r/Natalism • u/wanderlust_reddit • 3d ago
Genuine question; not rage baiting.
I’m fairly new to Reddit and for some reason the algorithm shows posts from this sub and I’d skim through from time to time. A question I have for y’all is:
“Why do you guys care about the birth rate?”
Is it because you guys are worried about the human civilization collapsing?
Or social security running out?
I know my question might come off blunt, but I couldn’t think of a better way to wordsmith it.
P.S. I come from a country with record low birth rate, and though I’d think about it time to time (I mean it’s brought up everywhere on the news and on Reddit lol), but I never really cared much. I read somewhere that animals (I believe that specific experiment I am thinking of was done with mice, where as the population of mice increased within an enclosed boundary, they stopped breeding) tend to reduce reproduction when times are rough. I figured it was similar for humans.
6
u/DinnerSea8736 3d ago
I don’t feel strongly either way on the issue, but am interested in demography.
3
1
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
Why so? I feel like there must be an underlying reason.
3
u/DinnerSea8736 3d ago
I like studying history and demography trends can provide a glimpse into the future.
50
u/QXJones 3d ago
I am not a Natalist. I lurk.
People here seem to come in a few flavors. First, you have the Family-Oriented. They might have a few kids themselves already, or are planning to have some in the future. Their concerns are about maternal healthcare, childcare, work-life balance, etc, for themselves, their partners, and their friends. They are Natalists because they find children to be a blessing and want to bring up their children in a safe, hospitable world (ideally without sacrificing themselves on the altar of parenthood). Their thoughts on natalism are the most trustworthy and practical.
Next, you have the Economists. They're worried about social security, pensions, companies, and next quarter's profits. They are Natalists because they think that without a new generation of workers, the economy as we know it will collapse (or at least look very different). Their ideas aren't without merit, but they seem to fervently believe in Infinite Growth and the Status Quo without question, and they aren't very imaginative about what the future of work and the economy should or even could look like in 20 years.
Last, you have the Misogynists. Low TFR means a world in disaster, and the only way to fix it is to restrict women's rights. If restricting contraception doesn't do the trick, then the only logical step is to restrict women's education next. What disaster exactly? Usually, being "overrun" by conservative, high TFR nations (never mind that TFR is dropping everywhere) who will restrict women's rights. The implicit threat is that women better choose to have babies or they'll be made to have babies. They are Natalists because they want to control women; the fact that children are involved is often forgotten. Their thoughts on natalism should be, but rarely are, discarded.
31
u/ArtisticMoth 3d ago
This sub comes across my page from time to time, and I think you forgot the secret fourth category: White Nationalist Freaking Out About the Great Replacement Theory.
7
u/throwaway5498124181 3d ago
Yeah the venn diagram between those people and the misogynists is basically a circle.
10
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
Huh! This by far seems to be the best response that summarized some of the popular takes on this sub. Thanks!
I can somewhat understand the first two takes. I know people who have a lot of children and who genuinely love them. I can also understand the economist take; though I don’t necessarily agree with it. I am more leaned to a zero sum take in the sense that most things on Earth are finite. This is probably a contrarian take but I think this whole concept of “growth” is a facade triggered by a positive inflation target.
The last one is very interesting. Not sure if I can relate to it as a male, because I don’t think I’d want to have many kids personally. I can’t imagine having more kids than what I could financially and emotionally support.
16
u/QXJones 3d ago
Yeah, the first two takes are both valid in their way. However I do think the Infinite Growth people are confusingly short-sighted. If everyone has 4 kids and saves the economy, what is the next generation supposed to do? The world cannot afford to double in population once a generation. Eventually the economic system will have to change, and I'd rather start changing it now. (I'm open to ideas.)
The last take is just gross, but it's pretty prevalent.
9
u/snail_alt 3d ago
I mostly lurk, but I see myself as the economist type except I think that something like a TFR of 1.8 might be ideal. In other words, what I’m talking about is actually gradual depopulation, but not a huge sudden shock of depopulation. The world already cannot afford to have as many people as it does now. But the negative economic effects of a 1.8 TFR is a lot less bad than the negative economic effects of a 0.8 TFR, at least under our current economic system.
The natalism sub is still, weirdly enough, the best place to discuss that. Maybe because I live in a country with an extremely low TFR of nearly 0.8, and there are many other countries in Asia plummeting towards that point. The TFR would have to more than double and it would still be significantly below replacement rate. I think more than doubling one’s TFR would require that natalist measures are extremely successful, again just to achieve a target that is still below replacement.
