It is quite possible that there is a natural lack of space. Though I am not sure if this is the case personally. It does make sense though. Social norms could be changed by a lack of space, resources, etc. Doubtful it is actually due to autism. XD but I think I get your sarcasm there. Your reasoning is much like fish breeding. Fish will only breed and lay eggs if the environment is right. This includes the right temperature, food, and space. Without these things, fish feel stressed and do not produce as well. This could also be said about humans, though as higher mammals, I would think this would be less of a matter of space and more to do with thinking and planning for children and possible consequences of marriage and sex as well as affordability.
Even if both of you are correct: (You and Scorptatious) it still doesn't explain why migrants and immigrants are still having three-to-five (More in EU/UK)children. Certain groups who are the minority are having less kids and universally majority groups are having more kids making less room for the other group or creating the illusion of having less space when that space is being used by those other groups who are not limiting their reproduction levels.
If that theory were to be true it'd be the opposite where the groups having 3-5 children (mainly migrants and immigrants) wouldn't have that many children whether funded by tax payers or not.
Even if both of you are correct: (You and Scorptatious) it still doesn't explain why migrants and immigrants are still having three-to-five (More in EU/UK)children. Certain groups who are the minority are having less kids and universally majority groups are having more kids making less room for the other group or creating the illusion of having less space when that space is being used by those other groups who are not limiting their reproduction levels.
If that theory were to be true it'd be the opposite where the groups having 3-5 children (mainly migrants and immigrants) wouldn't have that many children whether funded by tax payers or not.
That's a good point. This again comes down to social norms. Let us take Mexico and Spain for example. If I am correct in my thinking, it is seen as a good thing that a woman raise many children. Less developed nations such as Mexico, Africa, etc. Still, have relatively small populations or they have larger land masses. The thinking is different in each country and an African mil. could think and act far differently then an American one.
That's a good point. This again comes down to social norms. Let us take Mexico and Spain for example. If I am correct in my thinking, it is seen as a good thing that a woman raise many children. Less developed nations such as Mexico, Africa, etc. Still, have relatively small populations or they have larger land masses. The thinking is different in each country and an African mil. could think and act far differently then an American one.
I don't think they actually have smaller populations. Considering if we say majority wise: African's are the second largest population group on Earth only outnumbered by Asians (Chinese)...
More or less my point though is if the luxuries of the first world would lend to having less children it should affect them too. Otherwise you'd see White's doing the same [insert "Be fruitful and multiply" Christian quotes here] I question the theory in general when it only seems to apply to Whites in general though it could be argued a portion of this reason is thanks to welfare incentivizing other groups to having more children at the costs of the tax payer. (Such as Muslims having upwards of double digit children in Europe)
I don't think they actually have smaller populations. Considering if we say majority wise: African's are the second largest population group on Earth only outnumbered by Asians (Chinese)...
More or less my point though is if the luxuries of the first world would lend to having less children it should affect them too. Otherwise you'd see White's doing the same [insert "Be fruitful and multiply" Christian quotes here] I question the theory in general when it only seems to apply to Whites in general though it could be argued a portion of this reason is thanks to welfare incentivizing other groups to having more children at the costs of the tax payer. (Such as Muslims having upwards of double digit children in Europe)
Thats interesting as well (Honestly running on steam here XD its 1 am my time) I would think that having luxuries would cause people to be more self focued then to have more money to spend on children. But then again depends on the person I guess (Think I'm gonna go sleep now, my thinking id not 100% rn)
The more tinfoil hat theory is there are political powers that dont want the citizens to have children.
People like to present George Orwell as the prophet heralding the dystopian future. But IMO the true sage was Adolfus Huxley, not Orwell.
Orwell envisioned a tyranny of cruelty, but Huxley envisioned a tyranny of kindness. In the very first chapter of "Brave new world" huxley shows how children are grown in labs rather then through natural procreation. The reason for this is explained as a means of liberating women from the tyranny of nature, so they can live happy lives without the burden of maternal responsibilities. And for the men it's so they can engage in endless rounds of consequence free sex. All of which supported by free entertainment and narcotics that kept the population happy and stupid. Orwell feared a government so tyrannical it could ban thoughts. Huxley feared a government so tyrannical it could could convince people not to have thoughts in the first place
I think huxley was correct. And the declining birth rate in the western world is a glaring example of it in practice. Why is the birth rate declining? We are told it's because people are more responsible now. That it's a natural progression of advanced societies to not have as many children. All nice ways of saying humans are no longer having sex. Total fucking bullshit. People are still fucking. The only thing that has changed is birth control. That is the unmentionable thing in the whole debate, and the consequences of it go way beyond protecting teenage girls from unwanted babies. At a meta level our society needs a new generation to function, and without it it can fail. Hence the need to import immigrants as stand ins for the absent children.
