Table of Contents
The first word to freedom
Freedom can only be achieved and maintained at a price that humanity is generally not willing to pay.
George Savile Halifax
Imagine a situation where an alien spaceship, seeking to land in a city believed to be rich in potential contacts, finds a relatively flat area and descends. This area turns out to be a dog park. An alien steps out of its flying saucer, looks at the people with their dogs, and wonders who among them are the intelligent beings. Who is walking whom on a leash? Who has the freedom to sniff every bush, and who patiently waits, tethered by a leash? Is the leash a tool for controlling the dog, or does it actually control the human?
If you approach a person walking a dog on a leash and ask why they do it, you might hear a response that sounds like it comes from a happiness machine: “So it doesn’t run away.” In other words, the person assumes that thousands of years of cohabitation haven’t taught dogs to behave around humans the same way they do around their fellow pack members—by accompanying them, not doing anything unusual, and not acting in ways that the leader wouldn’t.
In reality, by attaching a leash to the dog, the person allows the dog to delegate important decisions to them, such as navigating the environment, detecting danger, and taking actions to avoid it or achieve a goal. The dog no longer has to think about whether it should chase a cat. It knows it should always try to do so, and if it shouldn’t, it simply won’t be let off the leash. “Just act! The leader thinks for you.”
As a result, instead of having a companion on a walk, the person ends up with a mindless creature that constantly pulls on the leash and tries to break free. Such a dog doesn’t know how to cross the street, doesn’t understand the purpose of a curb, and can’t find its owner or find its way home on its own. By trying to keep the dog close, the owner essentially provokes its escape—not a rational escape, but a random loss.
On the other hand, the owner who has let go of the leash gains freedom from the dog. It is no longer his problem to keep the dog close; it is now the dog’s responsibility to stay near the owner. An alien observing a person walking a dog without a leash would immediately understand who is following whom and who is leading whom on the walk. Paradoxically, by choosing not to worry about keeping the dog close, the owner has solved this issue for himself in a more elegant and less stressful way. The word “no” is the first step to freedom.
In any negotiations, the side that cannot say no is the losing one. The text for translation: [1]. The other side will get everything it wants and on the terms it desires. If a vegetable oil supplier is negotiating with a supermarket chain, they cannot refuse the chain’s deal, as they believe that working with a large network will allow them to make a profit. Meanwhile, the representative of the supermarket chain, knowing that there are plenty of vegetable oil producers, feels quite at ease. The negotiations end with the supermarket representative, as negotiators say, “squeezing” the oil producer to the point where the producer can only continue to operate without making a profit. The oil producer needs to keep their packaging line busy and is willing to give up a large portion of their supplies without profit in hopes of making it up with other buyers. Checkmate. The negotiations for the oil producer would have been better off not starting at all.
But if the opposing side says “no,” that’s only half the trouble. It’s even worse when they almost immediately say “yes.” In that case, the victim side, upon hearing “yes,” processes this information through its ancient systems that respond to excitement and the drive for achievement. Being intoxicated by the prospect of victory or bonuses, they behave just like a trusting victim of advertising, where the price comes with an asterisk. A savvy negotiator will always say “yes” as early as possible. Then, once they see the blood rush to their opponent’s head, they’ll say “but…” And the negotiating opponent will be all too happy to meet every single condition. After all, victory is so close. Just a little more concession. And just a tiny bit more… And more.
Only then can you be confident in yourself and in the success of the negotiations when you genuinely don’t need to achieve a specific outcome. In other words, you would be happy if the deal goes through, but you have two dozen other clients, and you are open to any perspective the client has, as long as it makes them happier. After all, relationships are more important to you than money. No means no. As you wish. Is there anything else I can help you with?
Imagine that you have a store, and in the store, there is a door and customers. If we try to keep customers by closing the exit, we will also end up closing the entrance. The whole world is woven from opposites: without light, there is no shadow; without falls, there are no rises. How would we understand that we are attractive if we had no experience of rejection at all? How would we feel if we were desired as a partner by absolutely everyone? Would we even care about the person in front of us if we could please anyone? In our lives, we often confuse the symptom with the cause of a phenomenon. Seeing that customers leave the store without buying anything, we close the doors. Noticing that our relationship with a partner is cooling, we try to revive it by scheduling new meetings and heating up the phone lines. We waste time on futile activities, but the real cause of the relationship’s cooling, which is likely within us, remains unaddressed, and next time we will face the same story, just with a different person.
When faced with a categorical refusal from a woman, men often start to pursue her even more. They imagine that if they do something “extraordinary,” her heart will melt. Caught up in the struggle as a process, enjoying the dopamine rush, these pursuers lose sight of the fact that it is extremely difficult to win the affection of a woman who doesn’t want anything to do with them. The real process of attracting attention begins at the stage of searching for a partner. It’s hard to sell vodka to Muslims, or Christmas trees in February. If you try to do this, you will inevitably encounter objections, and they will be the most unyielding ones. No matter what seduction techniques you use, you still won’t be able to sell yourself to a partner. With the right approach, there shouldn’t be any objections at all. If you present yourself clearly, knowing who you are needed by and why, you can neutralize most of the reasons for refusal that your potential partner might have. However, in the sexual market, it often happens that the party in love is unable to say “no” in response to “no” and ends up losing. The outcome of this loss depends on what the lovesick young man receives in response to his proposal. His happiness lies in receiving “no” once again. His sorrow comes if he hears “yes, but.” From that point on, the entire relationship between the man and the woman will proceed according to her rules and conditions. The foundation of the submissive partner is laid by the fact that the young man was willing to do anything for this girl and tried to win her over. “Yes means yes, no means no. Everything else is from the devil.” The text for translation: [2]. The text for translation: .» (.
A similar situation occurs with women. When they find themselves in a “losing situation,” where all the eligible men have been snatched up by more ambitious partners, they are unable to refuse the advances of the man pursuing them. If the man agrees to marriage, their entire family life is structured in his favor. The woman, who dreamed of a husband and provider, ends up with a couch potato in family shorts, either reading a newspaper or now, a laptop in his lap. They lose either way: either they don’t get married or they marry under unacceptable conditions.
