So What?

Time for a good flogging.

I was browsing Canoe's website and ran into this column by Krista Boryskavich:

No Sex, No Kids, No Problems?

Don't want the pitter patter of little feet disrupting your fulfilling adult lifestyle?

Just follow the lead of the Japanese and stop having sex.

According to a recent survey conducted by the Japan Family Planning Association, nearly 40% of Japanese aged 16 to 49 reported they hadn't had sex in over a month.

Ok, what's the big deal?

"This is very bad news for the country's birthrate," said Dr. Kunio Kitamura, the Family Planning Association's director, "and something the government needs to look into urgently."

Especially since, as Kitamura's research concluded, "if you don't have sex for a month, you probably won't for a year."

Still not feeling the concern. What's up?

While a minority of people choose to remain childless for grandiose ideals such as saving the planet from further destruction caused by overpopulation, the majority of the "me generation" shun children for more personal reasons.

Career, travel or romantic partners may take precedence. Or on a basic mundane level, dinner and a movie may sound much more exciting than bath and story time.

So what?

Call it selfishness if you want. But in a world where community interests take a backseat to individual freedom of choice, most people view the decision whether to procreate as a strictly individual one that is none of society at large's business.

Sometimes, though, society has to butt in where it isn't wanted. In addition to world population concerns, low birthrates may have other significant impacts of a global nature.

Whoa there dragon. "Community interests", "significant impacts"? Sounds serious! Care to explain?

For instance, according to a 2004 study conducted by Douglas Downey, a professor at Ohio State University, children without siblings run an increased risk of developing poor social and conflict resolution skills.

The study of 20,000 kindergarten children showed that only children were less able to "form and maintain friendships, get along with people who are different, comfort and help other children, express feelings in a positive way, and show sensitivity to the feelings of others."

That sounds more like a change is required in parenting styles in the new world where more people are having one child instead of more. After all, many of us who were young single children grew up into fine adults if I do say so myself. Hardly seems like a reason to continue to overpopulate the earth, right?

Couple poor social skills and a lack of built-in human contact with society's unprecedented reliance on electronic communication and companionship, and the global nation is hurtling down a path of disconnectedness never before experienced.

It's time to bring a sense of community back to the human race.

Huh? Seems like there is a built in assumption in that statement that electronic communication and companionship is somehow far inferior to face to face communications. Also, she is assuming that poor social skills demonstrated by kids just starting school translates into emotionally stunted teenagers and adults which I suspect is complete and utter fantasy on her part and unsupported by anything in this article or anything I've ever heard of.

Let me paraphrase: single children are not as well adjusted as children with siblings in one study of Kindergarten kids (no mention of how single children fare as adults), and the "evil internets" are allowing people to speak without actually having to sit in the same room. This means the world is falling apart and having more kids will start to fix the problem of bringing back a sense of community to the human race, ignoring the problems of overpopulation such as starvation, environmental issues, pollution, etc.

That is some screwed up thinking Krista Boryskavich and the most useless drivel I've read today.