How do we solve this?

[Cognisant]

People not having children is creating an economic decline, in agrarian cultures people live with and support their elders directly, if each couple only has one child and the lifespan of the elders is increasing that child ends up crushed by the economic burden of an inverse pyramid scheme.

In more Western capitalist style nations people often don't support their elders directly, rather people accumulate assets and a retirement fund over a lifetime of work then retire on the interest generated by their capital, this retirement fund invests in businesses that employ young workers and those same young workers are renting the real estate assets owned by their society's elders. So it's actually the exact same thing except it's not your children supporting you it's everyone's children and the people who don't have children and focus exclusively on building capital are disproportionately rewarded for doing so, they benefit from other people shouldering that burden.

But the thing is everyone knows this and everyone's trying to screw the system or rather they've already been screwed by the system and are forgoing having children to prepare for their retirement, and this is creating a demographic death spiral as each generation is smaller than the one that came before it and increasingly crushed by the burden of maintaining the ever aging society.

Furthermore men and women are opting out of seeking relationships and having children for their own gender specific reasons. For women financial security means competing in a man's world (more on that in a sec) or surrendering much of the control she has over her own life to a financial benefactor. Being out of the workforce for a few years can be very disadvantageous when applying for a job and being out of the workforce for a longer period of time means potentially returning at an entry level, and certainly not benefiting from years of experience and career progression. By "a man's world" I mean men don't really give a shit about a woman's income, if he's partnering with her to have and raise children he needs her to be young and healthy enough to undertake the incredibly physically demanding role of having children, otherwise what's the point?

As for men there's simply no respect for fatherhood and marriage comes with the very real financial risk of divorce, so we're strongly disincentivized from doing anything other than pursuing our careers and even then what is the money for? Without a wife and kids to support a man has a lot of excess capacity and so a lot of men are checking out of society and seeking self sufficiency instead, or simply getting by on low-wage low-responsibility jobs.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Better question is why you think people are being crushed?
I intend to have no children.
SO I can support my self just fine. If I get a job and work and have no burden of providing for children that is opposite of being crushed.
I could careless about collapse of economy as those money are losses of rich people who accumulate that wealth through other people.

Less people also need less economy.

The logic you are talking about is someone with economy degree who thinks that growing economy is end game of economy.
Economy is for people. If there is less people there is less economy, which is normal and as it should be.

Why do we need more economy? Unless I am rich and need umpa lumpas in my factory I could care very little for macroeconomic measure of state.

Even better question is why would a economist be bothered or a statesmen or a rich person.
Less people means more resources anyway.
Whether there is 100 million or 40 million people makes very little difference.
Most of that population is just working to produce goods for it self to sustain it self.

 

[Cognisant]

Most of the population is old and they're getting older, it's not the size of the population that matters but rather the ratio of workers to non-workers. You don't need a growing population to be sustainable (although that tends to skew the ratio in favor of workers which is beneficial) but if the ratio dips too low it becomes unsustainable resulting in a feedback loop of further economic and population decline.

If everyone prioritizes building capital for their own retirement over contributing to the population that capital loses its value as money and even assets have no inherent value. Money is a medium of exchange, you may have a lot of money but if prices keep rising then your actual wealth is diminishing, likewise if the population is diminishing so too will the demand for assets like real estate.

You really don't want to be in a collapsing economic system when you're too old to be self sufficient.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Past is no indication of the future. 2023 babys might have fucked like rabbits by the time they are boomers age.

Not a reason to do nothing right. There is a little space in between- and now with of a shortage of hospice workers. The minorities can't all be nurses or caretakers after all.


Cure all STDs maybe? Long time coming.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Jokes aside I agree with Zen. If the ruling class wants more economic fodder, they better just give us health ffs.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If everyone prioritizes building capital for their own retirement over contributing to the population that capital loses its value as money and even assets have no inherent value. Money is a medium of exchange, you may have a lot of money but if prices keep rising then your actual wealth is diminishing, likewise if the population is diminishing so too will the demand for assets like real estate.

