The Baby Bust Generation

[elvis aint dead yet]

It's nice to think that US and European and even Japanese cultures are the be all end all of the world.

But look at Africa, India, and China. The majority of the worlds population live and are born in these countries. ANd the majority of these people are born below the poverty line. The Majority of these people don't have clean water to get washed in, yet alone drink.

Ever visit any of these countries?

Many of these people drink, eat, go to the bathroom, bathe, and throw dead bodies in the same lakes, streams, and rivers.

How is that healthy? It isn't.

But back to the USA.

Ever stay in a bad inner city ghetto for more then a moment? Many of these kids would not consider themselves lucky or hopefull?

There are many people in these communities who have many children.

Ever go out to poor rural areas, where there are more trailers then homes? Many of these people have a few kids here and there.

But most of these families can not afford to take care of one child, yet alone 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.


My philosophy is, IF YOU CAN"T TAKE CARE OF ONE CHILD, you should not be having three, four or five kids.


And your philosophy that our population now is declining because of government and because of todays women and because of todays men is flawed and propaganda based.

We, as a culture, always had leaders and people who had a wife, but also had a few mistresses.

We've had kings who beheaded their wives because they couldn't bore a male. Even though now, it probably was more his fault then theirs.

We've had political leaders who preached all these bible quotes to american indians and others.

Most infamous saying from an Native American is these PROTESTANTS Or PURISTS religious folk came to this country carrying a bible in one hand while holding a muskett or gun in the other hand.

Didn't agree with them, they were killed.

We've had wars fought over different religious beliefs for thousands of years.

Hell, even your religious heros and leaders might have been married, but slept around with mistresses.

Even your religious hero was going to sacrafice his own child.

Its nice to say we are declining because of everything else, but in reality, its the same thing that is said, generation after generation.

"BACK IN MY DAY THINGS WERE BETTER..........."

Either accept the fact that times change or just jump off a cliff.

People in the USA that use their brains don't want to have too many children because it costs money.

Money for a bigger house, money for school, money for clothes, money for a car, money for food, money for many things.

And it's always been known that most Parents want their kids to be better off then they are.


I do agree with the 30-35 year old staying at home with their parents is a problem.

However, you do remember, if you study history at all, many families would build a house on their same property for their sons and daughters when they were old enough.

Familes stuck together.


If anything at all, the problem today is, PEOPLE DO NOT STICK TOGETHER.

But times are different.

Where I live, to keep pace with new people moving in and new children, our community will have to build a NEW SCHOOL every other year for the next 20 years. And thats the estimate now. And thats after 6 new schools have been built in the past 5 years.

And thats after our property taxes have been raised 100 percent in the past 3 years.

A house thats $100,000 will now have property taxes over $5,000 per year.

thats almost 500 bucks per month extra to live.

And belive me, a $100,000 house is very hard to find around here these days when an average home costs about $300,000+.

We dont' have many kids because we are smart. If you do, you are just leeching off your parents, grandparents and society.

Because most of us who do have good jobs and make good money can barely afford 2 kids. SO i can't imagine someboey who barely works affording 6 kids.

ANd i'd rather date and marry somebody willing to work then some women who wants to stay at home.

This isn't 1950,. it's 2004.

A $300,000 house is like $3000 per month in mortgage. You can get it cheaper and you can get it longer, but on average, it'll cost you around $3000 per month, give or take.

Then you have to add property taxes, homeowners insurance, wear and tear and on and on.

ANd all these new homes being built now are about 3 feet from one another.

As me and my friends have said, You are looking out your kitchen windown and you can freaking read your neighbors paper.

Developers buy 5 acres of land and build 900 homes on it.

Thats the way it is in many parts of the USA now.

But then again, we've always been a cookie cutter world.

The 1950's had the same style of houses sprawling up new suburban homes every other block.

And on and on. Remember, in the 1950's, Elvis was consider the Devil by many parents.

As I said, it's always been, OUR GENERATION WAS BETTER.

 

[WinterFruit]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL.
If everyone were to only think of themselves and indulge in the luxuries of life, the economy and functions of society would collapse. Advancement in society would halt, the services and goods that we rely on heavily would cease to exist. Society as we know will perish.

Everyone woudl simply be indulging in on vacations, meaning they would not work to provide services&goods, drugs, meaning the population of society will decline even more and the bright potential minds of people would be burnt out, sex for recreational purpose, meaning more unwanted pregnancies will occur and more abandoned kids up for adoption, less ethical parenting, meaning no family and less values for the children which could likely cause the crime rate to rise and more uneducated children.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THINGS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE
People now go to college just so they can make a lot of money in the future. There is no longer desire to improve society or enhance it. Very few truly want to make an impact on this world and change it. Almost everyone in college now indulge in alcohol and drugs or at least have before. Sex for recreation is increasingly higher than sex for the purpose of creating life. The obesity rate will escalate even higher because people will not look to take care of themselves but to just indulge. People will start getting the philosophy of "You have only one life, why waste it." Why not get high, drink, have sex, buy whatever you want, and travel wherever you want to go.
They will only have the short-term focus of life. The individual focus. They will fail to see the world for what it is. They will not think of society for the next generation of people like our ancestors have.

THink about it. How do you think we would be living right now if the great minds of the last centuries had not invented the light bulb, the internet/computer, cars, or even the telephone. The clothes you are wearing now and the place you are living are because of another man. They bulit the houses and sewed the clothes. Almost everything you live in is man-made. Without these people working for society the future generation would have nothing. It would not be possible for me to be able to come to sosuave.com and convey my thoughts to you if somebody did not invent electricity outputs, and the person after that did not invent computers, and the person after that did not invent the keyboard or mouse, and the person afte rthat did not invent the internet.

