A crisis of poor decision making

[ChpBstrd]

It seems like across multiple domains, people are making increasingly poor choices. As just a few common examples:

-Anti-mask and anti-vax sentiment during and after a pandemic that killed 1.2M Americans... now measles is back
-Consumption of highly processed foods and long lines at fast food places, despite the science showing them to be deadly
-People piling into cryptoshitcoins and NFTs
-The <5% personal savings rate, in a world where people have insufficient savings to weather a small unexpected expense
-The average American automobile selling for nearly $50k, and being a gas guzzler
-Numerous acquaintances of mine saying they trust social media influencers more than actual journalists, scientists, experts, or even their own eyes
-Herd behavior investing/gambling based on sites like r/wallstreetbets or stocktwits
-Vaping
-Expecting tariffs not to negatively affect prices or inflation
-Men looking to social media influencers to tell them how to be a "real man", as if any man needs to be told how to be what he already is
-Paying >$1,000 for a phone, even if as part of a plan with installments
-Credit card balances keep breaking through all time highs

Of course, large majorities of people or entire cultures have always made dumb decisions, and a lot of these examples also applied 20+ years ago. But it seems like making poor decisions is now more normal than its ever been, particularly in the realms of personal finance, health, and politics. Instead of the majority of us chuckling at the knucklehead contingent of the population going broke, damaging their health based on social media content, and voting for drooling idiots, it now seems as if the majority of people are the knuckleheads.

Maybe it's just an effect of getting older, but the percentage of people making big mistakes and horrible judgements seems to be rising. So I wonder if there's an underlying cause. Some hypotheses:

• Roman Lead Pipe Theory: Environmental or food/water pollutants, like microplastics or PFAS
• Obesity-related and age-related mental decline in our older, fatter population
• Reduced social interaction, and increased daily hours on the internet consuming lower-quality information. i.e. Internet Derangement Syndrome, iPad kids
• Peak consumerism, where getting more of whatever for lower prices is seen as the objective of life. This relates to all examples, including the consumption of free and entertaining misinformation rather than costly and dry journalism and science.

On a societal level, we seem to already be suffering the consequences. The pandemic killed or maimed hundreds of thousands more than it had to. The national debt is through the roof. The average person is getting more obese, and we cannot seem to solve the puzzle of how to make healthcare more affordable. And policy is now being made based on viral conspiracy theories.

What are your thoughts about (a) whether people's ability to make good decisions is declining, and (2) possible causes?

[sixwings]

People have replaced a lot of at least somewhat factual news with social influencers. These social influencers have no actual expertise in what they say and are convincing people of stupid stuff to make money. Like Joe Rogan. If you go look at a lot of younger finance influencers they still think tariffs are paid by the exporting country and continually refer to that.

[GuitarStv]

My best guess is that most people are cell phone zombies and absorb huge amounts of information unconsciously, and then come to believe it and spew it out at opportune moments.  This method of absorbing information reinforces what you want to hear, limits exposure to new ideas, and harms someone's ability to think clearly.

Couple this with the way that the internet has completely destroyed reporting in my lifetime.  We went from most people getting information from a few well edited and regulated newspapers/news programs with fact checkers who were called out on errors and had to print retractions . . . to the current landscape of no investigative reporting (too expensive), garbage click-bait style 'news' mixed in to generate more revenue, and a wide variety of 'news' sources run by incompetent people, competent people who can't make ends meet and have no editing or fact checking done on their pieces, malicious people with an agenda to push,  or just random people's hot takes (youtube, twitter, tik tok, etc.), algorithmically targeted news that knows what you'll be more likely to want to read (truth be damned), and AI generated drivel.  It's hard for a people to come to a consensus when there is no longer a generally accepted reality to discuss.

As far as I'm aware, microplastics aren't significantly impacting ability to think (although they cause a whole host of reproductive issues).  Obesity has been correlated to low intelligence for many years, and this correlation has not changed as our society has become fatter overall.  I haven't read research that definitively describes the mechanism of action or determines if one is causal of the other though.

[chemistk]

It's probably a combination of those factors. We have too much to know and not enough time or energy to know it.

I don't have any immediate succinct evidence to back this up, but I firmly think that we have more or less demonstrated that at our current evolutionary level, we have reached the peak of what we are able process simultaneously as a species, in no small part thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet and our pocket gods.

The meat sacks our consciousnesses ride in don't do very well with constant stimulation of our stress response systems. But the threats are intangible. I myself have observed an elevated feeling of general anxiety, in spite of my best efforts to distance myself from the news. It's grinding on my other internal systems, to the point that I can sense a difference in how my body is responding to common stimulii. It's almost as if there is a pall of pheromones lingering in the common spaces I frequent.

This, of course, opens the door wide for those who are seeking stability (homeostasis ftw) to fall into the open arms of cultural institutions that keep us safe from all those things that keep us afraid - church and cult (are they the same? too early to tell, perhaps?).

I have no trouble with the belief in a higher power, but my goodness does it sure seem like these organizations (not the cults, but also - the cults) are keeping fertile the grounds for a general anti-science bias. Or an outright torching of science altogether. Depends on how Orthodox you want to get.

In general, trust in societal institutions requires a general acceptance of well-proved principles and practices. Most of these things require the scientific method to achieve, and then they require a public acceptance that those things, to the best of our knowledge, are unchanging.

Prior to the early 20th century, most of what we knew about science could be observed by any rando who happened to bumble into a lab. Microscopy was laughable, so some Chem 101 level study could let you replicate many of the experiments that would have been accomplished at the time. Plus, the things those advancements gave us were wild in terms of what they offered society.

Today, there's a small segment of the population who could realistically come to understand the what, how, and why of modern science - virology, astrophysics, quantum computing, protein folding.....might as well be hieroglyphics to most people. And to boot, these things don't always do much for many people.

People have needs. Science doesn't offer a solution to everyone like it did when we all but eliminated polio, smallpox, measles, etc.

Science still requires you to give it your trust, and you get......sometimes just as much of a faith requirement as religion offers you. Except religion gives you donuts and trunk or treats and someone to shout at in your head when things are feeling wrong.

Today, are all playing a game of odds. And nones of us have a great understanding of statistics. And that's superduper stressful. The smart people tell us....things......are going to happen because we can predict them but they're not always right or sometimes they're never right. And sometimes the effects of those things won't ever affect us. But still it's a problem! Climate! PFAS! Virus!

How the hell are you and I supposed to parse what's true and what's not? Those scientists can't tell us shit.

You could have copy/pasted the above with problems if most decades in the 20th century. But information traveled slowly and was expensive to disseminate. So better to get it right, messaging and all, when things go to print or the tube. The beautiful thing that we get today is a box in our pocket that will tell us anything that we want to hear.

Science is expensive and unprofitable. Much easier to dismantle public trust in it and stoke fear and anxiety. Good thing about modern sociology and a good dose of a study of history is that people are fairly predictable. Better for the common man to cast their lot with institutions that guarantee the perception of stability while ceding all their faith to <insert higher power here>.

Sure, we have the tools also at hand to figure out what's more likely to occur and what's more likely to be true but who's got time?

[blue_green_sparks]

All of the above. I think a larger percentage of people have inability to detect targeted misinformation than I could have imagined. If a scam as lame as 'love letters from Keanu Reeves' (stating he needs money to see you) can actually produce, these people are defenseless. Americans are uniquely religious. I think religion is a very good preconditioner to falling for nonsense. There seems to be a link here, although I have yet to research the research. You get indoctrinated as a child to believe on faith alone and ignore evidence. Busloads trudge through an ark-shaped building in Kentucky full of stuffed dinosaurs in cages each day.

[HPstache]

It's probably a combination of those factors. We have too much to know and not enough time or energy to know it.

I don't have any immediate succinct evidence to back this up, but I firmly think that we have more or less demonstrated that at our current evolutionary level, we have reached the peak of what we are able process simultaneously as a species, in no small part thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet and our pocket gods.

The meat sacks our consciousnesses ride in don't do very well with constant stimulation of our stress response systems. But the threats are intangible. I myself have observed an elevated feeling of general anxiety, in spite of my best efforts to distance myself from the news. It's grinding on my other internal systems, to the point that I can sense a difference in how my body is responding to common stimulii. It's almost as if there is a pall of pheromones lingering in the common spaces I frequent.

