Modern Wisdom - #704 - Mads Larsen - Are Relationships Supposed To Last For Life?

Episode Date: November 9, 2023

Mads Larsen is a Norwegian author and journalist whose research focuses on the history of human mating ideologies. The narrative of human romance is an ancient story. But that story has not always remained the same, the last 10,000 years has been a crazy journey through different beliefs on why we should find and stay with a partner and today we get to hear about all the fascinating details. Expect to learn why it's so illuminating to study the story of mating ideologies across time, how our modern beliefs about finding a partner are historically very unusual, why having a daughter as a farmer could be a useful addition to your farming strategy, why Incels are so unhappy, why old people are the happiest despite evidence to the contrary in the past and much more... Sponsors: Get $150/£150 discount on the Eight Sleep Pod Cover at https://eightsleep.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get 20% discount on Nomatic’s amazing luggage at https://nomatic.com/modernwisdom (use code MODERNWISDOM) Get $150 discount on Plunge’s amazing sauna or cold plunge at https://plunge.com (use code MW150) Extra Stuff: Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello friends, welcome back to the show. My guest today is Mads Larson. He's a Norwegian author and journalist whose research focuses on the history of human mating ideologies. The narrative of human romance is an ancient story, but that story has not always remained the same. The last 10,000 years has been a crazy journey through different beliefs on why we should find and stay with the partner, and today we get to hear about all of the fascinating details. Expect to learn why it's today we get to hear about all of the fascinating details. Expect to learn why it's so illuminating to study the story of mating ideologies across time, how our modern beliefs about finding a partner are historically very unusual,

why having a daughter as a farmer could be a useful addition to your farming strategy, why in cells are so unhappy, why old people are the happiest ever despite evidence to the country in the past? And much more. This episode is absolutely awesome. Mads, I met him a couple of months ago at HBS, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference in Palm Springs, and this guy is so good. I adore this conversation. There is so much interesting stuff in here. Another underground hero, he will be coming back on the show. I really, really hope that you enjoyed this one because this guy totally blew my socks off. Yeah, just sit back and enjoy this. This episode is brought to you by

8th Sleep. I am currently dying in Austin because it's too hot all the time and I'm being kept alive by my 8th Sleep pod cover. It actively cools and heats each different side of the bed. So if you sleep hot or if you sleep cold, this fixes the problem. It is an absolute game changer. If you find yourself waking up in the middle of the night or feeling extra groggy in the morning, temperature is almost always to blame. Also, it tracks your sleep, tells you how long you've been asleep, it gives you advice about how to get to sleep better.

It'll even adjust the temperature of your bed as your sleep stages change throughout the night. On top of all of that, there is a 90-day money-back guarantee, so you can buy it and sleep on it for 89 days, and if you do not like it, they will give you your money back. Head to 8sleep.com slash modern wisdom to save $150 or 150 pounds on the pod cover. That's the best offer that you will find, but you must go to eIGHTSleep.com slash modern wisdom. This episode is brought to you by nomadic.

No, literally it's actually brought to you by nomadic. Whenever I'm on the road, nomadic is the luggage that I use. It's got a lifetime warranty and some of the best technology I've ever seen. It's so crazy what happens when you upgrade to proper good quality, highly engineered luggage, whether you're taking a holiday or a weekend trip, they have everything that you need. For short trips, when you're taking a laptop with you, their Carry on Pro is an absolute game changer.

It keeps your laptop safe and secure whilst also giving you enough room for all the clothes you've got. The bags aren't just sexy looking, they're simply designed, not over engineered and will literally last you a lifetime because they have a lifetime guarantee. That's how confident they are in their engineering. Best of all, there is a 30-day money back guarantee, so you can buy it and try it for 29 days, and if you do not love it for any reason, they'll give you your money back guarantee. So you can buy it and try it for 29 days. And if you do not love it for any reason, they'll give you your money back. Head to nomatic.com slash modern wisdom and use the code

modern wisdom. Check out for 20% of the best luggage on the planet. That's n-o-m-a-t-i-c.com slash modern wisdom, the code modern wisdom to upgrade your luggage game today. One of my favorite purchases over the last two years has been my cold plunge from the team over at plunge.com. They are the gold standard when it comes to cold therapy. You may have heard Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman talking about the benefits of repeated cold exposure and it is real. You feel so amazing after you've done it and the improvement in your mood is insane. So if you've been thinking that you want to get started,

doing cold therapy, but you cannot be bothered going to the store to get yourself ice every single time you need to do it, this is for you. Also, they've just released their own sauna, which is ridiculously high quality as well. And we are bouncing between the two, doing what's called contrast therapy,

which makes you feel even better. So yeah, if you're looking to make a change, if you're looking to get yourself a cold plunge or a sauna for your house, this is the place to go. Best of all, they've got a 30-day money back guarantee, so you can buy it and try it for 29 days, and if you do not like it, they will give you your money back. Go to plunge.com to get your cold plunge and sauna today with $150 off your purchase by using the code MW150, a checkout that's plunge.com and the code MW150, a checkout. But now, ladies and gentlemen, Why is it useful or interesting to study mating ideologies at all? It is the foundation of all social orders.

We like to think that politics, philosophy, all those big subjects are what it's all about, but at the foundation, it's how men and women reproduce. And upon that, everything else rests. So if that falls apart, our society's fall apart too. Why does mating need an ideology to sit over it at all? It's a physical activity.

Why the need for a story and what it means and how we should do it? Because we've changed so much from our ancestral environment. Having people commit to peer bonding for decades and to providing for offspring to dedicate the resources that that requires needs a lot of coercion. We have our biological impulses, but they do not align very well with modern demands for mating. In addition to that, an ideology that compels people to make that core system that makes them think that it's their duty to pair bond and have children.

The ideology we have now is compared to previous ideologies very weak in that regard. We're not having an ideology where this has become completely voluntary and where you can make a good case for why perhaps you shouldn't have children. That's a rather unique situation. I like the use of the word coercion. The absolutely biological and cultural coercion. It's a huge sacrifice to reproduce and to make enough people do that, to a significant extent. Now that we also have effective contraception, it's really difficult. effective contraception, it's really difficult. Right. So what is it that's changed primarily in terms of the demands on mating and resource supply in the modern world or even in the developed world compared with 10,000, 50,000 years ago?

So much. There are several factors. Contraception is huge. Before you just needed to want it to copulate and if you did that enough, you'd have children. And then you'd be coerced by your communities to pair bond and take care of that children, that child until it's big enough. In the modern world, so we've now made, we've disconnected copulation from reproduction. In the modern world, we've now made a we've disconnected copulation from reproduction. And also in these industrialized environments, we have, the children have become more expensive instead of being free labor, they're a huge cost.

Also, we have an ideology that over the past millennium has become more and more individualistic. So we're not necessarily convinced that God is forcing us to have children because that is the meaning of life. We now think that perhaps being single and traveling and taking care of ourselves is more important than putting more children out into the world. And in addition, at the moment, we have this quite significant uncertainty about the future that also disincentivizes reproduction. the future that also disincentivizes reproduction. What do you think is the ancestrally typical mating strategy for humans over time? I know that we've had a few human ancestors and then we kind of had a little bit of a

movement. What was the journey through human predecessor mating systems? You're thinking the past six million years? Yeah, yeah. Give us the story. Start six million years ago. We'll take give us the story of start six million years ago We'll take it from there. Yeah, so we started out like most vertebrates. We made it promiscuously That means that we probably lived together in groups multi-male female

multi-male multi-female groups were individuals were free to To copulate but were reproductive opportunities were mostly channeled to high status males. The purpose of that is that you then distribute the most successful genes within the population, which helps us adapt more quickly to changes, etc. This is what's most common across animal groups. But then some species, they develop a need for pair bonding. If you can get paternal investment, if the

males contribute with more than just genes, this can be very beneficial. And this is what happened with our lineage, with our early hominins about four million years ago, where the ecology changed, where it was so beneficial, if males would contribute that would then have a transition, we don't know precisely which way. The main hypothesis is that high-status males started keeping herums and providing for females. And then there's no alternative hypothesis that is rather new, but quite interesting, that this was a sneaky new strategy

for low-status males to be allowed to copulate and reproduce if they offered provisioning and protection to females. Wow. It was like the prehistoric simp version. Yeah. It's an interesting hypothesis. This is a scholar. He's a theoretical biologist who did mathematical models and he just couldn't make it add up for

high status males. It didn't, it, it would never make sense for them to go along with that initial transition from Pramyskus mating to pair bonding, polygamous pair bonding. It made a lot more sense that those males that were excluded from mating saw as offspring needed more, uh, more help, more provisioning. They were, they were more dependent on the females that they would now go in and make the deal that, okay, I will provide you with calories and protection, but then you let me have sex with you exclusively

so I know that you offspring our mind. And then the females had to make a trade off do you want the good genes from males that are only willing to contribute with genes, or do you want a low status male to be around there and help you get food, help you get protection, help you out with the kid? And that would result in kind of like a resource

acquisition and supply arms race between the low status and the high status males. Yeah, so then this would push so it would then start because this was so beneficial because across those four million years The offspring development period doubled We just got bigger heads more helpless when we were born So it became more and more beneficial to pass on the good genes and instead get a male that would help you out

Through the most vulnerable year So through the pregnancy and then in the beginning face of when when the child needed the the provisioning the most vulnerable year. So through the pregnancy and then in the beginning face of when the child needed the provisioning the most. And then it just developed until around two million years ago, when most, most homo communities consisted of mostly, mostly, facial females of provisioning males and then a small number of polygons and a small number of premierscus maiders because it would never, it would always in some instances be beneficial for the female to choose the superior genes of a high status male rather than get a provisioning low status male to to to as the father. So this is this is a competing hypothesis that intuitively it seems interesting. Just how rare is male parental investment in the mammal and primate world?