We must look at things universallly. As a whole what would happen. If we stopped having children what would happen? What woudl happen if we no longer embodies family ethics? I think what matters the most is not whether the birth rate declines or not but the reinforcement of sexuality and family ethics.

 

[Nocturnal]

Winterfruit, your post is the only one I skimmed in this thread, but I have a few things to say.

1) Human nature. You're basically saying "people need to stop being people." The reason we are as advanced today as we are is because we've been competing and trying to be better than the man next door so we can get more wealth and status.

2) All those men who have "thought of society for the next generation of people" were doing it out of self interest. They were enjoying making the inventions, or hoping to make money from them. They didn't do it because "maybe in 200 years this will help the world."

 

[Pook]

This thread illustrates, better than any words I could use, why low birth rates will become a problem: because you guys still don't see a problem. But the numbers are as plain as day, this will be one of those issues no one wants to talk about but will be encroaching the next generation.

Let me make my position as simple as possible:

The 20th century saw a rise of several totalitarian states (Communism, Nazism, etc.). Totalitarian society is an oxymoron. The entire idea of a totalitarian system is that society becomes destroyed, annihalated, because the state artificializes the society. Society ceases to exist, only the state does.

How did these totalitarian systems come about? It was because the champions of such systems thought they were being pro-society when they were actually destroying society. A war torn economically depressed Germany embraced Nazism thinking that it would recreate their society when in actuality it destroyed it (I apologize for these cliche nazi references as I hate when other people use them. I'm just trying to keep this simple and give us a point of common agreement.) Communism was embraced thinking it would recreate society, the result was just the opposite.

In this century, those who assault sexuality do not see themselves as 'assaulting' sexuality, they see themselves as giving it a 'rebirth'! Feminism believes it is uplifting sexuality where in fact it is causing great harm. Gender theorists also believe they are champions of sexuality but they are in actuality destroying it. Take the 'players' who hold themselves up as the paragons of sexuality. Are they having sex or are they 'masturbating' into girls? They fashion themselves as carrying sexuality's torch when in fact they are torching sexuality.

My emphasis on the population decline is not a reverse 'population bomb', rather, it is factual and worldly confirmation that a breakdown has occurred in sexuality and our ideas on it.

PuertoRican_Lover

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.

Do not confuse puritanism with sexual morality. Puritanism was a fringe belief that actually did believe lust and all and all was evil, something that ought to be covered up. Most religions rejected the ideas of the puritans.

There is a cultural agreement today that puritanism was absurd. Why? "Because of its attitude towards sexuality." If that is the case, then we are in a neo-puritanism age today where sexuality is confined solely to the definition of the bedroom eroticism.

Remember the quote: "Puritans are someone who fears someone, somewhere, is having fun."

Then we need to answer that quote with this one: "And gender theorists/feminists are someone who fears that someone, somewhere, is being male or female."

Clooney

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.

Let us say I go to Clooney's home and smash my fist into your computer monitor. You will be pissed because you have to replace your computer monitor.

You would rather use that money for something else... money to spend on a girl... money to buy that cd you wanted. Now, you have to buy a monitor.

By my act of destruction, the economy is harmed, not helped.

Like I said before, if a hurricane comes and levels a city, it is not helpful to the city. All that wealth it takes to rebuild the city could have been better used somewhere else.

The 'Looking Glass Fallacy' is a very basic economic lesson. In Hazzlitt's book "Economics in One Lesson", it is the very first lesson. It is economics 101.

In order to understand the Broken Window Fallacy, one must look at the lost unseen benifets. The same applies with declining birth rates.

Immigration solves your problem of population decline.

The problem is NOT population decline, the problem is distorted sexuality. Population decline is an effect of a bigger cause, one that people have dared not identify.

Immigration comes from mostly developing countries. When these nations become developed, they too will face the same population decline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560433.stm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908popdrop.htm

Fertility rates are falling in the developing countries as well. So immigration is only a short term based solution.

Besides, in the European nations, the identity of the nation is not based on immigrants. Can you imagine France or England dominated by Arabs? Immigration is a hot topic in European politics now because of this. An anti-immigrant attitude is rising among the younger population of Europe. This is how someone like Le Pen became a finalist in the French elections. Or remember the Danish politician Pim Fortuyn? What happened to him? Just as his ideas were growing exponentially, he was swiftly assassinated.

Immigration as replacement for popluation decline means younger people watching their homeland fill up with unknowns. As Europe shows, this will not continue for too much longer.

Shiftkey

So your arguement is that more people = more advancement.

No. It is more people = more minds = more advancement.

Many people in Africa do not have access to education. The focus is on the minds, not the bodies the brains resides in.

Westcoaster, GlutusMaximus, il_duce, among others

Summed up:

Larger population = destruction of Earth. Therefore, lower population is good.

Let us have a discussion about the origins of resources.

Resources are not the bountiful gift from Mother Earth, they are the scientific product of Man's mind.

Resources do not come from the Earth, they come from Man's mind.

Iron ore was just a rock until Man gave it purpose. Oil was just black goo that seeped from the bottom of lakes until Man gave it purpose.

Remember, people are not interested in oil, they are interested in energy. People are not interested in rocks, they are interested in buildings.

I put up the link to Julian Simon's site that has all this information in much more detail. Why do you not look at it?

There is a reason why the more resources we consume, the more we create. The larger the population gets, the more resources we end up with.

Why is this? Because resources are not limited by finite Earthly matter, but by the scientific creativity of the mind of Man.

