Today on the show we will talk about anti-natalism, which is the belief that human life is a curse and no one should ever have babies again. How does this tie into the overpopulation myth and environmental apocalypticism? We'll discuss. Also, the fake scientist Bill Nye is back in the news. And someone emails with a simple question: why did God create the world. I'll take a stab at answering it. Date: 05-14-19
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wolf Show, we're going to talk about antinatalism, which is the belief that human life is a curse and no one should ever have babies again.
The thing is, this philosophy is more prevalent than you think, so we're going to discuss it.
Also, we'll talk about the sad decline of Bill Nye, the fake scientist, and Chips Ahoy has decided to sell cookies by using drag queens.
Finally, I got an email from someone asking a very simple, easy question.
Why did God create the world?
So I'll try to answer that easy question today as well on the Matt Wall Show.
All right, I'll be at Northwestern University tonight talking about the left's war on reality,
their efforts to redefine reality by redefining life, marriage, and gender.
So we'll be talking about that tonight.
Hope to see you there.
Now, before we get into today's show, let's first Discuss wise food.
You know that I think it was Shakespeare, maybe Jesus, who said, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Or maybe it was neither of them.
But either way, it's true.
Preparedness is key.
You never know when you're going to be in an emergency.
It could be a tornado, a flood, an earthquake, power outage.
Even if you lose your job, you could Find yourself in a difficult situation.
Fortunately though, Wise Company is here to save the day, and they take an innovative approach in providing dependable, simple, and affordable freeze-dried food for emergency preparedness and outdoor use.
Wise Company meals are designed to protect your most valuable asset, which is your family.
So whether you're so busy that you barely have time to cook, Or you're in an emergency situation, wise emergency food can save the day.
All you need is four cups of water, and it doesn't even need to be hot.
You take the contents of the pouch, you pour them into the water, you stir, you cover, and that's it.
In 15 minutes, you're ready with a meal.
So, this week, my listeners can get any Wyse Emergency or Outdoor Food product at an extra 25% off the lowest marked price at wysefoodstorage.com if you enter WALSH at checkout or by calling 855-475-3089.
Plus, if that's not good enough for you, shipping is also free.
Wyse has a 90-day no-questions-asked return policy, so there's no risk.
in taking the initiative to get yourself and your family prepared today.
That's wisefoodstorage.com, promo code Walsh to get any Wise Emergency or outdoor food
product at an extra 25% off and free shipping.
All right.
The New Yorker shared this week an editorial written by an anti-natalist philosopher named David Benatar.
No relation to Pat Benatar, I think.
Or maybe there is.
I have no idea, actually.
The title of the piece is The Case for Not Being Born.
Okay, now this article was actually originally published a little while ago,
but it's making the rounds again online.
And it's worth talking about because it articulates an especially toxic way of thinking that I think is also
increasingly prevalent in our society today.
Antinatalism, if you've never heard the phrase before, and I only recently came across it myself,
antinatalism is what it sounds like.
It's a movement against birth.
So, similar and related to the pro-abortion movement, or maybe you might call it a logical Conclusion of the pro-abortion movement, antinatalists think that no child should ever be born ever again.
That's their position, that no one should ever be born.
And they, I think, generally will say that this should be a voluntary decision that we make to stop having babies, although there are some who will say that the government should also potentially Enforce that that policy and some governments do enforce that policy.
Now, some of the people who believe in this philosophy have organized into this is a real thing.
The voluntary human extinction movement.
Which is not a joke.
It really exists.
It's a group that, as the name suggests, believes that humans should choose to go extinct.
Now, at least there's the voluntary part of it.
We should be concerned if they ever lose the V, you know, and it just becomes the human extinction movement, HEM, then that's not too good.
But right now it is voluntary.
guy by the name of Les Unite, which I assume is probably a pseudonym, but who knows.
He started the group back in the 90s, I think.
If you're curious about them, their website has an FAQ section, and here's the first frequently
asked question that they answer.
It says, what is the voluntary human extinction movement?
Okay.
And the answer is it's a movement, not an organization.
It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet earth.
We're not just a bunch of, they care about life.
They just think it should be extinct.
We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and antisocial misfits taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans.
They say they're not just that.
So they are that also, but just not only that.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.
It's a humanitarian belief that humans shouldn't exist.
We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once healthy face of this planet.
That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.
Rather, the movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology.
