Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Sculptor]

duct (duck) tape, don't forget about duct (duck) tape

Yes and fish fingers too!!

and ramen

ANd Marathon changed its name to Snickers - and back again!!!

[henry quirk]

Yes and fish fingers too!!

and ramen

ANd Marathon changed its name to Snickers - and back again!!!

I didn't know that...my membership here, in-forum, just paid for itself with that tidbit

[Belinda]

Your claim that nuclear families are biologically necessary is not true. Sexual reproduction is the norm for humans to date but it is now biologically possible to clone animals.

Human beings are not presently being cloned. Or if they are, it's in some illegal lab somewhere, because that practice has been banned in almost all countries...for very good ethical reasons, I might add. https://cbhd.org/content/why-human-clon ... banned-now

But even supposing the practice were to become common, it would be no argument against the natural primacy of sexual reproduction. Not only in the human world, but in the entire mammalian world, there is no other standard, no other norm, and no other historical practice. Moreover, even a cloned child will be produced with either an XX chromosomal pair, or an XY chromosomal pair: so even with cloning, the two basic sexes will reassert their identity immediately.

You must be aware that there are single parent families, same sex parents, adoptive parents, child minders, foster parents, creches, and boarding schools with teachers in loco parentis. All of those affect family structural norms.

You're missing the point, or working like fury not to face it: these are merely alternate "child rearing" arrangements. They do not produce children. A single parent cannot produce a child without a sperm-donor. Same sex people are infertile. Adoptive parents take on a child they did not create. And so on.

Once again, human sexuality is male-female. It always comes back to that.

Whether you like it or not a society where women rule over men is a biological possibility.

It's a theoretical possibility, maybe, but not a realistic one. It's never been a reality. I suspect it's practically impossible, since the vast strength difference between men and women would imply. The recent spate of "trans" athletes scandals pretty much illustrates that.

Urbanisation is not to be confined to the period of European industrial revolution. There are other places and other times when people have migrated to developing cities.

This is true: but the same patterns have shown themselves in all cases. The men are extracted from the domestic scene first, and later the women. And that's unavoidable, because women are the child-bearers. They end up with the kids, almost every time, just through circumstances.

'Natural' is not a synonym for 'biological'. Being imprecise does not advance your argument.

I agree that "women are the child bearers" and I'd say more, biologically they breast feed their babies, and I concede more to your argument that women traditionally often did the home -centred work of tending animals, planting and hoeing, milling, mending nets, cooking, and spinning all of which can be done alongside child minding.I also agree that biological human males generally are better than females at lifting, running, wrestling, clawing, pushing , and pulling.They also may be more psychologically aggressive towards thieves and other plunderers such as adulterers.

What your argument constantly leaves out is 1. technology frees women from all these employments, including bearing children(hypothetically) and breast feeding, and 2. Male and female humans as a matter of our genetically heritable biology adapt to technologies, terrains of habitation, climates, economic affluence, and disasters.What defines the human is that it is an animal that evolves via culture not biology.

[Sculptor]

and ramen

ANd Marathon changed its name to Snickers - and back again!!!

I didn't know that...my membership here, in-forum, just paid for itself with that tidbit

As far as I know this only happened in the UK.
But glad to be of service.

[Sculptor]

Your claim that nuclear families are biologically necessary is not true. Sexual reproduction is the norm for humans to date but it is now biologically possible to clone animals.

Human beings are not presently being cloned. Or if they are, it's in some illegal lab somewhere, because that practice has been banned in almost all countries...for very good ethical reasons, I might add. https://cbhd.org/content/why-human-clon ... banned-now

But even supposing the practice were to become common, it would be no argument against the natural primacy of sexual reproduction. Not only in the human world, but in the entire mammalian world, there is no other standard, no other norm, and no other historical practice. Moreover, even a cloned child will be produced with either an XX chromosomal pair, or an XY chromosomal pair: so even with cloning, the two basic sexes will reassert their identity immediately.

You must be aware that there are single parent families, same sex parents, adoptive parents, child minders, foster parents, creches, and boarding schools with teachers in loco parentis. All of those affect family structural norms.

You're missing the point, or working like fury not to face it: these are merely alternate "child rearing" arrangements. They do not produce children. A single parent cannot produce a child without a sperm-donor. Same sex people are infertile. Adoptive parents take on a child they did not create. And so on.

Once again, human sexuality is male-female. It always comes back to that.

Whether you like it or not a society where women rule over men is a biological possibility.

It's a theoretical possibility, maybe, but not a realistic one. It's never been a reality. I suspect it's practically impossible, since the vast strength difference between men and women would imply. The recent spate of "trans" athletes scandals pretty much illustrates that.