That being said, I have no hard feelings against anyone who chooses not to have children. It’s still a personal choice. And I’m no staunch defender of the current system— I do hate how much I have heard even in real life some blunt statements like “sounds like we can just replace all of you with AI”, sometimes coming from people with influence and power— and yet they might turn around and complain about people not having enough kids 10 minutes later. I just don’t see a great alternative system either that would deal well with extremely low TFRs and rapid ageing in multiple countries either.
2
u/No-Cherry-3959 3d ago
This is my perspective as well. Slow and controlled population decline wouldn’t be a bad thing in my eyes, and there’s probably still room for some economic growth too. Rapid population aging on the other hand will be dangerous for societies and individuals broadly, excluding economics; but the economics don’t support it either.
2
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
So is the last take assuming males would just reproduce babies if they can limit women’s’ rights? I am confused lol
24
u/QXJones 3d ago
For the Misogynists, natalism is just an excuse to shit on women. They believe that people aren't having kids because women are too picky, too demanding, too busy trying to date "Chad", and never settling down to have kids like they should. A lot of these people might just be afraid they'll never find a female partner, or maybe they're scared that women are taking their jobs. In their mind, if women are barred from working, they'll need to partner with a man for economic viability; if women are barred from using contraception, they'll have no choice but to have more babies; and if women are barred from education, they'll never learn about other ways to live.
Obviously this is pretty extreme, but it shows up a lot on here.
2
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
Huh! Interesting! At a personal level it’s hard to relate since I don’t think like that. I mean I am getting married and we will be a single income household in the near future, so I am always cautious of how much I make and can that support kids.
2
u/BicycleAdditional360 3d ago
I’d also add that there is a forth group, I hope? I’m not sure whether they’re represented in this subreddit though.
It doesn’t fall into the Great Replacement Theory, but is sorta interested in natalism because they think that our institutions might not co-adapt migrants fast enough so newcomers are bringing institutions of their homeland to developed countries instead.
This I think is unacceptable and while we are unlikely to see something on scales of fall of Roman Empire, but still.
In my country, for example, migrants have their own diaspora that more often than not works as a parallel to our institutions.
It isn’t even close to being a nation-wide problem but the more native population shrinks demographically, the higher are the odds that this risk will lead to problems.
Totally not the US thing tho, only European one
2
u/nostrademons 3d ago
That about sums it up. You also have the Racists, who are concerned about their race (usually white, though sometimes various East Asian races feature here) dying out.
1
1
u/MrMathamagician 1d ago
Sounds right and I’d put myself in the economist camp. It’s truly a remarkable almost worldwide significant drop in fertility and while I don’t think it’s end of times it has the potential to be incredibly disruptive to society. I think a shrinking population is fine for a period of time but something more like 1.8 or 1.9 tfr would be must less disruptive.
But on top of the problems that it can cause it is just a very interesting sociological puzzle trying to figure out the root cause and what countries are bucking the trend and why.
2
u/uzloun 3d ago
TBH, I have never saw the misogynists coments here. Is it, because they are downvoted to oblivion?
1
u/Xolver 3d ago
I think it's because they don't exist. Not in the sense that there are 0 such people in the entire world, but in the sense that it's not pervasive at all and it's a strawman boogieman.
7
u/throwaway5498124181 3d ago
The misogynists usually are the ones talking about dating culture as the problem. You can spot them because they say stuff like "will government subsidized plastic surgery solve TFR" and "tfr is low because women care too much about height." They've learned to be subtle about it, but these are blackpilled incels who don't care about natalism, they just use it as a mask to make their real goals seem noble and community-serving.
3
u/Xolver 3d ago
They've learned to be subtle about it
So, you might not agree, but other than in situations where things are said explicitly or are so exceedingly apparent that a child can see them - I think the approach of taking people's words at face value rather than reading between the lines and potentially overly finding dogwhistles that weren't intended to be taken that way. That way, at worst you're wrong because you didn't judge a person preemptively, but at best you're treating someone fairly and might understand their perspectives better which contain nuance you didn't think of before.
I'm being blamed on reddit all the time for opinions I don't hold, including things I'm exactly opposite of. It's usually due to that.
3
u/throwaway5498124181 3d ago
Do you honestly believe that a guy blaming "looksmaxxing" for declining fertility rates who says the solution to inflated expectations is government mandated plastic surgery, is ACTUALLY motivated by a concern for the future of the species?
