It was Aristotle who first proposed the cyclic nature of constitutions. First, democracy, then oligarchy, then tyranny, and then revolution and all again. Polybius quotes this theory and brings up several examples from contemporary Greek and Roman politics. The theory makes sense, yet it does not explain the cyclical nature of the rise and the fall of several (in fact, all) empires. Volkmar Weiss proposes a genetic explanation:
"Could be the turning point (in England already about 1850, in Germany three or four decades later) in differential fertility also be the turning point of the cycle of industrialized society? Could it be, that the rich because of their rising social density would be the first to regulate their numbers in a cyclic fashion? What does or could this mean for the Aristotelian cycle of political constitutions, for the future of democracy? What are the differences and the similarities of the industrialized society with the rise and fall of the Roman empire and the repeated cycles within China?"The issue is why relatively comfortable people suddenly loses the urge to reproduce? This may be one of the most relevant question of our times, and no one is giving much thought to it.
10 comments:
I think the reasons are fairly well known and obvious - pre-industrialized people need children to help around the farm and take care of them in old age. Raising a post-industrial child is expensive - who can afford 10 college tuitions and braces and music lessons, etc. and who can afford a big enough apartment in a big city? Modern people get married later and sometimes never - it's OK to be gay or single or whatever you choose. Southern European men especially don't help with childcare (often live with their mothers until late '30s) so their modern liberated wives choose not to have a lot of children. Women's lib and birth control put women in control of this decision. Probably men always liked to have a lot of children (spread gene pool around, etc.) and women did not - now the decision is more in women's hands. Etc.
The causes are fairly obvious. The consequences (e.g. Mohammed is now the most common baby name in many Euro. countries) are very bad. The fix is not obvious (other than that Euros are making a big mistake by allowing immigration of Muslims).
The solution is contained in your own comment: take out the decision from the hand of the women.
I don't think that will be possible unless we can convince women to give up education and economic independence. The only ones who seem to have any success with that approach are the Taliban.
Found here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2XKMYPE5C589I
Once more, your comment contains the answer: the Taliban are doing something right.
Maybe, instinctively, they are fighting for the survival of their people. I dont know. I certainly am not pro-taliban.
The Nazis paid and encouraged women to have children also (even out of wedlock). I don't admit that the Taliban are doing anything "right" any more than the Nazis. At least the Nazis believed in modernity - under Taliban rule the average lifespan would be maybe 35 due to lack of medical care and sanitation which would negate having lots of children.
It would make it necessary to have lots of children.
That is the point; at least one of the points.
anon.
Does anyone know if Dr Weiss' work has been translated. Elmer Pendell was an american scholar who wrote of similar developments. I think both are correct. The cycle keeps continuing because people fail to realise that once civilization has been established, it is vital that the IQ is kept high (not necessarily increased) for it to be prolonged. This simple lesson has never been learned. The western world certainly isn't learning it.
Dr Weiss does have a website, which lists what is translated and what is not.
Anon.
Post a Comment