Also funny how their 'expert advice' often involves forcing people to buy things from them. Only for the best reasons of course.

Ted Danson said, on Arsenio, that "we have just ten years to save the planet."

More than twenty years ago.

It's not that Ted's heart is in the wrong place OR that the idea of conservation is wrong.

In fact, cast your vote:
• Activist seeking to conserve is wrong
• Observer hooting at them is wrong

It's somewhere in between - and nobody who has never passed a test in an engineering class about heat transfer really has an opinion justified by their research.

Do you even know how your car works?

Nobody whose lives are made easier by concrete is any less a hypocrite than the celebrity riding a private jet. The difference is in degree - and I still challenge you to try traveling with armed bodyguards via commercial anything.

Meanwhile, take a look here to at least make a start at something other than outrage, and realize that magical thinking is not the answer.

Someone (definitely not an expert) claimed recently that ALL the planets are getting warmer. I.e., that humans have little to do with global warming.

Well, even if that turns out to be true, how does that change the likelihood that people everywhere will still have to change their lifestyles drastically?

As in, even rich people will have to have fewer children, because there will be less land, arable or not, and thus less land for farming, housing, cemeteries, or even playing sports.

Not to mention that you can't expect starving refugees to stay in countries that are turning into deserts or war zones.

On top of that, automation isn't going to diminish any time soon, so there may well be fewer jobs in the near future.

If you believe that "God will provide," consider that maybe he WAS providing, for thousands of years, by keeping the death rate so high...via diseases. It wasn't until the 1890s that ALL doctors and nurses started washing their hands regularly. Coincidence? Maybe he didn't WANT us to discover germs!

Here we have jet-fueled hypocrisy on parade:

I'll take their warnings impending planetary doom seriously when they do.

Their goal is to save the planet through government mandate; that is with no disruption to their lifestyle. Your lifestyle, on the other hand, can be disrupted at will.

Ted Danson said, on Arsenio, that "we have just ten years to save the planet." ~ Radwaste at November 2, 2021 6:59 AM

We've had "10 years to save the planet" for going on 40+ years now.

Cynicism aside, we can develop a plan to reduce pollution going forward and clean up existing pollution without the Chicken Little histrionics. And without the global economic disruption of things like the Green New Deal or the Paris Accords.

Now, what about Biden's "When I hear ‘climate’, I think ‘jobs’ — good-paying union jobs?"

Well, according to the New York Times, the green economy is "shaping up to look less like the industrial workplace that lifted workers into the middle class in the 20th century than something more akin to an Amazon warehouse or a fleet of Uber drivers: grueling work schedules, few unions, middling wages and limited benefits."

The Financial Times offers this about the dangers of politicians promising a green jobs boom: Data from the latest US Energy and Employment Report show median hourly wages in the solar and wind industries are about $24 and $26 respectively, roughly a third higher than the national median wage. That said, they pay substantially less than jobs in fossil fuel sectors, and their unionization rates are lower too.

Politicians cannot create "good jobs" by pulling levers. A green power grid must not only produce those promised "good jobs," but it also must produce enough of them to replace the jobs - and the pay scale - the destruction of the carbon-based power grid destroyed. It won't; it can't.

Most "renewable" energy sources are being developed in an age in which automation is being rapidly adopted and unionization is on the decline. Solar and wind farms often operate with few, or even no, workers on site. Compare that to the average non-renewable power plant with its army of unionized workers.

The net effect of the Green New Deal is not going to be an increase, or even a maintenance of the status quo, of middle class jobs and economic security. Instead, it is going to result in lower overall wages and, eventually, a widespread sense of betrayal and resentment in those sectors of the middle class that were promised "good paying union jobs" from going green.

Amy, I got lucky a few seconds ago, but most of the time, when I tried to post something, this past week, it just bounced. (Even when no link was included.)

One more time, piece by piece:

On the famous-but-uneducated (search on a n g e l f i r e and dropouts):

I was pretty surprised by some of the names. Some even became multi-millionaires!

(Most of the people listed at the site DID go to high school - but dropped out. Some got their diplomas later. I just wish the site included their birth dates.)

