Today two people led me to think about one particular problem: how does societal collapse happen, and which role do women play in it. The people involved are Jordan Peterson and Neutralrandomthoughts, a frequent commenter on this site.
I listened to a lecture by Jordan Peterson on Tragedy vs Evil. In it, he makes the point that women, due to the vulnerability of a newborn child, need to have a protective partner. Peterson used more dramatic language, but the point stands nonetheless. From that you can deduce that a woman who choses the wrong kind of guy will have a hard time surviving herself, and the same is true for her child. Interestingly, the same is also true for the feckless stone age man she attracted. If the child of the woman dies, then Stone Age Chad’s genes won’t survive either. Thus, mother nature ensures that feckless parents will not have offspring that survive. This means that they are unfit, speaking in evolutionary terms.
Neutralrandomthoughts drew a similar conclusion. In fact, his statement made me realize that Peterson’s observation about the vulnerability of a mother giving birth has much bigger ramifications for society. He wrote, in a comment on my post on some tatted up single-mom:
Sleazy pointed it out correctly. She’s damaged, because her parents were damaged. Sooner or later someone will have to go to therapy to solve the supra-generational family problem. Or not. That’s how a society goes belly up.
The implication is that if we didn’t interfere with nature, society wouldn’t go belly up. In a much harsher political climate, single mothers simply would not survive. Thus, their children would not survive. As a consequence, the children of people who make shockingly poor life decisions will not survive. Their genes will die out, and society would arguably be better off as a result.
However, interference of the nanny state completely distorts this evolutionary mechanism. Mothers no longer need to pick a mate who would support and protect them. Instead, Daddy Government and all his minions will make sure that no matter how poor the judgment of a single mother, all her problems will be solved. The father is a junkie? No problem at all. The mother has a history of self-medication as well as alcohol and drug abuse? No problem, we need all kinds of people to make a functioning society! The mother has hit the wall and desperately wants to have a baby? No problem, pick any of the garbage-tier guys who want to fuck you! Daddy Government will finance your life.
While in previous times, such a woman would have a hard time surviving, in today’s climate she’ll get pampered. Welfare payments, child support, food stamps out the wazoo! Now think for a moment what this means for society!
It’s quite clear what this means. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. if they pick unsuitable mates, they no longer get washed out by evolution. Instead, their children survive and get raised by a mother who should get institutionalized because she clearly can’t take care of herself. It is extremely rare that children are able to distance themselves from the negative influence of their family, so a trashy single mom is very likely to raise another trashy single mom. Due to the fact that the underclass procreates much more readily than the educated, due to constant encouragement by the government, the end result is akin to the movie Idiocracy.
Look around yourself! We went from having perfectly well-running societies in the 1950s and 1960s to a complete nightmare. Society has been crumbling. The traditional family unit is, in some Western cities, no longer the norm. Just look up the percentage of single households in Stockholm, Sweden, for instance! (Spoiler alert: in all of Sweden, single households without children are the most common type.) More or less everywhere in the West I see crumbling infrastructure, a metastasizing welfare state, corrupt elites, the rise of collectivism, censorship, marauders, and utter moral degeneracy.
How do you think Western society would look like if we didn’t support people who made incredibly poor life decisions? Let’s say single mothers would get no support, and welfare benefits would be restricted to the truly needy, for instance the old and frail or the handicapped. We probably wouldn’t do a lot worse than in the 1950s or 1960s.