull around your farm. There are some old fashioned or smaller farmers like Buzz's friend who still keep bulls but 80% of dairy cattle are produced thru AI.

    Farmers breed their best cows. If the best cows have a female calf every 2 years, then the entire herd will soon be at top productivity. By now, most of the low producing sickly female genes have been bred out of most herds. Both dairy and beef cattle are more like living robots than natural animals any more. Farm animal genetics and breeding are amazing.

  153. @Moses
    Why are fertility rates lower? I’ll throw in my $.02:

    - Feminism brainwashed women into thinking soul-crushing cubicle drudgery for a faceless corporation is more fulfilling than having a family. By the time women figure it out they’re barren.

    - Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)

    - High taxes push down fertility for responsible taxpayers, transfer payments jack fertility for underclass

    - More diversity raises housing costs as Whites flee for “good schools”

    - Young ppl taught that abortion is no biggie, just a blob of cells

    - Extended families spread across geography, aunts, uncles, grandparents unable to help out

    There’s more. You get the idea.

    Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)

    Most of your points are valid but this one is ridiculous. You don’t decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat. Assuming your kids are somewhat spaced out in age, you will keeping handing them down – the oldest is in a booster seat (or just the regular seat). His sister has inherited his toddler seat and his baby brother has inherited his infant seat. After a couple of years they will each graduate to the next step up but you only need one of each.

    Getting all of those kids buckled into all of those seats is a pain in the ass but that’s just how it goes. It’s the same as putting them in snow suits. You know that the minute that you have finished doing up all the million zippers and snaps and buttons and boots and hats, the kid is going to want to go to the bathroom and you are going to need to repeat the whole process. But that’s not a reason not to have kids either.

    Most people are products of their society. If people in your society, your friends and relatives, have lots of kids, you will too – gotta keep up with the Joneses. Car seats be damned. Do you think the Mac Daddies in the ghetto and the Hasids in Monsey give a damn about car seats? But if none of your friends have kids or maybe just one, then there is no shortage of excuses for why you shouldn’t have any either.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Its also the size of the car to accommodate all those car seats and seat belts. I put 4 seatbelts in the back seat of my small size sedan for other kids I drove around. 2 parents, 3 kids means 5 seat belts. But if you're driving around lost of kids, you need a bigger car. Suburban parents are car poolers The hasids in Los Angeles all seem to have $80,000 big new 8 passenger SUVs. Of course their incomes are earned in ways not available to most Americans.

    It's not just the car seats. It all adds up. Most schools require laptops. And the homework burden expands every year which means color printers always working. No waiting for payday to get a new printer. Another thing is that in so many areas of the country its difficult if not impossible for teens to get jobs, even baby sitting and yard work as all those jobs are filled by immigrants. Cities have buses, but they are dangerous for White kids and unpleasant especially for girls. Suburbs generally don't have very useful bus service. Everything combines to make it more and more difficult even for 100,000k families to have more than 2 children, even the open plan houses with no privacy or coherent areas for different activities. For instance, a big family needs not a real dining room, but some kind of coherent planned space adjacent to the kitchen for a dining table that accommodates everyone. Many new houses, even the 4,000 sq ft ones, don't have that. People are supposed to sit at the counter and look at the mess while eating dinner.

    People who grew up in big families and raised big families know the problems. There are many. The solution to most of those problems is money money money and more money. Buy a house in the expensive safe areas of a big city and kids can get to their private schools on public transit. Buy a house in a suburban area with "good" public schools and hire someone to drive them around and remodel the house to allow for different activities in the common areas. The Hasid solution of crowding 3 kids of different ages in 10 by 10 bedrooms isn't for everyone but is the usual thing for big families.
    , @MC
    I don't think it's about the car seat, it's about a) the way the ever-bulkier car seats make you feel like you need a bigger car, and b) what an utter nightmare it is just to get 2-3 kids into the car and buckled into some state-mandated contraption (the laws require them at older and older ages), when in times past only the baby would have needed one, and the other kids would have simple seat belts they could put on themselves.

    Perhaps it isn't logical to weight such things so heavily, but human beings make decisions about whether to have more kids based in part on a gut feeling about how easy or hard parenting seems. Little inconveniences like these add up.
    , @Moses

    You don’t decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat.
     
    It's not about the $100 car seat. It's about car seat capacity and size of car you must buy to accommodate more than 2 kids. Many states mandate that children up to age of 8 must sit in a state-approved seat.

    A regular sedan can fit 2 car seats in the back. In the old days you could shove 4 kids back there in a few seconds. Now if you have more than 2 kids under 8 you have to buy a car with a second back seat row. That means a Dodge Caravan at least. Try climbing to the very back row of a Dodge Caravan to strap in a kid in freezing cold, then doing same in the row behind the driver. It is a massive pain in the ass.

    Heaven forbid you have 4 children under age 8. Then even a Dodge Caravan may not be good enough. Not all seating spots are suitable for a car seat because some spots lack the steel anchor (and forget about using the seat belt to anchor the seat -- it's theoretically possible but with inertia seat belts a hair-pulling exercise in frustration).

    Ever rent a car with car seats? The charges/day are outrageous.

    There is even a whole website dedicated to reviewing car models suitability for car seats and children - https://thecarseatlady.com/ . I'm quite familar with it.

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families. It also means that one of their cars (assuming mom and dad each have a car) is no longer able to accommodate the whole family. So some families upgrade to 2 SUVs or minivans.

    It ain't cheap.

    Incentives matter. Car seat laws force families to spend a lot of marginal money for more than 2 children.

    There is NO DOUBT in my mind that car seat laws prevent a lot of families for going for that third child.

  154. @Lot
    Flight from diversity chaos has so completely distorted residential patterns you cannot really compare.

    Take 1960 USA, increase that population to 320 million through natural increase, and I don’t think most people would find things crowded.

    In general people are living in less dense areas than they’d like due to bad policy. Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools. The few dense urban areas that don’t have serious crime and school problems are extremely expensive due to high unmet demand.

    This. The Sun People attitude towards common areas, the outdoors, littering, tolerating crime, and so on means that space lost to them is truly lost.

  155. @Hypnotoad666
    I tried "Almond Milk" once.

    I would vote to label it as: "Disgusting Non-Milk Drink." That would be truth in advertising.

    Try Macadamia milk. I don’t go in for milky coffees (doppio espresso, twice, each morning), but a flat white made with MacMilk is like a dessert.

    As a Kiwi my first 7 years of life involved vast amounts of unpasteurised in-homogenised milk, so I love the taste of full-cream milk – but Macadamia milk is some superb shit. (When we got to the middle of Straya in 1972, milk was hard to come buy… my parents tried powdered milk but that was awful).

  156. @densa
    Spot on, and I can no longer believe it's an accident. Children are made sick by vaccination, then the illnesses caused are treated with drugs. No attention is made to the healthcare system's uncanny ability to create expensive longterm disease. Feature, not a bug. No attention is paid to what used to be called environment, which would include the invisible pollution of technology. Global warming. Climate change. Global warming. Climate change. Nothing else is of consequence.

    Another naive idiot who believes that thousands of deaths yearly from diptheria scarlett fever, whooping cough and polio are a good thing and that global warming is real.

    Shouldn’t you be posting on Salon and Huffington with all the other brainwashed liberal morons?

  157. @El Dato
    OT 2:

    French not amused by US pressure to withdraw Cannes award from ‘racist, misogynist’ Alain Delon

    “Alain is an old, depressed ex-movie star who goes on TV shows and spouts misogynistic and homophobic insults,” actress Carole Raphaelle Davis, the co-founder of #MeToo France, told the Daily Beast. “Cannes should ditch the old white guy syndrome and honor a woman, not a sexist homophobe.”

     

    According to Wikipedia: "In 1978, Davis posed for Playboy. In 1980, she posed for Penthouse magazine under the name Tamara Kapitas, becoming Penthouse Pet of the Month in January 1980 and a runner-up for Pet of the Year in 1981. ... Davis is also a writer. She has written a series of articles on anti-Semitism in Europe for The Jewish Journal. As a novelist, she is the author of The Diary of Jinky, Dog of a Hollywood Wife, a non-fiction humour book about Hollywood excess and human status anxiety written from the point of view of a death-row dog."

    Activist Melissa Silverstein of Women and Hollywood was likewise outraged, saying that Delon “hits every single button embodying everyone in the world agrees are not values we want to have anymore.”

    “You’d think French people would be up in arms about this. It is so tone-deaf,” she added.
     
    Okay.

    Her Twitter is full of oppressed minority issue of the day, just with more movie context. Including oppressed mothers in the movie industry.

    #MeToo gangsters trying to deplatform, keep Alain Delon from getting his lifetime achievement award at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Why? Because has expressed misogynist (according to #metoo) and anti-immigration views.
    Thanks for the links.
    https://www.rt.com/news/459435-cannes-delon-award-petition/

  158. @Hypnotoad666

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.
     
    A very real and systemic phenomenon is going on that is way beyond the endemic complaints about "kids today" or simple nostalgia. The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital "animal spirits" of the West.

    It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits -- both biological and cultural -- and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And another big problem with getting a grip on the issue is the "Sapir-Worf" problem: No one has yet coined a term or phrase that can tie all the disparate strands together into a single intelligible phenomenon.

    In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.


    Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year. This means, for example, that a 60-year-old man in 2004 had testosterone levels 17% lower than those of a 60-year-old in 1987. Another study of Danish men produced similar findings, with double-digit declines among men born in the 1960s compared to those born in the 1920s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#6e3a81908b7f
     

    The most cooperative guy who ever lived opens his trap and bothers you about alternate techniques, the most opposition-defiant disorder woman nods her head and does it (even her grumbling is not out loud). From Metternich on, even system, consciously or otherwise, prefers female subordinates.

  159. @Jack D

    A declining population is not always bad, neither is a growing one always good.
     
    Yes and no. It depends in part who's growing and who is declining. In places like Turkey and Iran, the high IQ Westernized urban population declined and the low IQ religious fundamentalist population from the countryside grew, and the results were not good.

    In modern Western nations, a lot of our institutions (e.g. the social security system) were built on assumptions that the population would keep growing as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Even wars did little to slow population growth. Not just 19th century wars (Napoleon bragged that the harlots of Paris could replace all of his combat losses in one night) but even nuking Hiroshima (and all the other massive losses of WWII) only caused a tiny blip in the population growth of Japan. But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year - no one really has any experience with what this does to a society (though on an actuarial basis it's clearly not good for funding pension systems).

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded and maybe were better places to live when their populations were smaller, so it would not be the worst thing in the world for Japan to have the population that it had in 1970. But this also ignores the composition of the population - having 100 million people 1/3 of whom are over 65 and 1/8 of whom are under 14 is not the same as vice versa.

    But now were are confronted for the first time in the modern era with populations that are actually declining (and aging) year after year

    Boomers were the first generation to have little experience with a noticeable infant mortality rate while their parents did have such experience, which is an unmentioned, perhaps even unthought of, factor in declining family size.

    You could argue that places like Japan (Italy, etc.) are already overcrowded

    Italy, at least, is not overcrowded, it’s underhoused and underemployed. This is also true many areas in the US to a somewhat lesser extent (so far).

    though on an actuarial basis it’s clearly not good for funding pension systems

    No realistic amount of economic or population growth could cover the pensions promised to public employees, and many private ones.

  160. @Jack D
    Sure, you need competence and eternal vigilance in everything or civilization falls apart. The natural state of things is entropy - you have to fight the good fight every day or else it all goes to hell.

    But these fears are exaggerated. Maybe a "bad" batch of vaccine might not confer immunity but it's not going to make your kid autistic - there is zero basis for that belief. Ensuring a safe vaccine supply is a lot cheaper and easier than burying your kids or taking care of thousands of people in iron lungs for the rest of their life. The "anti-vaxxer" nuts are just too young to remember a time when deadly epidemics would sweep the land.

    Anti-vaxxers? Please, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Mom, apple pie and vaccination. Does anyone bother to update their software? Sometimes vaccination is good. Letting the vaccine industrial complex mandate an unending stream of new vaccinations for everyone is a horrible idea. It’s not even good capitalism, let alone good medicine.

    And, there is plenty of basis to believe the epidemic of autism may be caused, at least in part, by vaccination. You need to widen your information base to include someone not being paid by Bill Gates. But I promise not to stink up Sailor’s thread with anymore of this stuff.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    The climber Stephen Venables had a bright, healthy, happy son, then he had the MMR jab and immediately started to deteriorate. It's in his book A Slender Thread.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Venables

    "Venables is also the father of the only known child in the UK to be diagnosed with both autism and leukaemia. His son, Ollie (born June 1991), was diagnosed with autism aged two and leukaemia aged four. After several cancer-free years, he developed a brain tumour and died, aged twelve years old. "
  161. AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.

    Heh. That’s because the only thing cheaper than immigrant labor is adolescent family labor.

  162. @Desiderius
    It could do both, depending on the competence of the vaccination system. Prudence would dictate not taking the latter for granted.

    Exactly. Mandating removes the prudence. Profits, ho.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, mandating protects the community.

    It also does introduce moral hazard, with the attendant danger of becoming virulent among a demoralized populace.
  163. @Moses
    Why are fertility rates lower? I’ll throw in my $.02:

    - Feminism brainwashed women into thinking soul-crushing cubicle drudgery for a faceless corporation is more fulfilling than having a family. By the time women figure it out they’re barren.

    - Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)

    - High taxes push down fertility for responsible taxpayers, transfer payments jack fertility for underclass

    - More diversity raises housing costs as Whites flee for “good schools”

    - Young ppl taught that abortion is no biggie, just a blob of cells

    - Extended families spread across geography, aunts, uncles, grandparents unable to help out

    There’s more. You get the idea.

    Other issues:

    Child care costs, even with government help, are so expensive that it is extremely difficult to have more than one kid in day care.

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.

    Housing costs jump up enormously as the family size increases. This is on top of the massive amounts of money spent on living in an area with nice schools.

    So you have all these massive extra expenses, and the young families have to deal with this when they have record setting student loans.

    On top of this, the parents are worried about how they will pay for their own kids’ college.

    A number of years ago Ms. Warren and her daughter showed that a middle class family today with two workers has less disposable income than a middle class family a generation earlier with one income. Steve mentioned the extra housing costs in one of his posts.

    Ms. Warren also pointed out the extra costs of education (summer and part time jobs don’t pay for school anymore), healthcare (insurance costs more than my first job paid), and transportation (two workers need at least two cars). Add child care to the mix, and the middle class is dying fast.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Moses
    Another biggie is cost of university. I know many families who said they'd like to have more children but are put off by the cost of sending them to college.

    College tuition is a crime. Easy gubmint money meant colleges had a free hand to raise tuition and capture nearly all the economic value conferred by a degree. In many cases the cost of a college education exceeds its value.
    , @dfordoom

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.
     
    But that's a good thing surely?

    The idea that it is impossible for people to have kids unless they can get complete strangers to raise the kids for them is a symptom of a very unhealthy society.

    Child care should be abolished. Use the money saved to give tax relief to one-income families so child care can be done by the kids' own mothers.
  164. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    It’s impossible to improve the genetics of your cattle on the female side without buying a whole new herd
     
    With a bit of patience and time, its entirely possible to grow a new herd of cows. Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics, this suggests a reduction, not an improvement, in cattle fitness from the "old ways" on levels approaching disturbing.

    Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics

    I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but the cow breeding being discussed looks for bulls that sire high producing daughters. For example, see https://hoards.com/article-4750-bulls-dont-do-it-better.html

    A typical metric is Net Merit $: https://hoards.com/article-23717-net-merit-$-index-updated-to-include-health-traits.html

    P.S. One disadvantage of the single bull approach is inbreeding over time. Does anyone know how the AI breeders deal with that?

    • Replies: @Alden
    They don't use one bull for every cow. They have a catalogue of different bulls and pick the best sperm for each cow. Size is one consideration. The semen catalogue has the whole history of the dams of the bulls because female genes are the most important in dairy cows. It's not complicated. The smallest dairy farmers do this all every time they breed a cow. They pick the semen because of the bull's dams.
    , @Paleo Liberal
    I would hope there are multiple bulls which are genetically diverse.

    But that is not a given.

    Consider if you please the Siberian Husky. Essentially this dog was a mix of whatever dogs were in Chukchi eons ago, and with some selective breeding they got fast and strong sled pullers. The Samoyed part of Siberia bred for strength, so the Samoyed is slower but substantially bigger and stronger than the Husky.

    At one point a small subset of the Huskies from Chukchi made it to Alaska for sledding. So the Siberian Huskies in Alaska were genetically less diverse and more inbred.

    After the famous Diphtheria run on which the Iditarod is based, many folks in the main part of the US wanted Huskies. The breeder who bred the famous Balto and Togo dogs was the most sought after. He wound up selling his dogs south. So now, every Husky in the Lower 48 is descended from dogs from one breeder in Alaska, and his dogs were from a subset of dogs brought to Alaska from Siberia.

    By this point the Husky is pretty much worthless as a sled dog compared to the Huskies of yore. There are sled races in the Lower 48, but those Huskies weren’t really selectively bred for pulling. Meanwhile in Alaska a new breed of sled dog is being bred, the Alaskan Husky, which is a combination of several different breeds such as Husky, Malamute, etc.

    What does this have to do with cows?

    The selective breeding using only the few prize bulls will have a tendency toward inbreeding. The cows will get better and better at milk production until they don’t. Then something will happen. Maybe breeders will mix in different breeds, or maybe a disease will wipe out all the cattle.

    The tendency away from genetic diversity and towards specialization is dangerous. Compare the Andes, Ireland and modern Idaho. In the Andes, they have many different types of potatoes depending on the altitude, sun vs. shade, soil, etc. The same farmer may grow a dozen varieties. If there is a disease which wipes out one variety of potato, no big deal.

    In Ireland, the Powers That Be decided there was one optimal variety of potato. So that is all that was grown. It was the perfect potato until it wasn’t.

    These days MacDonalds, BK, Wendy’s, etc have all decided that the perfect potato for French fries is the Russet potato. Nothing else will do. That is also the most popular potato in grocery stores.

    So now the vast, vast majority of potatoes in the US are
    one variety, and the same with milk cows.

    I wonder if there is any possibility of any problems in the future.

