When I was born, the population of the world was ~2.5 billion people. Today the population is ~8 billion people. Meanwhile we've contaminated most of the water with microplastics and worse, killed off most of the birds, and heated the atmosphere by several Cº. Maybe it's time to slow down.
We’ve been conditioned to believe that productivity means being busy.
But the research (and experience) says otherwise.
A 2022 Harvard Business Review study found that employees who carved out space for deep thinking made better decisions and experienced lower burnout, even though they spent less time reacting to daily tasks.
What if slowing down is your strategy to speed up the right things?
Regardng USB-C to USB-A Adapter: Buy a silicon tether for it too. That way you can remove them when you need to plug them in to a USB-A port. And more important, you don't lose it if it pops off the cable.
Just a comment on the 'The End of Children' article. It's bloated with hand-wringing, nostalgic sentimentality and a vaguely colonial anxiety disguised as intellectual exploration. It reads like a eulogy for the middle-class nuclear family, dressed in a veil of faux-objectivity, but constantly circles back to one message: ‘Isn’t it sad no one wants to have kids anymore?’ As if that’s the only valid lens through which to view human flourishing.
1. The 'Children of Men' Reference is Crazy Lazy
Invoking Children of Men for emotional effect is such a cliché at this point it’s practically a fertility-rate Mad Lib. That story was about total infertility, not a slow demographic shift. Comparing a drop in South Korean birth rates to a dystopian sci-fi where no babies at all can be born? Oh God, the drama. This isn't the apocalypse, it’s a cultural evolution.
Our gorgeously human ability to use our imaginations to (poorly) synthesise existing anthropological and ecological data tends to project future cultures as apocalyptic. It's why we have so much more dystopian art than utopian. So, next!
2. The ‘Low Fertility = Collapse' Assumption is a load of bulldinkietwinkies
The article hinges on this idea that fewer people automatically = societal decay. That’s capitalist hooey. Economies built on eternal growth will of course panic when the population stops growing, but that’s a flaw in the economic model, not a flaw in humanity. Maybe it’s a good time to rethink a system that requires infinite reproduction just to stay functional.
3. It’s a Eulogy for a Broken System
The article mourns the loss of a society that demands unpaid female labor, overworks everyone to death and treats children like future productivity units. And we’re supposed to miss that? Korea’s hagwon hellscape sounds like the final boss of late-stage capitalism. The real crisis isn’t ‘not enough babies’. People don't wanna perpetuate the, 'Ok kiddo, get into the meat grinder' lifecycle.
4. Draping Everything in ‘Mystery’ Is a Cop-Out
The writer keeps playing the ‘we don’t know, it’s complicated’ card. But then he not-so-quietly funnels us toward the conclusion that maybe we should be worried. This faux-balance posture masks a very obvious pro-natalist slant. He says, ‘we can’t know if it’s good or bad,’ but spends 10,000 words emotionally building the case that it’s bad.
5. What’s the Real Panic Here?
The unspoken fear in all of this is who isn’t having kids and what that means for the cultural makeup of future societies. When people mourn ‘civilisational decline,’ it’s often a euphemism for ‘less people like me.’ That’s not demography, it’s ideology. And it’s silly goose thinking.
6. Ecological Reality Gets a Cameo, Then Vanishes
The article briefly mentions that fewer people = lower emissions… then runs right past it. But that’s a massive, existential upside. The biosphere doesn’t care about pension schemes or school enrolments. It cares about how many of us are polluting the air, the water, the soil. If the price of survival is slower growth? Demonstrably good. Life in plastic? Not so fantastic. :(
7. Not Having Kids Is Not a ‘Crisis’
It’s a choice and often a liberating one. Wanting more autonomy, less financial strain, or simply a different life trajectory isn’t a moral failure, it’s adaptation. Not every culture needs to base its identity on the fertility cult. The fact that some people still view childfree people as selfish just proves how threatened they are by that freedom. Biological narcissists! (jk, jk, but still.)
I will say this piece is extremely well-written. When you look beneath the surface though, it’s soft-focus doom porn for a model of life that’s rapidly losing relevance.
The following concerns are real and are simply the price of admission for 'infinite growth' on a finite planet:
A shrinking working-age population has economic implications: fewer workers supporting more retirees. This strains pension systems, healthcare and growth models. Urban planning and infrastructure designed for growing populations may become obsolete or costly to maintain. Elder care becomes a social time bomb if there aren’t enough caregivers, paid or otherwise.
We don’t need more people. We need better systems. :)
When I was born, the population of the world was ~2.5 billion people. Today the population is ~8 billion people. Meanwhile we've contaminated most of the water with microplastics and worse, killed off most of the birds, and heated the atmosphere by several Cº. Maybe it's time to slow down.
