The Baby Bust Generation

[Pook]

As a Pook, streams of newstories and information run past my eyes everyday. Science reports, demigraphic information, speeches, columns, etcetera.

Years ago, I mentioned population decline. The response: "Noooo! Pook is just flapping his mouth! Nooo! If there is any fall in fertility, it must be due to insidious chemicals!"

It's become very clear to me that the 21st century will revolve around sexuality. I'm very optimistic because society and culture must re-evaluate what they always considered to be sexuality. Already, 'what is marriage' is being debated. Other issues will follow.

It is my hope that romanticism (of the nice guy and other varieties) will be wiped out. Maybe, just maybe, it will be understood that many people are following the philosophies of Rousseau but don't realize it (feminism, gender theorists, etc.)

At first, 'population decline' seemed like an interesting issue, like a fun conversation starter.

Now, its become realized as a serious issue.

The question now is whether or not it is a temporary problem, as the baby boom generation dies off will the birth rate then be more than the death rate?

This is a political juggernaut that is going to smash ideological lines and traditional arguments. What are governments going to do when there are more older people than younger people? What happens to those Social Security type programs? Can the government declare compelling interest and null Supreme Court decisions like Griswold vs. Connecticut? Well, I don't think that would ever happen, but governments are already clamoring to do 'something'.

Remember George Bernard Shaw's play "Man and Superman" with Scene III called: 'Don Juan in Hell'? In it, Don Juan was in 'hell' and he debates the devil. In the end, Don Juan goes to heaven because he discovers that to be truly free, one must obey life and the life force.

http://www.bigeye.com/donjuan.htm <--- Read it if you haven't. It blasts romanticism, the stuff that makes nice guys.

At one point, Don Juan says, (bold will be my emphasis)

Man will not take it at that price: he demands the romantic delights of your hell whilst he is still on earth. Well, the means will be found: the brain will not fail when the will is in earnest. The day is coming when great nations will find their numbers dwindling from census to census; when the six roomed villa will rise in price above the family mansion; when the viciously reckless poor and the stupidly pious rich will delay the extinction of the race only by degrading it; whilst the boldly prudent, the thriftily selfish and ambitious, the imaginative and poetic, the lovers of money and solid comfort, the worshippers of success, of art, and of love, will all oppose to the Force of Life the device of sterility.

Shaw's prediction certainly has come to pass. I have a folder on my computer I call the 'black folder' which I save all these stories into.

Before, I used to see one about a month. Months ago, they became almost daily. Now, I am seeing multiple ones a day.

For example, here are three randomly articles I fopund today.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/04/1081017033541.html

"According to the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, 9 per cent of men aged 30 to 34 live with their parents. This disturbing fact lies at the core of the fertility crisis threatening to overwhelm Western society."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/04/1081017031550.html

"Australia has an unsustainable declining average birth rate of 1.8 children per lifetime. This is the manifestation of crucial individual decisions relating to the most private sphere of people's lives — their love interests, their parenting aspirations and their search for a soul mate."

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=6334

"Besides the issue of maintaining population through immigration in order to keep Germany's social framework steady, is the related question of a society getting steadily older as the birth rate declines and life expectancy increases."

Now, it may be asked, is not population decline good? Aren't there 'too many people'?

If you believe this, plese read Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource (www.juliansimon.com). Simon says (and I agree with) that population numbers are very much linked to civilizational progress.

Could the rate of discoveries and inventions be at the same rate today if the Human race was still four million in number, living in ditches, and catching rabbits?

What 'epoch period' is the Black Plague, which killed a third of Europe, fall within?

Think about it.

Still don't believe me that this is an issue? It has caught even the UN's attention: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/popdecline/popdecline.htm

This what I've been able to see globally...

These continents and nations (there are more) will fall rapidly in population decline:

Europe (will be hardest hit with decline perhaps by a 1/3, a second Black Plague)

Russia (problem stems more from birth rate there)

Japan

Austrailia

Canada

United States (has the best birth rate of all western nations. However, the US is more acceptable to immigration to replace population unlike european nations. After all, if French population declines and Arab immigration increases, is North Africa conquering France? Does France still exist? The big issue with the US is Social Security and other programs)

I'm leaving out a lot of countries. However, the problem is with sexuality, not just 'birth rates'.

We all know that China has a skewed number of males and females due to the one child policy. Did you know that India is suffering the same exact problem? But India doesn't have a communist enforced one child policy.