Parabonding? Yeah. Male parental investment, primarily. Yeah. So, I think among mammals, it's 10%. Do pair bonding and among primates is 29%. But the reason why we think that our lineage where Pramyskus made six million years ago is that chimpanzees and bonobos are Pramyskus

madeers, and once a lineage has evolved pair bonding, it is so beneficial that it's exceptionally rare that you de-evolved from it. That's why we assume that six million years ago, we also had Pramiskus ancestors. Interesting. Okay, so two million years, what happens next because we go through some rapid changes from then until now? Yeah, so the interesting part is that although it became highly beneficial with pair bonding, there was little pressure on males for not wanting multiple females to want to make promiscuous, but upiliginously. And likewise, while it was beneficial for females to opt for the provisioning of low-stake

males, there was little pressure on them for not wanting or desiring a more successful mate. So what we see, what is quite interesting is that for those two million years, the norm was monogamous pair bonding with some polygony, but a really superior forager just couldn't provide for that many, for that many females. But we see that with agriculture that took off and resulted in pretty extreme polygene at the most inequities environments. But that would have been, when was the agricultural revolution?

15,000 years ago, something like that, 20,000 years ago? Around 12. Yeah, okay, so. And then the main period was from, when around 7,000 years ago, all the best agricultural land had been taken. So then if you wanted to grow, what you had to do was to take land from others,

and that created a 2000 year period from 7 to 5,000 years ago that had a pretty bizarre mating regime. I don't know if you're familiar with this. No, tell me, tell me. Yeah, so I think you've cited this research. I think what I saw your episode with with Harry Nam. He cited this study from Carmin at L in 2015. And he cited the original hypothesis there where the original researchers thought that what had happened 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, that there were just these extreme levels of polygony, that the Y chromosome diversity in our lineage

was reduced by 95%, meaning that 19 out of 20 males disappeared, while the X chromosome diverse increased in the line with population growth. And if you think about it, that doesn't make sense. It's just not plausible knowing what we know about human behavior. So you could imagine that to one generation, a patriarch might castrate every other male and just to pregnant all the females, but that wouldn't make evolutionary sense for him to do the next generation when all the men are his sons. And this would be an extremely unstable system, and that this would happen all over the world for 2,000 years.

It just seems implausible. So in 2018, a new main hypothesis was established that speaks no more favorably of our ancestors mating practices. And what probably happened was that for those 2,000 years, all everyone did in order to be able to grow their tribes because the only way to grow was to take the fields of your neighbor. So then you had a universal system of inter-tribal rating when your kin group was strong enough, you would go to your neighbors, kill all the males and take all the females and all the fields,

and that was yours. And people kept doing this for 2,000 years until 95% of the original male DNA was just wiped off the genetic slate. So it's, yeah, 2,000 years of universal genocide and rape. That's what our ancestors were up to. That's what it seems like. And the reason why we got out of it was that we invented new stories. Because up until 5,000 years ago, we could only cooperate with kin. And then somebody invented that. Some men, they are the descendants of gods. So we can submit to them as leaders

and now we can grow our in groups. So instead of just being a king group, we can now be thousands and we can keep growing and that is of course beneficial because then we can kill our smaller neighbors a lot more easily. Okay, so is this the inception of having a broader mating ideology about 5,000 years ago? Well, what that created was the ability to create a lot larger

societies. And it also, the invention at the time was slavery. Before that, when you conquered someone, you killed all the males. Now you could either turn them into your slaves or your allies. So that was, it's a weird thing to think about. But if we think that slavery is better than genocide, that was actually progress at some point in our past. So when we look at our ancestors,

it's, they've been, yeah, it's a rather impressive group of people at times. Yeah, when the choice is between slavery and genocide, and you're having to make a value judgment of which one, which one's least bad of the two. That's a little bit rough. Okay. So what given your research looking at this sort of journey of mating ideologies over time? What is the furthest back that you've managed to find? Now, obviously, as you say, some kind of prototypical religion, bonds groups together in a way that civilizes them beyond what they normally would

and given that so much of what we were driven by previously, the motivation was very heavily mating derived, or at least mating with one of the outcomes that we wanted. I suppose you could say that any ideology that cohesive a group together beyond kin is a mating ideology, but what about when it becomes a little bit more sort of specific about what you should, what a man's role is, what a woman's role is, how we should combine all of this together? Yeah, that's a good intuition to have that that is the kind of civilizing direction. But the ideology, mating ideology, didn't change that much from the period we've described now. And up until the church's evolution of Europe's tribes about a thousand years ago.

We can call that ideology, it's often called heroic love. So if you want to start following the mating ideologies we've had for through antiquity, up until the Church is the evolution of the tribes, heroic love, and it's a term that's a little bit problematic, because the point with it was that during this regime a woman had to always be ready to submit to the greater warrior. You didn't necessarily have a few rulers rather state structures that could protect people. People always up until this time lived in king groups and if other groups came and defeated you, then the men would be killed and enslaved,

and the women would often be captured. So if women wanted a chance to survive and protect themselves and their children, they now had to submit to whom ever had killed their father or their husband. So this was an extremely misogynistic rape culture, and this is what marked, you up until a thousand years ago.

From the beginning of agriculture, from that period we talked earlier, where this was the original patriarchy, where the male energies was matter, and women are, they had different way of conceptualizing this, but women were more like soil, where the patriarchal seed were put. So this way, as long as you have these beliefs, you could just capture as many women as you wanted or were able to, and then keep growing your kin

group. I suppose as well, this heroic love narrative is a useful strategy to legitimize to the men what they are doing, but also as a coping strategy to dampen down the discomfort of what the women are subjected to. But if there is an ideology that sits over the top, that maybe this is the way that mating is supposed to be done. Maybe it is beneficial that your last husband was killed and murdered and that now you have a new one because he's evidently the more heroic of the two. Therefore, it is quite right that you should go as opposed to the person that I cared about

has just been dismembered in front of me. And now this guy that I don't know, like that's not a particularly reassuring story. Whereas the heroic love narrative is useful for both sexes in some regards. In some regards, but I'm sure it was an absolute nightmare for these people that had to go through this. And what drove much of this was that these kin groups generally practice polygamous mating. So you'd had elite individuals who would hoard women as wives, concubines, and sex slaves. So for the low-value men,

they didn't have access to pair bonding or a copulation. So then they were driven throughout antiquity to when they had a strong enough position to go to whichever whomever their neighbors were and then kill the men, take their stuff and take their women. So this polygamous mating that marked this period under heroic love drove a lot of war, a lot of social instability.

It was quite enormous change that happened when the church imposed lifelong monogamy, even on the most superior of males. That changed everything. When did that happen? Well, the Roman Empire played around with monogamy, but they were never very serious about it. And then the church started imposing it in the fourth century, but also not very serious. And then you have a period that's referred to as the Gregorian Reform at the beginning of the second millennium, that you had a lot of church councils that work with these matters,

because the church wanted to grab more power over people. And if you can control their mating, if you can control their marriages, their sexual behavior, et cetera, that gives you a lot of power over powerful men. So this is when they dissolved Europe's tribes through prohibiting cousin marriage, changing rules for inheritance and ownership, and then imposing lifelong monogamy, which was a very unusual unique, rather extreme way of thinking of mating. But when you do this, this, if you want to understand the origins of the modern world,

this was it. Because then you create the sexual galley tyrannism. This is how you make parents invest in children. This is where you prepare for growth and where you start creating a different, more individualistic psychology, different way of thinking, you're low amounts to testosterone. So instead of superior men competing all their life to acquire more women, you get to compete until you get one. And then you have to put your efforts in more in a more productive direction. And then you have to put your efforts in more in a more productive direction. How does it help investment in children? Why was there not a massive amount of investment in children during the heroic mating era?

Because you would have one father with several women, with a bunch of children, and you would try to maximize that to the extent that your resources allowed. So you just had a lot less attention per child and you also didn't have an ideology where you should necessarily invest so much in your children. They were more expendable. While if then these children are distributed over more men and you have a more limited amount of children, then you will be more incentivized to take care of those children that you do have. What is the reason for the church or anybody wanting to impose some sort of rule from a civilization design perspective? What was the advantage or the change that they were looking to enact?

What was the outcome that they wanted by encouraging lifelong monogamy? Well, that's really interesting. In hindsight, if we like modernity, we think it was brilliant, but when we look at the document that exists at the time, it's a bit of a mystery. We can suspect certain things through dissolving Europe's tribes

and changing the rules for ownership and inheritance, the church by the 10th century had grabbed 40% of the agricultural land in Western Europe. So that was good. You could see that as a pretty strong incentive that when you die instead of your land being passed on to your kin, you now give it to church, so you don't have to go to hell. That's a pretty strong material incentive. And then the other aspect, as I mentioned earlier,

is that powerful men that hoard a lot of women, if you can impose on them certain mating structures, then you as the church, if you have to acknowledge or permit their marriages, if you can restrict them, then the church gets power over powerful men, which is another good understanding or material incentive. And then it's all just speculation in terms of what the spiritual ramifications are, what they might have suspected the long-term consequences would be. But my impression from having started a lot of deep cultural changes is that to some extent things just happen.

