6 ms·
It's simple. Really simple. Just dirt simple. Not all of Mother Nature is so complicated. Did I mention it's simple? Look, guys and gals, there's some quit
by graycat 13y ago
It's simple. Really simple. Just
dirt simple. Not all of Mother Nature
is so complicated. Did I mention it's
simple?
Look, guys and gals, there's some quite
good evidence that the genes of people
of descent in Western Europe, Russia,
and East Asia are essentially the same
as the genes that were successful, say,
10,000 years ago although we could likely
push that back to 25,000 years ago.
So, think was tribal or village life was
like, say, beside a river in Europe
10,000 years ago. Right: The women
gathered together and tended to the
children, prepared food, and made
clothing. The men and the boys old
enough did men things, hunting, tool
making, building, and fighting.
The talents of men for those men things
led to more tools, fire, wheels,
metals, ..., Windows 7, and these things
enormously changed the economy and
culture, built by men in ways convenient
for men, wildly different from what the
women did 10,000 years ago and not so
convenient for women. E.g., a single
women or a woman in a suburban house
with 2-3 kids is in a very different
situation, especially for woman, than
the women in the tribe/village 10,000
years ago.
In simple terms, the women were happier
with their lives 10,000 years ago, assuming
there were no problems with disease, injury,
hygiene, food, child birth, etc.
Then, women of 35, sorry: You are too late
to the game. Way, Way, Way too late. How
much too late? At least 15 years, more like
20 years, and for a really good answer on
when to start looking for a husband, let
me be clear (assuming good nutrition and
rate of maturation) 22 years. Right:
Congratulations on your abilities at
arithmetic, 10,000 years ago you would
have been looking for a husband at age
13 or so and getting married at age
14-16. Did I mention that you are late?
There's more from the side of the men:
He wants her cute, sweet, pretty, precious, darling,
adorable, something to cherish and protect.
How to know? Easy: Look at the faces. Hmm?
Right. Look at the faces of human females over
the years starting at age 1. There they elicit
their support from Daddy, uncles, etc. with
their faces, facial expressions, and expressions
of endearing emotions. That's just how it works.
And (simple argument) that's how it worked
10,000 years ago (proof left as an exercise).
Then look at the faces over the years. Notice
something? Right: At age 10 with some work
on hair style and makeup, she can look 17.
Or, to be more clear, a young women of 17
still tries to look like an endearing
10. And even more so for a young woman of
13-16. Why? Endearing. She's not trying
to be independent, autonomous, self-sufficient,
and equal, crashing through glass ceilings,
adopting and hiring a nanny, etc. Instead
she's trying to be endearing, cute, sweet,
meek, darling, adorable, precious, to be
cherished, protected, and cared for by her
husband as she has babies.
But, woman of 35, on endearing, etc., you
just don't ring his bell, just don't
arouse his protective, caring emotions,
are way, Way out of the game. Any pretty
girl of 14 can totally blow you off the
field of competition.
The way of the world. And the result?
Right: In the more developed societies
the average number of children per
woman is significantly under 2.1. E.g.,
in Finland it's 1.5 which means that in
10 generations 30 Finns will become 1.
We're going extinct, literally, quickly.
Why? It's not nice to try to fool
Mother Nature.
The way of the world. That's just how
it works and has worked for at least
10,000 years. That's how it worked
for all the woman you descended from
for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.
So, go back to 13, and let's try again,
if you can find a way to do that.
Today 13? Right: She has to (1) find
him, (2) get into boy/girlfriend with
him, (3) go steady or some such with him,
(4) get a diamond, (5) get married, all
by about age 17-19. E.g., Lady Di decided
at 15 that she wanted to catch Prince
Charles, and she did, married him at
age 20. Age 25, 35, etc. to start to be looking
for him? You gotta be kidding! Uh,
honey, there are sperm banks -- check one
out!
Wish I'd known this, this clearly, when
I was 15. Very much wish that.
"Marriage is about offspring, security,
and care taking." -- extra credit for
knowing the source!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mtrimpe 13y agoYou seem to be forgetting the part where we've moved to a knowledge worker's society in which men's physiological differences no longer make him inherently more fit as a provider. That is what has lead to a massive shift in gender roles over the past half century. It has had it's fair share of casualties due to maladjustment on both sides. One specific group of casualties just happens to be highlighted in this article.
- PeterisP 13y agoYou may care about how a knowledge worker's society has changed the inherent fitness and gender roles - but all your built-in mechanisms that judge attractiveness of potential mates, evaluate beauty and cause warm fuzzies or disgust - they don't care, and they haven't changed since that time. Mating is a core activity of any lifeform, and our actual behavior preferences for that aren't really chosen by the rational part of your brain, but heavily influenced by much more direct chemistry. If in a future society 100 year old eunuchs with purple skin would be the super-best-fit for life companionship, 30-year old men would still rather feel attracted to 20-year old women unless they're genetically altered.
- graycat 13y agoI didn't mention "physiological differences", say, taller, stronger. I did emphasize tool making. I should also have mentioned team formation for hunting, building, and fighting. E.g., hunting is not nearly all size and strength but heavily understanding how to locate and kill the prey. And if the hunting is with a team, then need to be good at forming teams. So, the women were back in the village concentrating on child care, food, and clothing, and the men were generating fire, tools, wheels, things made of bone, wood, and stone, making progress with metals, ..., a server farm with 20,000 computers. That was men's work, done by men, in ways convenient for men, that used talents of men, apparently from hunting, tool making, team formation, and fighting, that changed the economy, government, and societies. Alas, women mostly didn't participate and mostly still don't. Look, there's a recent study about boys and girls shortly after birth. The girls are working on communicating with adults, especially about how they feel, mostly with facial expressions. The boys are looking at the construction of the crib, trying to figure out how the latch works, and wanting to write C++ code to control the toy fire engine on the floor! That's right from birth. The boys care about things, tools, strategy, etc., and the girls care about eliciting support from people. That's just the way it is. In simple terms, the girls have plenty of strength for most tool making and for team formation, but mostly they just didn't and don't do it. That's just not what girls are interested in, and there's little promise they will be interested during our knowledge worker society. Girls don't want to think about tricky algorithms; some girls actually can, but still they don't want to. They just don't. "Fools give you reasons; wise men never try." What girls want to do is to gossip as a way to be a member of a group of girls and to attract boys. They like to be asked to do things so that when they do them they can get praise, acceptance, approval, and emotional security.