The Chilling Maths of Decline

If the world were to adopt the fertility rate of the highest Scandinavian country (Norway)—a place with extensive social safety nets and family support, currently below —and pair it with a magically increased average human lifespan of 90 years, the global population by the year 3025 would stand at a staggering low of only 30 million people. On Earth.

This thought experiment dramatically illustrates that incremental policy changes are merely slowing a collapse, not averting it.

The crisis isn't simply that many countries are below ; it's that no country has successfully recovered to a replacement level once their fertility rate dropped significantly.

The Drivers of Population Decline

The shift away from procreation is a cocktail of socioeconomic forces:

1. Children: From Asset to Liability

During the agricultural era and in rural settings, a child was an economic asset, contributing to labour in non-organised sectors from an early age. In the modern, urban, complex economy, this dynamic has completely reversed. Children are a long-term liability in terms of time, finance, and parental focus, offering little practical utility to the parent for the first two decades, or perhaps ever. The complex requirements of modern organisations effectively block meaningful work for young children.

2. The Competing Demands on Women

Modern society demands that women compete for status in the workforce on equal footing with men. This is difficult enough, but women must also navigate the biological reality of taking time off to bear and raise children, which significantly impacts their competitive standing and career trajectory.

3. Economic and Systemic Shortfalls

While economic factors like the cost of living, housing supply, and inadequate government assistance for childcare are significant contributors, they do not appear to be the root cause. Even among the higher-income populations in developed countries—the group best positioned to financially afford children—the fertility rate is still around . Even the vaunted social safety nets of Scandinavia, which offer extensive support, fail to push the rate past . This suggests that better healthcare, income, and housing are insufficient solutions.

Fertility rates of different quantiles of the population in the Netherlands (2008-2022)

The Real Crisis: A Question of Value

If money, support, and longevity (even in a hypothetical post-scarcity society powered by AI) won't solve the fertility crisis, what will?

The core issue may be one of status and social valuation. In a society that primarily assigns status based on professional achievement and career success, the demanding, non-pecuniary work of motherhood has been devalued.

The proposed solution—and perhaps the only pathway back from the demographic cliff—is a fundamental re-alignment of social values:

We must restore and correctly align status to reflect the immense and crucial value of femininity and motherhood.

If we can shift the cultural narrative so that women pursue careers out of choice rather than necessity, and if society truly elevates the role of the primary caregiver, we might then see a cultural and demographic shift. Without this change in social status, humanity's current trajectory points toward a long, slow, and possibly inevitable extinction, regardless of our technological advances. The clock is ticking, not on resource depletion, but on the simple choice to continue our species.

The question of why men often place a high value on a woman’s sexual purity—or lack of prior sexual partners—is a persistent topic of social discussion. An analysis of this preference through an evolutionary lens suggests it is driven by deep-seated, pragmatic impulses related to reproductive strategy and genetic certainty.

One of the most straightforward explanations lies in the principle of predictive behaviour.There is a natural imbalance between men and women on the frequency that they would prefer to engage in short-term pre-marital intercourse. The best predictor for whether or not a woman is likely to sleep with a man, more than his status, and physical traits, is the number of past sexual partners of the woman.

Considering this, and the fact that, men generally seek different traits from potential long-term partners than they do from short-term partners, it would come to stand that, in this context, a woman with no prior partners is perceived as offering the highest statistical likelihood of future monogamy. In this case, such a woman would be, signifying a potentially stronger adherence to sexual restraint and, therefore, a lower risk of future infidelity that could compromise the relationship and, critically, the family unit.

The Evolutionary Imperative: Paternal Certainty

The most powerful driver of this preference would seem to stem from a fundamental evolutionary challenge faced by human males: the problem of paternal uncertainty.

1. Motherhood is certain; Fatherhood is not: A woman is always certain that the child she carries is hers. A man, historically, has had no such guarantee.

2. Evolutionary Cost: Before modern DNA testing, a man's entire investment—his protection, his resources, his energy—could be diverted to raising a child that was not biologically his. This represents the ultimate evolutionary cost, as it prevents the propagation of his own genes while simultaneously using his resources to support a someone else’s.