Capital that magically loses value, means there was no value in it.
Capital flow, ergo money does go down every time economy goes down.
A healthy economy is one that produces. The capital on top and manipulation of banks and larger investment companies is not value just fluff.

If you need a spoon you manufacture a spoon.
If you need toilette paper you make toilette paper.
If you need a house you build a house.

If you cannot support yourself its not a problem of capital per se.
Its badly structured economy.
There are many economies in the world that have millions of people living in poverty and they have many kids.

A few old people losing capital and millions of people living in poverty.
Not sure which is worse, but I think Id go for little bit of capital loss.

 

[scorpiomover]

People not having children is creating an economic decline,

I read that Rishi Sunak said that the UK should just get in lots more immigrants.

In more Western capitalist style nations people often don't support their elders directly,

The human species advanced by increasing their useful knowledge (wisdom). This was accomplished by doing and observing which things worked. This only worked for a single generation.

So in order for the generations to keep advancing, elders would pass on their useful knowledge that they already accumulated to the younger generation.

This was accomplished primarily by young people spending time helping their elders, watching what their elders did, and then asking their elders why their elder did what they did. It used to be estimated that to learn all that their elders knew that was useful, would take between 20 years and 40 years.

rather people accumulate assets and a retirement fund over a lifetime of work then retire on the interest generated by their capital, this retirement fund invests in businesses that employ young workers and those same young workers are renting the real estate assets owned by their society's elders. So it's actually the exact same thing except it's not your children supporting you it's everyone's children and the people who don't have children and focus exclusively on building capital are disproportionately rewarded for doing so, they benefit from other people shouldering that burden.

If the elders' money goes into businesses, then the capitalists who own businesses get a significant portion of everyone's money.

But the thing is everyone knows this and everyone's trying to screw the system

The immigrants know this too now, and are also screwing the system. They still stick to their families, as they learn from their elders, and keep their elders' money within the families, while at the same time, gain from the non-immigrants' money, thus increasing their money and power.

this is creating a demographic death spiral as each generation is smaller than the one that came before it and increasingly crushed by the burden of maintaining the ever aging society.

The money that is disappearing is going to the capitalists. Thus, we are seeing a massively increasing economic inequality.

The useful knowledge known by the elders is not passed on to their grandchildren, because their children are not having kids. This keeps the population relatively naive and so easy to manipulate.

Furthermore men and women are opting out of seeking relationships and having children for their own gender specific reasons. For women financial security means competing in a man's world (more on that in a sec) or surrendering much of the control she has over her own life to a financial benefactor. Being out of the workforce for a few years can be very disadvantageous when applying for a job and being out of the workforce for a longer period of time means potentially returning at an entry level, and certainly not benefiting from years of experience and career progression. By "a man's world" I mean men don't really give a shit about a woman's income, if he's partnering with her to have and raise children he needs her to be young and healthy enough to undertake the incredibly physically demanding role of having children, otherwise what's the point?

As for men there's simply no respect for fatherhood and marriage comes with the very real financial risk of divorce, so we're strongly disincentivized from doing anything other than pursuing our careers and even then what is the money for? Without a wife and kids to support a man has a lot of excess capacity and so a lot of men are checking out of society and seeking self sufficiency instead, or simply getting by on low-wage low-responsibility jobs.

Both narratives keep the men and women working like drones, and not having kids. Then there's a need for immigrants from poor countries who will work for cheap for the capitalists.

 

[scorpiomover]

Most of the population is old and they're getting older, it's not the size of the population that matters but rather the ratio of workers to non-workers.

In theory, immigration from China and India solves this problem.

You don't need a growing population to be sustainable (although that tends to skew the ratio in favor of workers which is beneficial) but if the ratio dips too low it becomes unsustainable resulting in a feedback loop of further economic and population decline.

If everyone prioritizes building capital for their own retirement over contributing to the population that capital loses its value as money and even assets have no inherent value. Money is a medium of exchange, you may have a lot of money but if prices keep rising then your actual wealth is diminishing, likewise if the population is diminishing so too will the demand for assets like real estate.

