(Sorry, wall of texting everyone tonight...)
I saw a really interesting video a while back that suggested that there were 2 eras for homonid reproduction.
From 800,000 years ago to about 250,000 years ago, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have many partners and not worry about what happened since it'd likely turn out mostly fine since women could carry babies to term the same as other animals.
After 250,000 years ago, the human cranium became so huge that it started to endanger the women, and so first the women were more incapacitated when pregnant, and second the child was born much more prematurely compared to other animals. At that point, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have one (or a small number at least) of partners and be active in the child's development so the woman or women would be supported and the children would have additional support during the extra additional time they're helpless compared to other animals.
The discussion was about men at the time, but I think you can infer that survival strategies for women might be quite different as well under both scenarios.
In this sense, it makes sense that there are different strategies built into us and that they seem to be battling it out within an individual at times, and that for some people one strategy might express itself more than the other (or others -- there could be other strategies not contained in this model)
An interesting side effect of all of it is that it seems like there's something in children where they develop with an innate understanding of whether they are growing up in a stable family or not, and their life strategies actually fundamentally change as a result. Both boys and girls grow up with markedly more risk prone lifestyles. I don't know if it's psychological, physiological, or epigenetic, but it suggests just how profound the different reproductive strategy is on survival, that we've got mechanisms for different types of behaviors built in depending on the status of our family.
I have seen studies on the topic regarding children growing up, and the data is so compelling I don't know how it isn't on the front of every newspaper. The difference between a child with 2 parents and a child with 1 is astronomical.
I suspect that the reason it isn't heavily promoted is that it's contrary to the postmodern conception of life. We are not a tabula rasa, we are human beings ingrained with certain behaviors and mechanisms that helped us survive as a race, which manifest in us differently from person to person as we are each individual holders of a flame of life going back to the first single celled organism and going forward until the last person in our bloodlines expire and our histories are different and our lives are different. Moreover, we are not clay that can be molded into whatever form the powers that be might wish, we have an inbuilt preference for things in a certain way or else we turn to violence and crime and risky behaviors.
I saw a really interesting video a while back that suggested that there were 2 eras for homonid reproduction.
From 800,000 years ago to about 250,000 years ago, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have many partners and not worry about what happened since it'd likely turn out mostly fine since women could carry babies to term the same as other animals.
After 250,000 years ago, the human cranium became so huge that it started to endanger the women, and so first the women were more incapacitated when pregnant, and second the child was born much more prematurely compared to other animals. At that point, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have one (or a small number at least) of partners and be active in the child's development so the woman or women would be supported and the children would have additional support during the extra additional time they're helpless compared to other animals.
The discussion was about men at the time, but I think you can infer that survival strategies for women might be quite different as well under both scenarios.
In this sense, it makes sense that there are different strategies built into us and that they seem to be battling it out within an individual at times, and that for some people one strategy might express itself more than the other (or others -- there could be other strategies not contained in this model)
An interesting side effect of all of it is that it seems like there's something in children where they develop with an innate understanding of whether they are growing up in a stable family or not, and their life strategies actually fundamentally change as a result. Both boys and girls grow up with markedly more risk prone lifestyles. I don't know if it's psychological, physiological, or epigenetic, but it suggests just how profound the different reproductive strategy is on survival, that we've got mechanisms for different types of behaviors built in depending on the status of our family.
I have seen studies on the topic regarding children growing up, and the data is so compelling I don't know how it isn't on the front of every newspaper. The difference between a child with 2 parents and a child with 1 is astronomical.
I suspect that the reason it isn't heavily promoted is that it's contrary to the postmodern conception of life. We are not a tabula rasa, we are human beings ingrained with certain behaviors and mechanisms that helped us survive as a race, which manifest in us differently from person to person as we are each individual holders of a flame of life going back to the first single celled organism and going forward until the last person in our bloodlines expire and our histories are different and our lives are different. Moreover, we are not clay that can be molded into whatever form the powers that be might wish, we have an inbuilt preference for things in a certain way or else we turn to violence and crime and risky behaviors.
Economic factors do make up a large difference, but 2 biological parent families vs. 1 biological parent 1 step parent families show marked differences as well, suggesting that the economic stress is only one part of the puzzle. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/73/1/221/2233111
There are studies about other cultures, but I couldn't find any comparing cultures.
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/13/18-13.pdf [Korea] the study found that children were less likely to want to attend university.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1145 [Sub Saharan Africa] the study found children much less likely to live to 5.
These articles suggest that at least korean and sub saharan african cultures both show negative effects from being raised by a single parent.
It looks like there's considerable literature suggesting that an extended family such as grandparents being in the picture has a powerful impact on children's outcomes, but surprisingly this study found it depends on race. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4622450
I tried to find more information about how many grandparents are involved in single parent household childrearing vs. 2-parent households but failed. On one hand being a single parent can create a need that a grandparent can fill. On the other hand, divorces and break-ups do damage extended family relations.
I was interested in the studies on violent crime, but I couldn't find any studies on indian, chinese, and african civilizations and violent crime compared to western civilization.
