| ▲ | threethirtytwo 19 hours ago | |||||||
>Yes. No. >get over the idea that our biology is aligned with ethics. This quote is true. See praying mantis example. Plenty of examples where the male or female dies sacrificing itself for the next generation. These are not ethical features of biology. They are practical and they factually exist. >You say this like population decline is a bad thing. It is. The eventual end of population decline is the decline of civilization and eventually the end of humanity. The first part we face in our lifetimes is economic decline, joblessness, and more. >Beyond that it's not particularly clear cut. It's clear cut, within your lifetime you will see a 1st world country be brought down by a complete lack of people. Japan or Korea. We already see the effects in the country. Entire towns and villages vanishing. You just need to scale that up to see what happens next. This is not theoretical. It is happening in front of our eyes. >And yet your solution is to make them have more children That's not blame. When a woman has children, so does a man. The man bares the same responsibility. >You causal chain clearly makes women responsible It does. They aren't responsible willingly. It's not that they made a bad choice and they become responsible. It's a logistical fact. For example if your car breaks down and you can't drive it. The thing responsible for breaking down is the car. But is it the cars fault? No. Women are the causal source, but it's not their fault. If you want to make things more fair. Porn is a causal factor from the male side. It keeps a lot of males perpetually single. >There is no evidence that shrinking population leads to male suicide. I never claimed this. My claim is that men BEING single and not able to find a male or a girlfriend or a wife increases suicide rates. Think about it. It's a very VERY realistic proposition. >There are good arguments that a shrinking population is a good thing. There is FACTUAL on the GROUND realities that show currently how bad it is. >This pulls out the two pillars that support your argument for banning birth control. It pulls out nothing. | ||||||||
| ▲ | nl 17 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
>> You say this like population decline is a bad thing. > It is. The eventual end of population decline is the decline of civilization and eventually the end of humanity. The first part we face in our lifetimes is economic decline, joblessness, and more. That's a ridiculous claim unsupported by any evidence. The counter argument has much stronger backing: If we measure "civilization" by standard of living and technological progress then they are associated with lower birth rates. >>You causal chain clearly makes women responsible > It does. They aren't responsible willingly. Like I said - blaming women. > My claim is that men BEING single and not able to find a male or a girlfriend or a wife increases suicide rates. Think about it. It's a very VERY realistic proposition. The evidence doesn't show this. eg: > Suicide fatality rate was higher in married people compared to the unmarried, however, after adjusting for age as a determinant factor, no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6505054/ There is some evidence that divorce increases suicide amongst men: > Divorce did matter in a negative way, but only for men. What seems important about divorce is not that the men end up unmarried. Remember that the men who had always been single were no more likely to kill themselves than the men who were currently married. Instead, having once been married and then getting divorced seems to be the risk – again, only for the men. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/living-single/201304... Indeed the very article we are commenting is about suicide by men aged 45 to 64, who have higher marriage rates that other groups! Clearly marriage should be banned! ;) | ||||||||
| ||||||||