:party:

would like to read your Nietzche link but it does not fit on my screen and I do not know how to resolve that problem — Athena

When it comes on screen, simply "squeeze it down" with thumb and forefinger until it fits. Then, start squinting.

The difference in the focus of women's lives compared to the male focus concerns me and I am not sure this difference will be maintained as women leave their homes to have careers or work in factories. The meaning of being a good woman has changed and what might be the ramifications of this change? — Athena

This is good for women, but in some senses bad for families. It is clearly good for the familial bottom-line, but I think the children suffer a loss of an important aspect of their formative years. Worse still, having the child significantly influenced by people, such as day care workers and teachers, who may not share the worldview, belief system, and values of the parents, has the potential of robbing the parents of having the child reflect themselves in favor of reflecting others in society. This I would strenuously avoid at all costs. I want my son to reflect myself and my wife, our worldview, our beliefs, our values and interests, rather than those of the day care worker, know what I mean? Ideally, In my perfect world, I would earn enough money myself, be married to an intelligent and educated woman (at least a master's from a tier two school minimum) who shares my worldview, beliefs, etc., and shares my ideas on education (the "Trivium" all the way, heavy on logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, philosophy as examplary thereof with critical analysis, math, languages/linguistics with Latin & Greek from very early on; computer architecture and programming concepts beginning g6; chem, bio, physics after g8; nix the generally bullshit history, the propagandistic civics and sociology crap, and other garbage which they will pick up simply in becoming well read people), who could home school the children (and perhaps any other neighborhood kids as the parents show interest), and so avoid the shit educational system we have in this country. In that way, we would shape and form the minds (where the mind goes, the body follows) of our children as we see fit, and make them into what we want them to be, without external interference. But, then I awaken, and there is, here is the reality...

Oh my, maybe you rather have a robot that can be programmed, for your child, rather than a human one that might disappoint you. Perhaps a robot for a wife too? But you want to be very sure they are not sentient. You know as in the British TV series "Humans". When they are sentient they can be troublesome and even dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sm23e0a5_w

I think this is pretty on topic. Your idea of an ideal mother is far from what I think a child needs. But it does make an interesting discussion.

Oh my, maybe you rather have a robot that can be programmed, for your child, rather than a human one that might disappoint you. Perhaps a robot for a wife too? — Athena

Eureka! Athena, you are a genius!

No...in actuality, I would prefer they be fully human. My hope, however, would be to find a woman whose beliefs, values, and all that jazz, approximate my own, and then to have very intentional conversations together in deciding what "all that jazz" will (is "officially" too strong a word here?) be for our family. Then, we could try to mold and shape our children accordingly. The underlying principle of this would be to have the latter generation reflect the former, rather than reflecting others in society. There are alot of strange and perplexing concepts out there which I would not want my kids to claim as their own, thus making them the beliefs of my family.

Michael, I see two ways to go with your post. I told a friend I got into an argument with my sister over some social issue and she looked at me with horror, and asked why I was even discussing that with her? I know there is a lot I do not discuss with neighbors to avoid unpleasant feelings. And I was really enjoying exchanging thoughts with @James Riley until all of a sudden we had a dismisunderstanding that became very unpleasant. That makes me question do we want to engage intellectually with people we want long-term relationships with? :lol: I was told if I want a man in life, I must give up my books.

Second, I think it is natural that we want our children to grow up appreciating the culture and values we teach them. This is very important to Jews, Christians, and others. This is a big issue with ethnically different people. When indigenous peoples' lives are severely disrupted by colonizers, it is very destructive to individuals and the tribe. Well-meaning missionaries destroyed tribes and when an Asian moves to the west, they want their children to remember the family's culture and values. Personally, I want all those differences preserved because it is what makes humans so interesting. But how much can public education accommodate those differences, or should it even try? Should we have one culture and specific shared values?

..I was really enjoying exchanging thoughts with James Riley until all of a sudden we had a dismisunderstanding that became very unpleasant. — Athena

Yes, I was a bit dismayed by your exchange. "James" is a man of strong feeling, and one must keep that in mind when dialoguing with him, if a continued good relationship is desired, especially if one is a person of equally strong feeling, and somewhat differing opinions, such as myself. You can't be confrontational with James, cause he tends not to shrink from his opinions...you have to know who you can "bully", and you can't "bully" James.

I was told if I want a man in life, I must give up my books. — Athena

I don't think that to be true in any absolute sense, but I will agree that being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat, perhaps substantially. To me, though, an unopinionated person is one of two types: either they are stupid, or they lack the courage of their convictions. To myself, both qualities are "disqualifatory", if you know what I mean. The first, because, from the genetic standpoint, I want my offspring to be "smart in relation", and the second because having a spouse who lacks axiologic ferocity simply poses a danger to my family and lineage. My advice: be true to your own self. Keep your books, and find "that guy".

