Proverbs 30:11-17

There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.

There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.

There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give.

There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough:

The grave; and

the barren womb;

the earth that is not filled with water; and

the fire that saith not, It is enough.

The eye that mocketh at his father, and

despiseth to obey his mother,

the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.

Modern Western Society is dying. Indeed all modern societies are dying to the extent they have adopted Western values. This death is evident, and largely unalterable. The statistics proving it are evident to all who look… but there are few who look.

Dead Woman Walking

A number of years ago a doctor told me a tragic story. A young woman had attempted to commit suicide. As for her method, Tylenol. She had taken a massive overdose of Tylenol.

Her family found her, rushed her to the hospital, IV’s, etc etc yada yada. And a few hours later (so my memory of the story goes. Doctors and others should feel free to criticise the details, while still keeping the point in mind), the family were all there as the young woman was being discharged.

The tragedy was, as this doctor related it to me, that various members of the family were all, like, “We’re so glad that they got to you in time…” kind of thing, and the doctor, standing at the side of the room, was heart sick. Because they hadn’t gotten to her in time. They were sending her home to die. The Tylenol had done a number on her liver, and there was nothing they could do. She would get worse and worse and, eventually, die.

So she was walking and talking and being discharged… and dead. She had been killed, but the death wasn’t final yet. Outside of some miracle, she should begin helping plan her funeral.

Dead Societies Walking

Which is the case of our modern societies. The Tylenol has been taken, the liver cannot recover, the patient is in the process of dying… but they still look pretty healthy.

Specifically the ‘liver’ in this case is the population pyramid. Feel free to do your own research, or ask me about it in the comments, but the modern population pyramids are not capable of supporting societal life.

But what is the Tylenol? Well, I think the particular deadly medicine that our society has taken is a combination of several different poisons, but the one I am going to talk about today is ‘Factory Life’.

Planting Seeds

Have you ever planted seeds? No, wrong question. Have you ever grown a plant, harvested the seeds, and then planted those? Year after year?

Cause that used to be the way farming worked. The brand new farmer would buy seeds from someone, plant them, harvest them, and save some for next year. Year after year, farmer after farmer.

But in recent history two very dark things have happened: Farmers have started relying on ‘seed companies’ for their seeds, and those same companies have conspired to make it… illegal to replant their seeds. They are selling you those seeds with a licence to grow the plants to produce food (or cover crop, or ethanol, etc) but not seeds.

This fact is a great benefit to me as a writer of dystopias… this fact and the fact that many of the plants that we grow today can’t reproduce themselves leave rich soil indeed for some rather dark ‘What if’s.

Planting Humans

But the truly dark aspect of this is how it relates… not a causal relationship but a ‘something is causing both’… to our attitude toward ‘planting humans’… ie having fruitful sex and raising the resulting offspring.

Follow me here, I don’t think it is difficult. The blasphemy which is our seed laws is a blasphemy which sees farming as a ‘year by year’ activity. The farmer is not slowly building himself up better and better crops on better and better soil, year after year, generation after generation. He is buying seed, buying fertiliser, buying pesticides… and producing this year’s cash crop. He might not even eat any of his own crop!

Is it too much of a stretch to relate that to the modern attitude toward sex? To see the man and woman entering the bedroom to find out how much they can get out of the activity (and rejecting it when it isn’t enough), instead of looking for the thousands of eventual progeny that will result? To ask how children will affect their lives, limit their ability to take vacations… instead of asking how they should be investing in their children’s lives?

Immigration

There, is, praise the LORD, not yet a ‘seed company’ for young humans. Some people seem to think it is coming. But we do have a fairly close analogue, that comes up whenever you question people about demographics: immigration.

Some people see immigration more or less like the seed company. If you aren’t saving any seed for next year (having children), no problem… we’ll immigrate them! There exists some countries ‘out there’, who are producing children, we will just import those!

Two problems with that to start with. Firstly, they aren’t producing children either (altho more than you). Secondly, if you keep importing people from another country, what country to you have left? If you moved all the Swiss to Poland, and all the Poles to Switzerland, where would ‘Switzerland’ be when you got done?

But the massive problem that I am addressing here is that you are treating population as a ‘year by year’ issue, the same as seeds. Your goal is no longer to create a great country for your children, but to live your best life now. And that… doesn’t work.

Be Fruitful and Multiply

And the problem is not limited to the world. While it is true that one of the better indicators for fruitfulness is if the person involved is a serious believer in a serious religion (can one be a serious believer in a non-serious religion?) it is not, unfortunately, true that a majority, or even a substantial minority, of modern Christians hold to the Biblical standard on Children. Their response to ‘be fruitful’ is ‘I did’, and to ‘a quiver-full’ is a long diatribe on how few arrows actually fill the quiver.

The Biblical blessings are seen as curses, and the Biblical curse is seen as a blessing. And as a result the society to which we are supposed to be salt and light is committing suicide. Slowly, but suicide.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

So, Chat GPT and I were having an interesting conversation the other day and it produced this document. There are several problems with it: most notably that it shifts from actual math to ‘estimates’ sometimes, and it is far too optimistic. Not even recognising the results of its own projections.

But it is an interesting article nonetheless. So, full disclosure, the prompts were mine, the writing is its, and, as I say, it has known deficits:

South Korea’s Demographic Cliff: Irreversible Decline, Military Vulnerability, and the Limits of Recovery in the Shadow of North Korea

Abstract

South Korea confronts a demographic crisis of unprecedented velocity and depth. With a total fertility rate (TFR) of 0.80 in 2025—the world’s lowest—annual births have fallen to approximately 254,500, even after a modest recent rebound.2022 The population, which peaked near 51.8 million in 2020, is now projected to contract sharply, potentially reaching 30 million or fewer by 2100 under median scenarios and far lower under pessimistic assumptions.10 This paper demonstrates, through strict empirical data and cohort-based projections, that the current fertility collapse has already locked in a multi-generational decline. Even a return to replacement-level fertility (TFR ≈ 2.1) cannot restore the population base within any militarily or politically relevant timeframe. The shrinking cohorts of young men—essential for mandatory conscription—exacerbate an acute security dilemma against a nuclear-armed North Korea with a far larger active military. Velocity matters: the smaller successive cohorts of reproductive-age women ensure that any fertility recovery will produce too few births to reverse the trajectory. South Korea cannot recover from this demographic cliff.

