In my last piece I assailed the ideology-ridden nonsense purveyed by one Chelsea Conaboy with which the New York Times saw fit to afflict its readers. Typical of anti-science feminism, the piece holds that parental behavior among women is strictly a social construct imposed on female humans by a sinister Patriarchy whose goal is the oppression of women and girls. That science everywhere contradicts such absurdity went unmentioned by Conaboy who either hasn’t read it or is so intellectually dishonest that she pretends it doesn’t exist. The Times editors should be ashamed, but somehow, I doubt they are.
The problem is with the extremely long unproductive, un-reproductive years of homo sapiens. He/she needs 11-13 years to grow to puberty and reproduce, in terms of "life history theory": The investment into reproduction in humans is immense, and it is very long-term and very risky (that is why humans used to built "culture" around it). Modern States don´t think long term any longer, they pretend to care about "sustainability in the Amazonas", but they do not really care about anything after the second legislation period - namely how to biologically reproduce their society. In Darwinian terms (and time lapses): Our modern social model is not competitive, we "die ourselves out" in an incredibly short time, thanks to our obsession with production (and not: re-production). T h i s is why "patriarchy/capitalism" is not working, it does not provide incentives and infrastructure for men and women (yes: men reproduce their genes as well!) to biologically reproduce. Instead, it focuses on work and taxes, because that is what keeps the political machine running: taking from the better performing sections, giving it to constructed majorities of voters (women, gays, migrants, elderly). The long-term effects are already irreversible, the future will be less intelligent (the system installs an inverse relationship of reproduction and intelligence - the smarter, the less kids) and blacker (Africa is the only growing continent). Can't outsmart reality, I am afraid! Not reproducing (amid an environment that has materially never been more favorable) is the Darwinian, irreversible Super-GAU. That explains the rhetorical hystericisms of the NYT and their allies.
The problem is with the extremely long unproductive, un-reproductive years of homo sapiens. He/she needs 11-13 years to grow to puberty and reproduce, in terms of "life history theory": The investment into reproduction in humans is immense, and it is very long-term and very risky (that is why humans used to built "culture" around it). Modern States don´t think long term any longer, they pretend to care about "sustainability in the Amazonas", but they do not really care about anything after the second legislation period - namely how to biologically reproduce their society. In Darwinian terms (and time lapses): Our modern social model is not competitive, we "die ourselves out" in an incredibly short time, thanks to our obsession with production (and not: re-production). T h i s is why "patriarchy/capitalism" is not working, it does not provide incentives and infrastructure for men and women (yes: men reproduce their genes as well!) to biologically reproduce. Instead, it focuses on work and taxes, because that is what keeps the political machine running: taking from the better performing sections, giving it to constructed majorities of voters (women, gays, migrants, elderly). The long-term effects are already irreversible, the future will be less intelligent (the system installs an inverse relationship of reproduction and intelligence - the smarter, the less kids) and blacker (Africa is the only growing continent). Can't outsmart reality, I am afraid! Not reproducing (amid an environment that has materially never been more favorable) is the Darwinian, irreversible Super-GAU. That explains the rhetorical hystericisms of the NYT and their allies.