    , @Jack D
    Having a single bull that you own "cover" all of your cows leads to even less diversity. When you order AI sperm you can order from a variety of (high producing) sires. I think farmers like to order a variety just in case one bull has some hidden weakness in his bloodline (which you wouldn't want to affect your whole herd) and just to see which one works better on his farm. On paper two bulls may have similar metrics but maybe in your particular conditions one is better than the other. You also don't want to keep breeding multiple generations back to the same bull because this is likely to bring out genetic diseases. Better to mix it up. AI lets you do this which is why it now has an 80% market share. Modern farmers have each cow tracked and do elaborate sabermetrics.
  165. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D
    Vaccination doesn't make you sick - it prevents horrible diseases that used to kill or cripple millions.

    So the drug companies are lying in their own documents and the government handed out millions in compensation because of fraud. Okay.
    Vaccination doesn’t make “you” specifically well, it (unless it’s yet another bad batch or yet another FDA naptime or yet another unnecessary overmedicalization) makes the People more protected against targeted diseases. In the pat children’s version you offer there are still outlier victims but their ailment is (we’re still in the official version here) acceptable collateral damage. Hence compensation payments and warnings.
    Public health was a scheme to make totalitarianism natural and inevitable, and neither it nor a vaccination regime would be completely bad if you had a relatively homogeneous and orderly society with sovereign borders. Assuming vaccines are responsibly prepared and prescribed, they still have a less steep climb if they are for a Swiss canton and not all of Africa. We can’t be the world’s doctor and it is an abdication of government responsibility to use taxpaying citizens as guinea pigs for the virulence of every little variation of humanity that wants to collect welfare from us. Anti-vaxxer hysteria is like Nazi-finding and complaining about virgins, it’s a dodge of a simple issue.

  166. @Jack D

    Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)
     
    Most of your points are valid but this one is ridiculous. You don't decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat. Assuming your kids are somewhat spaced out in age, you will keeping handing them down - the oldest is in a booster seat (or just the regular seat). His sister has inherited his toddler seat and his baby brother has inherited his infant seat. After a couple of years they will each graduate to the next step up but you only need one of each.

    Getting all of those kids buckled into all of those seats is a pain in the ass but that's just how it goes. It's the same as putting them in snow suits. You know that the minute that you have finished doing up all the million zippers and snaps and buttons and boots and hats, the kid is going to want to go to the bathroom and you are going to need to repeat the whole process. But that's not a reason not to have kids either.

    Most people are products of their society. If people in your society, your friends and relatives, have lots of kids, you will too - gotta keep up with the Joneses. Car seats be damned. Do you think the Mac Daddies in the ghetto and the Hasids in Monsey give a damn about car seats? But if none of your friends have kids or maybe just one, then there is no shortage of excuses for why you shouldn't have any either.

    Its also the size of the car to accommodate all those car seats and seat belts. I put 4 seatbelts in the back seat of my small size sedan for other kids I drove around. 2 parents, 3 kids means 5 seat belts. But if you’re driving around lost of kids, you need a bigger car. Suburban parents are car poolers The hasids in Los Angeles all seem to have $80,000 big new 8 passenger SUVs. Of course their incomes are earned in ways not available to most Americans.

    It’s not just the car seats. It all adds up. Most schools require laptops. And the homework burden expands every year which means color printers always working. No waiting for payday to get a new printer. Another thing is that in so many areas of the country its difficult if not impossible for teens to get jobs, even baby sitting and yard work as all those jobs are filled by immigrants. Cities have buses, but they are dangerous for White kids and unpleasant especially for girls. Suburbs generally don’t have very useful bus service. Everything combines to make it more and more difficult even for 100,000k families to have more than 2 children, even the open plan houses with no privacy or coherent areas for different activities. For instance, a big family needs not a real dining room, but some kind of coherent planned space adjacent to the kitchen for a dining table that accommodates everyone. Many new houses, even the 4,000 sq ft ones, don’t have that. People are supposed to sit at the counter and look at the mess while eating dinner.

    People who grew up in big families and raised big families know the problems. There are many. The solution to most of those problems is money money money and more money. Buy a house in the expensive safe areas of a big city and kids can get to their private schools on public transit. Buy a house in a suburban area with “good” public schools and hire someone to drive them around and remodel the house to allow for different activities in the common areas. The Hasid solution of crowding 3 kids of different ages in 10 by 10 bedrooms isn’t for everyone but is the usual thing for big families.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Everything combines to make it more and more difficult even for 100,000k families to have more than 2 children, even the open plan houses with no privacy or coherent areas for different activities.

    Indeed. Open Floorplan is like Open Borders: a bad idea for everybody except the rich.

  167. @res

    Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics
     
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but the cow breeding being discussed looks for bulls that sire high producing daughters. For example, see https://hoards.com/article-4750-bulls-dont-do-it-better.html

    A typical metric is Net Merit $: https://hoards.com/article-23717-net-merit-$-index-updated-to-include-health-traits.html

    https://cms-static.wehaacdn.com/hoards-com/images/CDCB-Traits-chart.14191.jpg

    P.S. One disadvantage of the single bull approach is inbreeding over time. Does anyone know how the AI breeders deal with that?

    They don’t use one bull for every cow. They have a catalogue of different bulls and pick the best sperm for each cow. Size is one consideration. The semen catalogue has the whole history of the dams of the bulls because female genes are the most important in dairy cows. It’s not complicated. The smallest dairy farmers do this all every time they breed a cow. They pick the semen because of the bull’s dams.

  168. @theMann
    I am certain the immediate cause is decline in sperm motility, which is systematic in at least two species, humans and canines.


    Of course, that is still an effect, not the cause. Take your pick: diet, disease, vaccine toxicity accumulation, females wee-weeing estrogen into the water supply, EM exposure due to the electronic "bath" we all live in, toxic chemical accumulation, radiation poisoning at a low, but persistent, level.

    That is a lot of possibilities, but my guess is estrogen + Roundup + EM radiation is bad for guys, regardless of species.

    Also another issue: promiscuity is bad for females. The more random guys blast jazz into them, the more health issues they are likely to have.

    Roissy was saying sunscreen.

    • Replies: @theMann
    Well, something really serious is going on, and we need to figure out what. Of course, that requires data collection and given the catastrophic corruption of the "Scientific Community" from Scientists to paid whores, on every conceivable issue, I don't think we are going to get the best data.
  169. @theMann
    I am certain the immediate cause is decline in sperm motility, which is systematic in at least two species, humans and canines.


    Of course, that is still an effect, not the cause. Take your pick: diet, disease, vaccine toxicity accumulation, females wee-weeing estrogen into the water supply, EM exposure due to the electronic "bath" we all live in, toxic chemical accumulation, radiation poisoning at a low, but persistent, level.

    That is a lot of possibilities, but my guess is estrogen + Roundup + EM radiation is bad for guys, regardless of species.

    Also another issue: promiscuity is bad for females. The more random guys blast jazz into them, the more health issues they are likely to have.

    Enough with the anti vaccine crap. Vaccines are everywhere and have been for decades. Vaccination rates in even the poorest African countries are reasonably high. And yet some places have much lower fertility rates than others. It happens that vaccines have nothing to do with tfr.

    Sadly the establishment lies about all sorts of things. Men can be women. Black sat scores are the result of institutional racism. People with Y chromosomes are women with naturally high testosterone. Climate change means we must take in climate refugees. So people are easily led to assume that the establishment is also lying about vaccines.

    Well they are not. Vaccines greatly reduce dangerous epidemics. They don’t do anything else. They don’t make you autistic or your sperm slow. I don’t care about any of the supposedly toxic materials they inject with the vaccine. It’s in microscopic quantities anyways and people used to consume copious amounts of all of those toxins all the while the west had a very high fertility rate. People used to think mercury was a medical cure and eat it by spoonfuls. Obviously that’s bad in the long term but the fertility rate while they were doing this in the 18th century was furiously high.

  170. @LondonBob
    I think we have only scratched the surface of the catastrophic effect diversity has had on society (Robert Putnam and his analysis) nor the economic impact such that people just can't afford a reasonable sized property in a reasonable area with reasonable schools.

    “people just can’t afford a reasonable sized property in a reasonable area with reasonable schools”

    Agreed. White Brits in London, say, have to be either mad, wealthy or violent* to want to raise kids there. Which is why half a million got out between 2001 and 2011.

    * people tend to leave you be if you’ve demonstrated a capacity for serious violence

    (Anyone know if Roissy’s surfaced elsewhere yet?)

  171. @Desiderius
    Roissy was saying sunscreen.

    Well, something really serious is going on, and we need to figure out what. Of course, that requires data collection and given the catastrophic corruption of the “Scientific Community” from Scientists to paid whores, on every conceivable issue, I don’t think we are going to get the best data.

  172. @Lot
    Flight from diversity chaos has so completely distorted residential patterns you cannot really compare.

    Take 1960 USA, increase that population to 320 million through natural increase, and I don’t think most people would find things crowded.

    In general people are living in less dense areas than they’d like due to bad policy. Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools. The few dense urban areas that don’t have serious crime and school problems are extremely expensive due to high unmet demand.

    Polls show many suburban people would like to live in a more urban area, but they can’t because of crime/schools.

    If we had pre-60’s laws in urban areas, crime would be less of a problem. Executing convicted murderers in 5 years would probably take murders and maimings from attempted murder way down. Frankly, given the improvements in critical life-saving techniques on trauma victims due to the all the things learned in Vietnam, it’s a travesty that murder rates aren’t a fraction of what they were in the 50’s. The major symptom of the rise in violent crime rates is the tripling in aggravated assault per capita since the 50’s.

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

  173. @Tired of NOT Winning
    Unhappiness explosion. I think you might be on to something there, Steve. Everyday we turn on the news, it's nothing but bad news, because good news is not news. And we are surrounded by news, 24x7, on TV, online etc.

    I read on Zerohedge that a recent survey found that 30% of young men between the ages of 25-34 have not had sex in the past year. The number for young women are slightly lower, something like 24%. The article concluded that the reasons for men are two fold: 1) more young men than young women are living at home; and 2) young men now have a lot more distractions for their time - video games, social media, online entertainment etc.

    The hookup culture doesn't help. I know two young men in that 25-34 age group, one even has a really good job, neither are married. One is a serial monogamist not looking to get married, the other said he's having a hard time finding the right person to settle down, seems all the women he meets are only interested in "hooking up". Young women today are being fed too much narcissism and victimhood mentality. They either think they are victims of sexism, or think they can have a kid anytime they want, like in their 40's. They are trying to deny nature.

    I read on Zerohedge that a recent survey found that 30% of young men between the ages of 25-34 have not had sex in the past year. The number for young women are slightly lower, something like 24%. The article concluded that the reasons for men are two fold: 1) more young men than young women are living at home; and 2) young men now have a lot more distractions for their time – video games, social media, online entertainment etc.

    More specifically to online entertainment the free porn, add in legalized marijuana and that modern college educated available females are way too demanding. Why bother?

  174. The entire civilization is rotten in ways that make family formation unlikely. There’s the student loan crisis, which is huge, housing costs too, but I think ultimately it’s the dynamics documented well in the manosphere which drive most of this. Simply put, changes in the way people live have caused women to find fewer men suitable. Female obesity and low male death rates have imbalanced the SMV distributions between the sexes. Feminization of males, Instagram and Tinder have further undermined the male bargaining position. Why should a female 6 settle for a male 7 when she can get pumped n dumped by 9s and get 50 likes for making a duck face?

    Compared with ten years ago (when things were hardly desirable) I see far more chronically single men and more men in highly unbalanced pairings, wherein the male is markedly higher SMV than the female. Men simply can’t find suitable wives.

    We also are in the midst of a secular rise in secularization. Interestingly, the only middle class people I know with 3+ kids are regular church goers who married in college. It will take generations for this to correct itself, but in time the religious will replace those who are addicted to popular culture, porn and selfies. Everything is heritable, the population just needs time to adapt to these recent changes.

  175. @IHTG
    It'll get them too, eventually.

    Well that’ll be good news.

  176. @res

    Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics
     
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but the cow breeding being discussed looks for bulls that sire high producing daughters. For example, see https://hoards.com/article-4750-bulls-dont-do-it-better.html

    A typical metric is Net Merit $: https://hoards.com/article-23717-net-merit-$-index-updated-to-include-health-traits.html

    https://cms-static.wehaacdn.com/hoards-com/images/CDCB-Traits-chart.14191.jpg

    P.S. One disadvantage of the single bull approach is inbreeding over time. Does anyone know how the AI breeders deal with that?

    I would hope there are multiple bulls which are genetically diverse.

    But that is not a given.

    Consider if you please the Siberian Husky. Essentially this dog was a mix of whatever dogs were in Chukchi eons ago, and with some selective breeding they got fast and strong sled pullers. The Samoyed part of Siberia bred for strength, so the Samoyed is slower but substantially bigger and stronger than the Husky.

    At one point a small subset of the Huskies from Chukchi made it to Alaska for sledding. So the Siberian Huskies in Alaska were genetically less diverse and more inbred.

    After the famous Diphtheria run on which the Iditarod is based, many folks in the main part of the US wanted Huskies. The breeder who bred the famous Balto and Togo dogs was the most sought after. He wound up selling his dogs south. So now, every Husky in the Lower 48 is descended from dogs from one breeder in Alaska, and his dogs were from a subset of dogs brought to Alaska from Siberia.

    By this point the Husky is pretty much worthless as a sled dog compared to the Huskies of yore. There are sled races in the Lower 48, but those Huskies weren’t really selectively bred for pulling. Meanwhile in Alaska a new breed of sled dog is being bred, the Alaskan Husky, which is a combination of several different breeds such as Husky, Malamute, etc.

    What does this have to do with cows?

    The selective breeding using only the few prize bulls will have a tendency toward inbreeding. The cows will get better and better at milk production until they don’t. Then something will happen. Maybe breeders will mix in different breeds, or maybe a disease will wipe out all the cattle.

    The tendency away from genetic diversity and towards specialization is dangerous. Compare the Andes, Ireland and modern Idaho. In the Andes, they have many different types of potatoes depending on the altitude, sun vs. shade, soil, etc. The same farmer may grow a dozen varieties. If there is a disease which wipes out one variety of potato, no big deal.

    In Ireland, the Powers That Be decided there was one optimal variety of potato. So that is all that was grown. It was the perfect potato until it wasn’t.

    These days MacDonalds, BK, Wendy’s, etc have all decided that the perfect potato for French fries is the Russet potato. Nothing else will do. That is also the most popular potato in grocery stores.

    So now the vast, vast majority of potatoes in the US are
    one variety, and the same with milk cows.

    I wonder if there is any possibility of any problems in the future.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The worst is bananas. Bananas do not grow from seed. The familiar yellow bananas we eat (Cavendish bananas) are an infertile cross of two wild banana species which do have seeds (which make them undesirable to eat - you don't want crunchy seeds in your banana). They grow only from shoots so they are all exact clones of each other. If there is some contagious banana disease in a banana plantation, they all succumb because there is zero genetic diversity among the plants. They are not just brother and sister and cousin bananas, they are all each other's identical twin. The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel - reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas) and it's only a matter of time before the Cavendish goes.
  177. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Not to mention a myriad of autoimmune diseases, and bizarre allergies. I think maybe one out of every ten kids my son knows has either a peanut or gluten allergy.

    Yes! It is shocking that there is so little public discussion of long-term allergy trends. I can’t remember more than a kid or two with serious food allergies in my elementary school forty years ago. But today in my kids’ schools peanut allergies are commonplace, along with (as Hapalong Cassidy mentioned) allergies to gluten, eggs, food dyes, and all sorts of other stuff. I can’t believe it’s just better diagnosis; when I saw an allergist for severe seasonal allergies as a fifth-grader, he administered the same sort of subcutaneous tests that kids get today. No, something has changed. Of course acknowledging this doesn’t fit any of the elite’s agenda, so it is ignored, while instead we hear fairy tales about “climate change.”

  178. Anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    New SAT adversity score: The big losers will be blacks in middle class neighborhoods.

    That is assuming that universities use the metric at all and use it consistently.

    The metric does not affect the actual SAT score, as far as I can tell. But the graphics accompanying the announcement reveal something that I did not know: Asian SAT scores are really clipped at the top, a lot of perfect scores, and white scores are somewhat clipped. This means that “average” SAT scores for those two groups are artificially lowered and “the gap” between them and black scores is artificially decreased. The overall test should have more headroom and be harder.

    • Replies: @Anon
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/05/16/four-reasons-why-the-college-boards-new-adversity-score-is-a-bad-idea/#25c51cc66c0e

    The College Board has revealed that it will calculate an “adversity score” for every student taking the SAT. According to the Wall Street Journal, it’s an attempt to address evidence that children of wealthy, college-educated parents score higher on the SAT than less privileged students. At least in theory, the adjusted scores will help colleges more objectively evaluate the academic abilities of all applicants. The undergraduate admissions dean at Yale, one of 50 schools that participated in a test run of the new scoring system, told the Journal that it has already helped diversify the freshman class.
     
    This implies that the SAT alone does not evaluate academic ability. Is so, why don't the fix the SAT? They are saying, what? What are they saying? That a black kid got a lower score than a white kid because, uh, we don't know, but it's probably something related to his environment, so here's a single number factor you can use to adjust SAT scores?

    Yale and company probably don't really care. A third-party company is providing them legal cover to do biased admissions.
  179. OT: The SAT will now include PoCemon points!

    SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

    The SAT, the college entrance test taken by about two million students a year, is adding an “adversity score” to the test results that is intended to help admissions officers account for factors like educational or socioeconomic disadvantage that may depress students’ scores, the College Board, the company that administers the test, said Thursday.

    The Adversity Score will take into account factors like your address, so now redlined Americans can get some of theirs back.

    I had a friend who lived in inner city Detroit who had his car insurance sent to my address, because the rates were half of those in his neighborhood. Now, ghetto kids can sell their mailing address to Competitive kids to improve their Adversity Scores.

    Justice is flowing like a river today.

  180. The economics of raising children seems to hit Whites far more than Blacks or Browns. I suspect that Whites are overthinking child rearing. Too much attention to children can be as bad as a lack of attention. Look at these wealthy people who are going to going to extraordinary lengths to get their children into prestigious colleges and universities. Not one was Black.

