33 here - Never cared much for religion..they look, act, feel like cults but there's an approved list of these cults apparently. Having a kid changed my life for the better but I was probably in the "not so important" boat before that happened.
The big one for me is patriotism. When I was younger I was quite conservative, very pro-USA, refused to believe that any country could possibly do anything better than the way we were doing it. Then I started traveling and actually experiencing the rest of the world, and all of those things just faded away. I'm still an American - I love the 4th of July and believe in our country's future. I just don't subscribe to the notion that the USA is best and that I should be proud of it no matter what, or that American's are somehow special relative to anyone else.
You can love your country without considering it to be perfect. In fact, the best kind of patriotism is the “if wrong, then make right” type.
That being said, I do believe there are some special aspects to American culture which we should be proud of, and which attract immigrants from around the world.
Less corruption and more job opportunity / money I think sums it up for most people. Maybe rights and freedoms being a peripheral concern but for most people their countries of origins are free enough in that they know how to act not to get into trouble. Outside of that I don't think America has much of a culture.
I'll guess you aren't into sports. America has a huge sports culture. In my biased opinion, there are no better sports the world over than basketball and (American) football, both invented here. And the fact that we have states gives us some sense of "civic" pride attached to our local teams. College sports are similar. I'm glued to the screen when Purdue plays basketball. Europe has a basketball league, but the best players play here in the NBA. I'm not a big fan of hockey, and I know Canadians claim it, but the best players play in the NHL (National here being the US, despite teams in Canadian cities)
More job opportunities for the highly educated, absolutely. But I think you'd be suprised at just how corrupt and oligarchic the US is perceived internationally. No other western first world country comes close.
This is really well put, so much so that I searched to see if it was actually a quote. Didn't find it, but did find an interesting one from Bernard Shaw [0]: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."
I am not well read on him so don't know the context or his intention, but after a quick scan of his wikipedia page I saw that he admired Hitler and Stalin, professed a belief in dictatorship and criticized the Nuremburg trials [1]. Would love to hear more from someone knowledgable on him.
In any case, I want to print your comment on stickers or tshirts or something. Spot on!
Having lived in Japan I assure you that you're mistaken. Have you travelled?
EDIT: I'm fine with a search by Japanese police, yet I would never answer a question asked by a policeman in the US except through a lawyer. What does that say about civil liberties?
Funny you mentioned Japan. All the travel videos I see warn you the police can (and will) question you, search your pockets, etc. And can detain you at the police station for merely being suspicious (so you better answer when they ask!).
It doesn’t sound like a great place for civil liberties.
Police cannot bring you to the police station for merely being suspicious. The standard is much higher for an arrest.
They are allowed to pat down the outside of your pockets under the argument they need to be aware of weapons. I do agree this is heavily abused with stop & frisk which frankly shouldn't be legal if the police initiate the contact. But they cannot search inside without your permission.
As far as legal systems go, if the CEO of Nissan was held 3 weeks without charge in Japan what hope does the average person have?
Ok, but past a certain point, let's say 20 million or to be conservative 50 million people, population numbers stop mattering for you as an individual.
The average American (out of >330m) won't have a radically better life than a Frenchman (out of >65m) or a German (out of >80m).
It's a nice collective achievement to be able to scale to so many people, but individually, I don't think there's a huge individual benefit once the overall population crosses a certain threshold.
In the circles I watch and hang around, we've moved from a cynical nihilism about government (nothing matters, elites always win) to a reckoning that we have to invest time and energy in our governance to get it to work for us.
That age band is the 30-40 year olds, with a smattering of older and younger. I would say we have gotten more idealistic, but also more pragmatic. We like the ideals, we recognize that the country coasted when we were younger, now it's time to take up the burden that the older generations didn't. Things aren't going to just happen with a march here or a slogan there. We need to invest ourselves, and this seems to be broadly understood.
Regarding religion - no observer is going to be surprised that religion is collapsing in the US. No one should be surprised. I think we have some curious turns ahead there, but I'll defer those to a theological/religious studies audience.
And, of course, kids relates to the economic environment and the state of the parents' mental health. If you're worried about providing for yourself and you're a responsible human being, you are not going to have kids, because you know you nee to provide for them too.
I flip flop back and forth.... I'm encouraged by the Blue Wave and AOC, and the rise of Bernie/Warren, but at the same time I see corporations and Super PAC's becoming more and more powerful in this country. I do like what RiseUp is doing with anti-corruption campaigns across America. Ending the revolving door of money in politics I think is the surest way towards a more fair government.
I'd much rather have a farmer or astronaut or scientist as President who was given 10 million for advertising and not allowed to fundraise as was all his opponents than a system where the person with the most money wins. Even though Sanders is very good at fundraising and grassroots fundraising on the left has skyrocketed, we can't always count on that being the case.
As I said I flop back and forth, I'm encouraged, but at the same time I feel like things are desparate in America. I freelance and I have gone through periods of poverty when I have trouble finding clients.
I'm in one right now, sadly -- it also coincides with my periods of depression, I'm pretty sure the depression is stress caused, and I've done extensive therapy to learn coping mechanisms but I still feel the pain coming on a few times a day lately.
