You might be interested to read the report commissioned by Congress in 1970 from the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, chaired by John D. Rockefeller Ⅲ: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=10
Also known as "WTF Happened in 1971?" https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
If you force a continuation of replacement rate births or even growth, but most of those humans are economically worthless, you'll drag down your whole society.
Kids raised in married 2 parent households are less likely to end up homeless, achieve better academically and earn more, have less depression/suicide rates etc. Literally every outcome is better for stable 2 parent homes. The decline of the 2 parent nuclear family means more kids will suffer.
I don't really understand why it has to be either or. You can have your population decline if you want, but why does that have to mean single parent homes?
Can't you raise your 1 or 2 kids in the context of marriage to give them a higher chance of a better outcome, and still have your population decline?
It's good for the perpetuation of your nation. There is no nation without people. There is no people without natalism.
> most of those humans are economically worthless
Is economic value the only measure of a human being's worth? What a terrifying world we live in these days...
When you create incentive programs such as divorce, a population doesnt take long to adapt to the institutions horror stories. No marriage means no alimony on breakup. Also no marriage means women wont be as likely to leave if they do not work because of it especially if they have a small support network.
Women have also become more independent. Much like Japan, many western women dont wanna be baby makers. The government kinda forgot though that...well...its kinda important for society. Single mothers increasing helps nobody and dudes are less likely to pay child support when not from marriage.
Overall its been a massive cultural change that will affect future generations significantly. How do you get people to care for a future they arent allowed to create? If anything, apathy to the future generations has been growing since many people dont have children to care for.
God this is creepy. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, and you force them to, that's rape.
COVID unfortunately brought domestic violence rates up, but I wouldn't lump that in with the generality of "relationship market", it's a more serious & specific issue.
edit: Ahh, by the time I finish posting you've come and brought up the "nuclear family"
Hard to imagine anything good will come from a discussion hinging on that.
Anecdata: the males I've personally seem "opting out" have major personal issues and are honestly dangerous to any potential partners, mentally and physically. I don't feel much for them except for wishing the U.S. had better and more affordable healthcare so they could get some mental healthcare. But once again - anecdata - these also aren't the types to seek mental healthcare. Oh well.
> Hard to imagine anything good will come from a discussion hinging on that.
Genuine question, why does it sound like you find me advocating for a 2 parent household almost offensive? Is it because you don't believe any of the data about kids raised in 2 parent households is valid? From my perspective, I genuinely don't understand your reaction here at all because I thought this was a generally accepted fact in psychology/sociology.
I'm just asking out of curiosity for your perspective, I promise I'm not baiting you into a debate :)
Only the term nuclear family.
In any case, "nuclear family" dates to around one century at most, in essentially a singular country.
I'd much rather look to the notion of "it takes a village" and extended family concepts that have existed for millennia and overwhelmingly brought us to where we are now.
What makes you say this? Last I heard the trend of it getting harder and harder for men has been continuing. When one side has to go crazy going to the gym and making themselves interesting and whatever to stand out while the other side just has to put one blurry picture with no text on any dating site to get inundated with suitors, how can you call that equal?
Because women don't really have to settle for 1 man anymore (less stigma nowadays about being single into your 30s/single mother), it becomes more of a hookup market, and naturally women will always have more leverage when it comes to the hookup market due to men's natural higher levels of horniness/willingness to hookup with a wider variety of women than vice versa. If it was a relationship market where everyone has to eventually choose 1 person to settle with like in the past, women wouldn't have as much leverage. You can only have things like '80/20' rule if the market isn't about monogamy (it's not actually 80/20 in reality, but the general dynamic of a minority of men having most of the success with women). Everyone would end up with the same level of success, because everyone would end up with 1 partner if the market was about monogamous stable long term relationships.
If you'd really like to talk about "what's been heard" though, the last I heard the trend was going in the opposite direction of not wanting men who go crazy to the gym, because they tend to be egoistical narcissists.
Note: I go crazy to the gym, but solely because I have a rare connective tissue disorder and my body would otherwise fall apart. Well, it still does - just slightly less with the gym religion.
Double note: I can anecdotally attest to a decent amount of fellow male gym patrons being egoistical narcissists. I have also met a fair amount of females who fit the same description though. But, also plenty of people who just want to stay fit for various normal reasons.
But really there are approximately same amount of men to women in the dating/family making age group. Being normal, mildly interesting, and not a slob is all most men will have to do to find women to date. The reason a some men don't get dates on dating apps, is they send the dumbest of messages. Putting out zero effort and expecting something is rarely going to yield results.
It's also a bit of a catch-22. Say you want to become 'mildly interesting' (for the purposes of dating). So you quit video games after work, and you join some club activities. The activities don't really interest you, but at least you're "working on yourself" to become more interesting. You burn out because it's hard to magically find interest in something you just don't care for.
Personally, I don't mind guys whose interests are gaming or some generally solitary (generally male) activity like programming. But I don't think that's the case for the majority of women, though.
Say a guy gets fed up with dating apps/sites. "Get out there!" and "Just be yourself!" people will tell him. Again, he joins activities that have a fairer balance of men and women to the activities he's usually interested in (video game events, chess clubs, hackathons). Think yoga classes, fiction book clubs, gym activity groups.
Again, he has to force himself to enjoy the activity, and simultaneously never let it slip that actually he's there to improve his chances of finding a date (nor can he risk hitting on anyone, lest word gets out).
For what it's worth, I have several male friends who custom-tailor polite messages for each person they're interested in, mentioning what they read in the bio field, and never get responses.
The comment you are replying to says that men have to put in a lot more effort than women, and you reply with a strawman about men not putting in any effort. Nice.
Straw man accuser you left out this part.
Ask a woman or make an account as a woman on a dating site and see the flood of dumb messages you get.
Also going to the gym while might improve you looks, it isn't a personality.
Doesn't matter, if too many males opt out females would either have to be alone or compete for the remaining males. Competition would certainly result in changes in male behaviour (because they won't be competing for a mate).
This is a vicious cycle which would result in more males having "major personal issues".
I don't know what's shaped your worldview, but this really isn't how things work, at all.
>This is a vicious cycle which would result in more males having "major personal issues".
Oh well. With the current trajectory of tech, we'll soon be able to identify these types from whatever tech they use and send out a robo-taxi to take them to their government mandated treatment facility :P
Capitalism really is the best, isn't it.
Okay, what do you think happens when there is an imbalance in the ratio of male:female?