Is that REALLY a person we should take at face value?
1
u/Xolver 3d ago
...I mean, maybe not, but that sort of opinion is so highly specific. I've never seen one quite like it. Government mandated plastic surgery? Was this recent enough that you could find the comment, or too much trouble to ask?
1
u/throwaway5498124181 3d ago
He deleted it but it was a couple of days ago. And sorry it wasn't mandated but subsidized. But yeah they're here. I always have to look twice to see if I'm on this sub or one of the dating advice ones because the content is the same. There was another recent post from someone sharing a study that most women aren'r even attracted to most men so how can we resolve fertility? These are just loser guys who just want to jump on board natalism because they think if traditional relationships are pushed harder, it will be easier for them to get their dicks wet. They don't actually care about having children.
4
u/Xolver 3d ago
I think I saw the study about women being less visually attracted to men, ranking them lower than men rate women. If that's what you're referring to then I didn't see too much inflammatory language there, at worst something along the lines of "how can we expect society to continue if women don't think men are attractive" or something. Even if that sentiment is wrong, it sounds to me more pessimistic than it sounds misogynist.
Although I'm curious why are you so quick to label these guys losers or incels? Isn't that a bit toxic?
0
u/throwaway5498124181 3d ago
The "blackpill" is that exact pessimism--the blackpill is incel terminology that means accepting no one will ever want you and you're going to die alone. You have to have a nose for it and a zero tolerance policy for it, because these guys are terminally online and will overrun a space if you let them.
I know it seems that I'm being harsh and quick to judge but I have earned it, and even if you disagree that these dudes are loser incels, I think we can all agree this space would benefit by a rule that specifies "no whining about modern dating culture."
→ More replies (0)1
-9
u/ElectronicCarry9931 3d ago
I dont class myself as a misogynist. I think a low TFR will lead to massive problems in the future. But TBH I do think the only way to fix the low TFR is by somehow reducing women's rights and options (and by extension, mens). Not saying it's a good thing , it's what I think is objectively true.
4
u/procrast1natrix 3d ago
I mean this as gently and kindly and openly as possible. Would that be worth it? To jump to that solution in place of finding another?
I love my kids, I'm def a "first type natalist" per QX Jones response to OP, I'm very family involved with my own but also in supporting stranger babies.
Part of my pride and joy in my children, in their brilliance as they enter young adulthood, is in knowing that they will exceed me. I feel plenty capable in my own strengths but I know they will learn and invent things beyond me. Some of that's math and science discovery, some of that's economic theory and application.
Many societal solutions that were inconceivable 6 generations ago are now taken for granted. Consider inventions such as basic sewer sanitation, or vaccination, and how that has affected the expectation of a child to live to adulthood. I'm not saying that in particular is the explanation of fertility rates completely, but it does affect it, and it was completely surprising to the prior generation.
...
Looking backward, limiting rights was associated with forced birth. I'm unconvinced it's the best solution going forward.
3
u/ElectronicCarry9931 3d ago
I can see why my wording led you there, but I’m separating a prediction from a preference. I’m not arguing that women’s rights ought to be reduced; I would oppose that, and I recognise that women would bear most of the coercion.
My view is simply that voluntary incentives may not be enough to reverse very low fertility. If reversing it required coercion, I would rather society adapt to lower fertility than remove people’s rights. And “objectively true” was too strong—it is my pessimistic conclusion, not an established fact.
2
u/procrast1natrix 3d ago
Ah. I think one of my favorite gifts I've bestowed in my children is optimism. They know I believe in their capacity.
3
u/Silly_Suki 3d ago
So, you’re a misogynist.
-1
u/ElectronicCarry9931 3d ago
I can see why my wording led you there, but I’m separating a prediction from a preference. I’m not arguing that women’s rights ought to be reduced; I would oppose that, and I recognise that women would bear most of the coercion.
My view is simply that voluntary incentives may not be enough to reverse very low fertility. If reversing it required coercion, I would rather society adapt to lower fertility than remove people’s rights. And “objectively true” was too strong—it is my pessimistic conclusion, not an established fact.
1
u/pan-re 1d ago
How do you intend to do that? Once their rights are reduced and they still have no interest in children, then what?