I think it is natural that we want our children to grow up appreciating the culture and values we teach them. This is very important to Jews, Christians, and others. This is a big issue with ethnically different people. When indigenous peoples' lives are severely disrupted by colonizers, it is very destructive to individuals and the tribe. Well-meaning missionaries destroyed tribes... — Athena

Ha, well said. My absolute favorite novel of all time, despite the relative simplicity of it's prose (I tend to appreciate complex erudition, such as that of George Eliot, which is why I love Cicero so much...he is the unequalled champion of complex erudition) is a slim volume entitled "Things Fall Apart", by a Nigerian author named Chinua Achebe. "Okonkwo", the protagonist of the story, is a favorite tragic hero of myself. The narrative contains a brilliantly exposed statement of the destructivity of cultural imperialism, particularly as an adjunct of "Western" colonialism.

"James" is a man of strong feeling — Michael Zwingli

or easy to frustrate, and impatient. :cool:

or easy to frustrate, and impatient. :cool: — James Riley

I feel 'ya...I can relate.

I don't think that's to be true in any absolute sense, but I will agree that being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat, perhaps substantially. To me, though, an unopinionated person is one of two types: either they are stupid, or they lack the courage of their convictions. To myself, both qualities are "disqualifatory", if you know what I mean. The first, because, from the genetic standpoint, I want my offspring to be "smart in relation", and the second because having a spouse who lacks axiologic ferocity simply poses a danger to my family and lineage. My advice: be true to your own self. Keep your books, and find "that guy".

I think it is natural that we want our children to grow up appreciating the culture and values we teach them. This is very important to Jews, Christians, and others. This is a big issue with ethnically different people. When indigenous peoples' lives are severely disrupted by colonizers, it is very destructive to individuals and the tribe. Well-meaning missionaries destroyed tribes...
— Athena

Ha, well said. My absolute favorite novel of all time, despite the relative simplicity of it's prose (I tend to appreciate complex erudition, such as that of George Eliot, which is why I love Cicero so much...he is the unequalled champion of complex erudition) is a slim volume entitled "Things Fall Apart", by a Nigerian author named Chinua Achebe. It contains a brilliantly exposed statement of the destructivity of cultural imperialism, particularly as an adjunct of colonialism. — Michael Zwingli

:rofl: I love starting my day with a good laugh and "being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat" is a hilarious comment when I think of myself. I so admire the Asians I have known who do not get their backs up when someone says something that is disagreeable. They seem to go more easily with the flow. I don't think they are stupid or lack conviction, but rather accept it is as it is, and getting upset about it won't make things better. At least that is what Jon want said when I admired him for being reticent.

:lol: I have already slept with the best men in history and do not need a man. Genghis Khan was exciting but not my idea of a congenial person. He was a little rough on the edges if you know what I mean?

"Things Fall Apart", sounds like a great book to read. Right now we need to give much thought to our behavior and stupidity! The whole world is not envious of us and wanting to be like us. Our way of life is not sustainable and a few other problems go with it, such as the destruction of family, and creating people totally alone in the crowd, clawing at each other as they fight over the crumbs. Our violence against others and one's own self is sad. :cry: I don't think this will come to good.

or easy to frustrate, and impatient — James Riley

Me too.

:smile:

"Things Fall Apart", sounds like a great book to read. — Athena

I highly recommend it, especially as it is brief while being profound. One caveat for the potential female reader: traditional West African cultures, including the Igbo culture depicted by Achebe, were highly male-dominant and patriarchal...dare I say from the "Western" perspective, "male chauvanist verging on misogynistic"? The intended readers of Achebe, who was writing primarily for a West African audience, would have understood that, so the moral of Achebe's story would not have been obscured thereby. For a Westernized audience, though, the depiction of the cultural setting has the potential to shock the sensibilities of some, and so obscure Achebe's thesis. Even with this, though, it is definitely worth the read.

The rate of abortions and divorces went up, and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It didn't take long to realize state-paid child care was essential to this economy. John Dewey an American education expert was dismissed as the USSR education advisor, in favor of education for communism and loyalty to the state. — Athena

Correct. Communist Russia’s population growth dropped by more than half from 1.8% a year in the 1950s to 0.8% in 1980-1981, due mostly to declining fertility.

The Soviet Union: population trends and dilemmas – NIH

A major cause was the abortion rate that was the highest in the world. The abortion rate in Capitalist America (and in the West in general) was much lower.

Abortion rate in the U.S. and Soviet Union 1970-1989

So, it seems that Socialism did have a major problem. In fact, the economic, cultural, and psychological impact of Socialism was so severe that former Socialist countries like Russia never recovered even decades after the collapse of Socialism.