It's just a bunch of people doing a bunch of things and then it almost magically sorts itself out and nobody really understands what's happening when it's happening and then a hundred years later or in the modern times, historians look back and kind of try to make sense of what it was. But generally there aren't that many grand architects that have a particular vision that they're able to impose on their culture. Yeah, what's that quote about? Life happens forward, but only makes sense in reverse. Absolutely. And I guess the history is kind of the same that we can post-hoc rationalize. What was it that the church's grand plan was, whereas it's much easier to go for a simple explanation, which was they wanted to control powerful men. These powerful men had lots of resources. If the church slot themselves in between those men and one of the things that they want the absolute most, which is women, because presumably they couldn't

slot themselves in between the men and their resources, like unless the church is going to wage a war and say, right now half of this farm's hours, now half of this house's hours, now it's a much more crafty subversive strategy to be able to somehow make divine the union between a man and a woman, and then for you to be the arbiter that sits in between them, yeah, I can totally see how it gives you power of a powerful man. One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, which I thought would have come up, is sexual redistribution, right? That if you have high amounts of inequality within a sexual system, you get your male syndrome, it's

not very good. It does this play a role at this stage, or was it just such an accepted part of the way that the world existed that no one was really bothered about the chaos that came along with it? No, in hindsight, we see that it was hugely beneficial. The modern world would not have happened if that redistribution of women hadn't happened that the church imposed on medieval Europeans. But whether anyone in the church were able to predict

what greater sexual egalitarianism would have for consequences, for social stability, the potential for growth, for peace, et cetera. I don't know. I'd like to think they were that smart, but I kind of doubt it. Maybe they noticed us that they went along that they saw the word beneficial effects. I don't know. But yeah, the end result was quite impressive, but how it came about, who the architects

were, if they really imagined this, I'm kind of doubtful if they understood the ramifications about what they were doing. Okay, so heroic love finishes. The church comes in, sorry man, no more gangbangs for you. What comes next? Well, this is fascinating and this speaks again to how nobody's in charge. So I, some of these mating ideologies are what I refer to as cultural dissolvants. These are mating ideologies upon which you cannot build social order, but they kind of make you lose faith

in the previous ideology. So when courtly love was created and disseminated through romance as embalads from the 12th century, this was an ideology with values and norms that primarily undermined heroic love. So it had an exaggeration of the emotion of love as something that was incredibly strong and irresistible in that last at a lifetime. And this was meant to discourage high status men from being polygamous. That if you pick just one woman that that's going to last for life,

and it's going to give you this special ecstasy that you can't get, if you have more women and also if you force yourself on a woman. So what men should do, and this is what ballots and romances promote, that instead of being the greatest warrior, well, you also have to be the greatest warrior. But in addition to that, you have to talk to women. You have to use sophisticated social skills. You have to flirt. And instead of just raping her after you're killed or husband, you have to make the woman feel a high degree of lust and love. So when she can't help herself from having sex with her because she lusts you so much and she loves you so much, that's when you can have sex. So you have all these values that if you just read the Romans as some ballads, then you don't know what they're reacting against.

It's kind of hard to make sense of, but when you know the tenets of heroic love, you see that all these elements of court love are constructed in a sense to undermine those strong beliefs from the previous regime. And also it has to do with the new sociality that when you lived in kinship groups, you stuck to your own, you were skeptical towards strangers, strangers might want to kill you and take your stuff. But now that we lived in a feudal Europe where everyone were supposed to be Christian, then we're supposed to have this openness towards strangers, we're supposed to be Christian, then we're supposed to have this openness towards strangers. We're supposed

to be friendly, courteous, and all these norms that define squirtly love is also the way European Christians were supposed to treat each other and not just women. So you have all this brand new type of sociality that would have never worked in a kinship system, but was crucial for feudal Europe to have an effective cooperation. So, as you're becoming more civilized and as you are more open to new people, to being friends with people, stuff like pubs and ale houses and things will occur, people will be migrating a little bit more. It's not just my family bonds with the family next door.

Okay. more, it's not just my family bonds with the family next door. Okay, so what about, what is the role of marriage? Is marriage widespread at this point? Is it that you go through the church and the church does this thing? What about the role of sex before marriage and those sorts of impositions? Yeah, so the transition was before marriage was a private, but with the Gregorian reform, they had to be church marriages, which is also very important for court de laud. And what's unique about it's something called the European marriage pattern that develops here, because this had never happened before. No kin groups had been dissolved the way the church

did it. So you got a unique situation in the West. And what happens is that when you can no longer move in with your kin, you have to start accumulating research sources. So people's marriage age were pushed up from, say, from their teens or early 20s up to the late 20s. So you shorten people reproductive period, and this was crucial. Because under in antiquity, we practice what you could call fourth trimester abortion. You might know this from Vikings You have the babies you have and then you have a look at them and then you kill the ones you can't race So this was how you kept the population in check and they tended to kill more females than males so you'd have a you'd have a low sex ratio

What they did now because You Individual life became sacred you not to restrict people's sexuality. They have to have less sex. And one way that they did this was through this European marriage pattern, where you reproductive period didn't start until you're around 30 years old. That way you didn't have more children. So it was very crucial in this period that people's sexuality were restricted, otherwise you'd run into Malthusian crisis because you'd have too many children. But what happened interestingly

is after the Black death in the mid-14th century, north of Europe lost over, in my country, last over 50% of the population and around Europe to a third to a half was lost. So in the 1400s, it's called the sexual laxness of the 15th century, where people were having a lot more promiscuous sex sleeping around etc. etc. because our environment could afford it. And then when we'd rebuild the population around year 1500, that's when you have the Reformation, that's when you have a

retitening of these sexual norms because we couldn't afford it anymore because we'd refilled up our population and that's when you get pure optimism, etc. etc. What you were talking about this sort of window, this reproductive window that age 30, age 20, is was important. Is that people were told that they shouldn't reproduce after 30 or they won't permitted to reproduce until 30? So before when you had polygony and you lived in king groups, you'd have a man with a

lot of resource and he'd bury every time he'd feel like it. And then he'd if he'd married a see a woman at 20 and he'd be 30 or 40 and she'd just start reproducing right away. And the same if they were younger, you would you would always have a place to live. You'd move in next to your kin on your kin groups land. Now in feudal Europe, you'd have to accumulate resources to be able to afford what's called the Neolocal Resident. You don't live with your family, you live on your own.

So you'd have to be on men and women would have to be on labor markets, typically in their 20s, until they had accumulated enough resources to get their own place. And this is what pushed up the marriage age. And which, so reproduction didn't start until typically in your late 20s for women. Wow. Because I, you know, game of thrones as my greatest window into an accurate historical

representation of what would have happened in medieval times for reproduction. You know, you've got a lot of essentially child and teen marriages and women occurring. And I certainly know that some of the aristocracy were doing this, was that only a behavior or a trend that occurred in the upper echelons of the high inability? Those who had resources. So you see that the very highest classes are those that are marked the least by these changes to the past millennium and mating moralis. They still, the very highest status men, they still had lovers on the side, they still

had a couple of wives for a few centuries longer than they were supposed to. So they got away from this and the church tried to rest power from them, but it was a bad layer. They were still powerful. So, yeah, among the higher classes, you typically would marry still when you were around 20, perhaps. Right. So this is really interesting. Obviously, we're going to get into it as we continue down this little journey through time.

But a lot of the conversations at the moment are for the first time since records began, more women are childless at 30 than with children at 30. Mm-hmm. But it seems to me, like if we look only 500, 600 years ago, you're maybe going to see very similar sort of fertility patterns amongst women, albeit for very different reasons than individual choice and traveling the world and getting an education and stuff like that. But yeah, you're going to see because of the demands that were placed on their requirement to accumulate resources, both as men and as women, in order to be able to get started with a family,

plus you don't have quite as sophisticated social safety nets. So you do have this malthusian problem that keeps everything down. So it's like, okay, we need to restrict, restrict, restrict. Basically like an entry price into a nightclub that up until the point at which you can pay the entry price, you can't go to the dance, right? The dance being having kids.

Yeah, yeah. And also at this point, what was characteristic of the European marriage pattern was an exceptionally high percentage of never married women. In a polygonal system, mostly all women are married. Under this system, it had an extraordinary high percentage of typically 10%, which to us sounds very low, but at the time that was unheard of. So around 10% of women never married during this regime. Wow. Okay. So we are currently in courtly love. Courtly love. I love the fact that it's like one of its primary design

justifications was to be a counterweight to the heroic love narrative, right? It's overly restrictive on men compared with what they had for their values set previously. You must ensure that the woman is lusting after you, then we potentially add no sex before marriage in as well. That gives you the restriction of resources. You need to be able to pay the dowry. You need to make sure that you've asked for her father's hand in marriage. I'm going to guess that that comes around to some point around about this time too, which would mean, you know, the most difficult gatekeep arbiter on the planet, you've got to like get his seal of approval

before you can do it too. Then you've got to go through the church, presumably there's some assessments that get done by the church too. So yeah, all of this, not only acting as a, what would end up being a useful sexual redistribution for creating the foundation of a non-caotic civilization moving forward,

but probably at the moment, the main thing it was trying to do is let's just stop all of the powerful men raping everyone. Let's just stop that from happening first and we'll see where we go from there. And the core value here, you could, this is the West's first sexual revolution. You could place that around the year 1200. And the core value here is female consent. So in antiquity, women were commodities. A marriage is usually arranged between families.

Again, it was a commercial contract. And then with these reforms, they instituted something called a double consent. So women aren't free to choose to marry, men aren't free to choose to marry, but women now have a chance of refusal. So it's still, you go from in antiquity, the kindergarten group was the authority in marriage.

Now you move to the nuclear family because that is how you live now. So it's still parents who arrange marriage, but crucially, women are given leverage through being allowed to say no. So they are still coerced into marriage. It's still not individual choice, but they can say no. And that's huge progress. Right. And that's set women on a path of emancipation that is ongoing. The beginning of female emancipation in the West was the shortest imposition of female, the female right to consent in the

first sexual revolution. That changed everything. That's yeah everything that has happened since was a result of that first movement Okay, what comes after cultly love? Well the the mating ideology that the society was built on then is something called companion at love So this was a very pragmatic ideology and very different from court the love and courtly love and very different from quote to love. In quote to love, you and I, we are aristocratic nights, and we're gonna travel through Europe

to find our one true love, and we're gonna fall incredibly much in love, and we're gonna live in bliss forever after. And actually, this was not the reality for European peasants. So the ideology of companion at love is that a man and a woman shall marry for life through an arranged marriage, whether they like each other or not is not a man and a woman shall marry for life through an arranged marriage, whether they like each other or not is not a big deal.

