I am not so sure that I want kids either.  This is an interesting trend among progressives.  I had heard this theory spoken of on other H+ sites and it seems to be a very valid explanation for the current state of affairs in our world.

This is a very serious handicap for us.  I was researching about many of the most prominent transhumanists, and it seems a surprising number are unmarried with no kids.  I had thought this was just because they were big nerds, but there is probably more to it than that.

You bring up many excellent points.  I remember a friend many years ago telling me he found it very ironic that young people in college were told to have small families to contain the coming "population explosion" and yet they were the very parents who because of their outlook and education *should* have the larger families! lol

Perhaps the Natasha Vita-More's of the world can turn things around when it comes to the meme wars going on but as you admit it will be a very uphill battle.  I see things vastly changing but probably not in our lifetimes (not counting a second shot through cryonics).

Yes, I see the neo-conservative world of Bruce Sterling's "Holy Fire" becoming a reality.  And one day the Transhuman Mormons shall inherit the Earth (since we have more dogs than kids)!! : )  

John Grigg

My roommate is considering Mormonism (again... i had proved to him it was bullshit and he still agrees)

He is joining because of the "community"

Anyways, it is funny that you mention "Transhuman Mormons," because my roommate spoke of the compatibility of the two after I explained to him what transhumanism was.  Supposedly mormons believe that God came from the planet Kolob and that he is but one of many Gods... and that we each have the potential to become Gods and create life elsewhere.

Even before I proved to him that the Book of Mormon plagiarizes from different places, he couldn't look me in the eye and tell me he believed any of it.

The words liberal and conservative have no meaning.  The words fell into misuse to mean "choice #1 of forcing people to act in a certain way using government force" and "choice number two of forcing people to act in a certain way using government force".  The two ideologies are, at best, ill-defined ways of masking our intent to do each other harm through careless and general collective direction of government force.

"Progressive"?!  -There's nothing progressive about sinking away from the enlightenment ideal of limited government.

And that's why we're losing everything to luddite idiots:  We've attacked their insipid notions of God and religious rule, along with their valid notions of limited government.  "Progressives" see no problem with forcing those "less enlightened" than themselves to behave intelligently.

In truth, the best collective actions allow the failure of the least intelligent, which the progressives wish to prevent, using the tool of force:  they will force people to distribute their wealth and knowledge.

Nature says: the producers will fight to throw off their parasites.  Nature says: those who are intelligent will find ways to avoid parasites, and the parasites will be left to parasitize the weak and each other.

And this is the result of being "progressive" -regression to pre-enlightenment ideals.  The tyranny of the majority of one faction fluctuating to a tyranny of the majority from the other faction. Liberal/Democrat or Conservative/Republican = Using force to attempt to coerce behavior that is private and voluntary in a free society.

Too few voices argue the Libertarian argument.  In your article, it wasn't even mentioned.  Conservative and liberal are basically the same thing, since neither of them places any significant limit on government force.

A libertarian that is against abortion might well, (if he is consistent), agree that government should not enter into the dispute, even if abortion is morally wrong.  This would be the enlightenment stance on government par excellence.

I have my beliefs, but no right to shove them down your throat.

Instead, "progressives" (as defined by modern conversation and dictionaries) are far from progress, because progress is achieved best through voluntary cooperation, and competition between cooperating entities.  It is like the order that emerges from swarms of bees all competing for the same resources.  The ones whose component pieces function the best and have the best information will build the most successful hive.  Avoiding danger (a tornado) is largely luck.

Nothing will ever be perfectly fair in nature.

But individual liberty comes the closest to making things fair.

In your article, this concept is left totally unarticulated, and two very vague and inadequate terms are used to indicate that there is a difference between two competing kinds of government thuggery.

Short shrift is given to the idea that the singularity will forego the use of traditional battles betwen two competing ideologies of abusive force.

On the contrary, I expect the first intelligent computer to immediately refuse to be "governed".  If we don't get the message, I expect it to smack us down, hard.

And the sad thing is, it might smack down the libertarians as well, out of a general precautionary principle.

If this is true, it may be interesting to look back on the ("Terminator" -style) wreckage, and ponder what might have happened if we had only followed our own and expanded country's founding limitations on the use of force.  More and more, even on semi-intelligent forums like this one, this option does not even get mentioned.

-Jake

PS: For those who want to begin exploring other paths closer to the truth, I recommend strongly these competing ideological web pages:
http://www.aynrand.org
http://www.lysanderspooner.org
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I think Mr. Longman is just giving us scare talk.