The ancient Romans had resources all around them. They didn't realize it, of course. And we are creating new resources everyday.

Besides, you can fit the entire world's population in Rhode Island. You could fit the world into Texas and let the billions of people have some land. Mankind hasn't even began to touch upon its potential.

"But resources will run out!" No. As long as the human mind remains strong and in growing numbers, resources will increase.

For example, do you think diamonds are rare?

What if diamonds were infinite? "Poppycock!" you say?

Check this out:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

I would be very careful if your ideas match this satire page: http://www.vhemt.org/

 

[Nocturnal]

Pook, if you haven't already, you should read this article about the feminization of America: http://www.worldandi.com/public/2001/October/sax.html

It explores both the psychological and physiological changes our society is encountering, namely the shifts from masculinity to femininity and then a physically balanced male/female population to one in which male animals and men are experiencing infertility, among other things. It has quite a few well founded explanations for what is occuring today.

 

[Pook]

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.

I'm glad someone is getting it. The above sums it up.

The news media will sensationalize reports of low birth rates and all. Ultimately, the problem will probably be tame. Remember, this is not a doomsday thread.

But these distortions are beginning to add up, and the following generation inherits them.

But it is impossible to study sexuality because of political and philosophical prejudices. People, on all sides of political spectrums, will not elevate sexuality above them and their brainy waxings.

We need to look at what makes the joy and fruits of sexuality in the world of reality rather than the world theory and thus be free from our distorting opinions.

What are the origin of the old sexual laws and why were they universal in all cultures?

What is marriage and what does the 'two as one flesh' mean?

Why are children seen as 'expensive and life wrecking' rather than gifts of life as they used to be seen as? (I once hanged out with a family of seven. I was amazed to see people voice their disapporval of someone deciding to have that many children. "They are ALL yours!?")

What factor does transmutation have in sexuality? Is that the reason why that every art that survives in cultures always has a sexualized reference?

There are lots of questions to be asked of sexuality. Rather than plainly asking questions and getting answers, people play a political war game.

Does it not make sense, especially with collapsing birth rates and marriages, to study sexuality?

Why are people so scared to study sexuality?

The answer: because they are scared to study themselves.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

I was referring to the 'puritan mindset' regarding sex and not the religious sect, per se. And no, they didn't think sex was evil, they married and had children and obeyed God's command. They saw that the engagement in sex for other purposes besides the family purpose was evil.

A lot of men seem to have the opposite mindset today - and thus the cause of the current disarray amongst 'broken' families and out of wedlock children in our society!

Men today are doing the opposite of what was practiced in the past (as evidenced by the statements of the majority of the posters here), and seek sex only for non-familial pleasure seeking purposes. This mindset will eventually lead to less breeding. As stated in my last post...

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!

The family (husband, wife, children) is no longer valued and cherished as it once was. Sex has been distorted and no longer seen for its' intended purpose – procreation/breeding!

 

[Brazilian_Blues_Boy]

Maybe, people are afraid of studying sexuality because they're afraid to face the void they've created for themselves...

Blaming the media is the easiest excuse, but, what is the media but the reflection of a population's voice?

Not willing to sound "doomsday" too, but sometimes I believe that we're living a sort of "metaphisycal" dark age.

Like Tyler Durden says, "Our great war is a spiritual one."

The generations born from the 80's on, our generation, are the most priviliged people ever. Food, water, oil, safety from wars, television and later the internet.

No other generation had access to such wide net of information like ours.
Yet, please correct me if I'm wrong, our generations is AS hedonistic as the others before, or as I believe more, much more.

With no fear of getting bombed, or starving to death, with money from parents, there was no "need" for progress, for RESPONSIBILITY.

That's why people aren't afraid of anything. No disease, no war and not even extreme urban violence acts have happened to us.

So, with our primal needs fulfilled, as human nature commands, we started looking for ego appeasement.
The hedonistic tendencies were always there... since the ancient times... but with the numerical expansion of the middle class, more people have money and time to waste on fun and self-appeasement.

And the media, the movies, the radios, the spots to hang out, started to specialize in what their costumers wanted to have.
In the 50's, I have read that there was heavy advertising in the "American Way of Life." .
It was cool to have children, a wife at home happy with electrodomestics and that stuff.

With the end of this, and the break out of hippie, liberal philosophies, people started to slowly walk away from the good old "work, have kids and a car"

And gradually, our ego-driven desires for sexual gratification and destruction started to come out, not to be looked down upon but to reach the status of "coolness".

Nowadays, a movie like " Fast and Furious " is cooler than anything else.
Jack@ss. Pop singers who don't sing a sh!t and have crappy lyrics.

It's hot women and destruction !
<sarcasm> Who doesn't like that? </sarcasm>

When the repressed parts of our ego come to surface, it was obvious that sexuality would get all messed up.
I believe that Freud said that the ego is driven by the desires of sex and destruction, I'll look it up later...

That's why sexuality is getting messed up, and violence is becoming so common.
This is the result of the gradual surfacing of all ego's intrincacies, but, instead of being considered ammoral and abominable like it was before, now it's the norm.

My grandpa, a very wise man, is always complaining that TV is filled with undecent scenes. He gets unquiet when a girl appears on tv with short clothes, not because he's horny, but because it is an insult to his culture.

Sexuality is being splitted, scattered, and what's worst, "standardized" and distributed, marketed, for the profit of the richer classes.

Sexuality has never been subject of an open, unbiased social discussion.
When the appropriate time for this discussion to arise came, "smart" people started to use it as means to get rich.