I think I'll totally drop cynicism about politics when we get a real progressive in the Oval office, or if Biden doesn't win and Warren or Bernie does. Just the fact of the progressives beating the establishment would totally lift my spirits and resolve. I'm hopeful that we do see more and more progressives, and intellectuals run in 2020 and win. Guess we'll need to wait and see how things pan out.
> I think I'll totally drop cynicism about politics when we get a real progressive in the Oval office, or if Biden doesn't win and Warren or Bernie does. Just the fact of the progressives beating the establishment would totally lift my spirits and resolve. I'm hopeful that we do see more and more progressives, and intellectuals run in 2020 and win. Guess we'll need to wait and see how things pan out.
There's realism and there's cynicism. Realistically, your goals will not be easily achieved. Realistically, many people are flat desperate. Cynicism says, "why bother trying, it'll always be that way".
But I can tell you this: the current world didn't fall out of no where, it is not static. Many activists in worked to build it this way.
It is interesting that support for nationalism is still popular with the older generations alongside their support for diversity, even after nationalism has been co-opted by groups hostile to diversity.
The younger generations see "I support the USA" as "I support the policies of the current administration", simply because that's how said supporters often identify themselves.
I think if you asked the younger generations if they still believed in the principles of freedom and democracy that the US represents that they would be largely in favor of that stance, but feel that the current government is not upholding those ideals in a way that they approve of.
With all due respect, I did not vote for the president but now find myself more aligned with the Republicans than any 2020 Democrat. Its a smear that they are anti-Diversity. A lot of the young men I know feel disenfranchised in a system that does not value them even though they are not in any positions of power. All are sympathetic to historical injustices and see the President doing things like First Step Act and Opportunity Zones as legislation that disproportionately benefits minority groups, but does not detract from other groups. I think he's brash and unpolite, but a lot of people I know see this as fighting back against an onslaught that is one-sided and doesn't get called out.
If you think that the way the president primarily is affecting minority groups is via First Step Act and Opportunity Zones, then you are either confused or willfully ignorant. His "me first" M.O. is based on stoking racial grievances and animosity in his base. His actual economic policies align exactly with the "swamp": funnel money to the wealthy. It sounds to me, frankly, that you are simply seeing what you want to see.
I'd love to engage in any debate because ultimately I think that having diverse viewpoints ultimately leads to the most ideal solution. And not just Diversity of background, but diversity of bias is also important. I think the single most important thing being accomplished at the moment is the rebuilding of the middle class through bringing manufacturing back. It hasn't happened on a large scale yet, but I'm optimistic that the next year will see a big uptick. Building the middle class will be the best way to close the racial wealth gap. I also live in an urban area in a gentrifying neighborhood and it looks like some millenials are opting to settle. I think this is great for integration as well as minorities moving to the suburbs. I also saw research recently that has shown that gentrification has led to incomes in the area increasing at rates that beat the national average which is also promising.
EDIT: Why was this comment downvoted without a reply? I want to spark a discussion.
The problem is that the President cultivates groups that are nativist. Any good that some of his policies may do will not earn him any credibility if he wipes it away by minimizing the problematic nature of those that seek to use his voice as an amplification for their narratives.
Unfortunately Trump seem incapable of cutting loose anyone who is willing to praise him unrestrainedly. So he ends up endorsing groups directly or indirectly over Twitter via re-tweet that are toxic or praising Putin/Kim Jong Un since they restrict their criticism to the USA as a country rather than him personally.
I'm a lifelong Republican, but voted 3rd party last election and set to again, despite agreeing with many actual policy positions this admin takes. I (and many others) can't be party to his antics as they will smear the whole conservative world view for a generation with the slime of his self-interest.
I'm having the effect of not proactively promoting policies/behaviors that don't represent my PoV. Why reward behavior that I find reprehensible?
Also, if we keep allowing that false dichotomy to dictate our votes we will be eternally trapped in 2-party hell. There is a possible outcome where other parties become viable, but first we must kill with fire the idea that we must always vote in a binary fashion.
No it's not. Many prominent figures in the GOP have courted openly racist views over the years.
Some highlights:
Rep Steve King, who has a very long history of espousing racist views, openly questioned why "White Nationalism" is now an offensive term.[0] Do you believe that the concept of white nationalism or any of its ancillary movements to be offensive?
Deceased GOP strategist Tom Hofeller was an architect behind current efforts to gerrymander voting districts throughout the US, and his daughter handed over a hard drive containing documents he wrote that described in detail efforts to take voting strength away from voters of color by implementing a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
How can the desire to take voting power away from non-whites be construed as anything other than racist? The GOP is clearly threatened by the minority vote and have taken dramatic steps behind the scenes to remove them from the voting population[1].
> A lot of the young men I know feel disenfranchised in a system that does not value them even though they are not in any positions of power.
And how exactly does the GOP plan to deal with this? Bernie's Green New Deal guarantees thousands of jobs because the progressive movement sees stagnation among the youth. The GOP just cuts taxes and claims everyone wins when that's far from the reality.
