Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...
In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.
But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.
Ergo, gender roles break down.
Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.
The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.
With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.
They are, through migrants..The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?
Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.
Is that happening?
Life is change. American culture is always changing.
Not the type of change Europe is going to see.
America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.
America has better quality immigrants, in my opinion.
Keep Hollywood and Nashville kicking out the fads..They are, through migrants..
Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?
Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.
Is that happening?
Life is change. American culture is always changing.
Not the type of change Europe is going to see.
America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.
America has better quality immigrants, in my opinion.
The question is how long can we keep the assimilation process up?
Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.
In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.
But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.
Ergo, gender roles break down.
Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.
The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.
With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.
Well people better figure out that the utility is in continuing concepts and beliefs on a certain way of life, or all the "symptoms" go away when less enlightened immigrants make up more and more of the population.
They are, through migrants..
Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?
Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.
Is that happening?
Life is change. American culture is always changing.
Not the type of change Europe is going to see.
America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.
America has better quality immigrants, in my opinion.
The question is how long can we keep the assimilation process up?
True. You can't beat those Mexican gangs.The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.
With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.
Well people better figure out that the utility is in continuing concepts and beliefs on a certain way of life, or all the "symptoms" go away when less enlightened immigrants make up more and more of the population.
All and all our immigrants are top shelf. Of all the immigrant populations in the world.
True. You can't beat those Mexican gangs.Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.
With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.
Well people better figure out that the utility is in continuing concepts and beliefs on a certain way of life, or all the "symptoms" go away when less enlightened immigrants make up more and more of the population.
All and all our immigrants are top shelf. Of all the immigrant populations in the world.
True. You can't beat those Mexican gangs.We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.
With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.
Well people better figure out that the utility is in continuing concepts and beliefs on a certain way of life, or all the "symptoms" go away when less enlightened immigrants make up more and more of the population.
All and all our immigrants are top shelf. Of all the immigrant populations in the world.
There are gangs in every population. Our immigrants are generally hard working, family oriented, fiscally responsible, deeply Christian, and fiercely entrepreneurial. Plus they generally speak a language with a shit load of English cognates.
Of every major immigrant population in the world, is there one better?
True. You can't beat those Mexican gangs.Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.
With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.
Well people better figure out that the utility is in continuing concepts and beliefs on a certain way of life, or all the "symptoms" go away when less enlightened immigrants make up more and more of the population.
All and all our immigrants are top shelf. Of all the immigrant populations in the world.
There are gangs in every population. Our immigrants are generally hard working, family oriented, fiscally responsible, deeply Christian, and fiercely entrepreneurial. Plus they generally speak a language with a shit load of English cognates.
Of every major immigrant population in the world, is there one better?
Our immigrants are insular, reject everything American and generally think of Americans as worthy of victimizatiin.
The kids of immigrants are legally Americans. Culturally they remain whatever their parents are.
Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.
In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.
But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.
Ergo, gender roles break down.
Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.
The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.
And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?
Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.
In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.
But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.
Ergo, gender roles break down.
Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.
The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.
And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?
The kids of immigrants are legally Americans. Culturally they remain whatever their parents are. Families take pains to make sure that their children don't lose their cultural identity. If families can afford it, they periodically send children home for a booster. The times have changed.
They are, through migrants..The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?
Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.
Is that happening?
Life is change. American culture is always changing.
Not the type of change Europe is going to see.
America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.
America has better quality immigrants, in my opinion.
They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.
It's worse now because of the sudden fight against cultural appropriation. No longer can young people explore other cultures. It's harder to make friends outside of a cultural circle. It wasn't even that long ago I saw a Korean high school girl go with an Indian friend to get her hands hennaed. That wouldn't happen today. That Korean girl wouldn't be speaking to the Indian girl.
The impetus is separation and segregation.
Conservative, how? I look around me and see tribalism that will eventually war with the other tribes. There's nothing holding these diverse groupings together. They despise one another. They just hate Americans more. All it would take is one widespread mass disaster. The cities will split apart like a dropped watermelon.Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...
In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.
But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.
Ergo, gender roles break down.
Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.
The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.
And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...
In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.
But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.
Ergo, gender roles break down.
Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.
The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.
Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.
Utility is the driver in most cases.
We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.
Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.
We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.
Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.
And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?
I've felt for many years the near future is likely to be more conservative around the world.
The white European population is shrinking, certainly the liberal population is. The same thing on this continent.
The replacements will be much less progressive.
They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.
San Francisco? I don't believe a word of it.They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.
No, I just interact with them on a daily basis. And they're American. Culturally and otherwise.
Most children of immigrants don't have time to 'carefully preserve their culture'. They're working 2 and 3 jobs to eat. And its the lack of time to study English that isolates the parents. Their kids aren't isolated as they generally have native fluency. So their world is far, far larger.