This, of course, opens the door wide for those who are seeking stability (homeostasis ftw) to fall into the open arms of cultural institutions that keep us safe from all those things that keep us afraid - church and cult (are they the same? too early to tell, perhaps?).

I have no trouble with the belief in a higher power, but my goodness does it sure seem like these organizations (not the cults, but also - the cults) are keeping fertile the grounds for a general anti-science bias. Or an outright torching of science altogether. Depends on how Orthodox you want to get.

In general, trust in societal institutions requires a general acceptance of well-proved principles and practices. Most of these things require the scientific method to achieve, and then they require a public acceptance that those things, to the best of our knowledge, are unchanging.

Prior to the early 20th century, most of what we knew about science could be observed by any rando who happened to bumble into a lab. Microscopy was laughable, so some Chem 101 level study could let you replicate many of the experiments that would have been accomplished at the time. Plus, the things those advancements gave us were wild in terms of what they offered society.

Today, there's a small segment of the population who could realistically come to understand the what, how, and why of modern science - virology, astrophysics, quantum computing, protein folding.....might as well be hieroglyphics to most people. And to boot, these things don't always do much for many people.

People have needs. Science doesn't offer a solution to everyone like it did when we all but eliminated polio, smallpox, measles, etc.

Science still requires you to give it your trust, and you get......sometimes just as much of a faith requirement as religion offers you. Except religion gives you donuts and trunk or treats and someone to shout at in your head when things are feeling wrong.

Today, are all playing a game of odds. And nones of us have a great understanding of statistics. And that's superduper stressful. The smart people tell us....things......are going to happen because we can predict them but they're not always right or sometimes they're never right. And sometimes the effects of those things won't ever affect us. But still it's a problem! Climate! PFAS! Virus!

How the hell are you and I supposed to parse what's true and what's not? Those scientists can't tell us shit.

You could have copy/pasted the above with problems if most decades in the 20th century. But information traveled slowly and was expensive to disseminate. So better to get it right, messaging and all, when things go to print or the tube. The beautiful thing that we get today is a box in our pocket that will tell us anything that we want to hear.

Science is expensive and unprofitable. Much easier to dismantle public trust in it and stoke fear and anxiety. Good thing about modern sociology and a good dose of a study of history is that people are fairly predictable. Better for the common man to cast their lot with institutions that guarantee the perception of stability while ceding all their faith to <insert higher power here>.

Sure, we have the tools also at hand to figure out what's more likely to occur and what's more likely to be true but who's got time?

Welcome back to the forum, I feel like you have not posted in forever!

[Luke Warm]

So I think some people in developed countries don't have the drive to better themselves. I remember going through school just doing the minimum to get by. I had no desire to learn anything but managed to do ok in life because my parents forced me to study. I do remember lots of kids not having parents that cared or just ignored their parents and just fucked off all through high school. Then I see or hear about kids in under developed countries clamoring for an education so they can do better in life and support their families. They have a burning desire to learn which I didn't have and most of my friends didn't either. I know my nephew probably isn't going to graduate high school. He's just there taking up space and so are his friends. They definitely aren't going to make good life choices. I think a lot of kids are fine with what they have (or their parents give them) so why work harder to get something better. Then when they're adults they work shitty jobs to get those things they think they need to feel better about themselves. Sorry for rambling. I'm on my second glass of wine.

[Daley]

Maybe it's just an effect of getting older, but the percentage of people making big mistakes and horrible judgements seems to be rising. So I wonder if there's an underlying cause. Some hypotheses:

• Roman Lead Pipe Theory: Environmental or food/water pollutants, like microplastics or PFAS
• Obesity-related and age-related mental decline in our older, fatter population
• Reduced social interaction, and increased daily hours on the internet consuming lower-quality information. i.e. Internet Derangement Syndrome, iPad kids
• Peak consumerism, where getting more of whatever for lower prices is seen as the objective of life. This relates to all examples, including the consumption of free and entertaining misinformation rather than costly and dry journalism and science.

On a societal level, we seem to already be suffering the consequences. The pandemic killed or maimed hundreds of thousands more than it had to. The national debt is through the roof. The average person is getting more obese, and we cannot seem to solve the puzzle of how to make healthcare more affordable. And policy is now being made based on viral conspiracy theories.

More fuel for the fire:

1) PFAS and microplastics are only part of it, (though outside of not knowing what may happen with microplastics that can cross the blood-brain barrier, most appear to be more hormone disrupters, which cause their own problems), and believe it or not, lead is still an actual going concern as well. Gen X and the Boomers are both dealing with the end-game increasing side-effects of cognitive rot in our later years from childhood and adult lead exposure growing up through the 1980's, between leaded gasoline, lead in household paint, lead on tires, lead in toys, lead in our water pipes...

...and speaking of lead in the water pipes, we're hitting a crisis point with our own water supply and the lead pipes distributed throughout it in the nation, which is now getting thrown under the bus with current policy changes gutting the EPA, among other things. What sent Flint, Michigan over the edge was corrosion. A switch in water source and increase in acidity stripped off the years of corrosion lining the lead pipes that kept the lead from leeching as much into the water supply. You can buffer the water with phosphates to slow the leeching process down, but not a lot of municipalities do that unless they see lead level problems. Now, with the risk and rise of potential increased industrial pollution, including raw sewage restrictions being lifted in the US along with regulations for safe water, water chemistry's gonna start getting funky, and the funding for the ten year project to replace the lead water mains in our water supply's likely going to be cancelled/suspended/gutted. This means, we may have a repeat performance of Flint in multiple cities who haven't been able to switch over yet. Of course, this means literally more lead in the environment and the diet, and the consequences there-of.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6454899/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/chemical-study-ground-zero-house-flint-water-crisis-180962030/
https://www.motherjones.com/?s=Rick+Nevin+lead+poisoning
https://www.thenewlede.org/tag/lead-poisoning/

2) First of all, the quality of food in our country is atrocious. Ask anyone who's lived here with obesity and either emigrated or traveled for any amount of time in another country, or thinner people from other countries who came for an extended stay in this country or immigrate only to find themselves gaining weight while here or losing it while abroad. And no, even though portion issues are a problem in this country, it's not portioning. It's mineral depleted from soil depletion, fertilized only with nitrogen, bathed in pesticides and herbicides, the animals are bred and engineered to fatten as quickly as possible and fed unnatural diets living miserable lives in CAFO feedlots, and way too much of our food supply, no matter what you eat, is somehow either directly or indirectly dependent upon corn... especially the more processed the food is. We allow ingredients and chemicals in our food supply that are literally banned in the EU and a lot of other countries. Given the obesity link to cognitive decline, one might wonder if food quality isn't at least partially responsible for this problem.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/immigrants-u-s-arrive-thin-get-fat-flna1C9448563
https://brieflyexplained.com/why-do-americans-lose-weight-while-traveling-abroad-and-gain-it-back-quickly-upon-returning/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
https://thehumaneleague.org/article/factory-farming-animal-cruelty
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
https://www.salon.com/2021/09/25/how-america-became-dependent-on-corn-is-a-weird-story-of-genetics-and/
https://foodrevolution.org/blog/banned-ingredients-in-other-countries/

As far as any increase in age-related mental decline, see my notes on point #1 regarding lead exposure in the population.