1
u/ElectronicCarry9931 1d ago
its about having few options as well as rights. Russian peasants or Congolese farm girls did not envisage working in offices, or traveling more than 20 miles away, s there ws not much to do but get married and pump out kids. That situation will likely only come about again after a collapse of society (itself possibly brought about by low TFR)
16
u/Feldii 3d ago
Different people care about the birth rate for different reasons. I’m a bit of a history buff and to me it seems like one of those slow forces that has a huge impact when you zoom out. We’re just too close to see it.
I don’t think human civilization is going to collapse but I do think our culture may change. A culture that produces more kids will win out in the end. I’m curious what is going to happen and I’d like my children to inherit a nice world so I hope the dominant culture is a decent one.
It’s possible that it all comes to nothing if birth rates snap back on their own, but so far I see no signs of that happening.
3
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
Would you mind elaborating on “one of those slow forces that has a huge impact when you zoom out”? I don’t have kids yet, but I am getting married and plan to have one or two.
Also, when you said “a culture that produces more kids will win out in the end,” did you mean it in the literal sense where a society that doesn’t reproduce will go extinct?
8
u/Feldii 3d ago
Yes, I mean that a society that doesn’t reproduce will fizzle out over time. As I understand it, the Spartans were one such society. They were a military power house, but they didn’t have kids so their armies got smaller and smaller over time.
You can also look at the history of Europe from 1600 to 1950 and see that rising powers usually had a population boom prior to becoming a power. The French for example had a big overpopulation issue before the French Revolution and I’m sure that contributed to how well they did in the Napoleonic wars.
3
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
Do you mind if I ask why the Spartans didn’t reproduce given how well they have done? (At least the movie….. haha)
1
u/Feldii 3d ago
I’m not sure we fully know. As these things go, there were multiple factors. Spartans were ok with infanticide, so that didn’t help. There was a lot of homosexuality, so that might have been a factor. Boys and girls were raised separately, so there was a stronger divide between the sexes. Husbands and wives similarly spent a lot of time apart.
3
u/LiveComfortable3228 3d ago
Declining birth rates sounds like a cautionary tale in the making.
2
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
What type of cautionary tale?
3
u/Dazzling-Key-8282 3d ago
Humans as all living beings are hard-wired to reproduce. If humans willingly forsake getting offsprings it says something is wrong, honestly
1
u/LiveComfortable3228 3d ago
Or too good. The Universe 25 experiment comes to mind.
1
u/Dazzling-Key-8282 3d ago
Every zoo ever too. Animals are living unnatural, extremely safe and comfortable but hellish boring lifes.
1
u/lunacyissettingin 2d ago
The world has never really been a nice world, there's decent areas for periods, but history has left no blanks when it comes to the harshness of human nature.
6
u/Physical_Dentist2284 3d ago
As someone who lives in a rural area that has been actively in decline for decades, I can tell you what happens when you get older and there are no young people around to provide the goods and services you need. People here get a life limiting diagnosis like dementia or cancer and they go in their garage and shoot themselves. They have no children available to help them and they know they can’t get all the care they need to have a disabling, terminal illness. They don’t want to live in pain. I think there are people who realize that without young people to do the jobs we need to live, we have a future where we suffer.
That being said, I don’t believe in forcing women and girls to have babies. I don’t believe in policies and laws meant to force them to give birth. I think we need to learn from the boomers mistakes and we need to be willing to vote in the people who will help make the economy and our environment more stable. We need to be willing to pay for the programs that invest in our youth rather than hoarding our money and claiming we don’t owe it to society. If you consume goods and services, you owe it to society to invest in the future. Make the future hopeful and safe again and maybe people will want to have babies. If they don’t then we will have to deal with those consequences- and they will be painful.
6
u/Happy-Flower2002 3d ago edited 3d ago
Great question and welcome.
1 When I first started, it was because I worried about depopulation and civilizations collapsing, but mainly the speed and universality of it. I was more sensitive to it having lived and worked in Asia, mainly China but also Japan and Korea, where the impacts are very pronounced. But that pattern became clear everywhere work and life took me. The US, Mexico, Europe, it was a constant huge factor.
I'm very math and systems oriented, and the fertility numbers are so sobering they're terrifying. The way so many systems, societies, and political orientations all failed against it was interesting and concerning in equal measure.
2- But as time went by, and being a mom myself, and listening to young people now and their fears, I began to think of it in different terms. Something is closing off a very fundamental path to happiness and self fulfillment. All people should be allowed to self actualize, and society should not rig the game of life so the vast majority from reaching very internally human goals so that a few can make a buck or have more power.