I highly recommend it, especially as it is brief while being profound. One caveat for the potential female reader: traditional West African cultures, including the Igbo culture depicted by Achebe, were highly male-dominant and patriarchal...dare I say from the "Western" perspective, "male chauvanist verging on misogynistic"? The intended readers of Achebe, who was writing primarily for a West African audience, would have understood that, so the moral of Achebe's story would not have been obscured thereby. For a Westernized audience, though, the depiction of the cultural setting has the potential to shock the sensibilities of some, and so obscure Achebe's thesis. Even with this, though, it is definitely worth the read. — Michael Zwingli

You have piqued my interest. I am deeply interested in the environmental conditions that lead to matriarchy or patriarchy.

The God of Abraham religions are certainly patriarchal, and "male chauvinist verging on misogynistic" seems to describe reality in the US as well. I don't think this is helped with feminism that seems to include a hatred of men. But I am an odd duck. Despite the reality I have experienced, I think the greatest happiness and human good comes from family. I think democratic values are important for the best family experience, and that autocratic Industry led to autocratic families, and today we call the autocratic family dysfunctional. Of course, the religions are autocratic, an authority above the people, as well as patriarchal.

Correct. Communist Russia’s population growth dropped by more than half from 1.8% a year in the 1950s to 0.8% in 1980-1981, due mostly to declining fertility.

The Soviet Union: population trends and dilemmas – NIH

A major cause was the abortion rate that was the highest in the world. The abortion rate in Capitalist America (and in the West in general) was much lower.

Abortion rate in the U.S. and Soviet Union 1970-1989

So, it seems that Socialism did have a major problem. In fact, the economic, cultural, and psychological impact of Socialism was so severe that former Socialist countries like Russia never recovered even decades after the collapse of Socialism. — Apollodorus

Well, your post was a pleasant surprise. That is the most supportive statement I have had in several years. Normally people attack what I am saying. It helps that you are working with information and just your opinion.

Dare I say life might go better if we enjoy being male and female and raising children. Today, gay people are doing a better job of that than straight people. God forbid that woman wants to be feminine to stay home to raise the children and support her husband. Forgive me, I have looked into joining a couple of different organizations where the requirement was to hate men and to hate being intentionally attractive to them. Like being a woman who enjoys being a woman, is terribly wrong. I know such a small sample of reality should not be generalized too far, but I am remembering an old New Woman magazine that attacked a first lady for being satisfied with being the first lady and not desirous of becoming president as though being a first lady had no value! :gasp:

In the 1970s I went from being a Mother Goddess, gardening, canning, sewing, knitting, and proud of all my domestic skills to provide for my family, to "just a housewife", It was a terrible experience for me. My self-esteem crashed! That sent me back to college and that did not go well either because the male of the household did not approve. :lol: Gibran wrote, we speak when we are not at peace with our thoughts. Hopefully, I am not the only one who thinks the full-time homemaker is a very valuable person playing an important role in our human experience.

Well, your post was a pleasant surprise. That is the most supportive statement I have had in several years. Normally people attack what I am saying. It helps that you are working with information and just your opinion. — Athena

Yeah, apparently I am full of surprises, or so I am told! :grin:

I can't say I agree with everything you say, but I think you are making some valid points. Not everything in life is about things like advanced technology or “equality”.

Imperial Russia was backward in some ways, but it was a prosperous nation with a lot of potential.

In contrast, though Socialism had some good points, we can imagine how disastrous its impact must have been on the Russian people to experience such extraordinary rates of corruption, alcoholism, divorce, abortion, low fertility, and rapidly declining population. We must also take into consideration that Russia has been kept alive by its large oil and gas reserves without which God only know where it would be now.

The way I see it, when a nation loses interest in having families and children, and is unperturbed by a falling population, i.e., its own slow but sure demise, then something must be fundamentally wrong with that nation.

In other words, the supporters of Socialism are too eager to stress what they see as positive outcomes of that system, and in the process, they ignore the negatives. In some ways it is like a religious belief system that blindly follows its own unverified claims.

Obviously, capitalist society is beginning to experience some of the problems seen by former socialist states. So, presumably there are some shared causes somewhere. In any case, the future of the Western world doesn’t look very good at the moment and I don't think Socialism is in a position to offer any real solutions.

At 1.7 children per woman, Socialist China has a fertility rate well below replacement level. In contrast, Africa has the world's highest fertility rate with an average of 4.27 children per woman. This could be an indication that technological, economic and social progress comes with gradual extinction. In which case, "progress" isn't necessarily what it seems ....

In the old days, we used to call the Soviet Union "Communist" not "Socialist." Also, back in the 80's, my poly sci class used to distinguish between the two.