As voluntary human extinction movement volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species, of planets, of plants and animals, is the voluntary extinction of one species, Homo sapiens, us.
Very encouraging.
You know, it's encouraging.
We're going to go extinct and we can all be encouraged by that possibility.
Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.
Whenever a human chooses to stop breathing, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve, And we'll perhaps pass away, as so many of nature's experiments have done throughout the eons.
It's going to take all of us.
So, I don't know.
I'm sold.
I don't know about you.
I say, let's go extinct.
I think it sounds like a great idea, now that you mention it.
So that's one reason for being an antinatalist, because we are allegedly destroying the Earth.
And that's why I say that this is an increasingly prevalent philosophy.
There are a lot of people who feel this way.
Now, most antinatalists won't call themselves that.
Probably have never even heard the phrase or know what it means.
And most certainly aren't going to join up with the voluntary human extinction movement.
But anyone who goes on about overpopulation and says that we have to solve overpopulation, solve it.
How do you solve it?
There's only one way to solve it.
People that say that we need to stop having so many kids so as to save the planet.
Anyone who holds that position is, by definition, an antinatalist, and a lot of people in the West hold that position.
A lot of us do.
Overpopulation, by the way, is a prominent myth, and I emphasize myth.
It is a myth.
The Earth is not overpopulated.
The Earth really cannot be overpopulated.
There is no max capacity for the Earth.
And anyone who thinks that the Earth is overpopulated, when did we go from populated to overpopulated?
What do you think the capacity is?
And where did you come up with that number?
If there is a max capacity for the Earth, for human beings, we are We are not anywhere close to it, and we'll never get close to it, because human birth rates are declining already.
Now, the population is still growing, and it will continue to grow for a few more decades, but the birth rate is going down.
People are having fewer and fewer kids.
So we're not anywhere close to it.
If there is a max capacity, we're not anywhere close to it.
We're never going to be close to it.
Because right now, only a tiny fraction of the Earth's land surface is populated.
Half of the Earth is still wilderness.
Half of the Earth is still an untamed wilderness, right now, today.
And then you have a lot of very spread out rural areas and so on.
In fact, you could fit The entire population of the world into Texas.
You could not only fit us all into Texas, but we could all have our own townhouse and a little plot of land.
I mean, we wouldn't have a ton of space because we're all living in Texas, but we could all fit in Texas with a townhouse and a yard.
So, which would leave the whole rest of the globe completely unpopulated.
Now, have you ever noticed that whenever you read an article about overpopulation, it's always accompanied by a picture of Manhattan or Hong Kong or LA or, you know, a place like that.
But those are relatively small areas where millions of people have chosen to cram themselves into.
And yeah, Manhattan does have a max capacity.
At max capacity, that's much larger than you think, because we started living vertically, right?
And as we start building skyscrapers, rather than living horizontally, we live vertically now.
And that's how we can cram all these people into a small space.
But, you know, if you leave the city, and you travel across the country, which I think it's no, no, I don't have statistics in front of me, but I'm willing to bet That the majority of people who believe in overpopulation live in cities.
I'm willing to bet that.
And these are probably a lot of people who have never even been anywhere else.
They've only ever been in cities.
If you actually drive across the country, what you're going to notice is that there are vast swaths of inhabitable but uninhabited land.
Vast swathes of it.
Same thing in China or Russia, any other large country you can think of.
What you're going to find is you're going to have cities where a lot of people crammed in, but then there's a lot of land where no one's living.
They could live there, but no one is.
So the earth is not overpopulated.
There is a problem with overconsumption and waste.
That's a problem.
But that has nothing to do with population.
If you're buying more food than you need, And then you end up cleaning out your fridge once a week and throwing out a bunch of food that's gone bad because you didn't eat it.
Well, you're not doing that because of the population.
That's just a choice that you made.
And that's an individual decision.
And yeah, we should encourage people to make better decisions, but that doesn't mean that we need fewer people.
What we need is we need more responsible people.
And it's good to advocate for responsibility.
But to claim that, well, instead of being responsible, let's just have fewer people, that doesn't make any sense.
And you can't say that greater population numbers lead to more people starving because there's not enough food to go around or whatever.
Well, you know, 5,000 years ago, there were 10 or 15 million people living on the planet, and a far greater percentage of those people would have been destitute by our standards.
Far greater percentage.
Well, what changed?
Technology?
Innovation?
We have figured out better ways to feed people and provide for people, and that has allowed our population to grow.
