I think we know the answer to that one...

Besides, GP is flat out wrong - not prosecuting crime does not result in reduced crime stats. The crime decline is led be a relatively huge 15% reduction in homicides. Even if those homicides remain unsolved or are not prosecuted, they still end up in crime stats. And unlike other crimes where you may argue they go unreported, when someone ends up dead (by usually violent means in a homicide) it rarely goes unnoticed.

Fossil EROI is steadily declining and renewable EROI isn’t as high, in fact it’s much lower when you include battery storage. It’s going to get more expensive.

I’m not sure if either of you are being honestly factual or snarky, but I seem to recall this hypothesis is actually quite highly contested in social circles, and not at all as strongly supported as the parent seems to state it as fact

Exactly. If you want to bring up kids the way they were brought up in the 50s and 60s, it will cost less as a proportion of people's incomes today. No one wants to bring up kids that way, though.

might be craziest thing written here this month, I really hope you were being sarcastic

What’s wrong with the lead hypothesis? It explains about 4 to 15% of the effect since 1990 [1].

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10393136/