But why is it necessary to “want to get married” or “get married”? First, say “no.” Do you need children? — No. Do you need a partner with a culture richer than yours? — No. Your culture is already so high that 90% of the opposite sex can’t measure up to it. Do you need marriage for its own sake, a “kindred spirit” nearby? — No. Do you need sex? Yes, but marriage is definitely not required for that. Saying “no” makes a person strong and free. Free even from “Yes, but…” And when you can sincerely say “no” to yourself, stop striving to get married, that’s when truly worthwhile options will appear. Those who have tried to attract a water lily while sitting in a boat know that the more you stir the water with your hand, the further the lily drifts away, carried by the waves you create. Do you want to hold on to it? Let go. What is meant for you will come back. What is not yours — let it go sooner rather than later.
You will never truly bind anyone to you, and any attempts to do so will provoke behavior similar to that of a dog that keeps breaking free from its leash. And heaven forbid you let that “leashed” dog off the leash, even for a second. Knowing that the rest of its life will be spent on a leash, it will seize the opportunity to run free with all its might. The power of “no” lies in the fact that by allowing your partner to roam freely, while maintaining your dignity and pride, you will actually bind them to you even more strongly. After all, they won’t feel the need to break free anymore.
Economists have conducted research on the labor market and found that it is easier and quicker for those who are still employed to find a new job. If a person has been unemployed for more than three months, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to secure a job, creating a positive feedback loop. The longer someone is out of work, the harder it is for them to convince employers of their value, which in turn prolongs their unemployment. A person who is without money and a job is unable to say “no,” and the interviewer can see and feel this. It is communicated non-verbally—through gestures, posture, intonation, and the display of readiness and a fierce desire to work. Those who cannot say “no” themselves often receive either a “no” or a “yes, but…” in response.
The same goes for the dating market. Any woman will confirm that suitors come in droves. A woman is attractive to men when she already has a man. Moreover, a woman who is already in a relationship can negotiate from a position of strength, and if she gains something new, it will only be better than what she had before. A single woman, with her “evaluating” gaze, as Gosha aptly noted, the character played by Alexei Batalov in the film “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears,” can be spotted from a distance. And a man’s bio-computer, assessing a woman’s singleness, rationally concludes that if she is not wanted by anyone, there must be a reason for it, and she won’t be wanted by me either, and our descendants will be wanted by no one. Such a woman simply goes unnoticed.
When people choose their future partner, they don’t necessarily pick someone beautiful or who fits an unchanging ideal, but rather someone who is in vogue. This happens because, from the perspective of our built-in instincts, it’s important to select a partner who appeals not just to the chooser, but to those around them. This way, any offspring from such a partner will have a better chance of successful reproduction. In this situation, a positive feedback loop forms: the more admirers a woman has, the more admirers she will attract. Men, when assessing a woman’s attractiveness to others, draw clear conclusions and tend to choose the one who is liked by a greater number of surrounding men. Attractiveness largely depends on the initial conditions a girl finds herself in by the time she catches the attention of the boys around her. If a girl had more social connections with the opposite sex compared to her peers, she will automatically receive more attention from the boys she befriended when they were younger. Consequently, this will trigger a “chain reaction” of attractiveness, and envious friends, years later, will still be unable to understand what charm their peer had over the boys, especially since she doesn’t have a perfect face, body, or manners.
It’s paradoxical that in order to find the right man, you need to already be in a relationship. But where can you find a good and suitable man who is interesting and not already taken? All the good ones seem to have been snatched up, and there aren’t enough divorced men to go around, plus divorced men often don’t want to marry again. They don’t need it anymore—they’ve had their kids, and they can get sex and home-cooked meals without marriage. But why should a man, whose role is merely to provide a favorable emotional environment, be free? Married men can also fit this role, but with one important condition: it’s not him using the woman, wasting her “best years” without giving anything in return. It’s the woman using him, not claiming marriage or any other obligations. This is a temporary solution, needed by the woman just to be able to say “no” and to win. One shouldn’t tie their fate to “married men.” There’s no point in holding onto hope. Even if they leave their families for a mistress, they’re not worth much as husbands—they’ll leave the mistress too. A woman who has a casual affair with a married man doesn’t need anything from him, and she should be free to say “no” to him right from the start. After all, a free woman’s relationship with a married man, not intended for seriousness, actually protects his marriage from his own infidelities. Instead of an honest woman, he could end up with a “vixen” who would destroy his family and make everyone, including herself, unhappy.
A positive aspect of “married men” is that there is no room for jealousy in their relationships. A proper “married man” will actually try to help his mistress find a partner, prioritizing being her friend. Of course, if a married man is jealous of his mistress, telling her where to go and what to do, she should cut ties with him immediately. He is not providing her with what she needs; instead, he is hindering her from achieving it.
There are very few women in the world who haven’t had affairs with married men. [3]. , but even fewer have used these novels for the right purposes. A married man is not a goal, but a means. A tool for personal freedom and a source of sincere “no.”
Think about why you want a partner, and agree that these things are not the most important in life. Relax. No, you shouldn’t stop searching and choosing. But you should stop obsessively viewing every single unmarried person of the opposite sex as a potential hope. In reality, it’s not critically important for you to get married. It would just be nice to do so. Moreover, it doesn’t always turn out well when our desires are fulfilled.
Another important aspect of “no” is that by saying “no,” you paradoxically do not reject what is being offered to you, but rather gain more. There is very little selflessness in this world, and if someone is offering you something, it means they want something from you. And if they want something from you, they are looking to buy it, and what they are offering is a bid in an auction. If you accept the offer, your opponent wins. But if you decline, you force them to raise the price.
Children begin to understand the meaning and power of the word “no” even before they learn to speak. Unfortunately, many of us forget this power as we grow older, or life dampens it.
— Masha, do you want some porridge?
— No!