From the site:

"Note: Individuals leave school prior to graduation for a variety of reasons, not just the automatically assumed 'failing grades' or being a 'troublemaker.' Other reasons include a health problem, pregnancy, a need to help the family earn income, a tragic loss to the family, a need to care for siblings or an ailing parent, frequent relocation, war or natural catastrophe conditions in home country, unresolved problems with teachers or classmates, boredom due to education quality issues, or a desire to devote full time to an already established or emerging professional career. There are high-school dropouts in the membership of Mensa, the high-IQ organization. Alternative terms for 'dropout' used by the military and educational institutions are 'non-high school graduate' and 'high-school nongraduate.'

"While it is a fact and very important to stress that more opportunities exist for individuals who have at least a high school diploma, the names on these lists also add considerable weight to the discussion of what constitutes markers of human intelligence and a person's potential worth to society and historically civilization as a whole. These names represent examples of human perseverance, creativity, and in a great many instances genius. These are the most comprehensive lists ever compiled on this subject, but are by no means complete."

And...here are some of the more famous people who dropped out of ELEMENTARY school and never got their diplomas. (Note that few of them are alive today.)

George Burns
Eddie Cantor
Andrew Carnegie
Charlie Chaplin
Sir Noel Coward
Sammy Davis Jr.
Gerard Depardieu
Isadora Duncan
Andy Gibb
Maxim Gorky
Milton Hershey
Billie Holiday
Marcus Loew
Sophia Loren
Groucho Marx
Rod McKuen
Roger Miller
Claude Monet
Yves Montand
Sean O'Casey
Pele
Sidney Poitier
Bill "Bojangles" Robinson
David Sarnoff
Isaac Merrit Singer
Red Skelton
John Philip Sousa
Koko Taylor
Mark Twain
Cornelius Vanderbilt
Doc Watson

"We've had "10 years to save the planet" for going on 40+ years now."

Longer, it's just 40 yrs ago it was global cooling. What changed? we got certain cooling chemicals out of the air. Why don't we put some back? well that would be pollution (remember acid rain? er no it was the panic decades ago and then vanished off the news cycle, I guess we solved it), and probably solve the problem.
Much of this is fake panic to do a money and power grab. It also doesn't matter how much England does they contribute 1%, while China and India contribute 40% or more.
After the past year, we see how much certain politicians will milk a problem to get power over everyone and push socialism.

Congrats on making anything about your personal hobby horse Lenona, no matter how unrelated.

"As in, even rich people will have to have fewer children, because there will be less land, arable or not, and thus less land for farming, housing, cemeteries, or even playing sports." ~Lenona

Having enough land hasn't been a significant concern for a fairly long time. Current warming isn't making it an issue unless you live on an island. And as far as global acres of arable land go warming is making more of it by melting permafrost.

"The net effect of the Green New Deal is not going to be an increase, or even a maintenance of the status quo, of middle class jobs and economic security." ~Conan

Yep, it is all fake. But the important thing for Biden and Kerry is 'Did I make more money?'. They are looking to move things into their own pockets even if it means less for everyone else.

Maybe I should have posted all those pieces at the previous thread, but I had the impression this was the only spot I could get them to work. Sorry.

Maybe I should have posted all those pieces at the previous thread, but I had the impression this was the only spot I could get them to work. Sorry. ~ Lenona at November 2, 2021 8:01 AM

The problem was with Amy's hosting service. It has since been repaired.

As to self-proclaimed surgical experts: not quite but everyone seems to be a medical expert, whether saying kale will save your life or vaccines are bad or only eat organic.

Having enough land hasn't been a significant concern for a fairly long time. Current warming isn't making it an issue unless you live on an island.
_____________________________________

You mean, because it wasn't until well after WWII that there were even three billion people?

Even if the global population DOES drop, that may not be until the end of this century.

(By my calculations, we should know by 2030 or so whether or not we're likely to reach 10 billion before 2050 - because if so, by 2030, we should be at 8.7 billion. The U.N. said otherwise, but I wonder.)