True. But if the money goes into retirement funds, which then is invested in businesses, then the hedge fund managers and the business-owners get a lot of that money. Thus the rich get richer.

You really don't want to be in a collapsing economic system when you're too old to be self sufficient.

20 years ago, the conspiracy theorists were saying that the rich are slowly moving their money (& investments) to China, so that as the West becomes poorer and China becomes richer, the rich keep their riches.

 

[birdsnestfern]

If one reason men and women don't stay together is lack of awareness of what each needs and wants, it probably would help to have a class in understanding the opposite sex, ie, something like men are from mars, women are from venus, and have more shows on tv like Donna Reed show that share what its like in a world of manners and consideration for each other.

This guy Michael Parenti is brilliant though, I like his ideas. Oh, it looks like its not free, nevermind. Only the podcasts are free.

Michael Parenti Archives — Alternative Radio

Michael Parenti is a leading independent political analyst and scholar. Cornel West calls him, “a towering prophetic voice.” He has taught at major colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad. He is the author of numerous books including Democracy for the Few, Power and the Powerless, The...

www.alternativeradio.org

Free Audio and Video — Alternative Radio

Blue boxes contain video, and red boxes contain audio. Filter by media type or year Video Audio20242023202220212020201920182017201620152014201220112010200920082007200620052004 David Barsamian India & Nepal: Culture, Tradition & A Juggernaut of Inustics Language of Empire Memory, Obama...

www.alternativeradio.org

 

[Cognisant]

If one reason men and women don't stay together is lack of awareness of what each needs and wants, it probably would help to have a class in understanding the opposite sex, ie, something like men are from mars, women are from venus, and have more shows on tv like Donna Reed show that share what its like in a world of manners and consideration for each other.

Pop culture tends to portray men, fathers in particular, as bumbling and foolhardy at best and incompetent or actively malicious at worst.

A few decades ago the portrayal of a generic suburban father like this would have been scandalous, these days it's just a worn out joke.

Social justice and critical race theory tell men (white men in particular) that they're the cause of and responsible for all the world's problems, meanwhile there's this 3rd wave feminism narrative that men are useless and not needed and potential rapists and again all men are to blame (as a group) and should be held responsible until the problem is solved.

What men need is some basic fucking respect and for whiny entitled female journalists to shut the fuck up. The modern man is disinterested, demotivated, emasculated, insecure and basically defeated, the Father's Always Right patriarchal world of the 1950s was seventy fucking years ago, time has marched on, and on, and on, and now vile pieces of shit like Andrew Tate are being idolized by young men because despite their many flaws because they speak truth to power.

We now live in a world where a woman can be raped on the train and nobody will do anything, because men are afraid to take any risks in a society where they're vilified, and they have the attitude that if we're all equals now and women are strong, empowered and need no man then why is it men's responsibility?
Where are the women, why aren't they intervening?

And as fathers a lot of men get treated like shit, women seem to forget that just because they're married and they have kids it doesn't mean that this man is their fucking property, that this is another human being who is choosing to be there and requires at least the most basic respect. So they leave or they become abusive and she leaves, this is the great crisis of our age, it seems like there's more single mothers than actual cohesive families these days.

Of course it's not all women's fault, as I explained in the OP there are underlying economic factors here, a lot of men have no interest in long term relationships, to them children are a liability and marriage is a scam. So they use women like playthings and have no remorse for doing so, they grew up being told men are the root of all evil and they internalized that as truth. Hence why there are now rapists that will attack women in public and idolized assholes who think women exist to be used and abused, so when journalists call men out on this shit they're not wrong, but they're not helping either.

It all comes back to respect, the good men who do the right thing need to be celebrated, the fathers that stick around, the men who step in to stop other men doing awful things, men need their dignity back.

Alright now go on, tell me what men don't understand about women.