3. Virginity as a Proxy for Safety: Therefore, in ancestral environments, a woman's virginity acted as the most reliable, though not foolproof, indicator that any subsequent children born within the relationship were biologically the man's own. It was a mechanism for maximising paternal certainty.

This deep-seated instinct persists today, shaping mate selection preferences across cultures.

Suffering as a Gauge of Spiritual Progress

In the Christian walk, suffering often serves as a barometer for spiritual growth. Just as physical exercise causes discomfort yet leads to strength, spiritual challenges can be viewed as opportunities for faith to be tested and fortified. The Apostle James writes, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance" (James 1:2-3, NIV). This perspective transforms suffering from a mere hardship into a tool for gauging and fostering spiritual maturity.

Biblical Precedents of Suffering

The Bible is replete with examples of righteous individuals and groups enduring suffering as part of their spiritual journey. The Israelites' exodus from Egypt stands as a testament to this principle. Their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness was marked by hardships, yet it was through these trials that they were forged into a nation worthy of entering the Promised Land. Similarly, Abraham's call to leave his homeland for Canaan was a journey fraught with uncertainty and challenges. These narratives underscore a crucial truth: the path to divine promises often winds through valleys of difficulty.

Suffering in Christianity vs. Other Religions

While suffering plays a role in many religious traditions, Christianity uniquely positions it as a means of transcendence and redemption. In contrast to some Eastern philosophies that seek to escape suffering, or prosperity gospels that promise to eliminate it, orthodox Christianity embraces suffering as a transformative force. The Christian perspective does not glorify suffering for its own sake but recognizes its potential as a crucible for spiritual refinement and a pathway to deeper communion with God.

We shall explore this in depth in subsequent articles.

The Cross: Symbol of Redemptive Suffering

Central to Christianity is the image of Jesus Christ on the cross—a symbol that would seem paradoxical or even offensive in other religious contexts. For Christians, however, this image of apparent defeat represents the ultimate victory. Christ's suffering and death are understood not as signs of weakness or divine abandonment, but as the supreme act of love and the means by which humanity is reconciled to God. This reframes suffering from a mere tragedy to a potential instrument of redemption.

The Call to Follow Christ's Example

Jesus' words to his disciples, "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" (Matthew 20:22, NIV), serves as both a challenge and an invitation. To follow Christ means to be willing to embrace hardship for the sake of the Gospel. This doesn't imply seeking out suffering, but rather facing life's inevitable challenges with faith, courage, and the perspective that difficulties can serve a higher purpose.

Divine Grace in Human Weakness

Paradoxically, it is often in moments of greatest difficulty that believers experience the most profound manifestations of God's grace. The Apostle Paul's reflection on his own struggles illustrates this: "But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness'" (2 Corinthians 12:9, NIV). This perspective encourages believers to view challenges not as obstacles but as opportunities for God's power to be displayed in their lives.

Embracing Imperfection in the Journey

The Christian path, while aspirational, acknowledges human frailty. Even Jesus, in his humanity, struggled with the prospect of his impending crucifixion, praying in Gethsemane for the cup to pass from him if it were God's will (Luke 22:42). This moment of vulnerability serves as a powerful reminder that feeling burdened by life's challenges is not a sign of spiritual failure. Rather, it is in persevering through these moments, relying on God's strength, that spiritual growth occurs.

To recognize the reality of pain in a fallen world while offering a framework for understanding its potential redemptive value is what makes the Christian distinct. By viewing suffering through the lens of Christ's sacrificial love and the promise of eventual redemption, believers are equipped to face life's challenges with hope, resilience, and purpose.

What is Natural Law?

Natural Law is the idea that there are universal principles of right and wrong that are inherent in the nature of the universe and discoverable by human reason. It's like suggesting that the universe comes with its own moral code baked in, a cosmic rulebook that exists independently of what any particular society or government decides.

