Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?

[sangha]

Sooo... In other words, you have no real counter-argument here, so you've basically resorted to trolling.

Lol. Gotcha. I accept your concession.

*I* have no argument? :lamo

You can't decide if it's A Good Thing or A Bad Thing!

 

[soot]

The simple fact of the matter is that child-rearing is basically the only way to ensure that a person's viewpoints will definitely survive into the next generation. By voluntarily choosing to forgo this, you have basically forfeited the match from square one.

I can assure you, unequivocally, that I share very, very few of my parent's "viewpoints".

In many cases my viewpoints are the polar opposite of my parents'.

By you logic my parents bred their viewpoint out of existence.

 

[Gathomas88]

I can assure you, unequivocally, that I share very, very few of my parent's "viewpoints".

In many cases my viewpoints are the polar opposite of my parents'.

By you logic my parents bred their viewpoint out of existence.

Such things are by and large the exception rather than the rule.

Stereotypical teenage and young adult rebelliousness aside, there can be little more influential on the formation of a child's worldview and values than the environment in which they are raised.

 

[calamity]

Smart women don't have kids, at least not more than one or two, tops. And, this is a surprise. How?

 

[clownboy]

Smart women don't have kids, at least not more than one or two, tops. And, this is a surprise. How?

Tell that to your mother, perhaps she'll educate you on the silliness of that statement.

 

[clownboy]

I can assure you, unequivocally, that I share very, very few of my parent's "viewpoints".

In many cases my viewpoints are the polar opposite of my parents'.

By you logic my parents bred their viewpoint out of existence.

Give yourself another decade or two of growing up and you'll be eating those words. The older I get the more I understand and agree with many of my parents' viewpoints.

 

[Hard Truth]

Which essentially means that Western Civilization, as a distinct entity, is doomed. If current population growth and immigration patterns hold, it is basically a mathematical certainty that ethnic Westerners will inevitably become marginalized minorities within their own nations.

This is fine, I suppose. Everyone ultimately "reaps what they sow." However, I wouldn't say that this really does much of anything to validate current Western cultural attitudes regarding reproduction.

It basically just proves my point. Western couples making the widespread decision not to reproduce is an intrinsically short-sighted and self-destructive strategy that subsidizes the present at the expense of the future. It will ultimately result in the downfall of the very culture which makes such behavior possible in the first place.

Additionally, your argument here fails to account for the rise of developing world. The way things are now, it might not be too terribly long before nations like India and China actually surpass the Western World in terms of economic opportunity and desirable living conditions.

On a long term basis, people might actually start migrating away from the stagnant economic backwaters of the Western World in favor of East Asian nations instead.



Most of the people having children in the United States these days cannot afford them.

The problem is that legitimately productive people who actually can afford to have children are choosing not to because they view it as being inconvenient.

The world changes, demographics change. Its inevitable. China and India have been among the most sophisticated, advanced and powerful nations in the world before, so it is not too surprising if it happens again. They are both more diverse culturally than most people realize.

I don't believe western civilization will die. There will always be enough people to carry it on and it is interesting and important enough that many aspects will be consciously preserved. It already has had a disproportionate amount of influence in the world for along time. No empire lasts forever. It is time to let other cultures have their moment. Maybe they'll do a better job than we did.

Western style governments, technology and culture is already well distributed and represented in every continent, most directly - with nations like Canada, Argentina, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia. Even Russia is more western than not. There may be fewer white people but Shakespeare, the Bible, Beethoven, Hollywood style movies, jazz and rock music, democracy and capitalism will all live on, just like the ancient Greek and Roman cultures still have an influence today.

 

[sangha]

Such things are by and large the exception rather than the rule.