> There's plenty of racism to go around in all major political parties. "Super-predators" anyone?
That was 30 years ago, and the history of that phrase was used against Hillary to great effect in 2016. What a fallacious claim to equate a statement made 30 years ago to multiple, repeated instances of racism on the right. Nobody on the left is defending the use of that term today.
> It seems totally rational and fair that people be asked about their citizenship on a census.
There's a very strong legal argument that the explicit goals for adding the citizenship question makes it unconstitutional.
Hofeller wrote in confidential memos that his daughter released stating that the explicit goal of adding the question was to scare members of the Latino community into not answering the question, given the current administration's crackdown on immigration. This directly contradicts the mandate laid out in the Constitution which clearly states that the Census is to be filled out by everyone living in the US, not just citizens.
By designing a question to explicitly suppress participation in certain communities, the motives to which were leaked by Hofeller's daughter, the administration could in no way argue that it had a legitimate legislative reason to add the question to the census, which is exactly why they stopped pursuing it.
Super-predators is the most obvious and famous example that comes to mind (one you're quick to dismiss), but do you really think there isn't racism on the left? Many would say that the objectification, tokenization and gamification the left does with minorities is racist. In fact, as non-white minority that's exactly how I feel.
> This directly contradicts the mandate laid out in the Constitution which clearly states that the Census is to be filled out by everyone living in the US, not just citizens.
It's absolutely absurd to suggest counting the number of citizens is racist. Not everyone has to answer yes to that question, thus sticking with the constitutional goal of accurately surveying the populace. Do you really not see any value in a country knowing how many citizens it has?
I'm not dismissing that term, which was undoubtedly racist and reflected the poor race relations of the democratic party back then. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't individuals who may express racist views, I have no way of knowing that.
What I do know is that racial division has been a hallmark of this administration, from equating white supremacist protesters (one of whom literally murdered a protester, btw) with counter protesters in Charlottesville, which the president did.
Nor am I suggesting that counting the number of citizens is racist. When a high-level GOP party operative writes to other members of the party that they need to implement the question in order to suppress the count of minority members in the US, you can't argue that you're trying to get an accurate count of people living in the US.
I'm not suggesting that this was implied somehow, Hofeller explicitly stated this in his memos. He wanted to scare Latinos into not filling out the census and put it writing. How is that not racist? This was one of the most powerful GOP strategists in the country putting this idea out among party officials.
I would argue that not including the citizenship question is racist. It makes logical sense to include it, to do otherwise is to manipulate the results based on race.
> He wanted to scare Latinos into not filling out the census and put it writing.
Again, I say this as a minority. It doesn't feel great to be used as a pawn. As a citizen I would have absolutely no problem answering that question. Many, many Latinos would also be ok with it, so putting words in their mouth is an example of racism coming from the Left.
> I would argue that not including the citizenship question is racist.
Well, the current administration abandoned this effort after the memos were leaked because they knew this argument wouldn't hold up in court. And it no way holds up here. You choose to willfully ignore the fact that the genesis of this question by the GOP was explicitly to keep Latinos on the sidelines.
> Again, I say this as a minority.
Asserting your identity as if that adds credence to your argument while ignoring the simple fact that it's illogical doesn't help you in any way. It doesn't matter what you look like or where you're from, you're argument is still illogical.
> Many, many Latinos would also be ok with it, so putting words in their mouth is an example of racism coming from the Left.
You literally just put words in the mouths of Latinos at the beginning of that sentence only to accuse the left of doing so. The census in its current form doesn't have any questions designed to keep minority members of the community from participating, can you provide a reason why the census in its current form is racist?
> Many would say that the objectification, tokenization and gamification the left does with minorities is racist.
Insofar as bigotry is proposed as a cause for something—a way you're suggesting a person or group thinks about the world, that leads them to the actions they choose—then I would suggest that such modelling only works to the degree that said behavior doesn't have a clear game-theoretic justification.
Or, less-flowery: if making some particular choice would help you win—in fact, would help anyone win—then that choice probably wasn't motivated by racism.
Or, by analogy: if an AI with no understanding of humans but a perfect understanding of strategy would do it, it's probably not racist.
You're discounting people's perception of others and themselves. Nobody wants to be "the token". It starts creating the perception that all people of that demographic exist in the workplace due to lowered barriers and thus are not as good. It's not entirely beneficial.
>Do you really not see any value in a country knowing how many citizens it has?
There is definitely value in that, but the Census' primary goal is to count everyone. And the experts in the Census Bureau believed the citizenship question would harm that count. That's a non-starter.
Members of the younger generation (myself included) have little experience with administrations who demonstrate their fealty to the abstract ideals of the USA. We have, with few exceptions, not been led by people who have the US populace -- in contrast to its economy and hegemony -- at the forefront of their minds. NAFTA, and globalization more broadly, and its effects has progressed to the point where the promises of prosperity in the age of unfettered trade should have shown some signs of success at the personal level by now -- and yet, here we are. We see and hear about other parts of the world which are harmed by these policies. The authorities on the matter, however, explain it away by pointing at GDP growth curves. But these great results aren't reflected in our lives: burdened by debt and historically low net worths, we've lost faith in those who came before us who keep telling us it's all part of the game. Not so if we were born 70 years ago.