Even worse however is that men and women who do not have children are susceptible to nihilism. Psychologists have known for decades that the arrival of a child causes massive psychological changes in the father and mother that are statistically relevant and also physically observable. The biggest change being a greater interest in long term planning. Because your children will outlive you by decades. For them to survive you need to think in such terms. It can even be argued civilization itself is a byproduct of that impulse. In the absence of children there is no investment in the future. Men refuse to work or worse, engage in anti social violence. Women seek to replace their absence with causes. Their pets. Or refugees.
Kids are expensive and people are getting out into the world later in life and working one job till you retire does not happen as often anymore.
Weddings are expensive, it's hard meeting people and most people are too fucking tired.
Porn has little to do with this, but is instead a symptom of the problem.
The problem can come down to things like the cost of raising a kid (being somewhere in the billions) and the fact that men can start back at square one if they divorce from a marriage along with the fact that all areas of law are positively biased towards women (remember the 19th Amendment, burgers).
This is not bringing up the helicopter-parents observing the party that is life (MeToo) since the birth control pill.
Kids are expensive and people are getting out into the world later in life and working one job till you retire does not happen as often anymore.
Weddings are expensive, it's hard meeting people and most people are too fucking tired.
Lest we not forget that jobs are one card short of slavery these days and kids are being born into financial turmoil today (look at millennials, they grew up into this shit) because of employers that care not about firing everyone at a moment's notice.
A lot of people who screech about "traditional marriages" only get the "men/women" part and not everything else that was involved.
First, your marraige didn't just involved you and your partner: the whole family was involved. Both families, actually.
Second, because people married young, they kinda grew together. They learned to tolerate each other because they were still becoming adults.
People now want to marry out of selfishness (which ain't necessarily bad) and at an age in which they're unable to adapt to living to another person. Also, millenials live in a bubble adn many are spoiled. They can't even s hare with their siblings or classmates, imagine sharing your life with a partner. It's not that they don't want, they can't.
They were, in some way. There was some sort of societal regulation that guaranteed both parts would be fine and make it all legal. Many people say "no, it was only their religious authorities", but remember that, in ye old times, religion and governmetns were pretty much the same thing.
But that's the extreme example. What the government mostly does now is incentivize marriage, instead of taking money from bachelors they give it to the married. It's not a new trend to call single men cowardly bums, it has always been that way. And women were constantly badgered about it in their young age as well (though obviously these days they're off the hook, even celebrated when they stay single.)
How much money would you need to willingly get on board?
It's not a new trend to call single men cowardly bums, it has always been that way. And women were constantly badgered about it in their young age as well (though obviously these days they're off the hook, even celebrated when they stay single.)
How much money would you need to willingly get on board?
Not very long time ago, getting a divorce or having sex outside marriage was considered a very big taboo in most of the western countries. Nowadays it's not, and this is the consequence. It's amazing that in here of all places, where users so adamantly value "freedom of speech" of all things, someone is asking this question. Isn't it shocking that when you give people freedom to choose whether to reverse bad decisions(getting married, for example), people use that freedom and get divorced more? Surely, it must be enemy propaganda.
Why do people keep saying that the world is overpopulating when the entire first world is almost completely below replacement level? Is this same sort of retardation where people blame America for India and China’s pollution?
Why do people keep saying that the world is overpopulating when the entire first world is almost completely below replacement level? Is this same sort of exceptionalism where people blame America for India and China’s pollution?
Because to look at it that way you have to acknowledge the differences not only in national levels (nationalism) but also race, and other basis (religously: Muslims/etc.) depending on the countries truly being over populated. Some may not be doing it purposely but I have reserves on that take.
Others may be avoiding more conspiratorial explanations merely because they'd rather double down or avoid any such talk whether it is true or not.