And, did you miss the part where I mentioned all those refugees? (Hundreds of thousands of them, if not more.) What makes you so sure that won't continue? Drought and wars can happen anywhere. In other words, even if you're not a refugee and you live well away from the coast, the refugees need a place to move to.

And no one knows how arable or not any "new" land will be, right now.

Conan, you mean in the last hour? I kept trying even THEN and I couldn't post the whole thing. Or even the first part, when I typed a n g e l f i r e without the spaces.

Conan, you mean in the last hour? ~ Lenona at November 2, 2021 8:24 AM

Nope, two days ago.

No matter. As long as fear sells we'll keep our jobs.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfessorFergu1/status/1454833375840178181

"And, did you miss the part where I mentioned all those refugees? (Hundreds of thousands of them, if not more.) What makes you so sure that won't continue?" ~Lenona

We have them today. We've had them for your entire life. Due to wars. Or jobs. Or a whole host of other reasons. None of this is new. Why should it end?

"And no one knows how arable or not any "new" land will be, right now." ~Lenona

?!? Yes they do. It isn't even complicated.

If you are worried about land to live on . . . get out of the city. There is lots of land out there.

If you are worried about food production . . . look up some actual stats on it. Once again this isn't a current issue and doesn't look to be negatively impacted by a warmer planet at all. To the contrary yields of many crops would increase.

The one real thing you've said is that life is full of changes. Yes, we have to adapt to those changes. Weather related or not.

I surprised that all these people who predicted planetary destruction decades ago aren't currently saying, "Hey! Everybody actually listened to be and did their part to save the planet!"

There's going to be less SPACE for the refugees.
______________________________________

There is lots of land out there.
______________________________________

Getting eaten up every day, by urban sprawl, golf courses, cemeteries, and...landfills.

And if the issue of arable land isn't complicated, where is your straightforward, uncomplicated source?

And Fayd, maybe they aren't saying it because while nuclear war hasn't happened, pollution is still pretty awful and threatening in all sorts of ways - i.e., people AREN'T doing their part that well, as individuals. On top of that, while millennials and Gen Z claim, at least, to care more about experiences than possessions, they've had little loss of appetite when it comes to disposable products (such as take-out food containers), non-recyclables, and high-tech gadgets they don't need.

Side note: It's true that in the mid-1960s, experts predicted that we would reach 7 billion about 15 years sooner than we did (in 2011), but many just didn't realize how big an impact the Pill would likely have by the 1990s. (Back then, women took the Pill for their own sakes, not so much because they were afraid for the planet's future.)

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

Remember that when someone leads with "the models say...".

Nope, two days ago.

_____________________________

So why couldn't I post the link, today?

I surprised that all these people who predicted planetary destruction decades ago aren't currently saying, "Hey! Everybody actually listened to be and did their part to save the planet!" ~ Fayd at November 2, 2021 9:09 AM

There's always more money and fame to be had in raising the alarm about the next disaster than there is to be had in patting yourself on the back for preventing the last one.

========================================

So why couldn't I post the link, today? ~ Lenona at November 2, 2021 9:47 AM

Like Mark Twain, I'm gratified to be able to answer you promptly on this question and I will. I don't know.

"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." ~ Mark Twain

There's going to be less SPACE for the refugees. ~ Lenona at November 2, 2021 9:34 AM

Why don't we just take the land the refugees left? Most of them are fleeing wars, oppression, and violence, not arid land or famine.

========================================

Back then, women took the Pill for their own sakes, not so much because they were afraid for the planet's future. ~ Lenona at November 2, 2021 9:34 AM

Back then? I think a up-to-date survey would find that women are still on birth control for their own sakes, and not for the planet's.

Well, there have been quite a few articles in the last year and a half about people in their teens and twenties, who were asked about whether they planned to have children. (Some of those articles referred to COVID and the expected baby boom that, starting after last Christmas, turned out to be a bust instead.) At any rate, plenty of young people said "no" or "only one" due to environmental issues, plus COVID-related issues, such as unemployment.

Obviously, women and men alike tend to make big decisions more for their own sakes than for the planet's. But they certainly have more well-known reasons to think about the planet now - or at least reasons to ask whether any future children of theirs would be that likely to have lives that are long AND relatively healthy and happy.