To a large extent, I'd say that this has resulted in a cynical and rather extreme position of "actions speak louder than words". Those who represent the USA, being elected officials in keeping with the mythos of the modern representative democracy, are doing a poor job of showing their decency, if there is any hidden inside to begin with. The notable exception is of course Bernie Sanders, who, even if somewhat ineffective during his time in office, was and is steadfast, honest, and genuinely caring about the people individually and as a whole. He demonstrates his alignment with the people's needs far more than anyone else in the political field today, even as hamstrung as he was, aside from maybe Elizabeth Warren. The rest are opportunists, lying through their teeth and brushing off serious blemishes on their record to their own detriment. See: Bernie's policy platforms 4 years ago and how much is reflected in nearly all candidates' platforms today.
We're pretty peeved that this blatant deceit is lost on the older generations. From our (my) perspective, the USA has always been shoddy and the people haven't cared about grave injustices as long as their lot in life is stable. Only a few shining stars have risen in those 250-ish years that have made any real progress on ethical issues.
I mostly agree with you, even if this reads like a shortened college essay.
> We're pretty peeved that this blatant deceit is lost on the older generations
My parents are 60-70yo, in the streets for Sanders. I don't think you are the only cynic, far from it, but the real problem is when cynicism breeds obedience. You can't believe your cynicism isn't the result of calculation, can you?
Is this meant to mean that persistent cynicism becomes closed-mindedness and a disengagement from the root issues? Would you mind expanding?
I believe (to first order) all judgments are based on calculations, but with the caveat of sample bias. So to that end, I have reached this conclusion based on my personal experience with what I've lived and observed. I recognize my limited perspective but cannot comprehend its limits or what lies beyond, but my emotional charge remains fixed to what my experience has shown me so far.
Being born in 1949, the aftermath of WWII, when the US experienced perhaps its starkest wealth increase on a national and personal level (think American Dream, green lawns, and white picket fences!) and the pathos was high to pursue such ideals, would have still been a boon. Yes one probably would have been drafted into Vietnam but in my view even the national conversation about that war was a healthy one for the country.
Most people born during that time were never drafted. Out of a pool of 27 million eligible men, only 2.2 million (about 8% or 1 out of 12) were ever drafted. And there was of course an easy out: Go to college, which back then, you could pay for with a summer job.
> but feel that the current government is not upholding those ideals in a way they approve of.
In some cases, the government is actively undermining those ideals. We’re separating thousands of young children from their parents and holding them in horrible conditions in some cases. My stomach turns thinking all we’re going to learn about this chapter in American history over the next 10 years because we’re not seeing all of it unfold in real time.
Add to that gerrymandering, political interference to keep our election infrastructure weak after multiple reports of hacking by foreign governments.
Much of this adds up to an existential crisis in democracy that we’re just now waking up to.
> My stomach turns thinking all we’re going to learn about this chapter in American history over the next 10 years because we’re not seeing all of it unfold in real time.
> Much of this adds up to an existential crisis in democracy that we’re just now waking up to.
We had better leaders in the past... We've moved the post too far right.
Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower even from different parties I think all of them were in support of more support for the people, and I'm pretty sure Eisenhower and Roosevelt at least were both for universal healthcare for all, too bad they didn't push for it back then and get it. We wouldn't be having all the fights about healthcare we have today.
Yup, it's crazy how things that used to be bipartisan no-brainers are now these hugely polarizing issues. Freaking Nixon of all people created the EPA, and look what he had to say about pollution pricing:
"We believe that part of the answer lies in pricing energy on the basis of its full costs to society. One reason we use energy so lavishly today is that the price of energy does not include all of the social costs of producing it. The costs incurred in protecting the environment and the health and safety of workers, for example, are part of the real costs of producing energy-but they are not now all included in the price of the product."
I'm not arguing that there is a better period in the past than what we're experiencing now. But American history relative to the present has no bearing on the severity of the atrocities we're seeing now, no?
Are you suggesting that what I've outlined above is somehow acceptable because America has always had black marks in the history books?
The poll mentions "patriotism", not "nationalism", and I think those are two different things. "Nationalism" increasingly refers to an exclusivist mindset, whereas "patriotism" at least used to be more "pride in one's country".
Older people grew up during the Cold War, when the USA perceived itself as a bulwark of freedom and democracy in a world of opaque, totalitarian regimes, and when the country was further ahead than most of the rest of the world in development.
These days, a lot of the rest of the world has caught up, and a lot of younger Americans feel discouraged about the state of democracy in their own country. We aren't at the vanguard of freedom and functional government anymore.
Plus, over the past few decades, "patriotism" has been increasingly associated with flag/anthem worship, military boosting, and a kind of rah-rah "USA! USA!" attitude that has little to do with freedom and democracy. It's been turned into a marketing tool and a cudgel that right-wing political groups have used against their opponents since the Vietnam War.
