You know I don't think I've ever heard anyone being called a "geek" or a "nerd" outside of the US.

Like dimples in space.

To be honest the best way for us to colonise the universe will be through space stations. We can control the gravity, the atmosphere, the environment completely, and the raw materials are just floating around in insane abundance. Socially it's not even that much different to the way most people live today anyway, with most of their lives spent in urban environments commuting from home to work or class and back again, peppered with occasional vacations to other habitats or planetside.

No need to plot centuries-long pilgrimages strapped to the top of an antimatter skyscraper for a while yet. The first step is to build great city states in the sky.

I disagree. One of the major failings of marxist-derived ideological systems is that they ignore the incentivisation that capitalism brings to the table. Marxists do the whole "one for all and to the gulags with anyone who disagrees" thing while capitalism harnesses the desire to better one's own station in life, which is why the US and other western countries enjoyed a steady increase in the quality of life, while the USSR suffered a lengthy decline. Of course I wouldn't advocate for pure capitalism but I do recognise its strengths.

Really. The US lost half a million in total during world war two, out of a 1939 population of over 131 million people. That's about a third of a percent of the total population, and about 1% of the labour force. Your narrative is missing a few facts.

All things considered I find it entertainingly ironic, and in all likelihood representative.

Yes, that was my point. That does not resemble events in the US or much of Western Europe however.

It's unbelievable in this day and age that people can actually sit there with a straight face and argue in favour of neomarxist ideologies. You go ahead and talk to anyone from Eastern Europe who remembers those days and they won't be long setting you straight. But oh right that wasn't real marxism. Your version will be the one that gets it right, and if a few hundred million people have to die to prove you wrong again, que sera sera.

And all the other stuff the US had first, that was just coincidence was it?

Hoo my sides. Really though what the left like to call the traditional or nuclear family is nothing of the sort. It's an artifical creation put in place to give returning soldiers a place to go. The result of this farcical social engineering was housewives self medicating on a variety of narcotics through boredom and men working themselves into an early grave. You should go study the actual historical or natural structure of the family, or even go examine one in the developing country of your choice. Hint: it's not a patriarchal prison.

You know your Rosie the Riveter quit her job after two weeks, right?

Read up on the events immediately following the 1917 revolution. They don't agree with your narrative.

As I said, social safety nets are good ideas. When you start viewing them through a left wing lens however they become a stepping stone rather than a simple component of a developed country's society, and therein lies the problem. "Always more to do", eh.

Oho, if that's the level of discourse I believe you intend to preach rather than discuss, in which case get fucked and good day sir.

This is why people hate ideologues.

Why do you people always imagine that nobody else has read and completely understood what marx was gabbling about. Marx was the author of the communist manifesto along with Engels wherein he declaimed mandatory adherence to rules such as "confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels" and "centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state". In reality Stalin was the purest Marxist that ever lived, and the degenerate state he spawned was the embodiment of Marxs' ideals. And keep in mind that Marx was a perenially drunken adulterous reprobate who refused to repay loans and acknowledge his own illegitimate children.

What's that you say, they were just doing it wrong? Everyone seems to do it wrong, how many more millions need to be murdered before you people get it through your thick skulls that it's a nonfunctional religion?

And have you noticed any particular changes in western civilisation since then?

Eh "civilised" is a moving target, some people think that the only civilised societies are hunter gatherers living in grass huts, but by any rational measure western civilisation is the most advanced set of countries on the planet. Advances which incidentally spurred major social changes - science and engineering for example produced washing machine, fridges, cookers, all of the white goods, then capitalism made these goods both profitable to produce and distribute as well as affordable.

This in turn led to women having a great deal of free time on their hands and provided an incentive for them to enter the workforce in far greater numbers than before, which we can all agree is a very positive thing - note they were always part of the workforce to one degree or another. I mean that computer you're typing on is another excellent example of capitalism in action.

So yes I'd say that capitalism had and has a great deal to do with the growth of western civilisation.

So, the US had atomic bombs first. The ongoing economic and associated technological stagnation leading to the ultimate collapse of the soviet union were a direct result of neomarxist policies. China has more or less embraced capitalism and has advanced in leaps and bounds as a result.

One problem I think is that the left, aka marxists and derivatives, tend to lay claim to anything remotely collective in nature as if they had invented it. This turns off rational people and turns them against quite rational ideas. Social safety nets for example are an eminently sensible idea, but your marxist views them as a step in the direction towards their utopia, not as an end unto themselves, which is a major mistake and gets people angry with anyone proposing social safety nets, purely by association. Again it's an ideology that does more harm than good.

Except for that whole western civilisation thing, yanno...

Possibly because marxism and its derivatives were responsible for the murders of over 100 million innocent people in the 20th century. And don't give me any bullshit about capitalism being responsible for more, people have been killing other people to take their stuff long, long before there were any "isms" worth mentioning.

What makes marxism et al special is that you don't even need greed to go on a mass murdering spree, all you need are some airy justifications and a handwave towards some utopian future in order to create the othering effect that enables murderous behaviour. "We could live in paradise, comrades, if only these bourgeoise/jews/intellectuals/patriarchal men weren't standing in our way!"

And this is without even thinking about the structural and logical failings of marxism. Talk about starting with the answers and going looking for the questions.

You are a white knight you fuckstick, and you are holding men collectively responsible for the actions of a few deranged individuals. What you're actually saying is that a culture exists which objectifies women to the extent that men feel they are disposable objects of sex. Which is horseshit on the face of it, but to the extent that such attitudes exist they are absolutely mirrored by womens attitudes to very attractive men, maybe have a look through Cosmo sometime.

Oh fuck off. That's another way of saying that men are collectively responsible for the miniscule number of sexual abusers out there. How about most burglaries are commited by men, men can stop burglaries. Not working for you? Really!

I've made a feminist robot.

Meanwhile back in the real world men are sexually assaulted and raped by women just as often. Rape culture my arse.

Indeed, Marxism and all of its derivatives lack the essential value flag mechanisms that make any other economic system work, which is why they will fail even in the presence of abundance, so I agree with your assessment that the last mile providers are acting like Marxists.

A bit more research into what people actually ate in the pre or early agricultural days wouldn't hurt either. Shellfish for example formed a major part of the diet - and why wouldn't it, you have fresh meat just lying all over the ground. Probably fresh fish too. Also things like bulrushes - most of the plant is edible and it can even be ground into flour. Obviously the diet would also depend on where people lived, it's doubtful that a paleo diet based on African origins would resemble an Irish paleo diet. Anyone wanting to really get into a paleo diet would do well to start looking at modern day hunter gatherers in the bushcrafting hobby.