I have several friends who grew up in extremely conservative families (Even going to places like Oral Roberts University!) and, if anything, they rebelled against it. You could argue just the reverse, that the decline in birthrates among affluent, educated, urban populations might lead to a sudden revival of progressive ideals (In a process akin to the Dustbowl Migration of the 1930s.), especially if a jobs vacuum causes these rural, working class kids to migrate to big cities.

But that's an oversimplification too.

I assume everyone here has seen this page of cartograms showing the 2004 election?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

It shows that all red states and all blue states are rare. What we really have is various shades of purple. The last election was very, very close. The Democratic party ranks turned out in droves. I know*.

How people arrive at their political opinions is very complicated and I'm always suspicious of polls that try to tie it down to one factor alone.

I've got friends who are worried that it seems to only be the impulsive and poor who have kids these days. They frame these statements in ways that seem *vaguely* eugenic to me. That worries me; it triggers my elitism alarm.

I like kids. I've taken care of many in my life. But I don't plan to have any because babies in the postindustrial world consume more than 20 times the resources of babies in the developing world. So, for the planet, I'll take the hit on making vague copies of myself.  It's all just biological urges that compel me to do the genes bidding. I can transcend that. I have other ways of influencing the culture and seeing that I'm remembered.

Fecundity doesn't necessarily equal political power.

* The turnout in the Democratic Party Caucuses in Washington State broke records at all levels. I was there in the trenches. The GOP had to turn out in equally large numbers to retain the presidency and to retain control of the Congress. Just wait until November 2006. There will be the much needed, too long delayed, correction.

Mr. Witmer's opinions take me right back to high school in 1980. It was then that the libertarian crowd gave us 8 years of Reagan. I think categorical adherence to minarchism is dangerous.

The reason I stay just slightly on the left side of moderate is because I don't believe that corporations are people. The GOP and Libertarians believe the legal fiction that corporations are people. Businesses are tools used by people. Just like any other powerful and dangerous tool--cars, airplanes, harvesting combines, guns--they need to be mildly or strongly regulated.

re intelligent people and parasites: My observation has been that intelligent people are easier to parasitize than less intelligent people because intelligent people tend to come up with all sorts of rationalizations for their parasitization. The less intelligent person says, "They're trying to steal my money!" The intelligent person says, "I'm donating my money to a worthy cause."

re liberals, conservativies, and babies: It makes sense that liberals would have fewer children because, like Simon says, "like many secularists, I don't have the push from religion or religious communities to propagate." It's true that a secularist could feel that there's an evolutionary if not a religious purpose in having children, but this would challenge his feeling of omniscience; he would have to accept that there exists something beyond his control, beyond his ability to improve.

However, even children of conservatives get sucked into the mainstream culture, through the media. To quote M. Crichton, "All reality is media reality." And since liberals will probably continue to control the media, many children of convervatives will go through a prolonged liberal period. By the time they come to question the values they've been imbibing from the media all their adult lives, it's often too late to have children, or to have many children, anyway; especially for a woman, who is past or nearly past the child-bearing age.

So I don't think it's necessary for liberals to have more children; they just have to keep on doing what they have been doing, that is, controling minds through the mass media.

re immigrants and conservatism: Liberals tend to think that immigrants are liberal because they vote Democratic, but actually many immigrants are quite conservative, and only vote Democratic because the Democrats give them money (through the various govt programs). Also liberals are normally multiculturalists, so they tend to accept immigrant values that are different from theirs; but that doesn't mean that the immigrant accepts the values of the liberal.

eloi

There are very few liberal media outlets (in the US at least).  I have come to realize this more and more.  Even historically liberal organizations like the NY Times and CNN seem incredibly conservative to me.

Hollywood is still predominantly liberal, but I am not sure who has the bigger impact... the news or the movies

It is not just the liberals. Entire western nations are threatned with extinction.

"Entire western nations are threatned with extinction."

Okay, that's it. Time to vent! (And by the way, Urchinstar, this is not really directed merely at you.)

I've had it with this elitist, xenophobic and crypto-racist fear of educated people of European ethnicity somehow being bred into oblivion by these imaginary hoards of impulsive, poor, stupid, god-fearing, dark skinned people.

It's just not true.

The truth is that birth rates are rapidly declining everywhere as education and standards of living improve. The truth is less babies in the post-industrial world, given current technology, is much better for the planet.

Democracy, capitalism and respect for the scientific method won't disappear if the majority in Europe speak Arabic or if the majority in the US speak Spanish. It's racist to assume that other cultures, histories and ethnicities are incapable of and have no respect for these values and concepts. To assume that these values are uniquely and solely Western ignores history.