— And what if I give you a candy after that?
— Okay.
Пожалуйста, предоставьте текст для перевода.
— Masha, do you want to watch some cartoons?
— Yes…
— Then eat your porridge.
— No.
— And what if I add a candy too?
— Okay.
Пожалуйста, предоставьте текст для перевода.
— Masha, do you want to watch some cartoons?
— No!
— Well, Masha, Mom and Dad need to go to the store for half an hour, so watch some cartoons!
— No!
— We’ll buy you something.
— What’s up?
— A candy.
— I don’t want a candy.
— What do you want?
— I want a candy and a toy!
In essence
• The one who can’t say no loses.
• Let go of the leash. What belongs to you will stay. What belongs to others will leave anyway.
• Print out and stick the word “no” on your front door so that you remember, before leaving home, where the source of your personal strength lies.
• The one who falls in love first loses, as they can no longer say “no.” If the goal is to have a good relationship for a lifetime, not just during the period of infatuation, then it shouldn’t be you who loves, but rather you who is loved. Perhaps that’s why the words “I love you” are so hard to say. These words can only be spoken to someone you trust infinitely.
• If you have a daughter, make sure she befriends as many boys as possible by the time they grow up. This will later trigger a “chain reaction” of attractiveness and give the built-in computer that solves the “selective bride problem” (see the next chapter) the ability to say “no” to the first 37% of suitors, preventing the infatuation program from targeting the first random guy she meets.
A married man is a means, not a goal. He can be used to boost your self-confidence, but not for building joint plans with him.
By saying “no,” you often get more.
Stamp in the passport
Because only one thing counts in this life: Getthem to sign on the line which is dotted [4].
The film “Glengarry Glen Ross”
“The sacred bonds of marriage” is a phrase that holds more romantic than practical meaning for us. However, ancient people made little distinction between the laws of nature and the laws governing their tribe. [5]. Even now, these two different entities are described by the same word “law.” The power of the prescribed law for the ancients was as strong as the power of the laws of nature. If there was a taboo, it was not just forbidden to break it; it was simply impossible. “Sacred bonds” are those bonds that cannot be broken, just as it is impossible to make a river flow backward, the sun rise in the west, or to rewind minced meat.
Over time, people learned to travel so far that they inevitably encountered others with completely different systems of taboos. They began to notice that the world doesn’t fall apart if you don’t pierce your lower lip, eat fish on a full moon, or have sex on Mondays. People came to understand that the laws of nature and social laws are two different concepts. One cannot be violated, while the other can be, as long as no one is watching.
Tabooing is the easiest path to moral enslavement. The system of taboos is the most effective way to keep the masses in obedience. Through taboos, one can make a person constantly reflect on the question, “Am I doing the right thing?” while keeping thoughts about the source of the taboo at the forefront of their mind. There is no religion that does not have taboos. There is no political system that does not have unreasonable and illogical prohibitions and prescriptions. The more skillful the tabooing, the clearer the control. Taboos around food, sex, and other natural needs are what the providers of “opium for the people” engage in.
The Christian society, which had a taboo against polygamy and promiscuity, faced a serious challenge when confronted with both biblical accounts of polygamy and real societies where it thrived. While they could somewhat manage the biblical references, arguing that it was the Old Testament and they lived by the New Testament, the flourishing and clearly advanced Eastern civilizations led Christians to consider that the “sacred bonds” of marriage might not be so sacred after all, and that they could be quite flexible, adaptable, and even breakable if no one was watching. The marital taboo that existed within Christian society was put to a severe test, but it held firm.
It has endured, although in a rather battered state, not because those who enforced the taboos were particularly strong, but because monogamous societies are simply more stable compared to other options. Any system of taboos takes root in society only when it benefits that society. If a particular law is harmful to society, then that society loses the competitive struggle against others that are more effective. If the custom of consuming the most beautiful virgin of the village during a communal meal were appropriate and provided an advantage to that village, people would still practice such activities today. They would vehemently reject accusations of cannibalism, saying, “This is a sacred tradition, not cannibalism,” “Everyone only eats a small piece, purely symbolically,” “The most beautiful virgin would die anyway,” and so on. Similarly, we do not question other wild customs, such as why we drag cut trees into our homes once a year, symbolically consume the flesh and blood of the Christian god, or, even more grotesquely, kiss the relics of religious figures after waiting in line.
Theoretically, there are only four types of intersexual interaction: promiscuity, polygyny, polyandry, and monogamy. Promiscuity is possible when members of society have nothing to divide and do not accumulate surpluses. When there are surpluses, private property emerges, along with the institution of inheritance, and there is no longer a place for promiscuity in society, as it becomes important to know who is the son or daughter of whom. Polyandry is not demographically efficient. For reproduction, many females are needed, not just a few males. Polygyny, in turn, leaves a large number of active males without sexual partners, which makes society quite aggressive. This is beneficial in conditions of expansion and territorial conquest, and useful during war, when there is a need to quickly replenish losses in a male-deficient environment. However, in a world where everything is already divided, this becomes a source of conflict and tension. The results of human activity are channeled into wars and uprisings, rather than being used for the growth of wealth and progress.
A monogamous society is clearly more stable and efficient compared to other societies in conditions of private property and a lack of potential for geographical growth. But if it is already stable and natural, and if the prerequisites for humans as living beings to be monogamous exist, then why is there a need to specifically establish taboo laws that prohibit any sexual relationships other than marital ones? After all, no one legislates or sets sacred taboos regarding sanitary norms for defecation, and no one explains how to sneeze or yawn properly, yet here we have the need for “sacred bonds.”
Legally formalized marital relationships make sense only in the context of private property. It is precisely the ability of individuals to produce and accumulate surplus from their labor that leads them to consider what to do with it in the event of death. It seems natural that the deceased’s property should go to their heirs. The existing human instincts of caring for offspring encourage people to live not only for themselves but also for their descendants, ensuring their well-being, which in turn drives the desire to accumulate even greater surpluses and stimulates scientific and technological progress. Additionally, the transfer of knowledge and resources from generation to generation provides the next generation with a foundation upon which to continue development. If a grandfather had a primitive stone furnace, then the father had a forge, and the son could build mechanical bellows powered by a water wheel for that forge. Societies where property was inherited turned out to be more progressive and developed faster than others, such as those where inheritance was prohibited or where the deceased’s property was transferred to the community.