Stereotypical teenage and young adult rebelliousness aside, there can be little more influential on the formation of a child's worldview and values than the environment in which they are raised.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who is arguing that popular culture is main driver of people's sexual attitudes and procreational attitudes

If the environment we were raised in was the most influential factor, we'd all be having lots of kids just like our grandparents and great grandparents (and their parents, etc) did

 

[Hard Truth]

I simply think it's very telling that our society's values have become so perversely warped and narcissistic in recent decades that it is now the case that most "well off" people either don't want children, or only have one or two, often begrudgingly, even if their financial circumstances easily allow for the raising of a decent sized family..

The world is over populated and still growing. People are already starving and dying from extreme poverty. There is plenty of evidence that the continued growth of population will reach a point where the required resources will be insufficient. The more our population grows, the more we lose open space, biological diversity, clean water and air, and the resources needed to feed us. There is a point where overpopulation is bound to make life on earth hellish with famines, lack of water, disease, chaos and war. Having children in the face of overpopulation is arguably arrogant, selfish and racist. This is why intelligent people are having fewer children.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

And they are all going to wind up paying for that in the long run. Japan's economic situation, for instance, is actually worse off in many regards than even the Western World, and the negative long term effects of the One Child Policy are actually one of the major reasons why India is expected to ultimately surpass China in the first place.

However, this hardly changes the fact that basically the only reason Chiba exists as a major economic, military, and political power is because of the ridiculous size of its population (and therefore workforce, military, taxbase, etca).

And yet at least 300 million chinese (of working age and ability generally are not productive economically, generally living as substinance farmers. They truely do not make China, more powerfull economically militarilyt or politically. India at this point is worse of as I believe the number is around 700 million. From a quality of life standpoint the extra polution and lack of food (India has a high level of malnutrition among its childern), fewer people in both countries would benifit both, as resources could be applied to ensure a healthier and better educated populace overall (espcecially India). India could surpass China, but government policies will have to change drastically for that to occur. India would have to put resources into educating and keeping the poorer Indians, which it is not doing to any large degree

From any "realpolitik" perspective, the sheer amount of human resources they have access to sets them head and shoulders above the Western World, and always will.

Not always, technology and education can and has made a drastic difference in power that can and has overcome large population differences. The British did not have a larger population then India, when it made India a colony, it had superior technology. Israel is outnumber 15 to one by Arabic people living righ next door, and has the ability to overpower any of its immediate neighbors, not through population, but through education and technology

Nonsense. People said exactly the same thing about China back in the day.

And it true regarding China, the aquifers that provide water to North East China are being drained drastically, the water in the main rivers are heavily poluted, and desertification is occuring in the north west of China

In a world of over seven billion people (which is expected to be more than 9 or 10 before the end of century), such numbers are peanuts.

Not if through education and technology the real power of western nations is maintained or expanded

True, but this does absolutely nothing to excuse the outright negative population growth currently being seen in the Western World, or the perverse attitudes which make it possible.

 

[Sykes]

I have a problem with those who want me to provide for the consequences of their careless selfishness. See also vhemt.org for those who think we have too many people already.

So apparently you agree with me, since you quoted, bolded, and said the same thing?

 

[Sykes]

Which again, is exactly why your philosophy fails as a general concept.

You're essentially going to be bred out of existence, precisely because you place no value upon the future.



In case you haven't noticed, I pretty much explicitly stated that I don't necessarily have a problem with it.

Bring on Catholic Hispanic land! Sounds awesome, if you ask me.

Again, I simply think it's hilarious that Liberal Whites basically prefer committing cultural and ethnic suicide to the natural process of reproduction.

Either way, you guys lose. :shrug:

Are you assuming I'm white?

 

[Hard Truth]

A few more thoughts.

Throughout the world as people become more affluent and urban they have fewer children. Children are an asset to farmers and more of a liability to urban poor people.

Latin America is more 'western' than not. The Spanish and Portuguese influence is almost as strong there as the English influence is strong here. The main problems with Latin America are from colonialism and poverty.

The middle class urban and suburban people in Latin America and everywhere else mostly live lives more like our own than they are different. If you want more people throughout the world to be more like "us," fight poverty, not demographic changes.

