[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Doolan

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's the view of the cause for this that I don't quite share.

Plural please: causes. I referred to several fields of causes.

As you explained yourself, I also said that the economical, socioological and other changes of the past 150, 200 years, always had two faces, had their gains, but also prices had to be payed for winning the first. Some earlier extremie conditions, like a pendulum after letting it go turned into the other extreme. Militant feminism being one example. Extreme sexual shamelessness and the sexualisation of all and everything in the present being an other.

If modern societies currently and in the forseeable future run so well with lesser chuodren, I dare to question. That is true for prudction processes themselves. But the social security systems did not keep up with these ever accelerating chnages, and depend on the numerical relation between young and old not chnaging beyond a certain space of freedom. But this is the case today. Here it is where you nevertheless depend of a stable, dynmic balanc ebetween young and old if you do not wish to give up the concept of communal solidarity between generations. Goiving it up means to sacrifice 1-2 generation of old people and let them fall through all scoial security nets - the old traditional ones are no longer there, and the new, modern ones get actively desconstructed. Since you cannot restore the old multi-generation families under one roof, I wonder what you would do. saying it in all neutrality, I cannot consider the american example to be the way of choice - too many people pay the social price for the wellbeeing of to few, the system knows too many loosers and to few winners. Also, the societies in Northamerica and Europe do not compare by mentality and individual's orientation, it seems to me.

In china, decades of one-chuild policy have created demographial havoc: the population is overaged, and massively so. artifically changing population levels their way -obviously does not work. Uncontrolled exploisve population growth like you have in the third world, also does nothing good, but causes the future misery. So, althizg job world and industry and economy patterns are changing, the social coimmunities iof nations nevertheless depend on a reliable dnymaic baapüönce beween the young and the old. Provbelm is, that the industries and economy ni longer are being tied in their policies to the nations that one gavce birth to them, but have broken free and more and more do not feel bound to the social responsibility for their "parents", the population of a given nation that is. the economy since long has turned workers and employees into "human capital", and treats their socities like you and me give and take small change at the baker. From a capitalistic viewpoint, social security and national states are expandable today - the coirportation will repakce the power of nations. They already have started and driven the effort very far. No western nation today can make policies against the multis anymore, and can afford not to win their acceptance on issues. In return, key decision making of the economy finds massive fallout in political agenda forming and basic paradigms of inner and outer policy forging. that even leads as far as to unleash wars, as we have seen, tnat cost the nation that hosts these corporations a fortune. Bills for that are being payed - again by the affordable citizens, and the decline of the civil sector in general.