In the old days, we used to call the Soviet Union "Communist" not "Socialist." — James Riley

I think the main reason for this was cultural and political. Socialism was seen by some in the West as “acceptable” whereas communism – due to the East-West antagonism – was not.

But the fact of the matter is that communism or Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism.

Marx and Engels and their followers like Lenin taught that Socialism was a transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Communism was the utopian ideal to be achieved in the future.

This is why so-called “communist” states like Russia officially called themselves “socialist”: they were ruled by an officially communist party, i.e. a party that had the establishment of communism as its official program, but for the time being the system was socialist not communist.

Hence “communist” Russia’s official name, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

If your poly sci class made the distinction along these lines, then it was probably right.

I think the main reason for this was cultural and political. Socialism was seen by some in the West as “acceptable” whereas communism – due to the East-West antagonism – was not. — Apollodorus

The cultural and political aspect is the conservative/capitalist mindset that wants to paint socialists with a Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Potist brush. It's no different than a liberal /socialist wanting to paint the conservative/capitalist as a fascist Nazi Hitler Musoliniest. It denotes a lack of education in intro to Political Science.

But the fact of the matter is that communism or Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism. — Apollodorus

One has to be able to parse or conflate (depending on their rhetorical goal) the economic from the political use of these terms, each of which can have cross-over. Much like capitalism and communism (see China). Or capitalism/socialism/representative Democracy (United States).

Communism was the utopian ideal to be achieved in the future. — Apollodorus

And some like to hang on the slippery-slope mythology that comes with a fallacy of the two-valued orientation. They ignore all of the first world countries on the planet because they are on all the way to the gulag. They also conveniently ignore the socialist aspects of the U.S. and how capitalism would have a snow-ball's chance in hell without them.

This is why so-called “communist” states like Russia officially called themselves “socialist”: they were ruled by an officially communist party, — Apollodorus

An education in the Political Sciences teaches one to not confuse what countries say about themselves with what they really are. An example is "Nazi" which the conservative agenda likes to point out, has the word "socialist" in it (see above, re Stalanist, Maoist, Pol Potist). But they are slow to acknowledge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic or a republic. Another example is the the Republican who correctly notes that Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats, all while conveniently failing to note that it was actually the liberals that freed the slaves from the conservatives.

Anyway, your name fired a synapse in the back of my head so I went to a log I keep and, low-and-behold, there you were as someone I had informally banned. While I can't remember the reason now (I don't log such things, and you aren't that important to me) I'm smelling an inkling as to why. So I will cede the floor to your august retort, hoping against hope that you might have learned something. At the very least, maybe someone else did. Adios, and apologies to myself for the re-engagement.

An education in the Political Sciences teaches one to not confuse what countries say about themselves with what they really are. — James Riley

If political science teaches that we must not call countries what they call themselves, then why should anyone "acknowledge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic or a republic"?

One has to be able to parse or conflate (depending on their rhetorical goal) the economic from the political use of these terms, each of which can have cross-over. — James Riley

I think people are free to parse or conflate as much as they want. The fact still remains that communism is a form of socialism:

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism

https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

Communism is thus a form of socialism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

As to North Korea, which you call “democratic”, Wikipedia makes the following interesting observation:

According to Article 1 of the state constitution, North Korea is an "independent socialist state". It holds elections, though they have been described by independent observers as sham elections, as North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

“Sham elections” and “totalitarian dictatorship”, doesn’t sound particularly “democratic” to me.

Oh, and after the introduction of socialism, North Korea’s fertility rate dropped from about 5 children per woman in the 1950’s to currently less than 2, i.e. below replacement level.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/north-korea-population

Yeah, apparently I am full of surprises, or so I am told! :grin:

I can't say I agree with everything you say, but I think you are making some valid points. Not everything in life is about things like advanced technology or “equality”.

Imperial Russia was backward in some ways, but it was a prosperous nation with a lot of potential. — Apollodorus

We must avoid perfect agreement at all costs. What would we talk about if we agreed? And if we didn't argue with each other, our minds would not expand. That would be a terrible thing!

I am quite sure Russia's biggest problem is long cold winters. We feel freer in regions where the climate is mild and food grows naturally. I have heard on some tropical islands the problem is not growing plants and trees that fruit, but preventing the vegetation from taking over. Try growing those plants and trees in Siberia. I have heard Siberia is not a good place to go skinny dipping.

In contrast, though Socialism had some good points, we can imagine how disastrous its impact must have been on the Russian people to experience such extraordinary rates of corruption, alcoholism, divorce, abortion, low fertility, and rapidly declining population. We must also take into consideration that Russia has been kept alive by its large oil and gas reserves without which God only knows where it would be now.

