Good discussion of some very important issues. I hate to point out a few flaws, but…
“The market for sex dolls is primarily male” is a claim I’ve heard before, mostly from Guardian columnists complaining that men might actually begin preferring them to real women, and don’t such artificial sex machines objectify women, and shouldn’t something be done etc.
The problem with that analysis is that women have been using artificial sex machines for generations. They’re called dildos, and as far as I can tell, no one argues that females using vibrators and dildos objectifies men, or that they render men obsolete. In fact, vibrators and dildos are far more objectifying than sex dolls, reducing men to their sexual appendage for female pleasure. At least sex dolls have a face.
The same gendered perspective is evident in your assertion that the pill has left “men lonely and frustrated.” In fact, the opposite is true. By liberating females from the threat of pregnancy, the pill also liberated men from having to marry to get sex, which is why men control the marriage market. There are now millions of women engaging in no-strings sex throughout the world, a cornucopia of possibility for single men. Or at least, for the men who can be bothered. The marriage strike and the MGTOW movement reflect men’s growing disenchantment with both marriage and relationships.
And rather than leaving men ” lonely and frustrated”, aside from a handful of incels who would never have gotten laid with or without the pill, it is women in their late 30’s and beyond who are discovering that without the ability to use sex to force men into marriage, a growing number of them end up unmarried, without a husband or children, facing a future with their cat, freezing their eggs in the hope that Mr. Right is just around the corner. This has become so bad that after running perhaps half a dozen articles on why being alone isn’t really so bad, the Guardian has begun shifting to explaining to lonely women why being childless is also just fine. The pigeons are coming home to roost for feminism, and the Guardian is looking to shift the blame before women figure out what happened.
In fact, as the rate of sexual intercourse falls among both younger men and women, it seems to be females who are suffering most from depression and anxiety, not men. The market for porn is growing fastest among young women, but it doesn’t give the emotional bond they need more than men do, a point you admitted in your article.
Worst of all, perhaps, is your assertion that “technology is merely a tool, designed and used by humans.” I think the point is that some technologies can change us in ways we can’t forsee, and wouldn’t choose. Cell phone tech was meant to help us communicate better- but the argument can be made that it in fact separates us more while enabling narcisistic people to fill Facebook with selfies. The internet was meant to do the same, but it seems to have degenerated into a platform for hate-mongering and political chicanery.
Pollyanaesque hopes that technology will somehow “widen our horizons” may be true, but just as we use technology to shape our environment, there is a price to pay, for our tech also shapes and distorts us in ways we fail to foresee, and would never have chosen.
” it is women in their late 30’s and beyond who are discovering that without the ability to use sex to force men into marriage, a growing number of them end up unmarried, without a husband or children, facing a future with their cat, freezing their eggs in the hope that Mr. Right is just around the corner.”
Wow. You may want to look up the latest, multinational, multigenerational research on this topic, which shows that non-married women tend to be on average happier than their married counterparts. This stereotypical view you are propagating is both offensive and inaccurate. Look around, and you will find is much more to the lives of women who choose not to marry than endless years sitting at home laden with cats, just praying for a man.
You might want to consider the methodological problems inherent in all research which depends on surveys, in which people tend to respond in ways that validate their choices. In other words, females who find themselves at 40 without a husband or kids are self-selected, therefore not a repr3sentative sample, and are likely to respond by validating their choices purely because they would otherwise have to admit they made the wrong one. The same phenomena happens when we purchase something, and rationalize our choice later because our commitment to that product is now retroactively used to justify the purchase.
But just consider this: why all the fuss about the unavailability of good men by older women, unless they realize that their own choices have left them high and dry?
ralph bell
3 years ago
Incredibly thought provoking article.
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago
It is true we can feed 10-12 billion people by developing a global food system that utilities precision farming techniques, gmo crops, synthetic fertilisers and lab food along with halving food waste. And even more so if humanity went vegan. (see figure 6 https://www.thelancet.com/j….
