“Until further notice, we must live recognizably as we were created. Our task is not to ascend infinitely toward heaven or bring it ever closer down to earth, nor to escape into the Creator or into creation, but to remain ourselves indefinitely.”
—James Poulos, Human Forever: The Digital Politics of Spiritual War—
✦✦✦
The Dark Future Of Porn this article is titled. In contrast to what… pornography’s bright present?
Of course not.
Despite what advocates and those who profit off of pornography say about its supposed harmlessness or even healthiness, awareness is growing of the tremendous psychological and physiological damage porn inflicts on young men (and young women, though at a lesser percentage).
And this is not merely because the type of sex depicted in most pornography is domination and/or degradation, and hence, as the argument goes, “all we need to make pornography less damaging is to make porn videos that depict more affectionate and consent-based scenarios.” No, this goes far beyond the liberal cause du jours of anti-objectification and “enthusiastic ongoing consent”, because it’s not just that regular porn consumption increases sexual aggression in men (which it does). It’s that a multitude of studies and self-reports by users raise a correlation between porn consumption and erectile dysfunction, increasing inability to become aroused, loss of impulse control, and even diminished testosterone and sperm quality.
Unsurprisingly what occurs downstream from these problems are failed relationships and marriages, decreased interest in pursuing real sexual encounter, and in extreme cases social ostracism; which then causes the sufferer to seek respite thereby reinforcing the porn addiction. Because what is the origin of addiction? Addiction stems from an attempt to fill an emotional void. So porn addiction over a short time becomes an extremely vicious cycle that has to be starved in order to be defeated.
Yet despite this heavy cost associated with free unlimited pornography consumption, data from the National Institute of Health reveals that 91% of men (and 60% of women) in the United States consume pornography at least once a month.
The solution is as simple as it is controversial: porn should not fall under First Amendment protection, and a society that cares about the health of the family unit, reducing sexual abuse, increasing or maintaining its population, and encouraging men to become positive role models in their communities, should outlaw the production of visual porn while promoting rehab clinics for its addicts that are just the same as rehab programs for other drugs. (Yes, yes… I know that even a specific legal definition of pornography has vexed anti-porn campaigners in the past. But surely a nation which invented scotch tape and sent a guy to the moon can come up with a happy medium definition of “visual pornography” that allows us to watch Bridgerton but prevents us from watching Gag Me Harder Stepbrother 2.)
While the tiny libertarian still left in me insists that most addictive vices should not be crimes (e.g. smoking, drinking, gambling, junk food), due to many of us not wanting to live under a nanny state and due to my having an instinctive anger toward Safetyism, the devastating and thorough effects pornography has had—not just upon addicts, but upon the thousands of trafficking victims coerced into performing—warrants a prohibition approach. (And before a bigger libertarian predictably chimes in that “People will still watch it”, they can note that this understanding has not stopped us from keeping child pornography illegal. It’s almost as if a society’s laws are not only about regulating behavior, but also about setting in stone the moral ideals to which a society’s citizens ought to aspire.)
So, with all of this being said… what bleaker set of circumstances could I possibly be referring to when I talk about porn’s “dark future”?
Since the last decade of the 20th century, our tendency as modern humans has been to employ new technological innovations primarily as a means of increasing sexual gratification first, before any other purpose:
When the average American home acquired access to the world wide web (around 1996-97), the majority of internet content (83%) was not quirky fact indexes, wholesome kids websites, badly-pixelated videos of cats doing funny things, or even AOL chat logs. 83% of early internet content was pornographic photos.
When video streaming technology emerged in the early-2000s, the primary industry that drove its development were not the new entertainment companies Netflix or YouTube but was, you guessed it, the porn industry.
When the iPhone was released in 2007, and touchscreen apps along with it, one of the first apps to be released was an app called Zoosk, which—while not the first online dating service (that honor belongs to Match.com, 1995)—was nevertheless the first service that gave users the ability to find men or women in their proximity. Predictably, “dating” was seen as code by most users for booty calling strangers at 2 in the morning.
In the same manner, artificial intelligence and robotics will be further developed in the service of creating a virtual erotic “reality” so compelling, that human beings will no longer wish to pursue sexual unions in the real world with real people. And because of our tendency to employ new technology as a means for increasing sexual gratification first, the introduction of AI and robotics will—unlike in the aforementioned cases past—actually chain react or “branch out” into a whole host of non-erotic arenas that could wreck havoc on our species. That is, by closing the distance between man and machine in order to maximize hedonistic pleasure, a Pandora’s Box will be opened where AI + robotics will bear consequences far beyond sex. Think of it as our Anti-Renaissance.