Genghis Khan is a good representative of a harsh climate. The Mongols saw our cities as very immoral because of the lack of cooperation and the competition that leaves some no choice but to lie and steal. Both were punished by death under Genghis Khan, but because life was so hard in the harsh environment, no one was denied food and shelter, because that could be a death sentence. I say this because we have been harsh on communism and perhaps we should consider what is behind it?

The way I see it, when a nation loses interest in having families and children, and is unperturbed by a falling population, i.e., its own slow but sure demise, then something must be fundamentally wrong with that nation.

That sure was true of Sparta! The first military socialist state.

In other words, the supporters of Socialism are too eager to stress what they see as positive outcomes of that system, and in the process, they ignore the negatives. In some ways it is like a religious belief system that blindly follows its own unverified claims.

That is why I bring the issue up. Athens imitated Sparta for military reasons when Prussia began invading but it never took care of its people as Sparta did. Athens' individualism went with its liberty. I ash is that important? Is that something we should consider, and exactly what does that look like? Dying our hair green and putting studs in our face? Or the stimulus of figuring out for ourselves how we will survive?

Obviously, capitalist society is beginning to experience some of the problems seen by former socialist states. So, presumably, there are some shared causes somewhere. In any case, the future of the Western world doesn’t look very good at the moment and I don't think Socialism is in a position to offer any real solutions.

Yes, that is something we should think about. Remember? the Greek notion that we are like cattle, and only a few are chosen by the gods to be heroes. Always the hero's journey begins by pushing the person to his absolute limits. In the US education was very much about teaching the young to be heroes. This was done with literature. How desperately we need this now, but not as children's TV is doing it with superheroes or children who play the roles of adults with no adults caring for the children. I think the intentions of those shows are good, but anti-family and anti childhood, and possibly not a good influence? We are forcing our children to be as miniature adults and I think this has a negative effect, and socialism taking care of all of us is not going to have only good results.

[qoute]At 1.7 children per woman, Socialist China has a fertility rate well below replacement level. In contrast, Africa has the world's highest fertility rate with an average of 4.27 children per woman. This could be an indication that technological, economic, and social progress comes with gradual extinction. In which case, "progress" isn't necessarily what it seems ....[/quote] China, India, and Africa, absolutely must reduce their populations and if they do not do this intentionally, nature will continue to eliminate them, with disease, famine, and war. The whole world is in trouble right now because of overpopulation but that is a different subject.

It is as Zeus feared, with the technology of fire, man has gone on to discover all other technologies and now we are technologically smart, but we have turned our backs on the gods and are unwise. We have a huge challenge before us. We have succeeded! :party: Now how do we live with our success? If we can not fly around the world, and have huge high-tech homes, and whatever else is supposed to make us happy, what is left? Family. Family can be a great source of happiness and maybe we want to develop that? That is sustainable but our glut based on consuming resources is not.

The cultural and political aspect is the conservative/capitalist mindset that wants to paint socialists with a Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Potist brush. It's no different than a liberal /socialist wanting to paint the conservative/capitalist as a fascist Nazi Hitler Musoliniest. It denotes a lack of education in intro to Political Science. — James Riley

"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately obviousin Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery." 1912 William James' "Talks to Teachers on Psychology, and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals".

In 1958 the US replaced its domestic education modeled after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth, with the German model of education. Now the conservatives and liberals are pitted against each other and none of them have a clue what this has to do with the change in education. They will fight for what they believe in, but will they fight for our democracy? How do they understand their democracy?

Democracy begins with a family of gods, and we are destroying childhood and family in favor of all adults working for the state and preparing our children to be products for industry. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. How about returning to education for democracy and well-rounded individuals? I think that needs to come before education for political science.

We must avoid perfect agreement at all costs. What would we talk about if we agreed? And if we didn't argue with each other, our minds would not expand. That would be a terrible thing! — Athena

Not only that, but if I agree too much with you, people might start imagining me in a ten-gallon Stetson hat and cowboy boots made in El Paso, or something. :grin:

But I think one aspect of the issue may be formulated something like this:

Individuals depend on the population of which they are a part.
Therefore social and economic progress must take into consideration both individuals and the wider population.
If social and economic policy ignores, neglects, or harms the wider population, then it is a harmful policy.
A policy that results in the social and economic progress of individuals on one hand, and the decline of the wider population on the other hand, is harmful to the wider population.
Since individuals depend on the population of which they are a part, policies that are harmful to the wider population are ultimately harmful to the individuals within that population.
Therefore policies that are harmful to the wider population are unacceptable.

And the equality aspect:

Men and women should enjoy equality in the sense of having the same rights in law, the same opportunities, being treated with equal fairness and respect, etc.
Having children is a basic right of both men and women.
Policies that force women to take up employment at the cost of having children, means placing them in a position where they are unable to manifest their right to have children.