One more time, re that a n g e l f i r e link:

Aaaand...it failed again.

No matter what issue is at hand, it's sure to be opposed by people whose first impulse is to whine about how the rich get around.

That {Bezos, Musk, Gates, Cook, Zuckenberg, etc., pick one} sonovabitch should be riding a bus like I do!

Please point out how anyone else's failure excuses your own... I'll wait.
Don't miss the thermodynamics link in my first post.

"At any rate, plenty of young people said "no" or "only one" due to environmental issues, plus COVID-related issues, such as unemployment." ~Lenona

And those polls were more or less fake. The percentage of people willingly childless has not changed in roughly a century. Probably longer. It remains at a nice stable 5% of the population.

"And if the issue of arable land isn't complicated, where is your straightforward, uncomplicated source?" ~Lenona

To be fair when I say it isn't complicated I mean compared to other scientific pursuits. If you compare RF filter design and modeling to meteorology then meteorology looks comically simple. Doesn't mean most people find it easy. As for former permafrost land, it isn't great farmland. It will need some work just like any other new farmland. All of which is quite reasonable and affordable for those interested. If you want the details just look up agricultural journals at your local library or college library. You can also find them online.

As for running out of arable land, for the last 20 years or so we've been returning farm land to nature. At least on a global scale. Running out of arable land really hasn't been an issue and isn't impacting food production at all. Starvation is more an issue of politics and personal responsibility than weather or land.

Quite frankly your concerns about "golf courses, cemeteries, and...landfills." are quite odd. The urban sprawl is somewhat real. What used to be some of the best farmland has been paved over as cities expanded. A rather understandable effect of large cities being built where food was originally easy to produce. But after enough years under a city that land is as easy to convert to food production as former permafrost. Once you lose the top soil it all becomes rather moot.

I know you want to make this one of your no kid issues, but it really isn't.

And those polls were more or less fake.
____________________________________

How do you know?

Granted, the people are young, so we can't be sure, until they turn 50 at least, whether or not they will keep refusing to have children. But it still used to be far less common to declare such a decision publicly, anyway, and even today, it can take a lot of nerve.

I heard that only 2% of American women adopt children. Compare that to the 20% (IIRC) who never had or raised any.

We can't be completely sure just how many of the latter are unhappy about that, but infertile, unhappy Americans are not as likely to be silent about that as they once were. (In some cultures - Mexican, for example - infertility is either a disgrace or a moral issue. Or both.)

Not to mention that it's no laughing matter that plenty of women regret having children - but the prohibition against a woman's saying THAT out loud, while using her real name, is probably the strongest taboo of all. So, those women don't get counted - but they also fail to warn young women of what they might be in for.

(Much in the same way that parents and teachers still avoid - somewhat - talking to girls about how much giving birth not only hurts like hell but can mess up a woman's body, permanently. Bladder control, for one.)

From elsewhere, by Kenny M.:

"I have long maintained that there are a lot of conditions/situations in life where there is a thing that has to happen (for various definitions of 'has to'), but where if the people involved knew the full truth about what is involved, they'd never consent to doing it. Thus, keeping them in the dark about the full reality is an integral part of the game, and viewed as 'ends justifying means.'

"Major surgery is in this category. They lead you to believe that, oh, you just go in on Thursday, and on Saturday you'll be back out there playing tennis. Only after you've gone through it, do they tell you that you won't feel like doing anything for 6 months and you won't really be back to your old self for a year (if ever).

"But, yet, obviously, it has to happen, so they have to lie to you about it.

"Pregnancy is, obviously then, also in this category. It has to happen (for the sake of the almighty economy, to which, of course, everything else is subsidiary), but if people really knew the awful truth, very few people would go through with it.

"The Internet is, of course, ruining this paradigm, all up and down the scale. It allows people access to information that TPTB would rather us ordinaries didn't have access."