But first let’s get to the sex.
Imagine an AI-generated “person” that is everything you want in a companion. And not everything you say you want or think you want, but everything in a person you actually want. Because you grant the algorithm the ability to comb through all of your past interactions, all of your past searches, and all of your past purchases for functionality sake, your AI-partner can know better than you exactly who you are, with precision a thousand times better than the best FBI profiler. What’s more, during the first interaction, where your virtual partner will be configured to “anticipate” or “predict” your every want, the AI will study your facial expressions, your breathing and heart rate, your hand movements (mind out of the gutter), and from just these things will be able to determine your personality, your neuroses, your hopes, your mood swings, and your conditions for arousal.
For some, keeping this AI-partner on a screen will be enough. But many others will want to go beyond seeing this person on a screen, and with a VR headset synced with sensors placed around their body, they can “touch” their AI-partner and “receive” touch. And if VR and sensors don’t provide enough in the way of physicality, the customer can add a robotic body to their order, and the sensors and VR headset will sync to the movements of the robot, so the customer can lay in bed and eat at the table next to their dream person. At the helm of this innovation, the porn industry—already generating $97 billion a year—will grow their revenue to rival the GDP of large countries. And whereas men today are still likely to become embarrassed if their porn habit becomes known to their friends or family, especially if said porn habit gets in the way of their meeting a spouse, the men of this “new tomorrow” will instead become angry if friends or family suggest that their indulgence in “hyper-pornography” is not equal in value to bringing a girl home to mom.
Lest you think this vision will remain confined to some Isaac Asimov-meets-Black Mirror speculative fiction, you should know some of this is already happening.
In Japan, a worrying number of men under 30 are eschewing relationships and dating with real women (to say nothing of marriage) in favor of artificial companionship. A Tokyo man marries a hologram in a box, and none of his humiliated relatives attend the wedding. Another man marries a life-size doll and takes it shopping with him. 250,000 men join a Japanese AI dating app called LovePlus (slogan: “Where every match is guaranteed”?) This comes at a time when 30% of Japanese citizens are over 65, and the population is projected to dip from today’s number of 125 million to 60 million by 2100 (assuming birthrates remain the same over that period of time, when in fact there is every cultural indicator to suggest the rate will dip further; leaving it an open question whether there will be any Japanese at all in 200 years). In response, the government says it is contemplating “extreme measures”. If we in the West were paying any attention to this, we would immediately note that our post-sexual revolution ethos of “letting people do whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting anybody” eventually hurts everybody.
And now for the segue. The “branching out” of AI, virtual reality, and robotics into non-sexual arenas.
Yes, this begins as pornography, but as we see with Japan, the potential of AI-companions goes well beyond simple lust. An AI-partner has the potential to be: a maid, a therapist, a best friend, or a substitute for an absent (or even merely disliked) parent. And this will make all kinds of human relationships—not just sexual ones—impossible. Impossible because real human relationships require pain, patience, sacrifice, killing of the ego, forgiveness, and a willingness to admit when you’re wrong… all impulses that we as humans try to avoid anyway, and which an AI-companion would not require of us. But even more disturbing, AI-companions open the door to Westworld-ian interactions for the “niche” consumers whom we would not want to meet in a dark alley. The wannabe rapist can enjoy a “victim”, the wannabe tyrant can enjoy a “slave”, the wannabe sadist can enjoy a “kill”. The sordid potentialities are as endless as the depraved human imagination itself.
“Okay, yeah, sure, when artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and robotics become common use, of course pornography is going to lead the way. But I’m having a hard time seeing how exactly these innovations branching out into non-sexual arenas will ‘wreck havoc’ on our species. Even with the examples you’ve just listed.”
Because I haven’t even gotten to the iceberg in front of the Titanic yet.
Imagine an AI-child.
Let’s say you and your partner want to have a kid, but you’re both afraid of the typical things most couples are afraid of while contemplating parenthood: fear of being a bad parent, fear of having a difficult kid, fear of a kid killing your romantic life with your spouse, fear of keeping your child alive in the years where they are totally dependent on you. For all of history, this left a couple with two options: either taking the leap and seeing what was on the other side by having the kid, or deciding that the potential drawbacks weren’t worth the risk and choosing not to have kids. This binary choice—while brutal in terms of the finality of whichever choice is made—works for the good of the species precisely because it forces couples to undergo an evaluative process befitting the importance of creating real human life.
Unfortunately AI, virtual reality, and robotics are soon to provide a third option that neutralizes this evaluative process.