And sexuality is out there today.... scattered, misunderstood.
Chicks are becoming bisexual because it's cool, guys becoming androginous-looking like models in the magazines, searching desperately for the sexual act as the only way of being validated in the group. Make love is a naive, long forgotten expression.

It's partnered masturbation, you do so you can tell your friends that you f*cked a girl, then they think you're cool so you can go to sleep with no worries.

Let's just see how far it goes...

BBB

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Hahaha, study sexuality?? What is there to study? There is nothing more natural then the union of the male and female!

No one studied sexuality in the past and yet we have 7 billion people on earth today.

Oddly enough, since we have been 'studying' sexuality (albeit a distorted sexuality), initiated with the sexual revolution, and listening to those with the mindset infected with this false doctrine (sexuality seen as a pleasure seeking device), our birthrate started to decline!

The same false teaching that if we teach children about sex and how to put on condoms and have sex safely, then out of wedlock pregnacies and diseases will decrease. The exact opposite has been the result, and these false teachings are the direct cause of all the problems regarding broken and non-existent families!!

We have "SEXIFIED" our children and have taught them that they should obey their lusts without restraints!! Sexuality has been corrupted in the last forty years! The hell with studying sexuality, we should study ourselves as men and husbands as fathers - and women shouild do the same!

When society 'studies' something (sexuality in the last 40 years), it is 'always taken over' by those with an agenda and who have power to influence. Feminists, hors, and homosexuals have done this already, Pook!

We need to get back to the basics - the old ways - families are good and are needed to make society splendid and abundant! Lets look to our past and we will find our solution to the declining birth rate!

All my posts are referring to the American/European cultures who are of this mindset.

 

[WestCoaster]

Actually I think these are the problems ...

25-year olds riding skateboards

35-year olds getting their first tatoos

45-year olds with ponytails and earrings (men)


I'm not even a redneck and fairly liberal, but we are the most infintile group of people in the world.

I'm actually old enough to remember when dad was the head of the household, worked all day, came home with the evening paper and enjoyed a night with his family ... and he wasn't listening to crap music or lighting up a bong.

It's not gender specific, U.S. women are even worse.

* Sorry about going off-topic.

* Who cares about the population drain. If our species dies out Pook, we deserved it.

** Also Pook, if you think resources are infinite you're insane and you can post all this meaningless stuff till the day I die. I've studied natural resource depletion and you're not even in the ball park on your stuff. Who gives a f-ck about the value of diamonds anyway. Horrible analogy. RESOURCES are dwindling, please get off the net and go to your nearest university library.

 

[Devestator]

What is humanity but a bunch of hairless, smelly, weak apes? I have little love for humankind.

One redeeming quality: humanity brings to the universe is self awareness and science. A part of the universe comes to understand self. This must continue.

I hope that computers will replicate consciousness and science before humanity dies. I can die in peace knowing humans will become exinct but cybernetic intelligence will continue its legacy
and build upon it.

I don't want children. I want a hedonistic life, knowing that there is little hope for humanity and almost zero hope for my own immortality. Enjoy this ride while it lasts!

 

[WinterFruit]

Quality over Quantity.

The young minds of today can increase in thousands or millions, but still there could be very little progress.

There's a type of young mind i would like to call the textbook smart kid. This is a kid who gets good grades and has acquired a lot of knowledge over the years of schooling. You might say he would make a great contribution to the world and i would not doubt so if he kept working hard and his head in the right direction. In this world there are a handful of these.

Now there's a type of young mind that simply doesn't care about school. He partys, drinks, smokes and has sex. His life are made up of material objects. This type of young mind is the self-indulging kid. A hedonist if you will. It is no doubt that in this world there are a handfull of these.

Next is a young mind that stands out from the rest. He might good grades he might not. He does not blow off school. He partys but in moderation. Getting wasted or high is not a a daily routine for him. He hardly ever does it. His mind is treated like a temple. It is precious because it contains more creativity than any of the other minds. He sees things nobody else sees. He is one that does not conform to the rest of mass society. He is not an outcast but an original and creative thinker. He may not be textbook smart and he may be. The chances are he isn't because he is too busy thinking about his own theories, ideas, and inventions. Coerced learning is something he abhors. In fact, he despises the educational system and learsn everything on his own so he can learn at his own pace and at his own will. This young mind is one that will be an innovator or inventor of society. Somethign that is very important for society. Society coudl not advance without these inventors and innovators.

The textbook kid would likely be one who provides goods and services. He will likely build the inventions of the inventor and package them. This is a worker of society, which is also important for society.

For the self-indulging kid, it is hard to say where he will be. Chances are he won't get very far. He will likely to overdose, get sick/cancer/disease, get a girl pregnant, sell drugs and engage in and cause an atmosphere of violence and who knows. The chances are not far.

At this day and age, even if there wasn't a population decline but a population rise instead, i would not say society woudl be that much better off.

The young minds of society would more likely consist of the textbook kid and the self-indulging kid. Why? Because of the way these kids are conditioned from childhood to their late teen years. Their parents drill to their heads that they need to go to school and get good grades so they can then get a good job and make a lot of money. They go through schooling where their imagination is hindered. Sometimes they dont see a poitn to life so they self-indulge. Drugs is used as an escape from life's troubles. Whatever it may be they are not conditioned well.

They are not taught to appreciate the past men who have contributed their sweat and tears in what they do to give them the easier life they have today. They are not taught to independently think for themselves. Thus, they conform to the opinions of others on subjects. You know what makes bruce lee unlike any other fighter that exists today? He was an independent thinker. He developed his own style of fighting using his own independent thought. What made bruce lee so great? I would say it's because he is Bruce Lee and nobody else. He has a mind of his own.