    Then again, the support system of extended family members is no longer there. Fewer children begets fewer children. I’m a single father raising a child by myself, and the most difficult aspect is not having family members near me to help every once in awhile.

  181. Anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s probably a combination of several different factors working together, although most of these factors likely stem from the same two sources: the heretical doctrine of egalitarianism and the increasing ease of information access. Women naturally demand mates who are better than them – taller, stronger, more assertive, smarter, richer, more successful, higher on the social ladder, etc. That’s what they are attracted to in mates; consult the front cover of nearly any romantic novel if you disagree. Women want successful guys like men want hot chicks. But there are increasingly fewer of both groups in modern society. Simultaneously, white men are being put down by society to an ever greater degree, which greatly reduces their overall attractiveness in the eyes of the opposite sex. The hateful doctrine of feminism also contributes by taking some women out of the gene pool. The insularity of video game culture has a similar effect for men. Social media may also contribute by giving young people unrealistically high expectations.

    In regards to falling male status, lots of things reduce white male attractiveness as potential mates in modern society: stress from racial animus – envious, less successful minorities (mostly NAMs) and white liberal enablers blame white men for their own failures* through the promotion of various pseudosciences (stereotype threat) and blood libels (systemic racism, hate hoaxes); historical symbols of white male accomplishment are being torn down, which lowers their social ranking; males are increasingly overweight** and are, therefore, becoming much less attractive to the opposite sex; women are now getting college degrees at almost a 2 to 1 ratio compared with men, so it’s getting more difficult for females to find men whom they consider smarter than themselves; white men are increasingly saddled with enormous student loan debts, which further lowers their social ranking and future earnings potential.

    Combined with the fact that an overwhelming majority of white women have offspring with white males, despite the propaganda to the contrary, and there are increasingly fewer opportunities to reproduce for European-Americans. The only way this trend will reverse itself is if white males seize control of society by force and impose their patriarchy on everyone else; plus, they must abolish libertarian economic dogma which makes large family formation too expensive. However, I don’t think that is very likely to occur. The US is probably looking at demographic, social, and financial collapse before the end of the century. Probably China will have colonized Australia, New Zealand, and Canada by that point, and the US will be a majority minority, bankrupt and corrupt society surrounded on all sides by the PLA.

    *This is the natural outcome of any society based upon egalitarianism. Different groups are not equal – culturally, historically, and genetically. This inevitably leads to friction in any diverse society. In the US, white males will continue to outperform other demographics through shear size and natural ability. White men, despite all the diversity promotion, still won a majority of Noble Prizes last year and were over 80% of the NYT’s best selling authors, minus romantic fiction. This is breeding massive envy in other, lower-performing groups such as African-Americans, feminists, and their white liberal enablers. They were told they are equal, but it is now obvious that they are not. That’s why so many Manhattan literary agents and LA movie producers advertise for non-white material: many of them are envious POC (or white liberal enablers) who are embarrassed that white men, disproportionately republican, are so superior to their own group despite enormous racial promotion efforts to curb their success. That’s also why we see so many hate hoaxes and so much pseudoscience promotion like stereotype threat and gender wage gap: that’s the only way to explain the unequal situation if the doctrine of egalitarianism isn’t false. This has the unfortunate side effect of stoking racial animus and concomitantly increasing overall unhappiness among whites (and thus lowering birthrates as a consequence).

    **There’s a burgeoning culture of self-help among disaffected white males; curiously, these movements have also attracted appreciable numbers of disaffected young black men as well, likely because their future prospects in a feminized, highly automated society aren’t so good. MGTOW is probably the most popular example. The philosophy extols the virtues of getting rich, among other things, by ignoring women all together … which ironically is why men used to get rich in the first place. This may also explain the success of guys like Jordan Peterson to a lot of young men and perhaps even Ben Shapiro: young men like seeing their oppressors put in their place by a smart aleck like Shapiro and smart guys like Peterson give them self-help advice so they feel better about their increasingly lowly status.

  182. Anon[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    OT

    New SAT adversity score: The big losers will be blacks in middle class neighborhoods.

    That is assuming that universities use the metric at all and use it consistently.

    The metric does not affect the actual SAT score, as far as I can tell. But the graphics accompanying the announcement reveal something that I did not know: Asian SAT scores are really clipped at the top, a lot of perfect scores, and white scores are somewhat clipped. This means that "average" SAT scores for those two groups are artificially lowered and "the gap" between them and black scores is artificially decreased. The overall test should have more headroom and be harder.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/05/16/four-reasons-why-the-college-boards-new-adversity-score-is-a-bad-idea/#25c51cc66c0e

    The College Board has revealed that it will calculate an “adversity score” for every student taking the SAT. According to the Wall Street Journal, it’s an attempt to address evidence that children of wealthy, college-educated parents score higher on the SAT than less privileged students. At least in theory, the adjusted scores will help colleges more objectively evaluate the academic abilities of all applicants. The undergraduate admissions dean at Yale, one of 50 schools that participated in a test run of the new scoring system, told the Journal that it has already helped diversify the freshman class.

    This implies that the SAT alone does not evaluate academic ability. Is so, why don’t the fix the SAT? They are saying, what? What are they saying? That a black kid got a lower score than a white kid because, uh, we don’t know, but it’s probably something related to his environment, so here’s a single number factor you can use to adjust SAT scores?

    Yale and company probably don’t really care. A third-party company is providing them legal cover to do biased admissions.

  183. @Paleo Liberal
    I would hope there are multiple bulls which are genetically diverse.

    But that is not a given.

    Consider if you please the Siberian Husky. Essentially this dog was a mix of whatever dogs were in Chukchi eons ago, and with some selective breeding they got fast and strong sled pullers. The Samoyed part of Siberia bred for strength, so the Samoyed is slower but substantially bigger and stronger than the Husky.

    At one point a small subset of the Huskies from Chukchi made it to Alaska for sledding. So the Siberian Huskies in Alaska were genetically less diverse and more inbred.

    After the famous Diphtheria run on which the Iditarod is based, many folks in the main part of the US wanted Huskies. The breeder who bred the famous Balto and Togo dogs was the most sought after. He wound up selling his dogs south. So now, every Husky in the Lower 48 is descended from dogs from one breeder in Alaska, and his dogs were from a subset of dogs brought to Alaska from Siberia.

    By this point the Husky is pretty much worthless as a sled dog compared to the Huskies of yore. There are sled races in the Lower 48, but those Huskies weren’t really selectively bred for pulling. Meanwhile in Alaska a new breed of sled dog is being bred, the Alaskan Husky, which is a combination of several different breeds such as Husky, Malamute, etc.

    What does this have to do with cows?

    The selective breeding using only the few prize bulls will have a tendency toward inbreeding. The cows will get better and better at milk production until they don’t. Then something will happen. Maybe breeders will mix in different breeds, or maybe a disease will wipe out all the cattle.

    The tendency away from genetic diversity and towards specialization is dangerous. Compare the Andes, Ireland and modern Idaho. In the Andes, they have many different types of potatoes depending on the altitude, sun vs. shade, soil, etc. The same farmer may grow a dozen varieties. If there is a disease which wipes out one variety of potato, no big deal.

    In Ireland, the Powers That Be decided there was one optimal variety of potato. So that is all that was grown. It was the perfect potato until it wasn’t.

    These days MacDonalds, BK, Wendy’s, etc have all decided that the perfect potato for French fries is the Russet potato. Nothing else will do. That is also the most popular potato in grocery stores.

    So now the vast, vast majority of potatoes in the US are
    one variety, and the same with milk cows.

    I wonder if there is any possibility of any problems in the future.

    The worst is bananas. Bananas do not grow from seed. The familiar yellow bananas we eat (Cavendish bananas) are an infertile cross of two wild banana species which do have seeds (which make them undesirable to eat – you don’t want crunchy seeds in your banana). They grow only from shoots so they are all exact clones of each other. If there is some contagious banana disease in a banana plantation, they all succumb because there is zero genetic diversity among the plants. They are not just brother and sister and cousin bananas, they are all each other’s identical twin. The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel – reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas) and it’s only a matter of time before the Cavendish goes.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel – reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas)
     
    Given that Wikipedia states that the Gros Michel is still grown in Southeast Asia, I expect Oriental groceries might carry them.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    We need tariffs to protect the US banana industry!
    , @Paleo Liberal
    Oh, wow, I read up on this some.

    The problem you discuss with bananas is not a theoretical issue. The fungus that will kill all the bananas already exists and is spreading over time.

    So it is a matter of when, not if.
  184. @Anon000
    Momma, I’m leaving the mine and Coalwood and heading to a place called, um, “KAM-bridge” up in Massachusetts!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

    New score comes as college admissions decisions are under scrutiny

    The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.

    This new number, called an adversity score by college admissions officers, is calculated using 15 factors including the crime rate and poverty levels from the student’s high school and neighborhood. Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

    Fifty colleges used the score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board plans to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year.

    How colleges consider a student’s race and class in making admissions decisions is hotly contested. Many colleges, including Harvard University, say a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school. A lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard is awaiting a judge’s ruling. Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.

    The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.

    “There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,” said David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board.

     

    As Mark Soane said, “The SAT was the last bastion of objective measurement in the sea of subjectivity that makes up a college application.”

    You can add 200 or 300 points to the SAT score of every black and hispanic applicant if you want. It’s essentially what we’ve been doing anyway. But when they arrive at Princeton or Yale (or even USC), they’ll still be unable to do the work, much less handle the workload. They’ll all go Jerelyn Luther in some way or other, and stage hate-crime hoaxes in order to get the attention and disruption they crave.

    USA! #1 in race hustling!

  185. @Hypnotoad666

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.
     
    A very real and systemic phenomenon is going on that is way beyond the endemic complaints about "kids today" or simple nostalgia. The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital "animal spirits" of the West.

    It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits -- both biological and cultural -- and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And another big problem with getting a grip on the issue is the "Sapir-Worf" problem: No one has yet coined a term or phrase that can tie all the disparate strands together into a single intelligible phenomenon.

    In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.


    Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year. This means, for example, that a 60-year-old man in 2004 had testosterone levels 17% lower than those of a 60-year-old in 1987. Another study of Danish men produced similar findings, with double-digit declines among men born in the 1960s compared to those born in the 1920s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#6e3a81908b7f
     

    Mr. HToad, you “put your finger” right on it – the completely pervasive feminizing of all aspects of modern life. One admittedly minor example: look at the colors and color schemes of collared golf-type shirts for men now on sale from high-end manufacturers like Nike, Adidas, and the rest. At least (at the very least) one-fourth of them are either 1). solid pink/pastels or 2). some combination thereof. This is not because of high consumer demand; it is simply one aspect of the relentless drive to force men to identify as feminine rather than masculine.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    Well, you've got to admit golfers are pretty feminine!

    They are not like football players, after all.
  186. @Jack D
    The worst is bananas. Bananas do not grow from seed. The familiar yellow bananas we eat (Cavendish bananas) are an infertile cross of two wild banana species which do have seeds (which make them undesirable to eat - you don't want crunchy seeds in your banana). They grow only from shoots so they are all exact clones of each other. If there is some contagious banana disease in a banana plantation, they all succumb because there is zero genetic diversity among the plants. They are not just brother and sister and cousin bananas, they are all each other's identical twin. The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel - reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas) and it's only a matter of time before the Cavendish goes.

    The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel – reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas)

    Given that Wikipedia states that the Gros Michel is still grown in Southeast Asia, I expect Oriental groceries might carry them.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Very little fresh produce in the USA comes from Asia due to disease and insect concerns.
  187. @res

    Assuming that modern ranchers that you mention are completely ignoring the female characteristics
     
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but the cow breeding being discussed looks for bulls that sire high producing daughters. For example, see https://hoards.com/article-4750-bulls-dont-do-it-better.html

    A typical metric is Net Merit $: https://hoards.com/article-23717-net-merit-$-index-updated-to-include-health-traits.html

    https://cms-static.wehaacdn.com/hoards-com/images/CDCB-Traits-chart.14191.jpg

    P.S. One disadvantage of the single bull approach is inbreeding over time. Does anyone know how the AI breeders deal with that?

    Having a single bull that you own “cover” all of your cows leads to even less diversity. When you order AI sperm you can order from a variety of (high producing) sires. I think farmers like to order a variety just in case one bull has some hidden weakness in his bloodline (which you wouldn’t want to affect your whole herd) and just to see which one works better on his farm. On paper two bulls may have similar metrics but maybe in your particular conditions one is better than the other. You also don’t want to keep breeding multiple generations back to the same bull because this is likely to bring out genetic diseases. Better to mix it up. AI lets you do this which is why it now has an 80% market share. Modern farmers have each cow tracked and do elaborate sabermetrics.

  188. @densa
    Spot on, and I can no longer believe it's an accident. Children are made sick by vaccination, then the illnesses caused are treated with drugs. No attention is made to the healthcare system's uncanny ability to create expensive longterm disease. Feature, not a bug. No attention is paid to what used to be called environment, which would include the invisible pollution of technology. Global warming. Climate change. Global warming. Climate change. Nothing else is of consequence.

    > Children are made sick by vaccination

    While I’m sympathetic to anti-vaxxers, I am not one of them. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that vaccines are a problem, and they undeniably do great good. Again, I’m sympathetic, because parents are seeing their children wilt in front of them, and nobody can provide answers. That must be infuriating.

  189. @Hypnotoad666

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.
     
    A very real and systemic phenomenon is going on that is way beyond the endemic complaints about "kids today" or simple nostalgia. The data are clear that there really has been an across-the-board generational collapse in what one might call the vital "animal spirits" of the West.

    It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits -- both biological and cultural -- and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And another big problem with getting a grip on the issue is the "Sapir-Worf" problem: No one has yet coined a term or phrase that can tie all the disparate strands together into a single intelligible phenomenon.

    In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.


    Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year. This means, for example, that a 60-year-old man in 2004 had testosterone levels 17% lower than those of a 60-year-old in 1987. Another study of Danish men produced similar findings, with double-digit declines among men born in the 1960s compared to those born in the 1920s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#6e3a81908b7f
     

    > It is tough to figure out because there are too many plausible culprits — both biological and cultural — and too many confounding cause-symptom feedback loops.

    And yet maybe the answer isn’t really that complicated. Scurvy mystified people for years, even after a solution was discovered. Yet from our vantage point it is a simple disease, with a simple cure.

    The scientific community insists on looking in the wrong places. The majority of research that I come across blames bad genes, low willpower, or bad luck. Proposed treatments are confined to self-punishment or drugs.

    > In any event, one clear aspect (cause or effect?) of the change is the pervasive feminizing of our common culture, including increased neuroticism and emotionality.

    Yes. I think it’s an effect.

    One hope I hold for the West is that we figure out how to be healthy and vital again, and then this modern nonsense will vanish. Of course, there will remain much work to do to clean up the mess.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  190. Somewhat related.

    Emily Ratajkowski poses naked to decry ’25 old white men’ who voted to ban abortion in Alabama… as Kylie Jenner and Rihanna share outrage

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7038067/Emily-Ratajkowski-poses-naked-decry-25-old-white-men-voted-ban-abortion-Alabama.html

    Why are we expected to take this style of instagram political protest seriously? Why are women allowed to do ridiculous things and be treated as though they deep political activists?

    And when will the media realise as Steve suggests that nobody cares less about abortion than ‘old white men’ except perhaps young white men. Women , ‘old black women’ in particular (And immigrant women from West Africa), on the other hand…

    Similarly with FGM…

    • Replies: @Corn
    Not too shabby!

    Anything else I can vote for to piss her off?
  191. @Endgame Napoleon
    I was young during both of those periods. I was quite young during the Early Housing Bubble for dual-high-earner parents and the concurrent Government Paid Sex And Reproduction Bubble for legal & illegal immigrants (and single moms). They’re tied together, those bubbles.

    I will never forget hanging an exhibit for a customer in a gated community. This neighborhood was stocked to the brim with massive palaces under construction, built on tiny plots of land in a very rich area of the city. There were only 3 English speakers around: me and two designers. But the aristocratic neighborhood was awash with construction workers—all noncitizens. Unless it was a foreman who was taking some family-friendly time off, not one American citizen got a trickle down of money from all of that building activity.

    Before the Housing Bubble Era, palatial residences were restricted to a few super-rich enclaves, and there were far more middle-class neighborhoods. During the housing bubble, the middle-class neighborhoods mostly disappeared from the city. Noncitizens took those neighborhoods over. In one area taken over by immigrants, a huge mall that was a bastion of middle (and upper middle class) activity closed after many years.

    But you sure can build a quantity of bigger Barbie palaces for feminist-princess moms in dual-earner households when you have access to hordes of super-cheap laborers. And those moms in dual-earner households—holding down their family-friendly / absenteeism-friendly / crony-parent jobs—deserve it, no matter what it does to the rest of society.

    They deserve it even though there would be twice as many middle-class households if one of the parents raised the kids instead of leaving that work to low-wage daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters or elderly grandparents. Instead, the dual earners take two above-firing, household-supporting jobs with benefits out of the economy, taking large stretches of time off beyond their PTO and pregnancy leave (days, mornings, afternoons and weeks of crony-parent time off).

    By flooding the USA with cheap foreign laborers, above-firing dual-earner parents can afford more palaces and more cheap servants to keep up the grounds of those palaces, while huge numbers of college-educated citizens are underemployed, with large slices of them unable to afford the dignity of a one-room apartment.

    And mostly non-college-educated citizens who used to successfully pursue self-employment in various industries inundated with cheap immigrant labor have just given up. There is no way to compete with the big boys, employing noncitizens who are able to work cheaply mostly because of their extra pay from the US government for womb-productive sex.

    Years after hanging that exhibit, I worked at the Department of Human Services, where I found out why those foreign workers can afford to work so cheaply. Their wives and girlfriends are paid in increasing amounts per birth by government, getting as much as I was paid in a week as a college grad just in free food for their US-born kids.

    In some states, they get monthly cash assistance in an equivalent amount, in addition to housing assistance and electricity assistance, topped off with a big old sex-and-reproduction check at tax time, a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431.

    When you are not pumping out kids that you can’t afford, getting your major monthly expenses paid by Uncle Sam and a yearly check from US Treasury Department that takes you 3 to 4 months to earn, it’s a bit harder to be happy, particularly since wages have not perceptively risen in 4 decades. But rent and other major expenses have risen exponentially, pricing you out regardless of how hard you work or how many quotas you meet.

