That’s possibly the most believable explanation for the Fermi paradox that I’ve ever read. And also a strong argument that utopia is ultimately immoral, in that it leads to the extinction of those who live in it.
Indeed it was. A brilliant formulation, and the only one I have ever found that holds water. I tend (not always successfully)to avoid the word when discussing issues in public, because it is so easily employed by priests dgand demagogues to corrupt both the moral impulse and plain good sense.
Good essay. I've been writing a bit about the pending population collapse in the West on a private forum is preparation for an essay here on Substack. Your thoughts, observations and knowledge really helped tear me away from a simple dual focus on religion and house prices. I would also add that a major contributory factor seems to be the fact that women often erroneously believe they have more time to have children. Fertility rates can begin to decline substantially as early as 30.
I think that you've missed some of the studies on what you call "healthy hedonism."
Those behaviors only become widespread through out a culture in the same times that the slothfulness that you deplore in this piece also does. Within 1-3 generations, if those behaviors become wide spread, usually the civilization crumbles and becomes no more. We're on the brink of that here in the U.S.
It is worth noting, too, that we need to classify behaviors between a subset of a population (ie - sailors and such) and widespread if you're going to talk in such a manner as I am above.
The reason is, again, abundance. Such hedonistic behaviors can only take place, without immediately destroying a society, if there is the abundance that allows the slothful behavior as well. Thus, the two coincide. You have widespread hedonism of sexual nature with sodomistic tendencies, contraception, pornography, breaking laws, adultery, divorce, masturbation, etc - at the same time you have people simply checking out of the society all together.
As far as what you call 'transformative experiences' these are condemned by the Catholic Church not because they replace 'religious experiences' but because they inhibit the way that we are made in God's image - our Reason. We can drink, but not get drunk, because it makes us not rational for the duration of our drunkenness. The same with other drugs. We are like unto God and His Angels through our reason; anything that impairs that is sinful. Thus, it is not the 'experience' but our pulling away from God's image that they deplore.
Lastly - there's a rise in the traditional religions. Those that have held true. Traditional Latin Rite Catholics are seeing rise in conversions and attendance; which openly are having large families, condemn birth control, divorce, etc. The same for the Orthodox as far as I can discern talking to them. Its not uncommon for families to have 7-10 children. Those numbers, exponentially grown, plus conversions, can shape things rather quickly.
In short, I wouldn't count the religions out yet. Only those that hold to Liberty or the Enlightenment clown world ideals.
Good stuff, uncouth barbarian. Let those of us who are traditionally religious hope that we aren't counted out! But, certainly, we need to ensure that we create an alternative to the modern culture that will die (not in a polemic way - the fertility rate is below replacement. Either culture changes to promote more children, or it dies).
But yes, this was a super interesting article, and I also appreciated your thoughts. I'm finishing off an article about fertility myself for this weekend, look forward to reading your feedback!
Hedonism is overrated at best. It’s akin to being beached on a cruise ship of unfit naked folks, complete with all inclusive buffets and sugary, tropical themed, frozen cocktails spiked with syrupy bottom shelf spirits. The Tree House is my preference, for what it’s worth.
That would be what I was calling "bad hedonism." Epicurus differentiated between the two sorts very well. Good hedonism is life enhancing, bad hedonism is life-extinguishing. Any pleasure can be indulged with a frequency, an extremity, or with a motive structure that renders it destructive--and vice versa.
Only one kind of hedonism is actually fun. The bad kind is ultimately unsatisfying (perhaps because it’s neither reward nor a break from the norm - it quickly becomes a new normal) and leads to the need to intensify the experience in order to get the same rush as the behavior had in the beginning. Great essay that put in words some notions that had occurred to me about the challenges of abundance. Rat utopia captures our moment well.
Actually I was referring to Hedonism in Negril, Jamaica. It’s a private, all inclusive hotel and resort compound right on the beach- 🏝️. It was marketed back in the early 90’s as an adults only, ‘Platos’s Retreat’ or Playboy Club type swingers resort, except the reality on the ground is much more like my description above. The Tree House on the other hand is a great resort just up the road apiece which is staffed by some of the nicest, friendliest, and wonderful locals providing a much more immersive island vacation experience.
Oh! I was familiar with Hedonism 2, but I was too young to hear the marketing for Hedonism 1. Didn't know about the Tree House. Sorry for making you explain the joke.
Thank you for bringing this up. I, too, have been contemplating the parallels between American society (and all industrialized societies on Earth) and the Calhoun experiments for some time now.
Conservatives are not against hedonism per se. WHat they despair of is the solipsism that engulfs so many liberals. I call it Virginnia Woolf syndrome, after that pathetic creature who lived her whole life thinking that her problems and desires were the problems and desires of the world.
The simple truth is, as you have so cogently argued, that the mass of people are not capable of being successful hedonists, either through temperament or wealth. Hedonism is like a lot of other things, all very nioce when a few individuals do them, but deterimental to society if they become normalised.
That’s possibly the most believable explanation for the Fermi paradox that I’ve ever read. And also a strong argument that utopia is ultimately immoral, in that it leads to the extinction of those who live in it.
