Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Alternatively, I think it is theoretically plausible we could see a progression into different societal stability mechanisms. The state could take over the traditional role of the tribe/family unit; They are of course already well on the way into this. They could care for individuals, raise children, and most likely also need to be heavily invested in procreation either forcing/incentivising people to create babies or some lab stuff. I could see it working if we had a revolution in sex toys to placate the masses of lonely and dispossessed people.
Why would the alpha males want to run around banging every homely chick who asks? So those women will be forced to start looking at alternatives unless they want to be celibate.
Except that does not seem to ever happen. Through some genetic science we know with absolute certainty that only about 20% (it varied around this number quite a bit) of men historically got to procreate throughout all of prehistory before monogamist civilization sprang up compared to 85%+ percent of women which is generally considered to be just about every woman who survived the viruses/dangers of life back then. People tend to not look at animals to understand themselves enough, but really they are not only compatible they are identicle. Men looking for attractiveness in women is just an attribute of a monogamous society, they will have any woman who asks. No monkey, no rhino, no mammal in the history of mammals have ever turned down a woman; excluding the last few thousand years of monogamous society. It does not matter what mammalian society you are studying, the top 5-30% of the studs service all the females; Women are not traditionally graded and measured against eachother in that way; As each and every one already has the most important attribute of being able to produce babies.
It's not unrelated, but it is debatable how it affects things. My contention is that divorce rates were 0% (or very low, after that) because women in previous centuries and generations were second-class citizens and couldn't leave bad marriages (and the same also went for men, but to a lesser degree; society frowned so much on divorce that it just wasn't done). The rates are much higher now because women have equal rights, and are able to have their own careers, so they don't need men to be meal tickets any more, so people don't stay in unhappy marriages like they used to. All this points to the idea that monogamy and life-long marriages are simply a bad and unworkable idea for most people. In fact, in centuries past, love wasn't even a factor in marriages, only convenience and politics.
I would agree with at least most of that. As I stated from the very beginning Marriage is obviously the repression of woman's natural inclination to procreate with as many alpha males as possible.
I disagree. Some people are luckier than others and have better or bigger families. I know lots of people whose families don't give a shit about them. Tribes don't have this problem so much.
I think you are picking and choosing your examples here. Not only is a modern example not useful as marriage has already mostly fallen apart, but not all tribes are the oculist paradise you are implying. Like I already said, some outright killed their elders when they got too old to be useful. And I doubt the 40 year old woman (isn't that suppose to be like the height of their sexual lives) got much action when competing with 20 year olds for the tiny fraction of alpha males. And marriage is not just a good way to encourage growth and procreation. It is also an excellent way to enforce the equality that is so important to large ant like societies. To sustain a large ant like society we need ways to turn individuals into cogs, I would hazard that marriage does this. Left to their own devices, women with fight over the 25% of alpha men, and leave a huge number of dispossess. But unlike tribal living large ant like societies do not have a mechanism to handle this. Ants developed sexual reproductive methods that just allowed 100% of the society to be comprised of females, we are stuck with around 50/50 and so large societies need institutions like marriage.
I am saying no such thing. And that is also besides the point. I described a transition from one societal type to another. Not only is neither better, but both can have solutions to looking after post-fertile females and perhaps more to the point incentivising them to be productive. That is the problem with broad societal concept, it is hard to say exactly what caused what and often in what can seem like a paradox two things can cause each other. As groups got bigger the traditional tribal sharing society broke down. It could not work any more, and necessitated the family taking over much of the previous duties of the tribe. But beyond that, I would argue that the family unit incentives and protects the post-fertile woman more than the tribal sharing society of old did. Furthermore, it sort of does it for both. They allow the elders to draw power from their still young and physically capable offspring more effectively than in a free form village format. But both cultural type often revered the elderly. But it is important to not get overly sentimental, many of the former cultures (hunter gatherers and the like) were not overly attached to their elderly and in some cases killed or neglected until death their old and infirm (when their lifestyle necessitated that type of cultural brutality).
On gender roles and actions I really did not think I disagreed with anything you said. I thought we were pretty much in agreement there.
You seem to be rather refuting your own arguments here. Was agriculture capable of providing more food or was it less food? You don't seem to be clear. I would argue that agriculture was the worst thing to ever happened to humans and the entire planet but that is mostly a personal preference not a fact. And I think you are messing up cause and effect. Agriculture caused huge societies; Villages just did not happen to become overpopulated for the first time in millions of years and decide to invent agriculture. And population has always threatened to overcome advances in food production. Mass starvation is not a sign that agriculture was worse at providing food than hunter gathering but of the continual cycle of overpopulation and the resultant reduction in population.
Yes, pre-civilization, everywhere, males had to compete for females and most failed never getting to procreate. And were killed or delegated to beta-male status. So yes there was no concept of monogamy, women just had sex with whoever they wanted. Civilization, almost synonymous with expansionist (they are highly related), sought to fully utilize society as much as possible and speed up the production of children as much as possible. *This was mainly brought about by agriculture's new found ability to sustain large populations and even leave leisure time to do things like train a standing army and feed an army on a campaign on foreign soil.* To do this they instituted marriage (a repression of women natural sexuality), and religion to enshrine it in iron bars of tradition and faith, which stopped this harsh treatment of men, allowing them for the first a time a very good chance to all succeed and be happy. In the long run bad for evolution, but short run it not only drastically improved the child production rate but also gave you far more happy citizens who had a need to produce, construct, and generally be hard workers with a stake is success and society. Specifically, I think it is obvious that it brought young men into the workforce of nations by incentivising them, but also helped protect the development of children so that not only were more produced but they were better looked after, and better provided for old post-fertile women by binding them to one and only one man who would provide for her until his death. Which of course incentivising these old women to join the workforce, and giving them a reason to continue a hard working constructive life.
It also makes me wonder how else did the virtual people differentiate. Was the white one 5'2", skinny, and approximately 100 pounds; While the Black one was 6'3", 200 pounds, and looked infinity more capable of looking after himself? Or did they simply take the same model and change the skin color?
I think the reason that it is not so bad for the feds is because the gross still got declared as someones income. So they still got to tax every cent pf the gross, it just showed up in other peoples and businesses financial statements.