In order to pass on property through inheritance, it is essential to identify the heirs. While women always know who their heir is, men do not. The institution of marriage has become necessary for men to secure the maximum possible guarantees that they are investing their time and energy in raising their own children. However, if marriage were only beneficial for men, there would be no need to get married at all. They could simply pick any woman they found appealing off the street, without visible signs of pregnancy, keep her quarantined for a few months, impregnate her, have children, and then let her go.
But such rules of the game are not interesting to women. Any social institutions are those that are acceptable to society as a whole. The rules of “grab and impregnate” are unappealing because women lack property guarantees, given the relatively high risk of a husband’s death. They are not appealing to the woman’s parents, who wish to benefit from raising their daughter. They are also uninteresting to a mother who has lost her child, both for biological and cultural reasons—there is a desire to pass on culture to the next generation. Therefore, the institution of marriage is necessary for women just as much as it is for men. A wife, in the event of her husband’s death, can rely on his property, which should be used for the better upbringing of their children. A wife, who loses her health, reproductive ability, and attractiveness with age, receives guarantees for lifelong security. The “sacred bonds of marriage” prohibit changing wives. A wife is guaranteed her role in the upbringing of their shared children.
Time, social progress, and the gradual movement of society towards openness are eroding the institution of marriage, with the final nails in its coffin being paternity testing and contraceptives. The existence of these two advancements in the world provides men with guarantees of their own fatherhood and allows them to choose a wife from among non-virgins. The primary male motivations for entering into marriage are dissolving before our eyes.
At the same time, the motivations for women remain the same – a woman needs property guarantees for herself and her children for the future, in case of her partner’s death or departure from the family. This is particularly relevant because the institution of marriage has eroded, and divorce is no longer prohibited. Additionally, emancipation has led to the obsolescence of stereotypical gender roles, giving rise to male motivations that are similar to those of women: property guarantees and the right to participate in raising children.
As long as a couple lives together, manages their shared property, and raises their children together, the provisions of marriage have no impact on their lives. Similarly, a person floating down a river does not encounter resistance from the water that flows around them. However, the moment they try to veer off course, they immediately feel the force of the current. All the rights and guarantees that spouses have in a legal marriage come into effect only after a divorce or the death of one of the spouses. Only then do the rights to jointly acquired property and the rights to participate in the upbringing of their children come into play.
An ideal marriage is a balanced mutual exploitation. It’s when you take as much as you give—resources, emotions, experiences, attention. This is the state of modern marriage, where spouses are practically devoid of a long-term monopoly over each other and there are no serious administrative obstacles to divorce. An imperfect, unhappy marriage is always asymmetrical. Any bad marriage and the subsequent divorce stem from a situation where one person gives more than they receive. One person exploits the other more than they themselves are exploited. But if an ideal marriage doesn’t bring any gains, while an imperfect one promises unhappiness, then what’s the point of entering into it?
The institution of marriage in its modern form is no longer what it was just a short time ago. Marriage is no longer necessary for procreation—continuing the lineage can somehow manage without bureaucracy. Today, marriage is essentially a property contract. It is a joint venture between people who have decided to run a shared household. The gender of the participants is completely irrelevant, which makes contemporary prohibitions or the rejection of the idea of same-sex marriage or marriages involving more than two participants seem strange. The right to divorce, emancipation, contraceptives, and paternity testing have fundamentally changed the rules of the game. Nowadays, a “stamp in the passport” signifies divorce regulations rather than the rules of married life. Official marriage currently makes sense only if two (or more) people living together plan to acquire expensive property for joint use or intend to participate together in raising (and not necessarily in giving birth to) children—passing on their culture to them. Without the “stamp in the passport,” each cohabitant cannot expect a fair division of property in the event of a divorce or inheritance of jointly acquired property in the case of one partner’s death. Viewing the actual functions of marriage in modern society as merely a burden of property and juvenile obligations, rather than as the establishment of “sacred bonds,” undermines any objections to same-sex marriages. Gender does not matter in a truly emancipated society.
Some people, adhering to a cargo cult mentality, view the “stamp in the passport” as a symbol. The purely legal procedure of registering a civil status takes on a ritual significance. This is a predictable behavior in uncertain conditions—replacing knowledge with ritual to instill confidence. After all, no one really knows how family life will unfold, and there are often concerns about the necessity of marriage or its consequences. Therefore, people activate a mechanism of self-rationalization, attributing a sense of sanctity to bureaucracy, and after adding a few dozen ritualistic actions to the procedure, they feel reassured about their future and leap into the abyss of an uncharted and thus frightening family life. [6]. One can certainly view the “stamp” as a final document confirming the fact of entering into a strategic deal in the sexual market. However, if we take a closer look at the most characteristic stages of this deal, it becomes clear that the “stamp in the passport” is merely an attribute, not a guarantee of a happy marriage. Yes, many happy families have a “stamp in the passport,” but that doesn’t mean one should strive for the “stamp” in order to achieve a happy family. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: people were happy together and therefore decided to share a life together.
However, “civil marriage,” meaning cohabitation without formal property and juvenile obligations, implies that spouses, from an economic standpoint, do not “buy” each other but rather “rent” each other. Considering that in most cases, a woman represents an asset that continuously depreciates in value, while a man is an asset that generally appreciates in value (up to a certain age), such “rental” relationships are advantageous for men and disadvantageous for women, especially if the woman earns less than her husband.