Demigraphics show that by 2050, the entire world population will decline. This includes China and India.

Many have said that any discussion or talk on 'sexuality' is simply a 'waste of time'. Well, I'm looking at these population numbers and seeing governments alter policies based on them. Something is going on though how big or small that it is remains to be seen. There is historical precedent for this, and it is not pretty. But there is a solution also, one that shock people but fill others with joy.

Do a search on it. You will find lots of 'explanations' and theories. But one thing the intellectuals fail to do: is to question that we lack or lost knowledge in sexuality itself.

When will the brains of the world set aside their political idealogies and theories and study sexuality (not just intercourse) in a serious and unbiased manner?

Or maybe its up to us to pick up the slack.

 

[( . )( . )]

edit: my bad 2 of those articles just echoed what i said anyway.

like a sentence i read the other day which you dont need to be a genius to figure out: men are the new women.

in short ,a change of priorities and a gender role reversal is where i see blame.

 

[CLOONEY]

Australia too accepts immigration as an effective tool to battle the birth rate decline. World population decline will never become a seroius issue, only the opposite.

However I do agree, too many old people does, and will continue to place a relatively larger and larger strain on the social security networks. This is why national savings is a HUGE issue. Especially considering Australia and the US have such LOW levels of national savings. Countries like Singapore have battled this phenomena perfectly, with levels of nationl savings at about 30% per capita. Compare that with basically no national savings in Australia or the US.

I dont get the problem still..........? MANY economies are now developing quiet nicely, the better off economies are now experiencing population declines, but using immigration to counter these declines? Where is the dramatic effect on the world? Developing countries dont need massive populations to develop, simply, better policies such as comparitive advantage and better work practices. I really dont see how this greatly effects the world..........

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

'Sexuality' is the most natural thing, so I don't think there needs to be a global debate on this - rather it is the family structure that has been threatened the most and which will lead to a country's ruin socially and economically!

Families (children) are not valued as they once were, be it due to economic reasons, avoiding marital obligations, or the unnaturally changing and colliding roles of women and men!

If meaningful relationships are avoided, marriages will be avoided, and thus the prolonging of having children, if any at all will be the result.

Men seem to dread the possibility of having a baby out of wedlock, so the longer men are staying single the less likelihood a family will get started.

Many men are deciding marriage is not worth it because of the low caliber of women in existence today, and the woman has little to offer a man as an incentive to get married. They don't want to cook, clean, stay at home and raise a child. They claim to be 'independent' and do not hold their husbands in high esteem, and she now wants to be the head of the household - this frame of mind is an inevitable divorce!!

Relationships are now built upon sexual gratification of the partners involved and not for the courtship ritual that eventually will lead to marriage. The change in the sexual mindset of women have changed for the worse - from going to a gentle blossoming flower ready to be plucked to a nasty low down ho ready to get fvcked (sorry guys, that just came into my head for some reason); thus, the destruction of the modern day male’s desire of keeping and maintaning a wife and building a family!

As long as the reward is not greater than the hardships, marriages, children and families in affluent societies will be avoided!

Abortions by the millions a year and the birth control pill also has had an effect on the attitudes of women and the prolonging of marriage, contributing to the low birth rate.

Also, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free – no marriage, the less the chances of having many children.

 

[ultrashogun]

Its old news Pook, here in Germany it has been known for years that this is a problem because our pension system relies on the many working people to support the few old people, guess what happens when theres more old people than working people?

Bismark never thought of this when he developed the system.

 

[Crusader]

Originally posted by ultrashogun
Its old news Pook, here in Germany it has been known for years that this is a problem because our pension system relies on the many working people to support the few old people, guess what happens when theres more old people than working people?

Bismark never thought of this when he developed the system.

Bismark also never thought that 60 years after his death there would be a "baby boom".

 

[prosemont]

See also:

The Birth Dearth by Ben Wattenberg

 

[Julian]

and this is a bad thing, why?

;P

 

[il_duce]

Exactly, you look at population decline as a bad thing?

It's a good thing, in the scope of the world today.

 

[Pook]

Let me explain it again.

I'm becoming convinced that sexuality is being distorted purposely on an individual and mass basis to obey a) political ideaologies b) artificial philosophies c) pursuit for things non-life (including 'toys' and things to buy) along with other reasons.