How do I know? I use more reputable sources than Cosmo.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/childlessness-falls-family-size-grows-among-highly-educated-women/

Pew isn't right wing in any way shape or form. And it certainly isn't pushing some sort of fertility or baby making thing. You can look up their other articles on the topic. Long story short the number of people childless by choice has been a fairly consistent portion of the population since it was first measured. ~5%.

"Not to mention that it's no laughing matter that plenty of women regret having children - but the prohibition against a woman's saying THAT out loud, while using her real name, is probably the strongest taboo of all." ~Lenona

Yeah, bullshit. I know you want to believe stuff like this but it just isn't true.

As far as keeping people in the dark goes far more are confused about how old they can be and still have kids. It is quite common for women in their 40s to think they can wait to have kids. Sorry, but if you are 40 and haven't had any you aren't going to have any. Just how biology works.

The migrant problem exacerbated by global warming could be solved at the border with Bouncing Bettys.

"If you compare RF filter design and modeling to meteorology then meteorology looks comically simple."

Wow, this is irrational - and this is easy to illustrate: RF filter design and modeling produce results which conform closely to the expectation. Weather modeling is not only horribly complicated, the bulk of the science isn't even presented and the models are vague because of complexity. Draw a 3-D graph of humidity in the cubic mile of air nearest you, then overlay it with another 3-D graph of air density. Do it 60 times and show the changes in each due to temperature changes.

Hurricanes are I M P O R T A N T, yet it remains impossible to predict where they will go.
Your RF filter works all the time by comparison.

Perhaps you were thinking of the ease with which you can tell if it's raining.

Haven't read any of the text books on meteorology, eh Rad? Try some. You are fully capable of reading and understanding the information in them. The level of math and physics required is far far simpler than that required for antenna design outside of the trivial.

That said I agree the current state of the meteorological arts isn't all that accurate. It is better than it used to be . . . but still not all that great.

Ben,
No offense but you are totally full of shit. My husband has a PhD in meteorology and I can testify to how complicated it is as a field of study. The study and practice of meteorology is made up of advanced statics, computer modeling and higher level physics. I’m guessing you’ve never taken thermodynamics or atmospheric radiation. Do that and get back to me. The classes get tougher the higher you go.

I have Sheep Mom. And Rad has taken thermodynamics and fell in love with the subject. He certainly waxes philosophical over it periodically. Rad should have the background to learn meteorology without much effort.

The point I was trying to make was while I called determining the 'quality' of current permafrost soil not that complicated that didn't mean it was trivial or at a layman's level. That complex is a relative metric. So too I find antenna design to be more complex than meteorology. The math and physics are just more complex.

Rad's point that antenna design is more precise and repeatable than meteorology is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the relative complexities of the two tasks.

To point, I didn't say meteorology was simple. The empire state building may be shorter than shanghai tower. Doesn't mean either building is short.

I still stand by my original statement that it is not impossible to know the relative quality of current permafrost land after it melts. Compared to many other things people do this task is not that complicated. That said it is not a task for the common layman . . . like meteorology.

How do I know? I use more reputable sources than Cosmo.
_______________________________________

I don't read Cosmo, so please don't be dishonest in implying otherwise. I read daily newspapers - and I don't mean tabloids. The last article I remember, on the subject of young people deciding on parenthood, was in The Guardian.
_______________________________________

Long story short the number of people childless by choice has been a fairly consistent portion of the population since it was first measured. ~5%.
________________________________________

I don't know which Pew article you MEANT to link to. However, I couldn't find anything that compared the numbers of the childless to the numbers of the childfree - that is, how many women unwillingly, or happily, never had children? I also didn't see the 5% figure you quoted.

Everything seems to indicate that, on average (as of 2018 or so), only 15% of 40-ish American women have never given birth, per se - and that figure may go up or down, in the future. It's true that career ambitions can force women to have fewer children than they want - not to mention poverty and infertility.

But..any social worker will tell you that poverty is just as likely as not to drive young girls INTO parenthood, since they often go to terrible schools and come to believe that giving birth is the only thing they can hope to succeed at. That doesn't mean they will be happier in the long run than if they had waited to get their high school diplomas first, at least, and plenty of social workers will tell you that a lot of those girls don't enjoy childrearing or become good mothers; they just like the higher status that comes with motherhood, just as many proud teen fathers don't really want to be involved, either. (Journalist Leon Dash wrote a whole book on such teenagers.)

