The Matt Walsh Show - Ep 259 - Overpopulation And Other Myths

Episode Date: May 14, 2019

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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wills 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 Ahoi has decided to sell cookies by using drag queens. Finally, I got an email from someone asking a very simple, easy question is, why did God create the world? So I'll try to answer that easy question today as well on the Matt Walls 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 situation, 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 Wise emergency or outdoor food product at an extra 25% off the lowest mark price at Wisefoodstorage.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. Wise 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, 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 Benetar. No relation to Pat Benetar, 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 it's, 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. 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 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's that 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, a 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? 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 just, it's encouraging. So 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, whenever human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve, and will perhaps pass away, as so many of nations.

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 I've 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, you know, 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, well, what do you, when did we go from populated to overpopulated? What, 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, 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. We wouldn't have a ton of space because we're all living in Texas. We could all fit in Texas with a townhouse and a yard, 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 L.A. or 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. A max capacity that's much larger than you think because we started living vertically, right, unless 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, now 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 swathes 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 overpopulous. There is a problem with overconsumption and waste. That's a problem. But that has nothing to do with popular. 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 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 being 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. It 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, 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 Connay's character and 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, 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. 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 appreciate it, then who really can't? 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're, if we're, if we are extinct, then it's not our home anymore. If it's not our home anymore, that it's just one, one rock among trillions of rocks spinning around space. 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. So it 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 it's 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, 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 Benetard's argument, that if, 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. It just doesn't make any sense. But it's, like I've been saying, it's a lot of people sort of think this way, and it's

a very troubling sign. Because what I see really is Western culture just giving up on itself. You have Western culture is giving up on itself, giving up on life, giving up on existence. and that is a 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 planets are. 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 fuck 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, motherfucker.

Trying to be a bit more mindful of things you buy for you and your family? Well, when it comes to laundry, choose all free clear. 100% free from dyes and perfumes. All Free Clear uses only essential ingredients that tackle tough stains and odors. And it's gentle on the skin. It's a powerful clean you can feel good about.

So go on. Pick up a bottle of All Free Clear for your next laundry day. So there you go. Bill Nye, he's so relatable when he curses, isn't he? So he's, you know, he just, he gets me as a millennial. Has anyone, I'm trying to think, well, I pose this question. yesterday online. Has anyone ever gone so far from one end of the likeability spectrum to the other? Because you think back to the 90s, Bill Nye was, you know, people in my generation, we grew up with him.

And he was a charming kind of nerdy, fake scientist guy on TV. And now he's just a insufferable, partisan hack. Has anyone, and I said that in a few people, suggest, 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 likeability 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 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. Those are his scientific credentials. He doesn't really have any others. I think he got a, he got a bachelor's in mechanical engineering or something. That's his whole, that's his science. You got a bachelor's of 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 is, has done with science. They've turned it into a, into this, into something that's certainly

whatever else we 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 Ahoey, you know, company that with the really bad cookies, really inedible cookies. And I'm not just saying that because of this, what I'm about to show you, but who the, especially the hard cookies, do chips alhoi? I, who, does anyone eat those? How could, what I don't understand is how could you ever eat a hard, pre-packaged 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 and hoar cookies, chewy, the original, everything under the son. 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.

A two, a pack. Buy them all the chips and hoys 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 are you going to celebrate Mother's Day? It's the new chocolates. Meow.

Okay. So now Chips A Hoy, after releasing that video, they have then been, then gone on to taunt the people who are mad because they had a drag queen selling their cookies. And, no, but see, this is, again, this is something the left us, 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 O'oy 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 this with 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 under. 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 witness 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, Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. Matt Wallshow 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 would 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 asks 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 showing solid proof that there is a God. They are reasonable questions, yeah. Certainly not unreasonable. Let me, if you don't mind, for this, for our purposes now, I will hone in on one of those questions. And maybe I'll answer the, I could 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 any time 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. 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 it created us in order to love us. Now, in terms of worship, why does God want to be worship? 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, 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? How, what evolutionary advantage is there to, is there to that?

and how is it that unthinking matter could develop this desire need for something like worship? It just 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... 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 know, 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, why don't you, I just pose a question to you and email me back in 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 you take for granted we just naturally

take for granted the situation that we are born into um it's just so it's hard for us we are born into this very comfortable existence um and we can acknowledge intellectually that there are people in the world who don't have such an existence. And we could 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, you know, 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 you have, people would

stay home with their families until they got married. And that, 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, 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 work in the fields at the age of 20. 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's 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 made, They've 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 going to come from. How are they going to 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. Godspeak. Today on the Ben Shapiro show, the Trump administration doubles down on the Chinese trade war and Democrats defend anti-Semitism, as usual. That's today on The Ben Shapiro Show.