The source of Natural Law depends on who you ask:
1. The Theistic View: For many religious thinkers, Natural Law emanates from a divine source.

2. The Rationalist View: Others argue that Natural Law stems from pure reason and the nature of reality itself.

3. The Evolutionary View: Some modern thinkers propose that what we perceive as Natural Law is actually the result of evolutionary processes. These are the rules that allowed human societies to survive and thrive, hardwired into us through millennia of natural selection.

Natural Law provides a framework for critiquing positive law (the actual laws on the books) and serves as a philosophical justification for universal human rights. It's the reason we had Nuremberg trials and why "I was just following orders" isn't considered a get-out-of-jail-free card for crimes against humanity.

And this brings us neatly to our main topic: the necessity of law and judicial systems in a world of imperfect information and competing interpretations of what's right and just.

In essence, our legal system is a game of incomplete information where different players hold vastly different pieces of the puzzle. We can call this information asymmetry, and it's the reason why we can't just throw our hands up and say, "You know what? Laws are too complicated. Let's just wing it and hope for the best."

The Stabbing Scenario: A Case Study in Knowing What You Don't Know

Let's consider a hypothetical stabbing case to illustrate this point:

The Perpetrator: Our knife-wielding friend here is playing with a full deck. They know exactly what happened, why it happened and their intention. Information level: 100%

The Victim: Assuming they survived (let's hope so, for the sake of our legal proceedings), they have a pretty good idea of what went down. They felt the knife, saw the attacker, but might be a bit fuzzy on the "why" part. Information level: 75%

The Court: Our noble adjudicators are working with the informational equivalent of a half-eaten sandwich found behind the couch. They only know what's presented as evidence, which might not include crucial details like the perpetrator's secret diary entry titled "Why I'm Totally Going to Stab Bob Today." Information level: 25% (on a good day)

This asymmetry is why we need laws and a judicial system. Without them, we'd essentially be playing high-stakes Poker, except what’s at stake are actual human lives and societal order.

The Payments and Settlements Act: When Bureaucracy Actually Makes Things Better

Now, let's pivot to something a bit less stabby: financial transactions. The Payments and Settlements Act might sound like a cure for insomnia, but it's actually a fascinating example of how laws can reduce information asymmetry.

In the olden days (i.e., before the internet), financial transactions were about as transparent as a brick wall. Money moved around in mysterious ways, and fraud was like a game of Whack-A-Mole.

But then came online transactions, and suddenly we had a treasure trove of data. The Payments and Settlements Act leveraged this new reality, making it easier to spot fraud and malfeasance. It's like someone turned on the lights in a dark room where a bunch of financial crimes were happening, and all the criminals suddenly sunk back into the darkness.

If we had similar levels of mechanisms and systems in place to correctly assess omissions or commissions in a variety of situations, we could greatly reduce the need for an adjudicating party to parse through noise to find the signal.

Technologies like the Blockchain could play a part in this but it remains to be seen if individuals, companies and societies are incentivised to use it to increase information transparency.

This transparency is great for preventing fraud, but it also raises some interesting questions:

1. Do we really want every transaction to be public?

2. Are we replacing human judgement with algorithmic absolutism? (Sorry, sir, the blockchain says you can't buy ice cream because your smart fridge reported you're 0.5 pounds over your target weight.)

3. Is this level of transparency a tool for justice or just a new form of surveillance?

Regardless, since we have firmly established that laws and judicial systems are going nowhere, in the following articles we will explore how one such Judicial system of the future could look like.

MINOR ADULT RELATIONS BAD!! OKAY. I DO NOT CONDONE IT AND THINK IT IS WRONG. THE POINT OF THIS IS JUST TO ELUCIDATE ONE SALIENT POINT OF PRE-SELECTION WHICH I WILL NOT SPOIL.)

In the tapestry of human experience, few topics evoke as much fervour and moral indignation as the notion of relationships between adults and minors. This phenomenon, often shrouded in a veil of societal disapproval, raises profound questions about power dynamics, consent, and the very fabric of our moral codes.