 

[Black Rose]

The solution to population demographics is robotics.​

Atlas Gets a Grip | Boston Dynamics​

​

 

[scorpiomover]

If one reason men and women don't stay together is lack of awareness of what each needs and wants, it probably would help to have a class in understanding the opposite sex, ie, something like men are from mars, women are from venus, and have more shows on tv like Donna Reed show that share what its like in a world of manners and consideration for each other.

Pop culture tends to portray men, fathers in particular, as bumbling and foolhardy at best and incompetent or actively malicious at worst.

A few decades ago the portrayal of a generic suburban father like this would have been scandalous, these days it's just a worn out joke.

Social justice and critical race theory tell men (white men in particular) that they're the cause of and responsible for all the world's problems, meanwhile there's this 3rd wave feminism narrative that men are useless and not needed and potential rapists and again all men are to blame (as a group) and should be held responsible until the problem is solved.

What men need is some basic fucking respect and for whiny entitled female journalists to shut the fuck up. The modern man is disinterested, demotivated, emasculated, insecure and basically defeated, the Father's Always Right patriarchal world of the 1950s was seventy fucking years ago, time has marched on, and on, and on, and now vile pieces of shit like Andrew Tate are being idolized by young men because despite their many flaws because they speak truth to power.

We now live in a world where a woman can be raped on the train and nobody will do anything, because men are afraid to take any risks in a society where they're vilified, and they have the attitude that if we're all equals now and women are strong, empowered and need no man then why is it men's responsibility?
Where are the women, why aren't they intervening?

And as fathers a lot of men get treated like shit, women seem to forget that just because they're married and they have kids it doesn't mean that this man is their fucking property, that this is another human being who is choosing to be there and requires at least the most basic respect. So they leave or they become abusive and she leaves, this is the great crisis of our age, it seems like there's more single mothers than actual cohesive families these days.

Of course it's not all women's fault, as I explained in the OP there are underlying economic factors here, a lot of men have no interest in long term relationships, to them children are a liability and marriage is a scam. So they use women like playthings and have no remorse for doing so, they grew up being told men are the root of all evil and they internalized that as truth. Hence why there are now rapists that will attack women in public and idolized assholes who think women exist to be used and abused, so when journalists call men out on this shit they're not wrong, but they're not helping either.

It all comes back to respect, the good men who do the right thing need to be celebrated, the fathers that stick around, the men who step in to stop other men doing awful things, men need their dignity back.

The Donna Reed Show was shown between 1958 and 1966, when most married fathers were portrayed as competent, capable, intelligent and mature, and having dignity and respect that they earned and deserved.

So IMHO, @birdsnestfern is suggesting that men and women should be encouraged to perceive men in the same way that you want men to be perceived.

 

[Old Things]

Well, is this where we talk about the whole thing with the fall of Roe meaning being Pro-Choice has been made much more important for hook-up culture? To the point where massive amounts of males who are into hook-up culture are getting vasectomies?

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not sure about that, condoms are an option although I know some women are allergic to latex (or just don't like condoms) and if she's on the pill there's no way to tell whether she's being honest about that or not.

If a man slips off the condom halfway through with the intent of getting her pregnant that's rape, but if she lies to you about being on the pill that's just tough luck.

 

[Old Things]

If a man slips off the condom halfway through with the intent of getting her pregnant that's rape, but if she lies to you about being on the pill that's just tough luck.

That's the problem with hook-up culture.

BTW, whose baby would it be in either case?

 

[birdsnestfern]

I'm just saying I think the media instilled a lot more examples of how people should behave socially in the 50's, and it seems like human behavior keeps declining in general, if you just go back to the 1800s, minds were often brilliant, artful, fresh, and every decade that passes, people seem to be worse and worse. It could be they need to have more societal rules and schooling or it could be that toxins in what they've been feeding people, overpopulation, lack of resources, aluminum, teflon, mercury, viruses, whatever is in the water, and loss of cultural norms (melting pot?) has just continually made us into less and less humane intelligent beings. Maybe its facebook and the internet, but rudeness and violence is the norm.