    And no, it is no better to live in states with lower housing costs when you are not in a high-wage category, a dual-earner household, a household with a rent-covering child support check or a single-breadwinner household with multiple streams of pay from government for womb-productive sex.

    When you have one earned-only income stream to cover all household bills, rent is completely unaffordable even in “low-cost” states since wages are also much, much lower—drviven lower by so many womb-productive citizens and noncitizens who just need to stay under the earned-income limits for welfare programs by working part time or in temp jobs, dropping their welfare during months when their income goes over the programs’ limits.

    To stay under the prograns’ limits, some of the welfare-eligible womb producers don’t report all of their income, including many of the illegal immigrants who work under-the-table.

    There are many ways for womb producers to maximize their unearned-income till, but not so much for non womb producers to increase their earned-income till in this part-time churn-gig economy that caters to parents with a second income and parents with access to welfare and child tax credits.

    It is a particularly brutal economy for those outside of the corrupt, frequently absentee, cutthroat, back-watching Crony Parent Job Network. For non culture fits, trying to navigate the many openly discriminatory, nearly all-mom, voted-best-for-moms, female-dominated, low-wage office jobs, it is......an awful economy.

    In “individualistic” America, if anyone is concerned about the Happiness Index, it is not the quality of life for women (or men) without children that is at issue. Happiness only matters as it relates to sex and reproduction...on...a...planet with 8 billion people, where many liberals lie about their passionate concern for the environment. If environmental damage is manmade, it is due to more humans consuming resources.

    These people also undermine their social-engineering goals by discarding the economic interests of the non-womb-productive citizens.

    When you set up a welfare-rigged and crony-parent labor market, you don’t just make single earners who must support themselves on one earned-only income stream unhappy, reducing their quality of life to near zero. You also limit new household formation among non-welfare-eligible citizens, undermining the constant quest to ramp up births in the Womb Centric Fake Feminist Era.

    That is because those raised in middle-class households are under a lot of social pressure to be able to support any children produced on earned-only income. They are also under intense keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ social pressure from multiple sides, as many of their siblings and friends pursue the Barbie-princess / feminist / DNA dynasty lifestyles that absenteeism-friendly above-firing jobs for dual-earner parents and at-their-beck-and-call grandparent babysitters make possible.

    This is a long-standing, dug-in set of social standards that evades the multi-decade attempt at Total Cultural Revolution via a broad array of media glorifying the single-mom welfare-state lifestyle.

    Putting the womb-productive sex ahead of the independent household formation does not work to reach the goal of the social engineers on the Left and the Right. It does not work to increase the birth rate in the middle. It does, however, work to destroy the lives of many single & childless citizens outside of a handful of fields that are rewarded by the marketplace beyond the manipulation of the Crony Parent Job Nerwork.

    After their kids hit 18, the single moms in low-paying female-dominated jobs, too, face this brutal situation. They have one, inadequate, earned-only income stream from temp, part-time and churn jobs to cover unaffordable rent and all other household bills. Happy—-ugh, no.

    In one area taken over by immigrants, a huge mall that was a bastion of middle (and upper middle class) activity closed after many years.

    Don’t fret. It will be an Amazon “fulfillment center” before too long.

    Don’t you feel fulfilled already?

    you don’t just make single earners who must support themselves on one earned-only income stream unhappy, reducing their quality of life to near zero. You also limit new household formation among non-welfare-eligible citizens

    It’s irresponsible for irresponsible people to have children. It’s irresponsible for responsible people not to.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    In one state if irresponsible people don’t have kids the law is to send them to prison for 99 years.
  192. @Jack D
    The worst is bananas. Bananas do not grow from seed. The familiar yellow bananas we eat (Cavendish bananas) are an infertile cross of two wild banana species which do have seeds (which make them undesirable to eat - you don't want crunchy seeds in your banana). They grow only from shoots so they are all exact clones of each other. If there is some contagious banana disease in a banana plantation, they all succumb because there is zero genetic diversity among the plants. They are not just brother and sister and cousin bananas, they are all each other's identical twin. The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel - reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas) and it's only a matter of time before the Cavendish goes.

    We need tariffs to protect the US banana industry!

    • Replies: @Jack D
    We need banana tariffs to protect the American apple industry. As early as the 19th century it was cheaper to transport bananas 3,000 miles from Central America than it was to buy apples from down the street. And it still is.
  193. @Jack D
    The worst is bananas. Bananas do not grow from seed. The familiar yellow bananas we eat (Cavendish bananas) are an infertile cross of two wild banana species which do have seeds (which make them undesirable to eat - you don't want crunchy seeds in your banana). They grow only from shoots so they are all exact clones of each other. If there is some contagious banana disease in a banana plantation, they all succumb because there is zero genetic diversity among the plants. They are not just brother and sister and cousin bananas, they are all each other's identical twin. The banana of commerce used to be a different breed (the Gros Michel - reportedly better tasting) that was wiped out in the 1920s (thus the song Yes, We have no bananas) and it's only a matter of time before the Cavendish goes.

    Oh, wow, I read up on this some.

    The problem you discuss with bananas is not a theoretical issue. The fungus that will kill all the bananas already exists and is spreading over time.

    So it is a matter of when, not if.

  194. @Reg Cæsar

    In one area taken over by immigrants, a huge mall that was a bastion of middle (and upper middle class) activity closed after many years.
     
    Don't fret. It will be an Amazon "fulfillment center" before too long.

    Don't you feel fulfilled already?

    you don’t just make single earners who must support themselves on one earned-only income stream unhappy, reducing their quality of life to near zero. You also limit new household formation among non-welfare-eligible citizens
     
    It's irresponsible for irresponsible people to have children. It's irresponsible for responsible people not to.

    In one state if irresponsible people don’t have kids the law is to send them to prison for 99 years.

    • Replies: @Travis
    In reality the Alabama law does not outlaw most abortions; it explicitly protects women who procure abortions from prosecution. in section 5, the law makes itself clear: “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.”

    While the law bans most abortions in Alabama, section 4b lists certain exceptions. “An abortion shall be permitted,” the law explains, “if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother.” If the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the life of the mother, the law permits abortion.
  195. @Jack D
    Sure, you need competence and eternal vigilance in everything or civilization falls apart. The natural state of things is entropy - you have to fight the good fight every day or else it all goes to hell.

    But these fears are exaggerated. Maybe a "bad" batch of vaccine might not confer immunity but it's not going to make your kid autistic - there is zero basis for that belief. Ensuring a safe vaccine supply is a lot cheaper and easier than burying your kids or taking care of thousands of people in iron lungs for the rest of their life. The "anti-vaxxer" nuts are just too young to remember a time when deadly epidemics would sweep the land.

    No, there is a deadly epidemic sweeping the land and the so-called experts and elites are totally out to lunch.

  196. @follyofwar
    How many thousands (millions?) of millennials are followers of leftist nut AOC? If twenty-somethings believe, like her, that human life will end in 12 years, then why bring children into a crumbling world?

    Ecologist Guy McPherson has been preaching for years that human life is facing short-term extinction due to global warming, and that it is now too late to do anything about it. I don't know how big his following is, and I find his claims hard to believe, but I imagine that intelligent young people who have viewed his YouTube lectures may come away thinking that it is crazy to have children.

    When I was coming of age in the late 1960's Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" was a runaway best seller. Johnny Carson was a fan, and had Ehrlich on his show a few times. I believed Ehrlich, thus wanted, at most, 1 or 2 children (my wife and I had two). No doubt millions of boomers felt the same way, hence had far fewer children than our WWII era parents. Too bad the exploding Third World populations knew nothing of Ehrlich.

    I’ve talked to many boomers who only had 1 or 2 kids. The general sense I get from them is that they wished they had more kids – and they could have – but they decided against it for some reason.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Reason had nothing to do with it.
  197. @Jack D
    Fresh fluid milk was always a problem due to sanitation and lack of refrigeration (even in the US Borden invented condensed milk because he saw kids dying from drinking fresh milk) but most places consumed dairy in cultured form. Even in Beijing (and most of China is not dairy loving - they'd rather eat their legumes directly rather than feed it to the cows first) there is a tradition of consuming yogurt or kefir that is sold in little reusable clay pots with paper covers (no refrigeration but they keep long enough to be consumed). Mexico (thanks to the Mennonites) has a rich tradition of fresh cheeses, sour cream, etc. America was a little overboard the other way because we insisted that little kids (especially) consume gallons and gallons of fresh milk as one of the main components of their diet - that was not "normal" either.

    Fresh milk requires a first world infrastructure to be safe and available. Our national leaders have decided that we must not remain a first world nation, so fresh milk will have to go eventually.

  198. @Jack D
    Hmm, I'll have to try it. I've never had shelf stable ultra pasteurized milk that didn't have a noticeable "cooked" taste that made it less desirable than regularly pasteurized milk. Ultra-pasteurization requires that you heat the milk to 275F (it's done under pressure so it can't boil away) while regular pasteurization requires only 160F which doesn't damage the taste as much.

    Agreed. Fresh American milk is one of the few foods that is better in industrial America than in Mexico where industrial agriculture hasn’t yet drained the flavor from everything.

    I’ve never had tetra-pack milk in Mexico that was worth drinking.

  199. @Jack D

    The people of the civilized world who are capable of restraining themselves don’t want to make it worse.
     
    That's the problem - the people who SHOULD be restraining themselves aren't and vice versa. The result is not going to be fewer people overall but that the civilized world is going to be replaced by an uncivilized world.

    the people who SHOULD be restraining themselves aren’t and vice versa. The result is not going to be fewer people overall but that the civilized world is going to be replaced by an uncivilized world.

    That’s what borders are for. The low-IQ wogs can reproduce in filth massively to outnumber civilized people but as long as we have our own nations, we can keep our population down to sustainable levels without any troubles.

    We could help them by giving away free birth control to the world but leftys and rightys in America both oppose any limits to filthy 4th world population for their own blind ideological motives.

  200. @Travis
    America would be a great place with 400 million if the white population was still 90%

    census ---- 1950 -- 2000 -- 2050
    Whites ---– 135 M - 196 M – 186 M
    Non-white — 15 M -- 85 M — 212 M

     

    The White to Non-White ratio
    1950 = 9 - 1
    2000= 3 - 1
    2050= 1 - 1

    The US census predicts the Black population will increase by >100% over the next 40 years, as the white population falls by 9%. We have already reached peak white population , the white population of America has declined since 2015 and will be lower in 2050 than today

    America would be a great place with 400 million if the white population was still 90%

    No. America would be a badly overcrowded disaster with 400MM, no matter the demographics. More white people would just mean even more competition for the wild places, free-flowing rivers, game, beachfronts, and mountains that white people treasure so much.

  201. @Altai
    I think a big part of it was some of the people who were in their late 20s at the time of the crash recovering slightly by 2014 enough to make a go at starting a household.

    Everyone below them has seen no recovery at all. And thus people are waiting to the very last minute to have a family often with the assistance of their parents in terms of money.

    Humans work by expectations. If things are bad, people will be happier if they are getting better than if things are good but 'from now all I is watch myself lose things'. Now younger cohorts have no real fixed roots, no job security and atomised social worlds of post-graduate adult life combined with the demoralised effects of social media making everyone feel more like a loser than they really are. A lot of them are single because the world keeps them that way.

    If you think in terms of individuals to populations. Let's say pick Germany as an extreme example. When a German thinks in terms of his community or tribe, he gets hit a bit with the mental state of Germany, which is a depressive. From the DSM

    thoughts and feelings of worthlessness, inappropriate guilt or regret, helplessness, hopelessness, and self-hatred
     
    This can be applied to all Western European countries. They all suffer from cultural cringe now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cringe

    So whilst individuals may be happy and non-depressed when they engage their mind with their collective ethnicity or tribe, the current Zeitgeist exerts a pressure downwards. Loss of control of immigration is loss of control over your own environment and government, it's deeply depressing.

    What is the DSM? Can you send a link?

    • Replies: @JudgeSmails
    https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    DSM-5
  202. @Reg Cæsar
    We need tariffs to protect the US banana industry!

    We need banana tariffs to protect the American apple industry. As early as the 19th century it was cheaper to transport bananas 3,000 miles from Central America than it was to buy apples from down the street. And it still is.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    But we need the apples for hard cider!
  203. Speaking of Modernist architecture, IM Pei (102) has gone to his reward:
    https://www.curbed.com/2019/5/16/18628431/im-pei-architect-death

    Now, I had thought Pei was long gone, unlike Abe Vigoda, until recently.

  204. @Erik Sieven
    "It seems that the us birthrate is gradually converging to the level of most developed countries."
    Meanwhile Japanese and German TFR has grown in the last decade. Thus actually most industrialized seem to converge to a TFR of around 1,5-1,7. That's what the UN and other international organizations projected some years ago. Though I think they just did it for practical reasons - they just didn't what to say else - they were right. Then again Japan might also converge to the East Asian average (PRC true numbers, Taiwan, South Korea) which is around 1,0.

    Thus actually most industrialized seem to converge to a TFR of around 1,5-1,7. That’s what the UN

    TFR always grows toward 6+ in all stable environments until disease and food supply creates famines and pandemics. It’s basic Darwinism. The current trend is just a temporary blessing.

  205. @Jack D
    We need banana tariffs to protect the American apple industry. As early as the 19th century it was cheaper to transport bananas 3,000 miles from Central America than it was to buy apples from down the street. And it still is.

    But we need the apples for hard cider!

  206. @Tired of NOT Winning

    Zero immigration is undesirable just about anywhere.
     
    Undesirable for whom? For those who want more votes, cheap labor and customers, sure. For everyone else, it is highly desirable.

    America had a 40 year immigration moratorium between 1924 and 1964. It was then that we came together as one people, one nation. It's what we sorely need today, another 40 year moratorium. But our owners don't want that, they want more votes, more cheap labor, more customers, more divided electorate hence easier to manipulate, until this country becomes completely ungovernable. In fact, 54 years since the Immigration Act of 1965, we are already there.

    NO, RUSH, WE DIDN’T HAVE A MORATORIUM! We did have greatly reduced immigration, though, with a quota system to keep the demographics from changing.

  207. @Endgame Napoleon
    I was young during both of those periods. I was quite young during the Early Housing Bubble for dual-high-earner parents and the concurrent Government Paid Sex And Reproduction Bubble for legal & illegal immigrants (and single moms). They’re tied together, those bubbles.

    I will never forget hanging an exhibit for a customer in a gated community. This neighborhood was stocked to the brim with massive palaces under construction, built on tiny plots of land in a very rich area of the city. There were only 3 English speakers around: me and two designers. But the aristocratic neighborhood was awash with construction workers—all noncitizens. Unless it was a foreman who was taking some family-friendly time off, not one American citizen got a trickle down of money from all of that building activity.

    Before the Housing Bubble Era, palatial residences were restricted to a few super-rich enclaves, and there were far more middle-class neighborhoods. During the housing bubble, the middle-class neighborhoods mostly disappeared from the city. Noncitizens took those neighborhoods over. In one area taken over by immigrants, a huge mall that was a bastion of middle (and upper middle class) activity closed after many years.

    But you sure can build a quantity of bigger Barbie palaces for feminist-princess moms in dual-earner households when you have access to hordes of super-cheap laborers. And those moms in dual-earner households—holding down their family-friendly / absenteeism-friendly / crony-parent jobs—deserve it, no matter what it does to the rest of society.

    They deserve it even though there would be twice as many middle-class households if one of the parents raised the kids instead of leaving that work to low-wage daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters or elderly grandparents. Instead, the dual earners take two above-firing, household-supporting jobs with benefits out of the economy, taking large stretches of time off beyond their PTO and pregnancy leave (days, mornings, afternoons and weeks of crony-parent time off).

    By flooding the USA with cheap foreign laborers, above-firing dual-earner parents can afford more palaces and more cheap servants to keep up the grounds of those palaces, while huge numbers of college-educated citizens are underemployed, with large slices of them unable to afford the dignity of a one-room apartment.

    And mostly non-college-educated citizens who used to successfully pursue self-employment in various industries inundated with cheap immigrant labor have just given up. There is no way to compete with the big boys, employing noncitizens who are able to work cheaply mostly because of their extra pay from the US government for womb-productive sex.

    Years after hanging that exhibit, I worked at the Department of Human Services, where I found out why those foreign workers can afford to work so cheaply. Their wives and girlfriends are paid in increasing amounts per birth by government, getting as much as I was paid in a week as a college grad just in free food for their US-born kids.

    In some states, they get monthly cash assistance in an equivalent amount, in addition to housing assistance and electricity assistance, topped off with a big old sex-and-reproduction check at tax time, a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431.

    When you are not pumping out kids that you can’t afford, getting your major monthly expenses paid by Uncle Sam and a yearly check from US Treasury Department that takes you 3 to 4 months to earn, it’s a bit harder to be happy, particularly since wages have not perceptively risen in 4 decades. But rent and other major expenses have risen exponentially, pricing you out regardless of how hard you work or how many quotas you meet.

    And no, it is no better to live in states with lower housing costs when you are not in a high-wage category, a dual-earner household, a household with a rent-covering child support check or a single-breadwinner household with multiple streams of pay from government for womb-productive sex.

    When you have one earned-only income stream to cover all household bills, rent is completely unaffordable even in “low-cost” states since wages are also much, much lower—drviven lower by so many womb-productive citizens and noncitizens who just need to stay under the earned-income limits for welfare programs by working part time or in temp jobs, dropping their welfare during months when their income goes over the programs’ limits.

    To stay under the prograns’ limits, some of the welfare-eligible womb producers don’t report all of their income, including many of the illegal immigrants who work under-the-table.

    There are many ways for womb producers to maximize their unearned-income till, but not so much for non womb producers to increase their earned-income till in this part-time churn-gig economy that caters to parents with a second income and parents with access to welfare and child tax credits.

    It is a particularly brutal economy for those outside of the corrupt, frequently absentee, cutthroat, back-watching Crony Parent Job Network. For non culture fits, trying to navigate the many openly discriminatory, nearly all-mom, voted-best-for-moms, female-dominated, low-wage office jobs, it is......an awful economy.

    In “individualistic” America, if anyone is concerned about the Happiness Index, it is not the quality of life for women (or men) without children that is at issue. Happiness only matters as it relates to sex and reproduction...on...a...planet with 8 billion people, where many liberals lie about their passionate concern for the environment. If environmental damage is manmade, it is due to more humans consuming resources.