1. The Current Demographic Reality: Strict Numbers

South Korea’s population stood at approximately 51.7 million in 2025.37 The TFR reached 0.80 that year, up slightly from 0.75 in 2024 but still catastrophically below the replacement level of 2.1.24 Annual live births totaled 254,500 in 2025, the largest increase in 15 years yet still representing a collapse from over 400,000 births as recently as the mid-2010s.22 Deaths exceeded births by more than 100,000 annually, producing sustained natural decrease.37

The age structure reveals the depth of the problem. In 2024 estimates, only 11.3% of the population was aged 0–14, while 19.3% was 65 or older.66 The working-age group (15–64) comprised 69.4%, but this share is eroding rapidly as smaller cohorts enter adulthood. Female population of reproductive age (15–49) numbered roughly 11.06 million in 2025 and is declining.49 Historical birth data underscore the momentum already embedded: births fell from approximately 715,000 in 1995 to under 240,000 by the mid-2020s.63

These numbers are not abstract; they translate directly into shrinking cohorts. The cohort of 20-year-old males—the primary pool for military enlistment—declined 30% between 2019 and 2025, reaching only 230,000.0 Successive cohorts are even smaller, reflecting births from the low-fertility 2000s and 2010s.

2. Military and Geopolitical Imperative: North Korea and the Missing Male Cohort

South Korea’s security environment amplifies the demographic crisis. Mandatory male conscription (18–21 months for able-bodied men aged 18–35) underpins national defense against North Korea.30 Active-duty forces have already shrunk 20% in six years, from 563,000 in 2019 to 450,000 in 2025, almost entirely due to the contraction in male enlistment-age cohorts.04 Maintaining even current force levels will become impossible without radical policy changes (e.g., female conscription or mass immigration), both politically fraught.

North Korea, with a population of roughly 26 million, fields approximately 1.32 million active personnel—nearly three times South Korea’s active strength—plus substantial reserves and paramilitary forces.40 Pyongyang’s conventional forces, while technologically inferior, benefit from a larger and (currently) younger manpower pool. South Korea’s technological and alliance advantages (including U.S. forces) cannot indefinitely compensate for a collapsing recruit base. By the 2040s, sustaining even 350,000 troops is projected to be difficult.2 A smaller, older society cannot field the manpower required for credible deterrence or sustained conventional conflict. Demographic decline thus directly erodes strategic viability.

3. Velocity and Cohort Size: Why Even a Return to “Normal” Fertility Cannot Recover the Population

Demographic recovery is not merely a function of future TFR; it depends on the current stock of potential parents and the velocity of cohort shrinkage. South Korea’s reproductive-age female cohorts are already severely diminished by two decades of sub-1.0 fertility. The women entering peak childbearing years today were born in the low-birth 1990s and 2000s. Their smaller numbers impose a hard ceiling on births, regardless of behavioral change.

Even if every woman of reproductive age immediately adopted a TFR of 2.1, annual births would rise only modestly—limited by the existing (and shrinking) female population base. Subsequent generations would then be born to this reduced cohort, perpetuating contraction. This is classic demographic momentum, but accelerated by the extreme velocity of South Korea’s fertility collapse. Net reproduction rates well below 1.0 for decades mean each generation replaces only a fraction of the last. Rough generational accounting illustrates the trap: at a sustained TFR of 0.80, each cohort produces roughly 38% as many daughters as the preceding one (TFR/2.1 ≈ 0.38, abstracting from mortality and migration). The pipeline of future mothers is already too narrow.

4. Projections: Generational Collapse Under Alternative Fertility Scenarios

To quantify irreversibility, consider four scenarios using a simplified cohort-replacement framework grounded in current births (≈254,500 in 2025), the observed decline in reproductive-age women, and standard demographic multipliers. These projections assume negligible net migration and constant mortality; they focus on the reproductive base. Official projections (UN, government, and independent institutes) align with these directions, though they often embed optimistic fertility recovery assumptions.1015

Scenario 1: Persistent Low Fertility (TFR remains 0.80)
Current trajectory. Births contract by approximately 60% per generation (~30 years). After one generation (≈2055): births fall to ~100,000. After two (≈2085): ~38,000. After three (≈2115): ~14,000. Total population contracts rapidly as older cohorts die off; by 2125, independent estimates place it between 7.5 million (pessimistic) and 11–15 million (median/optimistic).15 In generational terms, every 100 South Koreans alive today would have only about 6 great-grandchildren.12 Within four generations, the society is effectively depopulated for practical purposes.

Scenario 2: Slow Return to Sub-Replacement Fertility (TFR rises linearly to 1.5 over 50 years, then stabilizes)
A plausible “policy success” case. Births increase modestly in the near term but remain capped by small maternal cohorts. Population still declines by roughly 40–50% by 2100 and continues falling thereafter. Stabilization occurs only at a level far below current (≈20–25 million), with a permanently inverted age pyramid and unsustainable military manpower.

Scenario 3: Optimistic Immediate Jump to Replacement (TFR rises to 2.1 immediately)
Even under heroic assumptions, the existing female reproductive cohort limits near-term births. Population declines for 50–70 years before any stabilization—reaching perhaps 35–40 million by mid-century—because the next generation of mothers is already too small. Long-term equilibrium population would be a small fraction of today’s, insufficient to sustain current economic or military capacity.

Scenario 4: Very Slow Generational Recovery (TFR rises gradually to 2.1 over 100+ years)
Most realistic politically. The velocity of cohort shrinkage outpaces any fertility rebound. Population halves within 50–60 years and falls toward 15–20 million by 2125. Military-age male cohorts drop below levels needed for conscription-based forces well before mid-century.

