At some point, we should free ourselves to ask whether we can make a more modern form of government that better accommodates the modern challenges of the diverse populations and global influences and consequences. It is highly unlikely that a democratic (or democratic republic) can ever have the authority to make these optimal decisions that will inevitably result in condemnation by the majority.
An example is coming to the rescue of someone who is in a perilous condition such the case of a drowning person. If suitably capable, both men and women will come to the rescue. However, I believe they are drawing upon fundamentally different instincts: the woman will be drawing on the compassion to relieve the person, while the man will be drawing upon the recognition that the drowning person needs to be mercifully extracted from a lost battle against nature. Once the person is saved, he would receive reassurance type comfort from a woman, but probably will receive from the man a word or two of advice about how to avoid that situation in the future.
Most of the history of rise and fall of human advancement comes from the combination of a man having a plan he is willing to fight for and that fight being delayed by other men taking the time to evaluate whether it is a plan that needs to be fought against.
Underlying the proposal to ban toxic aggression is the untested proposition that major improvements for our descendant’s future can result from such a ban.
In context of the overall story of humanity, what will be the result of our current modernity? I suspect our descendants will not know most about what we currently know about past civilizations. The reason is that we would have exhausted all of the archaeology to provide independent confirmation of the literature. Even if they…
In this increasingly globalized world, we confront the question of how well groups may govern themselves optimally not only to survive within their local context but also keep up with the standards of the global norms. The goal is for self government but that government should thrive at a comparable level to the global norm. What is that measurement that will determine a group’s success at self-governing?
For men of the personality trait described here, this can be very devastating. The root of the pain is not merely the loss of intimacy with his wife, or of loss of custody to children, or of loss of wealth and income from the settlement. The pain is that there was an idea that started the relationship, that started the family.
The motivation of this post was the revelation that I recently experienced where I saw the sprouting of something I planted earlier. I don’t know where it will lead, but the exhilaration of seeing the first signs of independent of life is something that I also am left alone to experience.
Of the things that men bring to society, some of us plant seeds.
I suspect this idea has always been at the back of my mind as I contemplated the opportunity of starting a relationship. Even at a young age, I recognized that the project could not last the duration, and the concept of marriage sold to me is defined by going the duration. I was sold on something that I realized is something no longer available to purchase.