And their primary task is to run the farm as partners, to run the farm and keep their children alive. So we're not going to sleep around, we're not going to divorce and find somebody else. We're just going to huddle down and make sure that as many children as possible are alive in the spring. So it's a very pragmatic, very unromantic ideology. It's about submitting to the needs of your family and your community and not giving into emotions or erotic or romantic impulses. So this was the reality for European peasants from the end, from the from the from the first sexual revolution when the king groups were dissolved and all the way up to 1750, which was the West's second sexual revolution. This was when you, this was a period of companion

at love, arranged marriages, pragmatism, and then you had a period before 1500 with sexual laxness and then a period with puretinism to restrict people, people's impulses to avoid maltusion crises. Right. I was just about to ask why the Puritanism? Well, after this period of sexual laxness when we had rebuilt our population and we were entered into a period of stagnation and stagnant per capita growth, we needed to prevent Europeans from having too many children to having premarital sex, extramarital sex, and the way we have done this in the West is to villainize female sexuality.

Women are the sexual selectors, and in order to prevent extramarital sex from happening or premarital sex, the church has in those incidents gone after the women. So you'll see in the 1400s, female sexuality is acknowledged, then to an extent celebrated, and then when pure tenness comes, the ideologist, women do not benefit from sex outside of marriage. Women who are lustful are aligned with Satan, etc. So it's a way to oppress women and to coerce them into not having sex that they shouldn't have, which could then contribute to a maltussing crisis. So the choice we face in these situations is either

or we kill babies when they are born, the surplus of them, or we have to find a way to prevent people from having extra marital sex or sex that produces too much babies. And the means we have tended to use in the West is to demonize female sexuality in those instances. Why not try to control male sexuality? It's a really good question.

If you look at the differences in male and female mating psychology and who is in charge on these markets, it seems like the more effective choice, I'm not condoning it, but it seems like the most effective choice to place the cost on the sexual selectors. You could imagine that men are so driven that telling men generally do not have sexual access to women and to tell men that they shouldn't have sex. Number one, it would be harder because they have a stronger drive for short term relationships, but also that access isn't there for them.

While the women are the ones who make the decisions in these cases of at least the voluntary sex, then having placing an enormous burden on women that from our modern perspective seems totally misogynistic and unfair, it seems that that would be the more effective way of doing it. Yeah, because if you're going to try and restrict men over all, but even now, I'm going to guess that there is still a very large cohort of men, more than 10% who go to their graves without a family or unmarried. Therefore, you're pointing the finger at the less reliable potential meter. Whereas if you point the finger at the women, it is more likely that you get more bang

for your book, basically, on restriction. But presumably, there must have been, there must be some moralizing around male sexuality too, just probably not quite the same level of demonization that women had. Absolutely. So yeah, pure tenism also demonized promiscuous men in those stories and the literature that exists from this period. The greatest villain is our the favored villain is often a man who is known to have slept around. So promiscuous men are also men are also put forth as villains and discouraged, but the male sexuality is still acknowledged. There's something pathological about a woman who wants to have sex with someone who isn't her husband in the purest nadiology.

If you want to talk about patriarchal misogyny the puritans were really really bad But then we have to try to then step aside back and of course we moralize on it and say that this is terrible But then we try to understand why did they do this? What was the function of this? Why why did pureness and arise in a period when it was crucial for the West to restrain people's sexuality to avoid Malthusian crises. Right. Yeah, I understand. If everybody is dying of famine and starvation, the difference between the pain of that and

the pain of you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, it doesn't, yeah, I can just... Well, we have to choose. If we're not okay with killing babies and Christians haven't been because of their ideology while in antiquity people generally wear, we have to choose, right? They're killed babies or with strict people's sexuality or we invent contraceptives, which we got around to later. What was the reason for not just killing babies? Oh, in with Christianity, life became sacred. So the Christians said that you can't take any life. So once a child, so they didn't, they criminalized in fantaside.

So in fact, in fantaside, in particular, females elective in fantaside, killing, they would typically kill girls because they were costier, dependent a little bit on the context. But yeah, so the practice of infanticide was just cracked down on really hard by the Christians because it went against their belief of every life being sacred. Yeah, okay. Well, that's interesting that the Church is doctrine is both like Giverth and take it away here that they have made their own

bed. Okay, we say that in fantasies isn't good, we value human life. Oh, fuck, downstream from that, we now have this other problem which is being able to control populations so that we don't get some fishery and runaway like mouth-using bullshit, also not good. Okay, so I mean, one other thing that's kind of, I guess, interesting to add here

is that the middle ages didn't finish until the 1500s. We're still in the Middle Ages from pretty much fall of Rome 500 to 1500s-ish. Like, it's just one big long fucking medieval, like, hodgepodge, right? Then we get to, you said 1750-ish. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know what,'re talking now only 250 years ago, and it feels like there is an

awful lot of ground to cover in terms of sexual ideology. So what happened, 1750? So that's the West's second sexual revolution. This was one of individual choice. So what we don't think about in the West, this is, it's a evolutionary psychologist called Madalala Sapochtuul, who's done great work on this. How throughout human history, we've had arranged marriages. He makes the case that the human species is the only species on the planet,

where men select other men for reproduction. This has always been the case. And during agriculture, it was more the kin group. And then after the first sexual revolution, this was a matter for the nuclear family, meaning the patriarch, the father of the family. So, human men and women, this is important to understand, to understand the present day mating dysfunction. We did not evolve under regimes of individual choice. We generally, we had an influence,

but we generally didn't pick and attract our own mates, where we're given mates by our families and communities. So, our somewhat weak ability, or many people's weak ability, to flirt and attract partners, attract short-term partners, this is thought of as a form of mismatch due to individuals not having that responsibility in the past that they in the West started getting from 750. So what happened with the disillusion of Europe's tribes

is that our psychology changed fundamentally. This was the biggest change in introduction of agriculture. So we were put on a journey, then, say, for 800, 900 years ago, toward ever greater individualization. More and more and more and more non-stop, still ongoing, and it's not going to stop for a while. And by the 18th century, European started more and more thinking that they should be entitled to make the wrong decisions in terms of mating, copulation and pair bonding.

And what facilitated this materially is that you have this commercial revolution where more and more people work as servants in their youth for cash payments. So to accumulate these resources to be able to marry, people moved further and further away from family and they were paid in cash. And this was the material foundation for the West's second sexual revolution. So among these young proletarians, around 1750, this European marriage pattern just burst.

And people started having a lot more sex before marriage on the side also. So you had this enormous growth in sexual activity, a special among young people that had enormous consequences. And this continued. So it wasn't like everybody started writing a way-making-dorn decisions, but it started among these young wage-journers,

and then over the centuries it spread, and the dam completely burst with a third sexual revolution in the 1960s. I love the idea that flirting is basically like an evolutionary anomaly that if you were to have the ability, and sexually, if you come from a long line of flutters and your great, great, great, great, great granddaddy, he was a flutterer and the granddaddy before, it's like, why? Like, why?

You know, previously you would have just been taking what you wanted, then after that, you would have been told what you wanted, then after that your dad would have told you what you wanted, and then only 250 years ago, would you have actually chosen what you wanted? Yeah. Leif Kenner, whom you know, he makes this interesting case today to be an effective filter. If you're a really good looking guy and you're really charming, a good flurder and you're

short-room oriented, you're going to have a lot of mating success. In the olden days, there would be a greater, there would be a significant chance that you would get snuffed out. If you, if you were a solid guy, you created alliances, worked hard, led a family, you would be chosen for reproduction by other men and given to their daughters. If you were just as good looking adonis who like to sleep around, you're probably going to get killed by the, by the men in the king group of your latest illicit affair. Yeah, because you're a threat in some regard.

Even if you don't get rumbled by the king group of the men of the woman that you just managed to seduce outside of her marriage and outside of your own marriage. Even if you don't get caught by the scruff of the neck by them, you're just going to create an ambient sense of concern and envy and mistrust because, oh, we know that Mads, we've got to be careful about him. He's got the fucking charm. I've heard rumors and then it almost becomes, I guess, to some degree, a little bit like the witch trials that you have this, it's not quite original sin, but it's something inbuilt that will cause other men to feel envy and jealousy and way rather than understand and turn it inward and work out what it is that's lacking in them that makes them envious of this person. It's way easier to just moralize about the person that's the outgroup now and say, let's fucking kill him. And also, times were really tough a lot of the time. You needed a really solid guy willing

to work really hard to do what every candidate provides for his wife and children to keep them alive. If you're just this charming hearty who likes to chat up women around the farm, that does, that did not generally promote a good genetic legacy. The demands of the times were just different, times are very different than they are today. Are you saying that we are the descendents of the least charismatic, least good-looking, least flotacious men that existed? Well, it depends on the ecology, but yeah, generally our ancestors have not been letharials. That's only recently where that has been very beneficial. Right. So we get to

1750, people are now able to make their own decisions. Actually, one question there, how is it that the church loses control? Does the church feel like it is losing control? Does it try to claw it back? In any regard, I know that in the time of Charles Darwin, you know, Victorian England, we had an awful lot of sort of sexual puritanism there. I think the year of Darwin's birth, the total number of British divorces was eight. Not thousands, not hundreds. Eight. Yeah, no, what happens? 1750 is really interesting because there's a counter-reaction. So we have what we call the Romantic century from 1750 to 1850. So I'm sure with your imagination, you can imagine what happened when this dam burst in 1750.

Now we're going to start sleeping around whoops, we have an event of the contraceptive pill yet. What's going to start sleeping around whoops, we have an inventor, the contraceptive pill yet, what's going to happen? So what happens is you have an enormous increase in illegitimate birth across Europe. It doubles, triples, quadruples. So what you typically have are all these low, lower class women who now can make their own decisions in terms of

compilation and pair bonding. And their answers, there's no experience with this. can make drone decisions in terms of copulation and pair bonding. Their answer is there's no experience with it. So we didn't evolve to see through the intentions of men, we didn't evolve to assess our own mate value precisely. So what would happen that you would have a lot of high status men, or at least higher status men, say a son of farmers, urban men who would then go after the daughters of crofters and other at the lower rungs of society.