In all scenarios, the population after several generations is a small fraction of today’s. Recovery to pre-cliff levels (≈51 million with balanced age structure) is mathematically impossible without implausible mass immigration or fertility miracles exceeding biological and cultural feasibility.

Conclusion

South Korea’s demographic cliff is not a reversible dip but a structural collapse driven by extreme fertility decline and entrenched cohort dynamics. Strict numbers reveal an already shrunken reproductive base; velocity ensures that even optimistic fertility rebounds cannot refill the pipeline fast enough. The military implications are existential: a shrinking pool of young men cannot sustain conscription against a numerically superior North Korean threat. Politically and strategically, South Korea cannot recover. The window for meaningful reversal closed years ago. Without radical societal transformation—and perhaps even then—the trajectory points toward a much smaller, older, and more vulnerable nation. The data are unambiguous: the demographic future is contraction, not renaissance.

Westminster Annotations, 1657, by John Ley of the Westminster Assembly “...there is a seminal vital virtue, which perishes if the seed be spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of abortion: now such acts are noted in the scripture as horrible crimes, because, otherwise many might commit them, and not know the evil of them: it is conceived, that his brother Er before, was his brother in evil thus far, that both of them satisfied their sensuality against the order of nature, and therefore the Lord cut them off both alike with sudden vengeance; which may be for terror...to those who, in marriage, care not for the increase of children, (which is the principle used of the conjugal estate) but for the satisfying of their concupiscence.”

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

“To many God gives children in place of temporal good. To many others he gives houses, lands, and thousands of gold and silver, and with them the womb that beareth not; and these are their inheritance. The poor man has from God a number of children, without lands or money; these are his inheritance; and God shows himself their father, feeding and supporting them by a chain of miraculous providences. Where is the poor man who would give up his six children with the prospect of having more, for the thousands or millions of him who is the centre of his own existance, and has neither root nor branches but his forlorn, solitary self upon the face of the earth? Let the fruitful family, however poor, lay this to heart: ‘Children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.’ And he who gave them will feed them; for it is a fact, and the maxim formed on it has never failed, ‘Whenever God sends mouths, he sends meat.’ ‘Murmur not,’ said an Arab to his friend, ‘because thy family is large; know that it is for their sakes that God feeds thee.’”

Adam Clarke, quoted in Spurgeon’s Treasury of David 1760-1832

Adam Clarke

Commentary on Psalm 128

Psalms 128:3

Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine - Thy children, in every corner and apartment of thy house, shall be the evidences of the fruitfulness of thy wife, as bunches of grapes on every bough of the vine are the proofs of its being in a healthy thriving state. Being about the house sides, or apartments, is spoken of the wife, not the vine; being around the table is spoken of the children, not of the olive-plants. It does not appear that there were any vines planted against the walls of the houses in Jerusalem, nor any olive-trees in pots or tubs in the inside of their houses; as may be found in different parts of Europe.

Psalms 127:5

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them - This is generally supposed to mean his house full of children, as his quiver if full of arrows; but I submit whether it be not more congenial to the metaphors in the text to consider it as applying to the wife: “Happy is the man who has a breeding or fruitful wife;” this is the gravida sagittis pharetra “the quiver pregnant with arrows.” But it may be thought the metaphor is not natural. I think otherwise: and I know it to be in the Jewish style, and the style of the times of the captivity, when this Psalm was written, and we find the pudendum muliebre, or human matrix, thus denominated, Ecclus. 26:12: Κατεναντι παντος πασσαλου καθησεται, και εναντι βελους ανοιξει φαρετραν. The reader may consult the place in the Apocrypha, where he will find the verse well enough translated.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

Calvin, with some rather negative things to say about birth control.

The young men are all complaining that there are no Godly young women, and the young women are all complaining that there are no Godly young men. The problem… is the system.

Genesis 24:3

And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that

thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But

thou shalt go unto my country, and

to my kindred, and

take a wife unto my son Isaac.

How much freedom do you have? Well, perhaps that is too large a question. How much freedom do you have in who you will marry? Ok, maybe better narrow it down a little. Assuming you are not married, and that the ‘universe’ of marriageable people is all other people on Earth of the opposite sex, how much freedom do you have to choose amongst them and marry them?

This question occurred to me when I got in a discussion about ‘cousin marriage’, where the OP said that there must be some twisting of the choice, since the average female knew X number of other people, and thus the odds were Y that they would marry their cousin etc etc.

To which I replied:

And was told that that very limitation was the point of the post. That the choice of a spouse, being so important, should be unlimited.

Now, I disagree on the principle… but my point in this post is to point out that the shoe is on the other foot.

Ten Foot Pole

It is common for moderns to congratulate themselves on how much ‘freedom’ they have, but rarely do they examine the ‘freedom’ of the ‘dating market’. Or, to cut to the chase… the path to marriage. They picture a man, or woman, standing at the threshhold and looking out at the entire world and saying, “Freedom!”

But, not so fast. There is an interesting thing about freedom, when the issue involves more than one person: they interact. The person who has the ‘freedom’ to have a hot dog stand interacts with people who have the ‘freedom’ to decide not to eat hot dogs.

And thus the first problem with the marriage market: a lot of people would not touch our threshold stander with a ten foot pole.

Communication

And it gets worse. Let us imagine a universe where some super computer existed that was able to to communicate to each of us, perhaps by smart glasses, which of the members of the opposite sex would be interested in marrying us. We could wander around the streets and see various people and know, instantly, if they could be ‘the one’.

But, of course, we would have to ask them if they would be someone we would want. Ok, my imagination has duly failed… alho I see a good sci-fi story in there somewhere.

But my point here is we don’t have that computer, we don’t have those glasses. We can’t look at people and see if they would like to marry us, let alone if we would like to marry them. We have to find them!

The Dance

And the process for finding them… oy vey! What a disaster! What a minefield!! And what a limitation of… freedom.

Let’s take a short break in the dance to talk about ‘freedom’. Because there are two meanings, and only one reality. If you and I go to some store, and we see all sorts of wonderful things on the shelves, one might speak of our ‘freedom’ to buy them. But that ‘freedom’ only becomes reality if we have enough money in our pockets.