But, I think its important to see that NO two people are alike enough to really get along that well either. What love means to one person is not what love means to someone else. Unless you read Kahlil Gibran, who seems to be one source of spiritual intelligence that helps the perspective mature and see things like they should be seen.

What might be going on is that people are not afraid of being disliked anymore, their independence is more valuable than politeness.


https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/khalil-gibran-quotes

 

[ZenRaiden]

I believe men and women have unconscious drives and mating strategies that are dictated by nature.

I believe the big shift in society happened when women started climbing the same hierarchy ladder as men. Equality as such is good, but it also means women and men are moving targets.

I know not everyone cares about hierarchy as mating strategy, but resources are important to some people.

If females have more options they can with hold mating more longer, as with holding sex means more chances of coming across more suitable mate later.

Mails want to get a women and mate, but females want males that are worth in x mating criteria.

Those criteria are up to biology as I doubt people go around consciously figuring out which person is best mate.

So status does make a difference to females.

Its been said in some articles that men don't necessarily care about females status, but realistically are more attracted to physical looks.

The reality is that females used to be more grounded and do certain things, but now they are just as males a moving target.

So nowdays you have two moving variables and two different strategies on the market in terms of resources.

There is also the factor of money and housing which dictates mating strategies.

If people did not use these strategies, then the first male and first female that are attracted to each-other just have sex and babies regardless of situation.
Such strategies are however mostly common for young and not very smart people.

Jordan Peterson I think also mentioned in one of his lectures, that part of mating strategy is not to look for the male that is doing the best in terms of resources, but the male that is most likely to climb the hierarchy.
Females know that its not the actual value now, but rather investing.
SO females are smarter then just going for rich guys.
They are looking for guys who have potential not just actualized potential.

This also explains why say a female will look for someone with confidence or social connectedness rather than someone who is just doing OK.

But I believe these strategies are kind of cultural skewed.

Because you have kind of phenotypal females.

Like I used to know a girl who was very into getting in with a lawyer.
I assume this is obvious why.
Lawyers are considered rich and high status.
In reality lawyers are not really necessarily doing well financially or better of then other professions, but the reputation it self is part of mating strategy.

The reason for example why Freud said females don't know what they want is simply explained that females have to put literally all their eggs in one basket.

This means if a male is attractive to them, it does not mean they cannot have sex, but wait to look for a other male.
It means you can easily just wait and wait and then when you find better partner you move on, while the male is left behind.

But there are also females that like having lots of sex, and sex availability means more males will notice them and that means eventually they will attract a male that wants to have sex, and they will latch on to that guy while having sex a lot.
Since these women are ruining the game for other females they "hate whores", because they have a different competitive strategy.
Females always size up each other this way, but males call females whores only when there is chance of infidelity, not when they choose to have sex with them.

Another thing is that these strategies are cavemen strategies and have no real rational today.
The reason these strategies don't have much meaning, is that today people live in a world where the amount of females and males is almost unlimited supply.

IN a world where female and male were of finite number these strategies and logic had a very good rational.

Today these strategies are vestigial, and get a little skewed by the system, because females don't have a limited set of males, so they can potential just date around and be very picky. Males as well.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What might be going on is that people are not afraid of being disliked anymore, their independence is more valuable than politeness.

Well you adopt to the herd under pressure.
Pressure makes people adapt.
Adaptations have to make sense though.
If you go into military you have to be one hive mind and strong hierarchy or you get picked off by the first group with better in group organization.

If you live in modern world you are not destitute to adapt to herds whims.
You can make up your own mind which group and herd is best for you or which adaptations give you the best life.
Its of course give and take.

Herds are stronger in numbers, but group think also limits your options.

We also live in a world where people have to adapt to job pressure, which in it self is based around time and stress.

Both time and stress take away your energy. But in return you have income, which can be good, but does not have to be good enough for developing relationship in stability.

I also noticed so great plurality of opinion during COVID, but most if not all I heard were rather superficial opinions with out cause effect explanation.
So people would be for or against certain things with rather superficial explanations or non explanations.

I think socially the biggest glue is trust.

