Highly recommend watching this lengthy conversation between Bill Kristol and Ronald Brownstein. Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons (imo) for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately.

Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately. — Erik

Thanks for sharing that. I will be listening.

I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.

The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.

Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully.

You've intuited his position perfectly. I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. One thing that is certain is that it's going to take an incredible states(wo)man to bridge the current divide and prevent a national catastrophe. Seems extremely unlikely at this point.

Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. That actually seems like a legitimate possibility now if we can't somehow find some common ground between those who seem to hold incompatible worldviews.

Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right.

The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more. — Agustino

This is mostly perception and plays into the dichotomy where it concerns social progressivism or conservatism only. Both parties, however, work for the highest bidder (e.g. corporations) and whether you vote Democrat or Republican is a "same difference" where it comes to what laws and regulations would be passed.

It makes the perceived juxtaposition rather tragic.

Haven't got time to watch that yet, but the media is selling division on both sides and it is getting worse and worse. Yet another reason to make regulated state run media dominant. The profit motive of media most perniciously taken advantage of by Rupert Murdoch is a big player in this polarization (along with the ridiculous anti-democratic two-party system) and as long as that's the case I don't see things getting any better. I'll watch this later too though.

Yeah that's definitely true but this is pretty sober analysis for Kristol's fastidious audience of philosophically-informed neocons. I dislike the guy's hawkish positions a great deal but I also think he's really good in this smaller, more intimate venue where he's not bombarding the hoi polloi with noble lies for the sake of political expediency.

If you don't feel like listening to the whole thing - the first hour is largely focused on statistical analysis of the various voting blocs within the US - then skip up to just before the hour mark to get the "big picture" analysis. Definitely non-sensationalized imo.

I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. — Erik

I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.

So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will.

Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. — Erik

Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Political_Theory

Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right. — Erik

Yes, I agree with that.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. — Agustino

Ah, the lust for killing each other. As if that would make your country better.

Look, you don't have a famine. You don't have over 30% unemployment. Your government hasn't collapsed literally, the police department and the army still work. You don't have any of the historical reasons for a civil war. Your situation isn't as bad as for example in Mexico, and they aren't on the verge of a civil war.

What you have is a political discourse that just loves the hyperbole. It's going to be a civil war. Not just political upheaval like in the late 60's early 70's, but a civil war. That's hyperbole. What you do have is an out of control political environment where any kind of consensus isn't needed as it is presumed that the winner can take it all and simply dismiss the opposition. You don't have to form coalition governments. Hence the political rhetoric has drifted into two separate worlds that don't meet anymore.

Perhaps the reason why Trump supporters don't get it is that they just think that anybody critisizing Trump HAS TO BE a supporter of the democrats, or liberal, or leftist. This is very typical and indeed a similar approach can be found in the democratic camp when there is a democratic president in office.

We have the right/left divide too where the other side obviously seems annoying from one's point of view, but nobody thinks that killing your fellow citizens would make the country better. Because that's what is comes to in a civil war.

Also, it has been my observation that a lot of young people tend to feel that they deserve X, Y, Z in life, and the notion that they might not get it, seems inconceivable to them, and they cannot integrate it psychologically. I'm not sure why that is, but perhaps as living conditions have bettered, parents have tried to offer more and more to their children, which has resulted in a generation of people who expect the world, the state, the family etc. to give them.

The development of the whole concept of "rights", has also played into these expectations. "Rights" in popular parlance extend way beyond actual rights such as freedom of speech, etc. People often say "it's my right to {insert immoral activity here}. I'm free to do it".

Watch the video first please. As I mentioned to Baden, the venue is not intended for a massive audience and is therefore free from the sort of hyperbole you rightly discern in the general media. The guys are clearly hostile to Trump but also extremely fair to both sides at points in the discussion - about as close to nonpartisan analysis as you'll find these days.

Also, I find the analogy between today's America and the America of the 1850's to be worthy of consideration at the very least. I've done a lot of reading on that era recently and it's not something I feel we should dismiss so quickly. Fast forward to the hour mark if you don't have the time or the desire to listen to the whole thing.

Also another indication of this...

The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty. So this endemic sense of individualism that is at the core of American culture certainly shows its head across many different areas of social life. That is why, for example, individual liberty is perceived as a higher value than marriage and devotion to another person/family for example.

Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting: — Agustino

I don't think so. I've heard of Dugin before - as a Russian Heideggerian - and I'm pretty sure I would have made the connection when I saw the video originally.

I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.

So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will. — Agustino

Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority.

The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty. — Agustino

How about some evidence? This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all?

How about some evidence? — Benkei

This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all? — Benkei

Not worth the price.

increased labour participation of women — Benkei

And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.

In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?

higher levels of education — Benkei

If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.

higher levels of welfare — Benkei

And higher levels of people who live on benefits.

better birth control — Benkei

Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.

longer lifespans — Benkei

Don't see a correlation...

Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority. — Benkei

I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, @Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others.

okay, done, please feel free to reply there.

First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"".

Not worth the price. — Agustino

What isn't?

increased labour participation of women

And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.

First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women. The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain?

Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not?

My take, in any case, is that the increased labour participation of women has led to their independence allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents.

Finally, I never suggested a single cause for later ages of marriage either. Increased labour participation and the related independence for women was one of several causes.

In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?

I'm sure there are all sorts of cultural differences across the world but since your graph pertained to the USA, let's ignore Eastern Europe for now.

If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.

No, I call an education better than no education allowing more people to develop skills to make better decisions. Such as: don't get fucking pregnant at 16 and get forced in a marriage you don't want!

And higher levels of people who live on benefits.

Irrelevant. The point about welfare is that it's safer to have kids at later ages as well.

Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.

This is empty of content. What negative consequences? What military application for the pill?

Don't see a correlation...

Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids.

Smaller families also means less kids, which also means you can start later.

Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages.

I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others. — Erik

If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education.

In the good old days (prior to... say 1950, public schools performed the task of preparing millions of young people to take their place in society as productive cogs. A small minority of the masses were able to pursue enhanced roles which required higher education. After 1950, it became possible to begin shifting the task of educating people how to be good consumers, as well as productive cogs. As the economy changed, consuming became more important than producing, and now people are mostly taught how to consume, and for that there is 24/7 instruction available at all times, everywhere.

Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them.

First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"". — Benkei

I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.

First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women. — Benkei

That's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to women who laboured at home. I was referring to women labouring away from home.

The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain? — Benkei

Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.

Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not? — Benkei

Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege).

allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents. — Benkei

Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around.

Such as: don't get fucking pregnant at 16 and get forced in a marriage you don't want! — Benkei

They teach that in schools?

This is empty of content. What negative consequences? — Benkei

The point is that as technology has developed, our moral capacity hasn't developed proportionally. So we're still the same brutes we were in the past, we now have better technology, and are thus capable of greater evil. That was a general point.

Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity.

Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids. — Benkei

It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry.

Smaller families also means less kids, which also means you can start later. — Benkei

I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around.

Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages. — Benkei

Sure, I don't have any stats, but I have some doubts :)

I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-up approach, which would seek to change opinions rather than laws. I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - but I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility.

So it's an odd and perhaps unrealistic amalgam of libertarian and communitarian values. In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a bit more.

I know it sounds absurd, but so is this world as it is right now damn it - and in many ways mine seems more sane. I'm obviously biased, though.

First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"" — Benkei

There is a range of factors here, including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game, but the strongest factor is that Millennials are, due to economic uncertainty and financial difficulties, establishing their careers first. We're also a generation that is financially worse off than our parent's generation, and wedding are expensive. I have two close friends getting married soon, and they've had to scrap and save a lot in order to afford it, despite one of them being in a committed relationship with the girl for eight years.

I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority. — Agustino

Realize that in the Donald Trump thread, you shared a chart that showed "Age At Marriage in the USA". You don't live in the USA, so your anecdata here isn't very useful. It's also weird, to me at least, for a gy to be in a committed relationship, yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play.

If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education. — Bitter Crank

That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take. They loathed the materialism, the mechanization, etc. of the bourgeoisie. There's something undignified about living a life devoted almost exclusively to making money and buying things.

There's some overlap here, too, I think, as is shown in the New Left of Marcuse et al. I have a lot of interest and admiration for that movement.

I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-op approach, which wold seek to change opinions rather than laws. — Erik

1. What is the relationship between public opinions and laws?

2. What influence does peer pressure (including the Media, etc.) have in determining worldview and outlook for your average individual?

