Gobblygook. Bye

Abortion increase may have a lot more to do with the number of reported cases due to the actual medical technologies available.

I would be reluctant to suggest that any one thing has contributed to anything else. Maybe one thing is more significant than many others though.

I am not talking about gender roles. I have not used the term 'gender' once. I am talking about distinct sexual differences and how they play out in human behaviour.

anatomy is functional opportunity, not 'destiny' — 180 Proof

No shit.

It is interesting to see that people can offer up thoughtful responses to something they believe is implied but when it comes to the question there are far fewer thoughtful answers offered.

What does being a 'cat lady' or 'incel' entail?

Is that even a possible situation? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes. You just need a very long train track :D Possible worlds theory allows this.

"2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary." — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

It is permitted to push the guy to save 5 lives. If no for you how about 1,000,000 lives.

DDE is not clear cut.

And in Stanford Encyclo:

According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.

The nuance comes down to what is considered a 'side effect'.

You cannot be a good philosopher and be married to any one party. — Philosophim

What if you start a party?

Harvesting the organs of someone to save 10 lives assuming there is no other availble means to save these 10 lives?

I am operating with the Principle of Double Effect (PDE). — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Would you push a fat guy off a bridge to stop a train that was going to kill 5 people? If not then how exactly is this different from flicking a switch?

For me it is solved, but more complicated. What is my intention in throwing the switch? It must be to save the five, not to kill the one. Killing the one must be a foreseen, but not intended, consequence. If I'm intending to kill the one, then it is murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

How about being in a position where you push someone onto the track to stop every other human life on the planet being snuffed out?

My point being true moral acts are ones that understand personal morals must sometimes be compromised. I would hopefully choose to kill one to save everyone else.

There is no formulaic solution to complex moral dilemmas. It is a matter of sacrificing your own sense of moral duty for a better outcome if you deem it necessary. In different scenarios different ethical apparatus are employed to suit societal demands, personal biases and a variety of other items.

In my view hypotheticals should be put to use to test our limitations not outright solve make-believe scenarios and then pat ourselves on the back. The point for me is to ask about where a line may be drawn. Killing one person to save the whole species seems worthy to me, but if you ask me at what number I would force myself to kill one to save n number of people, I would have to dive deeper and darker.

Yes, the physical strength difference between the average man compared to the average woman is very small compared to the difference between the strongest man and the weakest man. Thus where any human falls on a strength measure has much more association with their relative strength within their gender than whether they are male or female. — LuckyR

That is a very clever/perverse way of not denying that men are on average significantly stronger than women.

Just because the disparity in strength between men is greater than in women, this does not mean the strength differences between men and women are not significant (which they factually are btw).

I guess you are a 100% social construct kinda guy. Not interested.

While the testosterone-driven behaviors of males can override their efforts to be civil.

Married men tend to have lower testosterone than single males, and when a man divorces, his testosterone level increases. Gentle, nurturing men tend to have lower testosterone levels. — Athena

You are aware that testosterone has many benefits too. I have never heard that married men have lower testosterone? That is interesting if true.

So you think childbearing and physical strength are 'small differences' compared to what? True enough, compared to other apes the disparity between the sexes is relatively low.

The question is IF there is a biological drive to bear and raise children for women that presents itself in societal roles how would this present in society if they did not fulfil this biological drive. Same for men regarding upperbody strength and predominance in role involving brute force; where women are massively lagging.

There is literally no exaggeration.

It is a hypothetical question which means to look at the possible effects of possible biological drives on social roles. That is all.

If you are of the mindset that men's and women's roles are 100% social constructs you can take that up in another thread. I am not insulting your intelligence though, so I think you can fathom that it is POSSIBLE that biological drives play out in our social behaviours and in the example outlined in the OP I am asking specifically about how these drives may play out if they are not fulfilled under the assumption they will play out in a signifcant manner.

Now that that is cleared up, what do you think? Other than what has already been suggested anything else spring to mind?

Then men build machines or corporations. Men are problem-solvers. Despite the popularity of money and wealth, men who build things do it for its intrinsic meaning and importance. — L'éléphant

So they would build something to protect and provide for is what you mean? I guess a business venture could function as a 'child' of kinds. Plenty of people refer to a business venture as their 'baby,' so perhaps there is something to this.

They become rescuers of wildlife. They build wildlife conservation. They petition for the protection of natural habitats. They also fight for the preservation of natural landscapes. — L'éléphant

Protection of vulnerable/innocent. Seems like a reasonable substitute. Nurturing animals woudl seem like the most obvious substitute to raising children.