The masses, driven by a primal urge to safeguard young girls from potential predators, cry out for protection. They fear that these individuals will manipulate or entice them with experiences beyond their legal reach, such as driving privileges, adult gatherings, or substances. Yet, I pose a question: do not girls of 18 years old remain susceptible to the same manipulation and enticement? Does not the same logic apply to them as well?

In my contemplation on this matter, I am drawn to the idea that every relationship is inherently transactional. The man seeks to reproduce; the woman seeks controlled excitement and security—both desires manifesting in a myriad of forms. This perspective suggests that age does not fundamentally alter these primal drives but merely changes their expression.

I do not advocate for adults to date younger women or men. However, these relationships should be policed not by law but by society itself. The notion that age provides a safeguard against manipulation or exploitation is an illusion. An individual's temperament plays a pivotal role in how they respond to pressure or manipulation—whether they are 14 or 18 years of age.

The only standard with a biological basis for the age of consent would be for those individuals who have undergone puberty and are capable of reproducing. It seems to me that it matters not, the age of the individuals involved in the act. The arbitrary legal boundary of 18 years old appears to be a mere social construct, devoid of biological significance and more likely an export of Hollywood rather than objective truth.

Strictly from a legal perspective, there is little reason to have the age of consent at 18. Instead, societal norms can serve as potent deterrents against behaviors deemed inappropriate by society. The fear of social ostracism can be just as effective as any legal edict in policing such relationships.

A crucial aspect of relationships often overlooked is the concept of pre-selection. In the natural order of things, women of a similar age to the man have already pre-selected him, deeming him worthy or unworthy of partnership. This pre-selection process is a crucial aspect of mate selection, as it allows individuals to gauge their own value and desirability.

In the case of an adult-minor relationship, it seems that the aversion and disgust to this potential partnership is rooted in the concept of pre-selection. If a woman of the man's age has rejected him and deemed him unworthy, and the only way he can achieve a partner is by aligning with a younger girl who may not have the same amount of experience to select appropriate partners, then the relationship is viewed as inherently problematic.

This phenomenon speaks to the heart of our societal discomfort with adult-minor relationships. We recognize that the man's inability to secure a partner of his own age is a reflection of his own lack of value and desirability. The fact that he must resort to pursuing a younger, less experienced partner is seen as a desperate attempt to assert power and control.

If one is concerned about forced sex, then that is an issue that transcends age. The fear of being taken advantage of is not unique to younger women; it is a universal concern that permeates all relationships. Age does not ameliorate this risk; but it can determine the dynamics of the relationship but is separate to the question of age.

The notion that age provides a safeguard against manipulation or exploitation is an illusion. Relationships between adults and minors should be, to an extent, as it already is, policed by society itself, rather than by law.

'All Along the Watchtower’ is arguably one of the most popular Jimi Hendrix songs of all time. This was Hendrix' only Top 40 hit in the US. He charted a few times in the UK, where he rose to fame before making a name for himself in America.

I bet you’ll be hard-pressed to find any well-known musician who plays the guitar not cover this song. You've probably most recently heard Dave Mathew’s version while performing with John Mayer’s band ‘Dead and Company’. A friend once sent me a clip from the show 'Prison Break' which features the Spanish version of the song playing in the background. That speaks volumes of the popularity of this song.

Not only is this song one of the most recognizable songs ever. It’s easily inspired millions of people all around the world to pick up the guitar. Hardly easy enough to be the first guitar lesson, but something most beginners would strive to play sooner rather than later.

All that’s great but here’s the real kicker - It’s not HIS song.

I listened to it for years before realizing that Jimi Hendrix's version was only a cover of Bob Dylan’s. I implore you to only continue reading after you listen to that song if you haven’t already.

If you’re anything like me you’ll take a moment to marvel at how different the same song sounds. So did Bob Dylan, the original creator of the song :

"It overwhelmed me, really. He had such talent, he could find things inside a song and vigorously develop them. He found things that other people wouldn't think of finding in there. He probably improved upon it by the spaces he was using. I took license with the song from his version, actually, and continue to do it to this day."

