Comments by "CaptainVanisher" (@captainvanisher988) on "Why More Americans Are Going Child Free | Asmongold Reacts" video.

Side effect of rampant materialism replacing religious communities and feminism destroying the nuclear family SAHM option.
79
That's utterly untrue. It's a very common excuse of people "oh I don't have children because of the economy". Really? Then why did birth rates first fall under replacement level in the 70s and 80s? During the decades with the highest economic booms? Those trends have continued until today. Nothing changed. Economics not only do not explain people not having children. But in fact it correlates directly with lower birth rates. The richer a country becomes, the lower the birth rates. Now the question is: Does wealth do this or do people's values change due to the wealth? Well it's pretty clear. The only country that doesn't experience this even on a secular population is Israel. The only country with strong family and national values. When people become materialistic, no amount of wealth and money will make them have children. That's the reality of the situation. Another big reason is feminism. It is one of the key contributors of women's movement away from children. The sexual liberation and women's emancipation are what destroyed the role of the mother and the wife.
30
No one is upset. Just disappointed. Disappointed at what this generation has come to. You like many others are the contributing factors that will lead to demographic and societal collapse.
17
@AgyaggalambReloaded Food is extremely cheap. In fact we have such food variety and availability that the average person in poverty has better access to food than the average nobleman in the 1800s. I agree with a roof over your head. But a hard working man can achieve that at least until their late 30s. Most can do it by the end of their 20s. And a lot inherit their parents of family house. You can live with your extended family as well. In fact I believe that's a lot healthier when raising children. So guess what? You do not need to live in San Fransisco or New York to raise children. You can go somewhere where you can buy a house on a decent job when you reach your 30s. That's the easy plan for anyone with no property inheritance at least.
15
Darwinism at its finest
6
@furyberserk Nope, it's 100% a world of difference with those living in the past. I'll show you how. The average American family in poverty today has: 1. Heating (at least 1 A/C) 2. Housing (at least renting an apt) 3. A car 4. A computer 5. Internet 6. A TV 7. A fridge A big percentage also has 1. A second car 2. A second TV 3. A second computer Now that's only on the material side. People today have an extremely low mortality rate due to high levels of healthcare. It's not even comparable to 100 years ago nevermind 200 years ago. The access to cheap food is regardless to your questionable inflation analogy. Even today aka at the heights of Western inflation, people in poverty can afford to buy a variety of food.
6
@eliajshdjddj Another goofy term "self care". What are you on about? Living for yourself and only yourself for your entire life is by definition selfish. You can make up all the terms you want, it won't change this fact.
6
This is what's happening to South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, most of Europe, the Us, Canada, Australia and a few other countries. Population collapse is on the horizon.
5
@DarrenDurham Brother 2 kids are enough. You've done your part. I personally want more, but that's a me thing. You also do it the best way aka your wife stays at home and is a homemaker, a wife and a mother and you provide. I agree that people in the DINK movement are self absorbed narcissists but I still have to do my part in shaming those people. Even if my shaming contributes 1% in one of those dozen people to change, it has been a success. As for your last statement, I never blamed solely women for this. In fact men are the ones that allowed and pushed for feminism. All this feminism bs only benefited the big corporations. They managed to convince the population to double the workforce in a couple decades which resulted in individual salaries almost being cut in half (or prices doubling).
5
@ValenAlvern 40k is definitely not average in a place where 1800$ is the average rent price for 1bedroom apt. 40k is the general average Us salary for men. Your place will have at least a 60k avg salary. If not, then you need to move out.
3
@rotraven At least that loop will continue. You and many others will cut it short because of what? Selfishness? Hedonism? You don't need to be rich to have children. In fact I believe that children are risen the best in a middle to lower middle class income household. My ancestors were in various states of wealth. Most started piss poor and many achieved at least middle class conditions and some even achieved insurmountable amounts of wealth.