Urbanisation is not to be confined to the period of European industrial revolution. There are other places and other times when people have migrated to developing cities.

This is true: but the same patterns have shown themselves in all cases. The men are extracted from the domestic scene first, and later the women. And that's unavoidable, because women are the child-bearers. They end up with the kids, almost every time, just through circumstances.

'Natural' is not a synonym for 'biological'. Being imprecise does not advance your argument.

I agree that "women are the child bearers" and I'd say more, biologically they breast feed their babies, and I concede more to your argument that women traditionally often did the home -centred work of tending animals, planting and hoeing, milling, mending nets, cooking, and spinning all of which can be done alongside child minding.I also agree that biological human males generally are better than females at lifting, running, wrestling, clawing, pushing , and pulling.They also may be more psychologically aggressive towards thieves and other plunderers such as adulterers.

What your argument constantly leaves out is 1. technology frees women from all these employments, including bearing children(hypothetically) and breast feeding, and 2. Male and female humans as a matter of our genetically heritable biology adapt to technologies, terrains of habitation, climates, economic affluence, and disasters.What defines the human is that it is an animal that evolves via culture not biology.

Some women are child bearers.
Some of those breast feed.
And women were often the leaders of the settlement controlling the hearth and the activities araound the hearth, sending out men to do the hunting because they lacked the multitasking ability to do the work in the settlement and were only good for running about trying to kill things. But anthropological studies shows that there was a massive spectrum of gender differentiation and specialisation, that Immanuel Can is incapable of understanding.
IC is guilty of naturalistic fallacy for sure, but he still has no idea about the richness of social strategies of the Palaeolithic, and still bases his ideas on occified Victorian values which were based on slavery and woman as chattle.
And yes, of course, we are no longer hunter/gatherers and have gained the ability to do what the fuck we want with our lives and not be pressured by the rantings and chuntterings of old divorcees like IC, who sit alone in their towers scorning the new world that they consistently fail to understand.

[Immanuel Can]

'Natural' is not a synonym for 'biological'.

Yeah, it pretty much is. But you must have some idea in mind, so please explain.

What your argument constantly leaves out is 1. technology frees women from all these employments, including bearing children(hypothetically) and breast feeding...

That still means that if children are to be born at all, women will be doing the "heavy lifting" on that. So I'm not sure that helps your argument at all.

What defines the human is that it is an animal that evolves via culture not biology.

It's not demonstrable that human beings "evolve" at all...and certainly there's no demonstrable moral "evolution" going on. As for culture, it's too contingent and variable, and of much too short a duration in any form to serve as a force in any Darwinian "evolutionary" scheme.

So I'd say that's just a nice rhetorical flourish, but devoid of factuality.

[Sculptor]

'Natural' is not a synonym for 'biological'.

Yeah, it pretty much is. But you must have some idea in mind, so please explain.

What your argument constantly leaves out is 1. technology frees women from all these employments, including bearing children(hypothetically) and breast feeding...

That still means that if children are to be born at all, women will be doing the "heavy lifting" on that. So I'm not sure that helps your argument at all.

What defines the human is that it is an animal that evolves via culture not biology.

It's not demonstrable that human beings "evolve" at all...and certainly there's no demonstrable moral "evolution" going on. As for culture, it's too contingent and variable, and of much too short a duration in any form to serve as a force in any Darwinian "evolutionary" scheme.

So I'd say that's just a nice rhetorical flourish, but devoid of factuality.

So much ignorance, so little time.

[Belinda]

'Natural' is not a synonym for 'biological'.

Yeah, it pretty much is. But you must have some idea in mind, so please explain.

What your argument constantly leaves out is 1. technology frees women from all these employments, including bearing children(hypothetically) and breast feeding...

That still means that if children are to be born at all, women will be doing the "heavy lifting" on that. So I'm not sure that helps your argument at all.

What defines the human is that it is an animal that evolves via culture not biology.

It's not demonstrable that human beings "evolve" at all...and certainly there's no demonstrable moral "evolution" going on. As for culture, it's too contingent and variable, and of much too short a duration in any form to serve as a force in any Darwinian "evolutionary" scheme.

So I'd say that's just a nice rhetorical flourish, but devoid of factuality.

Evolution means change over time; it does not always imply biological natural selection among living species. Humans evolve mostly (i.e. change ) via cultures i.e. beliefs and practices. Cultures depend largely upon means of subsistence using available technologies and environmental resources .

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution means change over time;

No it doesn't...It means "unguided change for the better over time." It means improvement upwards. The other word is "devolution."

It does not always imply biological natural selection among living species.

Darwin thought it did. But other people have sanguinely jumped on his theory to suggest that improvement is automatically happening in other areas, such as morality, culture, technology, and so on. What such people believe is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the world is ultimately guaranteed to "get better."

