Robert A. Heinlein postulated that morality = "women and children first"

[Goshin]

The following is presented as a speculative argument based on the initial premise, not necessarily as an advocacy of it.

Robert A. Heinlein postulated that essential societal "morality" was, or should be, based on protecting women and children, as they were the future of society.
The theory goes, if you don't protect and nurture women of child-bearing age, and children, then your society is doomed because there won't be a next generation. That's the short version anyway.
(What follows is my musings *based on that perspective*, not necessarily my actual opinion in all details, mmkay?)

By that metric, how well are we doing as a society?

Eeek.... not too good, it seems. Our reproduction rates (for native-born Americans) is falling below replacement level. The same in Europe and most "developed" nations. Instead of Ehrlich's "population bomb" we're looking at a population *implosion*.

Immigration is the only thing keeping our population growth positive at this point, and that has many caveats of its own.

What are we doing wrong?
Well, almost everything, from the perspective above.

For starters, we're encouraging (from elementary school!) children to identify as other-than-hetero. The only explanation for the massive swell in non-binary/trans/etc youth (beyond all historical levels) is we've made it somehow *cool* to be "other than het".

The massive emphasis on climate doom is discouraging many young adults from parenthood. Many of them believe it would be irresponsible of them to "inflict another human on the world", and/or inflict the "doomed" world on another child.

Society has made marriage an undesirable burden. You're an independent woman, you don't need no man right? And sex is easy so who needs a wife. Many consider the odds of divorce and the consequences of it and feel a lack of incentive to marry.
Women of prime child-bearing years are encouraged to pursue career before family, and are accepted in combat units in the military. Whatever you may think about this personally, it doesn't help the starting premise.
There's the "incel" phenomenon... some say because 80% of young women are only interested in the top 5% of men, and ignore any man who doesn't have a movie-star face and abs, plus style, verve and of course, money to burn.
On the right, there is resistance to aid for impoverished children and mothers, helping ensure they will fail to meet minimum standards of success as adults and likely end up in the prison system.
Men are discouraged from being men. Their importance as husbands and fathers is widely disparaged in media. Everywhere you look, the majority of 20-something young men behave like sophomoric frat boys, more intent on parties and hook-ups than building a life or having a family.
All this despite many studies showing that children do best in a household with both mom and dad.

Some young folks go so far as to embrace human extinction as a desirable outcome (at least in theory... haven't noticed them offing themselves in record numbers).

Heinlein postulated that survival was the sine-qua-non of any society ("without this, nothing"). As an extreme example, there were the Shakers, a religious group that practiced celibacy for all. At their peak in the 19th century there were perhaps 4,000-6,000 of them. Today there are three. THREE. All elderly and soon there will be zero.
Perhaps Heinlein was onto something after all.

Thoughts?

 

[Binary_Digit]

The following is presented as a speculative argument based on the initial premise, not necessarily as an advocacy of it.

Robert A. Heinlein postulated that essential societal "morality" was, or should be, based on protecting women and children, as they were the future of society.
The theory goes, if you don't protect and nurture women of child-bearing age, and children, then your society is doomed because there won't be a next generation. That's the short version anyway.
(What follows is my musings *based on that perspective*, not necessarily my actual opinion in all details, mmkay?)

By that metric, how well are we doing as a society?

Eeek.... not too good, it seems. Our reproduction rates (for native-born Americans) is falling below replacement level. The same in Europe and most "developed" nations. Instead of Ehrlich's "population bomb" we're looking at a population *implosion*.

Immigration is the only thing keeping our population growth positive at this point, and that has many caveats of its own.

What are we doing wrong?
Well, almost everything, from the perspective above.

For starters, we're encouraging (from elementary school!) children to identify as other-than-hetero. The only explanation for the massive swell in non-binary/trans/etc youth (beyond all historical levels) is we've made it somehow *cool* to be "other than het".