This is such a powerful reminder!
Agree 100%
Great edition!
We’ve been conditioned to believe that productivity means being busy.
But the research (and experience) says otherwise.
A 2022 Harvard Business Review study found that employees who carved out space for deep thinking made better decisions and experienced lower burnout, even though they spent less time reacting to daily tasks.
What if slowing down is your strategy to speed up the right things?
Regardng USB-C to USB-A Adapter: Buy a silicon tether for it too. That way you can remove them when you need to plug them in to a USB-A port. And more important, you don't lose it if it pops off the cable.
Like this: https://www.amazon.com/Silicone-Converter-Protections-Charging-Management/dp/B0DLG29G9Q/?th=1
Just a comment on the 'The End of Children' article. It's bloated with hand-wringing, nostalgic sentimentality and a vaguely colonial anxiety disguised as intellectual exploration. It reads like a eulogy for the middle-class nuclear family, dressed in a veil of faux-objectivity, but constantly circles back to one message: ‘Isn’t it sad no one wants to have kids anymore?’ As if that’s the only valid lens through which to view human flourishing.
1. The 'Children of Men' Reference is Crazy Lazy
Invoking Children of Men for emotional effect is such a cliché at this point it’s practically a fertility-rate Mad Lib. That story was about total infertility, not a slow demographic shift. Comparing a drop in South Korean birth rates to a dystopian sci-fi where no babies at all can be born? Oh God, the drama. This isn't the apocalypse, it’s a cultural evolution.
Our gorgeously human ability to use our imaginations to (poorly) synthesise existing anthropological and ecological data tends to project future cultures as apocalyptic. It's why we have so much more dystopian art than utopian. So, next!
2. The ‘Low Fertility = Collapse' Assumption is a load of bulldinkietwinkies
The article hinges on this idea that fewer people automatically = societal decay. That’s capitalist hooey. Economies built on eternal growth will of course panic when the population stops growing, but that’s a flaw in the economic model, not a flaw in humanity. Maybe it’s a good time to rethink a system that requires infinite reproduction just to stay functional.
3. It’s a Eulogy for a Broken System
The article mourns the loss of a society that demands unpaid female labor, overworks everyone to death and treats children like future productivity units. And we’re supposed to miss that? Korea’s hagwon hellscape sounds like the final boss of late-stage capitalism. The real crisis isn’t ‘not enough babies’. People don't wanna perpetuate the, 'Ok kiddo, get into the meat grinder' lifecycle.
4. Draping Everything in ‘Mystery’ Is a Cop-Out
The writer keeps playing the ‘we don’t know, it’s complicated’ card. But then he not-so-quietly funnels us toward the conclusion that maybe we should be worried. This faux-balance posture masks a very obvious pro-natalist slant. He says, ‘we can’t know if it’s good or bad,’ but spends 10,000 words emotionally building the case that it’s bad.
5. What’s the Real Panic Here?
The unspoken fear in all of this is who isn’t having kids and what that means for the cultural makeup of future societies. When people mourn ‘civilisational decline,’ it’s often a euphemism for ‘less people like me.’ That’s not demography, it’s ideology. And it’s silly goose thinking.
6. Ecological Reality Gets a Cameo, Then Vanishes
The article briefly mentions that fewer people = lower emissions… then runs right past it. But that’s a massive, existential upside. The biosphere doesn’t care about pension schemes or school enrolments. It cares about how many of us are polluting the air, the water, the soil. If the price of survival is slower growth? Demonstrably good. Life in plastic? Not so fantastic. :(
7. Not Having Kids Is Not a ‘Crisis’
It’s a choice and often a liberating one. Wanting more autonomy, less financial strain, or simply a different life trajectory isn’t a moral failure, it’s adaptation. Not every culture needs to base its identity on the fertility cult. The fact that some people still view childfree people as selfish just proves how threatened they are by that freedom. Biological narcissists! (jk, jk, but still.)
I will say this piece is extremely well-written. When you look beneath the surface though, it’s soft-focus doom porn for a model of life that’s rapidly losing relevance.
The following concerns are real and are simply the price of admission for 'infinite growth' on a finite planet:
A shrinking working-age population has economic implications: fewer workers supporting more retirees. This strains pension systems, healthcare and growth models. Urban planning and infrastructure designed for growing populations may become obsolete or costly to maintain. Elder care becomes a social time bomb if there aren’t enough caregivers, paid or otherwise.
We don’t need more people. We need better systems. :)
Brilliant recommendations - we must wake up to reality soon.
Love the digital guide!