Think of a player who sticks his pride in many girls, but he refuses to even consider something like marriage and children. He will feel, like all men feel, an internal pressure on him as if Nature is commanding him to settle down and all. He says, "I have read my evolution texts and will not obey you, Nature. All men will wish to be like me!" He will say anything but admit that his life is becoming more and more melancholy.

Have you heard a woman say, "I do not want children. I want to go and buy luxuries." Whatever you might think of this woman, she is certainly not life-worshipping.

This is why I quoted George Bernard Shaw. His 'heaven' and 'hell' are basically summarized as heaven = life worshipping while hell = worshipping anything but life.

In the end, Don Juan realizes the absurdity around and him and worships life. Satan says, "I cannot keep these life worshippers here. They would paint a woman of 70 with as much thrill as painting a woman of 20."

When I speak of sexuality, I do not mean sex. Sexuality includes sex but also includes the differences between male and female.

Sexuality is very much part of the life arc.

For example, families exist entirely in the sexuality realm. Think of the love between the husband and wife as the seed, and the family as the tree.

The decline in birth rate, in a era of peace, plentiful food, shelter, etc. is an anomaly.

This anomaly means something is amiss.

It is said that it is temporary, that once older populations go, everything resumes to normal. But the problem with that is demigraphic shows collapsing number of marriages, majority of children being born out of wedlock, and so on and so on.

I don't want people to get the wrong idea of this thread. This is not a 'doomsday' thread. You've always thought that sexuality was 'amiss' in the world. But you lack hard proof. You cannot say to a professor, "Look at those Nice Guys! They are the joke on men." But you can say, "Look at the declining birth rates. How did this happen? What does this mean?"

I'm personally very excited and optimistic. Finally, all the theories and philosophies of what sexuality today are will be examined. Already, there is debate on what 'marriage' actually is. Soon, this debate will spill over into other subjects on sexuality.

Governments have changed and altered policies to increase birth rates. If it wasn't a 'problem', then why are governments doing this?
--------------------------------------------

I would describe today's era very similiar in aspects of the Puritan mentality.

The puritans are thought of to say, "Cover up the women's hair. Hide anything that creates lustful thoughts."

This is, of course, absurd. The Victorian Age said, "Cover up that table leg else it will create lustful thoughts."

Today, it is said, "Sexuality will only be defined by bedroom interaction."

In other words, sexuality is confined to the bedroom. Once they step outside of the bedroom, the couple becomes uni-sex.

Did you know there is legislation pending to ban the word 'ballcock' from plumbing pipes?

Since everyone reading this has a computer, you know that wires has a MALE part and a FEMALE part. It has always been like this. However, there is movement to not name the computer parts male or female. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps because they are scared of sexuality.

The point is that sexuality, including the differences between male or female, used to be quite open in society. Even language had feminine parts and masculine parts. Now, however, the Neo Puritans demand that sexuality only be defined as eroticism.

By defining sexuality as only eroticism, we war against what is meant to be a man or a woman. Do we cease to be a man once we step outside the bedroom? I should hope not.

The father doing work to raise his children is as much in the sexualized cycle as the young man approaching a single woman.

The young man's interactions with the woman brings him joy. But the father providing and building a family also has immense joy. Both of these obey life.

However, with today's definition of 'sexuality', the father is 'enslaved', 'unhappy', and considered missing out on 'the rest of the girls'.

There's more to sexuality than genital combustibility.

----------------------------------------

Let us say sexuality began to break down. What would the effects be and how could we discover them?

We can point to Nice Guys and unfeminine women all day. It can be argued they have always existed.

We can point to theories and philosophies forever about what is 'really' happening.

I dislike the little theories. I prefer reality. Reality clearly shows a decrease in birth rate, so much so that populations will decline.

This means that an anomaly does exist in the real world. Something is amiss and scholars are beginning to realize that.

Yes, the 'decline of birth rate' is not new. However, the decline of birth rate as a symbol for astrayed sexuality is not. Two columns I linked to tell young men: Move out of the house and have children.
-------------------------------------------------

To those who think population decline is a good thing are committing a fallacy whose closest recognition I know of is the economic Glass Window Fallacy.

Let us say a boy threw a rock in a window, shattering it. The owner of the window, a shopkeeper, is angry. However, the people gather and try to be 'brilliant' by saying, "But if the boy did not shatter the window, then what would our glass makers do? The boy has helped the economy by shattering the glass window. The glass maker's job is secured."