This leads to abuse. Clearly, the babies of such "parents" would have been much better off with different parents - and had the teens had more and better opportunities, they would likely have delayed parenthood or even not had any children - and still been happy. More in a sec...
__________________________________________

"Not to mention that it's no laughing matter that plenty of women regret having children - but the prohibition against a woman's saying THAT out loud, while using her real name, is probably the strongest taboo of all." ~Lenona

Yeah, bullshit. I know you want to believe stuff like this but it just isn't true.
_______________________________________

Source on THAT?

You seem to have missed the part where I said "while using her real name."

Anyone knows that people make anonymous confessions online all the time - and yes, parental regret forums exist. It's not the same as coming out to family and friends. Even if a woman is clearly unhappy with her life, unless she actually says, calmly and seriously, that she wishes she'd never had children, one can't assume that's how she truly feels - or doesn't feel.

(Obviously, with a bombshell like that, she isn't likely to be exaggerating if she's completely calm. Whereas parents lie, in the opposite direction, all the time, because that's what they think they're supposed to do in order to be considered civilized. As in: "yes, it's so hard, but it's all WORTH it!" Many parents truly mean that, but not all.)

The point, of course, is that as the taboo against expressing parental regret weakens, the younger generations will be more likely to think twice, thus bringing up the ranks of the childfree.

For what it's worth, since the Pew didn't mention this particular issue:

https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/when-men-want-kids-and-women-arent-so-sure.html

"In a nationally representative survey of single, childless people in 2011, more men than women said they wanted kids. (On the other hand, more women reported seeking independence in their relationships, personal space, interests, and hobbies.) A different poll from 2013 echoed those findings, with more than 80 percent of men saying they’d always wanted to be a father or at least thought they would be someday. Just 70 percent of women felt the same."

And finally, from a Newsweek, Feb. 2013 article on the childfree (wardrobe stylist Tiffany Jordan was 30 at the time):

"I was talking to my dad about how I don't want to have kids," says Jordan. "At this point, he's resigned himself to the fact that I don't. He's like, 'Tiffany, people don't plan to have children, they just have them.' Which is funny, because now people do plan and decide."

Oh, yes - and regarding how men supposedly want children more than women do, these days, maybe that's because men are still hoping, with enough sweet-talk, to become fathers, but NOT to have to change any diapers? Otherwise, maybe the number of would-be fathers would drop from 80% to 60%?

Which brings us back to this blog...

"He Says He Wants Kids — But Does He Mean, 'I want YOU to have kids'?"

https://medium.com/call-childfree-and-loving-life/he-says-he-wants-kids-but-does-he-mean-i-want-you-to-have-kids-e3913170f110

Ben -- NOAA runs the 8th fastest supercomputer on Earth to try to describe upcoming events. You probably knew that.

I am in awe of the radio arts as well (somebody here might notice there is such a thing as "Doppler beam sharpening"? I bet they grade harshly at THAT school!) - and, come to think of it, radio astronomy has plenty of black magic. And...antennae? What? Charge has radiative effects like induction does? Whoot!

I just think my first impression is conservative, in that we shouldn't assume anything is as simple as it appears at first glance. "Radio" anything is not barking "Breaker! Breaker!" into a CB mike, and one look at BBC's photography of Earth should show us all that "weather" isn't what the suit on TV is talking about.

I'm very pleased to hear of your interest. Occasionally, I daydream of what might be necessary for the Gamma Knife to work, or how valuable time is in radio, because the things we can do are far more wonderful than the crappy barking on social media!

Apologies, it was Gallup. Also not a pro-baby making group.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx

"I don't read Cosmo, so please don't be dishonest in implying otherwise." ~Lenona

You've quoted 'The Cut'. Just how is that different than Cosmo? Your second source is from Medium. Not exactly quality here.

Look, I get you just want to hear what you want to hear. It being true or not doesn't appear to be a consideration. I will not cater to such things. You will have to go elsewhere for that.