Though I think part of it also has to do with propaganda mentioned previously. Examples: "The world is overpopulated! Stop having children!" But wait we're below replacement level... "That's why we'll import more migrants!" Type shit.
Yeah kids are pricey but so is forever alone so is a private nurse. Imagine having a hard day at work then coming home and ya lil kid runs in and gives you some goofy drawing of you they made at school. Prob worth all the money they cost for that.
Yes and no. Having children has certain experiental and emotional benefits which one can't acquire otherwise, but at the same time it comes with anxieties and responsibilities that I wouldn't particularly mind not having. People who say that having kids is the best thing in life are usually total retards, or at least the kind of person who has never experienced anything really interesting. Still, like I said before, having children entitles you to certain experiences which are worth having.
I for one have already moved rurally and found a girl, we're planning on becoming subsistence permaculture farmers and homeschooling our kids, I'm the last in my family line so I'm going for at least 4-5 kids, the goal is to raise them humbly and with christian values in a healthy rural environment, something me and my future wife never had, we're tired of europes cultural and social decay so we're networking with other preppers and rural traditionalists and forming a separate community, for now we both need to wageslave enough money for a plot of land and decent house to live on near other people, once we have the money and networking though we are completely disconnecting from society outside of the bare minimum bill paying and hardware shopping, I'm looking forward to finally being truly free from society, until then, I might pop up here and there to post things and joke about.
Let’s all cool our conspiracy theory tism for a moment and look at this on a purely human level. I think we all agree that 3rd wave feminism, the rise of hipsters crying about toxic masculinity, social media, hook-up culture, welfare, student loans, the economy, and inflation ruined the dating scene in some manner. But most of these are can be dealt with on an individual level. I think the issue being asked is why is the Millennial generation lonely and miserable, despite having the ability to connect to anyone at any point.
There was a common theme in a lot of the posts in this thread about children being a financial burden, marriage being a crapshoot, and a general lack of trust for the system/women. This kind of cements to me that the issue for most individuals in this generation stems from a fear of commitment.
Not like a fear of commuting to a person, mind you. But a fear of committing to the wrong person and the chaos that could ensue. I think this was the only post I saw bring up a large reason as to where this distrust stems from:
Being in the last gen, divorce hit new record amounts, that's part of it, I think personally , children of divorce see it as 3 futures "holy shit I'll never do that" "I can do it better unlike those chuckle fucks" "I will never bond." You can be not too harshly effected, or abused from it and just choose to anyways.
Those who don't heal from the split, and want to out do the parents, often pick an unhealthy partner for a lot of reasons, so they are in trouble/risk of splitting.
And I think that nails it. I don’t know about y’all, but I’d like to see the a side-by-side on people who have these views and what kind of household they grew up in. How many of you jaded, childless Kiwis grew up in fucked up homes, or had divorced parents, and how did that shape your view on a family/marriage?
I think the simple explanation is that a lot of millennials are broken people who are the product of broken people.
And I don’t mean “broken” in the same way Tumblr likes to explain it. There are a lot of people who aren’t on Tumblr or Facebook crying about muh anxiety/depreshun for attention points and ruining the mental health scene with their nonsense. I mean “broken” as in they have a skewed outlook on the word “love” and what it is, how it feels, and what it means to love and be loved.
The first people who will show you love in your life is your parents. They teach you what it means to be loved, and what loving in return means. Sure, it’s familial love, but it’s the basis for every interaction in our lives thereafter.
No one is a perfect parent. But there’s a hardline between a parent who loves their children and is a flawed person, and a flawed person who merely tolerated their kids. It can be argued that while none of these millennials died from neglect physically, there’s an emotional neglect that persisted long throughout their life and shaped them as adults. When you aren’t taught how to love or show love, does the word hold anything more than a romanticized Disney ideal?
If a person grows up in a dysfunctional home, they grow up thinking the dysfunction is normal. They seek out partners that remind them of their family, subconsciously gravitating to what is familiar, only to have these relationships fail or to endure more emotional neglect, abuse, and loneliness. The more failures that add up only enforce the idea that people are untrustworthy, and that they’re unloveable. It reinforces that the idea of “love” is only a concept that has been fluffed and marketed to idealists, and that two people truly can’t learn to love only each other until death.