And they would say, I love you, and I'm going to marry you. And let's have sex. And they would do that. And when she got pregnant, they would leave her. So in Denmark, Norway, up until 73734, if you had sex, that was a de facto marriage contract. And then what we see in the beginning of the 1700s, there's a huge increase in women taking men to court for having sex with them, but admiring them, so they end that law in 1734.

So after that, if you get pregnant, you're not entitled to marry the guy you had sex with. So from 1750, you get this enormous increase in illegitimate birth at the worst in Sweden and in Stockholm, 50% of childbirths were by unwed mothers, lower in rural areas. In Paris, you see an enormous increase of band and children. So in the late 1700s, there was an ideology which I also consider as a cultural disarvant because you couldn't build a social order on it, and this was liberty and love. So this is the kind of Casanova ideology where you're supposed to just enjoy sex for the sake of sex. You're supposed to sleep around, follow your lusts.

And this was an ideology that spread from the French court and then throughout Europe. And it reached Scandinavia around 1770. So you had this period where you have certain eccentric milieuses where people advocated. Let's just sleep around. Let's just have a hell of a good time. Let's just party. And this created this enormous burden on women because women were left with a burden of childcare when these liberty and left them once they got pregnant.

So typically high status men took advantage of imparaged women and then just abandoned them. And this is what laid a foundation for the romantic ideology of the early 1800s. So liberty in love undermined companion at love where you're just supposed to be pragmatic and double down, they curve your family and liberty in love said, no, let's just have fun. And then when the social ramification ramification of that came manifest of themselves, the counter reaction was romantic love, which did the same as pure and love had done, where you, again, so liberty in love celebrated female sexuality. Let's just have sex. Romantic love said, no, women have no benefit

from sex outside of marriage. We're all gonna have to stop doing this. And similar to court, the love, it exaggerated the emotional love as something incredibly strong and something that lasted for life. So from then on, men and women were only supposed to have sex within the confines of marriage

and you should be married forever. And this started having an effect around 1850 and then across the West, the legitimacy rate started plummeting. So you see this counter-reaction. First, you dissolve companion at love, then you see the effects of all this promiscuity and then in order to reduce the suffering of the women that this effect, you have a counter-reaction or romantic love where you then become more pure and again. this promise, goody, and then in order to reduce the suffering of the women that this affects, you have a counteractual romantic love where you then become more pure and again. And then you see the effect of that in the statistics. Right, you re-prioritize the emotional connection, the romantic connection between the man and the

woman. And what that does is that, again, create a dampener on the liberty and cassanova guy, Glythario, that's just, okay, yeah, that's so interesting. What I'm seeing here is this flip flop between what seems, sometimes human nature kind of just bursts through the cracks, it kind of grows and grows and grows enough and then it splits through that there is, innate desires that people have. You're also responding to the local resources.

So I'm going to guess that around about 1750, agriculture and greenhouses and shit like that meant that the ability to get an amount of food and an amount of living out of a square foot of land would have increased pretty dramatically, which means that this mouth using problems and okay, right? So we can't really, we're no longer limited in terms of food. What's the next thing that we can use? Fuck, they're having sex with each other. Say that it's all about romance. Say that it's all about the overprioritize the importance of emotional connection, because that allows us to create. But we've also lost, at least a little bit here, we've lost the church's moralization,

or at least it sounds like we've lost the church's moralization of the act of love. Yeah, and the 1800s, this was the time of enlightenment. This was about individual rights, empowering individuals, not oppressing them, letting them make thrown choices, personal agency, etc., etc. And this was also at the dawn of the industrial revolution. So when this European marriage pattern burst around 1750, we were very fortunate for two reasons, because we now experienced a population explosion going ahead that is still ongoing. Well, I take that back. It's not ongoing anymore.

But we had, we got this, we were moving into this period, tremendous economic growth that helped us take care of the population explosion. And also, we offloaded an enormous part of our population to America and other colonial territories. population to America and other colonial territories, otherwise we would have faced dire trouble in the West as the change of our mating practices and also with the reduction in mortality from other causes. Okay, then perhaps the shortest, most acute change when it comes to human reproductive history, the introduction of reliable contraception.

Well, yeah, so one of the aspects of romantic love is that you have gender inequality. You conceptualize men and women as complimentary that people are born as incomplete halves, and then to become whole, you have to find your true love, you have to bond with her, and then you individualize and you have to find your true love, you have to bond with her, and then you individualize and you become a whole human.

So this means that the man is supposed to go out and work, and the woman is supposed to stay home and take care of the domestic arena. So they're conceptualized as equal but complementary, but in reality, this drove stark inequality. So the next mating ideology we move to, which is the one we believe in today, it's called Confluent Love, which is next mating ideology we move to, which is the one we believe in today, it's called Confluent Love,

which is a mating ideology of gender equality, of convenience, reward, and self-realization. At this ideology, eros, quite a while ago, it was first introduced into Scandinavian literature in 1839, where it had existed in the West somewhat earlier. So people were thinking about this, that we should get true equality, that women should be the same and have the same opportunities,

and that we should be able to have sex outside of marriage and sleep around. But the environment wasn't prepared for that. Like you mentioned, this couldn't really be implemented until we invented effective contraception. Otherwise this kind of mating would have placed too strong of a burden on women. So we see this discussion in Western culture from say around 1830 and then with a Darwinian revolution, we start thinking, okay, so we're dramatic.

Love it thought, obviously, this is what God wanted us to do. That we have thisses that you also mentioned That's just a test from God to see if we deserve to go to heaven So that we want to have sex and that we want a divorce That's just a test and also at the beginning of our conversation You ask why do we need his ideologies and this is precisely why because we have this biological impulses to copulate and our love cycle, probably evolved to last around three to four years

with what's the mating cycle of foragers. So with agriculture, we needed to commit to lifelong monogamy because in case of divorce, you can't split up the fields and bring your part of the farm somewhere else. So we were kind of stuck in these marriages that had to last many, many more decades than what we evolved for. So then you need these ideologies to make us fight these urges that we have to sleep around, to have, we evolve for Cyril Menogamy or Cyril

Parabonding to fight that because the agricultural environment and then the modern environment just required something else for us. So then we use religion, we say that this is what God wants, but then with the Darwinian revolution, we start thinking, well, if we're animals, we too, then these impulses, we have, they're not moral tests. This is our nature. So we started exploring what human mating nature is, and this was a very strong literary movement in Scandinavia in the late 1800s. And then also through the 1900s through literature, we started exploring how could we make differently.

But what's really interesting is that the romantic regime did not peak until after World War II. So we experienced something that was really unexpected because in the 1910s and 20s, we were moving away from romantic love. We wanted female equality, we were moving toward confluent love. But then after World War II, we had this enormous economic prosperity that allowed us to implement the romantic utopia, which is the breadwinner housewife model. So suddenly, marriage in the West became near universal. Almost everyone married, they married young,

and now we got to experience that the romantic utopia is a couple of shortcomings. Number one, life does love generally doesn't last a lifetime, and utopia staying at home wasn't that great for all women. So you had this in the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s, and then you have the social revolution of the 1960s, and you could say as symbolically that the break through

of Confluent Love was in 1968. And then you start seeing in the beginning of the 7th and the mid-70s, across the West, you see in the statistics that this modern marriage pattern that we've had and that peaked after World Two, it just disintegrates. Divorce, peaks, remarriage goes down, people marry later. You have a lot more casual sex outside of marriage. People start having sex earlier. And you just see this complete change in the Western marriage pattern

from the 1970s and on. And this is, this is mostly just gone in one direction. And this is the mating regime that we live under now, which has been accentuated through dating apps, through increased prosperity, through all that has happened in the past 40, 50 years. When you say Confluent Love, am I right in thinking that what that means is, ah, union works and continues to make sense for as long as you are useful to me and I'm useful to you. Yeah.

So romantic love, we merge for life. That's the only way to behold people. Confluent love, we come together, either for an opportunistic short term relationship, casual sex or for a romantic relationship for as long as you have emotions for each other, we benefit another way, and then we move on to single-dom or another relationship. So, we're not meant for each other for life, only for as long as we want to. So, it's this confluence of people coming together and meeting and moving on.

Right. So, now that we've arrived pretty much close to the modern era, how do you think of sort of modern dating, dysfunction, demographic collapse, all of that stuff? Is that, you know, from 1200, was that just the first domino gets flicked and it's an inevitable kind of, all the way along? How do you conceptualize this altogether? Yeah, I wouldn't use the word inevitable, but I completely agree with your intentions behind that. Yeah, that is what set it in motion. We've always had

arranged marriages and lived in king groups and then more strictly under agriculture, but still. And then we was set on this path toward individual choice, never-goody individualism. And then it's just to have, like we talked about in the very beginning, it's hard to convince people to take upon themselves the burden of decades of peer bonding with the same person and providing for offspring. And when you have a strong and realistic culture, and a mating ideology just says that this is optional that you don't necessarily have to do that, we're facing an evolution that is quite predictable. And as you've talked about on many of your podcasts, it seems to be going in a direction where we've

ran out of tools. There's not much we could do. We had in the 1930s, the Clyde and fertility also, which we counted, then the numbers I've seen in Scandinavia went down to 1.8, which was seen as a catastrophe, and then we counted through effectuating social democracy. We made it materially easier to have children through social democratic welfare. All that has played out now. That's no longer an option. In Norway now, a typical, the average woman she receives more than $1.2 million more from the state than she pays in taxes while men pay more in taxes than they receive. And when even that can't motivate reproduction at at replacement levels. And

this is Norway's richest country in the world. And we have the best welfare system. And when even that kind of money transfer can't facilitate reproduction, there's very little other countries can do. So up until 2010 Scandinavia wasn't anomaly across the West for till the last decline for a long time. So we thought that the answer, or many thought that the answer was that other countries that to be like Scandinavia, they needed gender equality because we're the most gender equal region, and they needed generous welfare. And now in the past decade, the Norwegian fertility rate dropped from in 2010 from 2.0 to 1.5, and now it's dropped down to 1.4. And that's with each woman on average being transferred 1.2 million dollars over lifetime That's a lot of money. There's economic incentives no longer cease to work