I don't think this is the case here. I think it means the younger generations are not patriotic - not simply that they don't support the current administration.
As a young American, I would rate my patriotism as 0, because Nationalism is antithetical to the ideas of Liberty and Democracy.
>And I feel tempted to put the same question to our American critics with a slight modification, 'What have you done with the Red Indian and the Negro?' For you have not got over your attitude of caste toward them. You have used violent methods to keep aloof from other races, but until you have solved the question here in America, you have no right to question India.
As far as I know, there are zero laws that are prejudiced towards native Americans or POC and haven't been in decades..
Well, yeah I'm talking about "nations" but you can't have nationalism without a nation. And you can't have a nation without the idea of citizenship or borders right?
> Well, yeah I'm talking about "nations" but you can't have nationalism without a nation.
Correct, basically.
> And you can't have a nation without the idea of citizenship or borders right?
Wrong: citizenship and, especially, borders are features of the association with and territorial limits of the jurisdiction of a state.
A nation is an identity group which may or may not have a state, a state is a political unit which may or may not be tightly associated with a nation. The modern nation-state system is one in which there is a norm that states tend to be coextensive with nations, and where that isn't the case either nations try to carve out states or states try to create new national identities.
Don't let the wordplay confuse you. There can definitely be nationalism without a nation. One of many examples being Kurdistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan
I’m on the younger side of the millennial group. Freedom and democracy are wonderful in theory but the US has been run by plutocrats since it’s inception. It was literally built on slavery and black people have, today, 10% of the wealth of white people. And you can do anything you want in this wonderful society, so long as you can afford it. And that’s only one group getting screwed over - for 50 years the median purchasing power has held flat or declined. For markets that are easily captured by the bourgeoisie such as healthcare, education, and housing prices have risen to beyond what anyone can reasonably pay. Technocrats are worried that my generation is having fewer children because we’re perpetually in debt and have a hard enough time taking care of ourselves. So you see? The teams have changed, but its the same old game of who’s getting kicked and who’s doing the kicking.
That’s what I think of the uniquely American delusion of freedom and democracy, thanks for asking.
I'm someone who spent their childhood in a newly Communist state.
We got to watch anyone with an education have everything they had stolen, then rewarded with either a bullet to the head or strict fealty to the party line.
Oddly enough, the new commissars seemed quite comfortable in the homes of those they killed.
America, warts and all, has a superior system. That doesn't mean there aren't real problems here. It just means that you haven't experienced a true void of civil law. I do not think you would care for it much.
This is refreshing actually. I used to be mormon and am now 95% agnostic (I don't believe in deity being required for an afterlife, but I believe there's a 5-10% chance of something else post-death).
I actually had given up on the idea of children as we had fertility issues, and I figured I was okay enough without them, but my wife was adamant so we spent everything we had to get our two little boys. Literally I'm 40 with no retirement, but I have two boys 2 and 8 months old.
Before I was kind of iffy on children, but I would not trade being a dad for anything... It's an amazing experience and has opened my heart, treated a lot of depression issues, and helped me become a better person overall. There is love and beauty and inspiration without deity and religion. I'm in awe of the universe and science and all we know about it but all we still don't.
It just makes me appreciate the fact more that someday I'll die, makes me want to appreciate every moment because as far as we know we're the only intelligent species, and I'm lucky enough to be born here in this day with the technology we have, have a family I adore.
As for patriotism, I used to be patriotic back around 2001 when everyone was 'coming together' because 9/11. But I lost that after I got more and more in politics and see only those with big business interests at heart every get anywhere. Issues that affect the masses don't matter to anyone on top. America's done some horrible things like nuking and poisoning their own citizens and covering it all up.
My wife's lost two grandparents to downwinder's which is basically cancer caused by being too close to nuclear fallout. Back in the 50's they just were asked to come out and bring their families and have a picnic and watch the bombs fall.
The idea of America a democratic nation with we the people for the people as it's motto would be amazing, but that hasn't happened yet, and I don't see it happening for a very long time.
A person interviewed in the article touches on it, but it's not surprising that the sort of patriotism espoused by older generations, much of which is performative, superficial, and one might even say "virtue signaling", has fallen out of favor with those under-40.
Religion, at least the dominant Evangelical Christian kind, has gotten increasingly politicized, to the point where religious == conservative (note I'm using JS-style "truthy" here, I know that this isn't a blanket case).
So it's not surprising that young Americans, who are generally liberal, don't consider themselves religious.
And as for having kids? Not only is it more expensive and stressful than ever before, but we're slowly moving away from the mindset that a woman's primary purpose is to raise children.
That, and I think a lot of folks have started to reflect on how having kids didn't seem to make their unhappy parents any more fulfilled.
Religion was always political it's just a modern slight of hand to label the prevailing ideology secular and dis-empower the clergy. Does not seem to have worked very long though. I think we'll see more political moves by religion and those who choose to embrace it moving forward.
I can only write from my own anecdotal personal experiences.