This said, I think there needs to be a third category on point #2. The decline of empathy and increase in mental instability post-COVID, as a direct result of the virus itself and not the socioeconomic PTSD the lockdowns caused (elements that helped contribute to point #3). It's established that taurine helps with improving mental health outcomes, psychosis, anxiety, fear and paranoia. Low taurine levels have also been found to be a significant biomarker of long-COVID symptom severity, with taurine supplementation found to help reduce further symptom load in long-COVID patients. Long-COVID, of course, is more common in the unvaccinated portions of the population, and the unvaccinated portions of the population were also the segments most likely to wander around unmasked playing Typhoid Mary with the rest of the population. Given COVID appears to cause disruption with taurine metabolism, and taurine's link to mental health... draw your own conclusions.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-taurine-and-how-can-it-improve-psychosis-68747
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304522
https://time.com/6338434/vaccination-long-covid-risk/

3) A lot of the reduced social interactions and low-quality information coming through social media needs to be laid at the feet of Alexander Dugin and Vladamir Putin. There's been a concerted effort to poison the well and cause social instability dividing us along every possible social fracture line of inequality in this country to destroy the global influence of the United States (for good or bad) for the sake of reshaping the world for Russia as the new top global superpower for the better part of nearly 30 years now. The rest can be laid at the feet of Curtis Yarvin and the fascist techbroligarchy following his teachings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/the-imperialist-philosopher-who-demanded-the-ukraine-war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/curtis-yarvin-thiel-carlyle-monarchism-reactionary

4) This is a rough one to talk about, and I'll probably get hate for bringing it up. I think a lot of the consumer culture's endgame through the last few years of late-stage capitalism has been fed by the demands of shareholders demanding regular dividends and infinite stock growth in order to live off of the labor of millions of others instead of working themselves. *cough* That money has to come from somewhere, so corporations decreased the quality of goods and their durability and used advanced psychology with advertising that cashed in on the miserable mental health state of the nation to drive sales further, to continue the illusion of infinite growth in a finite world. Unfortunately, infinite growth in a finite system is what a cancer is. Sorry to say, but the very values of this community have helped contribute to this problem. I'm not saying it's deliberate, so much as an unintended consequence that hasn't gotten much examination by those lounging in their golden nests.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ (https://archive.ph/8f6RR)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-delusion-of-infinite-economic-growth/


So, yeah... fleshing out those points a bit, it seems like there are some active elements contributing to this clusterfrak that aren't getting much awareness or consideration. Nevertheless, the phase of empire in decline finally passed us by at this point. I'm not sure there's much to right this ship now given those in power and pulling the strings from the shadows are many of the same people responsible for contributing to and creating a lot of these messes in the first place. The irony is, the people of this community have the wealth, influence, and power to do something about a lot of this... but will instead sit on their nesteggs for the sake of self-preservation over taking the risk of undermining and undercutting the folks contributing to this wretched situation in hopes of remaining a part of the surviving aristocracy in case any push-back fails, not realizing that they've got just as much a target on their backs as the rest of us poor people suffering, because the 10% still isn't part of the 1%. We're all a part of the 99%.

But what do I know... I'm just some fool on the internet.

Anyway, have some extra talking points to whittle on while Rome is burning. Don't expect me to contribute much past this first post, however. I haven't the health or the chill these days to engage with much internet fighting anymore.

(Edited for errors.)

[RetiredAt63]

Lead - I was at a conference decades ago, someone from Health Canada presented a study on lead.  They planned to have a lead group and a non-lead control.  They ended up having a high lead group, a "normal" lead group and a no lead control.  They went to extraordinary lengths for the control group, because everything they sourced normally had lead.

The high lead group had the lead exposure of someone living beside a battery recycling plant.  The normal lead group was us.

Of course they found cognitive differences between the high lead group and the control.  What the presenter found scary and I do also, is that the "normal" group had subtle but definite cognitive issues.  None of us are thinking as well as we should be.

[MrGreen]

You missed one. We've eliminated natural selection for all but the most extreme cases. The pandemic is a great example of this. A whole mess of people would have died if we allowed it to play out naturally and it would have been crystal clear to 100% of the population just how bad COVID was. Instead, "the Man" intervened and now we have a significant percentage of our population that believes in nonsense. I don't know where the balance is but this certainly seems like a factor.

[reeshau]

You missed one. We've eliminated natural selection for all but the most extreme cases. The pandemic is a great example of this. A whole mess of people would have died if we allowed it to play out naturally and it would have been crystal clear to 100% of the population just how bad COVID was. Instead, "the Man" intervened and now we have a significant percentage of our population that believes in nonsense. I don't know where the balance is but this certainly seems like a factor.

This reminds me of the scenes of the anti-vax, anti-mask politicians crying out for vaccination while in the ICU.

Even at the point of realizing the horrible mistake, they didn't really understand what vaccines are.  Thanks for playing, no do-overs.

There is also a lot of psychological evidence that retractions and apologies don't really register with people, whether it is vaccine epiphanies, admissions of truth about the 2020 election, or anything Alex Jones was ordered by the court to say.

[Fru-Gal]

4) This is a rough one to talk about, and I'll probably get hate for bringing it up. I think a lot of the consumer culture's endgame through the last few years of late-stage capitalism has been fed by the demands of shareholders demanding regular dividends and infinite stock growth in order to live off of the labor of millions of others instead of working themselves. *cough* That money has to come from somewhere, so corporations decreased the quality of goods and their durability and used advanced psychology with advertising that cashed in on the miserable mental health state of the nation to drive sales further, to continue the illusion of infinite growth in a finite world. Unfortunately, infinite growth in a finite system is what a cancer is. Sorry to say, but the very values of this community have helped contribute to this problem. I'm not saying it's deliberate, so much as an unintended consequence that hasn't gotten much examination by those lounging in their golden nests.

The only trouble I have with that theory is, there is no shareholder demand for ridiculous executive pay. What kind of drag has astronomical CEO compensation had on finite growth? Seems like an easy fix. Maybe after TSLA falls we'll see more of that.

[Fru-Gal]

There is also a lot of psychological evidence that retractions and apologies don't really register with people

This occurs for everyone. My spouse especially LOL

[RetiredAt63]

You missed one. We've eliminated natural selection for all but the most extreme cases. The pandemic is a great example of this. A whole mess of people would have died if we allowed it to play out naturally and it would have been crystal clear to 100% of the population just how bad COVID was. Instead, "the Man" intervened and now we have a significant percentage of our population that believes in nonsense. I don't know where the balance is but this certainly seems like a factor.

Part of being human is looking out for the weakest among us.  There are Cromagnon and Neanderthal graves of people who would clearly have died much younger if not cared for by others.

I lost 2 grandparents to the Spanish flu.  In that horrible lethal pandemic people looked after each other. 

By the way, most people knew how terrible Covid was/is and still did something about it. Just like we know how bad measles is and do something about it. 

If a society doesn’t know how bad something is when measures are taken to mitigate it, that is on that society.

Evolutionarily, selection happens at all life  stages.  The embryonic ball of cells that failed to implant in the uterine wall is natural selection.  It just isn't visible. You/we have no idea what natural selection is happening with various human populations because so much isn't visible.

[Daley]

The only trouble I have with that theory is, there is no shareholder demand for ridiculous executive pay. What kind of drag has astronomical CEO compensation had on finite growth? Seems like an easy fix. Maybe after TSLA falls we'll see more of that.

I mean, there's always the option of not investing in corporations that are run by a C-Suite of overpaid jackals that support such gross wealth disparity and income inequality with their own labor force to begin with; but socially responsible corporations are rarely publicly traded, let alone capable of returning the market growth returns FIRE was predicated on...

[GuitarStv]

The only trouble I have with that theory is, there is no shareholder demand for ridiculous executive pay. What kind of drag has astronomical CEO compensation had on finite growth? Seems like an easy fix. Maybe after TSLA falls we'll see more of that.

I mean, there's always the option of not investing in corporations that are run by a C-Suite of overpaid jackals that support such gross wealth disparity and income inequality with their own labor force to begin with; but socially responsible corporations are rarely publicly traded, let alone capable of returning the market growth returns FIRE was predicated on...

 . . . wait.  Is that an option any more???  Aren't they all run the same way?

[Fru-Gal]

Warren Buffet has been against excessive CEO pay for a long time. Says it leads to entitlement, poor performance, wage inequality...

[ChpBstrd]

So I think some people in developed countries don't have the drive to better themselves. I remember going through school just doing the minimum to get by. I had no desire to learn anything but managed to do ok in life because my parents forced me to study. I do remember lots of kids not having parents that cared or just ignored their parents and just fucked off all through high school. Then I see or hear about kids in under developed countries clamoring for an education so they can do better in life and support their families. They have a burning desire to learn which I didn't have and most of my friends didn't either. ...