Now, it's not perfect.
There are still people who are destitute, but we are much better today at feeding people and producing food and doing all that than we were 5,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago.
Now, so the overpopulation thing is just a myth.
But this article in the New Yorker about David Benatar takes a different approach.
Because you have people who say that we should stop having babies because we're killing the planet, it's overpopulated.
But then there's this from the New Yorker.
It says, David Benatar may be the world's most pessimistic philosopher.
An antinatalist, he believes that life is so bad, so painful, that human beings should stop having children for reasons of compassion.
In a book he writes, while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one and only guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.
In Benatar's view, reproducing is intrinsically cruel and irresponsible, not just because a horrible fate can befall anyone, but because life itself is permeated by badness.
In part for this reason, he thinks that the world would be a better place if sentient life disappeared altogether.
Sounds like maybe the title of an emo song in like 2002, permeated by badness.
And yeah, this is really nothing new.
This is what emo bands have been saying this for, you know, decades now.
This is basically a dashboard confessional song that this guy is putting into book form.
The idea here is that life itself is so miserable, so painful, that it's better to spare people the suffering.
Now, that may sound like an extreme view, and it is, but it's not a fringe view, or at least it's not as fringe as you think.
Once again, this is kind of common.
This is basically nihilism.
And there are a lot of nihilists today in the world.
People who believe that life is essentially meaningless.
And if life is meaningless, then pain and suffering is meaningless.
And if pain and suffering is meaningless, and life incorporates so much of both, then it isn't a stretch to say, well, maybe life is a negative in the end.
Maybe life is a curse.
It seems to me certainly that if there is no God, which these people, you know, if you're an antinatalist or a nihilist or whatever, then you almost certainly don't believe in a God.
If there's no God, then human consciousness, at the very least, is a disastrous mistake committed by nature.
This New Yorker piece quotes a line from Matthew McConaughey's character in True Detective, Russ Cole, when he says, human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution.
And without God, yeah, that seems probably true because We not only live meaningless and short lives in that case, but we are doomed to be aware of the meaninglessness and brevity of our existence.
We have to live always with the awareness that we are hurtling headlong into non-existence.
And I think that's what Benatar is saying.
He's saying it's not worth it.
There's no point.
But I think the big flaw In the idea that we need to stop having babies to save the planet, or we need to stop having babies to spare our future babies from the pain of existence, is that consciousness is the only thing capable of perceiving value in the first place.
So the thing that makes our planet special is that it is our planet.
That's what makes it special.
We are conscious and aware and able to cherish it.
Without that, our planet is just one among trillions and there are probably trillions of planets in the universe.
And if there's no human life on this planet, no one around to cherish it and love it and, you know, appreciate it.
Then who really cares?
And then it's just like I said, it's one of trillions.
Then who let it be destroyed?
Why does our planet matter?
I would say that our planet matters because we're here, because we live on it.
It's our home.
It doesn't make sense to say that we should go extinct so that we don't destroy our home.
Because if we are extinct, Then it's not our home anymore, and if it's not our home anymore, then it's just one rock among trillions of rocks spinning around space, and I don't see how it has any special value in that case.
Yeah, it has other life on it, but that other life is not capable of perceiving the value of the Earth or of itself.
A horse can't love the Earth, and a horse can't love horses.
Only people can love horses and the planet.
So it's kind of the old, if a tree falls in the forest thing.
If the earth is beautiful, but no one is around to perceive and appreciate its beauty, then why does its beauty matter?
I mean, how can you even call it beautiful?
I guess it still is, but there's no one around who can notice it.
Now, you might say that even without people, the Earth would still matter, its beauty would still matter, because it glorifies God.
But, again, these antinatalists don't believe in God, so, from their perspective, human life dies off, and really, there's no one left, so far as we know, in the whole universe, to appreciate the universe's beauty.
The thing that makes the Earth so special is because, as far as we know, It is the only planet in the universe that plays host to conscious life, or any kind of life, as far as we know.
That's what makes it so special.
You get rid of that conscious life, then what's the point?
Now, it's like if you took the Mona Lisa and you threw it into the ocean, Well, yeah, then the Mona Lisa will still be beautiful on the seafloor while it's sitting down there, but you may as well have destroyed it because no one is going to be able to see and appreciate its beauty.
The fish might see it, but the fish don't care.
To them, it's just a rock.
So it would be little solace to say, well, yeah, I threw it into the ocean, but it's still there.