The USA is still more so religious than Canada from my interactions with young people in both countries. Although, the perception that religion is comparable to a cult is rising among the shared expressed views of religion compared to ten years ago. I don't necessarily think religion is bad for society if we educate people to be closer to understanding reality by conclusive science than the whims of faith-based thoughts.
In any case I definitely witness patriotism decreasing because the young generation has been having a difficult time in society financially speaking and compared to their parents. I would think most young people feel betrayed that quality of life is somewhat being stolen from them. This brings me to another assumption that desires to have kids is being grossly influenced by lack of finances and subconsciously. Everyone I know is opting in for a dog or a cat and so they can try to afford a mortgage for a home. Build more homes to offset the cost!
I can tell you why "patriotism, religion and having children" have never been values for me (32 yr old)... Specifically, two are very closely related:
Religion - I don't buy it. I never have, even from a young age. The idea of a mystical all powerful being floating in the sky watching us has always seemed absurd. And frankly, science has really done a number on my ability to believe in traditional religions. Do I believe some higher-being may exist? Sure. Do I believe in an afterlife? No, I don't think anything points to that existing. Maybe it does, but likely it doesn't. But trust me I understand how this lack of a philosophy for life has sucked a lot of community, and to some extent, love for life itself, right out of it.
Children - If there is no afterlife, then what IS the point of this life? Seriously? Why form bonds, and relationships, and become close with people... if only to die and for it all to vanish? Of course since I'm alive, I take every chance to form relationships and bonds. But I don't believe in continuing this depressing cycle. I don't believe in this "system" of pulling someone into the world, only for them to have to say goodbye to everything they've built and everyone they love. I disagree with it at the core of my being, and I've never had a "religion" to help me think otherwise.
So yea... having kids, settling down, religion... that's all gone for me.
Maybe learn about stoicism. I have two children, and watching them experience life for the first time is the most fulfilling thing I've ever seen. I was 38 when my youngest was born, I'll be 40 in November.
Stoicism teaches that we all will die, and true death is when we're forgotten, but more than that we need to only worry about the things we can change, or the things we have 'some' control over, but stop worrying about stuff we have zero control over. Another teaching is that if you focus on the fact that you're just worm food, for a few minutes every day you can learn to appreciate the small time you have hear.
Given, when I was in the grips of depression I shared your nihilism about forming bonds, and I'm still an introvert, and I used to be religious (Mormon), now I'm agnostic, though I think there's a 5-10% chance of an afterlife (our mind is just energy right?), I do not think a supreme being exists --especially a narcissist who demands fealty and worship.
Trust me if you ever do settle down and have children, it'll change you. Also -- you learn that even without an afterlife there is still so much beauty and inspiration in this world to appreciate. Think about it, you've been given a gift. As far as we know we're the only intelligence in the entire universe. If that is true then only you and those of us born human on this rock will ever know what intelligence is like. We're the only ones ever to understand science, and build technological achievements. Only we can appreciate the beauty of a space, or a sunset, or the love of family.
Without those experiences then yeah there's nothing holding us here, and why wait till you die of natural causes? I thought about that a lot when I was depressed, and losing my religion, then I had my children and wanted to get better for them so I got help and learned to enjoy the beauty of life regardless of what happens after.
I appreciate your response and I can certainly understand and respect the gravity and life changing nature of having children.
That said, despite many a biological (and even cognitive) drives toward procreating, I continue to refuse to do it. Until I can look around and see a world that I agree with, one where bad things don't happen to good people, where children don't get leukemia, where random car accidents don't leave you crippled for life, then and maybe only then would I even consider it.
Take my unwillingness to procreate as a big middle finger to life itself; As big of a fuck you (short of killing myself - which i have no interest in) as I can possibly give. Feedback to the creator if you will... that I just don't like what they've done. Yea life is beautiful in many way, but on a whole it desperately needs a revision.
I may adopt one day. It's the least I could do with this mindset. Help an innocent child that neither asked, nor possibly even wants, to be alive. If I could improve their life then that's worth something. That'd be a hell of a lot more "life changing" than pumping out a mini me.
FYI religion is not 'some guy in a cloud' and I'll suggest there's the possibility that a narrow interpretation of Scientific Materialism has led you to your state of depression.
Why so many smart people are unable to see past this material construct is beyond me, like a generation stuck in a mental Chinese finger puppet.
Consider for a moment that life is not something material, but that which is expressed through it, and it's a wonderful opportunity, worth continuing.
That said, there are plenty of others around to pick up the slack of building the future.
I’m the exact same way. I look around and think “no way am I bringing offspring into this world.”
I got really lucky being OK at programming and finding my way into a decent paying career, but it’s so disheartening to see so many around me struggle with no end in sight.
Add to that climate change, and it’s definite no for me.
>If there is no afterlife, then what IS the point of this life?
If there is no afterlife, no elsewhere, then the takeaway is not that nothing matters, or that life has no point. Rather, it is the opposite: what we do in the here and now is the only thing that will ever matter.
This! This is my philosophy, I picked it up from some stoic readings and teachings. Either you can be depressed and hate life and wallow in depression or take the easy way out or you can stop and find beauty in the 80-100 years we're given while on this rock. I used to be depressed and wanting to take the easy way out, now that I have two little boys -- I'm afraid of missing out on their lives.