To grow up in a broken, abusive, or merely dysfunctional family, breeds more broken, abusive, and merely dysfunctional people who want to be loved by someone, but don’t know how to love themselves or others. Of course they’re afraid of marriage and having children. Why would you risk the same thing happening to your kids that happened to you? Why repeat the mistakes your parents made and risk creating another broken human? Why risk the pain of a divorce, splitting families apart, and making the kids feel guilty because they want to go to their dad’s house for Christmas?
Anecdotally, I know the majority of people I graduated high school with had divorced parents, or dysfunctional home lives. A lot of them are single or...they’ve “settled” for a less-than-ideal partner. One guy I know is only with his boyfriend for financial reasons, but convinces himself daily that he “loves” him. Personally, I grew up in a dysfunctional family with a volatile brother who was my mother’s favorite (she told me that on several occasions lul), and emotionally uninvolved father. The entire reason why I even have this theory about my generation is because I gained a passing interest in human psychology from years of trying to google “what the fuck is wrong with my brother,” and out of curiosity I looked up the definition for “love” and “family.”
Did you know the word “family is derived from “servant?”
Did you know “love” originally had 4 separate meanings and words that were eventually combined into one word to sum up all these feelings? I think I read that it was originall a word for family love, friendly love, desire, and pleasure (read: enjoyment), but I could be wrong.
Why did I look that shit up? Because after coming to terms with my fucked up family, it dawned on me that I wasn’t loved growing up, and that this lack of insight into what a simple, unconditional love felt like was foreign to me. It occurred to me that I was chasing relationships in hope of finding someone to love me, but I didn’t know how to return that love in a way that didn’t mimic how my family showed “love.” It never occurred to me that someone could just wake up in the morning and love you because love was always conditional.
Realizing this, I determined I didn’t want/need to have children. The idea of fucking up any potential children the same way my parents fucked my brother and me up terrifies me. I would put a gun to my head if I ever caught myself repeating anything my mom said to me to my children, even if only in a moment of anger. I don’t think that I’m equip to be a good mother to a child. My partner comes from a broken, poor, family that had many kids. And while his mom is one of the sweetest and most loving mother I’ve ever known, he’s still hesitant to get married and even less jazzed to have kids. To him, he relates children to watching his mother work her ass off and barely make it. Financially, kids aren’t an option, and we’re fine with that. Marriage also worries him because for all his mom’s good points, she has bad taste in men, and has had a couple of failed marriages. It’s just an idea that comes with a lot of his own personal baggage. I feel like it might be the same for a lot of other millennials with families like his.
Also: The cost of children has come up in this thread so often that I’m starting to suspect a few of us were reminded daily about how much our parents hated paying for us to go to school/eat. Lol
I had always assumed it was the product of social media giving people an easy yet joyless output for social interaction that was quickly degrading the quality of life and socialization skills people have. There's hundreds of studies on it and it's pretty obvious to a lot of society, even if nobody cares. Although reading this thread, and especially Basketball Jones' amazing post (that blows all the stupid conspiracy theories in this thread out of the water; seriously guys some of you sound like /pol/), I'm starting to think it's something else (although I still do think social media is a contributor and will only become worse of one)
I think what some posts are saying about fear of commitment or ruining their life or the life of their child might be the major factor. I think the biggest contributor to modern society is the fact that, now that a lot of physical labor is taken care of and automated, health care is better and life spans are longer, children are starting to have high academic skills expected of them. You're expected to just know more these days, be more aware and attentive and knowledgeable. With that trait being instilled into an entire generation, what are they going to do? First thing they're going to do with the attentive mindset instilled into them is see how fucked up their life is or the life of their friends and family and realize there's actually a very slim chance they're going to have a happy, idyllic life. Generations past didn't care about that stuff, they didn't have time to think, they were busy with their manual labor jobs. But now more than ever, many jobs, especially respectable ones, are all about thinking. People who think aren't usually happy because they instinctively statisticalize everything. It might even be a perfect storm with the fact that divorce rates are so high, so it's only fueling this outlook the current generation is now privileged enough to afford. I mean, even me personally, I sure as hell don't want to marry or have a kid, even if I actually can get a spouse. I just don't want to risk it, I don't have the resources, and the resources I do have I'd rather put into other things. I don't see an incentive, and that's probably because I'm expected of society to get a job where it would actually be my job to judge which things deserve more resources than others.
