The misanthropy the youth identify with now is really striking. I feel at least part of it is the fact that they spend so much time on social media (especially reddit, tik tok, twitter) and have little experience with critical thinking...or thinking much at all
When I first read this article I actually found it pretty funny, which I recognize is the wrong way to look at it. While I understand the relief some of us might feel at knowing that the weirdos in the article won't have kids, there is something awfully close to eugenics at work in that reaction. I supremely don't want anyone to convince them to have kids, because that is a conversation that should never happen between strangers. Hypothetically if I didn't want kids, (I have two) I couldn't imagine making it a public statement and a public conversation. In fact, I find the idea of making that kind of personal decision a public matter is completely insane.
I think the ideas of the people in this article are disturbing to happy healthy adults because we can't fathom self inflicted eugenics. We're primates who evolved from ancestors who were instinctively compelled to pass their genes on to the next generation, and we all know that's true. That's why I think it's confusing that any well adjusted human being living in the safest and most prosperous time in human history would be against having children on any economic or practical terms. Truly, I think this idea is the product of some weird gene recombination producing psychological outliers, and not the leading edge of a wave of anything. Our cultural obsession with misfits and losers has made this particular doom fetish seem significant, but it probably isn't a trend. The trend is a willingness to argue about it in public, which to me, is plum loco.
Evolution is built on each generation bringing the next generation. These morons are by definition winners of Darwin award, that take themselves out of the gene pool. Hopefully this disease is genetic and will burn itself out.
Why has Bari Weiss, one of the smartest people in the world, posting a guest column by a millennial anti-human, death loving lunatic? Could it be that of a doting mother blind to a child's warped personality? To be anti-children is to be anti-human. To be suicidal. I see a tiny bit of logic behind the planning for a 90% reduction in world population, ala Bill Gates. But zero logic behind 100% population reduction, ala Suzy Weiss. If people are to be an evolutionary abortion, are we all going drink the Kool-Aid? Only if Fauci injects us with enough "anti-Covid" brain venom to craze us to the point of wanting to commit suicide.
The sad part is that they will regret when they are old and other people same age have children and grand children and she would just keep changing boyfriends. At some point, not easy to find one anymore. And she end up alone and depressed.
There are always people who, for individual reasons, chose or happened not to have children. That's OK. The problem is an ideology, a philosophy, that celebrates the decision. I believe it all comes from over-educated dorks who have been indoctrinated in post-Modernism, neo-Marxism, and identity politics. These folks are ultimately selfish and nihilistic, and they live off the sacrifice of others. While they enjoy their DINK life (Double Income, No Kids), they also benefit from social contact with their nieces and nephews, or Children of Other People, who enrich their lives and ensure the continuation of society. Yet they have none of the responsibility. We are heading toward an older society with few kids, and this will make everyone less happy. By the way, happiness is at the lowest level since it has been measured.
Feminism's Darwin Awards: In the 1978 movie "Animal House" Dean Wormer tells John Belushi's character, John Blutarsky, that "Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life, son." I would paraphrase to say the following to these young women, "Anxious, narcissistic, and ignorant is a regrettable way to go through life."
This was even more depressing to read than I expected. A cynic might say, "At least we don't have to find out what sort of dysfunctional children people with such attitudes would raise," but—heartbreakingly—I expect that most of them would have their attitudes profoundly changed by the immense love of bringing children into the world. Call me a breeder, I suppose. It's a compliment in my book.
On the East Coast, it is now 7:00 pm on Saturday, Oct. 30. As of this writing there are 637 comments. And as I read through them, I think perhaps we should re-read the article with nothing but compassion for the interviewees.
Suzy Weiss failed to communicate who she was writing about. It is a shame because it is such an interesting subject. Probably best not to use Reddit as a source for serious journalism.
The sooner those who think like this die off the better: "Do you want your kid to be a founding father? That would make them a colonizer." Now if we could only prevent them from voting, the rest of us would be safer.
I would argue that we need to have better and more balanced education, probably starting with getting rid of the leftist-dominated field of education and instead hiring people with real world experience -- former soldiers, engineers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers... people motivated to pass their life experience and wisdom on to future generations, rather than people motivated to inculcate an ideology or simply to "get a job".
A well educated populace would ultimately vote smarter and live better, though it's not the key to happiness per se; you still need some kind of spiritual fulfillment e.g. church, synagogue, mosque, Zen meditation, etc.
This is so sad. I also feel annoyed that my kids will be working to pay social security for these people as they age. There's a selfishness to deciding not to pass anything on but expecting that someone will be there to care for you.
I don't see you as subhuman. Also, your taxes don't pay for my kids. Your taxes pay for your parents' and grandparents' generations' retirements, just like mine and like those eventual taxes that my kids will pay.
If you don't see me as subhuman, why did you write such an ignorant comment? Did you think I wouldn't see it? Or did you just see me as a name on a page?
My taxes pay for public schools, so unless you're sending your kids to private school or homeschooling them, I contribute to some of your kids' childhood.
