The Fertile Will Inherit the Earth

When men can’t outbid the economy for the fertile years of women, population not only collapses, it selects from the next generation economically valuable characteristics.

Immigration by males to fill the population vacuum makes this worse because it further depresses wages for native males making them even less capable of outbidding the economy for the fertile years of young women and also competing for what few women they are able to potentially marry.

Government programs are incapable of correcting this situation because centralization of social policy puts policy decision into the hands of people with a conflict of interest as is evidenced by the fact that the counties surrounding Washington DC have the highest median income in the US. They don’t feel the destruction of the middle class and can’t conceive of policies to correct the destruction because in order to do so they have to face the fact that they are responsible for genocide. is the kind of solution required — distributing economic rents and taxes evenly to only men of military age as replacement for government — could work, but only once the central governments are no longer able to suppress it.


Your title statement is beyond dispute, of course, but I don’t understand your solution. It sounds like you’re saying only military age men should be able to own property or accumulate capital, is that it?

1 Like

I like Mark Steyn’s formulation of this issue – The future belongs to those who show up. But the question is – What do we mean by “future”?

A generation (birth of female child to her delivering her own first child) could be approximated as 20 years. A typical life span these days is 80 years – 4 generations. But we don’t pay much attention until we are about 20, and tend to become rather self-centered after 60 – so really we are paying attention for a period of about 40 years – 2 generations.

The impacts of low propensity to reproduce are fairly limited over a period of 2 generations. To make things worse, our Political Class focuses only on the next election – a period of about 0.1 generations, and our Media (although I repeat myself) focuses only on today – an infinitesimal amount of a generation.

Rosie the Riveter was about 4 generations ago, and that may have been the start of women focusing on their place in the workforce – and consequently diminishing their prior focus on the societally much more important task of bearing & bringing up the next generation. After 4 generations of foolishness, can we restore motherhood to its central place in any society which intends to survive? That depends on what we as a society choose to understand as the “future”.


I’m not sure how you could interpret the phrase “as a replacement for government” in that way.

Think about government as a monopoly on force.

Or watch this:


Screen Shot 2023-06-13 at 1.30.47 PM
(Mammen and Paxson, 2000)

An illustration of how “the economy outbids men for the fertile years of women”. (The “X” pattern represents death, of course.) This trend is shared by virtually every developed country, regardless of culture, religion, race, or government. Is sterility an inexorable result of economic development? Will a population collapse in developed countries destroy the forces that gave rise to their economic growth in the first place?


Excellent example. It seems that the economies are pursuing a ‘leap’ by sacrificing children to achieve short term growth. The thinking is that people are a replaceable resource, and that immigration will simply replenish the ranks of sterile worker bees. Historically this worked, but industrialization broke down the ecosystem of religious villages that supplied their excess humans to the cities.

What can realistically be our little goal is to inspire the worker bees to throw in the towel. Maybe something along the lines of “Happiness”, a Short Film by Steve Cutts


In our country we don’t financially incentivize having kids,do we? That could help. But realistically, everything about Leftism now is directed to making sure we don’t reproduce, at least if we’re white. That’s what this drag queen and trans garbage is all about.


We do sort of through the tax code but then every other facet of society preaches to men and women to either put off having kids to where you are pretty much locked into having one (if you’re lucky) or have no kids for Mother Gia.


In 1992, I wrote about the tax code and the looming baby bust as part of an economic policy reform
that would have made it unnecessary for me to, nowadays, talk about such a radical reform as

The “middle class” it is currently in vogue to worry about are
those people, primarily people born in the 1950’s (middle to late
baby boomers), whose family stability and household net worth
suffered greatly as a result of these housing shortages combined
with lowering real incomes.

Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s these 50’s babies were locked
out of homes in perpetual courtship behavior. The relative
unaffordability of housing delayed the onset of nesting far
longer than those born before 1950. Courtship behavior is
notoriously consumptive and exhausting. Nesting behavior is
investive and constructive. Thus 60 million Americans born in
the 1950’s are now suffering from low equity for their ages, and
little hope for the future.