 

[Gathomas88]

The world changes, demographics change. Its inevitable. China and India have been among the most sophisticated, advanced and powerful nations in the world before, so it is not too surprising if it happens again. They are both more diverse culturally than most people realize.

I don't believe western civilization will die. There will always be enough people to carry it on and it is interesting and important enough that many aspects will be consciously preserved. It already has had a disproportionate amount of influence in the world for along time. No empire lasts forever. It is time to let other cultures have their moment. Maybe they'll do a better job than we did.

Western style governments, technology and culture is already well distributed and represented in every continent, most directly - with nations like Canada, Argentina, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia. Even Russia is more western than not. There may be fewer white people but Shakespeare, the Bible, Beethoven, Hollywood style movies, jazz and rock music, democracy and capitalism will all live on, just like the ancient Greek and Roman cultures still have an influence today.

Fair enough. "Sh*t happens, to the victors go the spoils" has basically been the gist of my argument here from the very beginning.

However, I would remind you that there were once cities in Pakistan and Afghanistan bearing the name of Alexander the Great. For several centuries, as a matter of fact, there was an entire Greek Empire ruling in that region of the world.



What has become of them now? What obvious evidence of their influence, or even presence, still remains?

The simple fact of the matter is that you are absolutely correct. No empire lasts forever, and neither does any culture. Nothing of this world is so effortlessly superior to anything else as to be effectively beyond challenge.

Western cultural ideas will thrive only so long as there is a meaningful Western Civilization around to espouse them, and not a moment longer. I just think it's a shame that there is a very real possibility that the inherent stupidity of our own contemporary society might consign such an influential culture as the Western World represents to the trash heap of history.

The world is over populated and still growing. People are already starving and dying from extreme poverty. There is plenty of evidence that the continued growth of population will reach a point where the required resources will be insufficient. The more our population grows, the more we lose open space, biological diversity, clean water and air, and the resources needed to feed us. There is a point where overpopulation is bound to make life on earth hellish with famines, lack of water, disease, chaos and war. Having children in the face of overpopulation is arguably arrogant, selfish and racist. This is why intelligent people are having fewer children.

This argument is, and always has been, a non-starter from the word "go."

The Western World is not "over populated" and it never has been. As a matter of fact, it is the poorest regions of the world who continue to reproduce in the greatest numbers.

What's more, they are thriving because of it. We Westerners are in relative economic and cultural decline right now precisely because we cannot compete with the developing world on these grounds.

I'm sorry, but Malthusian arguments on population control are simply bunk. Every time someone has suggested that population levels were about to reach some unbreakable wall, new technologies have come along to allow the global population to grow even further.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who is arguing that popular culture is main driver of people's sexual attitudes and procreational attitudes

The deliberate push made by the political Left in recent decades to marginalize the influence of the family unit and traditional institutions in the child rearing process in favor of state and media indoctrination is a separate and equally disturbing issue from that which we are currently discussing.

It is also completely irrelevant, as even media, the welfare state, and public education will not be able to indoctrinate immigrants anywhere near fast enough to compel them to conform to extant American cultural standards. There are simply too many of them, with too many viewpoints fundamentally alien to American cultural norms, for the system to be able to adapt its messages fast enough.

If the environment we were raised in was the most influential factor, we'd all be having lots of kids just like our grandparents and great grandparents (and their parents, etc) did

Which is why the overall decline in Western birthrates we've seen over the course of the last several decades has been a gradual change, taking place over the course of generations.

It is a negative cultural trend, not a sudden event.

And yet at least 300 million chinese (of working age and ability generally are not productive economically, generally living as substinance farmers. They truely do not make China, more powerfull economically militarilyt or politically. India at this point is worse of as I believe the number is around 700 million. From a quality of life standpoint the extra polution and lack of food (India has a high level of malnutrition among its childern), fewer people in both countries would benifit both, as resources could be applied to ensure a healthier and better educated populace overall (espcecially India). India could surpass China, but government policies will have to change drastically for that to occur. India would have to put resources into educating and keeping the poorer Indians, which it is not doing to any large degree

Nonsense. Again, you can spin things whichever way you want. The simple fact of the matter here is that the proof is in the pudding.