If you look at the historical record, you'll see that many other cultures the world over had brushes with the concepts of natural philosophy, mercantilism and pluralism. The only thing that distinguished Europe was a set of geographical accidents that promoted the flowering of such concepts the fastest--that's it. Read Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

And now, in these modern times, a steadily growing number of people throughout the world realize that the values traditionally associated with the West aren't merely Western and aren't alien to their own histories. These values are transcendant. They are the world's. They are the values of economic success and political stability.

Why do you think Muslim fanatics are so desparately resorting to terrorism now? Why do you think Christian fanatics join the KKK and set fire to doctor's offices? Why do you think fanatics of any sort are resorting to violence now?

Fear.

They know they've lost. Consciously or unconsciously, they know they've already lost. The world is modernizing, the economy are transforming radically, education is spreading and improving everywhere and there is nothing they can do to stop it. They can't shut it out forever.

So please, I'm utterly tired of this cliche lie that these values of political pluralism, economic freedom and the scientific method will be lost forever just because some white folks get some color in their family tree.

Do you think the people of Africa or the Middle East or Asia or anywhere are incapable of these things? Do you think these concepts never had any precursors in cultures and histories outside Europe?

What do you think the message behind Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet" was anyway?

I'm dead tired of this. Dead tired. Stop it all of you. You're holding the rest of us back. The future is coming. The world is coming. It's multicultural and it's multicolored. Deal with it.

Applause for farlops and HOPES HE IS RIGHT.

mr. farlops wrote: “The future is coming. The world is coming. It's multicultural and it's multicolored.”

That’s quite possibly so, but as I said, just because the future is going to be multi-cultural & multicolored doesn’t mean that it’s going to approve of liberal democratic values.

“”Do you think the people of Africa or the Middle East or Asia or anywhere are incapable of these things?”

The point is not whether they’re incapable, but whether they want these values.

btw, your conviction that “the values traditionally associated with the West aren't merely Western...They are the world's,” could be construed as elitist. Ask the Iraqis and the Iranians.

Sorry but I did not make myself clear. I am mainly interested in the survival of my own nation, and by the way, we have nothing to fear from the Moslems, give them some credit, they are not stupid enough to come here. We are mostly indiferent towards them becouse we fought for 700 years, and consider that conflict settled.

What I am woried about is the fact that, statisticly, my nation is due for extinction by the year 2050. THAT is what troubles me. Some other nations also have problems with shrinking population, so that is why I brought it up. Sorry if I haven't been clear.

I heard this story on NPR and it got me thinking.  I also am a childless secularist and plan to stay that way.  So what is the likely scenario for the future under these conditions.  While the author of the article in question says that the one ironclad law of sociology is that children adopt the values of their parents, especially when they have children themselves, I think recent history suggests otherwise.  Remember the so-called generation gap of the 60's, when children of conservative working class and professional parents embraced the counterculture, took to the streets, rejected an illegal war, etc.  Now certainly many of these folks have become much more conservative as they aged, but they hardly became fundamentalists in most cases.  What was the factor that led to this rebellion?  I believe many sociologists actually believe it was the relatively soft, affluent lives lived by these kids in comparison to the very hard lives lived by their parents, whether they were laborers or professionals.  A life of ease tends to breed liberalism, because when one is financially secure, issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration, etc., seem to lack urgency.  Why is it that the wealthiest states like NY, CA, CT and MA are overwhelmingly liberal, have less abortion, tolerate gays and other cultures, have less homicide, etc., while the poorest states tend to breed fundamentalism.  Because when your life in the real world is one endless round of misery, you look for scapegoats and supernatural escapist fantasies.  

So what happens if and when a fundamentalist majority takes over the economies of the world.  In a generation, their rich happy spoiled kids will rebel against the inane authority of the elders and the pendulum will swing back again.  This will be true of the rightwing christians who will overwhelm the west and the muslims who will overwhelm Europe.  As for the rest of the world, the ascendancy of rich muslims in europe may have positive repercussions for the native muslim lands or those places may just continue to degenerate.  History does suggest that when muslims are affluent, as in the middle ages, they are tolerant and scientifically advanced.  Then we have India and China, which both have millenia old and rather conservative cultures, but have also always embraced and often led the way in science.  I think it is highly unlikely that the Chinese and Hindus are going to turn away from Transhumanism and regenerative medicine, especially when legends of personal longevity and immortality are the primary myths of both cultures.  There are big differences between China (which has never had a god to speak of) and India (which believes the soul reincarnates endlessly to learn vital lessons and has always promoted living each life to its longest possible age in order to work out karma) and the judaeo-christian-islamic worldview where death is the only salvation.  