That’s insane if you think about it. Imagine ‘sampling’ a song (as it’s known these days) and getting such praise for it from the creator of the original. It’s not known to happen.

I’ve since been obsessed with the idea of 'vigorously fleshing things out'. To reference a previously written post 'On not knowing when to shut up’, I have attempted to do the same. Regardless of whether or not you enjoyed reading it, it was based on a very isolated but seemingly insignificant event in my life. It will now forever remain in my memory as a cheeky little story I used to make a point here on ‘Wandering disposition’. The art of the story is worth developing for an audience. Even if that audience is just you.

Jimi Hendrix was an absolute genius at being able to flesh out something magical every time he played. It continues to be the sole reason he is considered the most innovative guitar player in the history of the instrument. The performance of the guitar is on a completely different level today. All you have to do is spend a few minutes looking up new-age Instagram guitarists online and you’ll be blown away by their talent. I would argue and those guitarists would probably agree with me when I say that, “ Jimi Hendrix laid the foundation for all of it. With the help of a few other guitarists, I might add “.

Let’s be honest, life is mostly a collection of things mundane. You can sit around and wait for interesting things to happen. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, try conjuring something out of nothing. ‘Vigorously flesh out’ something of your own the next time you feel stuck in life. We seem to have no diminished capacity to do that at will in our personal lives, a flair for the dramatic to spice up our social lives, the way we see it. We’d be much better served, however, if we did that with our creative lives.

Make no mistake, Bob Dylan’s version is a masterpiece. But in 2023 the only ones who would listen to the song would include old men in their 70s, reliving an era gone by, and/or new coming-of-age aspiring singer/songwriters looking for inspiration. Without Hendrix’s version of the song, Bob Dylan’s classic would’ve remained just that - ‘A Bob Dylan classic’.

Authors note:

For the eagle-eyed readers, the title of this piece is “The Hendrix Chord“ which is the E7#9 Chord (‘Purple haze). It was a chord (or a collection of notes) he used quite often, especially while playing live. If you attempt to play it at random it may sound odd to you. That’s because its notes mix both major and minor scales, something he liked to do in his music. Within the context of his songs, the chord sounds fantastic and any guitarist worth his salt would be able to recognize it immediately. Jimi Hendrix was famously known for knowing very little music theory and often bent music rules which he discovered after hours and hours of just playing the guitar.

That’s how creativity works. We’d be served well to follow his example.

PS: I would love to hear any version of ‘ All Along the Watchtower’. So if there’s a version of the song you think I should know about, feel free to send it to us here at ‘Wandering Disposition’.

Do these women truly understand what they demand? Or have they merely found a new scapegoat in the old "patriarchy" upon which to foist their resentments and discontents?

As Rene Girard explains, "Human society is founded upon violence. When mimetic desires and rivalries grow too strong amongst a community, threatening chaos, one is selected as the "scapegoat" - blamed for all ills and sacrificed to restore order. Over time, this evolved from actual human sacrifice to symbolic animal sacrifice in religion."

But Christianity revealed the inherent flaw - the scapegoat is innocent. Once this is seen, the mechanism can no longer be sustained. Violence finds no release and tensions mount higher than ever. I see this process now reaching its climax in modernity.

Bereft of finding their scapegoats through religion, people search desperately for new targets on which to project their frustrations. Foucault's diagnostics ring true - we diagnose deviancy in ever more elaborate and changing forms, in an attempt to contain and expel what we loathe most - our own shortcomings.

When we peel back the motivations for these feminists and their call for "matriarchy", we find the all-too-familiar resentments that plague the human condition. I can understand their position, it is comforting to conjure a great oppressor in the "patriarchy".

Make no mistake, injustice toward women exists and progress remains to be made. But a changing of hands at the helm will not remedy what truly ails them - or humanity itself. For power corrupts all who grasp it.

Perhaps the new technologies hint at what comes next. As machines automate our brutish "work," we gain freedom from its shackles at last. No longer tethered to the drear realities of labour and survival, new avenues of play, art and self-cultivation may open.