But is human growth desirable?
A bigger humanity will inevitably consume more which will hit Earth limits with the possibility of triggering tipping points as what occurs naturally within ecological succession.
Currently tipping points are theory but resource availability and growing resource scarcity is real. For example, exploitable oil reserves are currently due to end in 50 years time. Similarly, due to the growing scarcity of hydrocarbons, the cost of extracting them is becoming dearer which is increasing bills and squeezing disposible and discretionary incomes.
This is leading to growing debt which is essentially financing the extraction of future reserves which is quickening our encounter with resource limits.
Resource scarcity and the consequent resource availability will inevitably increase human competition with different cultural groups vying for their own reducing share of feeding territories which will be compounded with continued human growth.
This will no doubt give rise to the democratic politics of equality and the democratic politics of Inequality with inequality tending to rationalise human growth and equality tending to maximise human growth. This I think is at the heart of the rivalry between Progressives and Conservatives with the Progressives viewing rationalising as offensive and the Conservatives viewing maximising as offensive.
I personally don’t think the Progressives will win this battle because maximising human growth is the risk strategy and could lead to collapse. The Conservative approach on the other hand, although containing perceived injustices, is the precautionary strategy which is achieved by not maximising the endeavour to save all human life.
Another difficulty with equality is ecological debt,. If a Nation’s natural assets cannot support their current human population, they will need imports. So for example, in Britain we need to import 40% of our food. This explains why our multinational companies land grab indigenous territories with the help of corrupt foreign governments, evict the inhabitants of these territories and effectively force them to urbanise into poverty stricken shanty towns.
So if a designated land is over populated then this will inevitably lead to human suffering abroad which is then disguised as the sustainable development goals.
Is this desirable?
I think not because this results in maximising resource use and increasing human competition.
In contrast, by rationalising and achieving population stabilisation and then taking stock then there is a higher possibility that people will feel they have enough, even with inequality, and so human relations would generally be more peaceful.
This to me is more desirable ðŸµï¸
In conclusion, regarding our human trait to seek human growth, this can either be maximised in the form of an equal Progressive future with the greater possibility of competition and conflict or rationalised in the form of an unequal Conservative future with the greater possibility of cooperation and peace. For me, one is worth celebrating, the other is not, unless someone can come up with a technological cure for human competition and human conflict.
Cheers 🌺ðŸµï¸ðŸ’®ðŸŒ¸ðŸŒ¼
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago
It is true we can feed 10-12 billion people by developing a global food system that utilities precision farming techniques, gmo crops, synthetic fertilisers and lab food along with halving food waste. And even more so if humanity went vegan. (see figure 6 https://www.thelancet.com/j….
But is human growth desirable?
A bigger humanity will inevitably consume more which will hit Earth limits with the possibility of triggering tipping points as what occurs naturally within ecological succession.
Currently tipping points are theory but resource availability and growing resource scarcity is real. For example, exploitable oil reserves are currently due to end in 50 years time. Similarly, due to the growing scarcity of hydrocarbons, the cost of extracting oil is becoming dearer which is increasing bills and squeezing disposible and discretionary incomes.
This is leading to growing debt which is essentially finances the extraction of future reserves which is quickening our encounter with resource scarcity.
Resource scarcity and the consequent resource availability will inevitably increase human competition with different cultural groups vying for their reducing share which can only be compounded with continued human growth.
This will no doubt give rise to the politics of equality and the politics of Inequality and inequality will win because it is the best way to rationalise resource allocation and ensure greater human longevity but with more human injustice.
Equality won’t be achieved because ecologically material equality at the baseline of UK middle class lifestyles would require 4.2 Earths to sustain so equality could only be achieved by humanity adapting to the income of the working class.
Consequently, I have serious doubts the British middle class will commit to global equality if it means dropping to working class disposible income levels. Therefore, Western Progressives will probably only consent to Western Equality and therefore sanction inequality with say African people.