    These people also undermine their social-engineering goals by discarding the economic interests of the non-womb-productive citizens.

    When you set up a welfare-rigged and crony-parent labor market, you don’t just make single earners who must support themselves on one earned-only income stream unhappy, reducing their quality of life to near zero. You also limit new household formation among non-welfare-eligible citizens, undermining the constant quest to ramp up births in the Womb Centric Fake Feminist Era.

    That is because those raised in middle-class households are under a lot of social pressure to be able to support any children produced on earned-only income. They are also under intense keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ social pressure from multiple sides, as many of their siblings and friends pursue the Barbie-princess / feminist / DNA dynasty lifestyles that absenteeism-friendly above-firing jobs for dual-earner parents and at-their-beck-and-call grandparent babysitters make possible.

    This is a long-standing, dug-in set of social standards that evades the multi-decade attempt at Total Cultural Revolution via a broad array of media glorifying the single-mom welfare-state lifestyle.

    Putting the womb-productive sex ahead of the independent household formation does not work to reach the goal of the social engineers on the Left and the Right. It does not work to increase the birth rate in the middle. It does, however, work to destroy the lives of many single & childless citizens outside of a handful of fields that are rewarded by the marketplace beyond the manipulation of the Crony Parent Job Nerwork.

    After their kids hit 18, the single moms in low-paying female-dominated jobs, too, face this brutal situation. They have one, inadequate, earned-only income stream from temp, part-time and churn jobs to cover unaffordable rent and all other household bills. Happy—-ugh, no.

    You give a mostly cogent analysis of the perverse incentives that infect our society. The whole system stinks from top to bottom and I don’t know how we are ever going to be able to cut out the rot before the whole clown show collapses.

    But I’m not sure you can blame immigrants for that shopping mall closing. Immigrants LOVE to shop. Probably the mall was affected by the same factors that are affecting retail everywhere. The #1 factor is the rise of online shopping, especially Amazon.

  208. @Lot
    If you are expecting something rich and delicious almond milk isn’t. But it tastes 90% as good on cereal IMO. It is often oversweet which can be fixed by buying unsweetened and adding sugar or saccharine if needed.

    I’d never drink almond milk by itself, or put it in tea. But it’s okay in coffee if the cream or half-and-half is out, and not bad on cereal either. It qualifies as food, unlike margarine, or “textured vegetable protein”. Just make sure to mix it with a stronger taste, not a subtler one. (Cashew milk is a bit milder in flavor.)

    Cow’s milk itself seems like a stupid thing to drink. I won’t. But it makes the most amazing stuff if you play with it– butter, cream, ice cream, yogurt, kefir, DeGaulle’s 265 cheeses…

  209. The enemy is … EVERYBODY! THEY’RE ALL AGAINST ME! THEY HATE MY GENIUS!
    Merkel literally spells out “invade the world, invite the world.”
    Angela Merkel Identifies U.S. as Global Rival That, Along With China and Russia, Europe Must Unite Against

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel lumped in the United States with Europe’s other global adversaries on Wednesday, arguing that the countries on the continent need to band together against the challenges posed by Russia, China and the U.S.

    “There is no doubt that Europe needs to reposition itself in a changed world…. The old certainties of the postwar order no longer apply,” Merkel told the German media on Wednesday.

    “They [China, Russia and the U.S.] are forcing us, time and again, to find common positions. That is often difficult given our different interests. But we do get this done—think, for example, of our policy regarding the conflict in Ukraine,” Merkel added. “Our policies on Africa, too, now follow a common strategy, which a few years ago would have been unthinkable. So we keep putting one foot in front of the other. However, our political power is not yet commensurate with our economic strength.”

    The comments hinted at the fact that at least some European leaders no longer view the United States as primarily an ally of the European Union. Merkel, for example, pointed to the U.S. dominance of technology as a challenge for Europe. U.S. companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon have long dominated global markets, and in some high-profile cases have gotten into long legal battles with the EU over antitrust and regulatory policy.

    In March, the British government released a report recommending that the country establish a new regulator to monitor the activities of major tech giants. The European Union’s commissioner for competition has issued billions of dollars in fines for Google, and additional probes into Amazon and Google are ongoing. But European companies have still struggled to compete with Silicon Valley due to a dearth of venture capital on the continent.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. relationship with Europe has become increasingly uncertain under President Donald Trump, who has criticized both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The U.S. and EU are also still locked in negotiations over proposed tariffs on auto parts.

    Reports recently suggested that Trump might delay the implementation of new tariffs as he continues to fight his trade war with China and negotiate with Europe and Japan. But the president has only until May 18 to decide whether to levy new tariffs on auto parts coming from Europe. Many analysts have argued against stymieing trade with a U.S. ally.

    EU officials, meanwhile, have pledged to retaliate with their own set of tariffs if the U.S. moves forward with the plan. Cecilia Malmström, the chief trade negotiator for the EU, said the European Union is preparing a list of U.S. products that would be subject to tariffs if Trump moves forward with his protectionist measures.

    https://archive.fo/scaSg

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not really a novel view, but one which outspoken European leaders have had going back to de Gaulle. A very popular book in France in the 60s was The American Challenge:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Servan-Schreiber#The_American_Challenge

    It presented the United States and Europe as engaged in a silent economic war, in which Europe appeared to be completely outclassed on all fronts: management techniques, technological tools, and research capacity. Servan-Schreiber saw in this thesis the potential for a seminal book. He fleshed it out with reading keys and concrete proposals for a counter-offensive. The result was his international best-seller Le Défi Américain ("The American Challenge", 1967). It sold 600,000 copies in France, unprecedented for a political essay, and was translated into 15 languages. This book was instrumental in creating a resurgence of French nationalism and drawing attention to the importance of transnational cooperation in Europe.
     
    Francois Mitterand famously said, “We are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without death. Yes, they are very hard, the Americans, they are voracious, they want undivided power over the world.”
  210. @Jack D
    Of course it's not just one or the other but on the fatherhood side the process is quick and relatively inexpensive - in one year you can change the paternity of all of the newborn calves on your farm, whereas making changes on the maternal side is a much longer and more expensive process. Nevertheless over the long terms changes are made. For example, Holstein cows (the black and white ones) are now over 90% of American dairy cattle, rising from 0% in 1852 because they are the breed that offer the best economics (milk production vs feed and other costs) and almost all the other breeds have been driven out of the market. Farm economics are ruthless and unsentimental.

    Actually, Jerseys are making something of a comeback. Better components (butterfat and protein) and due to small size, you can milk more of them for the same amount of feed and land. Some of the multi-family farms have switched to them.

    • Replies: @Lot
    I get Jersey Cow milk about once a month. It is $7 for half a gallon, but tastes extremely good all by itself or with a cookie. It comes in an old fashioned round glass jar which I think adds to the experience a bit.
  211. @IHTG
    Whenever you see an establishment ideologue talk about the great success of the post-WW2 liberal world order and wonder what all the populists are so mad about, show him this. It's the birthrates, stupid. Your system fails to produce human beings.

    If the sick and twisted and suicidal liberal world order is indeed an evolutionary dead end, this strikes me as a good thing.

  212. @Anon000
    Momma, I’m leaving the mine and Coalwood and heading to a place called, um, “KAM-bridge” up in Massachusetts!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

    New score comes as college admissions decisions are under scrutiny

    The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.

    This new number, called an adversity score by college admissions officers, is calculated using 15 factors including the crime rate and poverty levels from the student’s high school and neighborhood. Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

    Fifty colleges used the score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board plans to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year.

    How colleges consider a student’s race and class in making admissions decisions is hotly contested. Many colleges, including Harvard University, say a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school. A lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard is awaiting a judge’s ruling. Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.

    The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.

    “There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,” said David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board.

     

    (Western) Civilization: best see it before it’s gone.

  213. Speaking of happiness, the Wall Street Journal TV channel has identified three top cities for recent graduates looking for the next Seattle, Portland, or Austin to relocate to.

    They are Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, and… Baltimore?

  214. @stillCARealist
    Watching women around me, I'd say people aren't getting married very quickly. When they do finally marry, they're older and either less fertile or have careers that don't allow for babies. Single women know that having a baby without a husband is a disaster so there's less sex... and that with tons of contraception.

    We've been telling women to have careers and exciting lives, not husbands and children. What do you know? They're listening.

    And they are evolutionary dead ends. Their sick genes will not pollute the pool. This is good.

  215. MC says:
    @Jack D

    Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)
     
    Most of your points are valid but this one is ridiculous. You don't decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat. Assuming your kids are somewhat spaced out in age, you will keeping handing them down - the oldest is in a booster seat (or just the regular seat). His sister has inherited his toddler seat and his baby brother has inherited his infant seat. After a couple of years they will each graduate to the next step up but you only need one of each.

    Getting all of those kids buckled into all of those seats is a pain in the ass but that's just how it goes. It's the same as putting them in snow suits. You know that the minute that you have finished doing up all the million zippers and snaps and buttons and boots and hats, the kid is going to want to go to the bathroom and you are going to need to repeat the whole process. But that's not a reason not to have kids either.

    Most people are products of their society. If people in your society, your friends and relatives, have lots of kids, you will too - gotta keep up with the Joneses. Car seats be damned. Do you think the Mac Daddies in the ghetto and the Hasids in Monsey give a damn about car seats? But if none of your friends have kids or maybe just one, then there is no shortage of excuses for why you shouldn't have any either.

    I don’t think it’s about the car seat, it’s about a) the way the ever-bulkier car seats make you feel like you need a bigger car, and b) what an utter nightmare it is just to get 2-3 kids into the car and buckled into some state-mandated contraption (the laws require them at older and older ages), when in times past only the baby would have needed one, and the other kids would have simple seat belts they could put on themselves.

    Perhaps it isn’t logical to weight such things so heavily, but human beings make decisions about whether to have more kids based in part on a gut feeling about how easy or hard parenting seems. Little inconveniences like these add up.

    • Replies: @Lot
    What the kids really want is to sit in the pickup truck’s bed. It isn’t too dangerous on an empty rural road on a dry sunny day.
  216. @Charles
    Mr. HToad, you "put your finger" right on it - the completely pervasive feminizing of all aspects of modern life. One admittedly minor example: look at the colors and color schemes of collared golf-type shirts for men now on sale from high-end manufacturers like Nike, Adidas, and the rest. At least (at the very least) one-fourth of them are either 1). solid pink/pastels or 2). some combination thereof. This is not because of high consumer demand; it is simply one aspect of the relentless drive to force men to identify as feminine rather than masculine.

    Well, you’ve got to admit golfers are pretty feminine!

    They are not like football players, after all.

  217. Are they counting the men who are now giving birth?

    ‘A pregnant man’s tragedy tests gender notions.’ No, they aren’t coming to their senses about their own ‘gender notions.’ By ‘gender notions,’ they mean common sense.

    https://apnews.com/b5e7bb73c6134d58a0df9e1cee2fb8ad

  218. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden
    well, well, well, a man who seems to be under 50 and has children. It's sooooo refreshing to hear from a man who isn't 90 years old and still thinks in terms of 1955 housing, utility property tax costs, wages and the days when 4 kids could crowd up on a single bench type back seat. I doubt most of the codgers ranting about women who"refuse" to have children even have grandchildren. If they did, they would know about why more than 2 kids families need those big SUVs. Of course, never having been parents or grandparents, they don't realize that parents often drive with more than their own kids in the car.

    Sometimes, actually often, the ignorance about the realities of raising children on this site by the ancient bachelors is unbelievable.

    The question is why all those things are necessary. There’s no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids. “SUV” is an artificial concept created by car marketers that has only become mainstream in the past 20 years. People were having lots more kids before they’d ever heard of SUVs.

    The reality is that these various material and monetary costs do not reflect the real reason and cost of having kids. The real cost is women’s expectations and demands. In the 1950s, the median age at which women got married was 20. A woman typically got married to the first boy or to one of the first few boys she would date, and he would be someone from her town, high school, or church. Women generally did not go to college, and divorce was frowned upon. The family typically owned one car, which the father took to work everyday while the wife was stuck at home all day, and they lived in a suburban house which was quite small by contemporary standards.

    Women’s expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen. A woman today is not going to marry at 20 to the nice boy from church when she can go to college and meet boys from all over the state and country. And she’s less likely to marry the nice boy from English 101 when maybe she’ll go to law school and meet some ambitious law student who’s going places or some high powered lawyer or law partner. Or maybe she’ll move to the big city after college and work in media or publishing and meet some media mogul or investment banker. Etc. Women today have independent higher education and career opportunities, and expectations and demands have risen accordingly. The groups with high fertility rates today, like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Mormons, etc., are groups which eschew higher education and careers for women and whose women do not have higher expectations and demands.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Car seat for kids laws are a big driver of SUV sales.
    , @Daniel Chieh


    Women’s expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen.
     
    To be fair, everyone's expectations to "keep up with the Jones" are higher. Perhaps women's have risen relatively more so, but its not isolated to one sex for this.

    While I'm a reactionary through and through, the environment has indeed changed. For the worse, by my view. But it is worthwhile to note that due to its change, so have people had to. For example, being "stuck at home" was a lot easier when neighbors were easily available and stores were in walkable distance. Extended family could help with child care and even expectations of child care were much lower, for better or worse.


    The question is why all those things are necessary. There’s no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids.
     
    So, pretend that you have two young kids only a year or two apart. Laws require that you have child seats for both of them, so if you have a sedan, this means that your infant and toddler will have to be alone with each other. At least one of them likely wants to be close to mommy - so where is mommy to sit near them?

    My wife's family was a proper country family with a ton of kids, and she's fond of recollecting of how they could all clamber together or sit in mommy's lap in their old car. But its not legal anymore. Same goes for expectations and even requirements of child care: her mother took care of them as much as she could, but she also had a strong and overriding belief of "God is the ultimately decider, who needs college? probably not boys, even less so girls." She had a stillborn. She was sad, and then proceeded to have more children to make up for it.

    Nothing could be farther than these days with obsessive striving culture, helicopter parenting, health screening and parents trying to give every single advantage for their children.
  219. @Redneck farmer
    Actually, Jerseys are making something of a comeback. Better components (butterfat and protein) and due to small size, you can milk more of them for the same amount of feed and land. Some of the multi-family farms have switched to them.

    I get Jersey Cow milk about once a month. It is $7 for half a gallon, but tastes extremely good all by itself or with a cookie. It comes in an old fashioned round glass jar which I think adds to the experience a bit.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Organic at $5.99 tastes like the milk we had growing up, so that's what we get for our boys. Every so often I find a gallon on the lower level of the cart that inexplicably didn't make it through the checkout.

    That's our Globohomocorp tithe.
    , @stillCARealist
    craft milk.

    what's next?!
  220. @MC
    I don't think it's about the car seat, it's about a) the way the ever-bulkier car seats make you feel like you need a bigger car, and b) what an utter nightmare it is just to get 2-3 kids into the car and buckled into some state-mandated contraption (the laws require them at older and older ages), when in times past only the baby would have needed one, and the other kids would have simple seat belts they could put on themselves.

    Perhaps it isn't logical to weight such things so heavily, but human beings make decisions about whether to have more kids based in part on a gut feeling about how easy or hard parenting seems. Little inconveniences like these add up.

    What the kids really want is to sit in the pickup truck’s bed. It isn’t too dangerous on an empty rural road on a dry sunny day.

  221. gman says:
    @Anon000
    Momma, I’m leaving the mine and Coalwood and heading to a place called, um, “KAM-bridge” up in Massachusetts!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sat-to-give-students-adversity-score-to-capture-social-and-economic-background-11557999000

    SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background

    New score comes as college admissions decisions are under scrutiny

    The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.

    This new number, called an adversity score by college admissions officers, is calculated using 15 factors including the crime rate and poverty levels from the student’s high school and neighborhood. Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.

    Fifty colleges used the score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board plans to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year.

    How colleges consider a student’s race and class in making admissions decisions is hotly contested. Many colleges, including Harvard University, say a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school. A lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard is awaiting a judge’s ruling. Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.

    The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.

    “There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,” said David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board.

     

    wow , a comment on Hacker News

    ‘Equality of opportunity over outcome for me. Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max) to afford to live in a good school district shouldn’t penalize us. My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving…I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.’

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19930923

    I feel like this new adversity scores is going to subject to a lot of iSteve posts

  222. @Paleo Liberal
    In one state if irresponsible people don’t have kids the law is to send them to prison for 99 years.

    In reality the Alabama law does not outlaw most abortions; it explicitly protects women who procure abortions from prosecution. in section 5, the law makes itself clear: “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.”

    While the law bans most abortions in Alabama, section 4b lists certain exceptions. “An abortion shall be permitted,” the law explains, “if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother.” If the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the life of the mother, the law permits abortion.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Thanks. This labor will be tiresome but necessary. Liberal snobs aren't going to give up their unearned self-regard without a fight.
  223. @densa
    Spot on, and I can no longer believe it's an accident. Children are made sick by vaccination, then the illnesses caused are treated with drugs. No attention is made to the healthcare system's uncanny ability to create expensive longterm disease. Feature, not a bug. No attention is paid to what used to be called environment, which would include the invisible pollution of technology. Global warming. Climate change. Global warming. Climate change. Nothing else is of consequence.

    Reply to myself: Children are made sick by vaccination. I’m talking about the side effects listed by the manufacturer on their own drugs. Asthma, for example, which they then sell drugs to also treat the listed side effects.

  224. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I've talked to many boomers who only had 1 or 2 kids. The general sense I get from them is that they wished they had more kids - and they could have - but they decided against it for some reason.

    Reason had nothing to do with it.

  225. @Anonymous
    The question is why all those things are necessary. There's no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids. "SUV" is an artificial concept created by car marketers that has only become mainstream in the past 20 years. People were having lots more kids before they'd ever heard of SUVs.

    The reality is that these various material and monetary costs do not reflect the real reason and cost of having kids. The real cost is women's expectations and demands. In the 1950s, the median age at which women got married was 20. A woman typically got married to the first boy or to one of the first few boys she would date, and he would be someone from her town, high school, or church. Women generally did not go to college, and divorce was frowned upon. The family typically owned one car, which the father took to work everyday while the wife was stuck at home all day, and they lived in a suburban house which was quite small by contemporary standards.