And then suppose, disappointed, we go to a different store, a smaller store, with a lot fewer items on the shelves… but we have the money to buy them… then our smaller ‘freedom’ is a lot bigger in reality.

So back to the dance. Our society does not have matchmakers, we don’t even really have ads. We have a bizarre non-system for attempting to figure out who we want to marry and who wants to marry us.

The Prejudice

So, coming around back to the ‘cousin marriage’ crowd (did I mention I am against cousin marriage? First cousin, anyway.). One difference between their system and ours is… the prejudice. When the family gets involved, their goal is to get you married. When they stay away, as in our system, the result is… that you don’t get married.

Conclusion

So in our current system you are free to marry anyone you want… except those who won’t marry you, those that you will never meet, those that would marry you but you weren’t able to figure it out.

If you asked a girl to marry you, and she said no, and then you asked another one, and she said yes, then in a very real sense you aren’t marrying ‘the girl you wanted’, your marrying some other girl. A second, third, or thirteenth choice.

There was (at least) one girl I wanted to marry in Junior High. Hint: We aren’t married. There were several in High School. Note: We aren’t married. There were some in college. N.B. We aren’t married. I am happily married and have been for years, but not to any of these. And along the way there were lots of girls that wanted to marry me… some of them even asked. None of them succeeded.

There was a famous sketch called ‘The Cheese Store’ by Monty Python. In it a man walks into a cheese store and wants to buy some cheese. Just the place for it, one would have thought. However (and it is a comedy sketch) as he asks for cheese after cheese he finds out that, for one reason or another, that particular cheese is not available at that particular store at this particular time. In fact, at the end, the conclusion is reached… there is no cheese.

And far too many of our young men and women (and even older men and women) are finding out that, for them, there are no spouses. Not because other young women and men don’t exist… they do. We are not post apocolypse. Not because they don’t want to get married… they do. They are sitting around despondently.

But because in contrast to the system that tells you to marry your cousin (I did mention I am against cousin marriage), our system tells you you can marry anyone you like… but there is no cheese.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

So… you won the election, but your country has a small problem…

Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentary on the Psalms

She shall be saved through childbearing: “To censorious men it might appear absurd, for an Apostle of Christ not only to exhort women to give attention to the birth of offspring, but to press this work as religious and holy to such an exent as to represent it in the light of the means of procuring salvation....whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God. To this must be added, that no consolation could be more appropriate or more efficacious than to shew that the very means (so to speak) of procuring salvation are found in the punishment itself.”

Calvin, John Calvin’s Commentary

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

The heathens, when they worshipped sex, at least did so expecting fruitfulness.

Fertility is a blessing from God. Sterility a curse. Yet many moderns deliberately choose the curse.

Ever wonder what the Reformers thought of birth control? Well, it isn’t pretty.

Luther, Martin Luthers Works, Volume Seven

“ Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves.”

Luther, Martin Lectures on Genesis

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

and “...from this [the account of Rachel] it is clear that the very saintly women were not lustful but were desirous of offspring and the blessing. For this was the cause of envy in Rachel, who, if she had been like other women whom our age has produced in large numbers, would have said: ‘What is it to me whether I bear children or not? Provided that I remain the mother of the household and have an abundance of all other things, I have enough.’ But Rachel demands offspring so much that she prefers death to remaining sterile. I do not remember reading a similar statement in any history. Therefore she is an example of a very pious and continent woman whose only zeal and burning desire is for offspring, even if it means death. Thus above (Gen. 16:2) Sarah also showed a similar desire for offspring. And in both this feeling is decidedly praiseworthy. ‘If I do not have children, I shall die’ says Rachel. ‘I prefer being without life to being without children.’ ...Consequently, she determines either to bear children or die. Thus later she dies in childbirth. This desire and feeling of a godly woman is good and saintly.”

Luther, Martin Luther’s Works, Volume Five

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

“In one way all this ancient sin was infinitely superior, immeasurably superior, to the modern sin. All those who write of it at least agree on one fact; that it was the cult of Fruitfulness. It was unfortunately too often interwoven, very closely, with the cult of the fruitfulness of the land. It was at least on the side of Nature. It was at least on the side of Life. It has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility. The new Paganism literally merits the reproach of Swinburne, when mourning for the old Paganism: ‘and rears not the bountiful token and spreads not the fatherly feast.’ The new priests abolish the fatherhood and keep the feast - to themselves. They are worse than Swinburne’s Pagans. The priests of Priapus and Cotytto go into the kingdom of heaven before them.

“Now it is not unnatural that this unnatural separation, between sex and fruitfulness, which even the Pagans would have thought a perversion, has been accompanied with a similar separation and perversion about the nature of the love of the land. In both departments there is precisely the same fallacy; which it is quite possible to state precisely. The reason why our contemporary countrymen do not understand what we mean by Property is that they only think of it in the sense of Money; in the sense of salary; in the sense of something which is immediately consumed, enjoyed and expended; something which gives momentary pleasure and disappears. They do not understand that we mean by Property something that includes that pleasure incidentally; but begins and ends with something far more grand and worthy and creative. The man who makes an orchard where there has been a field, who owns the orchard and decides to whom it shall descend, does also enjoy the taste of apples; and let us hope, also, the taste of cider. But he is doing something very much grander, and ultimately more gratifying, than merely eating an apple. He is imposing his will upon the world in the manner of the charter given him by the will of God; he is asserting that his soul is his own, and does not belong to the Orchard Survey Department, or the chief Trust in the Apple Trade....Now the notion of narrowing property merely to enjoying money is exactly like the notion of narrowing love merely to enjoying sex. In both cases an incidental, isolated, servile and even secretive pleasure is substituted for participation in a great creative process; even in the everlasting Creation of the world.”

Chesterton, G. K. “Sex and Property” 1874-1936

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

The last cabinet member had just seated themselves (Charlene Grant, Entertainment and Sport, mostly good for attracting young me to the party) when they walked in. They all looked like drones, but the head quango in spades. You would have thought he was a regency era butler.

