Re: Article: Men Choose Romance Over Success
- On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:14:25PM -0400, Julienne wrote:
> In the past, if you were the mother of ten children,Yes you would be dead. A large percentage of women died at childbirth. Even if you didn't, life expectancy in 16-17th century Europe was around 38. But that's irrelevant. If you want 2 adult offspring you will need to have to bear at least 5-6 children. In fact, that's the reason why even now, many families have too many children. The instinct to have a lot of children evolved at a time when infant mortality was very high.
> the odds were good that you were also dead. And anyone
> who has ten children cannot possibly be a better mother -
> she is an exhausted wreck and the kids lack a lot.
This one of the reasons why I was against Edgar's: 'become successful later in life and then get female' theory. Life was so fraught with risks in the past that the only adaptive instinct is: "Have children as soon as possible". That's why even men attach significance to relationships over success. There is no guarantee that you will be successful later, or even if you somehow managed to achieve the impossible, that you will be alive to take advantage of the said success.
Present human behavior is irrationally short-term. Boys ruining their life over peer pressure in college, or men engaging in pointless and profitless physical risk taking. These strategies evolved in a time when life was short, and the only solution would be to have children fast.
>Ideal for the child. Isn't that obvious?
> > Of course, the ideal mother would be one who marries a rich but dull guy
> >and then has affair with a genetically superior guy.
> Ideal for whom?
> The ideal mother is one who wants children, only > has as many as she can manage, and is well supported > by the community.How would you feel if you mother married a guy with genetic disease and you inherited it. Of course, human beings lack the ability to think outside of the box, and so they might still be proud. Eugenics, at least to me, is a question of child rights vs parents right.
::: Children's right to be born fit into a wealthy caring family, which would allow them to be successful in life.
::: Or parent's right to have children, no matter how unfit they are for the purpose.
At present society seem to be on the side of the Parents, but I am not sure that's even ethical.
- Veblen was an "economist" (what we today would call a
"literary economist") the kind of an economist like
Marx and Adam Smith.
His writings on academia should be required reading.
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> "Veblen told the truth to people who basically intellectually eradicated him<Snip>
> while claiming to tell the truth." Even IF this were true-he actually died
> of natural causes (not eradication) in his 70s, he freely published and
> taught his truths to his last days (without eradication) and his works
> survive his death (avoiding eradication)-it changes the subject from the
> 'glass houses' questions.
> * Who cashed more 'intellectual welfare' checks than Veblen? What job
>> did he have outside useless idle academia and the patron funded,
>> civilization saving nattering class did Veblen hold from which to cast
>> aspersions at idle academics, the whole useless educational system and
>> his own patrons?
> If Humanities and Arts are 'intellectual welfare' kings and queens? Would
> Veblen not be an 'intellectual welfare' baron or duke? On what basis is his
> ivory tower to be accepted as actually and validly higher enough to look
> down upon the ivory towers of Humanities, Arts and Academia?