5 ms·

It's all about the social contract. Which is largely culturally dependent. Society may have never cared about young men, but (as someone else said here) the old

It's all about the social contract. Which is largely culturally dependent. Society may have never cared about young men, but (as someone else said here) the old contract with men here was build and fight wars and monogamy is enforced most will get the opportunity to raise their own family. As I get older I realize that evolution is less about me and my DNA and more about the cultural DNA of civilization. There's individual nature, there's cultural nurture, and they combine at scale to create what we call civilization. Man may be a magnificent machine, but that pales in comparison to the complexities and intricacies of civilization as a whole. I marvel that every ~80 years the entire planet is simply handed to and managed by a whole new group of humans. Not just that, but the transition is handled with almost seamless continuity. It boggles the mind. What is civilization as a whole? Merely a bunch of different cultures, competing for resources to breed, and passing on different values to their offspring, and combining with other cultures to form new combinations and mutations. I believe in survival of the fittest culture is what drives civilization. Few cultures are successful, and those that are don't stay that way forever. Turning the pages of history we see great cultures rise and fall. The best parts of our culture will be absorbed by others, some will be lost to time. It's not a question of "will the west fall?" it's a question of "when and how will the west fall?". The times are a changin'. They've always been a changin'. Ascribing to this worldview, I posit that the cultures that are the most fit long term are the ones that have the best/happiest productive outcome for everyone across society, and encourage/reward breeding and family building to ensure continuity. If true, then cultures that don't value productive young men (and women!) will find themselves conquered or outbred by those that do. As someone mentioned here, Ukraine is going to stand or fall on the backs of it's young soldiers. We are watching the turning of history. edit: I'm not saying only men need to be valued, but that the cultural value of men is what is being discussed here. The rise and fall of cultures is a good thing for civilization on the whole. DNA doesn't care about your happiness, it just wants to make more humans. Happiness has to be pursued on your own time. It was never really about us to begin with.

xg15 4y ago
Yeah no, that's social darwinism. If you follow that logic through, then only the ultra-conservative cultures that turn women into breeding machines and then relentlessly indoctrinate the next generation to do the same have a chance to survive. I also don't quite get what exactly you're criticizing. Life has become too easy, which somehow in turn makes life unbearably hard for young men, so they rightfully escape and play videogames? And therefore we should all return to the good old times where a man could seek glory and purpose in war and then (of course) return home to his everloving wife and their 15 children?
- lordfrito 4y ago
  I'm for sure not criticizing Social Darwinism, just making an observation that those forces are at work here and will eventually judge the fitness of the cultural changes we're making. I do think that the western version of extreme individualism and sexual liberation has led to a fracturing of our American/western family structure. Combined with great abundance which has enabled us to transition from a culture that places value long term stability to one that values immediate gratification. If we don't look deeper than surface level, there seem to be few downsides. But, as data like this shows, the cracks/fractures underneath things are getting larger and harder to ignore. We thought this social change was all upside, no downside. Turns out you can't have your cake and eat it too. There was a time when the average man needed to have a stable job to get an average woman's attention and eventually start a family. That leveled the playfield for young men, and incentivized most of them to help build things, fight wars, and start families. In the past average joe 5/10 stood a decent chance at a decent life. In our current era of selfishness, playing by the rules doesn't guarantee life or mating success. So many average joes prefer escaping into video games and generally checking-out, epidemic of fatherlessness, etc. When in Rome. I do worry that these may be all signs of irreversible western decline, which is not so much a tragedy for me, but is for my children and soon to be grandchildren. I wanted something better for them, but sometimes it feels like we just got something better for ourselves. Lastly, to your point about the fitness of ultra-conservative cultures. Listen, I'm not judging rightness or wrongness here, it's evolution judging based merely on cultural fitness criteria. And you brought it up. Evolutionarily speaking there must be some beneficial mechanism enabling conservative cultures to persist/persevere after all of these millennia. I believe its because it ensures relatively maximal breeding odds spread out amongst largest population, combined with social stability and continuity. And I agree it's can be downright terrible for many people living in it! But it's not about them, it's about survival of the fittest culture. DNA does not care if you are happy, only that it spreads. And at least its better than Spartacism and other brutal ancient cultures that have thankfully died out. Turns out there are worse forms of ultra-conservatism. Please don't take this as me approving of ultra-conservatism, it's evolution doing the judging here and I'm just reporting the facts as I see them. When confronted with data like this, I feel we should all be asking is "Are the cultural changes we are making going to ensure the survival of our culture for our children and our children's children?". Or are we pursuing a cultural dead end (and the chaos that brings) like so many civilizations before us? Ultimately with all the ups and downs I still feel my life is a success story. But I do sense a general cultural decline that suggests my offspring won't have the same opportunities for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that I did. And that really bothers me. That's my criticism I guess. My son said it best, lately it's everyone for themselves. So why waste energy looking out for your fellow citizens who most certainly aren't looking out for you?