In the not-so-distant future, with 23 & Me-style technology, you and your partner can send in your DNA samples, and a company will plug that DNA into a software; on the software’s screen is a digital womb where you and your partner can watch your “child” form, grow, and be born. You and your partner can then “raise it” on a separate open world platform (think Sims on steroids), but whenever you get tired of the “baby”, like any game, you can power off. No sleepless nights. No money spent on diapers. All of the ups of having a child and none of the downs. All the emotional attachment with none of the heartbreak and fear. The child grows, and interacts with you, and plays with other AI-kids and befriends them; but whenever the brat becomes a nuisance, you can simply log off. Your “kid” is only sentient when you want them to be. And if that’s not physical enough for the customer’s satisfaction, then, just like the AI-adult companion, “parents” can order a robotic body, attach their VR headset and sensors, and it will look and feel as if a real child is in their home.
This would allow couples to reap all of the emotional rewards of being a parent while doing none of the real work actual parents do. All while one country after another faces annual births that fall far below replacement rate.
Because my faith rests with a God who says He will renew this world in His own time (and we—the living and the dead—in it), I will not agree with those who rush to call the AI revolution an extinction level event. But I don’t think they’re far off. I think there’s a real possibility that the number of human beings in 200-300 years could drastically plummet. Perhaps even to pre-Industrial Revolution levels of 800 million to a billion. Not solely due to AI, of course, but also due to anti-natalist movements, vanishing middle classes in Western countries, outbreaks of new viruses, increases in wars and proxy wars, and a persistent global loneliness epidemic.
And yet, a decline in the overall human population or the collapse of the population of any one country, is not the greatest evil that would result from orienting AI, robotics, and VR toward sexual gratification. There’s a spiritual dimension to technology-as-pleasure-path that corresponds with a decline in material conditions in the West. That is, as our vital infrastructure and basic social etiquette crumble around us while wages stagnate and the cost of living rises, interactive tech becomes the sole place wherein we seek refuge. And the “spiritual dimension” to this is the process in which digital space causes humans to identify more with the Self Online than the Physical Self, when the soul only resides in the latter and not the former.
In his 2021 book Human Forever: The Digital Politics of Spiritual War, Claremont Institute fellow James Poulos talks about Silicon Valley’s program of “mental terraforming”; where tech companies seek to detach persons not only from their core national, regional, familial, and religious identities, but to detach persons from memory. By “memory”, Poulos is referring to the conception of ourselves we had before our personal involvement with digital space. Through relinquishing the power to be the sole keepers of our memories, social media sites (and later the AI/VR matrix) are granted consent to re-organize, re-contextualize, and even remove record of our milestones; which in turn mold our personalities to their agendas. The two-fold tragedy of this is that for people born 2005 and after, there has never been a conception of the self that’s existed before digital space. And what that lack of a pre-digital or extra-digital identity means, is that the next generation is extremely susceptible to manipulation (erotic and otherwise) via artificial companions.
As Joe Allen writes in his review of the book for The Federalist:
“Our social landscape is reconfigured according to the influence of digital devices and those who control them. By extracting our data and mining our private moments for profit and power, Silicon Valley titans, shadowy third-parties, and intelligence agencies are creating detailed models of our personalities—one by one—manipulating us to conform to their ideal simulation. In the aggregate, this process is creating a new type of human being: experimental subjects in a ‘cyborg vivarium’. The electric phantasms that enshroud our minds, Poulos argues, stoke the imagination while eroding our memory. This lost memory is not limited to mere recall, which has certainly been outsourced to our devices. Rather, the delusional state sustained by digital culture has separated us from our own biographies and deep cultural lineage. This digital culture, dead and soulless, freezes our development in a perpetual present, with vapid fantasies of the future flickering on the edge of our screens.”
To perform the usual throat clearing, this isn’t of course to suggest that technology is itself inherently wicked. (As if anybody has ever argued that it is. And in any case, without the internet, how else could I type in “fat people falling” or “clerk fights gas station robber” and enjoy hours of quality video entertainment?) No, my suggestion instead is that “simulation reality technology” specifically can be weaponized by corporations and governments to distract new serfs from their surrounding physical conditions and dissuade them from cultivating a beneficial deep religious and intellectual character.
So… what do we do?
We batten down the hatches, that’s what we do.
And I hate that, because it’s not aggressive. It doesn’t take the fight to this kind of thing. But to be honest, any sort of Neo-Luddism or attempt at convincing society to refrain from using certain technologies (or at least be skeptical of the proposed “good” of certain technologies) is to piss in the wind. Truly all we are left with, I think, is to batten down the hatches.
