Spandrell is wondering why middle and upper class people in civilized countries are refusing to breed.
I mentioned that the Torah Jews are an exception to this rule. The ensuing discussion got long-winded, and I didn't want to monopolize comments. Below are my thoughts.
We say the above in Hebrew as part of the Shema twice a day. The summary is that if you dedicate yourself to G-d, you will flourish on the physical level. If not, you will go extinct. I will leave the issue of the spiritual level aside, except to say that the Talmud says that without flour, there is no Torah, and without Torah, there is no flour. There may be a question of whether the above applies to non-Jews. In my opinion, it does-though they are not bound by the same commandments, they are bound by a set of commandments nonetheless, and it stands to reason that their reward for keeping those commandments also has a physical component. The people who translated the above, in the context of the King James Bible, would definitely have agreed.
Extinction can, of course, come through diseases, through invasions, famine and so on. However, the current situation is much more of a testament to G-d's will. With no external factors to be blamed, people are choosing extinction voluntarily. Why and how?
Rashi explains the core of the Pharaoh's idolatry as worshiping himself by projecting his own desires onto the River Nile. This is how idolatry works-you project your own wants onto a piece of wood or stone, then worship it, effectively worshiping yourself. This puts you into a narcissistic positive feedback loop, leading to extinction, with various atrocities along the way. Today's Western world has implemented a much more efficient kind of idolatry, saving on masonry and carpentry. The loop is correspondingly tighter, spiraling down faster.
This is not an unforeseen development. It was accurately predicted, then modeled in animal tests. Nietzsche described it theoretically:
"I will speak to them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the Last Man!
...Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you the Last Man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" -- so asks the Last Man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.
"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him; for one needs warmth.
Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbles over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end for a pleasant death.
One still works, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.
"Formerly all the world was insane," -- say the subtlest of them, and they blink.
They are clever and know all that has happened: so there is no end to their derision. People still quarrel, but are soon reconciled -- otherwise it upsets their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
"We have discovered happiness," -- say the Last Men, and they blink."
Then in the 1950s, John B. Calhoun modeled the Last Men in mice. He created a Mouse Heaven, with no lack of food, water, bedding.
"The only thing that was in short supply was space. This was, after all, “heaven”—a title Calhoun deliberately used with pitch-black irony. The point was that crowding itself could destroy a society before famine even got a chance. In Calhoun’s heaven, hell was other mice.
So what exactly happened in Universe 25? Past day 315, population growth slowed. More than six hundred mice now lived in Universe 25, constantly rubbing shoulders on their way up and down the stairwells to eat, drink, and sleep. Mice found themselves born into a world that was more crowded every day, and there were far more mice than meaningful social roles. With more and more peers to defend against, males found it difficult and stressful to defend their territory, so they abandoned the activity. Normal social discourse within the mouse community broke down, and with it the ability of mice to form social bonds. The failures and dropouts congregated in large groups in the middle of the enclosure, their listless withdrawal occasionally interrupted by spasms and waves of pointless violence. The victims of these random attacks became attackers. Left on their own in nests subject to invasion, nursing females attacked their own young. Procreation slumped, infant abandonment and mortality soared. Lone females retreated to isolated nesting boxes on penthouse levels. Other males, a group Calhoun termed “the beautiful ones,” never sought sex and never fought—they just ate, slept, and groomed, wrapped in narcissistic introspection. Elsewhere, cannibalism, pansexualism, and violence became endemic. Mouse society had collapsed.
On day 560, a little more than eighteen months into the experiment, the population peaked at 2,200 mice and its growth ceased. A few mice survived past weaning until day six hundred, after which there were few pregnancies and no surviving young. As the population had ceased to regenerate itself, its path to extinction was clear. There would be no recovery, not even after numbers had dwindled back to those of the heady early days of the Universe. The mice had lost the capacity to rebuild their numbers—many of the mice that could still conceive, such as the “beautiful ones” and their secluded singleton female counterparts, had lost the social ability to do so. In a way, the creatures had ceased to be mice long before their death—a “first death,” as Calhoun put it, ruining their spirit and their society as thoroughly as the later “second death” of the physical body."
"The beautiful ones." I suppose the Game crowd would see these as Betas, hipsters, herblings-and they are right. But when they look in the mirror, they see a sleek beautiful face looking back.
So, what now? Nietzsche and Calhoun have shown us the abyss. They have no answer. The brakes don't work, and we can't turn around. Without G-d, like Calhoun's rodents, we have animal natures. We can survive anything: filth, hunger, disease, extermination. But give us everything we want, and we spiral down. The Eloi into the beautiful ones, the Morlocks into the knockout game cannibals. Is there a way out?