However, depriving African people of global equality will mean mass migrations as they search for better feeding grounds. This too will increase human competition with Progressives accepting the consequences of their global inequality but with Conservatives opposed. And for good reason, because it sets up a positive feedback mechanism, in other words, a vicious cycle.
This is because Britain has an ecological debt, which means that our natural assets cannot support our current human population. Consequently, as a society, we need imports to sustain ourselves. These imports, such as 40% of our food, are the basis of our multinational companies which for example land grab indigenous territories with the help of corrupt governments, evict the inhabitants of these territories which forces them to urbanise into poverty stricken shanty towns.
So by over populated the land we call Britain and at the same time demonstrate global inequality, human growth can only lead to increased human competition, so although we could feed ourselves, there would be a higher possibility of competition, conflict and possibly war. Is this desirable?
I think not. By achieving population stabilisation, taking stock and then proceeding to human degrowth, particularly in relation to human population decreases, then there will be a higher possibility that people will feel they have enough, even with inequality, and so human relations would generally be more peaceful.
This to me is more desirable ðŸµï¸
In conclusion, regarding our human trait to seek human growth, this can either be maximised in the form of a Progressive future with the greater possibility of competition and conflict or rationalised in the form of a Conservative future with the greater possibility of cooperation and peace. For me, one is worth celebrating, the other is not, unless someone can come up with a technological cure for human competition and human conflict.
Cheers 🌺ðŸµï¸ðŸ’®ðŸŒ¸ðŸŒ¼
Andre Lower
3 years ago
Perhaps AI sex could someday fill the gap between male and female libido. It would likely reduce the numbers on violence against women. It could also unburden women from sex that they don’t really want, but end up doing “to preserve the relationship”. Granted, the connection (which is actually what men seek through sex, in spite of what some people still think…) would not be available – after all, it is a machine, not a person. But then again, there is no connection to be had when the sex available to you is more often than not one-sided…
Good discussion of some very important issues. I hate to point out a few flaws, but…
“The market for sex dolls is primarily male” is a claim I’ve heard before, mostly from Guardian columnists complaining that men might actually begin preferring them to real women, and don’t such artificial sex machines objectify women, and shouldn’t something be done etc.
The problem with that analysis is that women have been using artificial sex machines for generations. They’re called dildos, and as far as I can tell, no one argues that females using vibrators and dildos objectifies men, or that they render men obsolete. In fact, vibrators and dildos are far more objectifying than sex dolls, reducing men to their sexual appendage for female pleasure. At least sex dolls have a face.
The same gendered perspective is evident in your assertion that the pill has left “men lonely and frustrated.” In fact, the opposite is true. By liberating females from the threat of pregnancy, the pill also liberated men from having to marry to get sex, which is why men control the marriage market. There are now millions of women engaging in no-strings sex throughout the world, a cornucopia of possibility for single men. Or at least, for the men who can be bothered. The marriage strike and the MGTOW movement reflect men’s growing disenchantment with both marriage and relationships.
And rather than leaving men ” lonely and frustrated”, aside from a handful of incels who would never have gotten laid with or without the pill, it is women in their late 30’s and beyond who are discovering that without the ability to use sex to force men into marriage, a growing number of them end up unmarried, without a husband or children, facing a future with their cat, freezing their eggs in the hope that Mr. Right is just around the corner. This has become so bad that after running perhaps half a dozen articles on why being alone isn’t really so bad, the Guardian has begun shifting to explaining to lonely women why being childless is also just fine. The pigeons are coming home to roost for feminism, and the Guardian is looking to shift the blame before women figure out what happened.
In fact, as the rate of sexual intercourse falls among both younger men and women, it seems to be females who are suffering most from depression and anxiety, not men. The market for porn is growing fastest among young women, but it doesn’t give the emotional bond they need more than men do, a point you admitted in your article.
