71–80 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in Ancient Rome (for example) were into all those types of things way more than the society I live in now. Don't really see the connection. Are Earthquakes truly more common now?
I had a look at the Wikipedia page and it turns out that this age of sin started around 3000 BC and will last another 426,000 years give or take a few centuries . So, conveniently it encompasses all known history and imaginable future of our civilization
The family being the only remaining non-transactional long-term social construct in moden society, it is not surprising that both marriage and child bearing are anachronistic and have been falling for the past decades. Eventually, a combination of surrogate childbirth (and perhaps evetually 'true' SF-style in-vitro bottle babies) and professional parenting, either private or State-sponsored, will be the primary way t…
I disagree with the assertion that family was ever non-transactional. Even the ways families begin, either through monogamous marriage or wedlock, require that one person select (or be arranged to accept) one partner with which to copulate. People engage in a transitional analysis anytime they ask themselves "is it worth it?". And that's more often then you seem to imply. Aside from that, I agree that Huxley was righ…
Without that unpaid, keen, trustworthy workforce, raising children is much, much harder. You either have to rely on paid (very expensive), and variably-trustworthy professional childcare, or put something like 50-60 hours a week of childcare. I'm talking about everything other than normal working hours, where typically children are at school or nursery etc.
Soo... this extra pressure is enough I think to bust a marriage with children (it seems that parental separation rates are increasing, with or without marriage), or to put couples off having them in the first place - in which case the utility of a marriage in a secular world is much lower. In the UK for instance, next to none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>no practical upside There's tax incentives and you become each other's medical proxy, among other things. >high financial cost The paperwork is cheap. Weddings are as expensive as you make them. >absurd legal risk That's true, divorces are expensive.
If you're speaking about the United States's the (relatively small) tax gains, they only become advantageous for a marriage between a stay at a non-earning stay at home spouse and a high-earning breadwinner. Any other paring creates a tax penalty.
As expected, the article says nothing of single-parent households. It mentions the black people that don't get married being disadvantaged but fails to mention that a majority of black children are raised in single-parent households. Do you think that not getting rewarded for being unmarried is more of a problem than children being raised in a single-parent household?
Now that I say it though, divorces are such major trauma that perhaps the tail risk counterbalances that benefit. I guess still not, but it's less clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is historically far and away most common social structure around the world, although obviously there is a vast amount of variety.
Monogamous for whom? Muslims hardly revere monogamy, though they draw the line at tetragamy for most.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the human beings will declare themselves as gods or boon given by gods and make it as a business instead of teachings. I mean that is a perfect description of LinkedIn and Instagram to some extent.
You could apply something generic like that to all kinds of things. It's like a horoscope. Like, think about what it's saying: "people will be full of themselves". Do you really think this is the first time in history people have thought that about others?
You can apply that to your statement too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eventually western countries will be taken over by Muslims and non white Christians and we will have normal social structures again. This is not a pejorative. As an immigrant, I think this will be great.
> we will have normal social structures again. Does this basically translate to, "we'll judge the shit out of any non-traditional family again"?
You can argue whether it's good or bad. Natural selection has no moral value attached to it. It's a simple matter of survival.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is historically far and away most common social structure around the world, although obviously there is a vast amount of variety.
Monogamous for whom? Muslims hardly revere monogamy, though they draw the line at tetragamy for most.