you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Very much agree. Im not sure increased automation is just going to lead to tons of leisure and robot servants because we will still all compete like mad against each other as evolution is constantly driving us to do. But I think we can establish a regime in which the economic information is true and the rules of the game are clear and enforced.

I basically think sending all women into the workforce was a great way to cut wages by 50%, which is great for corporations and politicians and not very good for american families. That was a disaster.

I agree we have to starve the government of tax money. Not only would I cut all government spending by 90%, I would outlaw health insurance and malpractice civil suits. And I would cut off all gov funding to schools and universities.

And I suppose I would impose massive protectionist regimes on trade and basically ensure most manufacturing was done here, not china.

It would be lovely if we could create a commodity backed currency. We need to eliminate inflation, thats bullshit.

[–]AnarchySpeach 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Im not sure increased automation is just going to lead to tons of leisure

If there was a way for me to continue to eat the food I liked, live in the house I want, with heat, air conditioning, running water, and internet, I wouldn't be working right now. I'd be relaxing. Who knows, maybe I would eventually get bored of not being tired and in constant panic, but until that day comes, I'd prefer not working.

I basically think sending all women into the workforce

No way to avoid it. They've got to go somewhere. Locking them them all in a house forever isn't a long term solution.

A simple solution would be to change custody laws. If a woman gets divorced she's got a 99% of keeping the child... when she's suddenly lost the ability to financially support it. This makes no sense. The backwards solution of taking money from the father, who does have a job (in this example), as a punishment for... what, exactly? Why are we punishing the guy for this? I've been told, "Well, he's going to be too busy working to take care of the kid." but somehow the mother will be able to despite still being financially dependent on the guy. Or if the guy dies or refuses, the money still appears out of thin air via the magic of taxes.

The government rewards divorce. It boggles my mind.

Stop letting the wife keep the kid by default. Make the father the default instead. Watch divorce rates fall like fucking magic.

Edit: I never said dad's are better at taking care of kids. All I'm saying is that it would reduce divorce rates, increase the average wage, and increase birth rates in western society. Sounds like a better idea than what we currently have.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Lel. Watch the child death rates rise like magic too. Men generally have different methods of childcare. Sure, there's lots of situations where Dad might be better off taking care of the kids, but do you think that's generally the case?

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah men are not good primary care takers of small children. You can see the difference around the playground. They arent usually as attentive. Females are evolved very specifically to keep babies alive, they are cognitively predisposed to that task. Male talents for strategy or aggression or ingenuity come at a price— there seems to be a trade-off cognitively for special abilities.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

[–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The problem with your leisure theory is that as soon as people begin to largely satisfy a common need throughout society, like hunger or housing or heat or internet, then they turn to some new scarce resource and say,” hey that guys got a space ship. Why dont I gotta space ship!”

We are never satisfied and alway competing because its evolution. Look at “poor” people today. Driving nice cars and spending $1000 a month on hair weaves and fake nails. And spring break in Miami Beach. They’re poor because they have less than some other people.

I think we just have to end all divorce except for extreme cases of abuse. Let people separate if they want. No divorce. No shacking up with someone else. Put people in jail for adultery. We used to do it before. Here me out

Divorce and out of wedlock sex amount to the same thing, polygamy. Polygamy breeds for certain traits in men and women. Higher violence, higher disparity of wealth, lower status of women, lower economic prosperity. All these traits begin to be favored genetically within a population who practices polygamy over many generations. You see these traits in many totally unrelated populations that practice polygamy. When high status males with agressive strategies can hoard more than one female, they propagate agressive genes.

Monogamy was system that some groups adopted but not others. It leads to higher male co-operation, lower male on male violence, more attentive fathers, etc. These behaviors become genetic.

If you like the way European men generally behave— e.g. Lower violence, less rape, chivalry, jobs, etc.— realize it was bred into them through a monogamous regime over thousands of years and the longer europeans live in the current polygamous regime, the less europeans will act like europeans. Weve got to go back to strict monogamy imo.

Women evolved to do a job. That job is birthing and raising children. They are not doing it as much anymore, and when they are doing it, they are doing a crappier job of it. We are now essentially letting the public schools raise children instead of moms, and it is resulting in bad people.

Nobody is saying lock women up in the house. Im saying most women in society need to return to the duty of birthing and raising kids. This is reaching crisis level proportions.

We dont need more bureaucrats. Most women are just working in the bureacracy anyway in bs jobs. We dont need more social workers, or school administrators or councillors, or clerical workers. We need parents to raise kids.

We like to think we have a lot of choice in this stuff but its all pre-programmed through evolution. Understand how the mechanisms of evolution work and you can engineer a better society, or at least the society you think is better. I dont really like rape, violence, and corruption, but thats my bias.

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let people separate if they want. No divorce. No shacking up with someone else.

Not only is this unenforceable in western society, the amount of prisons we would need to build would be astronomical. Removing tons of women from the population, through incarceration or other methods to prevent social interaction, also leads to serious birth rate problems.

Put people in jail for adultery. We used to do it before.

This I agree with. Sort of. No amount of fines or monetary punishment is going to get the message across. If someone willingly signs a contract, legally marries a person, only to break that deal without divorcing them, then I think jail time is a valid strategy. They broke something worse than the law. They broke an oath. They need a time-out to think about how wrong their actions were.