What Is a Minimally Good Life?

Post by jahaja » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #159

jahaja wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You usually really like to use Scandinavian countries in your arguments but "somehow" you miss out on doing so now since they blatantly disproves your point in this argument.

I don’t see how it disproves anything: https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2020/WHR20.pdf . The United States is among the top 20 happiest countries in the world, happier than France, Spain, or Italy. Seeing as how the US is always portrayed as a dystopian hellhole with no income security, no healthcare, etc., and certainly France, Spain, and Italy fare better on those metrics, that would imply that something,…

At least like 5 of the top 10 countries in that report are also among the least religious countries in the world.

Post by salkdlskajd » Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 9:06 AM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #34

randomsearch wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremely controversial. Could we not also blame men for competing for the attention of the most attractive women, who then in turn can demand more resources? I do think we attack men for being shallow more often than we attack women for being materialistic. The latter doesn’t get as much attention or critique, eg wanting a bigger house or label fashion is often seen as aspirational and positive; wanting a more attra…

> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Two reasons. First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun. Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their…

Flitting between mates is evolutionarily very costly. In nature, the new male will usually kill the existing children. Infanticide rules most social species, it's the number one consideration in mating behavior, and the human incubation period is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than average.

Red pill psychology conspicuously fails to mention, account for or even notice this in their model of hypergamy. They're clueless, I would be wary of taking them seriously.

Here's another hypothesis they fail to account for: what looks like hypergamy & "branch swinging" may actually be an evolutionary defense against pairing with a man who's infertile. "No kids after 18 months? Shit."

I don't think that's right either, because people stay in love for a long time without having children and that theory would outright preclude that kind of thing from happening. In fact that's in my opinion the biggest evolutionary mystery out there and calls into question a large chunk of evo psych. But you get my point.

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?

Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?