Missing just one major milestone scares me, but I know I could die anytime and miss their graduation, or wedding, or grandkids -- it makes me appreciate everything more.
> I used to be depressed and wanting to take the easy way out, now that I have two little boys
This is what I don't understand. You were depressed, recognized life as meaningless and without persistence, and yet you felt like it was a good idea to bring someone else into this world?
I'll truly never understand the rational of people who are able to convince themselves of what they want to hear. I gather that you weren't all that depressed to begin with, and your view of the world not very bleak at all, if you felt like bringing other lives into it was a good idea.
That, or selfishness is something you're not averse to.
I was more 'numb' and going with 'the flow'...doing what my wife wanted..cause I really didn't want/care about anything. Life was just a surreal numbness, so why not just let her be happy if I couldn't be... But now I find joy in so many things, I get angry as fuck when I see someone on tv hurting a little child in a movie or on the news, I have new dad emotions I never knew existed.
I cry whenever I hear the song Fade in / Fade out, because I know someday I'll cease to exist and my kids will go on without me, and I worry about how they will do, or what I'll miss... I also traded depression in for 24/7 anxiety about whether or not the kids are going to find a way to kill themselves that I haven't thought about. The other day my 2 year old came out of his room with a belt wrapped around his neck... scared the shit out of me. It was hung up but apparently he climbed on something to get it down...
I'm not numb and disassociated anymore. I enjoy the now, and live for the small moments. Everyone is selfish. Even mother theresa --nobody does good works without expecting something in return. Is it selfish to have kids? I don't think so. Do dogs and cats have selfish tendencies then? What about all other animals? If so then it's just natural to be selfish and I'm just being 'natural'.
My main point was until you're a father you'll never experience the whole gamut of life's experiences and will miss out on something amazing -- getting to relive your childhood through your kids. Not to mention children tend to keep you younger longer, mine will be graduating when I'm almost 60.
With respect... at no point did you even describe the impetus to have kids as a means of gifting someone else an existence. You describe your reasoning as being entirely for your own gain... So how can you not see it as selfish?
Does that mean it's WRONG? No. I'm not saying you're a bad person, or that you did the wrong thing. You're 100% right when you say that it's "natural". I'd even say that for the community at-large, NOT having kids is more detrimental than otherwise.
I just can't bring myself to do it though. When I think about having kids I immediately see my hypothetical child, in my minds eye, being born with cerebral palsy, or childhood leukemia, or bi polar disorder. How could I look them in the eye and say, I'm sorry? I'm sorry, I knew it was a risk and I still chose to roll the dice. I'm sorry that I struggled my entire life with finding meaning, and true happiness, but I still chose to bring you into this to fill a void in myself. Now you get to suffer, like I did, until you choose to bring another life here.
No. It stops here.
Clearly, I disagree with the natural state of things. I don't think it's fair to subject someone to a life they didn't ask to live when you simply can't guarantee them anything. Their life isn't, or rather shouldn't, be in my hands. I'm not god.
Someone should assess whether they want this or not. Life is one big dice roll, and they should be able to assess the risk themselves before taking the plunge. Obviously that's not possible. Obviously the world I describe isn't the one we live in.
Why form bonds, and relationships, and become close with people...
To have something like the full gamut of experiences in your short time on earth. It is hard to describe, but as a lifelong atheist I still think of the birth of my children as something like a transcendental experience. So intense and so many emotions.
I do understand the logic of not having children is a mercy because nonbeing is less harm than existence. I think it is flawed in thinking about pain and loss in black and white terms as "bad" and therefore to be avoided. This will lead to a really narrow life.
Kids love to make sand castles at the beach, and they cry when they get knocked over by the next wave. Does that mean that they should never make sand castles?
It's quite possible to live an enjoyable and fulfilling life without believing in an afterlife. And if you enjoy life, it doesn't seem so bad to bring others into it, especially if you enjoy each others company.
You sound like you might be depressed/feeling hopeless. And if you think that's the case, I'd highly recommend finding a therapist to talk to. Try new ones until you find one that you click with. They might be able to help you find a bit more happiness in life.
Years back I came up with answers for those questions that work for me where it doesn't require for religion or afterlife and still makes me want to wake up the next day, YMMV. Also, I'm not religious, don't believe in after life, in spirits/souls and don't have children, yet I think I have a pretty happy and content life and almost never am affected by bouts of long term sadness/depression.
> If there is no afterlife, then what IS the point of this life?
First of all, think about the question itself. Why does this (and our existence in it) require a "point" to existence itself or a "purpose". Both of those concepts are human level concepts, they have no meaning to the universe. It's like asking "why isn't life fair" or "why isn't life rewarding good people", all those (fair and good) are human concepts that the universe cares not for. We are naked monkeys living on a tiny blue planet in a huge universe, to expect reality to conform to our evolved concepts of modeling the world is ultimate hubris.