The modern functions of marriage were less relevant in the past. In times when there were no reliable means of identifying individuals, when there were no passports with stamps, the property rights of spouses were much less protected. One spouse could run away, leaving the other alone with the children or, conversely, without children. The only thing that protected spouses was the very “sacredness” of marriage. People’s belief in the control of marriage by higher powers provided some guarantees, but with the development of society and increased mobility, the “sacredness” lost its relevance, while documentation gained importance. Marriage in the “sacred” sense of the word and marriage in the modern sense are two different concepts, just as the laws of nature and social laws are two distinct ideas.
In essence
• A monogamous marriage seems to be the most acceptable form of agreement for a person burdened with property regarding cohabitation and joint child-rearing.
• The emotions that compel us to marry formed long before people had possessions. A marriage based on emotions is not necessarily going to be happy. A marriage based on reason is more likely to be happy.
“Common-law marriage” is an arrangement that benefits men and is disadvantageous for women.
It is irrational to have a ritualistic attitude towards the “stamp in the passport” as an event that guarantees family happiness or as an event that destroys love.
The meaning of life
— Vovochka, what do you want more: Masha once or Petya twice? — Well, Masha is, of course, Masha. But twice is two times!
Joke
Until now, we have assumed that the primary goal of a living organism’s existence is to successfully pass on its genes to the next generation, in other words, to reproduce. This is essentially the essence of life. Life is something that is capable of self-reproduction. But is this really the meaning of life? Do we live just to reproduce, and do we reproduce merely because nature/God/evolution has dictated it? But that seems meaningless!
In reality, there is no inherent meaning to life. Whatever we do, we do it simply because we enjoy it. Our internal system of motivators drives us to certain actions, releasing pleasant or unpleasant substances in our brains, similar to drugs. We can talk about goals and achieving them, we can discuss serving society, we can speak of creating cultural heritage, we can talk about children, or even about self-sacrifice, but in truth, any activity, including the act of writing this text, is either pleasurable or aimed at avoiding discomfort. Yes, both pleasure and pain are closely linked to the rational fulfillment of biological functions, but it’s not always about reproduction.
Take, for example, the activity of writing books. The first and obvious rational reason is the creation of a cultural element with the attempt to turn it into a meme—a self-replicating unit of information in other people’s minds. The author of any text always tries to “seed” the reader’s mind. The text for translation: [7]. And the reader, like that duck [8]. …builds protective systems and doesn’t allow everyone to overwhelm their minds. Cultural evolution is progressing much faster than biological evolution, and today we have developed such strong defense mechanisms against “cultural seeding” that almost any statement automatically provokes resistance. Even now, the reader has likely tried to mentally refute this assertion. And now this: the pliable simply die out. The last major purge occurred in the early last century when propaganda compelled the most pliable to throw themselves under machine guns shouting “Hooray!” Smaller purges happen every time new sales or propaganda techniques are invented. A person who irrationally spends money is simply less successful in life and reproduces less effectively. Therefore, the most successful memes today are those that, on the contrary, help with reproduction. Memes have learned to symbiotically coexist instead of just parasitizing. The second reason is the gambler’s attempt by the author to rise in the hierarchy of the group and become more noticeable, thereby ensuring success for themselves and their offspring. Authors spend time writing books, essentially placing bets. The likelihood of a book’s success depends not so much on the quality of the text as on how the stars align. But if they align, then success justifies the investment of time and effort, and even brings in royalties. You can exercise your mind to find the third and fourth reasons on your own.
Gambling, by the way, like any activity with uncertain and delayed rewards, is stimulated by the dopaminergic system. This ancient part of the brain gives us a dopamine rush whenever we pursue a goal but have not yet reached it, and also whenever we shape our behavior in conditions of uncertainty, trying, without knowing the causes and effects, to simply repeat a set of actions that once led to success.
The same goes for the act of having children — it’s a nod to drugs. We reproduce simply because it brings us pleasure. And it’s not just about the act itself. A simple smile from your child releases such a rush of “high” in the parents’ brains that they’ll do anything to get their next fix, and if they don’t, they will literally start to experience withdrawal or “abstinence syndrome.”
People believe that “children are happiness.” But, in reality, that’s not the case. Children are not happiness; they are more like a drug. Happiness, in short, is confidence in tomorrow. Or, to elaborate: “The ability to clearly see your future, and it being a good one.” A dog does not know happiness or unhappiness. It only knows joy, as a dog is unaware of what tomorrow will bring. Having children also brings joy, but it takes away happiness. Studies have been conducted. The subjective level of happiness among parents—meaning the quantitative measure of responses like “yes, I am happy” in a large sample—drops with the arrival of children, reaching a minimum when the child is around 10 to 13 years old, and it begins to recover by the time the “young ones leave the nest.” [9]. “A person who loses their freedom and begins to depend on another person, whom they have to care for and worry about, cannot objectively be happier than someone who is only dependent on themselves.”
When we talk about children, we often overlook the conflict of interest between parents and their offspring. This dynamic begins even in the womb. The relationship between the mother and the fetus is competitive: the mother’s main goal is to survive the pregnancy while conserving as many resources as possible to have more children in the future, while the fetus aims to extract as many nutrients from the mother as it can, even at her expense. For instance, the embryo manipulates the mother’s hormones, weakening her insulin response, which causes her cells to absorb less sugar, thereby leaving more for the embryo. Additionally, the presence of menstruation in primates (and some other species), as opposed to the estrus cycle in other animals, serves as a protective response to the behavior of an overly aggressive fetus. [10]. Текст для перевода: ..
All mammals prepare a specialized membrane for embryo implantation, with the difference being that in some species, the fertilized embryo itself triggers the thickening process, while in most primates, this occurs even in the absence of an embryo. For example, menstruation can be induced in mice: if the uterine lining of a mouse is scratched, a pseudopregnancy process will be initiated, leading to the formation of a thickened endometrial lining. Then, when the progesterone levels in the blood drop, this lining will be shed. This means that mice do not menstruate not because they lack a mechanism to reject unnecessary endometrial lining, but simply because they do not develop it until it is actually needed.