It certainly is if you buy the notion that morality is in any way correlatesnwith survival behavior.
Wasn’t it Heinlein in Starship Troopers who said “Moral behavior is survival behavior, beyond the individual level.”?
Indeed it was. A brilliant formulation, and the only one I have ever found that holds water. I tend (not always successfully)to avoid the word when discussing issues in public, because it is so easily employed by priests dgand demagogues to corrupt both the moral impulse and plain good sense.
Good essay. I've been writing a bit about the pending population collapse in the West on a private forum is preparation for an essay here on Substack. Your thoughts, observations and knowledge really helped tear me away from a simple dual focus on religion and house prices. I would also add that a major contributory factor seems to be the fact that women often erroneously believe they have more time to have children. Fertility rates can begin to decline substantially as early as 30.
I think that you've missed some of the studies on what you call "healthy hedonism."
Those behaviors only become widespread through out a culture in the same times that the slothfulness that you deplore in this piece also does. Within 1-3 generations, if those behaviors become wide spread, usually the civilization crumbles and becomes no more. We're on the brink of that here in the U.S.
It is worth noting, too, that we need to classify behaviors between a subset of a population (ie - sailors and such) and widespread if you're going to talk in such a manner as I am above.
The reason is, again, abundance. Such hedonistic behaviors can only take place, without immediately destroying a society, if there is the abundance that allows the slothful behavior as well. Thus, the two coincide. You have widespread hedonism of sexual nature with sodomistic tendencies, contraception, pornography, breaking laws, adultery, divorce, masturbation, etc - at the same time you have people simply checking out of the society all together.
As far as what you call 'transformative experiences' these are condemned by the Catholic Church not because they replace 'religious experiences' but because they inhibit the way that we are made in God's image - our Reason. We can drink, but not get drunk, because it makes us not rational for the duration of our drunkenness. The same with other drugs. We are like unto God and His Angels through our reason; anything that impairs that is sinful. Thus, it is not the 'experience' but our pulling away from God's image that they deplore.
Lastly - there's a rise in the traditional religions. Those that have held true. Traditional Latin Rite Catholics are seeing rise in conversions and attendance; which openly are having large families, condemn birth control, divorce, etc. The same for the Orthodox as far as I can discern talking to them. Its not uncommon for families to have 7-10 children. Those numbers, exponentially grown, plus conversions, can shape things rather quickly.
In short, I wouldn't count the religions out yet. Only those that hold to Liberty or the Enlightenment clown world ideals.
Good stuff, uncouth barbarian. Let those of us who are traditionally religious hope that we aren't counted out! But, certainly, we need to ensure that we create an alternative to the modern culture that will die (not in a polemic way - the fertility rate is below replacement. Either culture changes to promote more children, or it dies).
But yes, this was a super interesting article, and I also appreciated your thoughts. I'm finishing off an article about fertility myself for this weekend, look forward to reading your feedback!
Hedonism is overrated at best. It’s akin to being beached on a cruise ship of unfit naked folks, complete with all inclusive buffets and sugary, tropical themed, frozen cocktails spiked with syrupy bottom shelf spirits. The Tree House is my preference, for what it’s worth.
That would be what I was calling "bad hedonism." Epicurus differentiated between the two sorts very well. Good hedonism is life enhancing, bad hedonism is life-extinguishing. Any pleasure can be indulged with a frequency, an extremity, or with a motive structure that renders it destructive--and vice versa.
Only one kind of hedonism is actually fun. The bad kind is ultimately unsatisfying (perhaps because it’s neither reward nor a break from the norm - it quickly becomes a new normal) and leads to the need to intensify the experience in order to get the same rush as the behavior had in the beginning. Great essay that put in words some notions that had occurred to me about the challenges of abundance. Rat utopia captures our moment well.
Yup
I understand the perspective on indulgence you’ve shared as well.
Actually I was referring to Hedonism in Negril, Jamaica. It’s a private, all inclusive hotel and resort compound right on the beach- 🏝️. It was marketed back in the early 90’s as an adults only, ‘Platos’s Retreat’ or Playboy Club type swingers resort, except the reality on the ground is much more like my description above. The Tree House on the other hand is a great resort just up the road apiece which is staffed by some of the nicest, friendliest, and wonderful locals providing a much more immersive island vacation experience.
Oh! I was familiar with Hedonism 2, but I was too young to hear the marketing for Hedonism 1. Didn't know about the Tree House. Sorry for making you explain the joke.
Thank you for bringing this up. I, too, have been contemplating the parallels between American society (and all industrialized societies on Earth) and the Calhoun experiments for some time now.
Conservatives are not against hedonism per se. WHat they despair of is the solipsism that engulfs so many liberals. I call it Virginnia Woolf syndrome, after that pathetic creature who lived her whole life thinking that her problems and desires were the problems and desires of the world.
The simple truth is, as you have so cogently argued, that the mass of people are not capable of being successful hedonists, either through temperament or wealth. Hedonism is like a lot of other things, all very nioce when a few individuals do them, but deterimental to society if they become normalised.