In reality, it is too late to do anything for the members of this
group since most of its females are now leaving their
childbearing years – some desperately risking late pregnancies.
Most families have already been irreversibly damaged, assuming
they were formed at all. The best we can do now is attempt to
rebuild the middle class for future generations and try to allow
those we have decimated to build some equity for retirement with
their productive years.

It’s too late now. Not even Elon Musk, who would benefit tremendously from the reform I proposed (motivated mainly by my having participated in privatizing high risk technology businesses like launch services, and wanting to help them get capitalized as well as retain their earnings) is able to consider that far less radical (than militia money) proposal I set forth 3 decades ago. His court toadies have lobotomized him. He can’t conceive of what it would take to get the cost of family formation down for The Nation of Settlers. He can only complain about fertility rates even as he complains that people want to restrict H-1b visas (and even “worse”, green cards for them).


Over the last few decades a number of countries have implemented a variety of pronatalist incentive policies in response to falling birth rates. According to the UN, the number of countries (unweighted by population) with such policies has grown from 20% in 2005 to 28% in 2019. The results have been mixed and ambiguous. Here is a 2020 summary from the Institute for Family Studies, “Pro-Natal Policies Work, But They Come With a Hefty Price Tag”. (The insularity of this “study” is evident from its using “America” as a synonym for the United States, as opposed to two continents of diverse nations most of whom have fewer societal pathologies or delusions of empire than the latter railroad-era, continental-scale, resource-extraction empire.)

Evidence suggests that birth incentives may create a near-term baby blip by moving births forward in time by parents with high time preference motivated by the “ka-ching” of the immediate incentive or credit which, probably wisely, they suspect will be available only until the political winds shift again.

I believe the ultimate disincentive to parenthood is the abolition by the coercive state of the fundamental prerogative of parenthood—raising one’s children as best one can to be one’s successors in the eternal chain of life. This is basically how things have always worked since K strategy mammals started to eat one another, and has only been disrupted since industrial abundance has permitted the state, pretending Godhood, to dare seize children as its own.

May I dare to look at the bottom line? Why should a parent assume the liftetime financial responsibility (and liability) to raise a worthy successor if, from the earliest age, that child will be seen as “our child” by a “community” of deviants, thieves, and murderers, who will indoctrinate their “wards” with perversity, hate for his or her heritage and ancestors, celebration of savagery and destructive ideas, and persecute any parents who dare dissent from this appropriation and corruption of their children.

Dissent too openly, and they’ll burn you and your children to death in your church. Dissent more mildly, and “child protective services” may abduct them from your home to the protective embrace of the state. Better run up a “pride” flag, citizen parent, lest you lose your offspring to the rainbow press gang.

When these are the incentives in place, where “parents” perceive themselves as “breeders” producing offspring who are, from birth, the property of the state, I don’t think a couple of hundred or couple of thousand bucks a year is going to tilt the decision whether to have a kid. Let parents be parents, and let families be families, and you’ll see birth rates return to replacement or above.

(There’s been talk about abolishing “birthright citizenship” in those odd western hemisphere countries that have it. How about those countries allowing their citizens to opt out of citizenship for their own children? The Loonie-Tunes say you can’t “assign” a baby a sex at birth. Fine—then how can you say they’re a citizen of this or that socially-constructed country? Let them choose. Babies should be born stateless. Let them travel on their parents’ passports until age 18, at which time they get to elect a nationality, among nations which will have them. Assume the country where they were born will have to take them if none other will. But the whole idea of military obligation, lifetime taxpayer status, extraterritorial law constraints, etc., just goes away. Any country that doesn’t accept this doesn’t have citizens, but rather slaves. Is it any mystery why slaves won’t beget more slaves for slaver nations?)


That is pretty much the entire purpose of the minimalist rules for Sortocracy.