No more apathy about architecture. No more apathy about literature. No more apathy about music or film or painting. No more apathy about religion. No more apathy about anything, in fact. You can’t afford it. Apathy is bourgeois. Apathy was a luxury of secular generations that got to feed off the remaining nutrients of a Judeo-Christian carcass still fresh; but we’re in the skeleton now - exposed. And there is no way to bring the carcass back to life Ezekiel-style.
To “batten down the hatches”, then, in the context of No Apathy, is to embrace Morris Berman’s monastic option.
That is, just as the monks who emerged from the rubble of fallen Rome carefully preserved philosophy, scripture, aesthetics, poetry, music, and virtuous culture, slowly reviving as they went a West retaken by pagan barbarians who were very unlike their Greek counterparts, so we too (as a conservative minority) must—in a sense—keep our own “Roman” culture’s increasing degeneracy in the periphery of our minds, and turn our homes into “mini monasteries” that focus solely on identifying and preserving all that is Good, True, and Beautiful; preserving what is Good, True, and Beautiful so that when our culture finally does collapse into ash, there are planted seeds ready to sprout and thicken and become the new ecosystem.
This style of renuncio saeculo entails a few undertakings that will almost certainly earn us the honorable distinction of being odd ducks: It means giving our children a classical education and not a government one. It means building a home library. It means encouraging solemnity and majesty in our worship services over “relevance” and “relatability”. It means extolling the value of silence over chaotic noise. It means reading the Torah or Christian Bible daily, and not just alone but with our families, and giving copies of Marcus Aurelius to our sons and daughters when they turn 18 and leave home. It also means being somewhat abrasive when we are confronted by belligerent moderns without our asking for it:
Refusing to use “preferred pronouns”. Because gender is not “assigned at birth”, it is assigned by God. A trans-man will always be a woman. A trans-woman will always be a man. Crossdressing does not reverse Heavenly mandate.
Blaming crime on criminals and not on circumstances or environment. Because free will is real, we are all responsible for our actions, and each individual must be held accountable for actions that infringe upon the property or physical safety of their neighbor (regardless of the perpetrator’s ethnicity, previous traumas, socioeconomic status, or sexual identity).
Declaring that we are proud of the historical figures we are constantly told to be ashamed of: founding fathers, explorers, generals, etc. Because sinlessness is not a prerequisite for greatness. The boldest and best of men always have a dark side that they wrestle with, and those who have achieved much in history simply do not deserve criticism from those who have achieved nothing in the present.
Insisting that “empathy” not only is not the ultimate virtue, but—as I’ll discuss in a later article—is an impostor virtue. A false virtue inferior to the authentic virtues of resilience, truth, bravery, loyalty, justice, and order. “Empathy” is not the noble cry of the compassionate, but the parasitic squeal of weak-minded civilization-hating ingrates. Empathy is not the force that tears down the Berlin Wall, it is the force that flings wide the gates of Troy.
Praising natural human beauty, coming to terms with the reality that there are winners and losers in the genetic lottery, labeling cosmetic plastic surgery a form of self-abuse, and being an example to proceeding generations that the way to grow old is to do so gracefully.
And the common theme of expressing all of these things is what?
Naming the real and naming the unreal. Pointing to the emperors who have no clothes. Being fully gloriously reactionary.
Which in turn will equip us emotionally to deal with the AI/VR “parallel pleasure world” when it finally does come.
But I would also advise American conservatives with a wider array of options and better income than most to consider something else in addition to the above: leaving the United States entirely. Watching the collapse from afar. (Especially if you’re a single man or woman who is looking for a serious partner to start a family with, but are unimpressed with Uncle Sam’s bounty of stunted misfits. Other countries with traditional cultures are overflowing with people who, like you, believe in true love and don’t believe in divorce, abortion, or adultery.)
Inevitably some will see this as “giving up” on the culture war. But what if you thought of it, not as giving up, but rather as leaving a country that no longer wants you and helping (by your “witness”) other conservative societies shore up their defenses? In a way it’s a good battle strategy. While woke elites weaken with ideology and pornography the land we once knew as home, conservatives move abroad as “warning missionaries” to nations with traditional cultures to immunize and prevent the spread of the cancer. Yucatan, the Philippines, Argentina, Singapore, they’re all great this time of year. And if you’re as much a lover of those “broody” European winters as I am, with the enchanted forests and haunted castles and howling windy mountains—but don’t particularly care for the leftwing politics that plagues most of the continent—I hear property prices in Orban’s Hungary, Meloni’s Italy, and Morawiecki’s Poland are a dream. And then… after the U.S. has succumbed to its self-inflicted mortal wounds… our catechized classically-educated children or children’s children can move back and take dominion. In this light, would a mass exodus of American conservatives to other destinations be “giving up”, or playing a brilliant long game?