Ever wonder why everyone's fingerprints are structured different? It's because nature created everybody in the intention that everybody would be different in their own little ways. Everybody would be equal, meaning nobody woudl be superior than another, but everybody would also be different. We all shoudl be able to tell each other apart not just by fingerprints but by the things that makes us, US.

These type of young minds are unfortunately sprase. If childhood conditioning is not changed then there will continue to be more and more of the textbook and self-indulging kids and with a population rise there will just be more until the conditioning is changed.

 

[Pook]

Thank you, Nocturnal. That link provides the perfect example of people elevating their political prejudices that makes the study of sexuality impossible.

Environmentalists will think the problem with sexuality is unnamed 'chemicals' in the environment.

Fundamentalists will think the problem with sexuality is the lack of religious piety.

Gay activists will think the problem with sexuality is that we are not embracing the (mythical btw) homosexuality of ancient greek culture.

Followers of Rousseau will believe the problem with sexuality is caused by civilization, that civilization has been a fall from grace.

On and on this goes, but no real study on sexuality ever comes about.

When I was young, I knew that I should hang out with people smarter than I am (why hang out with people stupider than you? You are who your friends are.) Years ago, I spent a lot of time dealing with mathematicians, chemists, biologists, and even a few writers for the A & E channel about the topic of junk science. These guys were incredible. Whereas a scientific study would be heralded on the nightly news by reporters who don't know any difference, these guys would take it to bits. Some agencies such as the EPA now refuses to publish their studies online for fear of these peoples' hard eye.

I get a lot of flak from some posters by not being 'scientific' (as if being 'scientific' would get one girls!). What they don't know is that I come from a highly technical and scientific family. My uncle, for example, is a nuclear physicist (I knew enough not to go into science! Who wants to spend life looking at these details of the how and never being given the chance to look at the why?)

Let us look at the article you linked to.

First, the author makes the classical biologist mistake. She compares isolated studies on alligators and salmon to human beings.

Alligators and salmon are all reproducing quite well. Citing one or two studies means nothing, as she even states they were located in particular areas where stuff was dumped on them. Certainly, alligators and salmon will have their lifes shortened by stupidly staying in an area of waste deposit.

But based on this, she then leaps to the wild conclusion that all alligators and salmon are facing a 'fertility crisis'. Everything points to the opposite.

Notice how all the 'animal creatures' she points to as becoming 'infertile' are located in Florida, a very warm spot. This point will be important later on.

OK, now she insanely correlates her idea of florida animals with the Human race, well, at least in America. "Our modern society generates a number of chemicals that never existed before about fifty years ago." Then she lists the dangerous feminizing effects of coke bottles. (No, to those reading my reply and not the article, I'm not making this up.)

By every indicator, modern society has elevated livings to what was once dreamed of.

FACT: Life expectancy keeps increasing.

FACT: Each generation gets taller and is more healthy than the previous one.

FACT: Every standard of living keeps increasing.

But... there are mysterious chemicals that are destroying our fertilty! Goodness, NOOOO!

There is confusion between sperm count and fertility. Sperm count is affected mostly by temperature. This is reason why the male's sexual organs are outside his body. Tight underwear that keeps the organs close to the body have more effect on the sperm count then anything else.

If you live in New York, you will have a higher sperm count then if you lived in Florida. Why? Because sperm counts increase in colder climates.

This does not mean people in warmer climates are more infertile than those in colder climates. A ridiculously high sperm count is not more fertile than a regular sperm count. Only one strong sperm is necessary to break the walls of the egg.

If you are not making sperm, or making so little, that is considered infertility. But a Texan's lower sperm count compared to a North Dakotan does not mean the Texan is less fertile than the North Dakotan. All that extra sperm just gets wasted.

One of those 'scientists' I talked to and all throughout the earlier 90s was Steve Milloy who now has a weekly junkscience column at Fox News. He also has the website www.junkscience.com

And yes, he even has a column on sperm count and 'chemicals' in the environment. Check it out at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89913,00.html

Let me further illustrate how absurd that article is:

At this point, you may feel that you've been reading two completely disconnected essays: one about the feminization of American culture, and the second about the effects of environmental estrogens. Could there be any connection between the two?

At this point, you may feel you've been reading about two completely disconnected ideas: one about the feminization of American culture, and the second about the insidious effects of peanut butter.

Could there be any connection between the two?

There may be. If human physiology and endocrinology are being affected by environmental estrogens--as suggested by lower sperm counts, increasing infertility, earlier onset of puberty in girls, and rising rates of breast cancer--then there is no reason in principle why human psychology and sexuality should be exempt.

There may be. If human physiology and endocrinology are being affected by the estrogens and hidden chemicals within peanut butter- as suggested by lower spern counts (which isn't true), increasing infertility (also isn't true), earlier onset of puberty in girls (girls always develop before boys, increased health=healtheir puberty) and rising rates of breast cancer (rise of cancer comes about because of decrease of past diseases and problems)- then there is no reason in principle why human psychology and sexuality should be exempt.

If we accept the possibility that environmental estrogens are affecting human physiology and endocrinology, then we must also consider the possibility that the feminization of American culture may, conceivably, reflect the influence of environmental estrogens.

If we accept the possibility that estrogens are affecting human physiology and endocrinology, then we must also consider the possibility that the femization of american culture may, conceivably, reflect the influence of peanut butter!

