Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 indi…
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…
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?