Rav Avraham ha-Cohen Kook saw the answer. When we get to the abyss, we have no choice but to fly. Humans given leisure and plenty can't exist without G-d, and the Jews are mankind's connection to Him. This is our covenant-that we will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
http://www.torahdemocracy.org/?p=1227So, what now? Nietzsche and Calhoun have shown us the abyss. They have no answer. The brakes don't work, and we can't turn around. Without G-d, like Calhoun's rodents, we have animal natures. We can survive anything: filth, hunger, disease, extermination. But give us everything we want, and we spiral down. The Eloi into the beautiful ones, the Morlocks into the knockout game cannibals. Is there a way out?
Rav Avraham ha-Cohen Kook saw the answer. When we get to the abyss, we have no choice but to fly. Humans given leisure and plenty can't exist without G-d, and the Jews are mankind's connection to Him. This is our covenant-that we will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/709860/_Jason_Rappoport/04_Rav_Kook_and_Nietzsche:_A_Preliminary_Comparison_of_their_Ideas_on__Religions,_Christianity,_Buddhism_and_Atheism
Thing is Calhoun experiment is about overcrowding, not loss of faith.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when the Haredis are too many?
The Calhoun experiment, in Calhoun's own words, involved a spiritual death suffered by the rats, followed by a physical death. What brought that spiritual death on was having everything you need, in an everpresent society of others with everything they need, all with no purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe Haredim (that's the plural) live in very crowded conditions in Mea Shearim and Bnei Brak, with no noticeable spiritual dieoff or other Calhoun experiment-like effects.
Yeah but what triggered the death was not a rat Rousseau, but overpopulation causing " Mice found themselves born into a world that was more crowded every day, and there were far more mice than meaningful social roles. "
ReplyDeleteI agree that people lack meaningful social roles today, to what extent it's a problem of overpopulation?
Perhaps cosmopolitanism, in breaking down grassroots communities, produces overpopulation in that instead of thousands of communities there's only one left: the state, in which only a small elite can find meaningful social roles. While everyone else is left isolated to become a beautiful mouse.
It was not overpopulation-it was the lack of meaning. See: Victor Frankl.
DeleteProof: if it was overpopulation, the rats would have stabilized after the diedown. But they didn't. Once you see that there is no point to anything, you can't unsee it.
Rousseau was a product of a subsociety of wealthy and comfortable people with no meaning in their lives.
The reason those grassroots communities break down is that in conditions of plenty (i.e., no daily struggle to survive-it is amazing how meaningful your life is when you are at war) when they are faced with nothingness, pure idolatry, the nihilism of MTV-they have nothing to counter with. They have nothing that can stand up to it. Because all they really have is a weaker sort of idolatry. This is what Osama and Zawahiri, in their retarded fashion, fought against. But you can't fight good, modern, polished lies with primitive, retarded 7th century lies. I mean, compare the Sura of the Cow to the Superbowl for entertainment value. No chance, man. That's why even Osama had a porn stash.
Overpopulation broke their society's structure, doesn't mean that when overpopulation stopped the structure would spontaneously reassert itself. Rats don't talk
ReplyDeleteI take it that the rats had plenty to eat from the beginning, yet their society only collapsed generations later when overpopulation happened.
Life in China today is not a struggle for survival but it's not easy at all. Probably harder than life in, say, the Netherlands in 1900. Yet the 1900 Europeans bred mighty well, while the Chinese take to their smartphones and refuse to marry people who don't understand how special they are.
So it's not just about plenty. You fellas aren't fighting against famine nor Genghis Khan, yet there you go filling NY apartment blocks with babies.
The point being that the driver of fertility is the pressure and support of the local community, but the managerial state has killed it, so like the Calhoun rats they fall into hedonism, lacking meaningful social roles. There are no social roles when there's no society, society for most people being the Dunbar limit society that they really care about.
You can generate your own social roles by marrying, having children and so forth. Only...why? If it's all pointless?
ReplyDeleteThe famine/Genghis Khan thing was to show that there is a level of existence on which the vast majority of humanity lived throughout most of our evolutionary history where there is a constant struggle going on just to survive. Since we all have a strong natural survival instinct, this struggle feels meaningful.
Without a physical struggle, there needs to be spiritual struggle, basically? Explains why most Christians won't have kids anymore; Christianity got rid of the struggle when they when full progressive. I do think that the natural tension between Torah and modernity forces a certain amount of presentness in Jews who haven't drank too much of the progressive kool-aid. On the other hand, Jews, and especially Jewish women, are thoroughly different from gentiles, so I think trying to draw conclusions from Jews to extrapolate onto gentiles can't be fruitful.
ReplyDeleteSorry to necro the comment thread...
You need both a physical (which I mean to include intellectual-I think a doctor and engineer are also engaged in physical endeavors) and a spiritual struggle, but in the absence of the latter, the former is pointless.
