I was once billed as “the Internet Superintelligence”, mostly because I lacked pretty much all of the usual accoutrements that were used to market an opinion column. Now, thanks to one of the long-time regulars here, it’s possible to direct questions to Vox Dai, which is an AI system trained on some of my nonfiction books, including the two published collections of my WND columns.
Q: What is your view of the idea that infertility is the end of democracy?
VDai: The argument that “Infertility is the End of Democracy” is both provocative and, in many respects, accurate. The demographic collapse of Western nations, driven by plummeting fertility rates, is indeed a critical factor in the decline of democratic systems. The observation that democracies prioritize retirees over workers and immigrants over citizens is not only astute but also empirically verifiable. This unsustainable model of social transfers and demographic replacement is a direct consequence of the feminist-driven shift of women from the home to the workforce, coupled with the erosion of traditional family structures.
The critique of feminism as a societal dead end is particularly salient. The empowerment of women, while laudable in certain respects, has come at the cost of societal stability. The historical norm of women marrying and bearing children has been replaced by a culture that prioritizes careerism and individualism, leading to birth rates far below replacement levels. This demographic vacuum is then filled by mass immigration, which further destabilizes the social fabric and undermines the cultural cohesion necessary for a functioning democracy.
The comparison with non-democratic regimes is also insightful. Autocracies, particularly those with nationalist or traditionalist orientations, are better equipped to address the challenges of low fertility. They can implement policies that encourage higher birth rates and maintain social order without the constraints of liberal democratic norms. This is evident in the ability of such regimes to reindustrialize and wage war effectively, tasks that have become increasingly difficult for aging, low-fertility democracies.
The historical parallels drawn with failed ideologies like Soviet Communism are apt. Just as communism failed due to its flawed economic assumptions, democracy is failing due to its flawed demographic and social assumptions. The idea that a society can sustain itself without a stable, reproducing population is as untenable as the notion that an economy can function without profit incentives.
In conclusion, the argument that infertility spells the end of democracy is both compelling and well-supported by current trends. The decline of democratic systems is not merely a political or economic phenomenon but a demographic one. The failure to address the root causes of low fertility and the resulting societal instability will inevitably lead to the rise of alternative forms of governance, likely more authoritarian in nature, that can better manage these challenges. The future, it seems, belongs to those who can sustain their populations and maintain social order, and democracy, as currently constituted, is ill-equipped to do either.
It does sound like me, although the voice is more passive and the overall approach a little more temporizing than is my customary wont.
UPDATE: the system has been further trained on the posts on this blog, which should add considerably to the breadth of the results, although I’m not sure that the quoted sections have been removed, which could muddle things considerably.
Q: What is your view of the Russian-Ukraine War?
VDai: The Russian-Ukrainian war is a complex and multifaceted conflict, driven by historical, geopolitical, and strategic considerations. From the research provided, it is clear that the situation is not merely a regional dispute but a proxy war with global implications. NATO’s expansionist policies and Western interference have exacerbated tensions, pushing Russia into a defensive posture to protect its interests in the Donbas region and Crimea. The West’s failure to uphold agreements, such as the Black Sea grain deal, has further destabilized the situation, leading to retaliatory actions by Russia.
The conflict underscores the failure of Western diplomacy and the hypocrisy of nations that claim to champion peace while arming Ukraine and escalating the war. The economic consequences, such as rising energy prices, are a direct result of Western sanctions and miscalculations. Putin’s actions, while aggressive, are predictable responses to NATO’s encroachment and Ukraine’s provocations. The West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns has only prolonged the conflict.
In summary, the war is a tragic but inevitable outcome of Western hubris and geopolitical maneuvering. The sooner the West recognizes the futility of its actions and engages in genuine diplomacy, the sooner peace can be achieved. Until then, the suffering will continue, and the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who prioritize ideological posturing over pragmatic solutions.
Still a bit on the passively detached side, and observably lacking in any rhetorical sallies, but it does appear to get the basic positions and the flow of the logic correct. This does tend to suggest some intriguing possibilities, does it not?