The “West” marinates today in a sewer of perversity and a more nuclear family. I wish to argue why even non-Christians should reject this culture. In summation: It leads to children of lesser quality who are less healthy and fewer in number.
In Europe, I’ve frequently seen young activists call for more sex! Freeing sexual inhibitions will surely lead to more children, even if accidental! I question the true motives of such “activists”.
Sexual experimentation leads to lower quality mates who might even be from a foreign ethnic group. In CS Lewis’s brilliant Space Trilogy, one of the protagonists, Jane Studdock, loses her ideal mate because she accepted a lower quality male. The same phenomenon is essentially taking place in our perverse culture today: Lower standards. Pairs don’t bother to even marry before producing children, and there is frequent divorce. Too many fathers only support their children at the command of a court, and then only financially. The purpose of marriage is for the children. It is ideal for children to be raised by both a father and mother, which is why “gay marriage” is such a threat, even to non-Christians.
As we age, our bodies decay. We outwardly become less attractive, especially when living sedentary lives. From a biological perspective, we become less fertile and less likely to produce genetically healthy children. It’s natural then after reaching one’s 40s, or at least 50s and 60s, to live more through one’s children, who should already be born. Instead, we spend on plastic surgery to make ourselves outwardly appear younger. Such is unnatural. Sex is not meant to be the centre of one’s life, and there are other worthy pursuits. Perhaps we would see a richer and livelier culture if content with the memories of sex in youth.
Fewer children are born today partly due to the cost. We not only must support children but also save for our expensive healthcare in old age. Three points here:
1. Parents should help their children with financially early on, so that grandchildren will be affordable at earlier date, hopefully many of them! Too often young parents lack the finances for even basic pre-natal care, which is important. Historically, teenage mothers were not all that uncommon.
2. The elderly should accept old age and spend less where necessary. Grandparents should live through their grandchildren. If finding religion in old age, money should be donated to grandchildren or great-grandchildren, not to charities. Only the unusually wealthy should donate large amounts outside the family.
3. If we cannot afford large families due to our (as a society) expensive housing and unnaturally low wages, perhaps we should relearn the skillset of a peasantry, construct our own housing. A peasant of the past could build a small cob house with a fireplace, and the Amish of today build their own wooden houses. Part of the expense of housing is the need for living away from crime. If we lived with extended families or near kin and friends, this would be less the case.
A passivhaus standard would allow for less expensive living as well. Also, houses should be built for endurance, to be passed down.
Partly we have two conflicting strategies: The modern nomadic approach of moving to where there is job demand vs. The rooted approach of living in an area among kin and friends, perhaps even living in a house built by an ancestor. There are positives to each strategy. The nomadic approach would likely bring in much more money so that costs become less of a concern.
In conclusion, traditional Christian culture often grants a survival advantage to those who practice it. The Christian rejection of perversity is no exception. Separately, aging is a part of life and should be accepted. The extended family is preferable to the nuclear, and it’s more important to produce many children and grandchildren than to cure excessively expensive ailments in old age.