Not everyone wants children though. Happily living with a lifetime partner is not age limited.

Though if people do want children, they should absolutely know the risks.

But most do in fact want children and do not really know the risk. Modern Western societies are structured to encourage people to use their most fertile years to further their careers and to keep “searching” and “experiencing”.

We’re running a global, uncontrolled open air study on whether affluent societies with birth control, divorce, feminism etc. can exist long term. Given resulting reproduction rates, it’s not looking good.

I agree that declining birth rates and later child bearing is a problem, but I heavily disagree with the alternative you seem to promote: depending on what you mean by birth control, we definitely don’t want everyone having 10 children, which was not uncommon without it; divorce is an essential freedom we absolutely should have; and feminism is a very important movement and attacking it is just vile.

>But most do in fact want children and do not really know the risk.

Given so many here complaining abuot meeting a person to begin with: Beggars can't be choosers. Figure out who you'd want to have a family with first and then get around to the whole child part.

There's also adoption, but it'd admittedly be hard to be approved as a single parent.

But conservative keep tellong me it is because testerone and sperm counts are down and modern men are so weak? /s

Seriously so, there is so much more to a relationship than reproduction. And no person has less "value" than another just because they cannot have kids. You want kids but can't have them? Adopt, there are far too many kids out there without parents, tgat are in dire need of a loving family.

Well, what’s clear is that a number of bad outcomes are associated with paternal age. Men, too, should not waste their most fertile years.[0]

much more to a relationship than reproduction

But, in fact, women say they want children, material conditions should be better than ever, and yet they increasingly fail at that. There’s a massive societal tragedy brewing as the number of the involuntarily childless grows.

And in the global West, populations are shrinking quickly, which has a number of consequences, many undesirable. Yes, I’m aware of migration and its consequences, here and there. It is not a replacement for societal reproduction, it produces a different kind of society.

Similarly, adoption cannot just replace natural reproduction, it is a different kind of thing.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

As soon as societies become wealthy, couples have less children. Also, I hate to break it to you, biology prevents women from failing on their own to gat children.

But maybe the Incels can set up self help groups with the involutary childless, sounds like a match made in heaven...

Yeah, that’s the thing about the current arrangement: all this material wealth and “progress” and yet we’re observing increasing numbers of the unhappy, depressed and aggrieved.

Men and women blaming each other for conditions that—not necessarily individually but as groups—are beyond their control.

As soon as societies become wealthy, couples have less children.

There’s one wealthy country that (for the time being at least) seems to reproduce: Israel. Yes, even the secular (though barely so). We’ll see how that develops.

> all this material wealth and “progress” and yet we’re observing increasing numbers of the unhappy, depressed and aggrieved.

I don't think anyone is denying the wealth gap increasing. both can be true when you remember that the 1% own 50% of the world's wealth.

The elites/ruling class/owners of that society should then pay entirely for all medical care and raising children then, if they are that concerned. And also provide decent housing condition. Children can only make one who is not of the elite/ruling class/owners economically worse in modern societies.