This makes sense to me. It's why the children of wealthy parents typically fail to develop talents or accomplish much with their lives. A life that is too easy leads to a mind that is untrained, unfocused, and unmotivated. Most of us hate to admit it, but we are all rich for having all the food we can stand to eat, houses with multiple rooms, the ability to travel miles in minutes while simply sitting on a foam cushion, air conditioning, comfortable clothes, tap water clean enough to drink, and armies of servants just a credit card swipe away. And to earn these things, what do we have to do? Many of us sit in cushioned chairs producing nothing but information, and talking in the occasional gathering. 

Labor specialization might be a component of our inability to make good decisions. When our professional expertise and life experiences are squeezed into such a tiny sliver of reality, we have somewhat lost touch with reality. At the very least, it can be said that the insurance salesman, the patent law paralegal, the laboratory technician specializing in sugars, the truck driver, and the bricklayer each view the world through an extremely narrow lens, and exercise only a tiny bit of the scope of their brainpower due to the repetitive nature of their chores. It is as if a bodybuilder went to the gym and only ever worked their left tricep.

The hopeful side of imperial disintegration is that people will be forced to solve problems they've never had to solve before, work with others in ways they never did before, perform a wider variety of tasks in their daily lives, and manage to get by on far less than they're accustomed to. The United States in 10 years may resemble the family in Schitt's Creek, and most people will be miserable for the loss of what they thought they were entitled to. But the silver lining is that our brains might get a workout like they've never had. We might be forced to look up from our digital distraction devices and figure out a way to catch dinner, build a fire, schedule perimeter patrols, or perform a surgery. Although it will go badly, we will have at least escaped the gutless mechanical lives we previously enjoyed.

You missed one. We've eliminated natural selection for all but the most extreme cases. The pandemic is a great example of this. A whole mess of people would have died if we allowed it to play out naturally and it would have been crystal clear to 100% of the population just how bad COVID was. Instead, "the Man" intervened and now we have a significant percentage of our population that believes in nonsense. I don't know where the balance is but this certainly seems like a factor.

I suspect there are fewer genetic reasons for intelligence differences than we think. All of us are the products of 32 great-great-great grandparents, most of whom had little choice in their selection of reproductive partners, and all of whom had to figure out ways to survive in a world where there were many more deadly errors than today. It would seem to be rare for most of those 32 ancestors to be dominated by dimwits passing on dimwit genes by random chance.

Plus, research on the social determinants of health, intelligence, and achievement illustrates strong links between material comfort, physical safety, loving time-giving parents, socialization, and special opportunities. It appears having a good family that isn't under massive stress can turn most ordinary children into smart adults.

[Fru-Gal]

Yeah it turns out the genetics argument is unproven. Plenty of brilliant people in history had unexceptional parents, and unexceptional kids. The idea that smart people should reproduce more because their intelligent genes will otherwise be lost is also disproven by the many geniuses who never had kids, yet we still remember them today.

[twinstudy]

A lot of it is just a combination of capitalism (which preys on the more base consumption instincts) and assortative mating (in which those with good intelligence and access to resources are more likely to marry each other, leading to more bifurcated outcomes).

I suspect if you look at, for example, the health or educational outcomes of the top 5% or 10% of society, you would find that they are only increasing, which goes against the hypothesis that everyone is making worse decisions (though everyone makes bad decisions in some respect, and I'm sure we all waste more time on our phones than a generation ago).

So I don't think everyone is affected equally. I suspect what is happening is that the lower half of the middle class is being hollowed out. Basic rules of life like not gambling, not getting hooked on opioids, etc, are being broken.

We all have addictive tendencies, but some of us satisfy those tendencies through vaguely healthy (or at least non-destructive) ways whereas others put them into the one-armed bandit or inject it into their veins.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Lead - I was at a conference decades ago, someone from Health Canada presented a study on lead.  They planned to have a lead group and a non-lead control.  They ended up having a high lead group, a "normal" lead group and a no lead control.  They went to extraordinary lengths for the control group, because everything they sourced normally had lead.

The high lead group had the lead exposure of someone living beside a battery recycling plant.  The normal lead group was us.

Of course they found cognitive differences between the high lead group and the control.  What the presenter found scary and I do also, is that the "normal" group had subtle but definite cognitive issues.  None of us are thinking as well as we should be.

Do you recall any keywords from that study?  The closest I found was this summary / advice:
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/sc-hc/H128-1-07-496-4E.pdf

So I think some people in developed countries don't have the drive to better themselves. I remember going through school just doing the minimum to get by. I had no desire to learn anything but managed to do ok in life because my parents forced me to study. I do remember lots of kids not having parents that cared or just ignored their parents and just fucked off all through high school. Then I see or hear about kids in under developed countries clamoring for an education so they can do better in life and support their families. They have a burning desire to learn which I didn't have and most of my friends didn't either. ...

This makes sense to me. It's why the children of wealthy parents typically fail to develop talents or accomplish much with their lives. A life that is too easy leads to a mind that is untrained, unfocused, and unmotivated. Most of us hate to admit it, but we are all rich for having all the food we can stand to eat, houses with multiple rooms, the ability to travel miles in minutes while simply sitting on a foam cushion, air conditioning, comfortable clothes, tap water clean enough to drink, and armies of servants just a credit card swipe away. And to earn these things, what do we have to do? Many of us sit in cushioned chairs producing nothing but information, and talking in the occasional gathering. 
...

Is there research backing your claim that children of wealthy parents accomplish less?  The research I've seen says the opposite.

"Research indicates that children from low-SES households and communities develop academic skills slower than children from higher SES groups."
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education

[AuspiciousEight]

Honestly I blame a lot of this on a combination of technological progress, environmental destruction, processes foods, and the decline of social values and ethics (especially trust between people) and extreme selfishness being more and more common (and even celebrated, oddly enough).

Some ways I try to combat these things:

-Drink filtered water from a stainless steel bottle. We use a reverse osmosis system.
-Hepa purifiers in most rooms of the house
-Whole foods, plant based diet. Limited processed foods.
-Stay off of socal media (Facebook, Instagram, tik tok, whatever else there is that I'm not aware of). I only use Facebook, and limit usage there.
-Read actual books, especially academic textbooks.
-Watch actual professors lecture.
-Spend more time with people IRL instead of online.
-Teach my children to be honest, to care about other people and each other, to have a work ethic and value contributing to other people, but also having appropriate level of caution and know how to establish boundaries with some people.

I'm sure there are other things I could be doing also, but I tend to focus on what's in front of me and what I have control over more than things that I have limited or no control over.

[partgypsy]

You forgot fantasy football and sports betting..I'm in a red state and they legalized sports betting. This is going to WIPE out the fortunes of a lot of 20 something males.

I was a nerdy kid. Ended up getting a PhD. I am astounded on a regular basis at basic logical fallacies or lack of critical thinking skills I see on social media. Even tho I'm older middled aged and feel like I've lost half my brain cells/Iq points at this point. I feel too old too move and start over at my age.
As far as point 4) (late stage capitalism like a cancer) no I don't think you'll get as much push back as you think from this group.

[rosarugosa]

All of the above. I think a larger percentage of people have inability to detect targeted misinformation than I could have imagined. If a scam as lame as 'love letters from Keanu Reeves' (stating he needs money to see you) can actually produce, these people are defenseless. Americans are uniquely religious. I think religion is a very good preconditioner to falling for nonsense. There seems to be a link here, although I have yet to research the research. You get indoctrinated as a child to believe on faith alone and ignore evidence. Busloads trudge through an ark-shaped building in Kentucky full of stuffed dinosaurs in cages each day.

I think you hit the nail on the head here, or at least one of the nails.  The people I know IRL who are MAGAs spreading bullshit on the internet, happen to also identify as being quite religious.  If you can believe in God, why not Trump as well? 

[partgypsy]

Out of curiosity I was googling how long a flight between new Zealand and Australia takes. one of the top 10 questions was, can I take a train between New Zealand and Australia.  I am concerned about the state of this world.

