Unfortunately, ample of evidence supports the assumption that the richer a society, the less sexual it is. This is in spite of the fact that sexuality is widely exploited in rich societies for the marketing of products. But in order to sell products on the promise that they have a positive impact on a person's sexual market value, and in order to sell entertainment as sexual ersatz befriedigung, potential consumers must first experience a dire lack of sexual satisfaction, which is the case in many affluent Western societies.

In poor rural societies, the average marriage age typically is as much as 10 years lower than the typical marriage age in rich societies.

Not only this: in modern urban societies, the children of well-off families typically grow up in a much more protected environment... and this means: an environment protected from sexual seduction.

On the contrary, the children in proletarian families, especially when both parents work, are much more likely to be sexually initiated at an earlier age.

But not only on the level of families, relative poverty usually means more sexuality. Poor societies also tend to be more sexual than rich societies, as typically, rich societies allocate a good part of their resources towards "protecting" young people from sexual initiation.

Or, if their state ideology or state religion prescribes this, they allocate a good part of their resources on controlling their subjects, so that they do not engage in illicit sexual affairs.

There even is a biological aspect that explains why wealth is sexually counterproductive.

In human evolution, there has, for millennia, been a trade-off by which the females of the species granted sexual access in exchange for protection and material support (an equation that commonly exists in the animal kingdom).

Now, if female individuals are rich (as they are, for example, as daughters of rich parents), or if societies are organized in a manner that all protection is provided by the state (and not in personal relationships), than females often lack some of the biologically determined reasons to enter sexual relationships.

I do not mean that women should be kept poor relative to men, so that they would feel a necessity to enter a sexual relationship with a man in order to receive protection and support.

Rather, I argue that societies of affluence, and societies in which too large a proportion of protective functions has been taken over by the state, are basically unnatural, and thus are not supportive of essential human happiness.

I therefore propagate the evil of wealth, and I therefore advocate poverty.

Yes, this must sound strange to people for whom the most basic social knowledge has always been that it is better to be rich than poor. But my advice is just as reasonable as the recommendation from physicians that we better eat less (in order to avoid obesity and stay healthy), even if we can afford eat plenty.

How does the above analysis translate into a personal agenda, and how into a political program?

An appropriate personal agenda is easy to formulate:

1. stop getting richer in a rich country, and go to live in a poor country.

2. spend your surplus resources on supporting political change.

And the political program must include:

1. support for population growth, as dividing a society's wealth among more people automatically reduces its per-capita wealth; furthermore, only societies in which young people are a majority feel human and pleasant; procreative self-restriction out of worries over excessive populations are foolish.

2. support for a political movement that emphasize a maximum of personal freedom in a state or society; please note that this is not identical with supporting organizations that advocate weak governments. Strong governments are needed as otherwise, communities are ruled by mafias. The strong government that guards over its citizen's personal freedom does not have to be democratically elected; actually, because of inherent mechanisms, democracy often leads to states in which the personal freedom of its citizens gets more and more restricted, often much more so than in dictatorships. The best guarantor of personal freedom would be rule by a single party with a strong ideological commitment to the personal freedom of its citizens.

Even though I believe that affluence by and large is a burden rather than a blessing, I do not advise willful destruction as a legitimate political instrument.

However, my lack of support for anti-wealth violence does not preempt me from analyzing the positive anti-wealth effect from events I learn about in the media, such as wars and calamities.