But since those rules do not appeal to women and they have the vote I have pretty much given up on tolerating their participation on that backstop against a rhyme with the 30 Years War. Hence I have come to focus more on militia money.

Freedom of religion is now up to We Men alone without the support of our women who seem subservient to the supremacist theocracy. This is very deep in evolutionary psychology. We may as well bite the bullet and get on with it.


Enforcing duel as mutual hunt in nature, rather than being draft age, in order to qualify as sovereign in may be necessary in order to reverse TFR decline. Duplicating Israel’s use of Holocaustianity to get inside women’s heads isn’t remotely practical.

While it is certainly reasonable to expect a fully adult female aka a woman, to recognize that gangs/governments shielding them from individual men is qualitatively different from another individual (brother or father or mate) shielding them, these group organisms have every incentive to stunt female cognitive development, rendering them, at best, pubescent girls in women’s bodies.

And while this serves the group organisms’ short-term purpose – providing what amounts to a manipulable stable of prostitutes with which to control the “johns” (ie: individualistic men deprived of real women) – it has the unintended side-effect of depopulating their prostitutes and johns.

As unlikely as it may be that these group organisms will wake up and take seriously their responsibility to themselves to sustain the natural resource of sterile workers (say, with incubators and artificial insemination, cloning etc.) the possibility of that horror should be sufficient to motivate humanity to search for alternative solutions. Israel is often held out as an exemplar with its above replacement TFR but those doing so never seriously discuss the practicality of duplicating the construction of a media empire to replace Christ with the population of men favored for propagation. They merely complain about the lack of “conservatives in media” and admonish “conservatives” to bite the bullet and play the rigged game because if they don’t, they’ll lose.

This ignores the entire universe of possibilities open to men, in evidence throughout the natural history of sex, of using force to change the rules of the game – and the evolutionary psychology of women of all species confronted with force between individual men of all species.



I worry sufficiently for my three adult children and two teen grandchildren, that I ask myself - were I of childbearing age, wouldI want to bring children into the world as it is; is ther much hope for improvement? I can’t be certain, but I lean toward “no”.


Things can only be improved by live players: folks who get their act together, focus, win wars they can win.


This is certainly valid. Part of the dilemma I sense is that nobody from my generation would be around during their rearing to make future generations aware of the values which guided us. Those values are not merely in retreat in subsequent generations, but being vehemently suppressed at every level in most every interaction which socializes and educates new generations. I don’t know if there is an historical precedent where those values we consider as essential and foundational, were already well known yet affirmatively and coercively rejected - as is being done today. The Founders, for example, made themselves free enough of the existing power structure to try out these new ideas of the Enlightenment. Compare with todays “Benightenment”.


The widespread apathy makes the effectiveness of live players just so much greater.


This is copacetic with John Robb’s analysis of the kind of maneuver warfare required to “get inside the opponent’s OODA loop”. Basically the second “O” is the “orientation” step that corresponds to Solomonoff Induction (the “D” corresponding to AIXI’s Sequential Decision Theory evaluation of various potential "A"s or Actions). The first “O” is simply, “Observe” aka activate sensors after having Acted.

The strength of BLOB is absolute alignment of its BLOBlilngs within its “moral” framework which basically is all about continual war until all are reduced to BLOBlings via such totalitarian “alignment” (which is why San Francisco is all about “alignment” nowadays, using “The AGI Threat” as a cover story).

The weakness of BLOB is the weakness of any supremacist theocracy: It ends up buying its own material hence is incapable of re-Orientation based on Observation.


Thank you for the link.

The below is quoted from his interview with Palladium Magazine.

Siavash asks, what are some objective metrics that can be used to evaluate whether an institution or a civilization is declining? He proposes perhaps net out-migration or low savings rates. What metrics do you use?