So we kind of know that for other countries too that would only be a short-term solution That would be counted by other forces that are more powerful So if we think it's a good idea to still make people and avoid a demographic collapse, it's very difficult to see what kind of means we can effectuate that would have a substantial effect that could turn this around. What are the forces that are driving the decrease in fertility rates at the moment? decrease in fertility rights at the moment? Well, the larger forces, the material ones, this urbanization, like we've talked about before, like many others have talked about how there's been, when we lived as agricultural

ists, having children was free labor, and now they're just huge expenses. So that is one issue. The other one is ideological that we know along with romantic love, the meaning of life was to merge with the apartment and have a bunch of children with with confluent love. It's about self-realization, reward, convenience. When we have those beliefs, it's just we're just less incentivized to take upon our self these burdens So also mention fair of the future and then you have What I've researched a bit is what happens with our mate preferences in this new environment of the past decades how on one side

When you make asin skin of you when you make, as in Scandinavia, when you have gender equality and you have gender as welfare, it makes it materially easier to have children. So that counts in a positive direction, but it also disincentivizes women from peer bonding with men of similar mate value. So that's another aspect of these ideologies and mating regimes that it's really difficult to make

women, make with men with low-made value unless they have to, unless they are materially dependent on it or coerced to do so by their society. We have two attraction systems. We have the original one that we talked about when we started six million years ago, we're promiscuous maitors, and this is a very discriminatory system for women where they're supposed to only be promiscuously attracted by the very most attractive men. Maybe this is somewhere between five and 20% of men, probably closer to five.

And then four million years ago, we evolved this other system to facilitate pair bonding, which is a much more in a sense democratic system, where a much larger proportional man is able to trigger that love mechanism that motivates a woman to mate with them. But we see that when women don't have to, they become chooseer, and they direct their efforts at men with higher mate value than what they have themselves. And that makes it harder to pair up more people within a community, which then will have adverse effects on the fertility.

Right. And when women are not financially or resourcefully beholden to their partner in order to be able to keep them ticking over, because they have no job, they have no education, or they have limited socioeconomic opportunities. I need to stay with my partner because the alternative is that me and potentially one, two, three, four, five children are out on the street. So we were basically kind of like a financial prisoner in some regards to their husband. And now that women don't need that anymore, the gods are. Yeah, and for modern ideology, and I'm sure both you and I feel this way, this is grateful women. Women aren't dependent on being with a man. They are independent. They have their own money,

their own economy, and they can make torn choices, and they can choose to direct your efforts and compete harder for the high-value men instead of settling for someone with a similar value as themselves. But then the consequence of that is that we have a very high increase in single-dom, we have a decline in fertility, and it also affects people's well-being. People generally express a desire to be pair-bonded and they want to be together with someone. That's kind of what we've been doing the last four million years. And then when people react to different incentives in a modern environment, we see that quite a few of those work counter to people being able to find each other and create relationships. Yeah, I looked at a study, a pretty, what looked like, significant assessment that said, gender inequality, specifically when it comes to finances, is correlated with both male

and female satisfaction in relationships, which is a really, if you want to talk about unfortunate, uncomfortable realizations, that if you, as a man, are able to, whether by coercion or restriction or capacity or whatever, out-earn your female partner and if the brakes are put on your female partner, she's happier and you're happier on average. Yeah, I know. There's so many depressive statistics. If you want to look at, would actually get the fertility rate up? What will really work is to, and we don't want any of this, we have to get rid of gender equality, get rid of prosperity, domestic violence works, there's tons of stuff that work to make women submit to being in a relationship that they otherwise want to be in.

Yeah, to go to stopping whatever is cost benefiting to what's it called when the man, there's two types of make guarding, right? Whatever the second one is, I know it you mean, yes. Yeah, so no, there's, if you look at what actually would work to get the fertility rate up, these are very dystopic choices we have that there are pretty much nothing that we in the West would be ideologically disposed to doing that could have a significant positive effect. All those mechanisms that we know would have an effect would be go against what we believe in. So we're in a very difficult situation.

One thing that has kind of been running through my mind is you've told us this tale is especially when you look at the modern world, which still has an awful lot of the carryover, I think, from the romantic era of, you know, moralizing around faithfulness, jastity, loyalty to your partner and stuff like that. It seems so and stuff like that. It seems so insane that we've managed to get ourselves to a place where our evolved mating psychology and the structures that we had for so, so, so long have just become perverted and perturbed and ruined and repurposed and counted and so on and so forth. And we are, you know, we talk about evolutionary mismatch and awful lot. Everybody knows what that is.

But this seems to be like, it's a fucking sedimentary rock of evolutionary mismatch. Right? You know, you've got the culture from before and the counter culture to that culture. And then you've got new technology, reproductive technology. What about the fact that we're all individuals? Well, female socioeconomic access and egalitarianism, that's fucking new, like how do we work that out? We're no longer living in pan generational houses.

Our kin doesn't give us any advice about, the world is moving so quickly that our parents advise basically doesn't even work for the new generation because they don't understand what's it mean to be dating on Tinder. And then we've still got all of these vestigial mating systems from before. So it really doesn't surprise me.

You know, when you take a really global look at human mating psychology, plus the modern world, plus the journey that our psychology has been dragged through really over the last few millennium, it's really not surprising that people are struggling at the moment. Yeah, on top of that, dating apps are a little over a decade old, and we haven't figured that out at all, and the incentives that drive those apps and those who create them are go so counter to people's needs and desires and how our psychology functions. We put ourselves in a situation where there's like you say,

there's so much novelty on top of novelty that men and women don't even understand what their mate preferences are and how those are being influenced by the social order and the technology they use to meet people. So we're just, we're following these six million year old impulses, which are the strongest one. And they're overriding impulses that are four million years old,

not even to think about the newer ones that we've developed. And in all of this, we're in this uniquely new mating regime of individual choice that we have not evolved for at all. So it's when you look back and you think, why was it that, say, perhaps through the two million year history of the Giener's Homo, if it is the case, in fact, that we always had parental choice through that, is it because everybody discovered that individual choice doesn't add up? I mean, there's no way the West is going to go away from that and I certainly wouldn't advocate it. But if no one else managed to figure that out, how sure are we that this is going to work for us?

And yeah, if you extrapolate from today, if with this decline in fertility, maybe we're certainly going to ride out this experiment. I don't see us changing anyway, but there are people around the world who aren't pursuing that regime that are showing different numbers. And it's, I mean, we love our ideology. We think it's superior to everybody else's ideology. That's just how humans work. But there's one fend, I mean, you could say everything is relative, but there's one thing that isn't relative.

That's an evolutionary iron law. No matter what your ideology is, if that ideology causes you to stop reproducing, that ideology will cease to matter. You will disappear. Yeah, I mean, this was one of the most interesting takeaways I've had from a lot of conversations about demographic collapse and population decline, which is ideology, political leaning, your world view at large, your openness, your conscientiousness, all the rest of those things are highly heritable, highly heritable. Your political ideology is very highly heritable, right? As is the rest of your fucking psychology. So if you are somebody that is part of a particular political movement that either doesn't promote or actively discriminates against reproduction,

you are a dying breed because your children would have more likely been like you and look at the groups that are reproducing. Like, something tells me that conservative Ashkenazi Jews are not going to have that much of a fertility problem, right? Something tells me that Mormons, or that some sects of Christianity, I know that some are down, but some sects of Christianity also going to be fine.

So what do you look at over a long enough time horizon? You actually look at this sort of, almost like full circle loop, back around to a much more, not necessarily pure-atannical, almost like full circle loop back around to a much more, not necessarily pure-atannical, but like a religious sacred view of what this is. And remember, if you are somebody that's conservative

or somebody that's religious, the likelihood that your children are going to be that way is it's absolutely not predetermined, but they are predisposed, right? So you end up with this sort of ever-increasing cycle of this. So there was a, there's an argument to be made, I think, that, you know, like anti-natal climate-concerned liberalism is not long for this world, right? It's not to say that you can't have a sufficiently

compelling ideology that comes around in 50 years time and reconverts a bunch of seventh generation conservatives or whatever. But yeah, you will end up with less demographic political variety over time if you have this because the selection effect occurs within particular cohorts within very particular strata and it presses down very hard on them. And the other ones are just like, what demographic collapse? I'm fine. Yeah, well, we also have some tremendous novelty coming up, which we have to bear in mind. I predict that the West will have a fourth sexual revolution, coinciding with the fourth industrial revolution. What will happen when we start being able to create babies outside of women's wombs, when we'll be able to gene edit, et cetera, et cetera, and we'll get AI robot lovers

and spouses, et cetera, et cetera. There's going to be such tremendous technological novelty that's going to change society, that it's almost inconceivable that this will not have a tremendous effect also on mating. So if we extrapolate into the future without taking that into account, yes, then the West, as it function, I would just made itself out of existence and other groups would take over who have higher fertility. But that doesn't seem to be the future we are facing. There will be so much change in the decades ahead, that it's very difficult to imagine how mating will be in the future. But I think that revolution will be so large that it will fundamentally change that aspect.

Like we talked about in the beginning, the foundation ever social order is mating. So then the question is, how will these new technologies affect how we mate and how will that create a new foundation for a new form of society? Yeah. Yeah. I suppose we are living maybe in the last death throws of something that even slightly resembles an ancestral mating system. As soon as you have external wounds, as soon as you have AI companions that can give you better than real life, the pod Hikiki Mori problem gets sorted, but it only gets sorted from the individual's perspective, from the population perspective, it's not sorted at all.