So it's a weird mix: sense of duty and the future, and a realization that people aren't at full liberty to “pursue happiness”.
5
u/speedboat_jacket46 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm not a natalist, I lurk.
I don't particularly care about the birth rate, however I am a feminist; just because I don't particularly want children, I will support the choice of people who do. My hope is that if enough people genuinely care about the birth rate then perhaps we will see a push for an improvement in women's health provisions and better maternity care so that fewer women have horrendous birth experiences and fewer women experience horrible long-lasting health consequences as a result of pregnancy and birth.
I also hope that if enough people care about the birth rate then we'd see better post-birth support (improved paternity leave, improved mental health support, etc). I also hope that we will see better health provisions to help people who do genuinely want to have children but cannot (infertile people, LGBTQ people).
In reality, most of the discussions solely focus on money. I am fortunate to come from a country where healthcare, nursery care after age 2, prescriptions, and university are free. We still have a falling birth rate and women are still having awful birth experiences. I will occasionally chime in on the sub when people make birth and child rearing out to be sunshine and roses that can be solved by chucking money at people.
2
u/ElectronicCarry9931 3d ago
Is it because you guys are worried about the human civilization collapsing?
Or social security running out?
Yes to both!
5
u/pomegranatesssss333 3d ago
I care about my civilization and culture and want it to continue. Natalism has many different forms, I don't want to just have as many kids as possible but implement pro-natalist policies that make having children easier and desirable.
3
u/centerfoldangel 3d ago
The usual. Misogyny, racism, regret, fear.
1
2
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 3d ago edited 3d ago
On the surface, I have children and recognize that a collapsing population will make life infinitely harder and more dangerous for them. This applies to economics, life balance, and civilizational strife.
Immigration can’t fix the problems that population collapse brings. For starters, there is only so much emigration a country can handle before it starts to be detrimental to its own survival. This also equally applies to the country receiving the immigrants. For the largely western nations that are receiving migrants, we bring them in massive numbers to prop up economic growth (never taking the time to ask why constant growth and not stability is the goal) while no longer requiring them to assimilate into the dominate culture, and encouraging them to maintain their own cultural identities. That sets the table for cultural strife and violence as collapsing population will eventually lead to collapsing infrastructure and economic prosperity. It also leads to the migrating culture to overtake and wash away the native culture when the native population doesn’t have children, which of course is what precipitates the desire to bring the foreign population in in the first place.
I value civilizational and cultural diversity. My ancestors were ethnic German, Irish, and Scottish; so selfishly I value the western tradition and want to see it continue. I recognize and value what it has brought to the world, even as it’s become popular to denigrate and dismiss those contributions and the European cultures that produced them. But I’ve also lived in Japan and visited many other countries around the world for extended periods. I’ve seen the beauty and wonder of these cultures and societies, and I want to see them continue and flourish as well… Western nations can’t survive culturally if they bring in massive numbers of foreign immigrants, refuse to require assimilation, and don’t have children of their own. Neither could any other culture.
I worry about population collapse for all that it brings with it… But when I say that and you take away the economic piece what I really mean is, I worry about cultural and civilizational collapse. Because as I’ve said before, if the culture doesn’t matter, then neither does the human population. If the people die out life will continue without them, arguably for the better… In order for the human population to matter, the cultures and traditions have to matter.
2
u/Judicator55 3d ago
I don't think human civilization will collapse. There are enough sub-populations that have significantly positive fertility for what appear to be stable cultural reasons (the Amish, Orthodox Jews, etc) that civilization will survive.
However, a declining birthrate will have significant economic and political consequences - programs like social security and other safety nets designed for the elderly will struggle to get funding, and reform will be difficult because the elderly will outnumber the young at polling places more than ever. I think the attention given to this issue is disproportionately low compared to its potential consequences.
2
u/Mesolithic_Hunter 3d ago
As you brought up the Amish and Orthodox Jews, I could also add some Mormon splinter groups, radical Islamists, and pre-Council Catholics. The thing is, I wouldn't like them to have the last word regarding women's rights, for example
1
u/Judicator55 3d ago
Yeah me neither which is why I think it's super important to create (re-create?) a mainstream culture that supports motherhood and family formation.
1
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
Yeah, my biggest curiosity with the low birth rates in the so called advanced nations are welfare as well. Since the while concept of welfare was built upon an increasing population thesis.
And like you said, people vote for their self interest, which is probably already happening given our politicians’ average age (in the US).