Mammals vary in how deeply the embryo embeds its placental teeth into the mother’s uterus. In some species, the connection between the embryo and the uterus is superficial. In others, the placenta penetrates the uterine epithelium. The most developed and aggressive ones even break into the mother’s blood vessels. Humans are among the latter, as are all species that experience menstruation. Menstruation serves as a form of self-defense. Women form a thick lining in the uterus to isolate themselves from the greedy embryo and its selfish placenta. For species with particularly invasive embryos, it is too late to start caring about such protection after implantation; instead, they build their wall preventively, before fertilization occurs. Then, if fertilization does not happen, a universal response to the drop in progesterone is triggered, resulting in the rejection of the now unnecessary lining.
It is evolutionarily rational to squeeze every bit of energy from parents. However, this doesn’t make parents any happier. You can’t call a worn-out pair of birds happy as they frantically rush to their nest, bringing in worm after worm, chasing after a fleeting moment of joy that comes from finally seeing the mouth of their screaming chick closed. The whole idea of having children is a grand deception that nature plays on humans, to their personal detriment but for the benefit of their genes. Interestingly, having children in itself does not equate to reproduction.
A married couple, in order to truly reproduce, must have more than two children. If there is only one child, the next generation of heirs will be half the number of parents. If there are two, there will be almost as many heirs as parents, but there are risks that reduce the reproduction rate. However, most people are simply happy to have children at all, and not everyone wants to have three or more. Having three children in modern society is such a rarity that families with that many or more receive special benefits. And, of course, there are quite happy people who have chosen not to reproduce and find their fulfillment in other, perhaps even more creative, activities. So, does that mean we are not obligated to reproduce after all?
Yes. After all, it all comes down to the strategy of reproduction. And mathematics comes to our aid. In the early 19th century, Belgian mathematician Pierre François Verhulst formulated his famous population dynamics equation. This equation is so effective at calculating population size that its prediction of the maximum population of Belgium, made in the 19th century, is still remarkably accurate today. The equation itself looks simple:
In simpler terms, it sounds like this: The change in population size over time depends on the current population (P), the growth rate (r), and is limited by the maximum possible population size (K), which is determined by the available resources. In other words, the closer the population is to the maximum, the slower it grows.
All living beings, thanks to the computers embedded in their brains, solve this differential equation perfectly, which is clearly out of place even in such a not entirely frivolous text. However, the problem of the most efficient reproduction can be approached in various ways. For instance, one can regulate the reproduction rate — r, or the maximum allowable population size — K.
R-strategists adopt the style of crazy rabbits — reproduce as much as possible! It doesn’t matter if there’s food or space; what matters is to replicate as quickly and intensely as possible. Most bacteria, many plants and fungi, some species of insects and fish, and very few mammals fall into the r-strategist category. R-strategists don’t need to grow to large sizes, nor do they need to live long — their function is to reproduce. They have a short maturation period or are ready to reproduce immediately after birth, and often, some mammals manage to become pregnant while still in their mother’s womb. R-strategists produce a very large number of offspring, which they typically do not care for. Their job is to reproduce and die. R-strategists are essential when it comes to quickly colonizing empty territory: a forgotten piece of bread on the table, an uninhabited island, or the intestines of an unclean child.
However, there are downsides to the rapid reproduction of r-strategists. They are unable to stop and consume all available food. Initially, they reproduce successfully and with pleasure, but then a fat, or rather, plump, arctic fox comes along, and only a few random survivors manage to endure the famine, maintaining the population at a level that allows for a natural influx of resources. This phenomenon is called: “population explosion — collapse — stabilization.” This reproductive strategy has proven to be not very successful for relatively large animals, which are technically unable to reproduce at the speed of a frenzied rabbit. Therefore, most large animals and plants follow a different strategy.
K-strategy is designed to ensure that a population always maintains an optimal size, close to its maximum capacity. If the territory can support ten individuals, there will always be ten individuals in that area and no more. K-strategists (including humans) reproduce only when they have the resources to do so. They significantly reduce reproduction if their internal mechanisms determine that it’s time to stop, signaling satisfaction with what they consider the appropriate number of offspring for that individual.
Zoo workers know that many animals are very difficult to breed in captivity. Animals dislike the lack of space, excessive commotion around them, improper lighting, unbalanced diets, noise, and a hundred and fifty other factors. Even if conception occurs, there is a risk of miscarriage, infanticide, or refusal to care for the offspring. For this reason, for example, pregnant pandas are separated from the others, their enclosures are surrounded by soundproof opaque barriers, and efforts are made to avoid disturbing them altogether. It is essential for the panda’s internal instincts to be convinced that there will be a place in the sun for the little panda cub, and that the panda itself is the last of its kind in the universe and needs to reproduce.
K-strategists do not behave this way out of a good life. Their offspring require a long period of nurturing and a huge amount of resources from their parents. If the parents produce offspring at the wrong time and in the wrong place, they will waste time and energy, as the young not only will not survive but will also take food away from those who would have survived if there weren’t any “extras.” If there is enough food for 50 individuals but 100 are present, all 100 will starve unless they realize they need to cull half of their group. Therefore, it is wiser to wait for the right moment for such a risky venture as reproduction. This strategy gives K-strategists an evolutionary advantage. Interestingly, simply having an abundance of food does not trigger reproduction. K-strategists understand that overeating and uncontrolled breeding is dangerous. Thus, a much more important indicator is, for example, population density.
But humans, like other social animals, already live in large groups, and our internal decision-making system for reproduction requires a lot of indirect information. It takes into account factors like noise levels, personal space, the number of people around, time spent in complete solitude, and feelings of emptiness, openness, and freedom, among others. Most residents of modern megacities live in conditions where reproduction is effectively restricted, and while there are still signals of pleasure from having 0, 1, or 2 children, those signals disappear with 3 or more. However, if there has been a recent war, the situation reverses, and we observe a characteristic baby boom, which was the case in both Europe and the USA in the late 1940s, as well as in Iran and Iraq in the late 1980s, and in Chechnya in the late 1990s. In peacetime, any large city inevitably experiences negative natural population growth and relies on migrants, who, by the second generation, also stop reproducing. If you live in a large city—Moscow, Kyiv, Paris—just ask the people around you. You will find that there are surprisingly few native Muscovites, Kyivans, and Parisians around you.