But then if you can counter that without official wooms, but then who is it that you're choosing like who's genes are you choosing to do this? And if you have, you know, embryos selection, which is already online, you know, embryos selection for IQ, for externalizing behavior, for depression, for anxiety, for autism, you already have this. And then if you can get into gene editing and then if you can get into IVG, it's like, okay, here's a section of the skin from my arm,

go forth and make one million Chris Williamson's, like, I would Jesus Christ, but yeah, it's a, maybe we are, maybe this is a uniquely interesting time, but I wonder whether some of the interventions that we are thinking about at the moment, you know, hungry, you have one kid and you do this thing and you have two kids and you get more taxes off and you have three kids and you don't pay taxes for life or Norway and the way that you guys 1.2 million that you give to women and you know, we need to get people to

do CBT to overcome approach anxiety and all of the rest of it, I wonder whether ultimately all of those things are going to be in vain within the space of five decades because the technology is just going to rip out anything that we try to construct using like, like cultural technology, ideological movement, or Hollywood Hollywood, why don't we get Hollywood to like put dads that are competent again at the front and we shouldn't have Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin as the lead, we should have like, you know, like a good stand up family guy.

And you're like, yeah, but if in five decades, it's artificial wombs and sex robots all the way down, but what does any of those interventions really matter? That's not to say that making the well-being and flourishing of people who live right now isn't nothing, but over a long enough time horizon, they all just get like someone shakes the etchish sketch and just deletes all mating history. Yeah, no, when you look at the history of Western mating, it's, I don't fear very much that we'll be returning to a handmade stale, pure kind of female oppressing regime. I think we're going to move forward in that we will experience a novel to a level that we, it's very difficult for us to imagine today.

So yeah, we can talk about it, we can speculate, but when we are at this side of these big revolutions, as we seem to be now, before we go into it and see how dramatically the world will change in this time, a lot more rapidly than with previous such revolutions, it's all we can do is mostly hold on. Like I don't believe that there, I love what you're doing with your podcast, but people can get informed and that's good, but that somehow we're going to figure something out, make a plan and then effectuate it and stuff the demographic collapse. That doesn't seem to be how the world works. It's just going to be a world win, a hurricane of change. And

then at the end of it, I think it would be really cool if we still have a bunch of humans around. I'm kind of, I'm a little bit specious that way, but things can play out in a matter of ways that are just impossible to predict on this side of the singularity. Yeah, yeah. It's the technological change. The size of the wall that occurs is so high that it's very difficult to have something permeate through it. And yeah, I totally agree. One of the other things that you do, your other wing, one of your other many other wings, an evolutionary lens on well-being.

And obviously we've had a lot of conversations recently about in cells and I only learned this from you in sings as well in voluntary singletons. Given your evolutionary lens background and your studies into well-being, what are you making of the generalized anxiety, depressive states, whatever it is, 50% of girls aged 12 to 16 have regular persistent feelings of hopelessness. You've got guys with testosterone in the toilet, the

single biggest threat to a man under the age of 50 is his own hands, you know, in terms of suicidality, all this sort of stuff. How do you conceptualize all of this together from a well-being perspective? Why are the in-sales and the in-sings and everybody else so unhappy? Yeah, I know that's something I think we should really be concerned with. We should try to change to all and make a better world,

but as we've spoken about, it's our ability to affect change that way, somewhat limited, but when we're going through these deep changes, as we are now, when we have before, people will face despair. They will lose faith in the story that has united us. We haven't yet found to moris ideology that will give us the answers and the comfort and lessen our anxiety. So we really should be sympathetic towards each other and that pain that people are suffering when we go through these changes because these changes are very hard on humans.

We like stable periods when we know, when we convince the self that we know what truth is. So when you look at in cells and instincts, you should expect them to, that they should be miserable. From an evolutionary perspective, happiness is a reward you experience when you solve adaptively relevant problems.

And nothing is more central to that activity than reproduction. So if you're not succeeding on short or long term mating markets, if you're not able to pair bond, your well-being system should go into high alert and let you know that your strategy is a failing. So when men become depressed and despondent from not succeeding on the shorter market and women become depressed and despondent because they know it is on modern dating markets,

they have unlimited access to sex with higher value men, but none of these men are willing to pair bond with them that is supposed to give you a depression. That's your organism telling you that you're failing. So instead of villainizing in-sell men or making fun of in-sing women, we should try to spread a better understanding. Here, your podcast is valuable. People need to understand the different made preferences that men and women have. They should understand the different power dynamics

in short and long-term mating mating and see how today's mating particularly With dating apps is creating a stratification that is creating this function for almost all groups of society or at least potentially So a better understanding of what is going on Might not help us tear this this clown car into safe shores, but it might Help us sympathize more more with each other's plights, especially between men and women because men and women have such different challenges in today's dating economy. And if we kind of, if men impose male-mate preferences in their analysis of how women

are doing an opposite, we just don't understand each other and that just creates bigger dysfunction, poorer communication, and people get even more miserable. How much of the current unhappiness do you think should be laid at the feet of mating and dating problems? Because there's lots of other things going on. Social media and comparison and intergenerational competition theory where we are the first generation that's not done better than our parents and so on and so forth. But how much of this do you think ultimately is just post-tock rationalization that I can't find a mate and romance seems to be dead and my partner might leave me at any point if the confluence no longer works?

It's a good question and I haven't seen any statistics that are able to get at it. It doesn't show up there, so we'll have to speculate. So in Norway now we have something called a men's panel. It's a big research project or more of a council that they're trying to figure out what men are falling behind. And you see this around the world. In the UK, they were talking about having a men's minister. It's been suggested, etc. And I know at least for this Norwegian effort, which by the way is the third in 15 years,

we've had to figure this out, they haven't figured it out anything previously. It's not even within their mandate to look at mating marginalization and the stratification that is happening on modern Denmark. It's just the thing that feels inappropriate to talk about. But especially when it comes to men, what one of the prime functions of having to sexes to have a sexual reproduction is the sexual selection where women select which men get to get to breed. So, males of all species have been under enormous pressure to succeed in this regard. That is the motivation. That is their reason of being at the deepest,

most foundational level. So we have reason to think that now that more and more men are being excluded from short and long term mating when they're being selected away by women because they are not valuable enough in the modern environment. We would predict that these men would do poor and poor. They would not be motivated to put in the effort because they have a sense of how hope it might not be a conscious sense, but that drive that men would have in other times when they had a better prospect of acquiring a mate, when that disappears,

we should expect male marginalization also in other areas of life and society. So that we're not looking at that, it's unfortunate because we would expect that to be the foundational level upon which this other malaise attaches to. But I haven't seen any statistics or research that allows me to assign a proportion of unhappiness to men being selected away from mating.

So I don't think that is possible. I think it's more a foundational aspect that it's really difficult to get at. Yeah, man. I mean, the fact that we're not tearing each other apart, I suppose, you know, when you look at the sadness and the depression and the hopelessness and stuff like that and a more obvious question would be how wouldn't we all feel like this? You know, so much change and and our adaptability is fundamentally one of the things that humanity has as its, you know, keystone advantage. But there's a limit, you know, dear God, there's a limit to how quickly the world can change and we can hold on for dear life. Yeah, yeah.

And yeah, I think it's so it's such a slippery slope, right? Because as soon as you say, well, the world is changing very quickly and we're not adapted for technology. Like the victimhood mindset just immediately seeps in, everything is out of my control. The locus of control gets externalized. That's associated with more depression. Therefore, people don't feel like they can enact any change. They're no longer agentic or sovereign individuals. You're like, oh, my God. So yeah, like trying to thread this needle between like compassion and encouragement is a really difficult one. And I mean, you know, all of this work on well-being that you're doing through an evolutionary lens must, it must feel like human well-being is kind of being just pulled apart. Yeah. And like you said, young women are doing

worse than young men. And what we see in the research that we're doing now is that this big change in well-being at least in Norway, Norway is doing better than most other countries. We're doing it. We're such a successful, we've been such a successful country in the past decades. So we were at the top of the world happiness report, but we're now slid down several spots. And this seems to be entirely because of this drastic reduction in well-being among young people, 15 to 24.

And we've made interviews with them. There's quantitative service of them, and we're doing positive interviews. And young people are feeling bad. And you have many aspects and social media seems to facilitate some of these mechanisms that drive ill being. The economy, fair of the future,

you have all kinds of things that are weighing on young people and it's very difficult to sort them and see what is what. But I think like you that the main driver now is that we are as a civilization in such a transformative time. It seems that we're moving out of this modern narrative of believing in liberal humanism that's peaked in the 1990s and that we in the last decade have lost more and more faith in. We don't know why we should cooperate. It's to America sliding apart.