One thing that reviewing the literature started to make clear to me is that you can correct for all the things being a single parent cause, but while that makes for a good experimental model, it's I think missing the forest for the trees because there are potential causal relationships here... maybe? Married couples definitely make more money by far than single parent households and the data there is overwhelming, but could that just be because the sort of people who are making more money or likely to make more money are more likely to get married? At the same time, extended families tend to get involved more in single parent households, but the process of divorce or break-ups can actually damage extended family relations as well, having a causal impact on that.
Another thing is something one paper I read suggested, that there's a sort of dual economics going on, where single parents have to choose between money or paying attention to their kids. It seems that single mothers tend to focus on the latter, single fathers the former. Both deficits seem to have a negative impact, suggesting that my original point that two parent households are beneficial is going to generally be true for the same reason, that kids and mothers need help to be doing their best (and so do fathers it seems -- it's not easy for anyone to go it alone).
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of literature suggesting that there are factors other than simply future earning potential that determine who gets married and who stays married. Religious people were overwhelmingly more likely to get married than atheists https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/03/19/share-of-married-adults-varies-widely-across-u-s-religious-groups/ (68% for the top religious group vs. 30% for atheists)
As well, religious women are slightly more likely to stay married than atheist ones. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-religious-marriage-paradox-younger-marriage-less-divorce/ " Overall, if we control for basic socioeconomic background and a woman’s educational career trajectory, the typical marriage of a woman with a religious upbringing is about 10% less likely to end in divorce within the first 15 years of marriage than the typical marriage of a woman with a non-religious upbringing."
The next question would have to then be "do people get more religious as they get wealthier?", but according to one theory called Secularization, they in fact become less religious. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3511041
This all seems to suggest that religiosity is a relatively independent variable that would have a causal impact on more kids growing up with 2 parent households for reasons not related to economics or other materialist factors.
Another factor there that could skew the whole data set is that relgious people are going to be indoctrinated into ideologies whose memetic value may be that they provided a survival advantage over people who didn't have those ideologies, such as prosocial guilt-based worldviews that make people try to be trustworthy to be worthy in the eyes of God, so that would end up affecting outcomes of parents and children.
I think it's easy to forget in all the facts and figures and logic that reality is reality and whatever the reason at the end of the day most kids in 2-parent households simply do astoundingly better than most kids in single parent households. We can discuss the reasons why but it's important not to bury the lede or sand down the facts by analysis so deep we forget what the facts are.
There are studies about other cultures, but I couldn't find any comparing cultures.
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/13/18-13.pdf [Korea] the study found that children were less likely to want to attend university.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1145 [Sub Saharan Africa] the study found children much less likely to live to 5.
These articles suggest that at least korean and sub saharan african cultures both show negative effects from being raised by a single parent.
It looks like there's considerable literature suggesting that an extended family such as grandparents being in the picture has a powerful impact on children's outcomes, but surprisingly this study found it depends on race. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4622450
I tried to find more information about how many grandparents are involved in single parent household childrearing vs. 2-parent households but failed. On one hand being a single parent can create a need that a grandparent can fill. On the other hand, divorces and break-ups do damage extended family relations.
I was interested in the studies on violent crime, but I couldn't find any studies on indian, chinese, and african civilizations and violent crime compared to western civilization.
One thing that reviewing the literature started to make clear to me is that you can correct for all the things being a single parent cause, but while that makes for a good experimental model, it's I think missing the forest for the trees because there are potential causal relationships here... maybe? Married couples definitely make more money by far than single parent households and the data there is overwhelming, but could that just be because the sort of people who are making more money or likely to make more money are more likely to get married? At the same time, extended families tend to get involved more in single parent households, but the process of divorce or break-ups can actually damage extended family relations as well, having a causal impact on that.
Another thing is something one paper I read suggested, that there's a sort of dual economics going on, where single parents have to choose between money or paying attention to their kids. It seems that single mothers tend to focus on the latter, single fathers the former. Both deficits seem to have a negative impact, suggesting that my original point that two parent households are beneficial is going to generally be true for the same reason, that kids and mothers need help to be doing their best (and so do fathers it seems -- it's not easy for anyone to go it alone).
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of literature suggesting that there are factors other than simply future earning potential that determine who gets married and who stays married. Religious people were overwhelmingly more likely to get married than atheists https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/03/19/share-of-married-adults-varies-widely-across-u-s-religious-groups/ (68% for the top religious group vs. 30% for atheists)
As well, religious women are slightly more likely to stay married than atheist ones. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-religious-marriage-paradox-younger-marriage-less-divorce/ " Overall, if we control for basic socioeconomic background and a woman’s educational career trajectory, the typical marriage of a woman with a religious upbringing is about 10% less likely to end in divorce within the first 15 years of marriage than the typical marriage of a woman with a non-religious upbringing."
The next question would have to then be "do people get more religious as they get wealthier?", but according to one theory called Secularization, they in fact become less religious. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3511041
This all seems to suggest that religiosity is a relatively independent variable that would have a causal impact on more kids growing up with 2 parent households for reasons not related to economics or other materialist factors.