Lighten up about what? I just asked a question that is all.

If that is all you are going to contribute that is your choice. No big deal.

Enjoy your day.

I was simply asking how would these kind of biological drives present in societal life.

It is clearly a speculative question when it comes to a women's prevalance to nurture, as does a woman 'act out' such biological instincts if they do not have a child or are not exposed to children? Assuming there is something that remains how may this present?

I was looking for a bit more of a deep dive than 'crazy auntie'. So, what is it about a 'crazy auntie's' behaviour that makes it crazy? What is the craziness? What other ways may this present?

The old lady with cats makes sense to a degree, and I do think plenty of couples substitute children with pets.

Lol, a woman should bever be considered a "gap" to be filled. — Questioner

Regardless, if men seek women and there are not enough women how do they behave?

Surely there are women who "do not want to be provided for or protected by men". — baker

Yes. This is not what the question is asking though.

But probably the more prevalent situation is "women who realize that an increasing number of men cannot be counted on to provide and protect." — baker

Undoubtedly true in some cases. But again, this is not what is being asked.

They become Karens.
But hopefully, they just become old ladies with cats. — baker

What kind of behaviour is this? Perhaps the 'old lady with cats' shows a proclivity for nurturing. What is it that Karens do?

Also, what do men do if there is no one to provide for (woman and children) and therefore no need to protect them? How could this display itself otherwise in their behaviour?

You are your own worst enemy.

My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues. — Philosophim

Biased opinion.

Binary. If we had three arms, three eyes and three legs I reckon things might have played out differently ;)

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way. — Philosophim

Assume there is something, small but just significant enough, if you think biology is separate from psychology.

If you need evidence that there are clear biological differences between men and women that play into their psychological make-up go seek it out if you wish. It is certainly messy and not particularly clear cut.

If you want to talk about the social biases or expectations and whether society should have them, that's more a conversation which can be discussed here. — Philosophim

Not particularly.

If you wish to argue that they are 100% social constructs go ahead I guess (but preferably in another thread). — I like sushi

So, if women do not have children and they have a drive to nurture and care for children, then how might this present itself in modern life?

And, if men possess a natural drive to provide and protect for their partners and children, then how might this drive present itself in the modern world if there are no women willing to have children?

If you are not interested in participating no problem.

Sorry if this has already been covered, but do I have to create an account or are passwords and login for this one automatically transfered over by any chance?

Even though this is a massive generalisation please try and run with it and see how both men and women can substitute in something else for these basic biological drives. — I like sushi

If you cannot do this there is probably not much for us to discuss because:

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. — I like sushi

We can disagree here. Too many people are lazy, stupid or both when it comes to basic critical thinking.

Most people do not understand the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. This is the basic issue. A lack of critical thinking is nothing new.

I agree with you, all apparent contradictions so far, aside, that if it doesn't have drives, feelings, sensations, it shouldn't be viewed as sentient. — ENOAH

I mean literally, if it is not biological (carbon-based life form > Life) then it is not sentient. Computers are not sentient and silicon is not sentient. If a silicon-based life form exhibited something akin to sentience it would still not be accurate to call it 'sentient'. When it comes to AI the case is even more disparate as far as I can tell.

Panpsychism is also something I woudl level the very same argument against. Ideas of emergentism mislabel phenomena merely because it possesses 'components' of some larger phenomenon. We can make general demarcations and must do so in order to navigate the world.

Anyways, I do think this is interesting from the perspective of cognitive linguistics and human culture. Money, as someone mentioned, is one huge concept people kill and die for that is quite literally non-existent. The biggest religion of earth no one even recognises as a religion (even the staunch atheists!)

In fact, I think the existence of AI sentience is almost certain. — ENOAH

I do not. Essentially I think you are just saying AI is conscious because it is good at creating the illusion it is. A painting of a mountain is not a mountain.

That aside, I do think it is important to understand how we label phenomena and use concepts beyond their ordinary means. I think to call any non-carbon based system 'sentient' or 'conscious' is a deeply flawed approach.

The use of analogies is useful but also dangerous it terms of understanding reality.

I feel like, because that's how it "works," it seems almost certain AI will become sentient. — ENOAH

Are you saying 'sentience' is merely a human belief not a scientific reality? You would need to elaborate quite a bit more please. Sounds interesting.

You have my attention if this is what you are driving at :)

People are already cyborgs--physical and mental attachment to phones, cars etc.,.