Samo Burja

Wow, that’s an interesting question. I think most of the modern measures are in a way too attuned to a bureaucratic framework that might not survive it. What is net savings? If wealth is fleeing from a monetary medium? You could imagine a world where people are trying to stash assets in land rather than stuff that’s denominated in dollars or whatever. I also think that if you have a failing society, you might have incorrect numbers coming in or out. I think it’s possible to establish a few things. I think, for example, in the late Roman period, you had a decline in atmospheric lead pollution. This isn’t because the Romans invented green technology. It’s because they were mining much less.

How do we know what the content of atmospheric lead is? We know because of the Greenland ice samples. The ice in Greenland, as it layered up, the small bubbles trapped basically atmospheric samples. Today, when we drill down into the ice, we can retrieve core samples and analyze the ice. There are all sorts of other physical measurements of byproducts. We could use things like how you know how much of the desert was irrigated, that’s like basically something you can just establish through material measures. I also think that it’s relatively more difficult but viable to track population size.

I think, almost always, a society with declining population sizes is a declining society. Something has just deeply gone wrong if human beings are failing to replace themselves. I’m not even saying that they should replace themselves. I’m just saying that if you were looking at an animal and the animal stops breeding in captivity, it’s clearly because of some difference between captivity and its wild environment. I think perhaps right now, we have accidentally put ourselves in captivity because almost all advanced industrial societies have this failure mode.

I think though more than low fertility, I’m thinking sudden population crashes when societal infrastructure fails. Key examples of this would be the aftermath of the Yellow Turban Rebellion, popularly known as the Three Kingdoms period, where China has a drop in population over the period of 60 years. That is, I think, a two thirds population drop. That didn’t happen through low fertility, okay? That happened through starvation. Probably some of it through disease and some of it through just direct killing. While the period of the Three Kingdoms is romanticized, that is a catastrophic drop in population size and arguably a catastrophic drop in societal complexity. There is a nonlinear relationship between population size and complexity.

Also, I think that the late Bronze Age collapse is another great example. We just see a massive population decline. So, you can have material measures to track various kinds of production going down, you can have population drops, which can be figured out through things like examining how many people are in the cities, whether their cities are being abandoned or not, or just by like looking at their official figures, such as censuses, assuming the censuses are accurate.

Finally, the loss of key indicating technologies. What’s the most fragile technology you can think of? It’s a little bit like a canary in the coal mine, right? You might see, as toys – not as methods of production – but as toys, steam engines in Alexandria at its peak. You won’t see toy steam engines in Alexandria when it’s declined. Likewise, you might see as arguably very expensive physics toys, the Large Hadron Collider today, but if these colliders were no longer built, while the justification for their building remains, likely something has gone wrong, something has gone a little bit off. We should be suspicious of things such as “Well, we are so rich now, we are so much richer than we were 50 years ago that we can’t possibly afford something as expensive as the Apollo missions”. There should be something weird there. That’s a little bit of a contradiction, isn’t it? These are not completely sure, but if you saw several of these indicators, it’s a good sign.

I think the modern day equivalent of his point on the reduction in mining would be a decline in energy usage. Even with efficiency gains, energy per person should be increasing.

The other thing I thought when I read this is that a sign of decline is when it is common for rational people to question if the civilization/organization is in decline.


That might be an interesting question to someone who reacts to events but it shouldn’t be all that interesting to someone who anticipates events as one would expect from The Foresight Institute or The Long Now Foundation.

Think about it in terms the exchange between kinetic and potential energy in a “cycle” like a sine wave. When the underlying resources required to sustain, let alone grow, are depleted, the decline starts – and it is too late to have any leverage over the coming collapse.

What is the equivalent of “potential energy” in the cycle of civilization?

It is quite simple and obvious when you think about it:

The material commitment to its young men by its elite men so that the young men are committed to protect property rights of the elite men. It’s that simple and really, that obvious.

So, the sign, in my mind, of a the inflection point for a civilization is when those entrusted to prophecy events by virtue of having a handle on the causal structures, receive support from and therefore start covering for the elite men as the elite men destroy the foundation of civilization.