    Women's expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen. A woman today is not going to marry at 20 to the nice boy from church when she can go to college and meet boys from all over the state and country. And she's less likely to marry the nice boy from English 101 when maybe she'll go to law school and meet some ambitious law student who's going places or some high powered lawyer or law partner. Or maybe she'll move to the big city after college and work in media or publishing and meet some media mogul or investment banker. Etc. Women today have independent higher education and career opportunities, and expectations and demands have risen accordingly. The groups with high fertility rates today, like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Mormons, etc., are groups which eschew higher education and careers for women and whose women do not have higher expectations and demands.

    Car seat for kids laws are a big driver of SUV sales.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Yeah, it's already tough to get them in the sedan and they're not even two yet.
  226. @Lot
    I get Jersey Cow milk about once a month. It is $7 for half a gallon, but tastes extremely good all by itself or with a cookie. It comes in an old fashioned round glass jar which I think adds to the experience a bit.

    Organic at $5.99 tastes like the milk we had growing up, so that’s what we get for our boys. Every so often I find a gallon on the lower level of the cart that inexplicably didn’t make it through the checkout.

    That’s our Globohomocorp tithe.

    • Replies: @Lot
    https://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/george-costanza-shrinkage.jpg

    http://www.americanpointofsale.com/uimages/grocery_pos/bottom-of-basket.jpg
  227. @Steve Sailer
    Car seat for kids laws are a big driver of SUV sales.

    Yeah, it’s already tough to get them in the sedan and they’re not even two yet.

  228. @Travis
    In reality the Alabama law does not outlaw most abortions; it explicitly protects women who procure abortions from prosecution. in section 5, the law makes itself clear: “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.”

    While the law bans most abortions in Alabama, section 4b lists certain exceptions. “An abortion shall be permitted,” the law explains, “if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother.” If the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the life of the mother, the law permits abortion.

    Thanks. This labor will be tiresome but necessary. Liberal snobs aren’t going to give up their unearned self-regard without a fight.

  229. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The dawn of artificial milk will bring an abrupt end to the dairy industry. Milk is increasingly declasse, and is from an industry notoriously dependent on illegal labor.
     
    No way. We buy our milk whole from a farmer up the road whose handful of cows live well and eat right. There is no comparison with anything we have ever bought at any store. If you think milk is "declasse," you haven't been here. This is an affluent area, complete with gentlemen farmers. It's just another argument for small-scale living.

    AFAIK illegal labor is a recent development at dairy farms. Well, recent to me. Dairy farmers used not to need it. This seems to correlate with the growth of corporate farms and the disappearance of family ones.

    Of course, I could be wrong. This is just what I've seen. Someone like Jack D. might come in now with a history of dairy farming and show how little I really know.

    What’s the price per gallon of that milk? I suspect it’s at a price point that most people could not afford as a regular staple. Most major grocery chains these days carry expensive organic milk. The people who buy them are wealthy people or people who just don’t drink much milk and thus buy the expensive organic milk sparingly. Regular folk who buy milk as an everyday staple cannot afford it, and they would stop drinking milk altogether or cut down drastically if the expensive organic stuff was their only option. Presumably your local farmer’s milk is even more expensive.

    American milk was pretty disgusting, adulterated stuff before corporate farms:

    “When Milk Was Full of Calf Brains”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/crushed-bugs-calf-brains-and-other-wholesome-staples-of-the-past/570793/

    We tend to think of our 19th-century forefathers thriving on farm-fresh produce and pasture-raised livestock, happily unaffected by the deceptive food-manufacturing practices of today. In this we are wrong. Milk offers a stunning case in point. By mid-century, the standard, profit-maximizing recipe was a pint of lukewarm water for every quart of milk—after the cream had been skimmed off. To whiten the bluish liquid, dairymen added plaster of paris and chalk, or a dollop of molasses for a creamy gold. To replace the skimmed-off layer of cream, they might add a final flourish of pureed calf brains.

    Fakery and adulteration ran rampant in other products as well. “Honey” in many cases proved to be thickened, colored corn syrup, and “vanilla” extract a mixture of alcohol and brown food coloring. “Coffee” might be largely sawdust, or wheat, beans, beets, peas, and dandelion seeds, scorched black and ground to resemble the genuine article. Containers of “pepper,” “cinnamon,” or “nutmeg” were frequently laced with pulverized coconut shells, charred rope, or floor sweepings. “Flour” routinely contained crushed stone or gypsum as a cheap extender. Ground insects could be mixed into brown sugar, often without detection; their use was linked to an unpleasant condition known as “grocer’s itch.”

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    What’s the price per gallon of that milk?
     
    $4.75

    It's been a long time since I've looked at milk prices in a store, but I'm sure your point is valid.

    Your clip from the Atlantic is surprising. I wonder how widespread those practices actually were.

  230. @megabar
    > Unhappiness Explosion

    I've been saying for years that there is something physically wrong with the people of the West, and it's getting worse. Kids today aren't spoiled; they're sick. As are their parents.

    Diabetes, autism, fatigue, depression, anxiety, are on the rise. Testosterone levels are plummeting. Obesity strikes far earlier than it used to, as does arthritis.

    The standard answer is that people today are too lazy, eat too much, and exercise too little. I don't think so. It does not fit the facts very well, in my opinion.

    Capitalism my friend. Capitalism. We pay them to kill us. And thank them for it. Smart.

  231. @Alden
    Its also the size of the car to accommodate all those car seats and seat belts. I put 4 seatbelts in the back seat of my small size sedan for other kids I drove around. 2 parents, 3 kids means 5 seat belts. But if you're driving around lost of kids, you need a bigger car. Suburban parents are car poolers The hasids in Los Angeles all seem to have $80,000 big new 8 passenger SUVs. Of course their incomes are earned in ways not available to most Americans.

    It's not just the car seats. It all adds up. Most schools require laptops. And the homework burden expands every year which means color printers always working. No waiting for payday to get a new printer. Another thing is that in so many areas of the country its difficult if not impossible for teens to get jobs, even baby sitting and yard work as all those jobs are filled by immigrants. Cities have buses, but they are dangerous for White kids and unpleasant especially for girls. Suburbs generally don't have very useful bus service. Everything combines to make it more and more difficult even for 100,000k families to have more than 2 children, even the open plan houses with no privacy or coherent areas for different activities. For instance, a big family needs not a real dining room, but some kind of coherent planned space adjacent to the kitchen for a dining table that accommodates everyone. Many new houses, even the 4,000 sq ft ones, don't have that. People are supposed to sit at the counter and look at the mess while eating dinner.

    People who grew up in big families and raised big families know the problems. There are many. The solution to most of those problems is money money money and more money. Buy a house in the expensive safe areas of a big city and kids can get to their private schools on public transit. Buy a house in a suburban area with "good" public schools and hire someone to drive them around and remodel the house to allow for different activities in the common areas. The Hasid solution of crowding 3 kids of different ages in 10 by 10 bedrooms isn't for everyone but is the usual thing for big families.

    Everything combines to make it more and more difficult even for 100,000k families to have more than 2 children, even the open plan houses with no privacy or coherent areas for different activities.

    Indeed. Open Floorplan is like Open Borders: a bad idea for everybody except the rich.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Open Floorplan/Greatroom went out of style about 10-15 years ago.

    The current trends in new 3000-4500 sq ft suburban houses are to break up the master bedroom into a sleeping and dressing room, and to have a multigenerational setup with a wing with its own small kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom separate from the other bedrooms.

    In urban areas bedrooms can be disfavored because they affect the parking requirements, though often this takes the form of a 1600sq ft condo with two bedrooms and a large “study” that seems like a bedroom outside of lacking a closet.
  232. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    The enemy is ... EVERYBODY! THEY'RE ALL AGAINST ME! THEY HATE MY GENIUS!
    Merkel literally spells out "invade the world, invite the world."
    Angela Merkel Identifies U.S. as Global Rival That, Along With China and Russia, Europe Must Unite Against

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel lumped in the United States with Europe’s other global adversaries on Wednesday, arguing that the countries on the continent need to band together against the challenges posed by Russia, China and the U.S.

    “There is no doubt that Europe needs to reposition itself in a changed world…. The old certainties of the postwar order no longer apply,” Merkel told the German media on Wednesday.

    "They [China, Russia and the U.S.] are forcing us, time and again, to find common positions. That is often difficult given our different interests. But we do get this done—think, for example, of our policy regarding the conflict in Ukraine,” Merkel added. “Our policies on Africa, too, now follow a common strategy, which a few years ago would have been unthinkable. So we keep putting one foot in front of the other. However, our political power is not yet commensurate with our economic strength.”

    The comments hinted at the fact that at least some European leaders no longer view the United States as primarily an ally of the European Union. Merkel, for example, pointed to the U.S. dominance of technology as a challenge for Europe. U.S. companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon have long dominated global markets, and in some high-profile cases have gotten into long legal battles with the EU over antitrust and regulatory policy.

    In March, the British government released a report recommending that the country establish a new regulator to monitor the activities of major tech giants. The European Union’s commissioner for competition has issued billions of dollars in fines for Google, and additional probes into Amazon and Google are ongoing. But European companies have still struggled to compete with Silicon Valley due to a dearth of venture capital on the continent.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. relationship with Europe has become increasingly uncertain under President Donald Trump, who has criticized both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The U.S. and EU are also still locked in negotiations over proposed tariffs on auto parts.

    Reports recently suggested that Trump might delay the implementation of new tariffs as he continues to fight his trade war with China and negotiate with Europe and Japan. But the president has only until May 18 to decide whether to levy new tariffs on auto parts coming from Europe. Many analysts have argued against stymieing trade with a U.S. ally.

    EU officials, meanwhile, have pledged to retaliate with their own set of tariffs if the U.S. moves forward with the plan. Cecilia Malmström, the chief trade negotiator for the EU, said the European Union is preparing a list of U.S. products that would be subject to tariffs if Trump moves forward with his protectionist measures.

    https://archive.fo/scaSg

    Not really a novel view, but one which outspoken European leaders have had going back to de Gaulle. A very popular book in France in the 60s was The American Challenge:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Servan-Schreiber#The_American_Challenge

    It presented the United States and Europe as engaged in a silent economic war, in which Europe appeared to be completely outclassed on all fronts: management techniques, technological tools, and research capacity. Servan-Schreiber saw in this thesis the potential for a seminal book. He fleshed it out with reading keys and concrete proposals for a counter-offensive. The result was his international best-seller Le Défi Américain (“The American Challenge”, 1967). It sold 600,000 copies in France, unprecedented for a political essay, and was translated into 15 languages. This book was instrumental in creating a resurgence of French nationalism and drawing attention to the importance of transnational cooperation in Europe.

    Francois Mitterand famously said, “We are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without death. Yes, they are very hard, the Americans, they are voracious, they want undivided power over the world.”

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That's economic and cultural competition, which is entirely sensible. Merkel didn't say America, she said every major economy on Earth. This is a departure from the-end-of-history view and notable coming from the author of the Merkelboner.
  233. Question Number One: Has anyone in your family been lynched? “Hello Harvard, we have a candidate for you.”

  234. @Jack D

    Mandatory car seats jack the cost and inconvenience of having more than 1-2 children (if you don’t have kids you don’t fully appreciate the downward pressure this causes on marginal children decisions)
     
    Most of your points are valid but this one is ridiculous. You don't decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat. Assuming your kids are somewhat spaced out in age, you will keeping handing them down - the oldest is in a booster seat (or just the regular seat). His sister has inherited his toddler seat and his baby brother has inherited his infant seat. After a couple of years they will each graduate to the next step up but you only need one of each.

    Getting all of those kids buckled into all of those seats is a pain in the ass but that's just how it goes. It's the same as putting them in snow suits. You know that the minute that you have finished doing up all the million zippers and snaps and buttons and boots and hats, the kid is going to want to go to the bathroom and you are going to need to repeat the whole process. But that's not a reason not to have kids either.

    Most people are products of their society. If people in your society, your friends and relatives, have lots of kids, you will too - gotta keep up with the Joneses. Car seats be damned. Do you think the Mac Daddies in the ghetto and the Hasids in Monsey give a damn about car seats? But if none of your friends have kids or maybe just one, then there is no shortage of excuses for why you shouldn't have any either.

    You don’t decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat.

    It’s not about the $100 car seat. It’s about car seat capacity and size of car you must buy to accommodate more than 2 kids. Many states mandate that children up to age of 8 must sit in a state-approved seat.

    A regular sedan can fit 2 car seats in the back. In the old days you could shove 4 kids back there in a few seconds. Now if you have more than 2 kids under 8 you have to buy a car with a second back seat row. That means a Dodge Caravan at least. Try climbing to the very back row of a Dodge Caravan to strap in a kid in freezing cold, then doing same in the row behind the driver. It is a massive pain in the ass.

    Heaven forbid you have 4 children under age 8. Then even a Dodge Caravan may not be good enough. Not all seating spots are suitable for a car seat because some spots lack the steel anchor (and forget about using the seat belt to anchor the seat — it’s theoretically possible but with inertia seat belts a hair-pulling exercise in frustration).

    Ever rent a car with car seats? The charges/day are outrageous.

    There is even a whole website dedicated to reviewing car models suitability for car seats and children – https://thecarseatlady.com/ . I’m quite familar with it.

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families. It also means that one of their cars (assuming mom and dad each have a car) is no longer able to accommodate the whole family. So some families upgrade to 2 SUVs or minivans.

    It ain’t cheap.

    Incentives matter. Car seat laws force families to spend a lot of marginal money for more than 2 children.

    There is NO DOUBT in my mind that car seat laws prevent a lot of families for going for that third child.

    • Replies: @AnonAnon

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families.
     
    We bought a minivan as soon as I was pregnant with my third. Given the cost of college and housing, not to mention the crushing student debt lots of millennials have I think a new car is the least of the negative incentives. Plus, if you both work full time, taking care of two young kids is exhausting. You literally live for the weekends since all you have time for on weekdays is making dinner/feeding the kids and then it's time to get ready for bed, which for little kids involves bath and story time and it's 9 pm before you know it. Adding a new child takes a terrific amount of will since the workload is daunting. I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three, but kids are a lot of work until they get to the stage where they can reliably dress and bathe themselves. We didn't have any local family and caring for three small kids was an enormous strain on our marriage, as I'm sure those years are for everyone. I quit my job when I was pregnant with number three but we were conservative in how much house we bought and were lucky to buy in the late 90s before prices went insane. I honestly don't know how my own children will afford a home without significant help from us. Like a commenter mentioned above, the lack of religious influence has to play a factor, too. Mormons and evangelicals seem to find a way to have large(r) families.
  235. @Buzz Mohawk
    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows. They have always had approximately 100 cows, living and eating in the barn, who walk through the milking parlor twice a day, happy to be relieved of their product.

    There is one bull on the farm. There has always been one bull on the farm. He has his own, large pen. Whenever I see him, he acts like a bull: snorting sometimes, never friendly. He lives to fuck cows. The new, young calves live outside, eating and growing in pastures, as happy as calves can be.

    This is a sustaining, productive population. There is no immigration. There hasn't been as long as I've known the place.

    Even if our chosen elites want to treat us like the cows they are taught we are, they still don't have to import more cow people. If they really are as smart as they think they are, our betters will find a way to sustain our population at its most productive level, just like on a farm. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows.

    The hundred-cow farm has been the rule-of-thumb for a family operation, for at least a half-century. It ought to be a ceiling.

    We need to find ways to allow rural children to flourish where they were born. Constraining farming “efficiency” would be the first item on the path to rebuilding rural America.

    • Replies: @Corn
    I agree. Rather than have a few farmers farming 2,3,4000+ acres I’d love it if there was a back to the land movement where people started working 400-500 acre farms that could sustain a family with three or four kids comfortably.

    And yes folks, I know it’s not going to happen.
  236. Maybe people are unhappy because birth rates are lower

  237. @Paleo Liberal
    Other issues:

    Child care costs, even with government help, are so expensive that it is extremely difficult to have more than one kid in day care.

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.

    Housing costs jump up enormously as the family size increases. This is on top of the massive amounts of money spent on living in an area with nice schools.

    So you have all these massive extra expenses, and the young families have to deal with this when they have record setting student loans.

    On top of this, the parents are worried about how they will pay for their own kids’ college.

    A number of years ago Ms. Warren and her daughter showed that a middle class family today with two workers has less disposable income than a middle class family a generation earlier with one income. Steve mentioned the extra housing costs in one of his posts.

    Ms. Warren also pointed out the extra costs of education (summer and part time jobs don’t pay for school anymore), healthcare (insurance costs more than my first job paid), and transportation (two workers need at least two cars). Add child care to the mix, and the middle class is dying fast.

    Another biggie is cost of university. I know many families who said they’d like to have more children but are put off by the cost of sending them to college.

    College tuition is a crime. Easy gubmint money meant colleges had a free hand to raise tuition and capture nearly all the economic value conferred by a degree. In many cases the cost of a college education exceeds its value.

  238. @follyofwar
    How many thousands (millions?) of millennials are followers of leftist nut AOC? If twenty-somethings believe, like her, that human life will end in 12 years, then why bring children into a crumbling world?

    Ecologist Guy McPherson has been preaching for years that human life is facing short-term extinction due to global warming, and that it is now too late to do anything about it. I don't know how big his following is, and I find his claims hard to believe, but I imagine that intelligent young people who have viewed his YouTube lectures may come away thinking that it is crazy to have children.

    When I was coming of age in the late 1960's Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" was a runaway best seller. Johnny Carson was a fan, and had Ehrlich on his show a few times. I believed Ehrlich, thus wanted, at most, 1 or 2 children (my wife and I had two). No doubt millions of boomers felt the same way, hence had far fewer children than our WWII era parents. Too bad the exploding Third World populations knew nothing of Ehrlich.

    I believed Ehrlich, thus wanted, at most, 1 or 2 children (my wife and I had two). No doubt millions of boomers felt the same way, hence had far fewer children than our WWII era parents.

    The problem with the environmentalism scare stuff is that it contributes to making a pessimistic society even more pessimistic. So you get more greed (you might as well get what you can now before everything falls apart), more nihilism and more pessimism.

    And that’s why birth rates matter – low birth rates are a sign of a society that does not believe it has a future and does not believe it deserves one.