The massive emphasis on climate doom is discouraging many young adults from parenthood. Many of them believe it would be irresponsible of them to "inflict another human on the world", and/or inflict the "doomed" world on another child.

Society has made marriage an undesirable burden. You're an independent woman, you don't need no man right? And sex is easy so who needs a wife. Many consider the odds of divorce and the consequences of it and feel a lack of incentive to marry.
Women of prime child-bearing years are encouraged to pursue career before family, and are accepted in combat units in the military. Whatever you may think about this personally, it doesn't help the starting premise.
There's the "incel" phenomenon... some say because 80% of young women are only interested in the top 5% of men, and ignore any man who doesn't have a movie-star face and abs, plus style, verve and of course, money to burn.
On the right, there is resistance to aid for impoverished children and mothers, helping ensure they will fail to meet minimum standards of success as adults and likely end up in the prison system.
Men are discouraged from being men. Their importance as husbands and fathers is widely disparaged in media. Everywhere you look, the majority of 20-something young men behave like sophomoric frat boys, more intent on parties and hook-ups than building a life or having a family.
All this despite many studies showing that children do best in a household with both mom and dad.

Some young folks go so far as to embrace human extinction as a desirable outcome (at least in theory... haven't noticed them offing themselves in record numbers).

Heinlein postulated that survival was the sine-qua-non of any society ("without this, nothing"). As an extreme example, there were the Shakers, a religious group that practiced celibacy for all. At their peak in the 19th century there were perhaps 4,000-6,000 of them. Today there are three. THREE. All elderly and soon there will be zero.
Perhaps Heinlein was onto something after all.

Thoughts?

Reproduction rates ebbing and flowing above and below replacement level over time is probably normal, and isn't on the same level as having to recover from a disaster.

Plenty of people are still having kids, including career-minded women. They're just delaying for a few years compared to in the past.

That "80% of women are only interested in the top 5% of men" statistic comes from Tinder, not the real world. All it tells me is women usually require more than just a picture & paragraph to feel attracted to a guy. Not enough in-person stuff.

And whatever opinion one may have about the "emasculation of men" or non-binary or non-hetero preferences becoming more socially acceptable, nature will not be denied. We'll be fine.

 

[Goshin]

Reproduction rates ebbing and flowing above and below replacement level over time is probably normal, and isn't on the same level as having to recover from a disaster.

...We'll be fine.

There is much disagreement with that sentiment. Many projections have population growth reversing to decline, globally, before 2100. Far sooner, in the western world.... if excluding immigration, western Europe is already below replacement level.


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-globally-why-matters/


https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/26/sperm-count-declining-fertility-rate-decline/

 

[reflechissez]

Reproduction rates ebbing and flowing above and below replacement level over time is probably normal,

It isn't.

 

[BirdinHand]

Robert Heinlein had a history of divorces, failed relationships, poverty and poor health. If it wasn't for his 3rd wife, nothing he actually wrote would have ever made it to publication because the man was a disorganized mess of a human.

 

[OrphanSlug]

These arguments always, and I do mean always, come down to the same thing. What is the OP, or anyone else, propose the government do about this?

I guess let me add to this, any statement about morality or moral code is rather meaningless without some means to influence, if not enforce, that statement. If we stipulate that society should be based on "women and children first" as a statement of morality then the natural question is how to ensure it.

Just saying it, is pretend argument.

 

[Goshin]

Robert Heinlein had a history of divorces, failed relationships, poverty and poor health. If it wasn't for his 3rd wife, nothing he actually wrote would have ever made it to publication because the man was a disorganized mess of a human.

You make him sound like an utter failure, which is hardly the case.

He graduated from the Naval Academy and served some years in the Navy, rising in rank. His naval career ended due to tuberculosis, which was a common scourge in his generation. Yes, he had other health problems in his 60s and 70s... as most people do.

He did have two marriages that ended in divorce... as quite a few people have... followed by a third that lasted forty years, successful by most anyone's standards.

