I didn't downvote, but your premise is incorrect. You can have increasing economic growth with a dwindling population. Russia and Romania have experienced this for over a decade. You may discount Russia as a post-Cold War bounce, but there are other examples of economies with negative or stagnant population growth that also experience economic growth.

You claim that our economic malaise is primarily due to cultural problems, but you don't cite any data to support this. I doubt anyone collects statistics on the percent of people who "help others", but there are statistics that contradict your assertion that American culture is declining, e.g. the dramatic decrease in violent crime over the past two decades.

You also ignore the possible causal relationship between a degrading culture (if it is indeed occurring) and national economic problems. Perhaps people would be less likely to help others if they feel less financially secure?

Too much sex with too many partners and a declining stock of fertilizer, as causal factors of economic malaise, is a tenuous connection at best.

If I had to guess, I'd say that most people didn't find enough relevant, substantial claims in your comment to bother replying to.

I downvoted. The explanation above is a pretty good rendering of why (though I didn't think about it that long).

Well, your post is not very cogent or clearly organized, but I will attempt to address some of my objections since you seem sincere (I did not downvote you, however).

1. Your distinction between "the economy" and "the culture" doesn't make much sense. They're basically different names for the same thing: what we do, how we do it, and what effect it all has.

2. You claim that: "you cannot have infinite economic growth like the author advocates, when you population is dwindling", yet that is precisely what efficiency gains are all about. In fact, ever-greater efficiency combined with limited natural resources contraindicates perpetual population growth.

3. Your diatribe about "fertilizer" and the "green revolution" directly contradicts your thesis. If we're going to run out of fertilizer, and we shouldn't look to technological solutions, then how are we going to feed all these new people? Kindness to your fellow man lasts only as long as both of you have food to eat.

4. You then go on to say: "more technology and better ran economy is not the solution." Yet technology and (some degree of) competence in exploiting it is precisely what enabled our population to grow as large as it has. Without Norman Borlaug, many of the terrible things predicted in the 1950s and 1960s could have happened.

5. Finally, your masterwork: "the cultures that reach the growth that the author wants, are the ones that understand that they must work for future generations, not for themselves." This statement is patently false. Every example of a society which has grown exponentially has done so by rampant exploitation of labor, resources, technology, and capital.

6. Also, what does "we need more sex (with less partners)" have to do with anything else you said?