If socialism or socialistic ideologies and policies result in any or all of the above problems, they are harmful to women and to society at large and therefore are unacceptable.

That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. How about returning to education for democracy and well-rounded individuals? — Athena

That's hardly going to happen if people think that North Korea is "democratic", though, is it? If that's what the educated think, what can we expect from the uneducated?

I wonder if those with degrees in political science see any resemblance between North Korea and the Democratic Party?

But I agree that the issue does revolve on democracy in a crucial sense. True democracy means that power belongs to the people. But making people rightless and childless means making them powerless. And robbing a population of its future seems plain anti-democratic and anti-people. I think this encapsulates the socialist or socialistic problem. An ideology that aims to "socialize" a population out of existence or otherwise promotes policies with that result seems highly suspect to me.

Since individuals depend on the population of which they are a part, policies that are harmful to the wider population are ultimately harmful to the individuals within that population.
Therefore policies that are harmful to the wider population are unacceptable. — Apollodorus

Socrates said something like that and he wanted us to be aware of each other. In the US textbooks prepare the young for life, not to be products for industry as it started doing in 1958. I think it is obvious that was not a good change in education. We have improved by eliminating the old prejudices but without shared values and principles we are in big trouble.

The breakdown of family comes with education for a technological society with unknown values and that worries me. I can see the benefits of weak families but I think the problems are much worse.

Thank you for acknowledging forcing women into the workforce takes away their right to be mothers, and caring daughters and granddaughters. :lol: If everyone were aware of what it is like to give birth to a child and get up several times during the night to feed the child, there might be greater acceptance of giving her time to be a mother. And I hear there is a reluctance to give family time off the care for older members or sick members of the family. Seriously? What are our values? Humans succeeded because of their willingness to care for each other and shouldn't a civilized society encourage that? It is not just an inconvenience to find someone to care for a family member, but it is anti-family to be put in the position of finding someone else to do caregiving.

We had family fidelity when women stayed home to care for their families and that is being destroyed as now they must have fidelity with their employer, and sorry family, you all must fend for yourselves. It is not gays destroying family values. I think, what you have suggested is socialism can strengthen the family instead of weakening it. Have I interpreted you correctly? I was not thinking of socialism in that way but I really like that idea.

That's hardly going to happen if people think that North Korea is "democratic", though, is it? If that's what the educated think, what can we expect from the uneducated? — Apollodorus

Are you suggesting democracy is about being full human beings? Not just voting? I wish we all understood democracy as a way of life and an experience of being empowered to fully actualize ourselves. Government is one aspect of democracy. Individualism and family are other aspects of the democratic way of life, and if we replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model, we could better manifest the democratic way of life.

I think this encapsulates the socialist or socialistic problem. An ideology that aims to "socialize" a population out of existence or otherwise promotes policies with that result seems highly suspect to me. — Apollodorus

I interpret that to mean you are opposed to socialism. I can see socialism going either way, supporting families or destroying them. What is the goal of socialism? Is it possible it can be harmful or beneficial depending on the determined goal?

Socrates said something like that and he wanted us to be aware of each other. In the US textbooks prepare the young for life, not to be products for industry as it started doing in 1958. I think it is obvious that was not a good change in education. We have improved by eliminating the old prejudices but without shared values and principles we are in big trouble.

The breakdown of family comes with education for a technological society with unknown values and that worries me. I can see the benefits of weak families but I think the problems are much worse.

Thank you for acknowledging forcing women into the workforce takes away their right to be mothers, and caring daughters and granddaughters. :lol: If everyone were aware of what it is like to give birth to a child and get up several times during the night to feed the child, there might be greater acceptance of giving her time to be a mother. And I hear there is a reluctance to give family time off the care for older members or sick members of the family. Seriously? What are our values? Humans succeeded because of their willingness to care for each other and shouldn't a civilized society encourage that? It is not just an inconvenience to find someone to care for a family member, but it is anti-family to be put in the position of finding someone else to do caregiving.

We had family fidelity when women stayed home to care for their families and that is being destroyed as now they must have fidelity with their employer, and sorry family, you all must fend for yourselves. It is not gays destroying family values. I think, what you have suggested is socialism can strengthen the family instead of weakening it. Have I interpreted you correctly? I was not thinking of socialism in that way but I really like that idea. — Athena

Are you suggesting democracy is about being full human beings? Not just voting? I wish we all understood democracy as a way of life and an experience of being empowered to fully actualize ourselves. Government is one aspect of democracy. Individualism and family are other aspects of the democratic way of life, and if we replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model, we could better manifest the democratic way of life. — Athena

Being full human beings is one aspect of it. But we need human beings in the first place.

