• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Why Men Are Walking Away From Dating

@Neonatal RRT

If we move towards an extinction event for humanity due to anti-natalism, you'd expect two intermediate stages:

1. Cultures/societies that are pro-natal will start to replace the ones that have chosen "cultural alt-F4"
2. If (1) doesn't kick in quickly enough, and the population keeps shrinking (say at a global TFR of 1.0) the infrastructure will gradually fall apart, and the remnants will enter a classic SciFi "post-apocalyptic scenario" as that happens

(1) is still possible, because there are still cultures that haven't been subverted. But that may not be true in 10 years.

(2) will necessarily profoundly influence the cultural/societal devolution towards universal anti-natalism. Societal anti-natalism is a luxury behavior, which cannot continue far into (2), so it there will probably be a "reversion to the mean" /lol.
With the usual over-correction that humanity (at any scale) appears unable to avert.

It would be entertaining to watch ... but not to participate in :)


There's another view though:
What seems to be happening is that many more women choose not to have children, but those that do have more-or-less the same number of children as in the not-too distant past (so adjusted down for higher survival rates, but otherwise typical).

If that continues, and either that behavior continues down the generations, or "lessons are learned", the TFR flatten out, then go back up past 2.1.

In that case, there would be a gap of perhaps two generations where there was a shortage of workers, biased towards the low-end of the labor market. The usual example is low-end care workers.

But fortunately from both an economic and infrastructure maintenance perspective, there are plenty of "spare" people who, with training, could be slotted into the roles that would otherwise be unfilled.

Given that most "economically inefficient" people are, on aggregate, just as smart as everyone else but less well-educated, and contributing little economic benefit per capita to an "under-developed but developing" economy, there's an obvious bridging solution.

It's also going to be wildly amusing watching that discussion.

Is the US capable of dealing with the insanity of its highly polarized, irrational, inherently contradictory political debate? It's managed such turnarounds before, so I think it's possible.

My part of Europe could do it, though unevenly: most countries will mess it up at first.

But that's still only about 10% of the world population. You'd hope the intermediate cases could do the same thing using their own populations.

An interesting side effect of such a scenario: it could be used to achieve a really large reduction in poverty over a couple of generations.
Agree, and to further cloud this discussion, we are racing as fast as we can to an AI and robotic workforce...in all fields. At it's current exponential pace, both the rapid development of robotics and AI will consume the human workforce as we know it. Will there be other opportunities for human employment...robotics repair? Likely, but my sense is that this will be temporary.

Sure, the GDP of nearly every industrialized nation will 10X, if not more. Sure, the costs of production will drop precipitously, and sure, everything will become significantly less expensive. Which then begs the question, "Well, if humans do not have jobs and have a steady income, then who is going to purchase goods and services?" If people cannot purchase anything because they have no money, then all of this 10X GDP goes out the window...none of it will happen. It's my sense that we, the world, will have to consider a universal basic income. Which then begs the question, "Who is going to pay the taxes to support that program if there aren't people working?" Ultimately, I think that will come from a corporate tax...because there is no other sources to tap at that point. Basically, we are looking at a complete overhaul of our current economic system.

Furthermore, with all of this in the background, how does this effect the human condition? A lot of people get up in the morning with a purpose in life, something to do, a career...and their personal identity is tied to that career, myself included. What happens to an entire population of bored people? Will this open up more time to focus upon family? Will there be enough income to travel? Will people live in poverty? Will nobody live in poverty? What about education? Much of our education is in preparation for basic job skills. Will our educational system change significantly?

All of this will hit the world like a tsunami wave very, very soon...a complete disruption in all that we know. Be prepared to quickly adapt and overcome. That train has already left the station and is rolling down the tracks at high speed.
 
the birthrate has declined a lot in the US significantly

This is an interesting and related point. While a declining birthrate can be attributed at least in part to fewer people getting married or living in committed long term monogamous relationships, it also must be attributed to how radically society has changed in the developed world since before the Baby Boom Generation and since the move away from an agrarian and rural base.

Prior to the Baby Boom Generation, large families were the norm. Families, especially farm families needed workers to help with farming or other types of family businesses. Children were raised to be expected to help with the work that the family required; children actually contributed to the work that was required of the family to exist.

Some years back on a forum I posed this question asking Millennial and Gen Z members to answer: "Can you list examples of how YOU personally contribute to the work that's required within your family? Daily Chores, etc?" There were no responses at all. Crickets.

From a family labor perspective (e.g. household chores, outdoor chores, etc), children of generations prior to the most recent ones, contributed their labor to the family; they pulled their own weight. That hasn't been the case for a few generations now. Rather than children being an asset from a labor perspective, they're a drain on family resources with no contributory offset. I believe this is one reason that birthrates have declined in the "Western world".
 

New Threads

Top Bottom