The immense populations of China and India are allowing them to economically surpass the relatively stagnant and complacent Western World. It is a proven fact.

You cannot deny this.

Not always, technology and education can and has made a drastic difference in power that can and has overcome large population differences. The British did not have a larger population then India, when it made India a colony, it had superior technology.

Education levels between the West and East Asia are almost equal, and becoming more so every day. The advantages to which you refer will be gone within a few decades at most.

When things do eventually reach the level of parity, China and India will have more honor and graduate level students than the West even has students.

If you don't think that this will give them a massive competitive advantage over the Western World, you are dreaming. It is simple mathematics.

Israel is outnumber 15 to one by Arabic people living righ next door, and has the ability to overpower any of its immediate neighbors, not through population, but through education and technology

They have the power to overcome their neighbors through the military and economic aid we provide them. :roll:

Besides, China and India will soon reach technological and military parity with the West, or even surpass it. Your example here is ultimately irrelevant.

Not if through education and technology the real power of western nations is maintained or expanded

If modern trends are any indication, it can't and won't be.

 

[soot]

Give yourself another decade or two of growing up and you'll be eating those words. The older I get the more I understand and agree with many of my parents' viewpoints.

I doubt it.

You've got to understand that my parents are uneducated, very religious, blue collar, provincial people.

They've lived (comparatively) "little" lives. They've never lived outside of New Jersey, nevermind living overseas. They've always associated with people who are very much like themselves. They're exposed to few ideas (in a learning sense) that they don't already agree with.

As with most people who can be described that way my parents tend to have a rather myopic, authoritarian, parochial, black-and-white views.

While I do pass judgement on many of their views I'm not, for the purposes of this discussion, necessarially passing judgement on the manner in which they have, and continue to, live their lives.

My point, simply, is that by never really "mixing it up" and being exposed to things and ideas that are outside their comfort zone my parents have remained the same "cucumbers" that they were the day they were born (in a very simplified sense).

My life has been very different than my parents.

I'm well educated, well traveled, have lived overseas, have a very diverse group of friends and acquaintances, and am a great deal more open to different ideas than my parents are.

I'm a "pickle" to their "cucumber", and as everyone knows, once a cucumber becomes a pickle there's no going back.

Add to all that the fact that I'm 43-years-old and am probably as "grown up" as I'm ever going to get.

I think it's pretty darn unlikely that I'm ever going to adopt many of my parents' views.

 

[clownboy]

Add to all that the fact that I'm 43-years-old and am probably as "grown up" as I'm ever going to get.

I think it's pretty darn unlikely that I'm ever going to adopt many of my parents' views.

That is what all 43 year olds think. It's funny, that's what 20 somethings think too. I'll admit, we usually grow to meet our parents by our 40s, but, some take a bit more seasoning than others. Do you have children, a family of your own?

 

[Hard Truth]

1. Western cultural ideas will thrive only so long as there is a meaningful Western Civilization around to espouse them, and not a moment longer.....


2. This argument is, and always has been, a non-starter from the word "go."

The Western World is not "over populated" and it never has been. As a matter of fact, it is the poorest regions of the world who continue to reproduce in the greatest numbers.

What's more, they are thriving because of it. We Westerners are in relative economic and cultural decline right now precisely because we cannot compete with the developing world on these grounds.

...I'm sorry, but Malthusian arguments on population control are simply bunk. Every time someone has suggested that population levels were about to reach some unbreakable wall, new technologies have come along to allow the global population to grow even further....

1. Western cultural ideas will continue as long as they are relevant. They have already influenced most of the world. White people aren't the only ones capable of preserving democracy and Beethoven.