Then man and woman alike can transcend these petty social assemblies and their resentments, to become who they truly are.

“I’m a conversation hoe”, he would exclaim from time to time. He had a way with words and always had something to say. No matter how appropriate, inappropriate or goofy the thought, he would verbalize it immediately, regardless of the seriousness of the situation. As you can imagine, he spent most of his time with his foot in his mouth.

“ You don’t know when to shut up”, those of us close to him never passed an opportunity to point out. It only served to strengthen his resolve, much to the bewilderment of everyone around him.

Soon after he started dating and things were starting to get serious, he wanted us to meet his new girlfriend. “ Let’s all go have dinner together soon.”

The day arrived. Unbeknownst to any of us, the girl was living with another girl who happened to be in the same academic course as her. They were both shy and decided it would be better for them to go together having found out that the friend group comprised of only boys. So the girlfriend decided to bring her flatmate along to our outing.

Usually, things of this sort mattered very little, because we always had our in-house self-appointed ‘wordsmith’ ever present to demolish ice.

Having been ‘called out’ for his extroversion in the past, however, my friend had made up his mind to stay quiet for the duration of the night. It was not going to be easy for him, but he was determined not to get in the way of anyone getting to ‘organically’ know each other. He was going to stay strong and silent for the greater good, he thought. So apart from formally introducing the two groups at the start, he said or did nothing else the entire night. The rest of us stayed quiet too. Suffice it to say, it was the longest dinner any of us ever experienced, although it was only 2 hours in duration.

“ So what do you think of her ?” He asked us rather gleefully after we parted company with the two girls. “ You don’t know when to shut up”, we reminded him.

In closing

To reference an earlier post of mine, 'Thoughts on thinking', I think we must develop our grip on how much we speak in addition to how much we think. Sadly, it’s easy to get stuck in thoughts of what to say, when to say it and how much is too much. The best solution to combat this is to consider that less is more but nothing is too little. If silence is essential given a situation at hand, then so be it. Silence is extremely powerful but when used incorrectly can be extremely rude and sometimes even undermine your position in a given situation. A worthy topic that merits discussion on how best to use it. Hopefully by someone better suited than yours truly.

“Don’t say 7 words when 4 will do.” - Rusty Ryan to Linus Caldwell in Ocean’s Eleven

But what is the nature of these relationships? Are they truly selfless, or are they driven by more mercenary impulses?

Consider friendship. We speak of it in glowing terms, as a bond based purely on mutual affection, respect and trust. And yet, if we examine the roots of these relationships, we find that they are often based on shared interests and the desire for companionship. We seek out friends who will enhance our lives, who will provide us with the validation and pleasure we crave. And when those needs are no longer met, the friendship fades away.

The same is true of marriage. We speak of it as a union of love and partnership, but the reality is that it serves individual needs. One partner provides financial stability, the other social standing. Both benefit from the division of household labour. And when those needs are no longer met - be it intimacy, respect, or aesthetic appeal - separation beckons.

Even parenthood, which we regard as the purest form of love, is not immune to this dynamic. We have children to experience the joys of parenting, to see our legacy continued, and to have caregivers in old age. The child's love and devotion are transactional, traded for food, shelter, and guardian guidance. And when that contract is broken, the parent's forgiveness is not endless.

Based on this surmisation, Relationships can be categorised into two:

1. Overt Transactional Relationships

2. Covert Transactional Relationships

All of these relationships, then, are fundamentally transactional in nature but some are just more blatant. They are based on the exchange of goods and services, on the pursuit of individual wants and needs. And yet, despite this mercenary impulse, we persist in our pursuit of connection and companionship. We seek out others who will enhance our lives, who will provide us with the validation and pleasure we crave.

This, then, is the nature of human relationships. They are not selfless, nor are they entirely selfish. They are a complex interplay of light and shadow, of noble ideals and baser motivations. And yet, despite their many contradictions, they remain a fundamental part of the human experience.