Once I realized this I stopped asking the question. There is no "purpose of life" because the question itself is silly/absurd. Then the next question is, does it matter that there is no purpose?
I looked back at everything that brings joy to me in my day to day life and none of those things relate to life having a purpose or not. I am happy because I exercise and makes me feel good after it or makes me feel fit and healthy. I am happy because I live with someone I love (15+ years and going) and they love me and we share our existence, we enjoy time together, develop internal jokes, help each other (which in turn makes one feel good), comfort each other. I am happy because I have a satisfying job, smart coworkers, interesting projects and I'm well payed and can afford a good life. I am happy because I am still healthy and don't have to think about mortality every second or deal with pain or are afraid of the future.
I realize that makes me a very lucky person, but I also realize that none of the things above have anything to do with "purpose" in life or anything like that. Nor do those things exclude having kids, on the contrary, I imagine having kids would bring even more personal satisfaction and possibilities to be happy about. Having friends/developing relationships makes us feel good, we are evolved to be social beings, so that's why we do it, not because there's a purpose to life.
Well, I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise. And I have made efforts to understand the world. Existential thinking is not foreign to me, in the slightest. That's lead me to - among others - books like "Why does the world exist" by Jim Holt.
Ultimately, despite everything I've read and watched, including an upbringing in the Christian church... I can only draw the conclusion that we just don't know. We have no idea if there's a super being, but there's decent reason to BELIEVE that there isn't. Belief ironically, IS what it boils down to. I just don't believe in 2019, that the likelihood is an all present God.
The world is a hard place, and belief that offers hope and something worth putting your faith in is hard to come by. If you have not found a belief that offers hope, then keep looking.
I feel like I've been looking my entire life. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, or maybe it's a lost cause.
It's true I haven't traveled to eastern asia and studied under the tutelage of a monk, I haven't taken ayahuasca from a shaman in the Amazon, I haven't drank the cool-aid at a Mormon retreat, or attended a Joel Osteen mega church sermon.
I just grew up in America, in a Catholic family. Went to church most Sundays until I was a teenager. There's a vide of me at a young age, asking (essentially) why we are here/alive. Seems that I'm still asking that.
So maybe you could say I haven't really been looking. But honestly, I think you have to believe in something a priori. You don't go to a shaman in the amazon because you want to believe, you go because you already do and you want to validate that.
Sort of depends on your opinion about what "constitutes" a person. Is just the physical body? Is it the genes? Is it the bonds they form and the memories they make? Is it the difference they made in the lives of their kind ; effected social change, contributed to research or in general been a good influence on other? All of these tend to live on after the physical body is no more. There is no mystic element to it. Just plain facts.
“I mean, they say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time.”
A legacy is the closest we really get to an "afterlife". Children offer two kinds of legacy. One is the memory of you, the other is the continuation of your genes.
Yea............ With respect, we are truly two completely different people. I'll just never understand the narcissism behind procreating to extend ones own life / legacy. I totally understand btw that it's you who is normal, and me that has the strange perspective on this.
My hypothetical kids, that I could have, are certainly not "me".
They'd be actual real people. People who suffer, and hurt, and struggle. People who have a not insignificant chance of ruminating in the same way I do, about the state of the universe, but still aren't me.
If there is no afterlife, then the only way to carry your ideas and genes into the future is to have children. It seems like the destruction of religion would get more people interested in having children as it's the only "higher" function that exists for mortal beings.
Regardless of today's trends, in 100 years the only people who will exist will be those who's parents had children.
> ideas and genes into the future is to have children
This thinking disturbs me.
I don't care about my "ideas" and my genes. I care about being alive, actually being alive. Your "ideas" and genes being passed on, is nothing even close to the afterlife I'm talking about. Not even close.
It’s largely why candidates like Biden are so popular; he’s pulling a large number of votes from republican defectors that weren’t on the evangelical train. The centrist wing of the Democratic Party has become much, much more conservative since W. took office.
I see your point, however, this is not strictly a conservative issue (I'm referring to the economic situation). What both parties fail to recognize, or at least to admit, is that the way the economy is setup will always strongly tend to large inequality gaps, no matter if you increase taxes on the very rich, or try to subsidize the poor. The reason is straightforward: the economy is based on interest (i.e. usury). This is a very parasitic, exploitative, and destructive practice that underlies practically all of the global economies, and the world dug themselves into it way too much that turning the ship around will require insane effort. Of couse the first step is to admit the situation, which I'm not sure what can kickstart it.
Perhaps you should update your understanding of how polls work and are to be interpreted... if you think you understand statistics better than the WSJ, consider that you might be mistaken.
Most people don't understand Bayesian reasoning either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. If the polls have no value to you, then you lack the framework to interpret them.
The big one for me is patriotism. When I was younger I was quite conservative, very pro-USA, refused to believe that any country could possibly do anything better than the way we were doing it. Then I started traveling and actually experiencing the rest of the world, and all of those things just faded away. I'm still an American - I love the 4th of July and believe in our country's future. I just don't subscribe to the notion that the USA is best and that I should be proud of it no matter what, or that American's are somehow special relative to anyone else.