xg15 4y ago

Yeah no, that's social darwinism. If you follow that logic through, then only the ultra-conservative cultures that turn women into breeding machines and then relentlessly indoctrinate the next generation to do the same have a chance to survive. I also don't quite get what exactly you're criticizing. Life has become too easy, which somehow in turn makes life unbearably hard for young men, so they rightfully escape and play videogames? And therefore we should all return to the good old times where a man could seek glory and purpose in war and then (of course) return home to his everloving wife and their 15 children?

lordfrito 4y ago
I'm for sure not criticizing Social Darwinism, just making an observation that those forces are at work here and will eventually judge the fitness of the cultural changes we're making. I do think that the western version of extreme individualism and sexual liberation has led to a fracturing of our American/western family structure. Combined with great abundance which has enabled us to transition from a culture that places value long term stability to one that values immediate gratification. If we don't look deeper than surface level, there seem to be few downsides. But, as data like this shows, the cracks/fractures underneath things are getting larger and harder to ignore. We thought this social change was all upside, no downside. Turns out you can't have your cake and eat it too. There was a time when the average man needed to have a stable job to get an average woman's attention and eventually start a family. That leveled the playfield for young men, and incentivized most of them to help build things, fight wars, and start families. In the past average joe 5/10 stood a decent chance at a decent life. In our current era of selfishness, playing by the rules doesn't guarantee life or mating success. So many average joes prefer escaping into video games and generally checking-out, epidemic of fatherlessness, etc. When in Rome. I do worry that these may be all signs of irreversible western decline, which is not so much a tragedy for me, but is for my children and soon to be grandchildren. I wanted something better for them, but sometimes it feels like we just got something better for ourselves. Lastly, to your point about the fitness of ultra-conservative cultures. Listen, I'm not judging rightness or wrongness here, it's evolution judging based merely on cultural fitness criteria. And you brought it up. Evolutionarily speaking there must be some beneficial mechanism enabling conservative cultures to persist/persevere after all of these millennia. I believe its because it ensures relatively maximal breeding odds spread out amongst largest population, combined with social stability and continuity. And I agree it's can be downright terrible for many people living in it! But it's not about them, it's about survival of the fittest culture. DNA does not care if you are happy, only that it spreads. And at least its better than Spartacism and other brutal ancient cultures that have thankfully died out. Turns out there are worse forms of ultra-conservatism. Please don't take this as me approving of ultra-conservatism, it's evolution doing the judging here and I'm just reporting the facts as I see them. When confronted with data like this, I feel we should all be asking is "Are the cultural changes we are making going to ensure the survival of our culture for our children and our children's children?". Or are we pursuing a cultural dead end (and the chaos that brings) like so many civilizations before us? Ultimately with all the ups and downs I still feel my life is a success story. But I do sense a general cultural decline that suggests my offspring won't have the same opportunities for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that I did. And that really bothers me. That's my criticism I guess. My son said it best, lately it's everyone for themselves. So why waste energy looking out for your fellow citizens who most certainly aren't looking out for you?