So as long people can trust intentions of others you can predict and adapt to other people behaviors.

The problems of cooperation and competitive thinking is often that the ingroup is often competing with it self. If that happens you have weak in group cohesion and less trust, which in turn makes people more cynical of other people motivations which in turn makes people change mating and life strategies. Which in turn makes people form relationships differently and have different group dynamics, which in turn makes things more harder, even if they are simple.

Less in group cohesion also means less cooperative benefit and more stress, and less trust of others, which creates feedback loops and in return people expend adaptations on tricking each other rather than cooperation which then also makes groups less trustful of other peoples reasoning. So the common sense in group reasoning is replaced by the strongest opinion. This is because reasonable or smart opinions are not trusted as most opinions are viewed as suspicion.
For example being smarter than your boss gets you fired in stead of promoted.
This in turn means most ingroups dynamics favor dumb decisions rather than smart decisions.
If ingroup smartness becomes valued commodity it also in weak group becomes incentive to fight over who is right rather than look for best group decision overall.
So there is pressure over who gets credit for what etc.

In male female value system this also becomes a little problematic as people have to figure out what is valuable mate.

Since value depends on common ground adaptations as well.
And compatibility between adaptations.

 

[Black Rose]

I think socially the biggest glue is trust.

The reason for example why Freud said females don't know what they want is simply explained that females have to put literally all their eggs in one basket.

In sexual terms, both males and females want the best offspring. Because the best survive better than the less fit. This is expressed in multiple ways but usually, it is based on who is better than you. Looks, intelligence, and personality. Guys that like bimbos are bimbos. They mate downward. Women usually mate upward.

There is a thing called r/k selection. people that take care of their kids longer k and have less. K is based on quality. r is based on quantity. r is based on abundant resources and a low survival rate. In an environment with few resources those that can keep kids alive longer will have a chance because all resources go t them instead of wasting them on kids that don't survive. This is why the firstborn is always the most important in constrained resource environments. Bimbos are baby factories that produce so much because they can afford it. All the kids survive most likely. They don't take care of but a few and they fend for themselves when they turn 12. They mary at 14 and have over 12 kids. In the renaissance, this changed in Europe. The average marriage age went from 14 to 22. This made parents smarter but less fertile. Education increased. With Jews, the most educated Jews had the most kids and were married older. The ones who read their Torah best were married to the highest Rabi daughters. The same happened with the nobility. The best educated had the most kids because they took care of all of them. The lords and vessels became in charge because they were smarter and fit. The family lines emerged with this. The top sons had kids and their kids had kids and the peasants were the ones who had the least education and had sex at 14.

Men peak at age 35 women peak at age 22. That is how the system we know in Europe has come into place. People that reach these ages are selected for. People that don't are selected against. And cousin marriage was banned by the church means less genetic instability.

If you can take care of your kids they will survive and that is why older smarter parents have the most survivable kids.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think socially the biggest glue is trust.

The reason for example why Freud said females don't know what they want is simply explained that females have to put literally all their eggs in one basket.

In sexual terms, both males and females want the best offspring. Because the best survive better than the less fit. This is expressed in multiple ways but usually, it is based on who is better than you. Looks, intelligence, and personality. Guys that like bimbos are bimbos. They mate downward. Women usually mate upward.

There is a thing called r/k selection. people that take care of their kids longer k and have less. K is based on quality. r is based on quantity. r is based on abundant resources and a low survival rate. In an environment with few resources those that can keep kids alive longer will have a chance because all resources go t them instead of wasting them on kids that don't survive. This is why the firstborn is always the most important in constrained resource environments. Bimbos are baby factories that produce so much because they can afford it. All the kids survive most likely. They don't take care of but a few and they fend for themselves when they turn 12. They mary at 14 and have over 12 kids. In the renaissance, this changed in Europe. The average marriage age went from 14 to 22. This made parents smarter but less fertile. Education increased. With Jews, the most educated Jews had the most kids and were married older. The ones who read their Torah best were married to the highest Rabi daughters. The same happened with the nobility. The best educated had the most kids because they took care of all of them. The lords and vessels became in charge because they were smarter and fit. The family lines emerged with this. The top sons had kids and their kids had kids and the peasants were the ones who had the least education and had sex at 14.