“Good morning!” Charles said. “I suppose this is the briefing where you tell us that we will be totally unable to keep all of our election promises!”

“Yes, Sir,” the quango said.

“Well, we plan on doing so anyway. What is the problem? Lack of funds?”

“Yes, Sir, that is a problem. The debt to GDP ratio is quite unsustainable.”

“Well, what else? Run down military?”

“Yes, Sir. Three quarters of our ships are laid up for repairs, and the others are waiting their turn.”

“Well, what else? Health system?”

“Average wait thirteen months, Sir. There was a slight, and brief, downturn last month.”

“Infrastructure?”

“Truly horrendous, Sir. Train delays went up a full three minutes last year.”

“Well, is that it? Because we have plans to fix all that. Top of the line plans, radical change from the previous administrations!”

“Yes, Sir, we are aware. And no, Sir, that is not it.”

“Well, spit it out, man, what is it? Some horrible disease?”

“No, Sir. It might be better if it were.”

“Well?”

“There are no children, Sir. And haven’t been for a number of years.”

“Well, what of it? Don’t have any myself, as it turns out. Noisy beasts, children.”

“Yes, Sir. Quite. It can be distracting.”

“You have some yourself?”

“Yes, Sir. Seven.”

“Seven! Heavens, man, haven’t you heard of birth control?”

“Yes, Sir. We abstain.”

“Well if you abstain, how do you have all those children?”

“We abstain from birth control, sir.”

Charles stared. “Was that a joke?”

“Yes, Sir.”

“Well, it was a jolly good one. Caught me quite by surprise. Abstain from birth control, eh? I’ll have to remember that one. Now, where were we? Oh, yes, you were saying we have no children. Well, what of it?”

“No children means no one to take the jobs, Sir.”

“We can import them! That’s what we’ve always done.”

“Yes, Sir, but those other countries, they aren’t having any children either.”

“Oh. Well, find other countries.”

“They aren’t having any either. Unless you wish to try to import Americans or Israelis.”

“What, no. Why would they come?”

“Exactly, Sir.”

“So, we will need to become more efficient.”

“And no children means no one to staff the military, either. Typically it is your young male who decides to become a soldier.”

“Recruit women!”

“There are no young women either, Sir.”

“Hmmm. It would seem hard to recruit older men.”

“Or older women, Sir. And new ideas, Sir.”

“We can’t recruit new ideas into the military?”

“Young people tend to produce the highest number of new ideas, Sir. So a lack of young people will tend to produce a stagnating society, and economy.”

“Well, bless my soul. Is there anything we can do with an older workforce? Anything thing that’s working?”

“The euthanasia clinics, Sir, are doing quite well. Their clientele is increasing each month. Although they have very little repeat business.”

(The above meme was created (by me) in reaction, if I remember correctly, to an ad or meme in favour of birth control, written during some winter snow event. I agreed with the words of their meme, if not in favour of the actual message they intended to convey. The post itself was written when I heard there was going to be a British only anthology of sci-fi, including dystopia. Hosted by . As an American I was excluded from participating, so I wrote my own story :) )

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

The above is taken from a larger document which can be found here.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

Theodore Roosevelt

March 13, 1905

Before the National Congress of Mothers.

In our modern industrial civilization there are many and grave dangers to counterbalance the splendors and the triumphs. It is not a good thing to see cities grow at disproportionate speed relatively to the country; for the small land owners, the men who own their little homes, and therefore to a very large extent the men who till farms, the men of the soil, have hitherto made the foundation of lasting national life in every State; and, if the foundation becomes either too weak or too narrow, the superstructure, no matter how attractive, is in imminent danger of falling.

But far more important than the question of the occupation of our citizens is the question of how their family life is conducted. No matter what that occupation may be, as long as there is a real home and as long as those who make up that home do their duty to one another, to their neighbors and to the State, it is of minor consequence whether the man’s trade is plied in the country or in the city, whether it calls for the work of the hands or for the work of the head.

No piled-up wealth, no splendor of material growth, no brilliance of artistic development, will permanently avail any people unless its home life is healthy, unless the average man possesses honesty, courage, common sense, and decency, unless he works hard and is willing at need to fight hard; and unless the average woman is a good wife, a good mother, able and willing to perform the first and greatest duty of womanhood, able and willing to bear, and to bring up as they should be brought up, healthy children, sound in body, mind, and character, and numerous enough so that the race shall increase and not decrease.

There are certain old truths which will be true as long as this world endures, and which no amount of progress can alter. One of these is the truth that the primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children, and that the primary duty of the woman is to be the helpmate, the housewife, and mother. The woman should have ample educational advantages; but save in exceptional cases the man must be, and she need not be, and generally ought not to be, trained for a lifelong career as the family breadwinner; and, therefore, after a certain point, the training of the two must normally be different because the duties of the two are normally different. This does not mean inequality of function, but it does mean that normally there must be dissimilarity of function. On the whole, I think the duty of the woman the more important, the more difficult, and the more honorable of the two; on the whole I respect the woman who does her duty even more than I respect the man who does his.

No ordinary work done by a man is either as hard or as responsible as the work of a woman who is bringing up a family of small children; for upon her time and strength demands are made not only every hour of the day but often every hour of the night. She may have to get up night after night to take care of a sick child, and yet must by day continue to do all her household duties as well; and if the family means are scant she must usually enjoy even her rare holidays taking her whole brood of children with her. The birth pangs make all men the debtors of all women. Above all our sympathy and regard are due to the struggling wives among those whom Abraham Lincoln called the plain people, and whom he so loved and trusted; for the lives of these women are often led on the lonely heights of quiet, self-sacrificing heroism.

Just as the happiest and most honorable and most useful task that can be set any man is to earn enough for the support of his wife and family, for the bringing up and starting in life of his children, so the most important, the most honorable and desirable task which can be set any woman is to be a good and wise mother in a home marked by self-respect and mutual forbearance, by willingness to perform duty, and by refusal to sink into self-indulgence or avoid that which entails effort and self-sacrifice. Of course there are exceptional men and exceptional women who can do and ought to do much more than this, who can lead and ought to lead great careers of outside usefulness in addition to — not as substitutes for — their home work; but I am not speaking of exceptions; I am speaking of the primary duties, I am speaking of the average citizens, the average men and women who make up the nation.