And I am more than happy for my taxes to be used for young and old alike. That's what it's like to care about people even if you don't know them.
As you guessed, I do not in fact send my children to government schools. So your first assumption was, as the one that followed it, incorrect.
I wrote "[t]here's a selfishness to deciding not to pass anything on but expecting that someone will be there to care for you". I stand by it. It's a bit selfish, but selfishness is human. How did you read that and see "subhuman"?
Also, what's "ignorant" about it? People get more from Social Security than they put in, and the number of retirees supported by each worker is increasing. Each generation just pillages the next worse than it was pillaged in turn. It's not sustainable. I think the data are pretty clear on that.
If this is coming from any uncertainty or guilt regarding your decision, I'm sorry. But that does not give you license to accuse me of saying or thinking things that haven't and don't.
The SS thing is a red herring. Everyone who works pays in. People who don't work but are married to someone who does get to participate in survivor's benefits even though they never paid in. And while your kids will presumably pay in, they will also pull out of it, and someone without kids is also not creating new people to pull from SS. Regardless, most pro-kids, pro-population growth types are conservative and generally against paying taxes so I'm not buying this argument. I've never heard them argue that their stay at home wife is free-riding, nor the high earners whose earnings are capped for SS contributions while others pay on their full wages. The fact is, the childless get NO tax benefits and contribute to programs that assist kids, while people with kids get several tax breaks. I'm not saying that's wrong, and one can argue what the appropriate level of tax should be, but to say that childless people are breaking some kind of social contract with respect to taxes is nonsense.
It's not a great look to say that you don't think people's taxes should go toward childfree people's social security. What makes us less worthy, Nathan? You didn't say "Social Security is not sustainable", you said you didn't want people like those in the article to be supported by it. As I said, ignorant.
It concerns me that you think that having kids is a guarantee that you'll have someone to care for you when you're older. First, your kids might not like you. Most people in nursing homes have kids, and a good percentage are never visited by then. Second, why do you assume your children will outlive you? Children die all the time. Third, not all children are physically or mentally able to care for anyone, let alone aging parents. You're assuming quite a lot.
I have no uncertainty about my decision. I very possibly saved my life by getting this procedure, and put years of research into it. And what do I have to feel guilty about?
So the coming generations will have fewer of these kind of people and more Mormons. Good.
The misanthropy the youth identify with now is really striking. I feel at least part of it is the fact that they spend so much time on social media (especially reddit, tik tok, twitter) and have little experience with critical thinking...or thinking much at all
I totally agree with Sofia
When I first read this article I actually found it pretty funny, which I recognize is the wrong way to look at it. While I understand the relief some of us might feel at knowing that the weirdos in the article won't have kids, there is something awfully close to eugenics at work in that reaction. I supremely don't want anyone to convince them to have kids, because that is a conversation that should never happen between strangers. Hypothetically if I didn't want kids, (I have two) I couldn't imagine making it a public statement and a public conversation. In fact, I find the idea of making that kind of personal decision a public matter is completely insane.
I think the ideas of the people in this article are disturbing to happy healthy adults because we can't fathom self inflicted eugenics. We're primates who evolved from ancestors who were instinctively compelled to pass their genes on to the next generation, and we all know that's true. That's why I think it's confusing that any well adjusted human being living in the safest and most prosperous time in human history would be against having children on any economic or practical terms. Truly, I think this idea is the product of some weird gene recombination producing psychological outliers, and not the leading edge of a wave of anything. Our cultural obsession with misfits and losers has made this particular doom fetish seem significant, but it probably isn't a trend. The trend is a willingness to argue about it in public, which to me, is plum loco.
Evolution is built on each generation bringing the next generation. These morons are by definition winners of Darwin award, that take themselves out of the gene pool. Hopefully this disease is genetic and will burn itself out.
So is Suzie Weiss related to Bari Weiss?
Why has Bari Weiss, one of the smartest people in the world, posting a guest column by a millennial anti-human, death loving lunatic? Could it be that of a doting mother blind to a child's warped personality? To be anti-children is to be anti-human. To be suicidal. I see a tiny bit of logic behind the planning for a 90% reduction in world population, ala Bill Gates. But zero logic behind 100% population reduction, ala Suzy Weiss. If people are to be an evolutionary abortion, are we all going drink the Kool-Aid? Only if Fauci injects us with enough "anti-Covid" brain venom to craze us to the point of wanting to commit suicide.
The sad part is that they will regret when they are old and other people same age have children and grand children and she would just keep changing boyfriends. At some point, not easy to find one anymore. And she end up alone and depressed.
This may be one of the saddest things I've ever read. I see big regrets for these young women (and men, by default). Who raised these children?
