4 ms·

"As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a number of social maladies." This may be true historically, but does it have to be that

by dr_ 9y ago

"As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a number of social maladies." This may be true historically, but does it have to be that way going forward? My thoughts, not based on studies but based on people I know, is that the general interest in marriage has declined as there is a preference for greater autonomy amongst both men and women, not to mention economic independence. Marriage was born out of economic need, and was given a religious stamp of approval. If the same economic need isn't there, and developed countries are becoming more secular in their beliefs, it would seem only natural that marriage rates would decline. But that doesn't mean people don't want children, or can't have children. With the introduction of ivf, and both egg and sperm donors -known or unknown- its possible for the birth rate to be maintained. It may sound bizarre now just as putting ones profile up online in search of a mate was at one time, but it could be become the new norm. Search for gametes the same way you searched for a partner at one time. As far as the maladies of single parenthood go, much of that may be attributed to the education levels of the single parent and/or their poor economic circumstances. It doesn't have to be that way though. Of our last 4 US Presidents, 2 pretty much grew up without having a reliable father around for most of their life. They seemed to both have had pretty smart moms.

cmahler7 9y ago
Your method would destroy society. Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits, leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. I'm agnostic but I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. People are different colors, genders, etc but religion can be used to bind it together.
- washadjeffmad 9y ago
  You're conflating your personal experience with modern courtship and kinship rituals in a particular society with some sort of universality of human nature. That's a nice way of saying you're wrong. You and all other humans exist because of what you say you believe would "destroy society". Sex wasn't even associated with pregnancy, let alone progeny until fairly recent history. There are existing kinship models where the "husband" is the father of all of his wives' children, even if he's 80 years old and has ED. Native American courtship rituals placed women in control of their relationships with multiple partners. There's more than one way, and humans have done them all for millennia. The fact that US vernacular doesn't have common terms to distinguish between the people who raise you (your parents) and the people whose genes you posses (your genitor/genetrix) speaks volumes about it's dimness in the face of modern understanding. Just because you don't think you or the other products of your society could handle it doesn't mean an entire species is de facto incapable.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    >You're conflating your personal experience with modern courtship and kinship rituals in a particular society with some sort of universality of human nature. That's a nice way of saying you're wrong. Except his personal experience seems to map onto the general history of the emergence of marriage in society as a useful social technology to do exactly what he says: take males out of competition for mates and put them to use for society so their kids don't starve. >Sex wasn't even associated with pregnancy, let alone progeny until fairly recent history. This is not true in the slightest. Even the iconography of sex throughout ancient history explicitly links sex to pregnancy. We started domesticating animals at least ~15,000 years ago. We did not "recently" discover this unless I'm misunderstanding your time horizon. >The fact that US vernacular doesn't have common terms to distinguish between the people who raise you (your parents) and the people whose genes you posses (your genitor/genetrix) speaks volumes about it's dimness in the face of modern understanding. What is "modern understanding?" That your biological parents don't matter? As others have pointed out, if you want to accelerate societal collapse that's the fastest way to do it.
  - cmahler7 9y ago
    The reality is our brains are built on hardware hundreds of millions of years old. It would be nice if we could build a perfect world but until we can genetically modify ourselves we are stuck with it and all the biases and instincts associated with it. Our strongest instinct is to procreate, social conditioning can't stop that.
- Bbowen100 9y ago
  >Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits. Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. >...leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" >Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. Uhh I guess, sure I can concede that. >I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. I am also agnostic and I agree that religion is important however not for the same reason you do. Yes religions bind societies but only to a certain extent and for only so long. See the conflicts between early Christians and Jews, or the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Or current extremist Muslims, hell extremists of every religion. As much as religion binds people together it even more so tears people apart.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    >Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. Because if you're not passing on your genes, who cares. One of the best historical indicators of more violence or unrest in a society is a gender imbalance. Idle males who don't/can't find a partner end up acting out. If you're talking about men higher up the IQ or socioeconomic ladder, then sure they might find happiness or value in life outside of marriage/child-rearing. We encourage people to put off children at our own risk. Edit: This is the paper [1]. The finding: "Gender is a well-established individual-level correlate of crime, and especially violent crime (50). It is a consistent finding across cultures that an overwhelming percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by young, unmarried, low-status males (50–52)." [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/
  - cmahler7 9y ago
    >Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. Marriage limits a man to one women, IVF would allow one man to impregnate essentially infinite women and other factors like personality wouldn't factor into the OPs nearly anonymous genetic propositioning. >This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" Yes, look into the studies on young men in the US and Japan who are coasting because they see no reason to work hard. They have video games and are happy. The alternative to apathy is violence. Neither is good for society, apathy leads to lack of progress and violence destroys society https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-threatening-global-stability/ https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-t...