Inasmuch as I am speaking to an assemblage of mothers, I shall have nothing whatever to say in praise of an easy life. Yours is the work which is never ended. No mother has an easy time, the most mothers have very hard times; and yet what true mother would barter her experience of joy and sorrow in exchange for a life of cold selfishness, which insists upon perpetual amusement and the avoidance of care, and which often finds its fit dwelling place in some flat designed to furnish with the least possible expenditure of effort the maximum of comfort and of luxury, but in which there is literally no place for children?

The woman who is a good wife, a good mother, is entitled to our respect as is no one else; but he is entitled to it only because, and so long as, she is worthy of it. Effort and self-sacrifice are the law of worthy life for the man as for the woman; tho neither the effort nor the self-sacrifice may be the same for the one as for the other. I do not in the least believe in the patient Griselda type of woman, in the woman who submits to gross and long continued ill treatment, any more than I believe in a man who tamely submits to wrongful aggression. No wrong-doing is so abhorrent as wrong-doing by a man toward the wife and the children who should arouse every tender feeling in his nature. Selfishness toward them, lack of tenderness toward them, lack of consideration for them, above all, brutality in any form toward them, should arouse the heartiest scorn and indignation in every upright soul.

I believe in the woman keeping her self-respect just as I believe in the man doing so. I believe in her rights just as much as I believe in the man’s, and indeed a little more; and I regard marriage as a partnership, in which each partner is in honor bound to think of the rights of the other as well as of his or her own. But I think that the duties are even more important than the rights; and in the long run I think that the reward is ampler and greater for duty well done, than for the insistence upon individual rights, necessary tho this, too, must often be. Your duty is hard, your responsibility great; but greatest of all is your reward. I do not pity you in the least. On the contrary, I feel respect and admiration for you.

Into the woman’s keeping is committed the destiny of the generations to come after us. In bringing up your children you mothers must remember that while it is essential to be loving and tender it is no less essential to be wise and firm. Foolishness and affection must not be treated as interchangeable terms; and besides training your sons and daughters in the softer and milder virtues, you must seek to give them those stern and hardy qualities which in after life they will surely need. Some children will go wrong in spite of the best training; and some will go right even when their surroundings are most unfortunate; nevertheless an immense amount depends upon the family training. If you mothers through weakness bring up your sons to be selfish and to think only of themselves, you will be responsible for much sadness among the women who are to be their wives in the future. If you let your daughters grow up idle, perhaps under the mistaken impression that as you yourselves have had to work hard they shall know only enjoyment, you are preparing them to be useless to others and burdens to themselves. Teach boys and girls alike that they are not to look forward to live spent in avoiding difficulties, but to lives spent in overcoming difficulties. Teach them that work, for themselves and also for others, is not a curse but a blessing; seek to make them happy, to make them enjoy life, but seek also to make them face life with the steadfast resolution to wrest success from labor and adversity, and to do their whole duty before God and to man. Surely she who can thus train her sons and her daughters is thrice fortunate among women.

There are many good people who are denied the supreme blessing of children, and for these we have the respect and sympathy always due to those who, from no fault of their own, are denied any of the other great blessings of life. But the man or woman who deliberately forego these blessings, whether from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant, — why, such a creature merits contempt as hearty as any visited upon the soldier who runs away in battle, or upon the man who refuses to work for the support of those dependent upon him, and who tho able-bodied is yet content to eat in idleness the bread which others provide.

The existence of women of this type forms one of the most unpleasant and unwholesome features of modern life. If any one is so dim of vision as to fail to see what a thoroughly unlovely creature such a woman is I wish they would read Judge Robert Grant’s novel “Unleavened Bread,” ponder seriously the character of Selma, and think of the fate that would surely overcome any nation which developed its average and typical woman along such lines. Unfortunately it would be untrue to say that this type exists only in American novels. That it also exists in American life is made unpleasantly evident by the statistics as to the dwindling families in some localities. It is made evident in equally sinister fashion by the census statistics as to divorce, which are fairly appalling; for easy divorce is now as it ever has been, a bane to any nation, a curse to society, a menace to the home, an incitement to married unhappiness and to immorality, an evil thing for men and a still more hideous evil for women. These unpleasant tendencies in our American life are made evident by articles such as those which I actually read not long ago in a certain paper, where a clergyman was quoted, seemingly with approval, as expressing the general American attitude when he said that the ambition of any save a very rich man should be to rear two children only, so as to give his children an opportunity “to taste a few of the good things of life.”

This man, whose profession and calling should have made him a moral teacher, actually set before others the ideal, not of training children to do their duty, not of sending them forth with stout hearts and ready minds to win triumphs for themselves and their country, not of allowing them the opportunity, and giving them the privilege of making their own place in the world, but, forsooth, of keeping the number of children so limited that they might “taste a few good things!” The way to give a child a fair chance in life is not to bring it up in luxury, but to see that it has the kind of training that will give it strength of character. Even apart from the vital question of national life, and regarding only the individual interest of the children themselves, happiness in the true sense is a hundredfold more apt to come to any given member of a healthy family of healthy-minded children, well brought up, well educated, but taught that they must shift up, well educated, but taught that they must shift for themselves, must win their own way, and by their own exertions make their own positions of usefulness, than it is apt to come to those whose parents themselves have acted on and have trained their children to act on, the selfish and sordid theory that the whole end of life is to “taste a few good things.”

The intelligence of the remark is on a par with its morality; for the most rudimentary mental process would have shown the speaker that if the average family in which there are children contained but two children the nation as a whole would decrease in population so rapidly that in two or three generations it would very deservedly be on the point of extinction, so that the people who had acted on this base and selfish doctrine would be giving place to others with braver and more robust ideals. Nor would such a result be in any way regrettable; for a race that practised such doctrine — that is, a race that practised race suicide — would thereby conclusively show that it was unfit to exist, and that it had better give place to people who had not forgotten the primary laws of their being.