There are always people who, for individual reasons, chose or happened not to have children. That's OK. The problem is an ideology, a philosophy, that celebrates the decision. I believe it all comes from over-educated dorks who have been indoctrinated in post-Modernism, neo-Marxism, and identity politics. These folks are ultimately selfish and nihilistic, and they live off the sacrifice of others. While they enjoy their DINK life (Double Income, No Kids), they also benefit from social contact with their nieces and nephews, or Children of Other People, who enrich their lives and ensure the continuation of society. Yet they have none of the responsibility. We are heading toward an older society with few kids, and this will make everyone less happy. By the way, happiness is at the lowest level since it has been measured.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200618/americans-at-unhappiest-level-in-50-years
Feminism's Darwin Awards: In the 1978 movie "Animal House" Dean Wormer tells John Belushi's character, John Blutarsky, that "Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life, son." I would paraphrase to say the following to these young women, "Anxious, narcissistic, and ignorant is a regrettable way to go through life."
This was even more depressing to read than I expected. A cynic might say, "At least we don't have to find out what sort of dysfunctional children people with such attitudes would raise," but—heartbreakingly—I expect that most of them would have their attitudes profoundly changed by the immense love of bringing children into the world. Call me a breeder, I suppose. It's a compliment in my book.
On the East Coast, it is now 7:00 pm on Saturday, Oct. 30. As of this writing there are 637 comments. And as I read through them, I think perhaps we should re-read the article with nothing but compassion for the interviewees.
Suzy Weiss failed to communicate who she was writing about. It is a shame because it is such an interesting subject. Probably best not to use Reddit as a source for serious journalism.
I could barely finish this. This is the saddest thing I have ever read. The west is dead.
The sooner those who think like this die off the better: "Do you want your kid to be a founding father? That would make them a colonizer." Now if we could only prevent them from voting, the rest of us would be safer.
I would argue that we need to have better and more balanced education, probably starting with getting rid of the leftist-dominated field of education and instead hiring people with real world experience -- former soldiers, engineers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers... people motivated to pass their life experience and wisdom on to future generations, rather than people motivated to inculcate an ideology or simply to "get a job".
A well educated populace would ultimately vote smarter and live better, though it's not the key to happiness per se; you still need some kind of spiritual fulfillment e.g. church, synagogue, mosque, Zen meditation, etc.
This is so sad. I also feel annoyed that my kids will be working to pay social security for these people as they age. There's a selfishness to deciding not to pass anything on but expecting that someone will be there to care for you.
Great work, Suzy.
Our taxes will go to paying for your kids too. Sad that you see us as subhuman simply because we don’t want kids.
I don't see you as subhuman. Also, your taxes don't pay for my kids. Your taxes pay for your parents' and grandparents' generations' retirements, just like mine and like those eventual taxes that my kids will pay.
If you don't see me as subhuman, why did you write such an ignorant comment? Did you think I wouldn't see it? Or did you just see me as a name on a page?
My taxes pay for public schools, so unless you're sending your kids to private school or homeschooling them, I contribute to some of your kids' childhood.
And I am more than happy for my taxes to be used for young and old alike. That's what it's like to care about people even if you don't know them.
As you guessed, I do not in fact send my children to government schools. So your first assumption was, as the one that followed it, incorrect.
I wrote "[t]here's a selfishness to deciding not to pass anything on but expecting that someone will be there to care for you". I stand by it. It's a bit selfish, but selfishness is human. How did you read that and see "subhuman"?
Also, what's "ignorant" about it? People get more from Social Security than they put in, and the number of retirees supported by each worker is increasing. Each generation just pillages the next worse than it was pillaged in turn. It's not sustainable. I think the data are pretty clear on that.
If this is coming from any uncertainty or guilt regarding your decision, I'm sorry. But that does not give you license to accuse me of saying or thinking things that haven't and don't.
The SS thing is a red herring. Everyone who works pays in. People who don't work but are married to someone who does get to participate in survivor's benefits even though they never paid in. And while your kids will presumably pay in, they will also pull out of it, and someone without kids is also not creating new people to pull from SS. Regardless, most pro-kids, pro-population growth types are conservative and generally against paying taxes so I'm not buying this argument. I've never heard them argue that their stay at home wife is free-riding, nor the high earners whose earnings are capped for SS contributions while others pay on their full wages. The fact is, the childless get NO tax benefits and contribute to programs that assist kids, while people with kids get several tax breaks. I'm not saying that's wrong, and one can argue what the appropriate level of tax should be, but to say that childless people are breaking some kind of social contract with respect to taxes is nonsense.
Thank you!
It's not a great look to say that you don't think people's taxes should go toward childfree people's social security. What makes us less worthy, Nathan? You didn't say "Social Security is not sustainable", you said you didn't want people like those in the article to be supported by it. As I said, ignorant.
It concerns me that you think that having kids is a guarantee that you'll have someone to care for you when you're older. First, your kids might not like you. Most people in nursing homes have kids, and a good percentage are never visited by then. Second, why do you assume your children will outlive you? Children die all the time. Third, not all children are physically or mentally able to care for anyone, let alone aging parents. You're assuming quite a lot.
I have no uncertainty about my decision. I very possibly saved my life by getting this procedure, and put years of research into it. And what do I have to feel guilty about?
"I very possibly saved my life by getting this procedure"
It sounds like your case is exceptional. Maybe my comments don't apply to you.