There is a problem with this. The shopkeeper was wanting to buy new clothes that cost several dollars. Since the window was shattered, those several dollars do not buy the clothes. Rather, those several dollars goes to replace the glass window.

The crowd sees only the new glass window. It does not see the clothes that were not bought. (But the shopkeeper does, which is why he is angry that his window was broken.)

By the 'Glass Window Fallacy' logic, I could take a baseball bat and smash the windows to all your cars. Would that be enriching the economy or harming it? Why a bat? Let us say a hurricane comes and levels a city. Is that helping it or harming it?

We must look at the unseen rather than basing conclusions on the merely seen.

If the population declines, what is the effect? Less crowds, for sure. More space on the roads. Less competition.

Now, I ask you all, what is not seen? It is the services, technologies, inventions, interactions that would be missing since these people will not exist. Also, a decrease of minds means a decrease in overall progress.

The last major historical population decline (with exceptions of war) was the Black Plague. The decline is associated with the Dark Age.

Civilization is not buildings, technologies, or inventions. It is people. The reason why the world can progress so much technologically today is because of the number of people.

People are not just mouths and stomachs. They have minds. Each person (generally) contributes more to the world then they take out. No person born is insignificant.

If population begins to shrink, how will the culture change? It is safe to say that births will be more appreciated. The Phillipenes has turned the tide there (reversing its former population decline). Here, many consider a 'man' to be how many girls he can lay. But in the philipenes, a 'man' is measured by how many children he has.

Less people = less minds = less wealth creation / technological progress, in other words, less society.

Our generation did not have to face a war or depression. Our battle will be much different. The preceding generations had no knowledge of sexuality, all what some of them said was, "Be moral because." Where did these ancient moralities and laws come from? No one is asking this.

Soon, they will have to. The debates and clashes of this century will revolve around sexuality. The low birthrate is the die and it has been cast.

 

[WestCoaster]

Low birthrate is great!!!

Thousands upon thousands -- no make that millions -- of people are starving in this world. More and more strip malls are eating up precious agricultural land. The ozone is depleting and global warming is wiping out crops.

Our crass culture full of gas eating SUVs is gobbling up precious resources.

About f-cking time we had a birth decline -- yeeeehawwww!!!

Plus, at least 1/4th of my country -- the U.S. -- are a bunch of TV-watching, junk food eating, do-nothing, cynical losers. Go into a 7-11 sometime and just stand there and watch the "humanity" (if you can call it that) walk in the door loading up on sh-t food, using bad language, full of ugly tatooes, overweight, and basically taking up oxygen. In turn they have too many kids who turn out JUST LIKE THEM!

So let's hear it for low birthrate and may it continue forever. This country was much better when it was half its current size.

* Puerto Rican Lover is also 100 percent correct on his take on sex. I hope the 212st century isn't about sexuality, but about humanity and connectedness. Having sex doesn't make one a great lover, father, or person. It just means you can have sex.

We've lost our class, our kindness, and our ability to communicate in this country. I hope sexuality is part of our society, but I certainly hope it's not our entire society.

 

[CLOONEY]

I dont understand your economic arguement. I dont see how that "window" situation relates to anything to do with the population decline. Read my post at the top of this thread.

As far as the window story, that $7 will be spend on consumtion, this having a ripple effect through the economy, the window replacer will spend it on clothing, the clothing producer will spend it on something else and so on and so on. Now would the shop owner whos window was broken spend the entire $7? It depends on his marginal propensity to consume and save. Most likely, in the greater scheme of things, it IS good for the economy. Remember economics doesnt look much at the individual, it is more the greater good for the greater majority. The individuals are only recognised if they have some political significance.

Immigration solves your problem of population decline.

 

[GlutusMaximus86]

Well I see what pook is saying in that we may end having more old people then young people but also, if we lower birth rates we'll have less older people later on right? I mean we all have to die eventually, all we can do as humans (so far) is delay the inevetiable. In my area overpopulation is becoming a huge problem. In 20 years my family's small 10 acre farm will probably be turned into a subdivision with 40 houses on it, all with a 1/4 acre lots. They are building more and more sudivisions closer to our house. And I won't even tell you about traffic, it would give you nightmares.

I know some say you should spread seeds as their religion tells them, but I think the religion says that becasue when the religion first started it didn't have many followers, so they wanted to have as many kids as possible so more and more people would follow their religion.