You know, it's down there somewhere being beautiful.
Well, great.
But what's the point of a beauty that no one who is capable of appreciating beauty will ever experience?
And it's kind of the same thing with Benatar's argument that life is, you know, people say, well, life is so miserable, so why curse people with it?
Well, first of all, speak for yourself.
Second of all, it doesn't make sense to say that non-existence is somehow better than life, even a painful life.
Because a word like better assumes value.
But non-existence can have no value.
So, to say that something is better than another thing, You must be saying that the better thing has more value.
But non-existence, by definition, has no value.
So it cannot be better than anything.
It's just nothing.
And as nothing, it can't be better than something.
Even if that something is pain.
So there's just a logical problem there.
There's a logical problem with all these ways of thinking.
That we're going to somehow, you know, save our our home by making it so that it's not our home anymore because we're all dead.
Just doesn't make any sense.
But it's like I've been saying it's a it's a lot of people sort of think this way and it's it's a very troubling sign.
Because what I see, really, is Western culture just giving up on itself.
Western culture is giving up on itself, giving up on life, giving up on existence, and that is certainly a troubling sign for the future.
All right, Bill Nye, fake scientist, he popped up on John Oliver's show this past weekend, and here's what he did.
Here, I've got an experiment for you.
Safety glasses on.
By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees.
What I'm saying is the planet's on fire!
There are a lot of things we could do to put it out.
Are any of them free?
No, of course not!
Nothing's free, you idiots!
Grow the f*** up!
You're not children anymore.
I didn't mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12, but you're adults now, and this is an actual crisis.
Got it?
Safety glasses off, motherf***er.
So there you go.
Bill Nye, he's so relatable when he curses, isn't he?
He gets me as a millennial.
Has anyone... I'm trying to think.
I posed this question yesterday online.
Has anyone ever gone so far from one end of the likability spectrum to the other?
Because you think back to the 90s, Bill Nye was, uh, you know, people in my generation, we grew up with him and he was a charming kind of nerdy, uh, fake scientist guy on TV.
And, uh, and now he's just a insufferable partisan hack.
I said that and a few people suggested, well, O.J.
Simpson, Bill Cosby.
Okay, well, that's valid.
So maybe another way of putting it is, has anyone ever traveled so far from one extreme end of the likability spectrum to the other without committing a violent crime?
And I think probably no one has done it as effectively as Bill Nye, going from so likable to so intensely unlikable.
And that's what's happened with Bill Nye.
But it shows you what the left has done.
With science.
I think it's kind of it's it's sort of perfect that Bill Nye has become the left's scientist.
He is their scientist of note and the guy that they go to to make a scientific point when he's not even a he's not a real scientist.
He's as he pointed out in the video.
He taught, you know, eight-year-olds about photosynthesis back in 1992.
That's those are his scientific credentials.
He doesn't really have any others.
Um, I think he got a, he got a bachelor's in mechanical engineering or something.
That's his whole, that's his side.
He got a bachelor's in mechanical engineering and then he taught eight year olds about photosynthesis and that's his whole scientific resume.
But it's, it's very telling that the left has taken him and he is now their voice of science because that's what the left has done with science.
They've turned it into a, Into this into something that's certainly whatever else you want to say about it.
It's not scientific.
It's more of a brand.
Science is now a brand.
And Bill Nye is the is the mascot for that brand.
Speaking of brands.
Chips Ahoy decided to celebrate Mother's Day.
Chips Ahoy, you know, the company that with the really bad cookies
really in a inedible cookies And I'm not just saying that because of this what I'm about
to show you but who the especially the the hard cookies the chips away
Who does anyone eat those?
How could I don't what I don't understand is how could you ever eat a hard?
prepackaged chocolate chip cookie If you've ever had a homemade chocolate chip cookie in your life, how could you possibly eat that other stuff when you have that comparison in mind?
That's what I don't understand.
But that aside, this is how they decided to celebrate Mother's Day.
Y'all know what we celebrating today?
Mother's Day!
And I am so thankful to have a mother, like mine, who supports me through all my craziness, and loves on me, and buys me Chips Ahoy cookies, chewy, the original, everything under the sun.
My mom knows I love my cookies, so get those cookies.
And what's a sweet gesture for you to do to your mama?
Your real mama, your drag mama, whichever mama, somebody, whoever take care of you, whoever you feel or consider your mama, it's their day today.