Men peak at age 35 women peak at age 22. That is how the system we know in Europe has come into place. People that reach these ages are selected for. People that don't are selected against. And cousin marriage was banned by the church means less genetic instability.

If you can take care of your kids they will survive and that is why older smarter parents have the most survivable kids.

Yeah I know about this.
Long term vs short term strategy.
Makes sense, and also means its a safe guard for the whole population since sometimes the population is in danger and lose a lot of lives, so both strategies work best at different times leaving the population less to whims of reproduction.

I think however the part where people mate with lower age is aberration to some degree, as I would say that normal mating age is around 15 and more.

I think people are smart enough to know that mating with young females is dangerous too.
I know that people not always took this in consideration, but Id argue that incidence of mating with younger females is more cultural related then biology related since a 15 year old female has smaller breasts and is still in development physically she is also likely to die and not have enough milk to breastfeed if she does have a child.

I think its not incidental that the official age that people accept as normal for having kids is 18 and is closer to biological ideal. While its still legal to have sex and kids sooner its really visibly troublesome process.

I think short term mating strategy works well only if there is abundance of resources.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not interested in discussing "mating strategies".

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

I want to know how the democratic nations of the world are going to change policies to favor the young, to save the future of the nation, when the largest voting demographic is the oldest demographics and each one gets smaller as they get younger.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm not interested in discussing "mating strategies".

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

I want to know how the democratic nations of the world are going to change policies to favor the young, to save the future of the nation, when the largest voting demographic is the oldest demographics and each one gets smaller as they get younger.

Old people have the edge over young always.
The only thing young have is tad bit more energy.

Even in war a well trained veteran has about 10 times more stamina than young stud with twice his muscle.
We humans are endurance beings.
We live in economy of endurance.
US market used to be free for all.
Today US market is starting to resemble Europe.
Its full and people either innovate or compete and beat the competition or share.
But if they share then more and more people want to share.

Young people have nothing to gain and nothing spectacular to achieve.
Its the natural life cycle.

 

[scorpiomover]

I want to know how the democratic nations of the world are going to change policies to favor the young, to save the future of the nation, when the largest voting demographic is the oldest demographics and each one gets smaller as they get younger.

The current breed of politicians don't seem all that keen to make things better for most people, young or old.

They seem to be quite keen on killing off the old people, judging by the way they allowed people to spread COVID-19 through care homes like crazy.

Mind you, 20 years ago, I heard about Agenda 21, which was about how the people who were controlling the politicians, journalists & bankers in Western countries, were going to depopulate the planet with viruses and move all their money and power to China.

So at least the conspiracy theorists seem to have been getting some things right.

 

[TransientMoment]

@Cognisant
Are you surprised when culture starts following the natural course of its philosophy? Liberalism leads to lack of definition in culture. It demands the destruction of all that society is, its institutions, frameworks, history,... everything, and all for the sake of a "new" order that will magically solve all problems.
The population will trend downwards until the mega power structures have collapsed and what remains is anarchy. Go look at Argentina. That's the future of the US in a nutshell.
To reverse the trend, you have to show people the benefits of the stabler solutions.
People will be happier when they realize and protect the social institutions that kept society functioning for thousands of years. Were they perfect? No, nothing man does is. But they were better.
Among those solutions is the dad/husband leading a nuclear family. But to get females to see the benefit of such a situation, you have to do two things:
1) Show them that their life is actually worse trying to pursue a career and be an alpha-woman.
2) Show them good examples of good MEN.
But you have two problems:
1) A ton of pro-feminist media that is in its heyday.
2) A ton of patsy guys who are the product of generations that treat their kids as perpetual kids.

About 10 years ago, the misandry bubble was predicted to pop. And it's popping... slowly. You're not the only one frustrated with the misandry.