Overpopulation does not refer to the number of people in one country. It refers to a country's capacity to sustain its own population.

Africa, China, India, have large populations, but if they manage their resources efficiently, they can sustain their populations.

China has a large population but it is also a large country with sufficient resources. Israel has a very small population but in terms of natural resources, etc. may find it more difficult than China to sustain itself.

But what I was talking about was for example countries in Europe, especially Russia, where population levels are stagnating or falling and if this trend continues, their populations will inevitably shrink to dangerous levels and with that their economies, their military and political power, etc.

The problem is that once a country's population has peaked, it will decline faster and faster until over time only remnants are left that are insufficient to sustain a thriving democracy. And hostile powers like China or Turkey are waiting to strike.

I don't think that socialism strengthens family values. This is why I gave the example of Socialist/Communist Russia where divorce, abortions, and extremely low fertility are a big problem.

"Fidelity" has always been problematic. I suppose infidelity is in a way part of human nature. But culture can act as a counterweight. In the old days the house wife could pass her time with the milkman or plumber, and the husband with the maid or mistress. But there was a tendency to stay together all the same for the sake of the family. The current trend is for relationships to last six months at the most or to have "open relationships", which is OK in principle but does not seem to promote family values.

I agree that gays are a small minority that poses no threat to families. Besides, there is nothing to stop gay people from having children. The threat to the family comes from the materialism and egotism of mainstream culture.

And yes, if women are forced to work instead of having children, then we are taking away their right to have children, their power, and their future. A society without children is a society without a future.

A woman who only works, buys goods, and goes to political rallies, is a tool in the hands of economic and political interests. If that's what she wants to do, that's fine. But then she can't claim that she cares about society, because if all women did what she does, then society would cease to exist within a few decades.

And without society, we can't have democracy. So, we need to decide whether we want democracy or not.

I interpret that to mean you are opposed to socialism. I can see socialism going either way, supporting families or destroying them. What is the goal of socialism? Is it possible it can be harmful or beneficial depending on the determined goal? — Athena

I am opposed to socialist policies as already explained. I am not saying that all socialist policies are bad.

However, I think the main goal of socialism is total state control over society, economy, and politics. And that isn't very democratic.

However, I think the main goal of socialism is total state control over society, economy, and politics. And that isn't very democratic. — Apollodorus

We have too many agreements. :lol: But your parting statement hit a nerve. Not because I disagree but because I think the is true for the US and the Military-Industrial Complex that has zero family values. Our young have been raised to be products and consumers for Industry. I would not be speaking of family values if we all took them for granted.

Historically US history has put Industry first. I think in the past, our education put being human first and educated for well-rounded individual growth, but our laws and police force protected property owners more than human rights, more than civil rights. Union workers risked getting their heads bashed in, or in some cases being gunned down, in their fight for better wages and better working conditions. Right now property owners who rent can make decisions about who lives in a rental and these laws are opposed to family helping family. If an elder woman is in section 8 housing and helps a son or daughter who does drugs she can be evicted and that becomes a serious barrier to getting into housing. So the woman who does the right thing of helping family becomes homeless. Of course, all the racist laws including when some states outlawed interracial marriages, are opposed to human rights. I suppose we could add laws against homosexuals to the list. That is certainly true when it comes to family, however, the reality is, gay families tend to do better than heterosexual families.

We could ask what is a family and what are family values and rights and duties. Then we might have better grounds for how Government could support family values?

You are absolutely right. Capitalism can have its negative sides, too. No system is perfect. But unless we revert to pre-capitalist or pre-industrial conditions, and seeing that socialism or communism is not an option, I think we are stuck with capitalism - until someone comes up with a better idea. :smile:

As regards the family, the mainstream definition of “traditional family” seems to be a nuclear family, i.e. “a child-rearing environment composed of a breadwinning father, a homemaking mother, and their (normally) biological children” (Wikipedia).

Of course, there are also “extended families” where close relatives like grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc., all live within one household.

It may be argued that the extended family provides a wider network of support than the nuclear family.

But considering that child-rearing is the defining element, values that are related to and supportive of this would qualify as family values and policies promoting child-rearing families would be family-friendly policies.

One important aspect of this though would be culture. You would need to have a culture that is family-oriented in the first place.

Economic factors can play a role. But people on a higher income don’t necessarily have more children than those on a lower income. So, I think you would need to start with a family-oriented culture and education system in the first place.

And then support political parties that promote this. Also start your own campaign group.

Since women are the child-bearers, it would probably be best to start as a women’s initiative in which men can be enrolled gradually.

But I think you would first need to organize your thoughts on the topic and make them part of some kind of integrated belief system and political program.

