Fertility Follow Up

Responding....

I published a short essay on fertility yesterday. Seems I stirred a hornets nest. Strong opinions on this, from all angles, is a good sign because it means we are all thinking about the issue.

There are a few comments I thought needed a response, others that might need some clarification, but Substack’s threads are too convoluted for structured responses. So I figured I could follow up in this form.

I won’t get to everything—each topic probably needs an essay of its own. But here’s something quick nonetheless.

Housing and cost of living

Let’s first address this:

Indeed, housing and wages—material conditions in general—are key to the fertility crisis. I make that point clear in the essay, explicitly relating it to leaving the gold standard with all the charts, and explain the impact Bitcoin, as a return to sound money, will likely have.

The goal of the essay wasn’t to rehash that, but to take an idea—that of status—inspired by

Johann Kurtz

’s essay, which I think is deeply entwined with the economic issue. The point is that we’re not going to fix the fertility crisis by throwing money at it, or by imposing morality top down: we need a deep cultural change that starts by rewarding parents with an end (status), not means to status (money).

Regarding silver and “just start doing it” by all means! Do it. I happen to know that Bitcoin is far superior to silver and gold, because of its properties. I’ll touch a little on that below, but I strongly recommend this essay by Michael Goldstein who was a former Gold Bug (also in audio form here).

Invasion and fertility

This was an excellent comment from

Xcalibur

regarding the invasion of the West:

I think this is very perceptive and merits pondering, perhaps its own essay… but I’ll let

John Carter

do that one.

For my part, I’ll say this. This factor is somewhat related to status, just in a different way to how I was describing it in my essay.

It is undeniable a) that defeated men are by definition losers, and therefore low status, and b) that women choose a mate primarily based on status (they are hypergamous). Western countries are indeed being invaded, and not only do women perceive the replacement of the population (of men especially, just like in occupied countries); they also feel the insecurity on the streets, which confirms the instinct that their men have failed in their sacred duty.

Add to this what I mentioned in my essay—that for decades now having children has not been cool—and that motherhood as a means to achieving status has been thoroughly replaced by professional success and careerism—it’s no wonder that birth rates have fallen.

But if we push the argument further… isn’t it the case that what it means to be a woman in the West changed entirely way before the phenomenon of mass immigration? I mean their right to vote (sharing in the burden of political responsibility which traditionally fell on men’s shoulders), contraception (or ‘sexual equality’), access to the sort of education that is conducive to a professional life entirely divorced from motherhood… These phenomena come directly from Enlightenment values and Liberalism, and most of these changes had already occurred by the 60s.

In my opinion, the correct order of analysis: Enlightenment values fucked around with key aspects relating to both culture and time preference. This led to a progressively more equalitarian culture (something I bash at length in my book) and short-termism which are both reflected in the ascent of things like democracy, feminism and the over-financialization of economies.

We started fucking around in the 18th century, and only now are we starting to really find out.

Without a long-term orientation, what stake do we have in the future? What need to conserve and pass down wealth, culture, country, identity?? Perhaps it is only in that hedonistic context, with a cohort of men and women more preoccupied by their own individual pursuits than by the survival of the whole, that immigration can be understood. Did the barbarians destroy the Roman Empire, or did it collapse because barbarians were invited to fill the vacuum? It’s obviously both, just as it is today.

This is not a defense of immigration, by any stretch of the imagination: but I do think there is a lot of self-criticism left for us to do in the West, and a lot of bad ideas to cut out. To bring it back to Xcalibur’s point, if (when) we grow some balls again and actually seize power and do something like what Bukele did with the gangs in El Salvador, you’ll see Western Man’s status rise very quickly, and, as was noted, the boys would be ‘swimming in pussy.’

Does Bitcoin fix it?

Uughhh… Bitcoin, bitcoin, bitcoin. I didn’t want this to become an essay about Bitcoin, but here goes. I’ll try keep it tight because this comment by

Uncouth Barbarian

needs to be addressed.

I appreciate feedback. I honestly do. But I take issue with this comment for a few reasons:

1. First, did I shill the book? Yes. Of course. That's because I discuss these ideas at greater length there, and I’d like people to engage with them. This was a short essay pointing to the work I’ve done already for anyone who wants to dig deeper. Feel free to buy it or not. In fact, if money is an issue, DM me and I’ll send you a copy for free.