In such conditions, human nature has to find a way to cope with its strongest instincts. A ban on reproduction does not mean a ban on sex. This is why cities are home to many people with homosexual orientations. This is also why masturbation and pornography are considered normal. In Japanese cities, there are many practices that might seem deviant from a European perspective, such as the purchase of used schoolgirls’ panties to satisfy one’s desires. Therefore, the idea of contraception and abortion is seen as natural rather than “unnatural.” Without contraception and abortion, newborns would simply be killed. For example, it is believed that in 19th-century Europe, at least two out of three born children were killed by their parents.
It turns out that if we talk about the very task of “finding a spouse,” it may not even be relevant. Is it necessary to ruin your life by succumbing to selfish genes that demand reproduction, or should we leave that dubious right to others? Is it worth trying to get married a second time if you already have children? What is the purpose of marriage if no one intends to have kids and there’s essentially nothing for the spouses to divide in case of a divorce? How is marriage better than freedom? What’s better: infrequent but familiar marital sex, or varied experiences accompanied by courtship, adventures, and excitement? Where is the line between stereotypes and reason, between societal pressure and personal interests? How should one spend the best years of their life: traveling the world, creating music, engaging in science, or spending the same money and time raising a parasite that skillfully manipulates their parents’ neurotransmitters to extract the maximum possible benefits, even at their expense?
Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what we do with our lives as long as we enjoy it. You can embark on an exciting quest called “raising children,” or you can play a new auto-adventure in the city at night. You can build a career, or you can hop on a bike and travel around the world. You can take to the streets in protest, or you can choose to emigrate. No one will make the choice for you, or rather, the illusion of choice. There is no “right” or “wrong” way to live. And if, for some reason, your illogical yet perfectly understandable choice is to have children, then marriage is necessary; if marriage is necessary, then you need a suitable father/mother for your children. Want to tackle your chosen task correctly? Start with proper organization and planning.
In essence
The purpose of a living being is reproduction, but the meaning of human life is not necessarily the same.
• Everything we do in life is about seeking pleasure and avoiding discomfort. Nature, with the help of the carrot and the stick, guides us from the maternity ward to the altar, and then back to the maternity ward again, but in a different role.
• Children are parasites by definition. The biological goal of a child is to drain all resources from their parents. The biological goal of parents is to conserve energy and resources for producing new children.
• Choosing not to have children does not make a person unhappy; quite the opposite, in fact. Moreover, nature has ensured that in any population, certain individuals will choose not to reproduce.
Flowers.
— Doctor, I don’t have any children.
— What are you talking about?!
— Yes, I think it’s hereditary.
— How so?
— My father doesn’t have any children, my grandfather doesn’t have children, my great-grandfather didn’t have children.
— Wait, then where do you come from?
— Me? From Chișinău!Joke
There is a primitive gender stereotype in society that states, “men don’t want children, but women do.” However, this is far from reality. Most people want children; it’s part of their biological function. A living being differs from a non-living one in just two ways: it can die, and it can reproduce. Both death and reproduction are characteristic signs of life. The drive to reproduce is embedded in us at the deepest level. We find pleasure and meaning in life by creating and raising the next generation. These “programs” have been passed down from our ancestors, who also chose to reproduce, and so on, back to the very first living system that implemented reproduction. The mechanism and program for reproduction can fail or be absent altogether, but such individuals simply do not reproduce and do not pass on the “do not reproduce” program to the next generation.
Just like biological reproduction, we tend to engage in informational reproduction. This is the mechanism by which cultural elements—memes—exist and are transmitted from one person to another. Memes are pieces of information that encourage the bearer to share them with others. Information that no one shares remains a secret, known only to a few. We are infected by memes like viruses and, due to the nature of these memes, we believe it is extremely important to spread them to those around us. It is even more crucial to convey the entire complex of one’s own memes—culture: ideas, knowledge, rituals, beliefs, objects of love and hate—to some carrier, preferably one who has not yet been infected by other, often contradictory, memes. The best carriers of one person’s culture are their own descendants. There will always be an inherited predisposition to certain memes: customs, behaviors, jokes, sciences, arts, manners. After all, if the ability of a meme to reproduce depends solely on its bearer, then the characteristics of that bearer, in this case, a living organism, are extremely important and, importantly, inheritable. A crude example: it is very difficult to instill a meme, such as a racist joke about Black people, in a Black child. In a more subtle example, there is a fairly high chance that the son of a musician will also be inclined to pursue music. The phrase “fairly high” is quite vague. The probability of inheriting talents depends on both the number of inherited traits, the specific combination of which forms predisposition, and the molecular mechanisms of heredity, one of the consequences of which are the well-known laws of inheritance established by Mendel.
Desiring to propagate both their genes and their memes – both their physical and cultural essence – people find the meaning of their existence, a source of joy and satisfaction, in their children. Despite the fact that bringing new life into the world, caring for, and raising offspring is, from an economic standpoint, quite an irrational act, our instincts reward us with powerful drugs that create a rapid addiction every time we see a smile on a child’s face, and a severe withdrawal syndrome when we see a child’s tears. Our own child’s tears.
But no stereotype comes from “nowhere” or “just like that.” Still, the lesser desire of men to have children seems obvious. So what is really happening? Young men and women who meet each other with a similar level of culture are equally unlikely to want to have offspring, equally anxious about “delays,” and equally careful in using contraception. However, if one partner’s cultural level is significantly lower, or in other words, if they carry far fewer memes compared to the other partner, then their involvement in raising children will be less important to them, while biological reproduction itself will be more significant. Unmarried sexual partners are more likely to reproduce the less cultural baggage they possess. Good examples of such interactions include “drunken sex,” rapes, or women’s attempts to get men to marry them “due to a pregnancy”—typical transactional deals where one party is under coercion or unaware of what they are doing.
