I've read both of them (actually, I've read the former before this was posted).
The problem with the second article is the belief that conservative patriarchy was and is still the only way to sustain/grow population levels. This can problematic in an anthropological angle (there are still debates among anthropologists over how some prominent ancient societies were more matriarchial than we've realized), but more importantly I find this belief limiting our imagination as to the various ways in how humanity can manage to have and nurture kids. Familial values aren't only compatible with patriarchy, it can also mesh well with matriarchy (The fertility of women becoming important can also lead to women having more power over men, vice-versa). And is family the only way we can have childcare? Maybe we might have a society where everyone collectively cares each other's kids? What would happen if we have artificial wombs, wouldn't it significantly lower the barrier to having offspring? Obviously the hyper-individualism induced in our current configuration of capitalism is a huge cause for the fertility crisis, but I don't think old rehashed conservative values are the only solution for this individualism.
Now the first article (written by Nick Land), is much more nuanced, and doesn't strictly limit itself to patriarchy being an 'ultimate' evolutionary destiny. It's trying to dissecting the historical dynamics of population inside cities and between other cities (as a global phenomenon), and plotting the future trajectory of political theory from there. It states a fundamental problem of modernity which I can maybe agree with (although I have other problems with the author in general, mainly him also frequently spouting out right-wing reactionary politics)
The problem with the second article is the belief that conservative patriarchy was and is still the only way to sustain/grow population levels. This can problematic in an anthropological angle (there are still debates among anthropologists over how some prominent ancient societies were more matriarchial than we've realized), but more importantly I find this belief limiting our imagination as to the various ways in how humanity can manage to have and nurture kids. Familial values aren't only compatible with patriarchy, it can also mesh well with matriarchy (The fertility of women becoming important can also lead to women having more power over men, vice-versa). And is family the only way we can have childcare? Maybe we might have a society where everyone collectively cares each other's kids? What would happen if we have artificial wombs, wouldn't it significantly lower the barrier to having offspring? Obviously the hyper-individualism induced in our current configuration of capitalism is a huge cause for the fertility crisis, but I don't think old rehashed conservative values are the only solution for this individualism.
Now the first article (written by Nick Land), is much more nuanced, and doesn't strictly limit itself to patriarchy being an 'ultimate' evolutionary destiny. It's trying to dissecting the historical dynamics of population inside cities and between other cities (as a global phenomenon), and plotting the future trajectory of political theory from there. It states a fundamental problem of modernity which I can maybe agree with (although I have other problems with the author in general, mainly him also frequently spouting out right-wing reactionary politics)