But what does "better" mean, and how do we judge it? Is it "better" now that we can create superviruses, nuclear wars, genocides, unrestricted economic exploitation, propaganda on a global scale, environmental disaster, mass migrations, and even worldwide authoritarianism, potentially? You'll have to show an awful lot of goodness happening to prove that the net balance isn't downward.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Evolution means change over time;

No it doesn't...It means "unguided change for the better over time." It means improvement upwards. The other word is "devolution."

It does not always imply biological natural selection among living species.

Darwin thought it did. But other people have sanguinely jumped on his theory to suggest that improvement is automatically happening in other areas, such as morality, culture, technology, and so on. What such people believe is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the world is ultimately guaranteed to "get better."

But what does "better" mean, and how do we judge it? Is it "better" now that we can create superviruses, nuclear wars, genocides, unrestricted economic exploitation, propaganda on a global scale, environmental disaster, mass migrations, and even worldwide authoritarianism, potentially? You'll have to show an awful lot of goodness happening to prove that the net balance isn't downward.

Are you serious? Where do you get this 'better' from? 'Better' according to who? 'Better' is not a scientific term. Evolution is change. Everything changes over time. In biological terms it only means 'becoming more suited to its environment via natural selection'. That's normal and logical, don't you think? Clearly young that are completely unsuited to the environment they are born into are not going to survive for long.
Music has evolved. For the 'better'? That's debatable.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Natural' is not a synonym for 'biological'.

Yeah, it pretty much is. But you must have some idea in mind, so please explain.

What your argument constantly leaves out is 1. technology frees women from all these employments, including bearing children(hypothetically) and breast feeding...

That still means that if children are to be born at all, women will be doing the "heavy lifting" on that. So I'm not sure that helps your argument at all.

What defines the human is that it is an animal that evolves via culture not biology.

It's not demonstrable that human beings "evolve" at all...and certainly there's no demonstrable moral "evolution" going on. As for culture, it's too contingent and variable, and of much too short a duration in any form to serve as a force in any Darwinian "evolutionary" scheme.

So I'd say that's just a nice rhetorical flourish, but devoid of factuality.

Evolution means change over time; it does not always imply biological natural selection among living species. Humans evolve mostly (i.e. change ) via cultures i.e. beliefs and practices. Cultures depend largely upon means of subsistence using available technologies and environmental resources .

He thinks his little god-daddy couldn't possibly have created something that needs to change over time to get 'better'

[Immanuel Can]

'Better' is not a scientific term.

Then supply a synonym you prefer. The idea is the same: Darwin thought that organisms were getting more complex, more adaptive, more "high level" and so on, not less so. Human beings are more "evolved" than single cell organisms in the primordial ooze. That's the idea.

Music has evolved. For the 'better'? That's debatable.

No, that one's pretty indisputable: since the 90s, it's mostly devolving.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Better' is not a scientific term.

Then supply a synonym you prefer. The idea is the same: Darwin thought that organisms were getting more complex, more adaptive, more "high level" and so on, not less so. Human beings are more "evolved" than single cell organisms in the primordial ooze. That's the idea.

Music has evolved. For the 'better'? That's debatable.

No, that one's pretty indisputable: since the 90s, it's mostly devolving.

I'm not arguing evolution with an anti science religious nut. It's really not that hard to understand.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not arguing evolution with an anti science religious nut. It's really not that hard to understand.

We weren't literally arguing about the Theory of Evolution. I was discussing with B. her use of the "evolved" metaphor in regard to human civilization. I think both you and I can question the legitimacy of her usage without pulling Darwin himself into the fray.

[Belinda]

Evolution means change over time;

No it doesn't...It means "unguided change for the better over time." It means improvement upwards. The other word is "devolution."

It does not always imply biological natural selection among living species.

Darwin thought it did. But other people have sanguinely jumped on his theory to suggest that improvement is automatically happening in other areas, such as morality, culture, technology, and so on. What such people believe is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the world is ultimately guaranteed to "get better."

But what does "better" mean, and how do we judge it? Is it "better" now that we can create superviruses, nuclear wars, genocides, unrestricted economic exploitation, propaganda on a global scale, environmental disaster, mass migrations, and even worldwide authoritarianism, potentially? You'll have to show an awful lot of goodness happening to prove that the net balance isn't downward.

Change over time is invariably caused, but the cause of change over time is not caused by something temporal like some man's definition of God, but transcends time and relative good or evil. Change over time is neither good nor bad but is neutral.

You are mistaken about "Darwin's theory". Natural selection owes nothing to final cause.

Better can't be defined without a criterion. That the universal is better than the tribal is a humanly- achievable criterion, otherwise the ultimate criteria transcend your definitions.