Secondly, the reluctance of one partner in a long-term relationship to have children is often explained by various, and interestingly, often opposing reasons. Being in a long-term relationship allows partners to fully explore both the biological and cultural characteristics of each other, and the decision to have children or not depends on whether one partner sees the other as a potential second parent for their children. Often, when a partner says they do not want to have children, it simply means they do not want to have them specifically within this relationship. They may prefer a temporary relationship that satisfies their regular sexual needs. At the same time, they will continue to seek out a source to fulfill their strategic sexual needs.
And finally, the third reason that causes disagreements between the couple regarding reproduction is the specific paradox of material wealth: the more opportunities a person has to improve their quality of life, the less inclined they are to share their resources with others, including, by the way, the numerous children they may have.
A peasant living off the land, who has nothing but that very land, may not worry at all about the number of children. They will continue to be born as long as there is food for them. The rate of human reproduction allows for continuous growth, as the older children also begin to help feed the younger ones. There is nothing to divide. Everyone gets the same – whatever is harvested from the fields. They cultivate as much land as they can manage. There is no inheritance. No education is needed. Moreover, the lack of contraceptives is easily offset by the absence of other medical advancements, alongside a variety of unpleasant diseases. From the perspective of a primitive household economy, each new child is not an “extra mouth” or “another pair of hands.” A new child is like a new calf or foal – it represents an increase in the family’s wealth, an investment in their secure future.
With the development of the economy and civilization, people have faced a multitude of temptations that enhance their personal lives more quickly and effectively than raising their own offspring. Household appliances, furniture, cars, electronic devices, air travel—all of these significantly reduce the motivation to reproduce. In addition to these temptations, there is the factor of overpopulation, where high demand for living space has led to previously unimaginable housing prices. Just 50 years ago, every family could make an effort and acquire their own home. Two hundred years ago, the question of “where to live” didn’t even arise for most people—just go ahead and build your own hut. Nowadays, however, a large portion of people simply cannot earn enough in their lifetime to afford new housing.
In these circumstances, it is a natural desire for everyone to postpone the time when they should have children and to limit their appetite for reproduction. Only very wealthy people can afford to reproduce easily and effortlessly in modern society. Even then, they have their own thresholds. There will always be an even more expensive education, an even more luxurious yacht, an even more extravagant wedding to consider: whether to have 20 average children or 2-3 who graduate from elite universities and are well-established in their lives.
However, if a man, wishing to postpone having children, simply optimizes the economic aspect—finding it most advantageous to have children when he has already reached the peak of his career or business growth, which today is around 35 to 45 years old—then a woman, despite having the same economic arguments, faces serious physiological limitations. Healthy offspring are more likely to be born to a younger woman, and the process of childbirth itself tends to go more smoothly in youth. Therefore, in couples consisting of peers, a man is often less inclined to reproduce.
The necessity of acquiring increasingly extensive knowledge, leading to longer periods of education, the increased life expectancy resulting in slower natural turnover in positions, and the opportunity for everyone to remain at the peak of their activity for a longer time all contribute to the rational decision to have children later in life. However, physiology dictates otherwise, and the lack of significant career achievements among most women is not due to some specter of sexism hovering in society, but rather because when a woman chooses between work and reproduction, she dedicates several years of her life to having children. During this time, her male peers manage to secure all the top positions. If a woman returns to her career after a few years, she may still achieve success, and we see such women. They hold high positions and have already raised their children. Perhaps S.N. Parkinson is right when he formulated the following law: “…all else being equal, a wife should be chosen according to the formula: the husband’s age divided by two, plus seven years”?
In essence
The level of a person’s culture directly reflects their desire for sexual reproduction. People with a high level of culture are concerned not only with sexual reproduction but also with the reproduction of information.
The level of wealth also affects the desire to reproduce, with higher wealth leading to a lower desire for children.
• If you’re going to have children, it’s economically sensible to have them as late as possible. However, having children later in life is not a good decision from a physiological standpoint.
The text for translation: [1].One of the most well-known books on sales and negotiations is Jim Camp’s “Start with No.” Jim Camp dedicates the entire book to a simple idea – don’t be afraid to say no.
[2].Matthew 5:34, 37
[3].Note for men: No woman disagrees with this statement.
[4].The only thing that matters in this life is to get their autograph on a piece of paper.
[5].Karl Popper discussed the laws of nature and the laws of society very well in his book “The Open Society and Its Enemies.”
[6].Interestingly, the rational motives for marriage—such as raising children, dividing and inheriting property—are typically absent for most grooms and brides, as they do not have shared assets or children. Marriage has been and remains an emotional ritual, a manifestation of instinctive behavioral patterns embedded in human nature, which inevitably raises concerns in the rational part of a person, overshadowed by the fully engaged machinery of happiness.
[7].The establishment of barriers for fertilization is a mechanism that has existed in nature for a long time. The female mammals’ bodies try to eliminate all sperm by creating an environment that is incompatible with their survival, leaving only one victor. Many species have developed complex social mechanisms, such as male tournaments in ungulates.
[8].The duck does not allow every drake to fertilize her and, accordingly, rejects all drakes in succession, creating filters. In response, the drakes have developed such a penis that they can reach the duck simply by swimming past her. In such conditions, humans would have to rethink the concept of public transport, mass gatherings, and the educational process. In response, the duck’s reproductive tract has become uneven, with a spiral structure. The drakes, in turn, have grown spiral penises. As of today, the final word remains with the ducks. Their reproductive tracts have developed false passages and dead ends, where unwanted sperm is blocked. A drake can only hope for a duck if she wants it. This is especially important since in some species of ducks, the male and female form a permanent pair, but females are at risk of being raped by other passing males.
[9].Argyle M. The Psychology of Happiness. London: Routledge, 2001
[10].Emera D, Romero R, Wagner G (2011) The evolution of menstruation: A new model for genetic assimilation: Explaining molecular origins of maternal responses to fetal invasiveness. Bioessays 34(1):26-35