To sum up, then, the whole matter is simple enough. If either a race or an individual prefers the pleasure of more effortless ease, of self-indulgence, to the infinitely deeper, the infinitely higher pleasures that come to those who know the toil and the weariness, but also the joy, of hard duty well done, why, that race or that individual must inevitably in the end pay the penalty of leading a life both vapid and ignoble. No man and no woman really worthy of the name can care for the life spent solely or chiefly in the avoidance of risk and trouble and labor. Save in exceptional cases the prizes worth having in life must be paid for, and the life worth living must be a life of work for a worthy end, and ordinarily of work more for others than for one’s self.

The woman’s task is not easy — no task worth doing is easy — but in doing it, and when she has done it, there shall come to her the highest and holiest joy known to mankind; and having done it, she shall have the reward prophesied in Scripture; for her husband and her children, yes, and all people who realize that her work lies at the foundation of all national happiness and greatness, shall rise up and call her blessed.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

I am not a professional demographer. I dabble in fact and fiction. Mostly in fiction.

But as I have done so I have found that there is a good deal of problem with… definitions. The math of demography sometimes doesn’t match up with the culture of demography. And so, over time, I have gathered some definitions that they (professional demographers) use, and some that they don’t… but I think they should. Or maybe they do, but I haven’t seen them do it enough.

These definitions are not focused on the math… but on the reality of human behaviour. My desire is not to merely say ‘this is what is happening’, but to get at some of the why it is happening and, in the end, how we can change it.

So here is my list, as an amateur, of some demographic terms and their definitions.

Sex

INCEL

This term technically means involuntarily celibate and so would apply to both men and women, but at the time it tended to be used for men.

Let’s be careful here: this term is an internet meme, but it reflects reality. It is loaded with all sorts of political weight… but for demographers there is a physical reality. Ignoring the frustration of the young man who isn’t have sex… the demographer needs to note that he isn’t having children… because he isn’t having sex.

Living Together

This term, too, might seem simple: a man and a woman living in the same place and having routine sex. But because of sociological implications, they may or may not feel free to have children together.

Sleeping Together

This term is awkward as well, as it can cover such a wide range of behaviours. Are they coming together daily, weekly, or when he is in town?

Fertile Coital Rate

This term asks how often a woman is having sex in such a way that pregnancy is a viable possibility. This combines both how often she is having sex, and how often that sex is what moderns like to call ‘unprotected’. (A truly insane term.) It is not intended to take into account if she or her partner is involuntarily and unknowingly medically infertile. If they have rendered themselves sterile, or are infertile and know it, then this would NOT be a case of fertile coitus.

This term would also include vaguer things such as jobs that take one out of town, social disapproval of coitus in certain circumstances, pornography use… as they affect the fertile coital rate.

Society

TFR

Short for ‘Total Fertility Rate’, this is the standard term used when discussing demographic growth. It is the most fundamental fact about how a society is able to reproduce itself. It measures the number of children that women in a society have on average.

Cohort

A ‘cohort’ is, simply put, a group. In demographic research, it is typically used to describe an age group, or an age and location, or an age and culture group. So, for example, ‘All females between the ages of 20 and 25 in the Midwestern United States’. Because fertility behavior is very often dependent upon these factors: younger vs older women are more/less able to have children, women in a given society are more/less willing to have children, etc.

So the cohort “Unmarried American women aged 75 or older” is typically a very low fertility ‘cohort’, whereas the ‘women of childbearing age in Niger’ is typically a very high fertility ‘cohort’.

This principle is extremely important when projecting demographic growth or loss into the future. Women who don’t exist can’t have children. So it’s useless to speak of a society where every single woman has four children as having a high growth rate if there are very few women to have those children. Specifically speaking if the cohort of women who are of an age to reproduce is very small, that will produce a multiplicative effect. Very few women will have very few children, which will mean that they will be another cohort later on down the road that will produce very few children.

In the United States, this was seen in the opposite direction after the baby boom following World War II. The baby boom generation was very large, and so the generation of children that they had, when they reached reproductive age, also had a lot of children. Not because their TFR was necessarily large, but because there were a lot of them to have the children.

Group Fertility Expectation

Ok, not a great name for the term, but I think this is a hugely important idea. The question of, ‘When this girl grew up in her society, how many children did people around her think she would end up having?’. The societal expectation of how many was ‘too few’ and how many was ‘too many’.

And, obviously, the girl was a member of several groups. Her church group might have been set in the midst of a secular society. Her family might have two children in a society where three was the norm.

So this term is meant to capture the girl’s fertility expectation when she arrives at the age where she is expected to start having children. It would include, more tangentially, issues such as age of marriage, use of birth control, frequency of coitus, etc.

INCHEL

This term is sort of parallel to ‘INCEL’. However, it means ‘involuntarily childless,’ and it refers to women who had thought, when they were younger, that they would be having children but, through a series of decisions they made and biological reality, now realise they will never have any.

Like INCEL, we need to separate out the political wars on the internet and point out that, for demographers, the INCHEL is a real person, a real datum. Their society may have produced in them a desire to have children (their society or their biology), but their society also produced an inability. Whatever choices they made… didn’t work to produce children.

Marriage

This term is not as easy to define as it might seem. Leaving aside modern nonsense, going back into history, the legal status, rights, and duties of married people were different from age to age and place to place.

And ‘married’ people can also be living together or not… and not just because of ‘separation’, but also because of military duty, etc.

Parental Support Rate

A very vague term, representing how much support parents, or new parents, have in their parenting activities. Are their grandparents to help? Neighbours? Is wet nursing acceptable?

It would also include, on the negative side of the column, any societal disapproval, increased tax rate, inability to use a car (car seat laws, children not allowed in the front seat, etc.).

Math

MPAP

This word combines demographic facts with sociological implications. Other definitions of fertility use both the average, called the mean, and include childless women in their calculations. This term does not do so. And the reason for that is sociological.