by dr_ 9y ago

cmahler7 9y ago

Your method would destroy society. Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits, leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. I'm agnostic but I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. People are different colors, genders, etc but religion can be used to bind it together.

washadjeffmad 9y ago
You're conflating your personal experience with modern courtship and kinship rituals in a particular society with some sort of universality of human nature. That's a nice way of saying you're wrong. You and all other humans exist because of what you say you believe would "destroy society". Sex wasn't even associated with pregnancy, let alone progeny until fairly recent history. There are existing kinship models where the "husband" is the father of all of his wives' children, even if he's 80 years old and has ED. Native American courtship rituals placed women in control of their relationships with multiple partners. There's more than one way, and humans have done them all for millennia. The fact that US vernacular doesn't have common terms to distinguish between the people who raise you (your parents) and the people whose genes you posses (your genitor/genetrix) speaks volumes about it's dimness in the face of modern understanding. Just because you don't think you or the other products of your society could handle it doesn't mean an entire species is de facto incapable.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  >You're conflating your personal experience with modern courtship and kinship rituals in a particular society with some sort of universality of human nature. That's a nice way of saying you're wrong. Except his personal experience seems to map onto the general history of the emergence of marriage in society as a useful social technology to do exactly what he says: take males out of competition for mates and put them to use for society so their kids don't starve. >Sex wasn't even associated with pregnancy, let alone progeny until fairly recent history. This is not true in the slightest. Even the iconography of sex throughout ancient history explicitly links sex to pregnancy. We started domesticating animals at least ~15,000 years ago. We did not "recently" discover this unless I'm misunderstanding your time horizon. >The fact that US vernacular doesn't have common terms to distinguish between the people who raise you (your parents) and the people whose genes you posses (your genitor/genetrix) speaks volumes about it's dimness in the face of modern understanding. What is "modern understanding?" That your biological parents don't matter? As others have pointed out, if you want to accelerate societal collapse that's the fastest way to do it.
- cmahler7 9y ago
  The reality is our brains are built on hardware hundreds of millions of years old. It would be nice if we could build a perfect world but until we can genetically modify ourselves we are stuck with it and all the biases and instincts associated with it. Our strongest instinct is to procreate, social conditioning can't stop that.
Bbowen100 9y ago
>Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits. Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. >...leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" >Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. Uhh I guess, sure I can concede that. >I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. I am also agnostic and I agree that religion is important however not for the same reason you do. Yes religions bind societies but only to a certain extent and for only so long. See the conflicts between early Christians and Jews, or the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Or current extremist Muslims, hell extremists of every religion. As much as religion binds people together it even more so tears people apart.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  >Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. Because if you're not passing on your genes, who cares. One of the best historical indicators of more violence or unrest in a society is a gender imbalance. Idle males who don't/can't find a partner end up acting out. If you're talking about men higher up the IQ or socioeconomic ladder, then sure they might find happiness or value in life outside of marriage/child-rearing. We encourage people to put off children at our own risk. Edit: This is the paper [1]. The finding: "Gender is a well-established individual-level correlate of crime, and especially violent crime (50). It is a consistent finding across cultures that an overwhelming percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by young, unmarried, low-status males (50–52)." [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/
- cmahler7 9y ago
  >Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. Marriage limits a man to one women, IVF would allow one man to impregnate essentially infinite women and other factors like personality wouldn't factor into the OPs nearly anonymous genetic propositioning. >This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" Yes, look into the studies on young men in the US and Japan who are coasting because they see no reason to work hard. They have video games and are happy. The alternative to apathy is violence. Neither is good for society, apathy leads to lack of progress and violence destroys society https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-threatening-global-stability/ https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-t...