Also the earth seems to be dying IMO. And we are the ones killing it. Were like a cancer, we just keep spreading and killing. I'm not saying we should all start living like a caveman or anything like that (I couldn't handle that anyway). I'm just saying if there are less humans it will be better for the earth.

I know there is a lot more to it then that but I'm just a stupid 17 year old community college student.

 

[il_duce]

We do not live in an era of plentiful food and shelter.

Things might be all handy-dandy here in the States, Canada, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, and Japan, but there are places where it isn't so plentiful.

And then there are places where it is far from plentiful (try almost every country in Africa, and most countries in South America and the Middle East). Keep in mind that MOST of the world's population comes from these countries, not developed ones like ours.

An increasing population will most likely lead to more technological progress, true.

But it will also eventually lead to a laundry list of environmental and social problems: lack of raw materials and natural fuels, extinction of other natural species (including many plants--which provide oxygen for us to breathe), pollution, overcrowding, disease, homelessness, famine, etc. etc., all of which are projected to rise as world population rises. And just as world population is expected to rise exponentially in the future, so are the rest of these problems along with it.

Our species is so advanced, we have no need to procreate so damn much anymore. We have no competition, and we live longer and longer all the time...the more we keep churning out babies, the more crowded it's gonna get, and that's not a good thing.

And one more thing:

I think the whole AFC mentality and the wussy males who are now so common are mostly being created in the developed countries, and their respective cultures. I think the wussyfying of the male is a good thing for the future of the human race. Now wait, before you take this the wrong way, just read on.

At this rate, we will overpopulate and **** on ourselves. But with more wussy males around who are not getting laid, birth rates will slow down. Only the REAL MEN will be making babies. So not only will the birth rates slow to more managable levels, but only the good genes will be passed down through the generations.

This is natural selection in the 21st century, my friends. It's a good time to be alive and a DJ.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Pook man,

Yes, 'sexuality' has taken a perverse meaning today by thinking of it only in the sense of the male/female sexual organs. We have actually gone AGAINST our 'puritanical' upbringing of past centuries, and this is EXACTLY what has destroyed the family structure and thus contributing to the declining birth rate.

Puritanical teachings put the family and children at the core of why male/female relationships exist!! Male/female sexual engagement is for the sole purpose of breeding and continuing our seed as God has commanded us - "Be fruitful and multiply" was at the core of these religious puritanical teachings!

Yes, ‘sexuality’ has been distorted to the chagrin of all children and all families in the 21st century; however, religion and governments are not to be blamed for this distortion, as you claim. This distortion of sexuality as being mainly defined by our sexual organs is something that the last two generations has defined and promoted as the newfound ‘sexuality’ of the current age – we delved into this discussion on DJ Fingers’ thread on “society and sexual distortion”, so I’ll leave it that.

This new ‘sexuality’, that is focused on our sex organs and not on our ‘total sexuality’ as men and women, is based solely on sexual pleasure. The newfound sexual liberation of the female in the last 40 years has directly contributed to the declining birth rate because sexuality is based on seeking sexual gratification and not for having children and creating a family, as was the purpose of centuries past. Now women and men are having more sex partners at an earlier age and for a longer period in their young lives, at the expense of delaying marriage and building a family.

Today, as evidenced by the members here on SoSuave, men are hesitant and doubtful whether women are even worthy to take on the role as a wife and as a mother to their children. The nature of women today has been corrupted by this new age so-called sexual freedom, and her role and mindset as a wife and a mother has been distorted as well. The rearing of children is no longer sought after as an ideal place for a woman, as it was in so-called puritanical times – thus the family structure has been in disarray and confusion and marital bliss is considered a fallacy!

Not only has the mindset of women changed, but also the conveniences of modern day practices through birth control and legalized abortions contribute as a factor to the prolonging of seeking a husband and a father, for the bearing of children who will need his provision and protection - as mentioned in my first post.

The sexual totality that you speak of is inherent in our nature as a man and a woman and this totality can ONLY be reached as a ‘husband and wife’ and as a ‘mother and father’ and as a complete family unit living in harmony!.

If you are looking for the reversal of this declining birth rate trend then it is not in the hands of government, rather the solution lies in the embracing of the ‘old ways’ where our total sexuality is embraced as a mother and father and our roles as wife and husband are properly reestablished, once again!

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Isn't is strange that these 'Puritans' that you mention and claim to frown upon 'sex', had much larger families than we do in today's society whose members are 'sex crazed'.

