the most interesting aspect of the closet picks series is that you can easily tell who the true artist is and is in love with their craft (passionate about what they do) vs. who is just a nepo baby whose whole life has been engineered since childhood to get into the big league
If you study human nature long enough, you begin to see that most people aren’t malicious, they’re simply inconsistent, impulsive, or ruled by emotions they refuse to understand; once you accept this, disappointment turns into clarity instead of bitterness.
Men dislike traveling today for a number of reason:
1. Everything is the same now, due to smartphones and globalism.
While this isn't exactly true, it's directionally correct. The differences are so diminished that the cost isn't worth it.
2. Everything has lost its romantic appeal via exposure.
We've seen more of the world via the internet and... it's pretty ugly. Familiarity has, in fact, bred contempt.
Instead of seeing distinct and interesting people, we basically see the entire world now as a global slum. That's why some people use the term "global browns" or similar. They see the traveling the world as akin to going to the ghetto, on purpose, and at great expense.
3. Airplane and boat travel are terrible, even in first class, and everything's a tourist trap now.
4. Traveling now doesn't feel like an adventure (which men like). Instead, it feels like an expensive way for women to get pictures for Instagram.
Men do want to conquer. Traveling just doesn't entail that anymore.
Having said that, there is a category of men who are just timid. That's another matter.
We think the collapse in birth rates is a modern problem. It is not. The most powerful man in the world once faced the exact same thing, and he was so alarmed he passed laws to force his people to have children.
This was not a modern government: it was Rome 2000 years ago...
The emperor was Augustus, and by his reign the Roman elite had grown wealthy, comfortable, and reluctant to marry or raise families. Men preferred bachelorhood and affairs to the burden of a wife and children.
Augustus found it alarming enough to legislate. Around 18 BC and again in AD 9, he pushed through the Lex Julia and the Lex Papia Poppaea, a sweeping set of laws designed to engineer a baby boom by decree.
The measures were direct: unmarried men and childless couples faced penalties on what they could inherit. Those who married and had children were rewarded with faster careers and public honors. Women who bore three or more children were granted a special legal freedom, the ius trium liberorum, the "right of three children," releasing them from male guardianship.
The state was, quite literally, paying its citizens to reproduce and fining them when they did not.
It didn't work...
The laws were resented, evaded, and endlessly tinkered with, and Rome's elite went on having small families anyway. The historian Cassius Dio records Augustus standing before the childless men of Rome and shaming them to their faces: "You are committing murder in not begetting in the first place those who ought to be your descendants." A city, he warned them, is not its buildings but its people: "For it is human beings that constitute a city, not houses or porticos or market-places empty of men."
Now look at the numbers today. For a population simply to hold steady, women need to average about 2.1 children each. South Korea recently hit 0.72, the lowest rate ever recorded for any country on earth, and even after a small rebound to 0.8 in 2025, it remains less than half of what a country needs to sustain itself. Italy and Japan sit near 1.2, China around 1.0, Spain near 1.1. The United States is about 1.6, the United Kingdom 1.5. According to the UN, more than half the world's countries are now below that line.
History doesn't repeat itself, the saying goes, but it often rhymes, and this pattern is old and eerily familiar. A society climbs to the height of its wealth and comfort, and at that very peak its people stop having children, and no law, no incentive, no sum of money seems able to talk them back into it.
Rome tried, with the full power of an empire behind it, and failed. At its height the city held more than a million people, a size no European city would reach again for 1700 years, until London in the 1800s.
The Roman historian Livy, writing as the Republic gave way to the empire, said his was an age that "can endure neither its vices nor their cure." Two thousand years later, staring at the same problem and just as unable to solve it, we may be watching the beginning of the same story...
A civilization does not always fall to an enemy at the gates. As the historian Arnold J. Toynbee once said: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”
have you ever noticed how beautiful people compliment, happy people celebrate other people’s wins, multilingual people don’t mock someone’s accent, educated people share what they know, and confident people don’t feel the need to compete? secure people inspire instead of trying to make others feel small.
Be generous with allies, civil with strangers, and unmovable with enemies. Most men reverse this, ruthless with the people close to them, overly generous with strangers, passive toward people working against them.
telling your brain "i know you don't wanna do the thing and it'll be very uncomfortable for you at first but you can do it buddy. it'll be fine" is actually surprisingly effective. it sounds too simple but that fuckass organ WILL listen to you if you treat it with kindness lol
have you ever noticed that beautiful people give compliments, happy people celebrate the success of others, multilingual people don’t mock someone else’s accent, educated people share their knowledge, and confident people don’t compete... they inspire!
The best way to honour someone who did a lot for you but regressed into someone you can no longer respect, is to remember the best version of them and be thankful for what they did for you. Even if they ultimately failed you, they gave you a great gift as proof of their love.