Worst of all, perhaps, is your assertion that “technology is merely a tool, designed and used by humans.” I think the point is that some technologies can change us in ways we can’t forsee, and wouldn’t choose. Cell phone tech was meant to help us communicate better- but the argument can be made that it in fact separates us more while enabling narcisistic people to fill Facebook with selfies. The internet was meant to do the same, but it seems to have degenerated into a platform for hate-mongering and political chicanery.
Pollyanaesque hopes that technology will somehow “widen our horizons” may be true, but just as we use technology to shape our environment, there is a price to pay, for our tech also shapes and distorts us in ways we fail to foresee, and would never have chosen.
” it is women in their late 30’s and beyond who are discovering that without the ability to use sex to force men into marriage, a growing number of them end up unmarried, without a husband or children, facing a future with their cat, freezing their eggs in the hope that Mr. Right is just around the corner.”
Wow. You may want to look up the latest, multinational, multigenerational research on this topic, which shows that non-married women tend to be on average happier than their married counterparts. This stereotypical view you are propagating is both offensive and inaccurate. Look around, and you will find is much more to the lives of women who choose not to marry than endless years sitting at home laden with cats, just praying for a man.
You might want to consider the methodological problems inherent in all research which depends on surveys, in which people tend to respond in ways that validate their choices. In other words, females who find themselves at 40 without a husband or kids are self-selected, therefore not a repr3sentative sample, and are likely to respond by validating their choices purely because they would otherwise have to admit they made the wrong one. The same phenomena happens when we purchase something, and rationalize our choice later because our commitment to that product is now retroactively used to justify the purchase.
But just consider this: why all the fuss about the unavailability of good men by older women, unless they realize that their own choices have left them high and dry?
Incredibly thought provoking article.
It is true we can feed 10-12 billion people by developing a global food system that utilities precision farming techniques, gmo crops, synthetic fertilisers and lab food along with halving food waste. And even more so if humanity went vegan.
(see figure 6 https://www.thelancet.com/j….
But is human growth desirable?
A bigger humanity will inevitably consume more which will hit Earth limits with the possibility of triggering tipping points as what occurs naturally within ecological succession.
Currently tipping points are theory but resource availability and growing resource scarcity is real. For example, exploitable oil reserves are currently due to end in 50 years time. Similarly, due to the growing scarcity of hydrocarbons, the cost of extracting them is becoming dearer which is increasing bills and squeezing disposible and discretionary incomes.
This is leading to growing debt which is essentially financing the extraction of future reserves which is quickening our encounter with resource limits.
Resource scarcity and the consequent resource availability will inevitably increase human competition with different cultural groups vying for their own reducing share of feeding territories which will be compounded with continued human growth.
This will no doubt give rise to the democratic politics of equality and the democratic politics of Inequality with inequality tending to rationalise human growth and equality tending to maximise human growth. This I think is at the heart of the rivalry between Progressives and Conservatives with the Progressives viewing rationalising as offensive and the Conservatives viewing maximising as offensive.
I personally don’t think the Progressives will win this battle because maximising human growth is the risk strategy and could lead to collapse. The Conservative approach on the other hand, although containing perceived injustices, is the precautionary strategy which is achieved by not maximising the endeavour to save all human life.
Another difficulty with equality is ecological debt,. If a Nation’s natural assets cannot support their current human population, they will need imports. So for example, in Britain we need to import 40% of our food. This explains why our multinational companies land grab indigenous territories with the help of corrupt foreign governments, evict the inhabitants of these territories and effectively force them to urbanise into poverty stricken shanty towns.
So if a designated land is over populated then this will inevitably lead to human suffering abroad which is then disguised as the sustainable development goals.
Is this desirable?
I think not because this results in maximising resource use and increasing human competition.
In contrast, by rationalising and achieving population stabilisation and then taking stock then there is a higher possibility that people will feel they have enough, even with inequality, and so human relations would generally be more peaceful.