Get them a cookie.
or two, a pack, buy them all the Chips Ahoy in the world.
I don't know, or get some milk, get her some milk too.
You can't buy the cookie without some milk, honey.
Get those cookies, it's Mother's Day, it's time to celebrate, love, all that, cookies, get them.
And if you don't, how you gonna celebrate Mother's Day?
It's the new chocolates, yum.
Okay, so now Chips Ahoy, after releasing that video, they have then gone on to taunt the people who are mad
because they had a drag queen selling their cookies.
And And no, but see, this is again, this is something the left does, where they do something stupid and bizarre.
And we all say, that's stupid and bizarre.
They say, why are you so mad?
Stop freaking out, snowflakes.
No, we're not mad.
We're just confused.
Why do you need a drag queen to sell your cookies?
It's a really weird, bizarre, confusing, dumb thing.
That's all we're saying.
It's not about being mad.
I really don't care how Chips Ahoy sells cookies, but why do you need to... If you want to sell cookies, why do you need to put drag queens into it?
You notice that this is what they're doing.
They incorporate drag queens into everything now.
They're really trying to get this drag queen thing going.
And I've asked this question a million times.
I'll ask it now a million and one times.
I need someone to explain to me.
Just give me an explanation.
How is it that a guy wearing a Native American headdress Appropriates Native American culture.
But that dude in that video doing this ridiculous, embarrassing impression of a woman does not appropriate womanhood.
That's what I want to understand.
How is it that you can appropriate Native American culture, black culture, Asian culture, a white person opens up a Chinese food restaurant, he appropriates Native American, okay, that's appropriation.
How is that thing, that act that you just witnessed there, how is that not an appropriation of womanhood?
That's all I want to know.
That's what I don't understand.
All right, let's go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Jay.
Says, Mr. Walsh, I recently asked a good friend of mine several questions about religion.
She's a believer.
I am not.
She informs me that she has sent religious questions to you, and you have answered some of them on your daily show, which she listens to every day.
She thought that if I sent my questions directly to your email, you might answer them on your show.
The main question I have is, why did God create the universe?
The only answer I can find on the internet is that he slash she created the universe so that human beings can worship him slash her.
Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent supreme being need or even want worship?
This does not seem reasonable to me.
My other two questions I raised with your listeners are much simpler than the one above.
First, why do people have different blood types?
It would seem that if everyone had the same blood type, it'd be easier and faster to cure someone who's in need of a blood transfusion.
The last question is, why do we only have one heart?
There are animals that have two hearts.
We have two eyes, two ears, two kidneys, two lungs, but only one heart.
It says our heart is the only important body part, or is the most important body part, sorry.
Not the only important.
In order to exist, it would seem that we should have two of those.
The last question, the last two questions are similar to the website that asked the question, why won't God heal amputees?
These questions may seem trivial.
However, I know that if I had the ability to create a human being without any limitation on my ability to do so, the extra heart is a no-brainer.
I'm just trying to find some common sense answers to what I consider reasonable questions.
I and almost all non-believers would easily become believers if we were shown solid proof that there is a God.
They are reasonable questions.
Yeah, certainly not unreasonable.
If you don't mind, for our purposes now, I will hone in on one of those questions, and maybe I can answer the other ones in a follow-up segment of the show.
So, why did God create the universe?
You said that's the main question.
All right.
And then this bit about why does he want worship.
The way that I would answer that question, and anytime you're dealing with a why question with God, you're not going to be able to get a perfect answer.
Because the first answer is, I'm not God, so I can't give you his motivations.
I mean, I can't even give you, I can't even tell you for sure the motivations of another mortal human being.
I can't tell you for sure why anyone did anything that they did.
Because that requires me to be able to read their mind, which I can't do.
I certainly can't do it for God.
I can't even do it for my own kids.
But what we can do is arrive at some reasonable conclusions based on our own logical thinking and based on what they told us.
And we can patch that together and come up with maybe some ideas to what their motivation was.
So, my answer would be that God created the universe out of an act of love.
Now, the Christian belief is that God is all-loving, as you, I think, mentioned in your email.
Well, a love, right?
Love seeks an object.
Love is directed towards something or someone.
And so it makes sense that God, out of this act of love, if it is perfect love, then it is creative love.
It is love that creates its own object of its love.
It creates something to love.
And so that's the way that I look at it.
And that's the answer also that I get from scripture.
That's the answer I get from 2,000 years of Christian teaching and Christian philosophy.