[Sanitary Stache]

Advertising is brain washing.
We have let advertising enter all of society which means everyone is brainwashed all the time.
I probably have diminished mental capacity from toxins I have been exposed to. But I am convinced it is the brainwashing that has reduced my ability to critically think, engage socially with people in real life, make good decisions about what to buy or even understand what a comfortable life is.
I blame advertising. And not just the most destructive, like kids cereals, cigarette and car product placement in entertainment, or tv commercials for drugs, but also the kind used to drum up revenue for newspapers-sensationalist headlines and outrage topics. I am currently upset with every assertion that people in the US are struggling economically. That is bullshit brainwashing. Some people are struggling, possibly from lack of money though I believe it’s from brainwashing, but many people are thriving and have just been brainwashed to not recognize it.

Looking at a scroll or “feed” is subjecting ourselves to the scene from A Clockwork Orange. We are holding our eyes open to what the oppressor wants us to see.

[PeteD01]

Yeah it turns out the genetics argument is unproven. Plenty of brilliant people in history had unexceptional parents, and unexceptional kids. The idea that smart people should reproduce more because their intelligent genes will otherwise be lost is also disproven by the many geniuses who never had kids, yet we still remember them today.

This idea of overachievers predictably having overachieving offspring due to inherited superior genes is typically advanced by intellectual underachievers as evidenced by the fact that they cannot even understand a simple model like regression toward the mean of polygenic traits.
Essentially, this means that the children of two exceptionally intelligent parents are more likely closer to the population mean than the parents - for IQ the population mean is 100.
For populations the situation is different if populations showing strong expression of the desired traits are isolated from the general population by creating breeding populations in order to increase certain gene frequencies in that population (in other words, a new mean is created and regression would be toward that new mean)- and no, a family unit or other breeding couple do not constitute a breeding population with predictable/stable trait expression:

Regression toward the mean

In statistics, regression toward the mean (also called regression to the mean, reversion to the mean, and reversion to mediocrity) is the phenomenon where if one sample of a random variable is extreme, the next sampling of the same random variable is likely to be closer to its mean.[2][3][4] Furthermore, when many random variables are sampled and the most extreme results are intentionally picked out, it refers to the fact that (in many cases) a second sampling of these picked-out variables will result in "less extreme" results, closer to the initial mean of all of the variables.

...

Discovery

Francis Galton's 1886 illustration of the correlation between the heights of adults and their parents.[9] The observation that adult children's heights tended to deviate less from the mean height than their parents suggested the concept of "regression toward the mean", giving regression analysis its name.
The concept of regression comes from genetics and was popularized by Sir Francis Galton during the late 19th century with the publication of Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature.[9] Galton observed that extreme characteristics (e.g., height) in parents are not passed on completely to their offspring. Rather, the characteristics in the offspring regress toward a mediocre point (a point which has since been identified as the mean). By measuring the heights of hundreds of people, he was able to quantify regression to the mean, and estimate the size of the effect. Galton wrote that, "the average regression of the offspring is a constant fraction of their respective mid-parental deviations". This means that the difference between a child and its parents for some characteristic is proportional to its parents' deviation from typical people in the population. If its parents are each two inches taller than the averages for men and women, then, on average, the offspring will be shorter than its parents by some factor (which, today, we would call one minus the regression coefficient) times two inches. For height, Galton estimated this coefficient to be about 2/3: the height of an individual will measure around a midpoint that is two thirds of the parents' deviation from the population average.

Galton also published these results[10] using the simpler example of pellets falling through a Galton board to form a normal distribution centred directly under their entrance point. These pellets might then be released down into a second gallery corresponding to a second measurement. Galton then asked the reverse question: "From where did these pellets come?"

The answer was not 'on average directly above'. Rather it was 'on average, more towards the middle', for the simple reason that there were more pellets above it towards the middle that could wander left than there were in the left extreme that could wander to the right, inwards.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

[ChpBstrd]

A lot of it is just a combination of capitalism (which preys on the more base consumption instincts) and assortative mating (in which those with good intelligence and access to resources are more likely to marry each other, leading to more bifurcated outcomes).

I suspect if you look at, for example, the health or educational outcomes of the top 5% or 10% of society, you would find that they are only increasing, which goes against the hypothesis that everyone is making worse decisions (though everyone makes bad decisions in some respect, and I'm sure we all waste more time on our phones than a generation ago).

So I don't think everyone is affected equally. I suspect what is happening is that the lower half of the middle class is being hollowed out. Basic rules of life like not gambling, not getting hooked on opioids, etc, are being broken.

We all have addictive tendencies, but some of us satisfy those tendencies through vaguely healthy (or at least non-destructive) ways whereas others put them into the one-armed bandit or inject it into their veins.

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

It's not that there's a right or wrong way to live, or right or wrong things to live for; it's that we should maybe pay attention to incentive structures and addictive products that are so powerful that they can overcome an organism's innate drive to engage in reproductive activity. In the pre-internet era, this was only thought to be possible when a mind was hijacked by strongly addictive substances like heroin, crack, or meth. Yet here we are, in a world where it is normal to live like an addict as long as you have lots of merchandise to show for it and are properly entertained.

Many young men, in particular, have decided/defaulted on a lifestyle devoted to gaming or, as @partgypsy reminds us, online gambling, which will probably lead to them never meeting a mate. Incels gather around their screens bitching about how women aren't exactly hunting down men like themselves who sit around staring at a screen all day, avoiding responsibility for their addictions. Women who have "given up on men" like these resort to hookup apps, partly in recognition of the futility of relationship building with an inevitably addicted mate, and partly because being in a relationship or starting family would compromise their ability to obtain their own addictive goodies. Even normally-horny teenagers are having less sex, largely because they're too busy on their phones.

Certainly the collapse of fertility in 21st century capitalistic-consumeristic countries has its benefits. Population collapse is perhaps our best hope to avoid polluting the earth into oblivion. It has enabled individuals to thrive at what they're good at, to self-invent unique lifestyles to meet their own needs instead of living in a template, and to achieve either great things or personal tranquility. It has led to far fewer social problems like domestic abuse, teen pregnancy, child neglect, orphans, oppressive forcing of women into domestic roles, or infertile people agonizing over their inability to meet social norms.

However, I suspect there are also many tragic cases - perhaps more tragic cases - of people who would have met a mate, started a family, and really enjoyed that life, but found themselves unable to do so in this cultural context. It's not the intentionally childless who are preventing them from doing anything; it's the consumerism and the use of certain toxic products.

So in terms of evolution, it seems like the people who will breed the most might be the ones who are less fascinated by electronics, less sensitive to advertisements, less willing to go along with cultural norms, less able to earn money to buy the distractions, and more engaged by actual interpersonal relationships than fake online relationships. Migrants and the global poor may fit these descriptions now, but they are not in their positions due to being genetically resistant to consumerism and ads. Rather, they are in this position due to the accident of where they were born, and they or their descendants will just as easily become like the consumerist natives around them. Rather, the people who breed the most will be the hyper-religious, who already prioritize interpersonal bonds, prioritize breeding, are willing to support each other in opposition to secular culture, and force members to give up a large part of their consumption budgets. It's just another reason to expect the internet to usher in a new Dark Ages.

[Scandium]

Maybe it's just an effect of getting older, but the percentage of people making big mistakes and horrible judgements seems to be rising. So I wonder if there's an underlying cause. Some hypotheses:

I'd like to see a citation for this. Vast majority of humans have always been gullible morons who act in extremely short-sighted ways. I don't take it for granted that it's any worse than it was at any other time in hisotry. Maybe we just hear more about it now? Since so many people post their (idiotic) decisions, and consequences, online?

All it takes is looking up the endless stories of moral panics, witch hunts, anti-science riots, cults, religious fanaticism, crusades, etc etc throughout history. On the opposite side, pretty much all of the world's religions were invented to prevent people from succumbing to their horrible judgements, by having rules in the best interest of people and society, and saying you'll be tortured forever if you do this. And still that wasn't enough for many people!

[twinstudy]

You missed one. We've eliminated natural selection for all but the most extreme cases. The pandemic is a great example of this. A whole mess of people would have died if we allowed it to play out naturally and it would have been crystal clear to 100% of the population just how bad COVID was. Instead, "the Man" intervened and now we have a significant percentage of our population that believes in nonsense. I don't know where the balance is but this certainly seems like a factor.

I think during covid we should have allowed for sceptics to opt out of the health system entirely. Give them a refund of the share of their income tax that they paid towards the health system, in fact maybe give them a lump sum to thank them for their contributions to the state coffers, and put them on an island somewhere without needing health services or vaccinations or any of that scientific rubbish. No need to expose them to the dangerous and deadly covid vaccines.

