Just a thought for you. I'm primarily a biologist so I usually have different views from what is common. I was analyzing the issue of population decline and though it is obviously includes issues of economics and concerns about the future, those are not new problems. I finally came up with another conclusion and it might apply to this situation as well. Certain human instincts are not being developed as they need to be, particularly moral instincts. Instincts are like muscles and need to be developed. Morals are the combination of moral instincts and moral training. There is a reason we don't have enough moral training. We do get some of it from culture, but it is not enough exercise.
My thought was that if you wanted people to have families, you needed to stimulate their moral instincts. Could this be the case for the hikikomori as well? I think it is very likely. So how would you stimulate moral instincts, exercise moral muscles? Well, teach philosophy. That is what philosophy is about, teaching how to live a good life and that refers to in moral terms. Philosophy used to be taught in grammar school. Why is it now considered a dead subject or only suitable for high school students and above? It's a matter of history.
In the West, perhaps in the 1930's, the time of the Scopes Monkey trial, the ancient war between religion and science was pretty decisively won by science. It had created so much wealth and power and truth, that it won decisively. But it does not provide much understanding. That comes more from philosophy, but philosophy, the once king of knowledge, was a casualty of the war. Who was going to defend it? Science is a jealous mistress that claimed all authority of knowledge. We are now taught that philosophy is a dead subject, but when I reached the limits of science I looked around and found that philosophy still held incredible wisdom and understanding. Actually, now, science is starting to recognize its limitations.
By so many standards, it seems obvious. Science is wonderful, but it is limited and what it cannot teach is just what philosophy teaches. Science cannot say why to have families, but philosophy does. Science cannot even say why one should live, let alone how. Ancient Greek and the Dao from the East both do. Buddhism and Stoicism both teach how to face the challenges of survival. Existentialism and it's relatives are like science, they can ask, but offer no reasons. Teach the ancient philosophies if you want people to face life. Teach them to young children That is what they are about.
The original discussion revolved around unlocking moral instincts to encourage the formation of families. However, it raises another crucial question: Is it possible for our civilization to thrive, or even survive, without widespread education in philosophy? Throughout history, our civilization has been built upon the foundation of philosophy. Our systems of government and social structures are intricately intertwined with philosophical principles. Therefore, I firmly believe that without a common education in philosophy, our civilization would struggle to flourish.