This term is the ‘Median Parity amongst Parents’, and is the median number of children that a woman who does have children has. Thus, never ‘zero’.

For the purposes of demographic growth, it is completely unimportant how that growth is distributed. (i.e., if one woman has a hundred children, making up for twenty women that have none). However, for the purposes of a pronatalist society, and actual population growth, it is extremely important. A child who grows up in a household with only one child and his neighbours each only have one child will come to a subconscious understanding that one child is normal.

If, on the other hand, a child grew up with 4, 5, or even 8 siblings and most of the other children that they socialised with also had several siblings, then they would come to internalize the idea that having several siblings is normal. Even if there were large numbers of women around who had no children. What is important for this term is the environment that the child grows up in.

Replacement Fertility

This term, used by practically all demographic researchers, is deadly. It ostensibly means the number of children the average woman has to have in order for the society to ‘reproduce itself’. It is deadly because it is false in two different ways:

1. It doesn’t take into account a variety of factors. While it may be technically true, it presents an ‘average’ for something that applies to a population of women who are split into different groups. So the ‘average’ fertility of a female population where a large group is already infertile due to age is wildly misleading. Or one whose population pyramid is already so skewed that the population that can have children is small compared to the overall population.

2. It doesn’t take into account the fact that ‘replacement’ only replaces numbers, not society. Previous societies had much higher fertility rates, and thus actual population ‘pyramids’. A fertility rate which greatly flattens the pyramid will not result in the ‘replacement’ of the society… just the population. The society with a TFR of 4.0 is structured very differently, and will look very different, from one with a ‘replacement’ rate of 2.1.

So, in order to actually carry on a society, we cannot rely on anything so mathematically detached as ‘replacement fertility’. We have to look holistically at society and see how many children are needed at what ages to keep society going.

Completed Fertility

Measuring fertility is an impossible thing, due to the complexity of the various mathematical and sociological intersections. One term that isn’t used much, but is what people actually assume is being measured, is ‘completed fertility’. It can only be measured when a woman dies. (Technically, when she becomes incapable of bearing more children, but that is impossible to measure except vaguely, as this age varies for women.) It answers the question: how many children did a woman have?

This is what most of us naively assume TFR is measuring… but of course, as TFR is taken while women are still alive, it can’t actually do that for living populations. We might be able to measure the actual TFR of the US in 1810, but we can’t for 2010. We can only make projections.

Tempo Effect

In a bizarre sort of contradiction to ‘completed fertility’, we have ‘tempo effect’. A society whose women have three children each, immediately after getting married, which they do young, will have a much more positive effect on the population growth of a country than if those exact same women had married later and spread their children out.

This is because if you have children when you are young, they are able to reproduce themselves sooner. Which means the society will actually grow faster (or collapse more slowly).

False Fertility

There is a serious problem with modern demographic research: they fail to treat fertility as a closed system. IOW, people will speak of ‘immigration’ as a possible fix to population decline. But moving population from one spot to another won’t fix the problem, for two reasons:

1. The resulting population seems to typically come to share the TFR of the society they are joining.

2. It pushes the problem back one country. Westonia cannot solve their population deficit by continually importing people from Birthistan… unless Birthistan is producing enough children for both! IOW, the total TFR of the combined two countries would need to be at least replacement level.

So importing immigrants can be seen as a temporary fix, but as far as long-term trends are concerned, it fixes nothing.

Parity

The number of living children the woman has. The actual number that is important for demographic research needs to be something like ‘parity until successful reproduction’… i.e., there is a very real sense in which children don’t count until they, themselves, have started reproducing. So, perhaps, ‘PSR’?

Now, again, this cannot be measured ‘in real time’. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is what is actually being looked for… what actually affects societies. Demographics is a science of the present… but really of the future. It can only be estimated today… Any true measurement can only be of the past. We know that Abraham had many sons… who had many sons… who had many sons… but we cannot tell that about ourselves.

Nuptuality

The probability that a woman will get married. One might add in a subquestion of the age at first marriage. Perhaps ‘Primes Noces’? Because the research is quite clear: marriage people have a much higher rate of ‘fertility’… ie they tend to have more children. Some of which might be social; we all know of couples who were living together but are quite open about the fact that they aren’t going to have children until they get married.

Momentum

This term combines other terms into a moving system: how is the system moving in terms of population?

For my amateur audience, we need to see ‘momentum’ not just as some mathematical abstraction (smaller cohorts of children in the past produce smaller cohorts of fertile women, who produce smaller cohorts of children… etc) but to examine how each of the issues discussed here tends to echo through time. A child born in a small household will see that as normal… and be resistant to having lots of kids. A woman whose mother married late, divorced, talked trash about the men in her life…

A society that has a ‘dating’ system that produces very few marriages, and those late and fruitless, will come to the point where it can’t even imagine an alternative. A society that assumes that the couple will be on birth control for the first couple of years of their (already delayed) marriage.

All of those things have ‘momentum’. What happens today affects tomorrow.

Medicine

Medical Infertility Rate

There is an interesting fact of demographic language that ‘fertile’ and ‘infertile’ are not used as opposites. A ‘fertility rate’ means if women are having children, but ‘infertility’ means that they can’t… not that they aren’t, typically.

So it is important for any demographic discussion to recognise if their women (and their men, but this is usually less discussed) are ‘barren’… i.e., if they are incapable of having children. The math of fixing the problem will depend upon taking this into account.

Conclusion

This paper is not intended to merely present a series of dry, statistical terms, but to motivate a change of thinking. It is meant to be offensive… to the modern sensibilities that have created the demographic cliff we have driven off of.

You cannot fix a problem unless you acknowledge that it exists and your part in it. All over the world, ‘modern’ societies are dying. They are committing suicide. They are not only failing to reproduce themselves, but are mired in political and economic systems that require large numbers of children to grow up and enter the workforce to survive. And those children aren’t there. They won’t be there. Indeed, they can’t be there.

So any fix needs to take into account the coming disaster… and look beyond it.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von