You forgot fantasy football and sports betting..I'm in a red state and they legalized sports betting. This is going to WIPE out the fortunes of a lot of 20 something males.

I was a nerdy kid. Ended up getting a PhD. I am astounded on a regular basis at basic logical fallacies or lack of critical thinking skills I see on social media. Even tho I'm older middled aged and feel like I've lost half my brain cells/Iq points at this point. I feel too old too move and start over at my age.
As far as point 4) (late stage capitalism like a cancer) no I don't think you'll get as much push back as you think from this group.

It's weird because even if you love the dopamine hit associated with a variable interval reinforcement schedule, there are so many better ways to get it than through something doomed to fail (sports betting, poker machines). There are randomised things like the stock market that have a positive, not negative, expected value. You would have to be genuinely dumb to play a poker machine when you can day trade and at least make a fist of it.

[GuitarStv]

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

Eh, there are plenty of reasons to not want kids that have nothing to do with wanting consumerist stuff.

Kids objectively suck from a lot of perspectives.  They're stress, work, money, will mess up your sex life for at least a while, and cause frustration for a multi decade period.  If you have more than one kid in a short period of time, the stress caused by having those kids significantly increases your chances of divorce.
 Children decrease overall life satisfaction for new parents, most significantly in mothers.

I think that the modern approach of pushing every aspect of child rearing on parents and largely excluding family/community involvement has significantly worsened this.  That coupled with the overwhelming multiple conflicting messages you get on every aspect of child-rearing (you can't let your kid walk alone to the park a block away because they'll be reported to the police who will then be knocking at your door, you want to give your child independence and challenges so they don't grow up to be weak and unable to do anything for themselves, don't give your kid peanuts at a young age - they'll die of allergies - WAIT I mean you want to give your kid peanuts early on because then they're less likely to develop allergies, and then there a billion conflicting approaches to discipline) makes stuff more difficult than in the past for parents.  Out in public, everyone else is terrified of interacting with your child because they don't know if you're going to go crazy ass psycho parent on them - so your kid misses out on learning to listen to other adults occasionally saying "Chill out little guy, maybe you don't need to be kicking my knees right now".

Maybe it's just an effect of getting older, but the percentage of people making big mistakes and horrible judgements seems to be rising. So I wonder if there's an underlying cause. Some hypotheses:

I'd like to see a citation for this. Vast majority of humans have always been gullible morons who act in extremely short-sighted ways. I don't take it for granted that it's any worse than it was at any other time in hisotry. Maybe we just hear more about it now? Since so many people post their (idiotic) decisions, and consequences, online?

All it takes is looking up the endless stories of moral panics, witch hunts, anti-science riots, cults, religious fanaticism, crusades, etc etc throughout history. On the opposite side, pretty much all of the world's religions were invented to prevent people from succumbing to their horrible judgements, by having rules in the best interest of people and society, and saying you'll be tortured forever if you do this. And still that wasn't enough for many people!

I think in near history (past 20-30 years) this phenomenon seems to have become worse (or at least much more publicly so) in some ways.

Anti-vaccine sentiment for example, wasn't a thing when I was growing up.  Every damned kid in every class in the school I went to was vaccinated.  Hell, I actually remember that we had the nurses come to our school and do vaccinations in class.  It's weird to contrast that with the relatively common radical shift in opinions regarding general vaccines that have been used for decades.  I have members of my family who have decided not to vaccinate their kids against anything!

I feel like environmental denial is also way bigger thing now than it used to be.  I remember people being concerned about acid rain and then the government implementing controls to help mitigate problems.  I remember people being concerned about holes in the ozone layer and then the government implementing controls to help mitigate problems.  And then that all stopped when the issue was global warming.  All of a sudden people didn't trust the people who spent their lives studying this topic.

There also seems to be a general distrust of anyone who has studied enough to become an expert in their field.  It feels like any expert opinion given is immediately countered by twenty people with access to kooky conspiracy websites pushing an agenda.  I don't remember this same constant/immediate distrust of experts on every issue presented when I was younger either.

[twinstudy]

I think some of the anti-intellectualism / anti-elitism comes from the fact that society is now a lot more competitive. In the past the rich were aristocrats and barons - they were born there, so they were privileged, and everyone knew it, and it was all a bit arbitrary and unfair but at least there was this noblesse oblige thing. These days those who achieve privilege like to believe (and in some cases rightfully so) that they earned it through merit, not birthright - and that makes the spoils of the victors and the bitterness of the losers all the more palpable. Hence why society is more divided and there is less trust overall.

As for kids, one of the things dissuading some of my friends from having kids is the fact that daycare here in Australia costs around $60k a year if you have two kids, unless of course you get the very generous government subsidy which brings it down to near-zero, and poor and middle-class parents get the subsidy but the rich miss out. That's a pretty big bill to pay and I don't think we should be forcing some parents to pay $60k a year more than other parents, regardless of their economic means.

[LaineyAZ]

Advertising is brain washing.
We have let advertising enter all of society which means everyone is brainwashed all the time.
I probably have diminished mental capacity from toxins I have been exposed to. But I am convinced it is the brainwashing that has reduced my ability to critically think, engage socially with people in real life, make good decisions about what to buy or even understand what a comfortable life is.
I blame advertising. And not just the most destructive, like kids cereals, cigarette and car product placement in entertainment, or tv commercials for drugs, but also the kind used to drum up revenue for newspapers-sensationalist headlines and outrage topics. I am currently upset with every assertion that people in the US are struggling economically. That is bullshit brainwashing. Some people are struggling, possibly from lack of money though I believe it’s from brainwashing, but many people are thriving and have just been brainwashed to not recognize it.

Looking at a scroll or “feed” is subjecting ourselves to the scene from A Clockwork Orange. We are holding our eyes open to what the oppressor wants us to see.

Can you elaborate?  Because there is objective evidence that the middle-class is diminishing and that people are propping up their households with unprecedented debt levels.  Lack of affordable housing and affordable childcare only adds to that stress.
 
Increasing homelessness, pleas on gofundme to pay for basic medical and dental care, and AI advancements which will eliminate jobs is all real because we can see it happening in real-time. 

[SuperNintendo Chalmers]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time. 

[Metalcat]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

Yeah, a lot of leaps of logic that I don't think really hold up.

[Fru-Gal]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

It is well established that global wealth correlates to low birth rates. Plenty of countries have had this problem in the last 20 years and have thrown different types of societal solutions at it to no avail. China and India are now facing the demographic change. That means the engine of population growth has finally stopped. This is a good thing.

Also note that wealth doesn’t mean shopping on Amazon or having three cars. It means lack of food insecurity, access to basic goods and entertainment, and consumer technology. The world has been at an unprecedented level of human wealth for a little while now.

[SuperNintendo Chalmers]

More fuel for the fire:

1) PFAS and microplastics are only part of it, (though outside of not knowing what may happen with microplastics that can cross the blood-brain barrier, most appear to be more hormone disrupters, which cause their own problems), and believe it or not, lead is still an actual going concern as well. Gen X and the Boomers are both dealing with the end-game increasing side-effects of cognitive rot in our later years from childhood and adult lead exposure growing up through the 1980's, between leaded gasoline, lead in household paint, lead on tires, lead in toys, lead in our water pipes...

...and speaking of lead in the water pipes, we're hitting a crisis point with our own water supply and the lead pipes distributed throughout it in the nation, which is now getting thrown under the bus with current policy changes gutting the EPA, among other things. What sent Flint, Michigan over the edge was corrosion. A switch in water source and increase in acidity stripped off the years of corrosion lining the lead pipes that kept the lead from leeching as much into the water supply. You can buffer the water with phosphates to slow the leeching process down, but not a lot of municipalities do that unless they see lead level problems. Now, with the risk and rise of potential increased industrial pollution, including raw sewage restrictions being lifted in the US along with regulations for safe water, water chemistry's gonna start getting funky, and the funding for the ten year project to replace the lead water mains in our water supply's likely going to be cancelled/suspended/gutted. This means, we may have a repeat performance of Flint in multiple cities who haven't been able to switch over yet. Of course, this means literally more lead in the environment and the diet, and the consequences there-of.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6454899/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/chemical-study-ground-zero-house-flint-water-crisis-180962030/
https://www.motherjones.com/?s=Rick+Nevin+lead+poisoning
https://www.thenewlede.org/tag/lead-poisoning/

[Snip...]