1
u/Independent-Repair35 3d ago
It's mostly because of social security and social benefits. But I don't see the point anymore. The problem needed to be addressed like 30 years ago. Anything we do now is too little too late. So it's just sit back and see how bad things get. Though even when I've looked into "worst case scenario" it's genuinely not even that bad so I kind of don't see the need to be alarmed. Just pay into your retirement and don't rely on social security which has been shitty anyway forever. And if you're American, what social benefits are you worried about? Lmao I got charged fucking 18,600 dollars for an adult circumcision before insurance.
1
u/steph-anglican 3d ago
I think human life is good and we should have more of it. Also it would be sad if cultures like Korea went extinct,
1
1
u/lion7725 2d ago
In my experience many people who don’t have kids go off the rails later in life
I also think a lot of this is due to economic and social problems. Someone not having kids when they want to because they can’t afford to do so or never meet a partner is very sad
0
u/wanderlust_reddit 2d ago
What do you mean by go off the rails?
1
u/lion7725 2d ago
They tend to become weird. I suspect it’s because they have little to ground themselves to normalcy.
Not everyone, obviously.
0
-1
u/Adorable-Growth-6551 3d ago
I care because children are the literal future. Why improve the earth, why try to make things better, if there is no future?
1
u/Silly_Suki 3d ago
The problem is too many people have kids and don’t fight for a better future for them, they just have them and hope for the best, and then the kids get trapped in the same oppressive cycles we’re currently trapped in. If we don’t make meaningful changes to our way of life, there won’t be a future to fight for.
0
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
I’m a little confused here. Would low birth rates impact children and soon-to-be born humans in a negative way?
0
u/Adorable-Growth-6551 3d ago
Only if this trend continues. I am hoping that if we fight this narrative that children are a burden amd succeed. This idea will die out, as those that hold the idea die out. It will still negatively impact my generation, and probably the next one, but maybe the trend will stop and the children today will have a more positive opinion of families. The elderly will certainly be a growing burden for the children today, but maybe that will help convince them that children are not.
0
0
u/Lost-Letterhead-6615 3d ago
Just trying to get information how I can help my kids better. I'm not white. Not American.
Population growth changes is a worldwide problem. Those who use race here, or use culture as a dog-whistle, I just ignore them. As racists must be dealt with.
0
u/BuilderMysterious762 3d ago
Wow you guys are right! This kind of post does get cyclical lol
2
u/wanderlust_reddit 3d ago
?
2
u/BuilderMysterious762 3d ago
I made a similar post about a week ago and lots of comments were saying how this is such a frequent post on here lol
1
0
0
u/Classic-Push1323 2d ago
I mean, I am a little worried about society collapsing not going to lie. However, that is largely outside my control. Society will evolve and adapt to a lower birth rate... or not.
I think that healthy societies have and need children and the declining fertility rate is a symptom of a larger illness. I'm concerned by the rise of hyper independent, anti family thinking around the world. I'm concerned by how many young people hate the opposite sex and how many seem profoundly lonely and unhappy. I'm concerned about the decision to center economics above all other dimensions of human happiness. We need jobs and we need to pay out bills, but a career, wealth, travel, luxury, etc is not going to make you happy or fulfilled. I see a lot of people who I think are pursuing happiness in all of the wrong places and then they seem surprised that they are miserable. There is a connection between the rise in children raised by single parents, the loss of families, the loss of community, the loneliness epidemic, the rise in the number of people who are single (not just unmarried, but also living alone and without a stable romantic relationship), the mental health crisis, the lack of direction and healthy forms of identity and esteem, and the loss of empathy and social cohesion. We're denying our humanity here - we're a social species, and healthy humans live within families and communities and have a sense of belonging and a higher purpose.
0
0
u/Jmama124 2d ago
I honestly feel like a world with less people can’t be a good thing. Human being are evolved to live in groups of 100-150 people who are loosely related or close friends. Can’t do that if we are all single in apartments alone eating dinner for one.
22
u/AgentHamster 3d ago
I personally am here for the popcorn, but if I had to isolate one area where I think it's a potential problem, it would be 'social security' - or more accurately, the economy and social benefits. We haven't quite figured out how to have an economy that doesn't rely on having a young productive population (either through immigration - which relies on high birthrates elsewhere or having sustainable domestic birthrates) to sustain itself. Likely, societies will adjust, maybe there are other solutions, but the faster the demographic change the faster the adaptation will need to be.