[lofenfew]

a. the vast majority of people are neither addicted to porn nor lacking in ability to form relationships. if that has happened to some people they are a minority

b. pornhub has no monopoly over the internet porn industry. insofar as those men did get so addicted, that would have happened regardless of pornhub existing.

[bhouston]

"a. the vast majority of people are neither addicted to porn nor lacking in ability to form relationships. if that has happened to some people they are a minority"

Hmm... something is going on though: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/sexual-intelligence/...

Which in turn is going to likely lead to even further reductions in birth rate.

I think we need to be careful about all the things that factor into our sub-replacement birthrates.

[wkat4242]

Dropping birth rates are just because kids are a burden these days. With both parents needing to work to pay for a house it's a huge hassle. I'm glad I never had any. My life is much freer now.

And we're not going to go extinct. Plenty of people want kids and have them. Maybe we'll reduce the population a bit which would be great. Less pollution, less pressure on the overloaded housing situation.

[bhouston]

> Less pollution, less pressure on the overloaded housing situation.

Generally when one group shrinks in evolution, it doesn't reduce for long the total pressures on the environment. What usually happens is other groups grow into the new opportunities that have opened up.

[alpaca128]

> What usually happens is other groups grow into the new opportunities that have opened up.

Which is only a bad thing if you assume "other groups" are inherently worse. But if the current state is so bad people are openly cheering after a murder, perhaps there are more pressing issues - which likely also contribute to low birth rate.

[suzzer99]

I agree that porn addiction can be destructive. But the idea that you can somehow block porn is ludicrous. Work on the problem from some other angle. This is just puritanical politicians throwing their weight around.

[bhouston]

> Work on the problem from some other angle. This is just puritanical politicians throwing their weight around.

Sure. But if I look at this objectively, I am not sure it is going to be solved from another angle by liberal societies any time soon. And religious societies, or at least those that are puritanical in this regards will get a significant and likely sustainable demographic advantage as a result. I think this speaks to the larger issues of why religion has persisted and why atheism has yet to be a sustainable endeavour, rather than a demographic sink. Truth doesn't actually matter, viability via demographic sustainability is how things are actually judged.

[alpaca128]

Birth rates tend to be higher in less wealthy societies with high child mortality, yes. I don't think that means what you think it means.

[bhouston]

> Birth rates tend to be higher in less wealthy societies with high child mortality, yes.

You are correct that this is the case.

> I don't think that means what you think it means.

I am not sure I follow you logically. You are making a completely separate argument. Many things influence birth rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_factor_(demography)

[lofenfew]

I don't think we should be attempting to force parenthood on children in order to solve birthrates. Maybe you should have to show proof of being a child to access porn? Might work.