This to me is more desirable ðŸµï¸
In conclusion, regarding our human trait to seek human growth, this can either be maximised in the form of an equal Progressive future with the greater possibility of competition and conflict or rationalised in the form of an unequal Conservative future with the greater possibility of cooperation and peace. For me, one is worth celebrating, the other is not, unless someone can come up with a technological cure for human competition and human conflict.
Cheers 🌺ðŸµï¸ðŸ’®ðŸŒ¸ðŸŒ¼
It is true we can feed 10-12 billion people by developing a global food system that utilities precision farming techniques, gmo crops, synthetic fertilisers and lab food along with halving food waste. And even more so if humanity went vegan.
(see figure 6 https://www.thelancet.com/j….
But is human growth desirable?
A bigger humanity will inevitably consume more which will hit Earth limits with the possibility of triggering tipping points as what occurs naturally within ecological succession.
Currently tipping points are theory but resource availability and growing resource scarcity is real. For example, exploitable oil reserves are currently due to end in 50 years time. Similarly, due to the growing scarcity of hydrocarbons, the cost of extracting oil is becoming dearer which is increasing bills and squeezing disposible and discretionary incomes.
This is leading to growing debt which is essentially finances the extraction of future reserves which is quickening our encounter with resource scarcity.
Resource scarcity and the consequent resource availability will inevitably increase human competition with different cultural groups vying for their reducing share which can only be compounded with continued human growth.
This will no doubt give rise to the politics of equality and the politics of Inequality and inequality will win because it is the best way to rationalise resource allocation and ensure greater human longevity but with more human injustice.
Equality won’t be achieved because ecologically material equality at the baseline of UK middle class lifestyles would require 4.2 Earths to sustain so equality could only be achieved by humanity adapting to the income of the working class.
Consequently, I have serious doubts the British middle class will commit to global equality if it means dropping to working class disposible income levels. Therefore, Western Progressives will probably only consent to Western Equality and therefore sanction inequality with say African people.
However, depriving African people of global equality will mean mass migrations as they search for better feeding grounds. This too will increase human competition with Progressives accepting the consequences of their global inequality but with Conservatives opposed. And for good reason, because it sets up a positive feedback mechanism, in other words, a vicious cycle.
This is because Britain has an ecological debt, which means that our natural assets cannot support our current human population. Consequently, as a society, we need imports to sustain ourselves. These imports, such as 40% of our food, are the basis of our multinational companies which for example land grab indigenous territories with the help of corrupt governments, evict the inhabitants of these territories which forces them to urbanise into poverty stricken shanty towns.
So by over populated the land we call Britain and at the same time demonstrate global inequality, human growth can only lead to increased human competition, so although we could feed ourselves, there would be a higher possibility of competition, conflict and possibly war. Is this desirable?
I think not. By achieving population stabilisation, taking stock and then proceeding to human degrowth, particularly in relation to human population decreases, then there will be a higher possibility that people will feel they have enough, even with inequality, and so human relations would generally be more peaceful.
This to me is more desirable ðŸµï¸
In conclusion, regarding our human trait to seek human growth, this can either be maximised in the form of a Progressive future with the greater possibility of competition and conflict or rationalised in the form of a Conservative future with the greater possibility of cooperation and peace. For me, one is worth celebrating, the other is not, unless someone can come up with a technological cure for human competition and human conflict.
Cheers 🌺ðŸµï¸ðŸ’®ðŸŒ¸ðŸŒ¼
Perhaps AI sex could someday fill the gap between male and female libido. It would likely reduce the numbers on violence against women. It could also unburden women from sex that they don’t really want, but end up doing “to preserve the relationship”. Granted, the connection (which is actually what men seek through sex, in spite of what some people still think…) would not be available – after all, it is a machine, not a person. But then again, there is no connection to be had when the sex available to you is more often than not one-sided…