The phenomena we have considered show a remarkable synchrony. Many of the cultural trends discussed in the first half of the article began to take shape in the 1950s and '60s, just as plastics and other modern chemicals began to be widely introduced into American life. There are, of course, many difficulties in attempting to measure any correlation between an endocrine variable--such as a decline in sperm counts--and a cultural variable, such as cultural feminization. One of many problems is that no single quantitative variable accurately and reliably measures the degree to which a culture is becoming feminized.

The phenomena we have considered show a remarkable synchrony. Many of the cultural trends discussed in the first half of the article began to take shape when insidious peanut butter was released to the world, as children are brainwashed into eating peanut butter sandwhiches, to combine peanut butter and jelly which obviously has a correlational estrogen spike in combination, putting peanut butter on crackers, on cookies, and into everything. There are, of ocurse, many difficulties in attempting to measure any correlation between an endocrine variable- such as decline in sperm counts- and peanut butter.

Besides, what is not mentioned is increased testosterone injected into the livestock, thus, into our meat. We also eat more meat today then before and all of it means more testosterone.

However, this is increase of testosterone within our diets is completely ignored because it doesn't fit the pre-concieved conclusion.

 

[Pook]

continued from above
----------------------------------

Next, she goes into education. I go to antique stores and collect text books from the 19th and (if I'm lucky) 18th century.

In the past, education was to turn a boy into a man.

It is only today where education has become debased into getting jobs and not even that. To those currently in college, you know what I'm talking about. You know those scantrons and memorizations are merely trivia.

All the fields were focused on piercing Nature. Mathematics- how far? How fast? Biology- taxonomic structures and order of the living things. Humanities- the poetry, the literature, and arts showing the glories of man and its example of understanding human nature. Think of the classical education involving Demothenes, Cicero, Illiad, Oddessey, etc.

The problem with her analysis on education is that education has not stayed the same. There is very little emphasis on masculinity within higher education. Have you ever read the book, "The War Against Boys"? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-4866613-0251317?v=glance&s=books

Halfway through the article, I could already predict what the second half was going to say. Sure enough, I was right. It ends with linking to the Roman era and lead.

I didn't want to bring up the Roman era in this thread but might as well now.

There is a historical precident of a 'baby bust' culture, and it was the Roman Empire. There was a plant they used that could stop contraception. The Roman Army started off 100% Roman but did not end that way. I'd imagine that when Christianity rose that it destroyed the knowledge of whatever plant or herbs the Romans used to stop conception (or they just didn't bother to save it).

It is possible that some of these changes in our culture may reflect the influence of environmental estrogens, an influence whose effects are subtle and incremental.

But based on this flimsy correlation and non-experimenatal methodology, the influence of peanut butter may have an influence whose effects are 'subtle' and 'incremental'.

This article is a joke. I hope you guys see that now and don't get hookwinked in the future.

Let us leave behind the political prejudices and study sexuality boldly to see what conclusions it may give.

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

Puerto-Rican Lover

Hahaha, study sexuality?? What is there to study? There is nothing more natural then the union of the male and female!

You would be surprised of how many people destroy themselves by following artificial philosophies or politics.

Take any comedy of Shakespeare. In every comedy, there is one person who does not marry and Shakespeare condemns him. He cannot mate because he must be a 'philosopher' or worship 'honor' or whatever else.

Most of the problem people have when they come to this page is precisely because they have all these crud that is blocking what is natural. Nice Guy thinks he ought to be 'nice'. He is artificializing himself.

In order to understand art, human nature, even the ebb and flow of society, sexuality must be studied. There is a reason why art that survives contains a high degree of sexuality within it.

No one studied sexuality in the past and yet we have 7 billion people on earth today.

Where are these people at? China and India are suffering a different though similiar problem. Both countries will have more males than females. The State of China, half a century ago, gave the edict that everyone ought to have as many children as possible. Now, the State of China says one child. The State is interfering into natural harmony of society.

Africa is still ravaged by AIDs.

And the developed nations have the population decline problem.

All three of these have on thing in common: the lack of understanding sexuality. Remember, AIDS is a class 4 disease which is transmitted mostly through sexual means.

Westcoaster

Also Pook, if you think resources are infinite you're insane and you can post all this meaningless stuff till the day I die. I've studied natural resource depletion and you're not even in the ball park on your stuff. Who gives a f-ck about the value of diamonds anyway. Horrible analogy. RESOURCES are dwindling, please get off the net and go to your nearest university library.

Nope. You have been misinformed due to a political biases infecting education.

There was a Danish statician who was a member of Greenpeace who went BONKERS when he read this article:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html

His response was exactly like yours. After all, it goes against everything you've been told your entire life. So he set his graduate students to work on looking up Julian Simon's statistics in order to easily debunk them.

To his astonishment, he discovered that the statistics held up. It led to the creation of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-4866613-0251317?v=glance&s=books)that rocked the academic world.

You have a choice, Westcoaster.

You can believe in agendas and let other people define your beliefs or you can look it up yourself and free yourself from insane politics.

BTW, the reason why there is so much confusion of resources is because people are not making the distinction between resources and the material matter that they are. A resource is not a rock, just as oil is not black goo. It was only until mankind realized that the black goo could be harnessed into energy that the black goo became oil as a resource.

We can split the atom and create energy from that. I just showed you a link showing that, by using energy, diamonds can become created and are now infinite.

Please don't let doctrines and agendas lasso your mind. There is too much wonder and awe in the world. The difference between me and you, Westcoaster, is that I know your position. I am fully well aware of the Malthusian and even the gross misuses of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to prop up Malthusian ideas.

But you do not know what my position is. You do not disagree with it; you simply dismiss it.