Presumed sentience will be an interesting addition to this for sure. Even today people argue about the sentience of their pets.

He said "do not". That is what I was correcting.

Freedom comes with responsibility. You are perfectly free to do anything within your physical and mental capacities.

People do not act out on the freedoms they have because people do not really want to take responsibility for their actions.

If you believe your statement you should go to speakers corner perhaps and voice this concern and see what happens?

You have seen the light! :D

The objection isn't to the value of scientific exploration, but is specific to the value of manned vs unmanned spaceflight. — BenMcLean

and I said:

A little diverted cash towards space exploration and manned flights does nothing more than advance our understanding and open the door for further missions into space where people can actually go and live on other planets. — I like sushi

Either way I think there is more use in send people into space with a few million dollars rather than spending hundreds of millions on advertising things like coca-cola every year.

This is like asking is there any good reason for anything.

If you do not value exploration or pushing limits then I guess you do not value this. If your complaint is purely money based then why pick out space travel when trillions of dollars have been spent on advertising cereals that are bad for children? A little diverted cash towards space exploration and manned flights does nothing more than advance our understanding and open the door for further missions into space where people can actually go and live on other planets.

If you see no value in this you see no value. I am sure many laughed at the Wright brothers for trying to fly saying 'what is the point?'

And yet there's still little in the way of socialism in Europe. — frank

You are obsessing about this. I said leaning towards socialism not that there are socialist countries in Europe. No point in discussing further if all you can do is keep repeating the same thign as if I said 'Europe is Socialist and the US is not Socialist'. That is not what I said at all.

Again, what you're pointing to as evidence of European leftism is just government handouts in an otherwise liberal domain. — frank

Incorrect. I actually said the number of officials voted for (based on policies; which is kind of rare in the US as the campiagn system is basically little more than advertising rather than presenting any kind of manifesto) to represent the population and that are therefore in government positions.

Let me surmise:

- Actual left leaning representives voted into office in the government (Europe is hands down the winner here both now and over the last half century).
- No contest in terms of welfare state.
- No contest in terms of economic distribution.

If you wish to contest these then go ahead. If you say Europe has no socialist governments once more I am just going to disengage and assume you have no real response to anything I am stating.

I said over the last 50 yrs. Even now it is more or less the case across Europe (particularly I was looking west/north/south).

In the US the democrats have always been centrist (at best) in comparison europe. When has there been a significant (or any) government representatives in positions of governmental power (voted in) in the US who were clearly Leftist? If there were how do those numbers compare to European countries where a constant significant proportion of Left leaning representatives have been voted in.

In terms of welfare state policies there is no real contest. In terms of economic distibrution the same is true enough.

So, no. I strongly stand by my initial claim. The US has been more right leaning compared to Europe for the past 50 yrs or so.

How are we to have any reasonable chance of disagreeing if you cannot take what I say as I say it.

If you wan tto show evidence that the US governements ,over the past 50 yrs or so, has been more left leaning than European countries go ahead. Would be interesting to see.

I think you are just looking for an argument that doe snot exist. I never cliamed any country in Europes was socialist. I literally just quoted what I said in the context I said it.

Sadly, the US is so opposed to anything that leans towards socialism that they cannot handle holding a Leftist line. — I like sushi

You pay for healthcare. If you think that many European countries are more right leaning than the US over the past half-century I woudl have to say 'not true'. You can disagree if you want to.

I mean th US has fear of ANY socialist scheme. Healthcare is an obvious one.

The American Right is currently at a significant crossroads and I am speaking about it here not as a critic but as a lifelong insider. But even for an outsider, it should be valuable to understand why things are the way they are, why the Right currently has an ideological crisis and what this means for the future. — BenMcLean

You should know that from the outside BOTH parties in the US are very much Right Wing. You have had no Left Wing in my lifetime. I would say that over the last few decades there has been some Leftist posturing but that is all it is, 'posturing'.

Bernie is the only true voice of the Left I have seen in the US and I imagine the Democrats would have pummelled Trump if he was leading the line. Sadly, the US is so opposed to anything that leans towards socialism that they cannot handle holding a Leftist line.

I think the overall global picture is simply due to the death throws of nationhood. The experiment of Nation is coming to an end and this is simply an attempt to cling onto what is already pretty much over--it just hasn't been fully realised by everyone yet.

Everything I have read here sounds very much like it is skirting around phenomenology yet trying not to say so. Whether Wilbur is more a Heideggerian or Husserlian probably matters most (if anything).

Have you read much on phenomenology? I know this has been brought up in these forums before.