The following is presented as a speculative argument based on the initial premise, not necessarily as an advocacy of it.
Robert A. Heinlein postulated that essential societal "morality" was, or should be, based on protecting women and children, as they were the future of society.
The theory goes, if you don't protect and nurture women of child-bearing age, and children, then your society is doomed because there won't be a next generation. That's the short version anyway.
(What follows is my musings *based on that perspective*, not necessarily my actual opinion in all details, mmkay?)
By that metric, how well are we doing as a society?
Eeek.... not too good, it seems. Our reproduction rates (for native-born Americans) is falling below replacement level. The same in Europe and most "developed" nations. Instead of Ehrlich's "population bomb" we're looking at a population *implosion*.
Immigration is the only thing keeping our population growth positive at this point, and that has many caveats of its own.
What are we doing wrong?
Well, almost everything, from the perspective above.
For starters, we're encouraging (from elementary school!) children to identify as other-than-hetero. The only explanation for the massive swell in non-binary/trans/etc youth (beyond all historical levels) is we've made it somehow *cool* to be "other than het".
The massive emphasis on climate doom is discouraging many young adults from parenthood. Many of them believe it would be irresponsible of them to "inflict another human on the world", and/or inflict the "doomed" world on another child.
Society has made marriage an undesirable burden. You're an independent woman, you don't need no man right? And sex is easy so who needs a wife. Many consider the odds of divorce and the consequences of it and feel a lack of incentive to marry.
Women of prime child-bearing years are encouraged to pursue career before family, and are accepted in combat units in the military. Whatever you may think about this personally, it doesn't help the starting premise.
There's the "incel" phenomenon... some say because 80% of young women are only interested in the top 5% of men, and ignore any man who doesn't have a movie-star face and abs, plus style, verve and of course, money to burn.
On the right, there is resistance to aid for impoverished children and mothers, helping ensure they will fail to meet minimum standards of success as adults and likely end up in the prison system.
Men are discouraged from being men. Their importance as husbands and fathers is widely disparaged in media. Everywhere you look, the majority of 20-something young men behave like sophomoric frat boys, more intent on parties and hook-ups than building a life or having a family.
All this despite many studies showing that children do best in a household with both mom and dad.
Some young folks go so far as to embrace human extinction as a desirable outcome (at least in theory... haven't noticed them offing themselves in record numbers).
Heinlein postulated that survival was the sine-qua-non of any society ("without this, nothing"). As an extreme example, there were the Shakers, a religious group that practiced celibacy for all. At their peak in the 19th century there were perhaps 4,000-6,000 of them. Today there are three. THREE. All elderly and soon there will be zero.
Perhaps Heinlein was onto something after all.
Thoughts?