Yet, these ideas changed the policies of the United States and several other nations. Julian Simon was even brought to discuss this with the Pope.

With such massive changes on a world scale, don't you think you ought to seek to understand (not necessarily agree) it in order to have an informed opinion?

I thought so.

 

[CLOONEY]

Originally posted by Pook


Clooney



Let us say I go to Clooney's home and smash my fist into your computer monitor. You will be pissed because you have to replace your computer monitor.

You would rather use that money for something else... money to spend on a girl... money to buy that cd you wanted. Now, you have to buy a monitor.

By my act of destruction, the economy is harmed, not helped.

Like I said before, if a hurricane comes and levels a city, it is not helpful to the city. All that wealth it takes to rebuild the city could have been better used somewhere else.

The 'Looking Glass Fallacy' is a very basic economic lesson. In Hazzlitt's book "Economics in One Lesson", it is the very first lesson. It is economics 101.

It has damaged me, only me. As the economy as a whole, it has damaged nothing!! The money is just circulating from hands to hands, and not in the bank, doesnt matter where it is spent.

As far as the city, this damages the economy because entire shops, factories infrustructure have been damaged, this is why these two cases of the "broken window" and the "hurricane" are COMPLETELY different when it comes to economics. IF my computer screen stopped me from working and contributing to GDP then YES it would have damaged the economy. If the shop keeper had to shut down because of the damaged window then YES it would hurt the economy. HOWEVER, he is simply spending the money, it is simply classified as Consumption in economic terms. Meaning it would be equaly well spent on clothes or the window. But if he wasnt going to spend all the money on clothes then the damaged window is better for the economy.

As far as immigration, I see your point about others not wanting their country ruled by other races, and yes I agree, this is a good point. But Australia has seemed to accept multiculturalism very well, the older generations are complaining, but the younger generations are immune to it, as this is what they see as the norm. And there will always, at least for the next few thousand years, be developing countries to find immigration. If the population declines anyways, who says its a bad thing? As long as GDP per capita is still high, although this could be a problem due to economies of scale.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Pook, you and fingers delve too much into the political and religious infuence on sexuality today, but you fail to recognize that the greatest change in the mindest of the the masses on sexuality, has come about in the last 40 years. And this fairly recent mindset has destroyed sexuality - so we must look at what happened in the last 40 years to bring forth such a change!

You cannot keep saying religious and political leaders (doctrines) were the cause of our destroyed sexuality, since these institutions have been abandoned by the masses during the last 40 years and no one has respect nor takes heed to the proclamations of these institutions any longer. Their influence on the morals and thinking of the masses has been weakened dramatically from yesteryear.

Sexuality has been distorted, yes, but this a recent and deliberate outcome by a group of those who have the power to influence the masses!

The distortion of sexuality was not an individually singular random event, it was a planned, calculated, deliberate mass movement initiated by a relatively small group of people, for a purpose!.

This was talked about in the "Society and sexual distortion" thread.

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

Countries that have over a billion people have to limit growth due to the incapacity of their infrastructure to handle exponential growth!

If the masses do not get the basic necessities of life, they will revolt against the current rule. So leaders understand that there are limits, because the world has artificial geographical borders and resources that they have to confine themselves to.

When you have limited boundaries and infrastructure, you must have limited people growth! Common sense. This has nothing to do with communism.

 

[The Iron Chef]

Originally posted by Pook

more people = more minds = more advancement.

I don't see how more minds neccessarily mean more advancement. If that were true, Africa would be the most advanced country in the world, where women give birth to literally litters of babies. It's not the QUANTITY of minds that leads to a more advanced society, rather, it's the QUALITY. In fact, because school systems all over the world are being overburdened, the overall quality of education is decreasing. The average joe or jane coming out of today's high school and colleges are dummer than the previous generation. In general, a societie's resources are finite, and the more people there are, the more those resources will be spread thin. To put in another way: The average person takes more from society than what he/she contributes to it. A better argument would be:

less people = more quality minds = more advancement.

Wasn't it Einstein would said that the level of intelligence in the world is constant? So the more people their are, the less intelligence is there to go around. (I don't literally believe this, but you get the point).


BTW, the population is NOT decreasing. It is the rate of growth that's decreasing. It won't be until at least 2050 before we see an actual drop in the world population.

 

[dietzcoi]

Pook, you are losing it here. Do you have children? I have three. I have sacrificied my freedom and independence for them. For nothing. NOTHING! WHat does anybody care if I was a good father? I was AFC and followed the norms of "society"... for what? A divorce, loss of $100,000s, and nothing to show for it.

Now I have a new way of life: It is about the Individual! You only live once! How many chumps sacrificed thier lives for some ideal that turned out to be BS?? I am talking about young men who charged enemy trenches in many wars for nothing! What was changed by World War One lasting four years! The world changed for the worse!

All you chumps sacrificing your lives for a woman, or children, or religion, or for a political belief, you are all being duped.

You only live once, don't waste it! Live YOUR life and don't let anybody tell you what you HAVE to do with it. Do what you want.

(Note this does not mean commit crimes, etc. You still have to live ethically)

Live! You will regret it later if you don't!

Dietzcoi

 

[WestCoaster]

Excellent post dietczoi

We should all read nomarriage.com, which is a tad cynical but on the money. I think dietczoi has read it or at least subscribes to its theories. Women and children are not the panacea to life. They can add to it, they can also subtract from it.

We've bought into a lot of myths in this world -- me included. Having more morons in it won't help, and trust me, I'd say more than 1/4th of this world is just sucking in oxygen and not doing anything to improve it.

Sadly dietczoi, you bought into societal pressures. I hope you've maintained some relationships with your children, that is if they're worth it.