2. The western world isn't overpopulated yet because we have controlled our birth rate and we use force to keep migrants out. (which may not work forever) We live in one world now where the problems in one region often impact the rest of us. Also, some of us have morals that make us concerned about everyone's wellbeing, not just our own.

Just because over population hasn't ruined us yet, doesn't mean that it still can't happen. Nature has ways to limit the populations of species. Our technology has allowed us to overcome many of those ways (such as viruses) which is why over population or a major disaster that reduces our population is likely to happen.

Many parts of the world are already suffering from the effects of overpopulation. We already fighting over oil. How long before the conflicts over water become violent? Technology may help us cram more people on this planet, but what about quality of life? There is also the unknown of how much we can destroy natural areas and kill off biodiversity without serious consequences kicking in. We can't predict the maximum population level the planet can sustain or when we will reach that point.

We are likely to address our overpopulation problem the traditional way, through war, but that will also have serious environmental consequences. The question we need to ask is: How do we want our population reduced? By war, famine or people voluntarily having fewer children?

 

[Hard Truth]

That is what all 43 year olds think. It's funny, that's what 20 somethings think too. I'll admit, we usually grow to meet our parents by our 40s, but, some take a bit more seasoning than others. Do you have children, a family of your own?

That depends on how much someone is a independent thinking, conscious person and the virtues of the parent's values. Some parents have terrible values that deserve to be thrown away.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So, again, you lose. End of discussion.

The vast majority of people don't accept your views now. Why on Earth would you think that weakening the very culture which made such views possible in the first place would make them anything but less common?

The simple fact of the matter is that child-rearing is basically the only way to ensure that a person's viewpoints will definitely survive into the next generation. By voluntarily choosing to forgo this, you have basically forfeited the match from square one.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that the world will continue to spin either way regardless. It will simply do so without you, and your ridiculous self-defeating cultural ideas.

I love how you cut out the rest of my post to avoid addressing it. I'm not going to stop reminding you.

Ideas aren't made to be "accepted." They're made to be useful. Time tends to change things, and ideas aren't stuck to one particular geographical area, which is fine, since I don't care about plots of dirt. That's the neat thing about ideas. But like I said, if they die, they die. So what?

Yeah, because everyone's children always think exactly how the parents do, right? :lol: In any society where people are free, having kids is probably the worst way to make your little army. Questioning your parents' ideas is practically a rite of passage. It is certainly not an "exception." And obviously, a lot of parental ideas get rejected. Or else, why would society always be changing?

Ask me how similar my ideas and way of living are to my mother. Go on. She bred, and even if I did too, her ideas still died, in terms of passing them to her offspring.

And besides that, I think it says something that you think the only way your ideas will ever take off is if you breed yourself a set of perfectly groomed yes-men. I have no such insecurities about my ideas, nor do I have so much narcissism about my value over the course of time.

At the end of the day, what should I care what the breeding folk wind up doing with it once I'm dead? I didn't make anyone who has to live through it, so it's not my problem. It's yours.

My main question is how you're going to manage to ensure or care about your "victory" or failure when you're long dead.

 

[calamity]

Tell that to your mother, perhaps she'll educate you on the silliness of that statement.

She was either not that bright or didn't have more than one or two. Duh.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

That is what all 43 year olds think. It's funny, that's what 20 somethings think too. I'll admit, we usually grow to meet our parents by our 40s, but, some take a bit more seasoning than others. Do you have children, a family of your own?

Are you seriously trying to patronize a middle-aged man? :lol:

If people always adopted their parents' views, then why is society always changing? Underemployed 20-somethings don't set the tone. 40-to-60-somethings, who have all the power, set the tone.

And yet, thieworld continues to change considerably generation after generation, despite these people supposedly being old enough to "know better" than to think outside the parents' views.

The reality is that any warm, squishy, self-absorbed feelings of intellectual immortality people get from reproducing are just as silly and divorced from reality as any feelings of physical immortality.

Children become indepedent people who may accept or reject their parents' ideas. But in most cases, they reject at least some of them. This is really easily proven by reading history -- especially modern history, where ideas travel fast.