Not to derail the thread, but a huge, largely unknown issue is that leaded gasoline is STILL being used by hundreds of thousands of piston-engine aircraft across the country.  If you live near a General Aviation Airport, especially one that has flight schools that fly Cessnas and other piston-engine aircraft in repeated patterns, you may be experiencing exposure to lead, which causes irreversible damage in children. 

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/1/pgac285/6979725
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/20/aviation-lead-fuel-00081641
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-air-pollution
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/CLPPB/Pages/AviationGas.aspx

[jrhampt]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

Yeah, a lot of leaps of logic that I don't think really hold up.

Just a reminder that this "uniquely modern phenomenon" of stable couples choosing not to have kids is linked to the uniquely modern phenomenon of reliable birth control for women.  When we actually have the choice, any logical woman realizes that you get screwed over in so, so, so many ways if you choose to have kids, and you can have a very active sex life while having no desire to actually reproduce.  I would have to want kids very very badly in order for that to outweigh all the downsides not limited to but including having to pay out the nose for the privilege of pregnancy damage to my body (pelvic floor damage leading to incontinence, gestational diabetes, stomach muscle separation etc.), all the extra work that does tend to fall disproportionately on the woman, and severe limitations to my free time.  And I have a stable partner who is pretty great.  This is why they are trying to take away our choice.  They told themselves stories about how women are "naturally" nurturing and have these biological clocks and uncontrollable urges to have children, and it turns out that just isn't true.  Not any moreso than for men.  I actually expect men would want to have children more than women do because of some of the unique disadvantages that it entails for us.  I believe I've said this before, but fuck that, no thank you very much.

[Daley]

Not to derail the thread, but a huge, largely unknown issue is that leaded gasoline is STILL being used by hundreds of thousands of piston-engine aircraft across the country.  If you live near a General Aviation Airport, especially one that has flight schools that fly Cessnas and other piston-engine aircraft in repeated patterns, you may be experiencing exposure to lead, which causes irreversible damage in children.

Thanks for remembering and pointing this link out. I knew I was forgetting something key with the lead exposure thing.

I hardly view it as derailing, personally, because ChpBstrd wanted to know thoughts on why this might be. Unfortunately, not many people are really willing to wrestle with the person in the mirror pointing back at themselves when you dig too deeply at how and why these external things that abjectly suck truly came to be.

[GuitarStv]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

It is well established that global wealth correlates to low birth rates. Plenty of countries have had this problem in the last 20 years and have thrown different types of societal solutions at it to no avail. China and India are now facing the demographic change. That means the engine of population growth has finally stopped. This is a good thing.

Also note that wealth doesn’t mean shopping on Amazon or having three cars. It means lack of food insecurity, access to basic goods and entertainment, and consumer technology. The world has been at an unprecedented level of human wealth for a little while now.

Education.  Specifically education of women is what I've read is more closely related to low birth rate, rather than wealth (although wealth and education of women does often go hand in hand).

[Sandi_k]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

It is well established that global wealth correlates to low birth rates. Plenty of countries have had this problem in the last 20 years and have thrown different types of societal solutions at it to no avail. China and India are now facing the demographic change. That means the engine of population growth has finally stopped. This is a good thing.

Also note that wealth doesn’t mean shopping on Amazon or having three cars. It means lack of food insecurity, access to basic goods and entertainment, and consumer technology. The world has been at an unprecedented level of human wealth for a little while now.

Education.  Specifically education of women is what I've read is more closely related to low birth rate, rather than wealth (although wealth and education of women does often go hand in hand).

I work at an R1 University, and have worked with economists since 1990. A recent conference highlighted research that showed the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE thing that can be done to lift folks out of poverty?

A woman who has at least one year of college education.

[Kris]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

Yeah, a lot of leaps of logic that I don't think really hold up.

Just a reminder that this "uniquely modern phenomenon" of stable couples choosing not to have kids is linked to the uniquely modern phenomenon of reliable birth control for women.  When we actually have the choice, any logical woman realizes that you get screwed over in so, so, so many ways if you choose to have kids, and you can have a very active sex life while having no desire to actually reproduce.  I would have to want kids very very badly in order for that to outweigh all the downsides not limited to but including having to pay out the nose for the privilege of pregnancy damage to my body (pelvic floor damage leading to incontinence, gestational diabetes, stomach muscle separation etc.), all the extra work that does tend to fall disproportionately on the woman, and severe limitations to my free time.  And I have a stable partner who is pretty great.  This is why they are trying to take away our choice.  They told themselves stories about how women are "naturally" nurturing and have these biological clocks and uncontrollable urges to have children, and it turns out that just isn't true.  Not any moreso than for men.  I actually expect men would want to have children more than women do because of some of the unique disadvantages that it entails for us.  I believe I've said this before, but fuck that, no thank you very much.

Exactly. This is the first time in recorded history where women can choose to have a life that does not involve subjugating themselves to a man and controlling whether sex results in pregnancy. This ain't about purchasing power for me. It's about me not wanting to do shit I don't want to do and actually being given the opportunity to say no to it.

[mtnrider]

Mostly posting to follow, but...

I agree with those who say that many of these things have existed forever (random 1890 antivax cartoon), they are part of human nature.  Education helped and when I was a kid very few families were antivax or anti fluoride.

To me it seems that social media has been an accelerant for vice and misinformation. 

[GuitarStv]

Mostly posting to follow, but...

I agree with those who say that many of these things have existed forever (random 1890 antivax cartoon), they are part of human nature.  Education helped and when I was a kid very few families were antivax or anti fluoride.

To me it seems that social media has been an accelerant for vice and misinformation.

Just because something similar happened at one point in history doesn't mean that what's going on today isn't novel.

Yeah, in the late 1800s there was a big antivaccine movement.  But we had a pretty good run (since what, at least the thirties?)  were it wasn't an issue.  That it has come back, given the better access to information, and the better education that the average person has is very disturbing.

[RetiredAt63]

Mostly posting to follow, but...

I agree with those who say that many of these things have existed forever (random 1890 antivax cartoon), they are part of human nature.  Education helped and when I was a kid very few families were antivax or anti fluoride.

To me it seems that social media has been an accelerant for vice and misinformation.

Just because something similar happened at one point in history doesn't mean that what's going on today isn't novel.

Yeah, in the late 1800s there was a big antivaccine movement.  But we had a pretty good run (since what, at least the thirties?)  where it wasn't an issue.  That it has come back, given the better access to information, and the better education that the average person has is very disturbing.

Younger people haven't seen the misery these diseases cause.  If there is no immediate family histories they don't see the risk.

We have enough family history that my DD was vaccinated and her DD is being vaccinated.  Between the Spanish flu, rheumatic fever, measles, mumps, chickenpox, more chickenpox, that nasty flu back in 2009-2010 (I forget exactly) we are all vaccinated like mad.

Seriously, DD wouldn't even let me see the baby until I had my TDAP shot.  To get it I had to tell my GP her pediatrician wouldn't let me see the baby until I had it, we are more pro-vax than that GP!  Whooping cough is not good for small babies.

[RetiredAt63]

Lead - I was at a conference decades ago, someone from Health Canada presented a study on lead.  They planned to have a lead group and a non-lead control.  They ended up having a high lead group, a "normal" lead group and a no lead control.  They went to extraordinary lengths for the control group, because everything they sourced normally had lead.

The high lead group had the lead exposure of someone living beside a battery recycling plant.  The normal lead group was us.

Of course they found cognitive differences between the high lead group and the control.  What the presenter found scary and I do also, is that the "normal" group had subtle but definite cognitive issues.  None of us are thinking as well as we should be.

Do you recall any keywords from that study?  The closest I found was this summary / advice:
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/sc-hc/H128-1-07-496-4E.pdf

Sadly, no.  It was an oral presentation at the conference, I have no idea if it resulted in one paper or several.  The actual presentation's main focus was about how difficult it can be to have a truly representative "control group".  But of course they also told us the results, since they were so disturbing.