Almost as many books as Steven King, served on the Space Advisory Board, died with a net worth of 40 million dollars. Cited by many as their inspiration for going into science, engineering or space travel.


Now I'm not saying he's my ultimate hero or I agree with him in all things (it is not so), but I think your two-line cavalier dismissal is highly unwarranted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

 

[Goshin]

These arguments always, and I do mean always, come down to the same thing. What is the OP, or anyone else, propose the government do about this?

I guess let me add to this, any statement about morality or moral code is rather meaningless without some means to influence, if not enforce, that statement. If we stipulate that society should be based on "women and children first" as a statement of morality then the natural question is how to ensure it.

Just saying it, is pretend argument.

It is not a pretend argument.

First, most things do not originate solely with government, nor do solutions to problems come solely from government. There is also society, social norms and values, which are not legislated into law but nonetheless have more impact on life than the legal code.

Second, morality has mostly been "enforced" by society, moreso than law, historically. This is still true. "Cancel culture" is a form of modern Puritanism.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

For starters, we're encouraging (from elementary school!) children to identify as other-than-hetero.

Sorry, not seeing it on a mass scale.
In fact, not seeing it at all.
And I put two kids through school recently.
They both had a couple of friends who ID'd as gay, end of story.

PS: Ehrlich's book came out before contraception and abortion were a thing...over a half century ago.

 

[Goshin]

Sorry, not seeing it on a mass scale.
In fact, not seeing it at all.
And I put two kids through school recently.
They both had a couple of friends who ID'd as gay, end of story.

PS: Ehrlich's book came out before contraception and abortion were a thing.

There have been a number of recent studies noting high percentages of minors and young adults identifying as gay/bi/trans/non-binary/etc, far beyond historical percentages of 2-5%.

The numbers vary depending on which survey or study you look at, but in most GenZ is showing numbers FAR beyond that long-established rate.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There have been a number of recent studies noting high percentages of minors and young adults identifying as gay/bi/trans/non-binary/etc, far beyond historical percentages of 2-5%.

The numbers vary depending on which survey or study you look at, but in most GenZ is showing numbers FAR beyond that long-established rate.

Yeah check back in a couple of years.
Fads are like that.
Look, the human race would have ceased to exist if that were a possibility.
Also, I tend to view reports of "massive tides of persons ID-ing FAR beyond long established" with a jaundiced eye.
Polling is FAR FROM an exact science.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The following is presented as a speculative argument based on the initial premise, not necessarily as an advocacy of it.

Robert A. Heinlein postulated that essential societal "morality" was, or should be, based on protecting women and children, as they were the future of society.
The theory goes, if you don't protect and nurture women of child-bearing age, and children, then your society is doomed because there won't be a next generation. That's the short version anyway.
(What follows is my musings *based on that perspective*, not necessarily my actual opinion in all details, mmkay?)

By that metric, how well are we doing as a society?

Eeek.... not too good, it seems. Our reproduction rates (for native-born Americans) is falling below replacement level. The same in Europe and most "developed" nations. Instead of Ehrlich's "population bomb" we're looking at a population *implosion*.

Immigration is the only thing keeping our population growth positive at this point, and that has many caveats of its own.

What are we doing wrong?
Well, almost everything, from the perspective above.

For starters, we're encouraging (from elementary school!) children to identify as other-than-hetero. The only explanation for the massive swell in non-binary/trans/etc youth (beyond all historical levels) is we've made it somehow *cool* to be "other than het".

The massive emphasis on climate doom is discouraging many young adults from parenthood. Many of them believe it would be irresponsible of them to "inflict another human on the world", and/or inflict the "doomed" world on another child.