3
I also imagine the innate instinct of genial survival played a role too. Sadly we live in a time where we can sedate ourselves and allow ourselves to ignore our basic and intrinsic instincts of procreation.
3
@unyieldingsarcasm2505 I agree living with extended family. However, we live in a wealthier time. So if you have the economic ability, I believe it's better to live near your family. For example you can buy/built an apartment complex with your family and each live on one apartment. Or have multiple houses in one neighborhood. I agree with either living or being very close to extended family. So they can help with raising the children and you can help as well. It also limits the costs.
3
@eliajshdjddj No one is mad. Just disappointed. Shaming can be used to help someone out of a bad decision and not necessarily as a defense mechanism. Being selfish and living only for yourself is an empty and vapid life and it only contributes to societal collapse. Hence why people throughout history heavily criticised and shamed such lifestyles and ideologies.
3
@Blixtwixy "Not very wise, not very mature, not very responsible". Yeah we can see t hat.
2
I totally agree. Children are a responsibility. Probably the greatest one you'll ever take in your life. But doesn't this sound boring? "I want to live for myself and only myself. I will go into this circle of procuring and spending material wealth and on the circle of hedonism till the day I die". Sure you can take that path, but is it really worth it? Or are you just lying to yourself?
2
I totally agree. Children are a responsibility. Probably the greatest one you'll ever take in your life. But doesn't this sound boring? "I want to live for myself and only myself. I will go into this circle of procuring and spending material wealth and on the circle of hedonism till the day I die". Sure you can take that path, but is it really worth it? Or are you just lying to yourself?
2
@liquidemotionzz3232 What risks? Unless you are mordibly obese or at the age of geriatric pregnancy the odds of serious side effects during pregnancy and birth are literally 0. See the maternal mortality rate compared to the births. It is not even comparable. The Us is one of the few countries that the maternal death rate during birth is increasing due to American women becoming more and more unhealthy.
2
@mattgarrett2583 Israeli values? You mean strong national sense and pride? These values should be common in our countries too. In fact our lack of said values are fked up.
2
@firmak2 It is true that Us citizens are not as taxed as in Europe. However, the idea that they are not highly taxed is archaic. The federal government and many state governments have been upping taxation for decades now. As for the reason that their healthcare is so expensive. No it's the exact opposite. In fact the Us spends MORE tax payer money on healthcare and healthcare benefits than any other country in the world (per capita btw). The reason why the healthcare system is such a sh*tshow is because of hard government corruption and lobbyism combined with the high tax spending. They have essentially created a mixed system of government funding and private price rates that is clearly not working.
2
@annelynn01 No one said otherwise. However as you are free to get mad when I call you selfish (which you proved it by your last sentence), I am also free to shame people who do not go for a healthy marriage and children. What law? Well besides the religious one (from all major religions btw), there is the natural law. In order for our species to continue existing we ought to procreate. Then we have Darwin's law, which shows that people who do not procreate will be removed from the gene pool.
2
I saw both my parents struggle during a severe financial crisis in my country for a decade or so. I came out wanting even more children than those they had.
2
Really? Then why did birth rates go below replacement levels prior to the inflation booms and economic crisis? In Japan it started in the 70s, when they were at their economic peak. In most of Europe and the Us it started in the 70s and 80s.
1
@izzyc3717 No.That's 100% untrue. The idea that the world is awful, painful and full of suffering is true. However that's not all this world is. And guess what? I'd take all the suffering if it meant that I get to live the moments that I lived with my family, friends, pets or even by myself. Not having kids is 100% a selfish decision. It's a decision that is inherently there to avoid responsibility. The responsibility you hold towards society, the responsibility you hold towards your ancestors and the responsibility you hold towards God (or your own nature if you're not a theist). Avoiding responsibility for personal gain is in fact one of the purest forms of selfishness.
1
Goofy as* quote. The vast majority of people would do just fine with parenthood. Idiocracy showed it the best though.