2. Second, to claim that I’m shilling Bitcoin because that will pump my bags is literally retarded: maybe buy $10 billion worth of it thanks to me and yeah, that may drive the price up—and my net worth what, 0.5%?? That’s just a ridiculous comment. I have no more to gain by advocating for a better savings instrument than you have to gain by advocating for me to have kids.

3. Third is about originality. I don’t even claim originality, I’m not a social science researcher… I’m reading stuff I find interesting and giving my thoughts on it, putting it out there for other people to read. That’s how ideas travel. I took a concept from Kurtz, linking to his content so people can find it, and tried to add my own perspective on it: the power of social media and Bitcoin. Demanding I say something “original” is a little retarded, because by that definition, NOTHING on Substack (or the internet today) is original. Even your erroneous claim that money is a representation of labor, is not original.

Which leads me to the final and most important disagreement…
“Money is a representation of labor”

I’m sorry but this is misguided. While some part of this is true, it is not the whole picture. Money is a tool that helps to measure the value of labor, sure, but it’s fundamentally a representation of VALUE, not labor alone. Labor is valuable insofar as the product of that labor is useful or valuable to someone, in which case again, the labor component of the value is some fraction of the total value anyway.

You may work all your life on an absolute worthless product, while your neighbour works one week on something useful. Worth (or value) is determined by whether it meets someone else’s demand, not the amount of work you put in. That’s just patently stupid.

Let’s use an example..

Say you decide that you should go and build a flying sofa. You go and you toil for weeks, months or perhaps years to construct a state of the art lounge, that can fly. By your definition of money, this thing should be worth some combination of the time, effort and energy you put into it (labor), and the materials (which by your definition are also a proxy of the labor required to produce / refine them). Great.

You go out to the market and demand someone buys this for a “fair price” - ie; they must exchange THEIR money, for YOUR good at the rate of your labor.

But wait a minute. What if nobody finds this flying sofa valuable?

How much is it worth then? How much should someone pay for it, considering you put all this labor into it? What if nobody, or perhaps only a few people think it’s valuable? It gets even more complicated when trying to decide which element of the flying sofa is valuable to whom?

This might sound like a childish explanation, but the point is this. Money is a representation of VALUE, and because value is subjective, money cannot be tied to labor directly, but must be a TOOL with certain properties that allows you (and other participants in the market) to do three KEY things:

1. Store Value

2. Exchange Value

3. Measure Value

The good or object with the best properties will perform those functions best. Labour will always form some component of value, yes, but that’s all. Value is also a function of opportunity, supply/demand, innovation, insight, uniqueness, taste, advantage and a myriad of other things. The tool (money) must be flexible, liquid and functional enough to allow for this complex measurement.

I don’t want to make this a Bitcoin essay, but I’ll link to one I wrote a few years back outlining why Bitcoin has the best properties, and performs all of these functions better. I strongly suggest a read.

“Oh but value is not subjective! There are fundamentals that are valuable to all”

There are fundamentals, yes. Like food, air, shelter. But are any of these things equally valuable? Of course not. A vegan will disagree with a carnivore on how much a burger or salad is worth. As will you and I disagree on the value of the homes we inhabit. As will, in an extreme scenario, a father value his son’s life over the air he breathes if it’s what’s required to save him.

Forget that Bitcoin is $100k for a minute, and that people are speculating on it the world over. At its very core, Bitcoin is a constitution. That’s it. It’s a set of rules, that are written in code, which any computer can run.

When two or more computers are connected and run the same constitution, you have the Bitcoin network. You don’t even need the internet. You can do that locally. What’s special about Bitcoin leveraging the internet it is that there are millions of these computers (nodes) networked together, running the exact SAME constitution, 24/7, all over the world.

What Satoshi did, was figure out a way to keep all of these constitutional operators in sync, by creating a consensus mechanism tied to work. In other words; ENERGY. The one thing that cannot be printed or faked.

The result is a digital bearer instrument with ALL the properties of both physical gold (scarce, homogenous, fungible) and cash (portable, divisible, cognizable, etc) AND a payments network - all in one.