Thanks for the apology. But the Gallup poll is still eight years old. Obviously, women weren't worried about COVID or about how to homeschool their kids, if necessary, back in 2013. Or how to do that and support them, should the fathers be unable or unwilling to do so.

I just found it suspicious that it took you practically months to come up with the exact, simple report in the first place, since this isn't the first time you mentioned "5%." Especially since even the conservative media don't seem to mention that low figure often, if at all. I would think they'd be glad to, over and over, so as to try to convince young women that they will regret being childfree. After all, people have been saying that in 2021, one in five middle-aged women has never given birth - and what if that number goes up? People could get the wrong impression.

I realize, of course, that the surveys from The Cut (I admit I don't really know the publication) are just as old. Yes, they could be dated as well. But the idea that more men than women want children (in any year) goes against the grain of public expectations (I certainly didn't hope or expect to read that), so at the least, it's worth investigating. Why would the researchers lie about that? In the same vein, Leon Dash's 1989 book, When Children Want Children, was not something anyone would be happy to read - it's grim in every way, but at least it did away with the liberal wishful thinking that said that urban teen girls get pregnant due to lack of good sex-ed. OR that the girls "are looking for something to love."

And I also realize that the writer at Medium wasn't pretending to be writing any type of scientific report. It's just that, years ago, when I read the above title of that piece (the author was using the name Sylvia Lucas, then), I was blown away and thought "wow, what an obvious question! Why don't more couples discuss that before making such a life-changing decision? That way, at least, people who truly want children would be less likely to have them with the wrong partners - and the children won't suffer!"

Btw, she's the same one who wrote about false regrets and how some elderly people just want the fun without the work. Much in the same way people might very much want to brag that they climbed Mount Everest, but they never actually wanted to risk their lives that way, so they didn't.

In other words, while Medium may be frivolous (I don't know, since I'd never heard of it before) you glean your wisdom AND your questions wherever you stumble across them, whether they came from an educated person or not. (Another example of wisdom that I first got from a trashy biography, not a textbook: Drinking does not turn you into another person, it brings whatever violent tendencies are already inside to the surface. I'd say that's pretty important to remember.)

At any rate, I am not so concerned about whether there are more unhappy childless people than happy childfree people. Maybe there are. Maybe that won't really change - especially among the poor. What I AM concerned about is, how many people lie to themselves or their partners about how much they want kids, for all the wrong reasons (such as giving their parents grandchildren or proving they aren't sterile), and how many have even considered that it's better to regret not having them than to regret having them. For everyone's sake.

Or, as the old saying goes: "better to be alone than to wish you were." Especially if you've been seriously expecting a Prince or Princess Charming to come along and "make you happy."

"I just found it suspicious that it took you practically months to come up with the exact, simple report in the first place, since this isn't the first time you mentioned "5%."" ~Lenona

False.

"But the idea that more men than women want children (in any year) goes against the grain of public expectations (I certainly didn't hope or expect to read that)" ~Lenona

Not really. Times have changed. It isn't the 60s anymore. The nuclear family is no longer standard. The concept of family you appear to have doesn't really apply anymore. Just isn't how things work.

"Why would the researchers lie about that?" ~Lenona

Welcome to the soft sciences. You may find it confusing but it sure is common.

You even find it in the hard science some times. Usually in medicine. For example the studies that show how women shouldn't drink while pregnant. I am not claiming they should. Far from it. Just noting that such studies were almost universally funded and run by temperance advocates, a clear conflict of interest. Once you dig into the studies it is clear they are fraudulent. When the vast majority of your 'fetal alcohol syndrome' children have mothers taking cocaine or other hard drugs then you aren't measuring the effects of alcohol.

False.
___________________________

You did so. I remember because I had never heard that 5% statistic before. (You also made it sound as if we're your own calculation, IIRC.) Trouble is, Amy's blog's search function never seems to work well, so don't expect me to find it anytime soon.

Darn auto-correct - that should say "as if it were."

If that is your take away so be it. I wasn't looking for months. I wasn't even thinking about it. This isn't my burning passion.

I will admit to being careless. I clearly posted the wrong link.