The urban areas have been the centers of nearly all the biq problems that threaten the existence of the US. Seems like what you’re sayinq is that urban populations are incapable of beinq anythinq but qovernment-supported moochers and ferals, sustaininq their “lifestyle” on the backs of the rural people who still believe in families that provide for their own. Is that what you’re sayinq?
well, there are urban lbj great society ghettos and then there are urban hi tech hipster ghettos. the aggregate relative income levels are vastly different. the hi tech hipsters generally support themselves. and apparently because of lifestyle choices they actually don’t produce many children despite the prevalence of casual sex.
beyond this, there are the suburbs and the rural areas. it is important to make a distinction, because there is a theory that although the middle class currently resides largely in suburbs, that the suburbs will be the lower class ghettos of the future, due to increased cost of non-renewable liquid fossil fuels (cf james howard kunstler, etc.).
anyway, i agree that people should not live on the backs of other people at any time, if that is what you are getting at. in any case, i think, and i believe most rational people would agree, that these are much larger concerns than the presence or absence of the practice of occasional casual sex, and that there may not necessarily be a direct causal link between the two in most cases. i am not saying that occasional casual sex might not lead to problems, but that the people who practice casual sex without fully considering the consequences usually have bigger fish that need frying and “fixing” their custom to have casual sex together will generally not “fix” the other (and generally larger) problems in their lives.