Interesting to see your thoughts on this, Gunnar. It feels like one of those conversations that has been brewing for a long time – the first book that put it on my radar was Jeremy Seabrook's A World Growing Old in 2003 – but has only finally spilled over into wider debate this year. If you didn't see it already, then Louise Perry's latest essay for First Things has a rather similar title to your own:
I was struck by a comment from Mary Harrington earlier this year, when she said she suspects the underlying cause is the gap between the state of being that is required to participate in contemporary society (both as a worker and a consumer) and the state of being that is required to show up to the needs of a baby or small child. This gap has grown so wide that it is increasingly difficult to move backwards and forwards across it.
The other point which is underlined in Louise Perry's article is that it is not only capitalism that is vulnerable to the end of population growth, but also the social welfare systems which are often represented politically as if they were the opposite pole to capital. This is where Illich's critiques of those systems need to be brought back to the table, I think, along with the work of agrarian thinkers like Wendell Berry, to help us catch sight of the possibility of good ways of living in the ruins. But as I reflected on in a talk at Steneby Skolan last week, it takes a particularly long stretch of the imagination to catch sight of such possibilities when we're starting from Världens modernaste land (or, as I sometimes think of it, the world's *last* modern country...).
Thanks Dougald, I have not followed Perry's writing at al and it was really an interesting coincidence that we write this more or less simultaneously.
I am also aware of that our welfare system will not survive a population contraction, it can hardly survive even a mild economic contraction. Even if the "left" often see the public welfare system as an opposite to capitalism, I see it more as a complementary care and reproduction service to the system, which have not been possible to totally embedd in the capitalist system - even if the efforts by neo-liberals have been there.
Interesting, surely there are many factors, of which you mentioned many above. One that is not mentioned so often as it should, in the Swedish context, is the rising costs of renting and owning a house or apartment. The brilliant capitalist idea of transforming our most basic need - somethere to live - into a capital asset is maybe not as brilliant as it seemed. Striking that Elon Musk has 12 children, I think you are onto something there, about the abundance of children as a sign of wealth in the future. It is a sign of having enough room.
I understand that fertility is dropping for all the reasons you mention but also declining sperm counts and reduced fertility due to pollution etc. Nate Hagens has some good podcasts on this.
Gunnar how m,any children do you have? I resolved early to not have children and concentrate on a self sufficient farm which I have. I love other peoples kids and the tremendous variation each child has. I think that a lot of this could be caused by so many chemicals used in farming and industry.
Interesting to see your thoughts on this, Gunnar. It feels like one of those conversations that has been brewing for a long time – the first book that put it on my radar was Jeremy Seabrook's A World Growing Old in 2003 – but has only finally spilled over into wider debate this year. If you didn't see it already, then Louise Perry's latest essay for First Things has a rather similar title to your own:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2024/12/modernitys-self-destruct-button
I was struck by a comment from Mary Harrington earlier this year, when she said she suspects the underlying cause is the gap between the state of being that is required to participate in contemporary society (both as a worker and a consumer) and the state of being that is required to show up to the needs of a baby or small child. This gap has grown so wide that it is increasingly difficult to move backwards and forwards across it.
The other point which is underlined in Louise Perry's article is that it is not only capitalism that is vulnerable to the end of population growth, but also the social welfare systems which are often represented politically as if they were the opposite pole to capital. This is where Illich's critiques of those systems need to be brought back to the table, I think, along with the work of agrarian thinkers like Wendell Berry, to help us catch sight of the possibility of good ways of living in the ruins. But as I reflected on in a talk at Steneby Skolan last week, it takes a particularly long stretch of the imagination to catch sight of such possibilities when we're starting from Världens modernaste land (or, as I sometimes think of it, the world's *last* modern country...).
Thanks Dougald, I have not followed Perry's writing at al and it was really an interesting coincidence that we write this more or less simultaneously.
I am also aware of that our welfare system will not survive a population contraction, it can hardly survive even a mild economic contraction. Even if the "left" often see the public welfare system as an opposite to capitalism, I see it more as a complementary care and reproduction service to the system, which have not been possible to totally embedd in the capitalist system - even if the efforts by neo-liberals have been there.
Interesting, surely there are many factors, of which you mentioned many above. One that is not mentioned so often as it should, in the Swedish context, is the rising costs of renting and owning a house or apartment. The brilliant capitalist idea of transforming our most basic need - somethere to live - into a capital asset is maybe not as brilliant as it seemed. Striking that Elon Musk has 12 children, I think you are onto something there, about the abundance of children as a sign of wealth in the future. It is a sign of having enough room.
I understand that fertility is dropping for all the reasons you mention but also declining sperm counts and reduced fertility due to pollution etc. Nate Hagens has some good podcasts on this.
Sure that is true, even if it is unclear how important it is.
Цікавими, на мою думку були експерименти John Bumpass Calhoun з пацюками.
Дуже наочно та показово.
Gunnar how m,any children do you have? I resolved early to not have children and concentrate on a self sufficient farm which I have. I love other peoples kids and the tremendous variation each child has. I think that a lot of this could be caused by so many chemicals used in farming and industry.
I have one child, a son and he has two children.
It is true that infertility may be caused by various chemicals, it is hard to know if this is an important aspect or a minor one.