We don't know which we should cooperate, is to America sliding apart, we don't know which future to strive for. We get these answers from this underlying story, which I refer to as a scientist master narrative, that story that gives meaning to everything and lets you know what is true or not, why you belong together, what you should strive for. And we've had these changes,

I've studied these changes of the past millennium and also further back. And when we get into these these deep mass and narrative transitions, it's really, really hard on the human psyche when we lose that narrative. We turn on each other, we get dispawned, we have anxiety, we feel terrible, and we lose faith in the future. But then every other time until now, we've always succeeded, we've always gotten out of it and we've found a new story. And now we seem to be transitioning into something that is perhaps a form of data, it's master narrative. And if we've succeed with this and we make it to the forced industrial revolution and we're able to unite and around this new narrative, then we could face a new golden age. The future could be very fantastic. But when we're in these transitions, it's a lot more easy to spot

What could go terribly terribly wrong instead? What was that study about the Norwegian generational happiness switch? Yeah, so Norwegians this Norwegian sort of called Norwegian Monitor, they've been serving happiness since 1985, and young people have always been the happiest, and old people have always been the least happy, which makes sense. Happiness is a reward you get when you succeed with reaching adaptive relevant goals, which young people have tons of, and when you're old you kind of don't have these goals anymore. So you would expect your happiness to go down on what's happened in the last since 2009 is that you had it incredibly sharp decline for the youngest and then for the also for the middle-aged and

this this this week Rise and happiness and and quite strong rise and satisfaction for the oldest generation for your tired people So the impression we get from talking to them is just that young people are becoming miserable and losing fate in the future. I don't think they will have good lives. There's so much, so many threats coming up while the old people are realizing that they just time their right life really well. So they have this newfound gratitude. They see that, all right, I might have 10, 15, 20 years left to live, and that'll probably be okay. The biggest changes won't come into life. So just have this, yeah, an amplified sense of having had a great life and that they should

be grateful for now getting out in time and having been with this post-World War II boom of economic prosperity, where life just got better and better and better. And now when it seems to turn, they're ready to check out in not too long. And this, they feel bad about their children and especially grandchildren. They feel really bad about them, but that doesn't seem to affect their quality of life. It just makes them more appreciative of their own lives. Oh, wow. Yeah, because you would think as grandchildren optimizing machines, you would have presumed that the impending uncertainty about the future

of our grandchildren could have negatively impacted our subjective well-being. But it seems like that's not the case. It seems like. What they say to us is that they sometimes stay awake at night because they feel so bad about their grandchildren and they're a little bit surprised and have a little bit of bad conscience for it,

but it doesn't reduce their quality of life. So yeah, they just get this, a much stronger sense of satisfaction than the somewhat stronger sense of happiness from now seeing how future generations will struggle while they will not. Right. Okay, so do you believe that comparing yourself to the generation that came before you

and your level of success or wellbeing, is that a big determinant of wellbeing? Yeah, you have to separate a little bit different aspects of wellbeing. Reconcept our wellbeing plus meaning, happiness plus meaning equals well-being. So happiness is this solving adaptive relevant problem for yourself as an individual. And that is inherently relative. You have a comparison group, and if you're doing better than your comparison group, you experience a sense of happiness temporarily. And if you're diverse, you have a temporarily sense of unhappiness.

So that's one of the reasons why social media has been so destructive, we believe, for young people's happiness because it's just exploded their comparison group. Before you compare yourself to your parents in your local community, now you compare yourself to the Kardashians and people that fly private jets on YouTube, and suddenly your life is not that great anymore. Relatively. So, yeah, happiness is an inherently relative assessment. Yeah, what's that quote?

Comparison is the thief of joy. It seems like it's actually the undercomparison is the underpinning of happiness or dissatisfaction. Yeah, no, so if you... That's one of the reasons why altrchrism and doing voluntary work, working with refugees or people who are worse off, that has a strong effect also on your happiness. It reminds you just how far you could have fallen and you're not. Yeah, it recalibrates your comparison group in a beneficial way. Wow. So a good intervention for well-being is to remind yourself of just how the myriad of

different ways that things could have gone wrong or all of the people from your past that had things that weren't as good as you. I mean, is that famous? It's either Aristotle or Aralius that says, the things that you now take for granted were ones that you once only wished of having, right? In the past, in the past you only wanted to have this thing and today you walk past it without even looking at it twice. It's the same thing with mating audiologists.

All of these mating audiologists come with a utopia that we think if we can just get this utopia, it's gonna be amazing. And then when we finally get the mating agile, implement the utopia, we discover things like life love doesn't last forever. Being a stay at home mom isn't paradise. So yeah, we keep striving for it. We make a better and better society. And once we get it, we accustom to it and we come up with new utopias. I had this idea for a little while reflecting on my own life, especially in my 20s when I started getting into self development and personal growth, that I was able to ameliorate my own feelings of insufficiency as long as I was doing personal growth and self development, because I think the subtext of what it taught me was, I might not feel like I'm worthy enough right now, but if I'm half a percent better tomorrow, maybe tomorrow is actually the day when I will finally,

and if you just continue to keep yourself on this hamster wheel, it kind of, it's a salve, right? It kind of papers over the cracks of perhaps deeper issues that you need to deal with. Like, I don't have a good sleep and wake pattern, or I'm not, I don't have people around me that I can talk to, or whatever the reason is that you're dissatisfied with life. But yeah, I see in a lot of the self-development community, people using the promise of a better tomorrow as a plaster that, or band-aid that they can place over the feelings of insufficiency

that they have today. Yeah, well, theoretically, the optimal recipe for a happy life is that you should start out as low in society as you can without being traumatized by it and then make gradual progress throughout your life and reach as high as you can. Because as long as you keep doing better than you used to, you get this happiness reward. So if you want objective success being born at the top of society is the best, but if your parents are beautiful, successful, millionaires, you probably won't be. And that you're not going to be happy.

So there's something to getting that even progress. And then in addition to that, you need a couple of crises that you take yourself out of through your own resources. Okay. Yeah. Well, I mean, so much, so much interesting stuff there. First off, I have a lot of friends who are self-made successes, millionaires, one billionaire. And I ask them both about their intentions for their children, because I know that what they valued during their upbringing was very

heavily their challenges that had to overcome, you know, this sort of working class grit, spitten, sawdust mentality. But if they do that to their children, what the fuck was the point of working this hard in any case, to not give them the benefits of the resources and the livelihood that you worked so hard to be able to afford them? But then if you give it to them, you're condemning them to a life of inferiority, unless you're going to have like multi-generational, self-made billionaires. Like, that's also pretty unlikely. So that's tough.

Eddie Hearn, the famous boxing promoter from the UK, said beautifully conceptualize this. And he said, his dad made, his father made the boxing organization that he's a part of. And his father had had an awful lot of success. And then Eddie came in and took it to new heights, made it bigger than ten hundred times bigger than it ever was and did all the rest of the things. And somebody asked, like, if you could go back

and change anything, what would you change? And he said, I never got to do it first. That it always felt like he was living in his father's shadow that the new frontier was never broken by Eddie. It was always broken by his father. And it's evident that he lives with this pain of the echo of it. I mean, dude, the fucking drummer from Mega Death, you know, the story of Metallica, so originally Metallica's drummer got kicked out or left the back. I think he got kicked out of the band. So he decides to go and start a new band called Mega Death. Mega Death goes on to be one of probably the top 10 metal bands in history, but they're not Metallica. And in interview, this interview of my house

made sites all the time, this guy, still with, you know, one of the most successful metal bands in history, always has this gap between what he could have been and what he was. So yeah, it's very much not an objective assessment of our position. It's very much a relative assessment of our predicament. I also had this idea kind of place off the back of this, that one potential strategy that you can go through that would be maybe adaptive is, let's say, there are ceilings to the level of status and resources and claim and whatever that you're going to reach in life. There is only one richest guy in the planet, and once you hit that, there is no further

to go. It is kind of a zero-sum game in terms of the rank order in some regard. And presuming that you're going to reach asymptote, right? And top out at some point, I wonder whether there is an argument to be made that actually stretching out the progression and the development of your material acquisition, like winning the lottery could be one of the worst things

that could ever happen to you because it's such a huge step change. It's like, all right, and now how, how slow is the development from this new couple of million dollar that I previously never had wealth going to be, as opposed to if you were able to regularly and consistently move 5% per year toward whatever the end financial goal is. So yeah, it made me think about how people that achieve rapid success may end up, it's called gold medal syndrome from Olympians, right? It's like I finally did the thing. Now what? And I wonder whether, yeah, I wonder whether there's an equivalent for slow life strategy. Well, well, they're, they're the good news is that

there's this other source of well-being. I we conceptualize well-being is happiness plus meaning equals well-being. So happiness is what you can succeed as an individual. Meaning is what you do for your community, what you do for other people. So when you see that very successful business people when they get to a certain point in their life with success, they start becoming philanthropists, they start doing charity, they start working for others. And happiness is limited, there are limits to how happy you can be, how much well-being you can get out of that. But there seems to be no limits to how much well-being you can get from working for others. That meaning part of the equation can potentially be a lot, lot higher. You can, for instance, see with suicide bombers and revolutionaries that they are, they derive so much meaning for working for a cause and ideals that they believe in, that they're

willing to sacrifice their own life. This is called the devoted actor theory within evolution in psychology. So that is when this meaning quest becomes pathological. So what you're thinking instead of spacing your billions out through life, at some point, when you have enough individualistic success, start working for other people, start making other people feel better. Then you will get a sense of meaning. One thing is you'll get more happiness from recalibrating your comparison group, but

you'll get this satisfaction that has as number one, it can be a lot more intense than happiness potentially, but also it's more enduring. Happiness is a temporary reward, it goes up and then it goes down, meaning seems to accumulate over a lifetime. So as people get older, once they've had enough individual success, if they want to keep flourishing and feeling well, then working for the good of others is a very beneficial strategy. Depends a little bit on your personality, but most people benefit a lot from working for others. Man, I've been enthralled today. This has been absolutely fantastic. We met each other at HBES what, five months ago, six months ago, four months ago,

something like that. I've been very much looking forward to this. This absolutely completely delivered so much new stuff that I've never learned before. I really, really appreciate the insight. Let's run this back, man. Let's find more things that we need to talk about. I really, really enjoyed it. Where should people go? They want to keep up to date with you and the work that you do. Why should you send them on the internet? I have nowhere to send them right now. Maybe you can place that polygonons article I wrote in the description under the video. I'm working on two books. I have completed one that I'm hoping to get published soon. And then I'm finishing up another one on this history of mating. I have

one chapter left to write. And then I will submit that to publishers. I'll hopefully at some point in the future. I will have some books to offer. And I would very much like for people to read those. But at the moment, yeah, they can also go to Google Scholar and put my name there and they'll get up a bunch of articles that I've written. Mate, when you are ready to publish that book, it's going to do unbelievably well. I love these insights. Thank you very much again for your time and I'm looking forward to speaking to you next time.

Thank you so much, Chris. It's been wonderful. I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much Chris. It's been wonderful. I really enjoyed it. Thank you