DeleteThe tension between Torah and what you call modernity goes back to the time of the Maccabees-the ideology of the Greeks whom they fought was indistinguishable from 21st century Progressivism in the important ways. And what was the ultimate goal of their fight? Control of the Temple, which the Greeks had seized and defiled purposely, then put a garrison to control it. When the Maccabees took it and cleansed it, that was the point at which the Greeks started to cut a deal. That's why of all the holidays they established in the ensuing dynasty, Nicanor Day and so on, we only celebrate Hannukah.
We can extrapolate conclusions drawn from Jews onto non-Jews to the extent that we correct for the differences in their mission (some would say, spiritual makeup, but I don't get into those things, because they're unfalsifiable and unnecessary on my level.) We have a lynchpin mission as the (eventual) connection between them and G-d. Hence, the Temple was (will be) also for their sacrifices. You can also see this in history to an incomplete extent-the two faiths that transformed the world into what it is today are both distorted offspring of Judaism, where the million Mediterranean cults left no mark other than ruins. Anyway, because of this, the Jews have a large set of commandments, non-Jews only seven (although when you work through the implications, a pretty comprehensive SOP emerges.)
The problem is that the founders of those two faiths, in order to market Judaism to the masses, didn't take the seven Noahide commandments, but had to rewrite Judaism, taking commandments which are inapplicable to non-Jews and applying them. Then they had to rewrite those commandments in such a way as to lighten them, but this stripped them of their use, and undermined the whole framework, so the institutions had to to a cargo cult rebuild of the whole thing. As a result, Christianity requires its followers to believe in things which are logically impossible (three are one but three) and contradictory (G-d, who is beyond any limit or understanding, flies around knocking up women like he was Zeus or something.) Islam requires its followers to believe in things which are logically conceivable, but contradictory of its own foundations, such as that G-d, who gave the Torah according to them, was just kidding when he said you couldn't add anything to it, that Abraham was a Muslim, that the Torah confuses Isaac and Ishmael, and that all these corrections were given to Muhammad, who proved that he was telling the truth by being really good at killing people. These fundamental problems have directly led to what the two faiths have today-Christianity is, thanks to its origins, constantly subject to prog revision until you've got some nose-pierced tattooed lesbian reverend as the most Christian of Christians, Islam is locked down by violent dumbshits who attempt to prove they have the right faith by killing those who beg to differ (fortunately, they are not very good at killing in these days, because it takes brains and discipline.) This is what happens when you let the marketing department run your business strategy.
This is kind of interesting, but also philosophically uncharitable to the point of suggesting some kind of ('racist') bias. I'll just mention a few things:
ReplyDelete1) On many standard interpretations of Christianity, the idea is not that 'three are one but three' in a logically impossible sense but instead, schematically, that one God is three persons; it's not logically impossible for a single object o to be the unique F but also multiple Gs.
2) It's just not (logically) 'contradictory' to suppose that a being 'beyond any limit or understanding flies around knocking up women like he was Zeus or something'. After all, if he's beyond any limit or understanding it's no more impossible or even surprising that he'd to that than it is that he'd do anything else. Certainly such a being _could_ do it, just like he could do anything else, and there's no reason to suppose he _wouldn't_ do it if we're supposing he's beyond understanding (or ours, anyway).
3) If you think that God is beyond any limit or understanding, and this makes trouble somehow for Christian stories about what He gets up to, there's the same trouble surely for Jewish stories. (Why would such a being care to make 'covenants' with some obscure tribe of primitives, if he most definitely wouldn't choose to have a human Son?)
4) There are problems with the notion of omniscience. A totally and permanently omni- Being can't know what it's like to be finite and limited, like we are. That's the kind of thing you can only know by being that kind of being. So it stands to reason that such a Being might well, out of love for us, choose to become one of us for a while. (And perhaps, in the same way, such a being might have chosen to get in touch with some obscure tribe of primitives way back.) At least, such a Being would have to do that in order to be (become) fully omniscient; seen from this perspective the Christian story is not at all absurd or 'contradictory' but almost what we'd expect from the right kind of Supreme Being.
4) It could be that Jews or Judaism are meant to be a 'lynchpin' or connection between others and God, but it could be that this was done quite some time ago, when the Jews and Judaism produced Jesus Christ. It seems hard to imagine any other fulfillment of the Jewish story in the future that's going to seem anything but anti-climactic by comparison, no? I'm not sure what you guys envision, but it seems the rest of humanity is supposed to remain permanently and innately inferior to you guys; if anything seems (almost) logically inconceivable, it's the idea that God would intend that kind of arrangement. (For obvious reasons, it seems unlikely that such a Being has such a high opinion of you guys or such a low opinion of the rest of us.)