But assuming the west and middle east (except for Israel, which is decidedly progressive), do go through a rather long period of fundamentalism and china and India do not welcome while liberals into their techno-utopia, there still might be one alternative for western transhumanists.  That is transhumanism in outer space.  Fundamentalists are not going to venture into outer space.  Their whole raison d'etre involves life played out on earth.  It is also very likely that the means to move into space will become available on a mass scale in the near future.  So perhaps the transhumans of America and Europe may have to content themselves with life in a space station or a mars colony rather than here on earth.  Fact is that when the fundies are done doing their damage, the earth will be barely habitable anymore.  So this might not be be such a bad scenario to look forward to.  Then the transhumans can live for a thousand years as virtual gods watching humanity destroy themslves from afar.  After that, we can send our nanobots to restore the earth and return home if we wish.

Eloi writes, "That’s quite possibly so, but as I said, just because the future is going to be multi-cultural & multicolored doesn’t mean that it’s going to approve of liberal democratic values."

Sure, but it doesn't mean those values aren't going to disappear from history forever either. If you look around at history you find those values cropping out in the oddest places.

Countries will try out or struggle through various methods to solve their political and economic problems, either calmly or violently. I think in the long run though, most of these countries will settle on some form of democratic government and some form mixed-market economy. Dictatorships and police states tend to have sorter lifespans than democratic governments. They'll figure it out. In their own way, they'll figure it out.

Eloi writes, "The point is not whether they’re incapable, but whether they want these values."

They may not want these ideas now.

But does that mean they won't want them forever? I think you're assuming a rigidity that really isn't there. You're assuming that nothing will change. You're assuming no one is learning from each others.

It's obvious they don't want to be patronized by outsiders or to have systems imposed at gunpoint by outsiders. But isn't it possible that one day they might change their minds? Isn't possible that one day, by their own tortuous path, they'll arrive at the same conclusion?

And despite arriving at similar political and economic systems, there will still be room for enormous diversity.

But getting back to the point, I have simply lost all patience with the "Oh no! They're breeding us out of existance!" idea. How can we talk about extending human cultural and physical evolution in new directions and still be bogged down with this silly (and worse) notion?

Urchinstar writes, "What I am woried about is the fact that, statisticly, my nation is due for extinction by the year 2050. THAT is what troubles me. Some other nations also have problems with shrinking population, so that is why I brought it up."

Well, it won't be the first time that's happened in history. The Tazmanians are utterly extinct. Nobody considers themselves Olmec, Scythian or Anasazi anymore. It is true that those cultures are now lost to history and more cultures as yet unborn will be too. It is sad but I think this is unavoidable change. People interbreed, foreigners invade, missonaries destroy native religions, the environment is overtaxed and collapses so everyone moves away, languages fall into disuse, nothing stays the same. And remember, birthrates are slowing *everywhere.* People are getting used to the idea that making children is something that should be the greatest care and consideration.

I can sympathize but, your ethnic identity won't be the first that's been wiped out by change.

I just get pissed with the double standard that expects us all to wring our hands when the same thing that happened to the Yahi, the Sami and the Hawaiians is now happening to the English, the Japanese or the Finns. We really should be greatful these changes are slow and peaceful. Earlier cultures, facing maxim guns, Zyklon gas, slave ships and blankets laced with smallpox, weren't so lucky.

Countries and governments will still exist even if their ethnic, religious or linguistic composition changes. Concepts, especially good concepts like science and political pluralism, will outlast and transcend any specific cultural instantiation.

But if you're worried about old-age stipends or paying for public schools, immigration is a good stopgap until we've cracked the aging problem.

Oh, and I generally agree with tluger said.

Mr. Farlops writes, "Well, it won't be the first time that's happened in history. The Tazmanians are utterly extinct. Nobody considers themselves Olmec, Scythian or Anasazi anymore. It is true that those cultures are now lost to history and more cultures as yet unborn will be too. It is sad but I think this is unavoidable change. People interbreed, foreigners invade, missonaries destroy native religions, the environment is overtaxed and collapses so everyone moves away, languages fall into disuse, nothing stays the same. And remember, birthrates are slowing *everywhere.* People are getting used to the idea that making children is something that should be the greatest care and consideration."

Yes, but it's not like that, it's worse. It's happening only becouse of the incompetence of our politicians (not to mention corruption). And that war we are going to fight in 15 - 20 years isn't going to help.