I would say almost all of my friends are married (and I have a lot of them) and about 35 percent of them are happy in these relationships. I went to the weddings, saw the love and promise of the future.

Now I see bitterness and backbiting. No thanks, I'll stay a bachelor my whole life if that's what's down the road for me.

Good luck in your future dietczoi, sounds like you deserve some good times up ahead. Yes, help others, be ethical, but live for yourself!

 

[Pook]

Too often we always wondered whether sexuality was distorted or not.

The collapsing birth rate signals that, yes, there is a problem in our understanding of sexuality.

Governments and academics are reacting to this new variable. What ought they to make of it?

In law, there is a term called compelling interest. This means that a convern overrides all others. For example, if some major invasion occurred in America, a draft would appear. No matter what discussion one has over 'rights' and such, courts would rule there is a compelling interest.

Ask any constitutional lawyer (as I have) about whether or not declining population would become a compelling interest against previous laws and attitudes? They answer: absolutely!

Now, I have wondered why the situation has come to this. Why is sexuality not studied in a objective manner? The answer is because politics, personal idealogies, and prejudices have been blocking it.

I am not making any conclusions except to say that the collapsing birth rate signals de facto proof that something is amiss in our understandings of sexuality.

I never expected the response to this. What I'm saying here is tame to other nuclear info. Collapsing birth rates means our understanding of sexuality is off. Whoop-de-doo, this info is actually quite plain.

But the reactions are expressing more than I ever could. Why the hysterical reactions? Why does the fact that we will be remembered as the 'baby bust' generation getting such responses from you guys? This, itself, is more interesting then the iniitial post.

Clooney

The Broken Window Fallacy is the same whether it is an individual or a group. Why? Because the fallacy is that destruction creates goods.

What does it matter if I break one person's window as compared to twenty windows, or a million windows? All those broken resources devour wealth in order for them to be repaired. That wealth could have been better used on something else.

When something breaks on your car, you curse because you'd rather use that money for something else.

HOWEVER, he is simply spending the money, it is simply classified as Consumption in economic terms. Meaning it would be equaly well spent on clothes or the window.

No, because you're confusing consumption with wealth creation. Replacing your destroyed items does not make you wealthier. The economy is not helped because it is not growing, it is merely replacing what was lost.

Since you said the broken window would increase consumption, then does it make sense to go around breaking windows thinking it will help the economy?

Puertorican lover

You cannot keep saying religious and political leaders (doctrines) were the cause of our destroyed sexuality, since these institutions have been abandoned by the masses during the last 40 years and no one has respect nor takes heed to the proclamations of these institutions any longer.

I don't know exactly what has distorted sexuality except our unwillingness to objectively examine it.

I do not blame politics and petty ideas for distorting sexuality, I blame politics and petty ideas for blocking any honest exploration.

Any exploration of sexuality ends up right where we started: an environmentalist will always conclude the problem roots in environmentalism, the religious will always conclude the problem roots from lack of religion, the followers of Roussea will conclude the problem comes from not embracing the ideas of Roussea... so on and so on.

We need to leave our little prejudices behind and examine honestly and openly. I am not advocating any type of social change.

But the collapsing birth rates alludes that something in our ideas and manner of thinking is 'broken' and we need to find out what it is.

Pook, you and fingers delve too much into the political and religious infuence on sexuality today

How often have I posted in the last 12 months? I post a couple of posts on a subject and I become 'delving too much' on the matter?

What is more interesting is not what I post, but what I do not post. Stop psycho-analyzing the pook. He rarely posts anyway.

This was talked about in the "Society and sexual distortion" thread.

No, it wasn't.

Even if it was, is it crime to mention this? Am I forbidden to post on this topic?

Iron chef

I don't see how more minds neccessarily mean more advancement.

But you provide my answer with:

If that were true, Africa would be the most advanced country in the world, where women give birth to literally litters of babies. It's not the QUANTITY of minds that leads to a more advanced society, rather, it's the QUALITY.

I never said mass amounts of people means mass amounts of technological type progress. There are high population areas that lack education. This is why I said more minds.

People in the developed nations are all quite well educated, correct? That means a decrease in their population numbers means a decrease in producing minds.

And it is the developed nations that are bearing the brunt of the problem of collapsing birthrates.

less people = more quality minds = more advancement

The major population boom came with the Industrial Revolution.

Our current high state of living and all would have been impossible if population levels continued at their pre-industrial revolution era. Would electricity, the combustion engine, the automobile, the airplane, and all be established with a much smaller population?

Is it any mystery why most of technology seemed to stand still until the last couple of centuries?

deitzcoit

All you chumps sacrificing your lives for a woman, or children, or religion, or for a political belief, you are all being duped.

Then, you go and say,

Now I have a new way of life: It is about the Individual! You only live once!

But this, itself, is a purely ideological mindset.

You haven't freed yourself. You have simply traded one narcissism for another, which is what you mistake as different lives.

Westcoaster

I'll stay a bachelor my whole life if that's what's down the road for me.

Here's the rub:

Is the problem with marriage or the distortion that is considered 'marriage'?

Marriage, overwhelmingly, meant 'two as one flesh' in the past. Today, no one defines it as such. Rather, romanticism is now defining marriage. I addressed this is the post, "Romanticism: An Obituary"

Marriage predates governments and our current ideologies. What is marriage? This question is dominating political circles even now.

This is why I say sexuality ought to be studied and looked at. After four years on the subject, I keep finding surprising things.

What objection would you have to studying sexuality in a objective manner to enrich the joys and clarity of our lives?