Bitcoin does exactly what a local community bank would do, but at scale. It’s an incredible feat of engineering.

Final note here. The point of Bitcoin is to DE-financialize the world (great essay here from Parker Lewis). I actually agree with

Uncouth Barbarian

and others here that the world has become one big casino-ponzi-scheme. Everything is about gambling, speculating and making more (fake) money, and this is precisely because the money is broken and those who are issuing it can play games with it (and us). The money we’re using today is not only detached from labor, but more importantly, is untethered from VALUE. It’s all fake, and as a result, human beings have turned everything and anything else into representations or stores of value (whether it’s stocks, real estate, shoes, handbags, food, whatever).

The only way to fix that, is to fix the goddamn money. A constitution that is as resilient as possible. That’s what Bitcoin is, and that’s why it’s important. With it, people can save again, and when you can save without your purchasing power being diluted, you have less of a reason to gamble and speculate. You can instead, think about building and creating REAL things, like food, or a family, or a rocket, or whatever else it is that you believe the market wants. You will find actually, that useful labor starts to become more valuable again. Naturally.

When things work, you don’t obsess over them. Governance and Money are like that. Will Tanner and I discussed this the other day on

The American Tribune

here. When Governance works, you don’t obsess over politics. When the money works, it dissolves into the background and people produce real wealth, real goods and real services. They don’t have to financialize things and spend their lives gambling.

There’s a lot more (i.e., volatility, the speculative nature, how it’s monetizing, the fact that it’s digital and a million other things. Maybe

John Carter

can host a Substack debate between myself and

Uncouth Barbarian

on this…)

But what if?

“But what if the internet goes down?”

But what if governments ban it? What if the power grid goes down? What if it was created by the CIA? What if? What if? What if?

I really don’t mean to be an asshole, but everyone in the Bitcoin space has heard—and responded accurately and thoughtfully to—each and everyone of these questions for well over a decade now. The content is out there. If you’re genuinely interested in answers to these questions, let me know and I can link you to an essay or article covering it. If you just want to play ‘gotcha’, then please go elsewhere.

If you’re actually worried about Armaggedon and a dystopian life post-internet, then Bitcoin is probably not worth entertaining. Instead, go buy land, rations, bullets, chickens. Be self-sufficient and more importantly, figure out how you’re going to defend yourself and your stockpile from the starving hordes. I’m not being cynical: if you think the chance of collapse is real, prepare accordingly.

In fact, here’s a simple framework for you to consider: Work out what your personal probabilities are for Armageddon and then decide what to hold. If you think there’s a 50% chance the internet is going down along with the energy grid, you best have 50% of your savings in chickens, lead bullets and perhaps gold (although food would be better). If you think it’s 1%, allocate accordingly. If it’s 100%, same thing.

I keep going on about Bitcoin being a Framework for Excellence. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is not for everybody. For starters, it genuinely demands hours and hours of deep thought and research, as well as practice to master the tools. I mean, most people couldn’t answer why gold ever had value or functioned as money… Hint: it’s got nothing to do with being physical, tangible, real or having ‘inherent value’. Many such cases.

Bitcoin is for the curious, those who are willing to question things or look at them from different perspectives. The supply is finite, and for the last decade I’ve been effectively right about its staying power and resilience. I expect that if I was going to be wrong, it would’ve happened by now. Bitcoin is too strong at this point to fail.

Final note…

The fertility issue is a whole lot bigger than just what I covered in the last essay or this follow up one. There are many more angles.

The Brothers Krynn

made a note about feminism which I agree with and covered a little above. Another good one is this one by

Wilfred Stepto

:

He and others have made great points. I can’t cover every single angle of the issue and focused on a couple crucial—to my mind—ones. Ultimately, though, and contrary to what the doomers want to believe, in the end life wins.

I’ll close this follow up with the BEST comment to yesterday’s essay by

Jonboy

:

Game. Set. Match.

Until next time.

Aleksandar Svetski

---

If you’re interested in this kind of content, subscribe and share this with anyone you think might also find it valuable.

And if you want to support my work, please pick up a copy of The Bushido of Bitcoin on Amazon, or directly from me for Bitcoin.