Society has made marriage an undesirable burden. You're an independent woman, you don't need no man right? And sex is easy so who needs a wife. Many consider the odds of divorce and the consequences of it and feel a lack of incentive to marry.
Women of prime child-bearing years are encouraged to pursue career before family, and are accepted in combat units in the military. Whatever you may think about this personally, it doesn't help the starting premise.
There's the "incel" phenomenon... some say because 80% of young women are only interested in the top 5% of men, and ignore any man who doesn't have a movie-star face and abs, plus style, verve and of course, money to burn.
On the right, there is resistance to aid for impoverished children and mothers, helping ensure they will fail to meet minimum standards of success as adults and likely end up in the prison system.
Men are discouraged from being men. Their importance as husbands and fathers is widely disparaged in media. Everywhere you look, the majority of 20-something young men behave like sophomoric frat boys, more intent on parties and hook-ups than building a life or having a family.
All this despite many studies showing that children do best in a household with both mom and dad.

Some young folks go so far as to embrace human extinction as a desirable outcome (at least in theory... haven't noticed them offing themselves in record numbers).

Heinlein postulated that survival was the sine-qua-non of any society ("without this, nothing"). As an extreme example, there were the Shakers, a religious group that practiced celibacy for all. At their peak in the 19th century there were perhaps 4,000-6,000 of them. Today there are three. THREE. All elderly and soon there will be zero.
Perhaps Heinlein was onto something after all.

Thoughts?

Robert Heinlen wrote fiction.

"Science" fiction.


I usually don't put a lot of stock in the philosophies of fiction writers.
And while it was a unique shift, moving it into an anti-transexual rant is cheap.

 

[Goshin]

Robert Heinlen wrote fiction.

"Science" fiction.


I usually don't put a lot of stock in the philosophies of fiction writers.

Yes, he did. And was also on the Space Advisory Board. Was chosen to give the graduation speech to the 1973 Naval Academy graduating class as a noteworthy alumni. And is noted as the inspiration for many thousands of high-achieving engineers, scientists and astronauts for entering their field. When you can point to half the accomplishments he had, I'll have much more respect for your opinions.

And while it was a unique shift, moving it into an anti-transexual rant is cheap.

That was *one* note among many. That you choose to focus on that alone is your decision.

 

[Goshin]

Yeah check back in a couple of years.
Fads are like that.
Look, the human race would have ceased to exist if that were a possibility.
Also, I tend to view reports of "massive tides of persons ID-ing FAR beyond long established" with a jaundiced eye.
Polling is FAR FROM an exact science.

I genuinely hope you are correct.

 

[VanceMack]

I doubt Heinlein could have foreseen a time when people would become so perverted that many would insist that anyone can be a man, woman, or child, if they really really really really wanted to.

Gender roles have been under attack since the 60s. Life has been constantly devalued. I doubt he would recognize what we have become. With what the Marxist left has done to society in just the last 10 years, I can imagine what it will be like in 50 years.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I genuinely hope you are correct.

All I can say is, during the late Sixties and early Seventies I remember that all of a sudden it became "fashionable" for a ton of girls I went to school with to become what we jokingly referred to as "fag hags", meaning that they established very close friendships with their gay male friends.
And so because androgyny was becoming a fad in popular music, a good many guys went in that direction and I suspect it was because it made them more accessible to the women.
On the other side of the coin I also knew more than a few girls who became somewhat militant in their feminism to the point of outright hostility toward males, complete with the excessively short hair and the armbands.

And it all sort of died off a few years later....didn't go away completely but it receded into the background.
I think a lot of this is youthful backlash and rebellion against the currently VERY FASHIONABLE right wing anger at the gay community.

"Oh yeah? Hate gays and lezzies, do ya? We're here, we're queer, deal with it."

Also, human sexuality is on a continuum anyway and as more people are discovering this, they are quite naturally exploring.
That doesn't signal a shift as much as it does an expansion.
Again, we've been here on this rock as a quasi intelligent species for a couple of hundred thousand years and if this was a valid and marked change I think it would have already occurred a dozen millennia ago and we would have ceased to exist.