It was around 1986, 1987? If that helps.

[jrhampt]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

Yeah, a lot of leaps of logic that I don't think really hold up.

Just a reminder that this "uniquely modern phenomenon" of stable couples choosing not to have kids is linked to the uniquely modern phenomenon of reliable birth control for women.  When we actually have the choice, any logical woman realizes that you get screwed over in so, so, so many ways if you choose to have kids, and you can have a very active sex life while having no desire to actually reproduce.  I would have to want kids very very badly in order for that to outweigh all the downsides not limited to but including having to pay out the nose for the privilege of pregnancy damage to my body (pelvic floor damage leading to incontinence, gestational diabetes, stomach muscle separation etc.), all the extra work that does tend to fall disproportionately on the woman, and severe limitations to my free time.  And I have a stable partner who is pretty great.  This is why they are trying to take away our choice.  They told themselves stories about how women are "naturally" nurturing and have these biological clocks and uncontrollable urges to have children, and it turns out that just isn't true.  Not any moreso than for men.  I actually expect men would want to have children more than women do because of some of the unique disadvantages that it entails for us.  I believe I've said this before, but fuck that, no thank you very much.

Exactly. This is the first time in recorded history where women can choose to have a life that does not involve subjugating themselves to a man and controlling whether sex results in pregnancy. This ain't about purchasing power for me. It's about me not wanting to do shit I don't want to do and actually being given the opportunity to say no to it.

Damn right.  This is not about capitalism.  It’s not about loving sex or not (ftr: love).  Idk how many times we have to point out that kids are a VERY BAD DEAL for women.  Very bad.  We should be worshipped like actual gods since we have the ability to create life (at great personal cost), but instead we are shit on at every turn.  If you shit on me, I go on strike. 

But carry on about lead poisoning because I too am baffled as to why a large portion of the population is so completely insane; I just don’t think that choosing not to have kids is an example of bad decision making.

[roomtempmayo]

I think some of the anti-intellectualism / anti-elitism comes from the fact that society is now a lot more competitive. In the past the rich were aristocrats and barons - they were born there, so they were privileged, and everyone knew it, and it was all a bit arbitrary and unfair but at least there was this noblesse oblige thing. These days those who achieve privilege like to believe (and in some cases rightfully so) that they earned it through merit, not birthright - and that makes the spoils of the victors and the bitterness of the losers all the more palpable. Hence why society is more divided and there is less trust overall.

I think you're on to something significant.

My chronology goes something like this:

Pre-WWII, nobody really thought society was meritocratic, but there was rapid growth and most people's lives were getting better.

WWII to 1989ish, all the smart people previously excluded from white collar work by money, gender, and race went through universities and there was a ton of social sorting.  Smart, driven women met, married, and procreated with smart, driven men.  The crucial thing, though, was that the people who ended up as doctors had gone to high school with the truck drivers and janitors.  There was a sense that people did sort of start in a similar place, even though they ended up with very different lives.  I'd call this era The Great Sort.

1990-1999: Society has mostly sorted.  Inequalities have hardened into intergenerational divisions that have started to look and feel like a class-based society.  Successful parents live in exclusive neighborhoods/suburbs/school districts and send their kids to school with similarly situated families.  Those kids go on to become society's various experts, but in no sense is their background representative of America.  The rest of the country increasingly looks at them as a ruling class and resents them. 

2000-2009: Growth slows down, and the class tensions rise.  Increasingly it looks like there's no route from growing up poor or lower middle class to "making it."  Society feels like a zero sum game where a favored class starts on third base.

2010-Present: People think the game is rigged, and they look for ways to disrupt it rather than succeed within it.  Podcasters, influencers, and politicians promise them that the problem is the system and the elites, not them. 

[mtnrider]

Mostly posting to follow, but...

I agree with those who say that many of these things have existed forever (random 1890 antivax cartoon), they are part of human nature.  Education helped and when I was a kid very few families were antivax or anti fluoride.

To me it seems that social media has been an accelerant for vice and misinformation.

Just because something similar happened at one point in history doesn't mean that what's going on today isn't novel.

Yeah, in the late 1800s there was a big antivaccine movement.  But we had a pretty good run (since what, at least the thirties?)  were it wasn't an issue.  That it has come back, given the better access to information, and the better education that the average person has is very disturbing.

Oh we totally agree.  Education had been slowly working and people had adjusted.  But that movement was still around, underground (source: family). 

Along comes social media and suddenly it seems like the movement exploded.  It's almost like it was the catalyst needed for the movement to metastasize.

Same with a number of other vices*: gambling, casual racism, smoking, maybe eating disorders?  No hard data for this, just observation.

 
* alcohol use and risky sex has gone down though, so there is that.

[RetiredAt63]

A uniquely modern phenomenon is people - including stable couples - making the decision to not have kids so that they can have more money / stuff / luxury / recreation time.

It may seem judgemental to question any individual's very personal decision not to devote 2 decades of their life to wiping buts, mending cuts, and yelling at teenagers, but there is something interesting going on when consumerism is a stronger draw than an organism's reproductive drive for a very large portion of the population. Family lines representing a hundred thousand generations of struggle to survive and care for young are ending with an iPad, an Amazon account, and a luxury SUV.

[Snip]

Yeah, this is where you lost me.  I don't think it can be assumed that this is a primary reason for declining birth rates.  I don't know if data exists, but anecdotally I know of a number of other reasons couples we know have chosen not to have kids, including environmental (there was a whole other thread on this), political, no "calling" to have kids, etc., which decisions do not involve a desire for more money/stuff/luxury/recreation time.

Yeah, a lot of leaps of logic that I don't think really hold up.

Just a reminder that this "uniquely modern phenomenon" of stable couples choosing not to have kids is linked to the uniquely modern phenomenon of reliable birth control for women.  When we actually have the choice, any logical woman realizes that you get screwed over in so, so, so many ways if you choose to have kids, and you can have a very active sex life while having no desire to actually reproduce.  I would have to want kids very very badly in order for that to outweigh all the downsides not limited to but including having to pay out the nose for the privilege of pregnancy damage to my body (pelvic floor damage leading to incontinence, gestational diabetes, stomach muscle separation etc.), all the extra work that does tend to fall disproportionately on the woman, and severe limitations to my free time.  And I have a stable partner who is pretty great.  This is why they are trying to take away our choice.  They told themselves stories about how women are "naturally" nurturing and have these biological clocks and uncontrollable urges to have children, and it turns out that just isn't true.  Not any moreso than for men.  I actually expect men would want to have children more than women do because of some of the unique disadvantages that it entails for us.  I believe I've said this before, but fuck that, no thank you very much.

Exactly. This is the first time in recorded history where women can choose to have a life that does not involve subjugating themselves to a man and controlling whether sex results in pregnancy. This ain't about purchasing power for me. It's about me not wanting to do shit I don't want to do and actually being given the opportunity to say no to it.

Damn right.  This is not about capitalism.  It’s not about loving sex or not (ftr: love).  Idk how many times we have to point out that kids are a VERY BAD DEAL for women.  Very bad.  We should be worshipped like actual gods since we have the ability to create life (at great personal cost), but instead we are shit on at every turn.  If you shit on me, I go on strike. 

But carry on about lead poisoning because I too am baffled as to why a large portion of the population is so completely insane; I just don’t think that choosing not to have kids is an example of bad decision making.

There are old studies in rats that show social breakdown in times of overcrowding. Even if there are plenty of resources, the maternal and paternal behaviours stop working for some of the population.

In a way it makes sense.  In K type species population size is controlled by internal regulation.  R type species are controlled by outside influences.  So as our planet becomes overpopulated, we are acting as a K type species to bring numbers down.

After all, when I was born the planet was at 1 billion and that was still too many people in some places.  Loosing a big chunk of population gradually may be hard hard short term but is overall a "good thing".

And yes, having babies is extremely hard on women's bodies.   Before modern medicine it was quite common for women to die in childbirth, or shortly thereafter.  Too many babies and they had brittle bones and teeth falling out. 

And if there are fewer babies and children maybe society will value them more and give them more resources to have healthy childhoods.