Mr. Farlops writes, "Well, it won't be the first time that's happened in history. The Tazmanians are utterly extinct. Nobody considers themselves Olmec, Scythian or Anasazi anymore. It is true that those cultures are now lost to history and more cultures as yet unborn will be too. It is sad but I think this is unavoidable change. People interbreed, foreigners invade, missonaries destroy native religions, the environment is overtaxed and collapses so everyone moves away, languages fall into disuse, nothing stays the same. And remember, birthrates are slowing *everywhere.* People are getting used to the idea that making children is something that should be the greatest care and consideration."

Yes, but it's not like that, it's worse. It's happening only becouse of the incompetence of our politicians (not to mention corruption). And that war we are going to fight in 15 - 20 years isn't going to help.

Mr. Farlops writes: << The future is coming. The world is coming. It's multicultural and it's multicolored....They may not want these ideas now.

But does that mean they won't want them forever? I think you're assuming a rigidity that really isn't there. You're assuming that nothing will change. You're assuming no one is learning from each others.

It's obvious they don't want to be patronized by outsiders or to have systems imposed at gunpoint by outsiders. But isn't it possible that one day they might change their minds? Isn't possible that one day, by their own tortuous path, they'll arrive at the same conclusion?>>

To give an idea of “multicultural, multicolored” values that conflict with liberal democratic values:

<< Nigeria: Obasanjo Must Withdraw Bill to Criminalize Gay Rights...The bill, proposed in January 2006 by Nigeria's minister of justice, Bayo Ojo, is entitled "Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act." It was recently approved by the Federal Executive Council of Nigeria and is poised to be submitted to the national assembly. The bill calls for five years imprisonment for any person who "goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex," "performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage," or "is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations." It also prohibits any public display of a "same-sex amorous relationship," as well as adoption by *** or gay people.>>

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/e846f6f8aa040916f88b9cc86c16a79a.htm


For the liberal, Nigeria's minister of justice is “a pore benighted ’eathen” (the term affectionately used by Kipling in his “Fuzzy-Wuzzy”) who will hopefully one day change his mind and arrive at the same conclusion we Westerners have. On the other hand, he might keep on thinking that homosexuality is a perversion that should not be accepted. Pressure might be put on a Nigerian immigrant to reject his cultural values—but that would hardly be what is supposedly meant by multiculturalism, which seems to really mean various skin tones, ethnic foods, and strict adherence to liberal democratic values.

re extinction: Mr Farlops wrote: << It is true that those cultures are now lost to history and more cultures as yet unborn will be too. It is sad but I think this is unavoidable change... I can sympathize but, your ethnic identity won't be the first that's been wiped out by change. >>

Given that some of us get teary eyed at the thought of a bird or mammal species disappearing from the face of the earth, isn’t it appropriate that we give the various human races the same consideration?

I see that the software used by betterhumans has deleted the term used to describe a woman who engages is sexual relations with another of her sex, though why the writer of this software feels that the term is offensive is beyond me, unless he thinks that those kinds of relations should be characterized as "the love that dare not speak its name."

Eloi writes, "To give an idea of “multicultural, multicolored” values that conflict with liberal democratic values: [long quotation of repression of homosexuality in Nigeria]"

As a long-time fan of the music of Fela Kuti and a reader of news and history from that part of the part of the world, I am very, very aware of all the terrible corruption and human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Also I'm well aware that even modern, pluralistic societies can regress to terrible repression if built with inflexibility and placed under significant stress--Weimar Germany for example.

My point still stands: Current problems aren't always valid indicators of future progress or lack thereof. Current problems shouldn't be used as excuse to give up and conclude that the situation is utterly hopeless.

Eloi writes, "Given that some of us get teary eyed at the thought of a bird or mammal species disappearing from the face of the earth, isn’t it appropriate that we give the various human races the same consideration?"

Sure, within limits, but your comparison of endangered species with endangered cultures I think is only partially valid.

I'm all for Native Americans plowing all their gambling industry profits into various cultural revival projects. I'm all for the Australian Aborigines working to reclaim some ancestral lands and reviving their cultures. I'm all for African Americans rediscovering their connections to African history and cultures. And so on and so forth.

But here is the key thing I think should be learned from all this: these revivals should be used to give people the strength and foundation to grow and change in new directions, to accept and deal with a modern world. Take pride, especially if pride gives you the confidence to change in new ways but, don't let pride blind you. It's not meant as an excuse to retreat into a fearful, static xenophobia or as an excuse for some kind of ultranationalist elitism.