It is because they saw sex for it's intended purpose - that is, for being 'fruitful' and building families, and not to get your 'rocks off', as the youth say today!!

 

[Shiftkey]

I think the population's view of sexuality is more of a corolation to the decline in birth rate than a cause. The cause is because children are becoming more and more expensive to raise as the world becomes more technologically advanced. Up until about 100 years ago they were an asset - they'd work on the farm as free labor. 50 years ago they could live on their own out of highschool or not even that. Today everyone needs a college degree to live a decent life.

Realistically I don't see a population decline as a bad thing. Right now we are very OVERpopulated and have had 2 world wars because of it (probably a 3rd coming soon). Infact I'd even go as far as to say this decline in birthrate is in RESPONCE to the world's overpopulation.

Could the rate of discoveries and inventions be at the same rate today if the Human race was still four million in number, living in ditches, and catching rabbits?

So your arguement is that more people = more advancement. I don't think this is true. Take China for example - how many inventions or discoveries came from China vs more educated yet smaller nations like Japan or Singapore? Advancement comes from quality, not quantity (not to say the Chinese don't have the potential). Overpopulation only triggers war, disease, and overuse of natural resources.

 

[WinterFruit]

This is truly fascinating.

Reading this post has opened my eyes completely to this song by The Replacements called "Androgynous."
What it depicts is how man and woman both lack the knowledge on sexuality, which basically is the stem of this uni-sex evolution we are experiencing.

The current problem of society, as mentioned, is not the decline of populace whatsoever. That is the effect. Let the outcome not be our central focus but more the problem. The solution will come itself, naturally. Let the solution be a goal.

The main problem, overall, is the "distortion of sexuality" and how sexuality continues to remain in the dark. Knowledge on sexuality must be acquired to resolve this. It is a must.

Men these days are weighed by the number of women they sleep with and not how they are familywise. This is unfortunate. You see this in plenty of movies, or i have at least. There is a married couple and the wife or husband becomes attracted to another person. The bond of attraction grows stronger and stronger and eventually they fall for the other person and it destroys the marriage they had and thus, there is a decline of birth rate. All there is now is excessive contraceptive use.

What is apart of men are family values, not just the 'making love' part. Many people have grown a lack of these family values. What is disturbing to see on the news is the death of babies and children, sexually/phsycially abused children/wifes, high divorce rates, murdering of husbands/wifes, and etc...
All of these can be cause by a number of things such as unwanted pregnancy, affairs, alcohol/drugs and parenting, incestful lust, and the list goes on.

But the mother of all causes is the lack of family knowledge and values. To be a good husband/father is to have a healthy family. It is the man that needs to do the improving the most because it is us that determines the function of family. It is us taht decides the sex of the baby that comes out of the womb, it is the way we handle our wives when t hey are pregnant that determines how the child will come out, it is us, men.

Sexuality embodies family and that is at a loss. It is getting harder to draw the line of what defines a man and woman due to the ignorance of sexuality. It is strange. We both need each other for life to function but without family ethics there is no value placement on life. People start taking life for granted. When i say life i mean the creation of a human being. Without family ethics marriage affairs will rise, abuse will rise, non-wedlock births and overall decline of birth rates.

If we don't start defining sexuality and family ethics when will we? The time has never seem more needed than now.

 

[dietzcoi]

I my experience having children has proven to consume much more of my "resources" (Time, money, emotions, etc) than I ever got back. Much more! I wasted 15 years of my life for NOTHING!

It is just not worth it. So what if the population declines?

You have only one life. Do you want to waste it with marriage, family, baby carriages, bills, diapers, etc,etc? I know I did but I finally WOKE UP!

This is about the individual. you only live once. Those with 8 kids will suffer in our society. (In Africa it may be different as they can work the farm, etc). We have created a society of wealth and leisure. We live better than 99.9 % of people have ever lived.

Can you blame people for wanting to have vacations, leisure time, big cars, adventures, skiing, whateever, instead of wasting thier lives on child-rearing?

Besides, what is the point of producing children? Just so they can produce children and so on??? THat is what mindless animals do....

There are already far too many people on earth, so I do not see this as a problem.

Dietzcoi

 

[hardwork]

Not to play Devil's advocate, but…

What can we do to reverse this abject fear of life?



[Aside] Nietzsche was always conflicted as to which human trait was the most dominant: fear or laziness.

So are people today too afraid or too lazy to live life?