 

[sangha]

The deliberate push made by the political Left in recent decades to marginalize the influence of the family unit and traditional institutions in the child rearing process in favor of state and media indoctrination is a separate and equally disturbing issue from that which we are currently discussing.

IOW, even though the family unit is the most influential factor in a childs' life, when you want to whine about the left, it suddenly becomes the culture that is the most influential factor in a childs life.

Dude, you're all over the place. You're arguing that immigration is A Good Thing and A Bad Thing, and that the most important influence in a childs' life is his family *and* the culture

It is also completely irrelevant, as even media, the welfare state, and public education will not be able to indoctrinate immigrants anywhere near fast enough to compel them to conform to extant American cultural standards. There are simply too many of them, with too many viewpoints fundamentally alien to American cultural norms, for the system to be able to adapt its messages fast enough.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've posted yet. At least, in this thread

Do you really thing the media's message gets diluted as more and more people see it?

The movies and other media products become *more* effective as more and more people see it. Once again, you've got things bass-ackwards

Nonsense. Again, you can spin things whichever way you want. The simple fact of the matter here is that the proof is in the pudding.

The immense populations of China and India are allowing them to economically surpass the relatively stagnant and complacent Western World. It is a proven fact.

You cannot deny this.

Sure we can. China and India's rise comes as they are reducing their birth rates

 

[Sykes]

Not to mention the fact that children actually do hunger for knowledge, and giving birth to them is not the only means of relaying one's wisdom.

 

[soot]

That is what all 43 year olds think. It's funny, that's what 20 somethings think too. I'll admit, we usually grow to meet our parents by our 40s, but, some take a bit more seasoning than others. Do you have children, a family of your own?

Yeah. Two boys.

 

[Gathomas88]

1. Western cultural ideas will continue as long as they are relevant. They have already influenced most of the world. White people aren't the only ones capable of preserving democracy and Beethoven.

Considering the fact that the nation most likely to take the United States' place at the top of the global economic and military powers list is, in fact, a single party fascist dictatorship in everything but name, I would consider this statement to be naïve at best and outright foolish at worst.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but (as Egypt and the rest of the Middle East prove at the moment) stable Western style Liberal Democracy actually tends to be a massive pain for the political elites of most nations to manage and maintain. This is exactly why the vast majority of the world's governments want absolutely nothing to do with it.

The only reason it became so widespread as it is today in the first place was due to (sometimes militant) Western influence.

I'm more than willing to wager that overt authoritarianism would come back with a vengeance if this influence were to ever be removed.

2. The western world isn't overpopulated yet because we have controlled our birth rate and we use force to keep migrants out. (which may not work forever) We live in one world now where the problems in one region often impact the rest of us. Also, some of us have morals that make us concerned about everyone's wellbeing, not just our own.

Just because over population hasn't ruined us yet, doesn't mean that it still can't happen. Nature has ways to limit the populations of species. Our technology has allowed us to overcome many of those ways (such as viruses) which is why over population or a major disaster that reduces our population is likely to happen.

Again, I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense.

"Overpopulation" along the lines of what you describe is little more than a popular myth. Alarmists have been predicting various forms of population catastrophe for over a century now, and so far not a single one of their claims have come to fruition.

The Chinese, as a matter of fact, instituted the One Child Policy specifically because population alarmists in the 1970s predicted that the PRC would collapse if its population grew to be any larger that 750 million people. Today, that population sits at 1.35 billion people, and the country is doing better than ever. It even stands a decent chance of displacing the United States as our planet's reigning global hegemon on both an economic and military basis.

The only thing that might threaten this rise? You guessed it, the One Child Policy.

This kind of thinking has wreaked similar havoc in the Western World. Mid 20th Century fear of an "over population crisis" that never existed, and never really could have existed in the first place, caused Western couples to curtail their reproductive habits, and we are currently being economically and politically displaced by more populous and economically prosperous nations like India and China as a direct consequence of this fact.

