4 ms·
How about we generalize a different way: how many successful societies can you name, that became successful while pushing single-parent child rearing?
by asguy 5y ago
How about we generalize a different way: how many successful societies can you name, that became successful while pushing single-parent child rearing?
- williamdclt 5y agoYou implicitely changed the criteria though: you went from the "ideal family", which is very vague but I would understand as "a family where the members are happy in their lives", to "a family model that makes a society successful". Optimising for the individual's happiness or for society "success" conceivably yields different family models.
- User23 5y agoIt’s a bit of a brutalization of the concept of ideal to reduce it to mere happiness. The junkie on his way to a fentanyl overdose may very well be happy, but nobody who is honest and not evil would hold it up as an ideal life. It’s pretty obvious that an ideal has to account for externalities to be much of one.
- borski 5y agoBut “success” is a fleeting metric, is the point. In your meth use example, the addiction and codependency are due to a physical dependency. Child-rearing is a choice, not a physical addiction. Can’t compare apples and oranges. Happiness is measured in happiness. We can also measure health. But “success” is too subjective to matter as a useful metric.
- asguy 5y ago> You implicitely changed the criteria though: you went from the "ideal family", [...] to "a family model that makes a society successful". You're staring at the finger, when I'm talking about the moon. [1] I didn't change the criteria, because I don't actually care about the original argument. The person complaining about generalizing is missing the fact that "generally" certain things apply to a general population, and certain things don't. In general, a population gets big enough by being successful. So those certain things that bring success, apply. [1] - https://youtu.be/LH1GFaw09hk?t=74 https://youtu.be/LH1GFaw09hk?t=74