    Boomers were the first generation to really experience pessimism verging on existential despair. Hence the turn toward degeneracy and drugs.

  239. Maybe ‘Women’s Health,’ as Planned Parenthood would put it, has something to do with the birthrate. And do you think going through a ‘Woman’s Health’ procedure might make people unhappy? I think it just might make people unhappy.

    They are freaking out about the new abortion laws because abortion is a horrible thing and there’s no two ways about it. They say they want ‘safe and legal,’ but they also need it to be common. To ‘normalize it,’ to use their own terminology again.

    I grew up in NW Washington DC, peak years for pro-abortion indoctrination. The first time I saw one of my wife’s untrasounds it changed everything. I parroted the lines about ‘women’s bodies’ and ‘choice.’ Abortion is cruelest of all to women, and if anything benefits irresponsible men most.

    One thing about mass immigration of the Horde: They do not like abortion. The blacks get lots of them, poor buggers getting bamboozled by the Bolsheviks yet again.

    The abortion issue is not over. Its champions are aging, its contemporary advocates just seem like psychologically damaged neurotics wanting more members of the Sad Girls Club. Misery loves company.

    These women in their clunky concern glasses post enraged calls for mass vasectomies or child support from conception. That’s the best one; if you’re with any kind of decent man you are getting child support for life. And a husband. I can’t help but wonder how much happier these women would be if they’d let their baby live. Instead, they are hard against the Wall, carrying yoga mats around and adopting shelter cats, seeking a spiritual connection to the world and mysteriously elusive, unconditional love.

    • Replies: @Moses

    I grew up in NW Washington DC, peak years for pro-abortion indoctrination. The first time I saw one of my wife’s untrasounds it changed everything.
     
    Oh man, I know that feeling.

    Seeing that tiny heart beating on the screen wiped away years of pro-killing abortion brainwashing.

    For months after that I was wracked with guilt and regret over leaning on my then girlfriend to kill women's-health our child the accidental pregnancy. I was 22, she was 21. I had swallowed the whole nine yards about how the baby was just a blob of cells, not human at all. I still think about that baby sometimes.

    I don't know how anyone could remain pro-killing choice after watching any video that records how a baby develops after conception, let alone after becoming a father or mother (I guess that's why pro-killing choice advocates try to stop girls from seeing those).

    I was shocked at how quickly the foetus develops a heartbeat (3 weeks after conception) and assumes complete human form (~14 weeks).

  240. @Anonymous
    The question is why all those things are necessary. There's no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids. "SUV" is an artificial concept created by car marketers that has only become mainstream in the past 20 years. People were having lots more kids before they'd ever heard of SUVs.

    The reality is that these various material and monetary costs do not reflect the real reason and cost of having kids. The real cost is women's expectations and demands. In the 1950s, the median age at which women got married was 20. A woman typically got married to the first boy or to one of the first few boys she would date, and he would be someone from her town, high school, or church. Women generally did not go to college, and divorce was frowned upon. The family typically owned one car, which the father took to work everyday while the wife was stuck at home all day, and they lived in a suburban house which was quite small by contemporary standards.

    Women's expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen. A woman today is not going to marry at 20 to the nice boy from church when she can go to college and meet boys from all over the state and country. And she's less likely to marry the nice boy from English 101 when maybe she'll go to law school and meet some ambitious law student who's going places or some high powered lawyer or law partner. Or maybe she'll move to the big city after college and work in media or publishing and meet some media mogul or investment banker. Etc. Women today have independent higher education and career opportunities, and expectations and demands have risen accordingly. The groups with high fertility rates today, like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalist Mormons, etc., are groups which eschew higher education and careers for women and whose women do not have higher expectations and demands.

    Women’s expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen.

    To be fair, everyone’s expectations to “keep up with the Jones” are higher. Perhaps women’s have risen relatively more so, but its not isolated to one sex for this.

    While I’m a reactionary through and through, the environment has indeed changed. For the worse, by my view. But it is worthwhile to note that due to its change, so have people had to. For example, being “stuck at home” was a lot easier when neighbors were easily available and stores were in walkable distance. Extended family could help with child care and even expectations of child care were much lower, for better or worse.

    The question is why all those things are necessary. There’s no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids.

    So, pretend that you have two young kids only a year or two apart. Laws require that you have child seats for both of them, so if you have a sedan, this means that your infant and toddler will have to be alone with each other. At least one of them likely wants to be close to mommy – so where is mommy to sit near them?

    My wife’s family was a proper country family with a ton of kids, and she’s fond of recollecting of how they could all clamber together or sit in mommy’s lap in their old car. But its not legal anymore. Same goes for expectations and even requirements of child care: her mother took care of them as much as she could, but she also had a strong and overriding belief of “God is the ultimately decider, who needs college? probably not boys, even less so girls.” She had a stillborn. She was sad, and then proceeded to have more children to make up for it.

    Nothing could be farther than these days with obsessive striving culture, helicopter parenting, health screening and parents trying to give every single advantage for their children.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    It is expectations that drive up the cost of having a child.

    But I’m not sure which come first. The expectations or the lack of children. It’s time to point out that the birth rate is declining in countries without a lot of feminism. It’s below replacement in Iran and at replacement in Bangladesh. It’s only Africa where the birthrate is not falling and gradually coming down to replacement or below. There is only one country with a high living standard with a high birth rate, Israel, which isn’t particularly lacking in feminism. In fact, it’s one of the only societies where traditional religious groups eschew the male breadwinner model. In Hasidic families, the mother usually earns an income.

    I find it plausible that the birth rates decline because it is a simple fact that you can afford more for yourself if you have fewer children. Then the lack of children increases the popularity of feminist policies since women don’t have much to do at home.
  241. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Not to mention a myriad of autoimmune diseases, and bizarre allergies. I think maybe one out of every ten kids my son knows has either a peanut or gluten allergy.

    I think maybe one out of every ten kids my son knows has either a peanut or gluten allergy.

    It’s more likely that one out of every ten kids my son knows has a fruitcake mother who has convinced herself that little Timmy has either a peanut or gluten allergy.

    We’ve become completely neurotic about food. And it gets worse when the neuroticism is combined with virtue signaling.

    • Agree: Ghost of Bull Moose
  242. Lot says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Everything combines to make it more and more difficult even for 100,000k families to have more than 2 children, even the open plan houses with no privacy or coherent areas for different activities.

    Indeed. Open Floorplan is like Open Borders: a bad idea for everybody except the rich.

    Open Floorplan/Greatroom went out of style about 10-15 years ago.

    The current trends in new 3000-4500 sq ft suburban houses are to break up the master bedroom into a sleeping and dressing room, and to have a multigenerational setup with a wing with its own small kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom separate from the other bedrooms.

    In urban areas bedrooms can be disfavored because they affect the parking requirements, though often this takes the form of a 1600sq ft condo with two bedrooms and a large “study” that seems like a bedroom outside of lacking a closet.

  243. @Paleo Liberal
    Other issues:

    Child care costs, even with government help, are so expensive that it is extremely difficult to have more than one kid in day care.

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.

    Housing costs jump up enormously as the family size increases. This is on top of the massive amounts of money spent on living in an area with nice schools.

    So you have all these massive extra expenses, and the young families have to deal with this when they have record setting student loans.

    On top of this, the parents are worried about how they will pay for their own kids’ college.

    A number of years ago Ms. Warren and her daughter showed that a middle class family today with two workers has less disposable income than a middle class family a generation earlier with one income. Steve mentioned the extra housing costs in one of his posts.

    Ms. Warren also pointed out the extra costs of education (summer and part time jobs don’t pay for school anymore), healthcare (insurance costs more than my first job paid), and transportation (two workers need at least two cars). Add child care to the mix, and the middle class is dying fast.

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.

    But that’s a good thing surely?

    The idea that it is impossible for people to have kids unless they can get complete strangers to raise the kids for them is a symptom of a very unhealthy society.

    Child care should be abolished. Use the money saved to give tax relief to one-income families so child care can be done by the kids’ own mothers.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    That’s a policy that is gurenteed to get you a fertility rate below 1.
    , @S. Anonyia
    Your opinions are more reactionary than just about anyone in history...wealthy women even in the most traditional and conservative eras had servants- nannys, maids, cooks, gardeners etc. it is a very dour and vaguely communist/hyper egalitarian view to say people who can afford it shouldn’t be allowed to employ servants.
  244. Open Floorplan/Greatroom went out of style about 10-15 years ago.

    Not true. Check out housing plans for new developments in any area of the country. Also, check out any remodeling show on HGTV – they’re always knocking down interior walls on older homes for the “open concept”. The first floor of many homes now are one big kitchen/dining area/living room, like you live in some big city loft apartment. If you buy a large house you might also get a closed off home office, a formal dining area, and a guest bedroom/first floor master suite. No more having both a living room and a family room. The great room was a 90s thing – the combo kitchen/family room but you also usually had a formal living room but now living rooms are gone. I can see it, we don’t use our living room. You’ll find a multigenerational suite in areas with high numbers of immigrant families who like to have the grandparents live with them but I don’t know that they’re universally common.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    like you live in some big city loft apartment.

    Like in "Friends"

    , @LondonBob
    Open plan living is great for young families with children to supervise, not suitable otherwise. Never understood the open plan fad, we had a kitchen with attached breakfast room to eat meals at, then a separate sitting room which was open to the dining room. Who wants to smell cooking all day and who doesn't want some privacy, can cook and listen to the radio rather than talk all day? Even something called a snug, or TV room, is popular in Britain so people can watch what they want or do their own thing.

    The one thing I want to know is do people actually use breakfast bars? Surely a proper breakfast table is more use.
  245. @Logan
    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.

    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.

    Lot’s comment gets at it, but it’s worth being clear:

    Actual transitions–sure. But the huge rise in people claiming they are the wrong sex–gender dysphoria–is hugely skewed to young women.

    Basically this scam is tapping the unhappiness/confusion surrounding being a young woman in today’s age when a young woman is not supposed to do the things young women are designed to do–i.e. find a good man who can support them and start bearing his children–and young men are discouraged and denied the chance to be a guy ready to provide thoose things.

    • Replies: @Logan
    You may very well be right but I haven't seen stats on it. Certainly the loudest and most obnoxious of them appear to be (sort-of) female.
  246. @Moses

    You don’t decide not to have kids in order to save $100 on a car seat.
     
    It's not about the $100 car seat. It's about car seat capacity and size of car you must buy to accommodate more than 2 kids. Many states mandate that children up to age of 8 must sit in a state-approved seat.

    A regular sedan can fit 2 car seats in the back. In the old days you could shove 4 kids back there in a few seconds. Now if you have more than 2 kids under 8 you have to buy a car with a second back seat row. That means a Dodge Caravan at least. Try climbing to the very back row of a Dodge Caravan to strap in a kid in freezing cold, then doing same in the row behind the driver. It is a massive pain in the ass.

    Heaven forbid you have 4 children under age 8. Then even a Dodge Caravan may not be good enough. Not all seating spots are suitable for a car seat because some spots lack the steel anchor (and forget about using the seat belt to anchor the seat -- it's theoretically possible but with inertia seat belts a hair-pulling exercise in frustration).

    Ever rent a car with car seats? The charges/day are outrageous.

    There is even a whole website dedicated to reviewing car models suitability for car seats and children - https://thecarseatlady.com/ . I'm quite familar with it.

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families. It also means that one of their cars (assuming mom and dad each have a car) is no longer able to accommodate the whole family. So some families upgrade to 2 SUVs or minivans.

    It ain't cheap.

    Incentives matter. Car seat laws force families to spend a lot of marginal money for more than 2 children.

    There is NO DOUBT in my mind that car seat laws prevent a lot of families for going for that third child.

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families.

    We bought a minivan as soon as I was pregnant with my third. Given the cost of college and housing, not to mention the crushing student debt lots of millennials have I think a new car is the least of the negative incentives. Plus, if you both work full time, taking care of two young kids is exhausting. You literally live for the weekends since all you have time for on weekdays is making dinner/feeding the kids and then it’s time to get ready for bed, which for little kids involves bath and story time and it’s 9 pm before you know it. Adding a new child takes a terrific amount of will since the workload is daunting. I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three, but kids are a lot of work until they get to the stage where they can reliably dress and bathe themselves. We didn’t have any local family and caring for three small kids was an enormous strain on our marriage, as I’m sure those years are for everyone. I quit my job when I was pregnant with number three but we were conservative in how much house we bought and were lucky to buy in the late 90s before prices went insane. I honestly don’t know how my own children will afford a home without significant help from us. Like a commenter mentioned above, the lack of religious influence has to play a factor, too. Mormons and evangelicals seem to find a way to have large(r) families.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three"

    Absolutely. But don't US cars seat five? We didn't have to look for something bigger until there were four kids.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    Like a commenter mentioned above, the lack of religious influence has to play a factor, too.
     
    French Catholic in my example above, my wife is French-Canadian. At one point, they had an average urban TFR of 4 children and rural TFR of 7 children, surpassing all other white groups. Probably surpassing all local groups, period.

    As impressive as the fertility is, and I generally approve of it, it should be noted that in many ways it showed something akin to Latin America with a lot of "left-behind children" and attitudes which I think even many erstwhile reactionaries here would find weird.

    Its a world with casual acceptance of nepotism, alcoholism and general hypocrisy. It really isn't Anglo or WEIRD, as we consider it. In the end, it was pretty vulnerable to liberalism, with Quebecois tfr crashing to 1.4 or so, IIRC.

    Mormons seem to manage it better overall from what I've seen.

  247. @AnonAnon

    Open Floorplan/Greatroom went out of style about 10-15 years ago.
     
    Not true. Check out housing plans for new developments in any area of the country. Also, check out any remodeling show on HGTV - they're always knocking down interior walls on older homes for the "open concept". The first floor of many homes now are one big kitchen/dining area/living room, like you live in some big city loft apartment. If you buy a large house you might also get a closed off home office, a formal dining area, and a guest bedroom/first floor master suite. No more having both a living room and a family room. The great room was a 90s thing - the combo kitchen/family room but you also usually had a formal living room but now living rooms are gone. I can see it, we don't use our living room. You'll find a multigenerational suite in areas with high numbers of immigrant families who like to have the grandparents live with them but I don't know that they're universally common.

    like you live in some big city loft apartment.

    Like in “Friends”

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Did open plan living originate and become popularised by soap programs? My gran always used to complain about the once wildly popular Aussie soap that they were always in the kitchen, it made filming a lot easier.
  248. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    What is the DSM? Can you send a link?

    https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    DSM-5

  249. @Anon
    What's the price per gallon of that milk? I suspect it's at a price point that most people could not afford as a regular staple. Most major grocery chains these days carry expensive organic milk. The people who buy them are wealthy people or people who just don't drink much milk and thus buy the expensive organic milk sparingly. Regular folk who buy milk as an everyday staple cannot afford it, and they would stop drinking milk altogether or cut down drastically if the expensive organic stuff was their only option. Presumably your local farmer's milk is even more expensive.

    American milk was pretty disgusting, adulterated stuff before corporate farms:

    "When Milk Was Full of Calf Brains"

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/crushed-bugs-calf-brains-and-other-wholesome-staples-of-the-past/570793/

    We tend to think of our 19th-century forefathers thriving on farm-fresh produce and pasture-raised livestock, happily unaffected by the deceptive food-manufacturing practices of today. In this we are wrong. Milk offers a stunning case in point. By mid-century, the standard, profit-maximizing recipe was a pint of lukewarm water for every quart of milk—after the cream had been skimmed off. To whiten the bluish liquid, dairymen added plaster of paris and chalk, or a dollop of molasses for a creamy gold. To replace the skimmed-off layer of cream, they might add a final flourish of pureed calf brains.

    Fakery and adulteration ran rampant in other products as well. “Honey” in many cases proved to be thickened, colored corn syrup, and “vanilla” extract a mixture of alcohol and brown food coloring. “Coffee” might be largely sawdust, or wheat, beans, beets, peas, and dandelion seeds, scorched black and ground to resemble the genuine article. Containers of “pepper,” “cinnamon,” or “nutmeg” were frequently laced with pulverized coconut shells, charred rope, or floor sweepings. “Flour” routinely contained crushed stone or gypsum as a cheap extender. Ground insects could be mixed into brown sugar, often without detection; their use was linked to an unpleasant condition known as “grocer’s itch.”
     

    What’s the price per gallon of that milk?

    $4.75

    It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at milk prices in a store, but I’m sure your point is valid.

    Your clip from the Atlantic is surprising. I wonder how widespread those practices actually were.

  250. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Maybe 'Women's Health,' as Planned Parenthood would put it, has something to do with the birthrate. And do you think going through a 'Woman's Health' procedure might make people unhappy? I think it just might make people unhappy.

    They are freaking out about the new abortion laws because abortion is a horrible thing and there's no two ways about it. They say they want 'safe and legal,' but they also need it to be common. To 'normalize it,' to use their own terminology again.

    I grew up in NW Washington DC, peak years for pro-abortion indoctrination. The first time I saw one of my wife's untrasounds it changed everything. I parroted the lines about 'women's bodies' and 'choice.' Abortion is cruelest of all to women, and if anything benefits irresponsible men most.

    One thing about mass immigration of the Horde: They do not like abortion. The blacks get lots of them, poor buggers getting bamboozled by the Bolsheviks yet again.

    The abortion issue is not over. Its champions are aging, its contemporary advocates just seem like psychologically damaged neurotics wanting more members of the Sad Girls Club. Misery loves company.

    These women in their clunky concern glasses post enraged calls for mass vasectomies or child support from conception. That's the best one; if you're with any kind of decent man you are getting child support for life. And a husband. I can't help but wonder how much happier these women would be if they'd let their baby live. Instead, they are hard against the Wall, carrying yoga mats around and adopting shelter cats, seeking a spiritual connection to the world and mysteriously elusive, unconditional love.

    I grew up in NW Washington DC, peak years for pro-abortion indoctrination. The first time I saw one of my wife’s untrasounds it changed everything.

    Oh man, I know that feeling.

    Seeing that tiny heart beating on the screen wiped away years of pro-killing abortion brainwashing.

    For months after that I was wracked with guilt and regret over leaning on my then girlfriend to kill women’s-health our child the accidental pregnancy. I was 22, she was 21. I had swallowed the whole nine yards about how the baby was just a blob of cells, not human at all. I still think about that baby sometimes.