Many parts of the world are already suffering from the effects of overpopulation.

No, they are not. Where people do "suffer," they generally do so as a consequence of the effects of incompetent government, political instability, or the inevitable growing pains caused by rapid industrialization.

No one on this is planet is suffering from the effects of "overpopulation" alone.

We already fighting over oil. How long before the conflicts over water become violent? Technology may help us cram more people on this planet, but what about quality of life? There is also the unknown of how much we can destroy natural areas and kill off biodiversity without serious consequences kicking in. We can't predict the maximum population level the planet can sustain or when we will reach that point.

Our entire planet's population could easily live in the state of Texas and still have more breathing room than the average Tokyo resident.

The Earth has a lot left to give, it would appear.

We are likely to address our overpopulation problem the traditional way, through war, but that will also have serious environmental consequences. The question we need to ask is: How do we want our population reduced? By war, famine or people voluntarily having fewer children?

I'd frankly rather push full speed ahead and take our chances than have our society deliberately cripple itself waiting for a phantom crisis which may or may not ever appear.

If our species wants to survive on any kind of long term basis, it is eventually going to have to move beyond the confines of this planet anyway. A global society with a larger and more dynamic population is much more likely to possess the right mix of economic stresses, political will, and available human resources to make such a thing happen than one with a "stable" or declining population.

Ideas aren't made to be "accepted." They're made to be useful.

Yours are rather clearly neither.

The simple fact of the matter is that people like you basically contribute nothing to the collective future of our species, the society around you, or even your own ideology. You live only for your own day-to-day hedonistic fulfillment.

Again, I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could seriously believe such an inherently self-centered and non-productive way of thinking to be in any way "useful" to humanity in general.

Obvious moral failings aside, at least Objectivists actually aim to produce something through their glorification of selfish behavior. All you do is consume while giving nothing back and heckle the society that created you for its perceived flaws while offering no real alternatives.

Questioning your parents' ideas is practically a rite of passage. It is certainly not an "exception." And obviously, a lot of parental ideas get rejected. Or else, why would society always be changing?

And most of them will wind up falling right back into the value system in which they were raised immediately after the hormonally induced insanity of their younger years subsides.

As the would be "revolutionaries" of the 1960s found out the hard way, at the end of the day, most people are "sell outs."

IOW, even though the family unit is the most influential factor in a childs' life, when you want to whine about the left, it suddenly becomes the culture that is the most influential factor in a childs life.

They both play a role in a child's development. Which is more important is hard to say.

I was simply pointing out that culture and state education have made deliberate attempts in recent decades to take on many of the responsibilities that had once been the primary responsibility of parents.

As much of this instruction tends to easily fall within the realm of blatant political indoctrination, I would describe this as being a rather disturbing development to say the least.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've posted yet. At least, in this thread

Do you really thing the media's message gets diluted as more and more people see it?

The movies and other media products become *more* effective as more and more people see it. Once again, you've got things bass-ackwards

Quite a lot of these people don't even speak our language. Many more simply don't have any particular interest in consuming media which is still being primarily catered to the interests and cultural values of White Middle Class Americans. As such, they often have no real desire, or even ability, to "see" or be affected by the messages put out mainstream American culture.

That is exactly the point. This latest wave of immigrants are coming on with such speed and numbers that there really isn't any chance for most of them to be "assimilated" into the culture around them. They are assimilating us instead.

This is a discrepancy that is only going to become more pronounced as their numbers, and the proportion of the overall population they make up, increases over the course of the coming century.

Sure we can. China and India's rise comes as they are reducing their birth rates

You've got it exactly backwards. India and China would still be insignificant economic and political backwaters if it were not for the population explosions they experienced in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Furthermore, the Chinese economy is actually expected to suffer as a result of the decline of population growth rates it is currently experiencing.

It's actually the major reason why many experts now believe that India is going to wind up overtaking the Chinese on a long term basis.