I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - — Erik

Me too - at least to a certain extent. At the very least you don't want the government dictating who you marry, when you can have children, if you can have children, when you can have sex etc.

I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility. — Erik

I agree that it doesn't necessarily lead to hedonism, but, given the condition of your average human being, I think the tendency is certainly towards hedonism. It requires external restrictions (ie, peer pressure) in order to curb it.

In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a living wage. — Erik

I agree with your vision, however, I think it is almost impossible to achieve on a large scale. People are problematic. The whip has always been needed throughout history to govern most men. It is true that there are some enlightened people out there, who will freely choose the good. But they are not the majority. What makes you think that the MAJORITY of men can be so educated that they will freely choose the good, instead of engage in self-destructive behaviour, much like the type of behaviour described by Dostoyevsky in the Underground Man?

yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play. — Maw

I agree. I think most of those guys are selfish, they are scared to commit to their girlfriend through marriage, and they also want to keep other possibilities open. I disagree with all those actions, and I have spoken to some friends and acquaintances too against it.

OK, I think I got the right comments. If not, let me know.

Agustino seems to want to preach something ghastly without saying it explicitly.

The result is that he isnt saying anything at all.

:up:

Thanks Baden :up:

Agustino seems to want to preach something ghastly without saying it explicitly. — frank

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. I know what the problem is though.

I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. — Agustino

The celebration of culture, widespread access to culture and history, and the development of culture are at an all time high. Yes, it's less Bach and Swan Lake and more spoken word, movies and Banksy. There's no "right" culture in this respect and enjoy all of them. Families (and not just the marrying kind!) are safer with less rape, less abuse, less incest and when it does go wrong, more courts that recognise victims instead of protecting perpetrators. All thanks to liberals.

A counter-movement against the sexualisation of the female body has been going on for some time and is gaining traction (just compare mainstream hiphop videos now with 10-20 years ago), which I think is a healthy development.

So, really it's the reverse, social liberalism has emancipated the weak and has evolved institutions to hold the privileged accountable.

They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life.

Ah right, so people's salaries were halved and they have to work twice as hard now but they're still lazy fucks. Which one is it? Make a choice.

It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.

That should suit you just fine then as it suggests nothing ever can change. Yet it does. Weird huh?

As to your second post:

I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority. — Agustino

Anecdotal evidence. Useless.

Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.

This claim is false. Salaries didn't half. They did stagnate and the increased profits as economies grew went to the already affluent (you know, the kind of economics that come automatically with most social conservative parties such as the GOP). Here's an opportunity to read up:

life time incomes over 6 decades

Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege). — Agustino

Prior to the industrial revolution women worked unpaid. They were farmers but their men or families pocketed the money. The main difference is that their salaries are now their own. So it gives women more choices and therefore also the possibility to decide to marry late. They're still welcome to marry early but they don't. I don't see what the problem is with that and you haven't made clear what's wrong with marrying late to begin with.

Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around. — Agustino

Not unfortunately. Thankfully. Their choices are first of all not forced on them by circumstance. Secondly, with age comes wisdom, so presumably they chose for better reasons. You apply motivations to it that are just your personal assumptions and not based on reality. Why can't women chose family life by planning to have children at a later age and to have less children? The two are not mutually exclusive you know.

Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity. — Agustino

And? Nobody is forcing you to have sex. How exactly is this your problem?

I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around. — Agustino

Not quite. Since women have more and different choices, having a zillion kids doesn't rate high among it any more. So there's a social change to have less kids, so you can start later.

It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry. — Agustino

Factually wrong. If you define "best" as meaning the best chance for the health of the infant, then the “best age” for first birth, based on USA national data, looked at a different measure of a baby’s health—rates of overall infant mortality rather than birth defects— is at 32. If you only look at birth defects, the age is 26.

but the strongest factor is that Millennials are, due to economic uncertainty and financial difficulties, establishing their careers first. — Maw

I agree with your observation. But what do you reckon is the cause? Less opportunities? Too much bureaucracy? Lower salaries?

including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game — Maw

Yes, I agree with this. Personally, I think such apps, and much of social media too should be heavily restricted. Not just with regards to dating and relationships, but with regards to quality of life and everything else, I think all the social media is having a very negative effect on society. That's why I've stopped using Facebook.