 

[Goshin]

All I can say is, during the late Sixties and early Seventies I remember that all of a sudden it became "fashionable" for a ton of girls I went to school with to become what we jokingly referred to as "fag hags", meaning that they established very close friendships with their gay male friends.
And so because androgyny was becoming a fad in popular music, a good many guys went in that direction and I suspect it was because it made them more accessible to the women.
On the other side of the coin I also knew more than a few girls who became somewhat militant in their feminism to the point of outright hostility toward males, complete with the excessively short hair and the armbands.

And it all sort of died off a few years later....didn't go away completely but it receded into the background.
I think a lot of this is youthful backlash and rebellion against the currently VERY FASHIONABLE right wing anger at the gay community.

"Oh yeah? Hate gays and lezzies, do ya? We're here, we're queer, deal with it."

Also, human sexuality is on a continuum anyway and as more people are discovering this, they are quite naturally exploring.
That doesn't signal a shift as much as it does an expansion.
Again, we've been here on this rock as a quasi intelligent species for a couple of hundred thousand years and if this was a valid and marked change I think it would have already occurred a dozen millennia ago and we would have ceased to exist.

You have a definite point: a lot of social trends are cyclic and most die out in time.

I'm not sure that's true of our downward-trending reproduction rates though.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I genuinely hope you are correct.

I remember being offered PLENTY of opportunities to explore "pitching for the other team" and as much as they tried, nothing about the male anatomy got my manhood aroused so I concluded that I was most definitely of the hetero variety. But it doesn't mean that I was unaware of the trends and fads.
It just didn't speak to me the way it spoke to a handful of people I knew, that's all.
As recently as the mid 1990's (right after my first wife left and before I reconnected with Karen) I met a very attractive girl on a work crew I was part of.
She was totally feminine in mode of dress and mannerisms, and nothing hinted at her orientation, because as it turned out, she was what they call a "lipstick lesbian", one who is attracted more to the "butch type" lezzies, so she was every bit the same as a hetero female, all except for the attraction to males, that is.

I was surprised because her vibe was quite hetero from what I could gather.
Fast forward to me accidentally finding her on Facebook...she's married to a guy and seems quite happy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You have a definite point: a lot of social trends are cyclic and most die out in time.

I'm not sure that's true of our downward-trending reproduction rates though.

Downward repro is also tied to societal health and our modern Western society is awfully sick right now.
Two of my nieces and one nephew have vowed to never have kids because they openly stated that they would never bring a child into a world as ****ed up as this one is right now.
And all three are very happily married, to persons of the opposite sex.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The following is presented as a speculative argument based on the initial premise, not necessarily as an advocacy of it.

Robert A. Heinlein postulated that essential societal "morality" was, or should be, based on protecting women and children, as they were the future of society.
The theory goes, if you don't protect and nurture women of child-bearing age, and children, then your society is doomed because there won't be a next generation. That's the short version anyway.
(What follows is my musings *based on that perspective*, not necessarily my actual opinion in all details, mmkay?)

By that metric, how well are we doing as a society?

Eeek.... not too good, it seems. Our reproduction rates (for native-born Americans) is falling below replacement level. The same in Europe and most "developed" nations. Instead of Ehrlich's "population bomb" we're looking at a population *implosion*.

Immigration is the only thing keeping our population growth positive at this point, and that has many caveats of its own.

What are we doing wrong? .For starters, we're encouraging (from elementary school!) children to identify as other-than-hetero. The only explanation for the massive swell in non-binary/trans/etc youth (beyond all historical levels) is we've made it somehow *cool* to be "other than het".

The massive emphasis on climate doom is discouraging many young adults from parenthood. Many of them believe it would be irresponsible of them to "inflict another human on the world", and/or inflict the "doomed" world on another child.

