Some elites are waking up to the demographic crisis, but nothing will happen until the UN can construct a worst-case scenario that's actually worse than reality. So many just can't emotionally accept the consequences of it...
I don't really get the Kruptos meme. That wojak is supposed to represent your (relatively wholesome) wife, I thought. Is your wife supposed to be concerned that you aren't including women in your group chat? This is alien to my experience.
I'm also curious how the group chat is being used by typical guys in broader society.
On fertility, the FT article is very intelligent. Which unfortunately means admitting to uncertainty. But it's important to acknowledge that many decision-makers are assuming a global fertility rebound that they have no real explanation for, other than the fact that it has happened before. There's a strong case for why this time is different, but we really don't know.
On surrogacy, I've had the same thought: it's exactly the dystopia of the Handmaid's Tale, but people are reluctant to object because the Commanders have husbands instead of wives and are thus part of a Marginalized Group™.
I'm not in favor of surrogacy, but still seems like we need to admit the difference between being made to uphold your end of a voluntary contract that you no longer want to uphold vs. being subjected to something entirely against your will.
But yes, it seems like, as a bare minimum, if society is to permit surrogacy, there ought to be a surrogate's bill of rights. Which would include a provision for the mother backing out of the contract at any time, for any reason. Some money may need to be refunded (which e.g. new adoptive parents could put up).
In theory, if you had never met a leftist, you might think a surrogate's bill of rights sounds like an idea that they would be sympathetic towards. But I notice that in practice, the left has little sympathy for mothers experiencing the maternal instinct towards their own children.
I recall being around some leftist acquaintances in my mid-20s, and the topic somehow came up of moms giving up babies for adoption while indicating a religious preference (which may exclude LGBT parents). The leftists were extremely, nastily hostile to this idea -- "You gave up the baby, and NOW you want to specify how it's raised?" I tried to frame the argument in feminist terms that the birth mother should be allowed some say-so as a condition of the adoption, but they were entirely unmoved.
Regarding your leftist friends, what was their socioeconomic background? This seems like it'd be a common attitude among hypercompetitive managerial progressives who treat parenting as another area of life to be subjected to rigid procedures.
These were people my own age (elder Millennial) that were mostly undergoing extended adolescence in grad school. One was a newly-minted lawyer. I wouldn’t call any of them “hypercompetitive”. More like “bohemian”.
Memorably, some years after we fell out of touch, one of them imprudently married a woman who held up a sign in the wedding photos that said “Still Bi!” Another, while married to a woman, declared himself “genderqueer.” I would be very curious how their marriages developed but they’re no longer active on Facebook and I have no mutual contacts.
I've been giving the Anthony Bradley article advice for years. My oldest is now in high school and folks with whom I went to high school and college are dealing with their first toddler. It's far easier to get these things done in your early 20's than to struggle doing them at the height of your career, when you can't take time off work and you're starting to deal with those 40's health issues.
But then Amazon Fire TV pops up with "This day in 2008" and you see a little boy in a teddy bear Halloween costume and want to do it all over again.
Some elites are waking up to the demographic crisis, but nothing will happen until the UN can construct a worst-case scenario that's actually worse than reality. So many just can't emotionally accept the consequences of it...
I don't really get the Kruptos meme. That wojak is supposed to represent your (relatively wholesome) wife, I thought. Is your wife supposed to be concerned that you aren't including women in your group chat? This is alien to my experience.
I'm also curious how the group chat is being used by typical guys in broader society.
On fertility, the FT article is very intelligent. Which unfortunately means admitting to uncertainty. But it's important to acknowledge that many decision-makers are assuming a global fertility rebound that they have no real explanation for, other than the fact that it has happened before. There's a strong case for why this time is different, but we really don't know.
Consider it a darker turn for that meme...
On surrogacy, I've had the same thought: it's exactly the dystopia of the Handmaid's Tale, but people are reluctant to object because the Commanders have husbands instead of wives and are thus part of a Marginalized Group™.
I'm not in favor of surrogacy, but still seems like we need to admit the difference between being made to uphold your end of a voluntary contract that you no longer want to uphold vs. being subjected to something entirely against your will.
But yes, it seems like, as a bare minimum, if society is to permit surrogacy, there ought to be a surrogate's bill of rights. Which would include a provision for the mother backing out of the contract at any time, for any reason. Some money may need to be refunded (which e.g. new adoptive parents could put up).
In theory, if you had never met a leftist, you might think a surrogate's bill of rights sounds like an idea that they would be sympathetic towards. But I notice that in practice, the left has little sympathy for mothers experiencing the maternal instinct towards their own children.
I recall being around some leftist acquaintances in my mid-20s, and the topic somehow came up of moms giving up babies for adoption while indicating a religious preference (which may exclude LGBT parents). The leftists were extremely, nastily hostile to this idea -- "You gave up the baby, and NOW you want to specify how it's raised?" I tried to frame the argument in feminist terms that the birth mother should be allowed some say-so as a condition of the adoption, but they were entirely unmoved.
Good points on all.
Regarding your leftist friends, what was their socioeconomic background? This seems like it'd be a common attitude among hypercompetitive managerial progressives who treat parenting as another area of life to be subjected to rigid procedures.
These were people my own age (elder Millennial) that were mostly undergoing extended adolescence in grad school. One was a newly-minted lawyer. I wouldn’t call any of them “hypercompetitive”. More like “bohemian”.
Memorably, some years after we fell out of touch, one of them imprudently married a woman who held up a sign in the wedding photos that said “Still Bi!” Another, while married to a woman, declared himself “genderqueer.” I would be very curious how their marriages developed but they’re no longer active on Facebook and I have no mutual contacts.
I've been giving the Anthony Bradley article advice for years. My oldest is now in high school and folks with whom I went to high school and college are dealing with their first toddler. It's far easier to get these things done in your early 20's than to struggle doing them at the height of your career, when you can't take time off work and you're starting to deal with those 40's health issues.
But then Amazon Fire TV pops up with "This day in 2008" and you see a little boy in a teddy bear Halloween costume and want to do it all over again.