Is that God created the universe out of an act of love, and He created us in order to love us.
Now, in terms of worship, why does God want to be worshipped?
I would put it a different way.
It's more that we as human beings have a need to worship.
And I think even as an atheist, you would see that.
Right?
We have a need to look up to someone or something, to admire something, to have a kind of model to strive, to emulate, something to strive towards.
And I think you see that all throughout human history, and you see it in the hearts of all human beings.
And I think as an atheist, you have to ask yourself, well, how did that come about?
If we are nothing but the product of blind evolution, then where did this capacity, not just capacity, but need to worship, what evolutionary advantage is there to that?
And how is it that unthinking matter could develop this desire, need for something like worship?
It seems illogical that unthinking, inanimate matter could Create that.
So, I don't know.
I think you have your own question to answer, which is, how did we get this need and desire for worship?
Where does the concept of worship even come from in a godless universe?
My answer is that it is a fundamental desire, part of the human condition, and so we're going to worship something, You might worship money, you worship your career, you might worship your people around you, you worship celebrities, people worship a lot of things.
But what God is saying is, none of those things are appropriate objects for worship, because none of those things are perfect.
None of those things are all powerful.
None of those things created you.
What God is saying is, I am all those things, so I am the proper direction for your worship to go towards.
I am the proper object of your worship.
So I think that's what it's about.
It's just about the proper ordering of this innate desire that we have.
So I'll tell you what, I just posed a question to you, and email me back an answer to that question.
I'm very curious to see what your answer will be, and then we can continue the discussion from there.
This is from Michael, says, Mr. Walsh, why is my generation so ungrateful?
We live in literally the best time in history, yet all we do is complain about the patriarchy, corporate overlords, and so on.
What's wrong with people that they can't see how great life is?
Yeah, well, this is one of the problems when you it's just we're talking about the human condition.
So it goes back.
Here's another thing with the human condition is that you take for granted.
We just naturally take for granted the situation that we are born into.
It's just so it's hard for us.
We are born into this very comfortable existence.
And we can acknowledge intellectually that there are people in the world who don't have such an existence.
And we can acknowledge that if we look back through history, there was a time when almost nobody lived such an existence.
We can acknowledge that, we know that it's true, but we can't really appreciate it.
To us, it's abstract.
It's just a fact that's hovering out there.
Until we've experienced it.
Now, someone who Falls on hard times and lives a destitute, impoverished life for a time and then climbs back out of that.
Well, now they can appreciate more of their comfort.
But if you've never experienced that, it's hard to appreciate it.
And I think that's the answer.
And that's one of the reasons why I am such an advocate for people leaving rather than staying home with your family.
Until you're 27 or 28 and then you get, you know, you're financially stable, then you go out and you get married or whatever.
Go out on your own before that and really on your own without your parents bankrolling it.
Leave the house when you're 18, 19, 20 and live on your own and make some sacrifices and live a less comfortable life.
Take care of yourself.
Learn how to do that.
And it's going to make you more grateful for the comforts of life, I think, among all the other advantages.
And you know, when I say that about how well we should leave, you know, leave the home, and people will say to me that, yeah, but historically, you'll find that people would stay home with their families until they got married.
And that's the way that it worked historically, all throughout human history.
And that's true.
But the difference is that, you know, back in the day, A man would stay home in his parents' house until he got married, but you know what?
He was working the farm.
He was doing something.
It was not an easy, comfortable life.
He wasn't just living at home and his parents were taking care of him when he was 23.
No, he was out working the fields at the age of 20.
At the age of 12, he was out there doing that.
He was doing something.
He was contributing to the family.
It was a hard, tough existence, and he was helping.
To keep the family going until he went out and started his own family.
That's completely different.
There are still places in the world where that's the way it works.
That's completely different from what we have today, which is you just stay home and your parents take care of you like you're a baby until you're 28.
And then you go out and they're still paying your bills and everything.
And that's completely different.
That is what we have today are people who are infantilized.
And among all the problems with that, I think you have this lack of gratitude, where people have never had to sacrifice, they've never had to go without, they've never really had to struggle, they've never had to really worry about where's their next meal gonna come from, how are they gonna pay their bills?
Never had those worries, and so they end up being ungrateful brats.
Great question, though.
Both of them were great questions, so I thank you for that.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, the Trump administration doubles down on the Chinese trade war and Democrats defend anti-Semitism as usual.