    I don’t know how anyone could remain pro-killing choice after watching any video that records how a baby develops after conception, let alone after becoming a father or mother (I guess that’s why pro-killing choice advocates try to stop girls from seeing those).

    I was shocked at how quickly the foetus develops a heartbeat (3 weeks after conception) and assumes complete human form (~14 weeks).

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I don’t know how anyone could remain pro-killing
     
    They live near lots of subsaharans, so any Plan that promises to reduce their Parenthood looks not just good but unquestionably so.
  251. @densa
    Anti-vaxxers? Please, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Mom, apple pie and vaccination. Does anyone bother to update their software? Sometimes vaccination is good. Letting the vaccine industrial complex mandate an unending stream of new vaccinations for everyone is a horrible idea. It's not even good capitalism, let alone good medicine.

    And, there is plenty of basis to believe the epidemic of autism may be caused, at least in part, by vaccination. You need to widen your information base to include someone not being paid by Bill Gates. But I promise not to stink up Sailor's thread with anymore of this stuff.

    The climber Stephen Venables had a bright, healthy, happy son, then he had the MMR jab and immediately started to deteriorate. It’s in his book A Slender Thread.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Venables

    “Venables is also the father of the only known child in the UK to be diagnosed with both autism and leukaemia. His son, Ollie (born June 1991), was diagnosed with autism aged two and leukaemia aged four. After several cancer-free years, he developed a brain tumour and died, aged twelve years old. ”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Correlation is not causation. Anecdotes are not data. The recommended time for getting the MMR vaccine is 12 to 15 months of age and autism usually appears at around 12 to 18 months. So if a kid turns out to be autistic, his parents think “Johnny was fine before he got his MMR and not long after his autism started”. This doesn’t mean a thing. Kids usually get their teeth around then too but nobody thinks that erupting teeth cause autism. Same thing with leukemia – a certain % of kids are going to get leukemia whether or not they have been vaccinated.

    Of course the way you determine causation is to do a controlled study in a large population. And these have been done. The rate of autism and cancer (and every other disease except for the ones vaccinated against) among kids that have not been vaccinated is no different from those who have been.

    BTW, you don’t even have to do that. Boys and girls are vaccinated at about the same rate but autism appears in boys 4x as often as it does in girls. Do vaccines affect boys differently – give them autism but not girls? What is the magic mechanism?
  252. @AnonAnon

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families.
     
    We bought a minivan as soon as I was pregnant with my third. Given the cost of college and housing, not to mention the crushing student debt lots of millennials have I think a new car is the least of the negative incentives. Plus, if you both work full time, taking care of two young kids is exhausting. You literally live for the weekends since all you have time for on weekdays is making dinner/feeding the kids and then it's time to get ready for bed, which for little kids involves bath and story time and it's 9 pm before you know it. Adding a new child takes a terrific amount of will since the workload is daunting. I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three, but kids are a lot of work until they get to the stage where they can reliably dress and bathe themselves. We didn't have any local family and caring for three small kids was an enormous strain on our marriage, as I'm sure those years are for everyone. I quit my job when I was pregnant with number three but we were conservative in how much house we bought and were lucky to buy in the late 90s before prices went insane. I honestly don't know how my own children will afford a home without significant help from us. Like a commenter mentioned above, the lack of religious influence has to play a factor, too. Mormons and evangelicals seem to find a way to have large(r) families.

    “I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three”

    Absolutely. But don’t US cars seat five? We didn’t have to look for something bigger until there were four kids.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How big of a sedan do you need to put 3 car seats in the back seat?
  253. @YetAnotherAnon
    "I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three"

    Absolutely. But don't US cars seat five? We didn't have to look for something bigger until there were four kids.

    How big of a sedan do you need to put 3 car seats in the back seat?

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    Baby and kid seats are not small. Especially the good ones with protective padding and frames. I think a Crown Vic would work but they were phased out years ago. What's the biggest American sedan made today?

    None of these are anywhere near as big as a Crown Vic:
    https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g22344863/full-size-sedans/

    Everyone's driving SUVs now.

    , @Desiderius
    Good luck loading the kid into the middle seat.
    , @Jack D
    The vehicle of choice among the ultra-Orthodox with lots of kids seems to be a beaten up minivan. They are not worried about external appearances. You can buy a (well) used but functional minivan for under $10K. Even a brand new one in stripper form (Dodge Grand Caravan) can be had in the low $20s, less than many sedans. People who are driving $50K GMC Yukons are not doing it so that they have room for their (1.6) kids - they are doing it to show off for the neighbors. The SUV also projects some sort of imaginary freedom - in the ads, the SUV is always driving off road thru the wilderness even though 99% of SUV owners never leave a paved road.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    In the UK you could get away with 'booster seats' for older children, which are basically shaped forms that raise the seat height so the belt holds you correctly. Rear-facing seat for baby, child seat for toddler, booster seat in centre for four/five year old. We'd usually have the rear facing baby seat in the front passenger seat though and one adult 2 kids in rear.

    That was 20 years ago so the law may have changed since.
  254. @Jack D
    There are other vegetable "milks" that perhaps taste better - cashew, rice, coconut, etc. but none of them are really substitutes for cow's milk. Unless you are concerned about animal cruelty, in terms of health you can get cow's milk at any fat level, with or without lactose, etc. so there's little reason not to drink it if you prefer the taste.

    There are those who maintain–not without reason–that cow’s milk is intended for calves. However I still use it in my coffee. Haven’t found a substitute for that.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    We did almond and coconut milk for awhile, but it doesn't work in coffee, so it was back to the real stuff.
  255. @Steve Sailer
    How big of a sedan do you need to put 3 car seats in the back seat?

    Baby and kid seats are not small. Especially the good ones with protective padding and frames. I think a Crown Vic would work but they were phased out years ago. What’s the biggest American sedan made today?

    None of these are anywhere near as big as a Crown Vic:
    https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g22344863/full-size-sedans/

    Everyone’s driving SUVs now.

  256. @AnotherDad

    One problem with this theory is that a rather large majority of trans people are male to female.
     
    Lot's comment gets at it, but it's worth being clear:

    Actual transitions--sure. But the huge rise in people claiming they are the wrong sex--gender dysphoria--is hugely skewed to young women.

    Basically this scam is tapping the unhappiness/confusion surrounding being a young woman in today's age when a young woman is not supposed to do the things young women are designed to do--i.e. find a good man who can support them and start bearing his children--and young men are discouraged and denied the chance to be a guy ready to provide thoose things.

    You may very well be right but I haven’t seen stats on it. Certainly the loudest and most obnoxious of them appear to be (sort-of) female.

  257. @AnonAnon

    Open Floorplan/Greatroom went out of style about 10-15 years ago.
     
    Not true. Check out housing plans for new developments in any area of the country. Also, check out any remodeling show on HGTV - they're always knocking down interior walls on older homes for the "open concept". The first floor of many homes now are one big kitchen/dining area/living room, like you live in some big city loft apartment. If you buy a large house you might also get a closed off home office, a formal dining area, and a guest bedroom/first floor master suite. No more having both a living room and a family room. The great room was a 90s thing - the combo kitchen/family room but you also usually had a formal living room but now living rooms are gone. I can see it, we don't use our living room. You'll find a multigenerational suite in areas with high numbers of immigrant families who like to have the grandparents live with them but I don't know that they're universally common.

    Open plan living is great for young families with children to supervise, not suitable otherwise. Never understood the open plan fad, we had a kitchen with attached breakfast room to eat meals at, then a separate sitting room which was open to the dining room. Who wants to smell cooking all day and who doesn’t want some privacy, can cook and listen to the radio rather than talk all day? Even something called a snug, or TV room, is popular in Britain so people can watch what they want or do their own thing.

    The one thing I want to know is do people actually use breakfast bars? Surely a proper breakfast table is more use.

  258. @dfordoom

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.
     
    But that's a good thing surely?

    The idea that it is impossible for people to have kids unless they can get complete strangers to raise the kids for them is a symptom of a very unhealthy society.

    Child care should be abolished. Use the money saved to give tax relief to one-income families so child care can be done by the kids' own mothers.

    That’s a policy that is gurenteed to get you a fertility rate below 1.

  259. @Daniel Chieh


    Women’s expectations and demands are much higher today, which is why the cost of having kids is much greater today and why fertility has fallen.
     
    To be fair, everyone's expectations to "keep up with the Jones" are higher. Perhaps women's have risen relatively more so, but its not isolated to one sex for this.

    While I'm a reactionary through and through, the environment has indeed changed. For the worse, by my view. But it is worthwhile to note that due to its change, so have people had to. For example, being "stuck at home" was a lot easier when neighbors were easily available and stores were in walkable distance. Extended family could help with child care and even expectations of child care were much lower, for better or worse.


    The question is why all those things are necessary. There’s no physical reason why you need SUVs to have more than 2 kids.
     
    So, pretend that you have two young kids only a year or two apart. Laws require that you have child seats for both of them, so if you have a sedan, this means that your infant and toddler will have to be alone with each other. At least one of them likely wants to be close to mommy - so where is mommy to sit near them?

    My wife's family was a proper country family with a ton of kids, and she's fond of recollecting of how they could all clamber together or sit in mommy's lap in their old car. But its not legal anymore. Same goes for expectations and even requirements of child care: her mother took care of them as much as she could, but she also had a strong and overriding belief of "God is the ultimately decider, who needs college? probably not boys, even less so girls." She had a stillborn. She was sad, and then proceeded to have more children to make up for it.

    Nothing could be farther than these days with obsessive striving culture, helicopter parenting, health screening and parents trying to give every single advantage for their children.

    It is expectations that drive up the cost of having a child.

    But I’m not sure which come first. The expectations or the lack of children. It’s time to point out that the birth rate is declining in countries without a lot of feminism. It’s below replacement in Iran and at replacement in Bangladesh. It’s only Africa where the birthrate is not falling and gradually coming down to replacement or below. There is only one country with a high living standard with a high birth rate, Israel, which isn’t particularly lacking in feminism. In fact, it’s one of the only societies where traditional religious groups eschew the male breadwinner model. In Hasidic families, the mother usually earns an income.

    I find it plausible that the birth rates decline because it is a simple fact that you can afford more for yourself if you have fewer children. Then the lack of children increases the popularity of feminist policies since women don’t have much to do at home.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh


    But I’m not sure which come first. The expectations or the lack of children. It’s time to point out that the birth rate is declining in countries without a lot of feminism
     
    Expectations and individualism. Feminism makes things worse and the society much more unpleasant but its clear that it isn't the singular factor in TFR; Japanese TFR is abysmal despite low full-time female participation in the workforce and drastic income gap/ceiling that means that careerism is largely impossible for women. People, including women, do things for status. Careers are the most fashionable way to do so in the West, but if that is excluded, then they signal status through fashion, friends, trips, etc.

    Children are an expensive status good that don't benefit the individual much now that we are no longer an agarian society and child labor is frowned upon. Having many children and not signaling that one is giving them everything possible is seen as low status, so it isn't done.

    I do think that this is one of the consequences of killing God. The narrowing of the human mind to emphasize maximization of largely individual, life-time bound pleasure and utility inevitably means discounting future generations.
  260. @AnonAnon

    All this means that having more than 2 children under age 8 means a new auto purchase for many families.
     
    We bought a minivan as soon as I was pregnant with my third. Given the cost of college and housing, not to mention the crushing student debt lots of millennials have I think a new car is the least of the negative incentives. Plus, if you both work full time, taking care of two young kids is exhausting. You literally live for the weekends since all you have time for on weekdays is making dinner/feeding the kids and then it's time to get ready for bed, which for little kids involves bath and story time and it's 9 pm before you know it. Adding a new child takes a terrific amount of will since the workload is daunting. I will say going from one to two kids was much harder than going from two to three, but kids are a lot of work until they get to the stage where they can reliably dress and bathe themselves. We didn't have any local family and caring for three small kids was an enormous strain on our marriage, as I'm sure those years are for everyone. I quit my job when I was pregnant with number three but we were conservative in how much house we bought and were lucky to buy in the late 90s before prices went insane. I honestly don't know how my own children will afford a home without significant help from us. Like a commenter mentioned above, the lack of religious influence has to play a factor, too. Mormons and evangelicals seem to find a way to have large(r) families.

    Like a commenter mentioned above, the lack of religious influence has to play a factor, too.

    French Catholic in my example above, my wife is French-Canadian. At one point, they had an average urban TFR of 4 children and rural TFR of 7 children, surpassing all other white groups. Probably surpassing all local groups, period.

    As impressive as the fertility is, and I generally approve of it, it should be noted that in many ways it showed something akin to Latin America with a lot of “left-behind children” and attitudes which I think even many erstwhile reactionaries here would find weird.

    Its a world with casual acceptance of nepotism, alcoholism and general hypocrisy. It really isn’t Anglo or WEIRD, as we consider it. In the end, it was pretty vulnerable to liberalism, with Quebecois tfr crashing to 1.4 or so, IIRC.

    Mormons seem to manage it better overall from what I’ve seen.

  261. @Steve Sailer
    like you live in some big city loft apartment.

    Like in "Friends"

    Did open plan living originate and become popularised by soap programs? My gran always used to complain about the once wildly popular Aussie soap that they were always in the kitchen, it made filming a lot easier.

  262. @Altai
    Somewhat related.


    Emily Ratajkowski poses naked to decry '25 old white men' who voted to ban abortion in Alabama... as Kylie Jenner and Rihanna share outrage

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7038067/Emily-Ratajkowski-poses-naked-decry-25-old-white-men-voted-ban-abortion-Alabama.html

    Why are we expected to take this style of instagram political protest seriously? Why are women allowed to do ridiculous things and be treated as though they deep political activists?

    And when will the media realise as Steve suggests that nobody cares less about abortion than 'old white men' except perhaps young white men. Women , 'old black women' in particular (And immigrant women from West Africa), on the other hand...

    Similarly with FGM...

    Not too shabby!

    Anything else I can vote for to piss her off?

  263. Corn says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    A family I have known for decades owns a dairy farm with approximately 100 cows.
     
    The hundred-cow farm has been the rule-of-thumb for a family operation, for at least a half-century. It ought to be a ceiling.

    We need to find ways to allow rural children to flourish where they were born. Constraining farming "efficiency" would be the first item on the path to rebuilding rural America.

    I agree. Rather than have a few farmers farming 2,3,4000+ acres I’d love it if there was a back to the land movement where people started working 400-500 acre farms that could sustain a family with three or four kids comfortably.

    And yes folks, I know it’s not going to happen.

  264. A lot of the things needed to start a (White) family are either 1. positional goods, like property in a “good school district” or 2. Not necessarily positional, but highly inelastic in both supply and demand, like healthcare. Both get bid up by the immigrants who show up when the economy is growing, in the absence of an effective (or indeed any) national immigration policy.

    These limitations, combined with the fact that most of the economic gains are going to the top 1%, actually makes it harder for would-be White families to form than the sluggish economy of a few years ago.

  265. @Moses

    I grew up in NW Washington DC, peak years for pro-abortion indoctrination. The first time I saw one of my wife’s untrasounds it changed everything.
     
    Oh man, I know that feeling.

    Seeing that tiny heart beating on the screen wiped away years of pro-killing abortion brainwashing.

    For months after that I was wracked with guilt and regret over leaning on my then girlfriend to kill women's-health our child the accidental pregnancy. I was 22, she was 21. I had swallowed the whole nine yards about how the baby was just a blob of cells, not human at all. I still think about that baby sometimes.

    I don't know how anyone could remain pro-killing choice after watching any video that records how a baby develops after conception, let alone after becoming a father or mother (I guess that's why pro-killing choice advocates try to stop girls from seeing those).

    I was shocked at how quickly the foetus develops a heartbeat (3 weeks after conception) and assumes complete human form (~14 weeks).

    I don’t know how anyone could remain pro-killing

    They live near lots of subsaharans, so any Plan that promises to reduce their Parenthood looks not just good but unquestionably so.

  266. @Steve Sailer
    How big of a sedan do you need to put 3 car seats in the back seat?

    Good luck loading the kid into the middle seat.

  267. @dfordoom

    For a number of years my wife did not work because child care costed more than she could earn.
     
    But that's a good thing surely?

    The idea that it is impossible for people to have kids unless they can get complete strangers to raise the kids for them is a symptom of a very unhealthy society.

    Child care should be abolished. Use the money saved to give tax relief to one-income families so child care can be done by the kids' own mothers.

    Your opinions are more reactionary than just about anyone in history…wealthy women even in the most traditional and conservative eras had servants- nannys, maids, cooks, gardeners etc. it is a very dour and vaguely communist/hyper egalitarian view to say people who can afford it shouldn’t be allowed to employ servants.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    By abolished he means public aid for it should be abolished, hence the "use the money" which follows.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Yes, but even as old as Gormenghast saw the practice of noblewomen to have as minimal engagement with their offspring by handing them off to a succession of wet nurses, boarding schools or tutors to be frowned upon. I'm starting to believe that there's a certain healthy level of hypocrisy in society, to praise behaviors even if it cannot in practice be actually accomplished.
  268. @Lot
    I get Jersey Cow milk about once a month. It is $7 for half a gallon, but tastes extremely good all by itself or with a cookie. It comes in an old fashioned round glass jar which I think adds to the experience a bit.

    craft milk.

    what’s next?!

  269. @densa
    Exactly. Mandating removes the prudence. Profits, ho.

    No, mandating protects the community.

    It also does introduce moral hazard, with the attendant danger of becoming virulent among a demoralized populace.

  270. @S. Anonyia
    Your opinions are more reactionary than just about anyone in history...wealthy women even in the most traditional and conservative eras had servants- nannys, maids, cooks, gardeners etc. it is a very dour and vaguely communist/hyper egalitarian view to say people who can afford it shouldn’t be allowed to employ servants.

    By abolished he means public aid for it should be abolished, hence the “use the money” which follows.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    By abolished he means public aid for it should be abolished, hence the “use the money” which follows.
     
    Yep. You should not expect other people to pay taxes so that you don't have to raise your own kids.

    I'd prefer to see single-breadwinner families get tax relief so that mothers who are actually willing to raise their children can afford to have more kids. And so that fathers who want to accept the financial responsibilities of child-rearing get an easier time.