1
@shortfatdude3406 In my opinion and observation, children are better raised in lower middle class or middle class than in the upper class. Children don't need luxuries to have a decent childhood, they need loving parents and an engaging community where they can make friends and create bonds and memories. The luxuries are just extras that we are lucky to have due to being born in the 21st century.
1
@vitordiniz8981 I am an engineer not a doctor but no problem man.
1
Like what? Even if they somehow make our countries the fittest economically, not much will change. The richest countries on earth have very low birth rates. Getting rich won't allow you to have children. The reason why most people do not have children is because of ideology and values. Something that the politicians can definitely help with (through propaganda or reforms) but are not core to it. People must adopt the values of their ancestors in order to start having children. A society filled with materialistic and feminist people will inevitably collapse.
1
@Cybersixx. You don't need to have 12 kids to retain a healthy birth rate. 2-3 kids is enough. The mortality rate going down is actually helping the birth rates.
1
@MultiNaruto900 Buddy you're trying to give me American economics when I live in a country where we have far lower average salaries and some of the highest pricing in Europe and far higher average taxation than in the Us. And no, I am still in college. However yes I will 100% be the one providing ALL of the costs. Why? Because I've worked since middle school to get into the best engineering school (Electrical and Computer engineering) which guarantees a decent salary big enough to support my future wife and children. By 30, I'll make enough to support 5+ children according to my calculations. Why? Because I've planned for everything you mentioned years in advance and no the vast majority of people and studies highly overestimate the cost of children. Whether it's here or in the Us. You can go right now to numbeo cost of living comparison. And put see the prices in Greece. Then you can go and see what's the average salary here is and what's the taxation percentage that the government steals from us.
1
@Tsuki_Itsubi People living for themselves and only themselves is by definition narcissism. The guy above is clearly avoiding the responsibilities of having a child. He likes himself and his materials too much to take on such a responsibility. It's not a sh*tty way of thinking, it's a logical way of thinking.
1
@Gameamp Nope. People who have this idea that the parents should be fully dedicated to their children and that if they can't provide them with everything that those children are gonna grow up badly are either wilfully lying to themselves or restarted. Choose which one you are. Children raised in lower middle class-middle class turn out the best. Only one parent is needed to be around the child constantly and only at the early stages of life (0-4). And if you live with an extended family, it is healthy that other people of your family help with that as well. So even in those important years, you don't need to be fully dedicated to your child. It has worked for centuries upon centuries. As for the messed up kids. Statistically, the messed up kids most come from single mother households and the rest come from parents with serious issues like alcohol abuse, drug issues, criminals etc. So if you can pass those two things : 1. both the parents be present and together 2. Be a law abiding citizen with a consience You'll do just fine. Now what I mean here isn't that parents shouldn't love their children and do everything they can to build them into good adults. I am talking about dedication.
1
@eliajshdjddj Caring only about yourself and your happiness is narcissism. You have no place for others inside your life because you're too preoccupied with yourself.
1
@bonkbonk98 Those reasons are indeed "selfish" however the idea that not having kids isn't selfish is ridiculous. In fact if we compare the two, it's clear that not having kids is far more selfish. Why? Because by having kids you lose a lot of freedom and you make a ton of sacrifices. You take on the responsibility.
1
@goldengaming3917 I fully disagree with you. Shame is a powerful tool that is right now not used correctly. Shaming was used to push people away from degenerate and self destructive behavior. We took that away. Shaming was used to push people to make decisions that will pay out later on in life and are indeed essential to living such as procreation. From my feed and my experience, the millenial and zoomer demographic is shaming people that have children not the other way around. The pure hatred and vitriol I've seen under posts of women following their traditional roles of mothers and wives is unimaginable. So yes, shame should be used to deter people from making bad decisions and to push people to make better decisions. If shame and guilt tripping is all it takes to change your mind on having children then it makes the shaming successful. People who truly want to deviate from their natural path and the path of a healthy society will not be bothered by shaming and will continue to live as they wish.
