Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Elites without Kids

February 15th, 2017 by Patrick Henry

File:Taiwan-population-pyramid-2014.svg - Wikipedia

 

That is a population pyramid.  I picked it randomly.  There are lots of places that look the same.  Spain and Slovenia and Singapore and China and lots of places here in America.It made me think of the Great and Spacious building.  It’s a pyramid that almost doesn’t have any base any more.

There are no good pictures of the Great and Spacious building where you can see the bottom of it.  I think nobody knows how to draw a building that has no base.  Maybe they should make it look like a population pyramid.  A society without kids is pretty  much the same as a building without a foundation.

In evolution, the point of being in the elites is you can have lots of kids.  Lots of places are like that.  There is nothing puzzling about them.  They say that in medieval England, it was the knights and burghers who left most of the kids behind.  That makes sense.

But sometimes you get people who scramble to get on top of the society, but who then don’t have any kids.

In the Late Republican times, the Roman elites stopped having kids.  Greece before that: one reason Rome conquered Greece was lack of manpower.

In Medieval England, almost all the great noble lines died out.

The Spartans were unmatched in caliber.  They were heads and shoulders the best troops of the ancient world.  When they were brought down at the end, it was because there were hardly any of them left.

In the US and Europe, all the high-status people, who have good  jobs and good education, have no kids:

Here is a chart, from this good post:

 

 

The birth rate for people with high income isn’t as bad, but is still lower.

The Spartans trained so much to be bad hombres that they kept their own men from marrying and having kids.  A lot of them died young in fighting or in training or from exposure at birth.  They were all bad hombres, but they dwindled.

The Norman aristocrats all killed each other off.

The Romans and Greeks were more like us.  Having kids was not fashionable or hedonistic.  They were a bit like the Normans too though.  In the civil wars and proscriptions of the late Republic and of the Empire, they kept killing each other off.

 

All these are examples where the fight to get or keep status has eliminated the purpose of having status–having posterity.

In our day, we scramble and scramble to get to the top of the status pyramid.  We go to long periods of schooling, we go into debt for it, we then keep scrambling from one career enhancing opportunity to another–and none of that means having kids.  When we do have kids, why, the pyramid is there for them too, so they have to receive plenty of education at the best schools, which means the most expensive schools.  (Public schools are expensive too, since you have to buy a house in a “good” neighborhood.)  Everyone worries about their kids being high status, no one worries about their kids being able to marry and raise a family.

The Great and Spacious building is all about status.  Everyone there is dressed  nice and spends their time mocking others who are lower status.  But the building has no foundation.

Our modern elites spend their time getting status, but they have no kids.

Comments (9)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: ,
February 15th, 2017 07:45:16
9 comments

Andrew
February 15, 2017

God promised to Moses that the descendants of Israel would prosper. It is interesting that such a promise is meaningless, or undesired by our elites. The Idols and values they hold don’t care about that sort of thing, and they have a general disconnect from even natural law.


JRL in AZ
February 15, 2017

This further validates my claim that I am the wealthiest man I know. I started saying that just because my wife and our passel of children fill me with immeasurable satisfaction, but it gets truer and truer the more I learn.


Wilhelm
February 15, 2017

“…they shall dwindle in unbelief and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities… they shall sin against so great light and knowledge…” Alma 45:12

dwindle – diminish gradually in size, amount, or strength


G.
February 15, 2017

Right on, @Wilhelm.


Context
February 17, 2017

I have never thought about the great and spacious building in this way before. Fascinating.

I work at one of the world’s largest companies full of smart, successful, driven and mostly high income people. My family of 5 is very far outside the norm. Everyone seems to settle on 1 or 2 children as the ideal number as to not impede their careers.


Ivan Wolfe
February 17, 2017

I have 10 kids (well, 4 are stepkids, but whatever). Frankly, that makes me a freak (even inside the Mormon world somewhat), definitely in academia where I work.

I don’t recall where I read it (it may have been here), but the world treats kids like hobbies. If you have 1 or 2, that’s nice and a good conversation topic, but it’s obscene to have a dozen (of course, I have like a dozen hobbies as well, so I have no shame).

There is a family in our ward with 11 kids. Most (that have kids) have 3 or 4 though. Mormons tend to have more kids overall, but as the average goes down in the world, Mormons only stay 1 or 2 above.


Andrew
February 17, 2017

There is a family with 11 kids in our Traditional Catholic parish, and they are also on the edge of the bell curve. 5 kids is more common in our parish, but then our parish is an outlier as well!


G.
February 18, 2017

In my office, I am the only person with more than 2 kids. The average is 1. In my workplace, I am not aware of any non-Mormon who has more than 3.


el oso
February 18, 2017

Most of the established families in my ward have 3-5 kids. We have 6 and no families have more among those that have kids still at home. There may be an old couple that has more.
Most at the office that I know have 2 kids. I have had other colleagues that have up to 5 kids in the past.

Leave a Reply