Society has made marriage an undesirable burden. You're an independent woman, you don't need no man right? And sex is easy so who needs a wife. Many consider the odds of divorce and the consequences of it and feel a lack of incentive to marry.
Women of prime child-bearing years are encouraged to pursue career before family, and are accepted in combat units in the military. Whatever you may think about this personally, it doesn't help the starting premise.
There's the "incel" phenomenon... some say because 80% of young women are only interested in the top 5% of men, and ignore any man who doesn't have a movie-star face and abs, plus style, verve and of course, money to burn.
On the right, there is resistance to aid for impoverished children and mothers, helping ensure they will fail to meet minimum standards of success as adults and likely end up in the prison system.
Men are discouraged from being men. Their importance as husbands and fathers is widely disparaged in media. Everywhere you look, the majority of 20-something young men behave like sophomoric frat boys, more intent on parties and hook-ups than building a life or having a family.
All this despite many studies showing that children do best in a household with both mom and dad.

Thoughts?

We've lost our moral compass in the drive for "equity, diversity, inclusion." This has led to increasing division into various "grievance" groups, which are being identified and ranked via the new "hierarchy of oppression."

This is being supported by a myriad of new "thought leaders" funded by certain wealthy and powerful special interests seeking to create a one-world government under their control. The only way to do this is to destroy any and all values that support independent nation states.

In the USA and elsewhere this is being done by attacking what these interests call "Whiteness."



It is being replaced with "me, me, ME!" ideology designed to cause constant conflict and competition for the most "oppressed" and thus most deserving of praise and support for no other reason than existing. Thus, society as we know it is expected to fail, and the new world order of the World Economic Forum can take over. (At least that's what those power elites hope IMO).

 

[Goshin]

We've lost our moral compass in the drive for "equity, diversity, inclusion." This has led to increasing division into various "grievance" groups, which are being identified and ranked via the new "hierarchy of oppression."

This is being supported by a myriad of new "thought leaders" funded by certain wealthy and powerful special interests seeking to create a one-world government under their control. The only way to do this is to destroy any and all values that support independent nation states.

In the USA and elsewhere this is being done by attacking what these interests call "Whiteness."

View attachment 67425748

It is being replaced with "me, me, ME!" ideology designed cause constant conflict and competition for the most "oppressed" and thus most deserving of praise and support for no other reason than existing. Thus, society as we know it is expected to fail, and the new world order of the World Economic Forum can take over.

So much of that "whiteness" chart is simply things that enabled us to become the advanced and prosperous society we became, and are now losing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Lazarus Long (Heinlein's main character through the later years where this "woman and children first" comes from) was into boinking his mother.

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is no only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying. "
~~ Lazarus Long
.
.
.
.
Not saying I disagree with the women and children piece, just saying I don't look to Lazarus Long for moral guidance.

WW

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

As an extreme example, there were the Shakers, a religious group that practiced celibacy for all. At their peak in the 19th century there were perhaps 4,000-6,000 of them. Today there are three. THREE. All elderly and soon there will be zero.
Perhaps Heinlein was onto something after all.

Thoughts?

My first thought is that it seems rather obvious that not all Shakers STAYED IN the group for the duration of their lives.
I doubt that every single one of the 6000 that existed at the peak of the movement died celibate.
In fact I doubt that even a majority did.
It's much more likely that a majority of them decided it was too extreme and that they felt love for another person and wanted to fulfill their desire to marry and be intimate.

 

[Goshin]

Lazarus Long (Heinlein's main character through the later years where this "woman and children first" comes from) was into boinking his mother.

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is no only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying. "
~~ Lazarus Long

I read TEFL and TCWWTW, but I couldn't finish reading To Sail Beyond the Sunset, it was too much. I attributed it to senility in his last few years and try not to think about it too much.

 

[Goshin]

My first thought is that it seems rather obvious that not all Shakers STAYED IN the group for the duration of their lives.
I doubt that every single one of the 6000 that existed at the peak of the movement died celibate.
In fact I doubt that even a majority did.
It's much more likely that a majority of them decided it was too extreme and that they felt love for another person and wanted to fulfill their desire to marry and be intimate.

Probably correct, I haven't delved into it that much.

But apparently those who did remain in the movement, are in fact dying out, as there are only three elderly proponents remaining.