1
@molly8070 Because most people are brainwashed materialists. There are plenty of people saying "I didn't want children but to our surprise we ended up having one and it was the best thing in our lives". People are becoming more and more selfish materialists. You want to worship your material wealth? Go ahead. But I will be right there to shame you and disavow you.
1
@eliajshdjddj ?? Never said cope and seethe but whoever told you that I commend him.
1
@amishgoth Never in my life have I seen a parent say "I wish I never had my kids". I've seen this notion about marrying their wife or maybe taking a career path. But NEVER for their kids. Not once have I heard a sane parent ever say that they regret their kids.
1
@ldyb1712 Jealous of what? That your genes will die off? I at least pray that you find salvation through Jesus before it's too late.
1
@ldyb1712 Nope. Christianity is not against the evolution. In fact Darwin did become Christian in his older days. The theory of the Big Bang comes from a Catholic priest. This idea that Christians are creationists is bogus. No sensible Christian claims the earth started 6000 years ago. Most of bible's stories are metaphorical in nature.
1
Yet Germany continues to have incredibly low birth rates. Why? Because economics are clearly not the primary issue. This idea that "if we were more financially comfortable we'd have children" has been long time debunked. In fact it's one of the results of materialism. People are worshiping wealth and materials so much that they convince themselves that they need plenty of them before having children. Another key factor is feminism. Germany is a rampantly feminist country and from what I've heard from friends that lived there a bit, the dating market is a hellscape.
1
@mrfrupo You will if you don't have them. You will either pay for them or pay later on because of the lack of taxpayers. Oh wait, that's inevitable.
1
@noriantiri9310 No, your assumption is just plainly wrong. Actually religious population in Southern countries is not as high as church registration is. We are registered at church from babies because we are baptized. However, very few of us actually attend church and are religious. Let me demonstrate this to you: If deeply religious people are 10% of the population and have 3.0 birth rate. If the rest of the population has a 0.5 birth rate then the birth rates overall will be very low. Now if we go to the Nordic countries, the non-religious population has higher birth rates on average than the average non-religious population in Southern countries. If you look at birth rates between very religious and non-religious people there is a spark difference. There have been studies done on this too. But the most accessible example is Israel. The ultra orthodox jews have an average of 6-7 birth rate, the secular jews have a 2-3 birth rate. That's in Israel which is the only 1st world country with a healthy birth rate. Now if we go for the reason why Southern countries have lower birth rates, it's mainly because tradition and feminism cannot coincide. It's a similar thing that explains South Korea's, Japan's and China's low birth rates. They are traditional societies that have embraced feminism to its fullest. And one might say after that : Then why should we not push them to become progressive? Because that will bring other issues and will not solve the issue at hand. Progressive countries like the Nordics, UK, France etc also have far below the replacement level of births. Just because it's 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 more than the traditionalist feminist countries doesn't mean it's good.
1
@c16621 I don't know what you're on about but super markets, local farmer markets etc are very cheap and healthy options. You're just coping. Plastic food is an easier/faster option (since you don't have to cook it) and it's more "tasty" because it has thousands of add-ins and chemicals for that purpose alone.
1
@Prprpsksks Ain't no way a tankie with a Lenin pfp is criticizing anyone's pfp. 😂
1
@eliajshdjddj We are not going extinct? Really? You seem to not understand what a demographic collapse is. Countries like the Us or Germany tried to solve the issue by importing mass migration. Guess what? It only postponed it and it sprouted several other issues alongside it. When the population collapses, social functions will collapse. When social functions collapse,the government will collapse. When the government collapses, people will start dying in droves. We'll be lucky if our countries collapse and then are rebuilt without foreign invasions. South Korea for example is calculated to be invaded at around 2045-2050 solely due the population collapse they're experiencing. There won't be enough young people to maintain a functioning and capable military to stop the North Korean invasion.
1