Your first response is ironic considering that the first article that I posted didn't take a position on how the past was relatively better, yet you referred to

Your first response is ironic considering that the first article that I posted didn't take a position on how the past was relatively better, yet you referred to both as being "rosy retrospection", which doesn't make any sense, since that article is not taking a side that the past was better, but only showed that successive generations of children in an area had progressively smaller ranges that they were allowed to wander from the home. This is precisely why I asked, since it makes absolutely no sense to call it "rosy retrospective", yet you lazily blanketed both articles with the term, showing that you obviously didn't look at either. I wanted to see if you were able to provide a direct response to as to why you made your assertion on at least one article, but you instead again just made lazy generalizations that don't have anything to do with the articles I posted. Your example premise of "the reasons for suicide", is not something I ever proposed. I never attempted to explain the reason for the increase. I simply posted an article showing that the suicide rate has increased over the last couple decades, since you kept blanketing everything prior as "rosy retrospection". Do you not believe that the suicide rate has increased over the last two decades?