So maybe begin with a discussion group that can grow into something bigger once a clear ideology has been developed and its appeal to the wider public has been assessed?

But unless we revert to pre-capitalist or pre-industrial conditions, and seeing that socialism or communism is not an option, I think we are stuck with capitalism - until someone comes up with a better idea. :smile: — Apollodorus

You thoughts might go well in the new thread about Creating and Destroying a Civilization.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12077/creating-and-destroying-a-civilization.

I don't think there can not be capitalism before industrialization.

Tribes work together to feed everyone. Often the effort to feed everyone is tied to mythology implying some form of supernatural power must be appeased with taboos against putting self-interest first. I have heard Russia's communism is an imitation of Native American organization of people caring for each other.

In my younger years, I never imagined it would be so hard to have strong families and therefore a strong nation. Confucius was adamant about strong families being essential to a strong nation.

I came upon a study that formally discovered what should have been the obvious. The following quoted text was taken from the study’s 13-page report: “The future of any society depends on its ability to foster the health and well-being of the next generation. Stated simply, today’s children will become tomorrow’s citizens, workers, and parents. When we invest wisely in children and families, the next generation will pay that back through a lifetime of productivity and responsible citizenship. When we fail to provide children with what they need to build a strong foundation for healthy and productive lives, we put our future prosperity and security at risk …

All aspects of adult human capital, from work force skills to cooperative and lawful behavior, build on capacities that are developed during childhood, beginning at birth … The basic principles of neuroscience and the process of human skill formation indicate that early intervention for the most vulnerable children will generate the greatest payback.” (The Science of Early Childhood Development, 2007)

In the report’s entirety, the term “investment(s)” was used 22 times, “return” appeared eight times, “cost(s)” five times, “capital” appeared on four occasions, and either “pay”/“payback”/“pay that back” was used five times. While some may justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when social progress is most needed; and it seems that distinct form of societal penny wisdom but pound foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.

Due to the OIIIMOBY mindset, the prevailing collective attitude, however implicit or subconscious, basically follows, “Why should I care—I’m soundly raising my kid?” or “What’s in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support child development education and health programs for the sake of other people’s troubled families and bad parenting?” Meantime, too many people procreate regardless of their (in)capacity to raise children in a psychologically sound manner, according to child-development science; and consequential dysfunctional parenting occurs considerably more often than what is officially known thus acknowledged.

If society is to avoid the most dreaded, invasive and reactive means of intervention — that of governmental forced removal of children from dysfunctional/abusive home environments — maybe we then should be willing to try an unconventional proactive means of preventing some future dysfunctional/abusive family situations.

Being free nations, society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children; society can, however, educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those high-schoolers who plan to always remain childless. One can imagine that greater factual knowledge of what exactly entails raising and nurturing a fully sentient child/consciousness in this messed-up world — therefore the immense importance and often overwhelming responsibility of proper rearing — would probably make a student less likely to willfully procreate as adults.

Also, I've heard criticism that such curriculum would bore thus repel students from attending the classes to their passable-grade completion; however, could not the same reservation have been put forth in regards to other currently well-established and valued course subjects, both mandatory and elective, at the time they were originally proposed? (Also, currently well-established and valued course subjects, such as algebra and chemistry, likely won’t be of future use to students.)

Additionally, such curriculum — which could be wholly or in part based upon the four parenting styles: Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive and Uninvolved — may actually result in a novel effect on student minds, thereby stimulating interest in what otherwise can be a monotonous daily high-school routine. Some exceptionally receptive students may even be inspired to take up post-secondary studies specializing in child psychological and behavioral disorders.

They may ascertain that a psychologically and emotionally sound (as well as a physically healthy) future should be every child’s foremost right, especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter. Mindlessly minding our own business on this matter has proven humanly devastating.

@Athena,

your wrote:

Athens imitated Sparta for military reasons when Prussia began invading but it never took care of its people as Sparta did

Prussia?

This is astonishing to me. We use the term "New World Order" as though we in the US invented that idea. It is not our idea. It is a Prussian idea, developed before the first world war, and is what Eisenhower called the Military/Industrial Complex. It is what Hitler was about, and when the US adopted the German bureaucratic model that shifted power from the individual to the state, and replaced its liberal education with the German model of education for technology and military and industrial purpose, and replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy, it put itself on the same path Germany followed. Calling this a conspiracy is non sense. It is what the Prussians did when they took charge of the whole of Germany. They applied Prussian military bureaucracy to citizens, and focused education on technology for the rapid development of military technology. Industry is used to support the military and the military is used to defend a nation's economic interest.

I'm curious to know more about your views. Di you publish anything on this subject? Can you suggest any readings that support or elaborate more on your statements?