Another factor there that could skew the whole data set is that relgious people are going to be indoctrinated into ideologies whose memetic value may be that they provided a survival advantage over people who didn't have those ideologies, such as prosocial guilt-based worldviews that make people try to be trustworthy to be worthy in the eyes of God, so that would end up affecting outcomes of parents and children.
I think it's easy to forget in all the facts and figures and logic that reality is reality and whatever the reason at the end of the day most kids in 2-parent households simply do astoundingly better than most kids in single parent households. We can discuss the reasons why but it's important not to bury the lede or sand down the facts by analysis so deep we forget what the facts are.
There's a couple really interesting things about this I found. I have to apologize, these sources are clearly biased but they're still interesting.
This is an article talking about the nuclear family going back to the 1300s in England. This makes a lot of sense in some ways since England is an island nation that relied a lot on its navy. This actually jives with history that isn't particularly partisan today, that following the black death, lords were having to deal with people migrating from territory to territory since the value of an individual would have risen in that time. Part of the reason for the peasant revolts of the 1300s-1500s is that lords were trying to keep their peasants from migrating using tyrannical means and the peasants wanted to leave. This matches more with the nuclear family structure where individuals go where the opportunity is instead of a clan or extended family structure that would much more leave you tied to a certain geographical region unless you could convince your entire clan to pack up and leave.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-roots-of-the-nuclear-family/
Secondly, here's a video from whatifalthist that examines family structures as a driving force throughout history. The interesting thing is realizing how many family structures there are in the world today, and whether you agree with all his conclusions it's nonetheless thought provoking and some of the statements he says about family structures and the societies that form around those family structures are incontrovertable (of course there's that pesky causality problem again, not gonna pretend)
https://youtu.be/-RFFwhbVqeU
I'm a member of a nuclear family society, and I'm afraid that the first article has me dead to rights. My life's meaning and work is my son, and we did wait until I was 'worthy' of having a family to have kids, and I wrote a damn book for the little guy showing I care deeply about his education under the assumption that someday he will have to go off and do the same. The nuclear family is implicit in my suggestion that Grayson be prepared for his "walz", or his journey to learn his craft. The existential and individualistic tone of my book and telling him to find his own way is all part of that too. In one of the clan or extended family based societies, it's likely that I'd be readying him to conform to the family's expectations instead.
The other thing is "be careful what you wish for", since it really does seem that if you switch out family structures, you also switch out basic cultural assumptions, and that's going to lead to fundamentally different societies that you might not actually want. The Nuclear family society is the most open to strangers, the most free, and it isn't an accident that successful feminism came from nuclear family societies. It seems like many other forms of society are more likely to be less free, much less equal, less prosperous, less agile, and often deeply socially conservative. I think we need to be careful when assuming that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the nuclear family structure inherently is likely to result in better outcomes for kids, because of the following narrative:
1. Fathers must be "worthy" of having a family and need to become someone a woman can fall in love with, you won't get married solely by virtue of your mother or father or aunt or uncle picking a spouse for you, and they need to individually achieve that worthiness, since they won't have the value of their clan behind them. Compare with many clan structures where your mate is chosen for you by the family.
2. The fathers who have more material resources because they have become worthy, are older and wiser, and selected for success. The women who fall in love with them select them in part because they have virtues that will help them survive as a unit, and women take more time choosing than if they were just forced into a marriage. In some clan based societies, women are married off before they've even hit puberty. Compare to a clan structure where the elders likely have the most control over resources.
3. Because both parents are older, there are fewer kids, and smaller families do mean that there are more resources to dedicate to each child compared to other family structures.
4. The kids are born, with both parents knowing that in 20 years the child will have to prove themselves worthy if they are a boy, or find and attract a worthy boy if they are a girl, and so the parents focus on raising a child who is as good as possible to help sustain the bloodline by producing meritorious heirs who will go out and find independent success. Contrast this with clan structures where fitting into the clan or extended family is likely to be the top concern.
It really becomes clear why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies in a short period of time, going from clan structures being the most dominant society type on earth to nuclear family societies covering much of the globe.
In spite of that, I think it's safe to say that the nuclear family is a two sided sword, on one side it's a highly meritocratic system that results in better outcomes and people competitively working to become virtuous enough to succeed. on the other hand, it's destabilizing, and it's contrary to fundamental human nature in many ways.
I don't think I can imagine a good society centered around single parenthood. The data from India and sub-saharan Africa both show that kids are more likely to face big problems including infant mortality when they are in a single parent family, and both india and sub saharan africa are not nuclear families. It's a "law of physics" problem where it's always going to be harder alone.
I was also just thinking that the whole concept of single parenthood is predicated on cultural assumptions that arise from the liberal societies arising in part from the nuclear family. In many societies, if your clan picks who your spouse is, that's your spouse. You don't get an option to be a single parent because the same group that will support you will also not allow you to leave that spouse. In some more clan based societies, you may be killed for indulging in sex outside of your arranged marriage (not all, admittedly, but it's quite common)
This is an article talking about the nuclear family going back to the 1300s in England. This makes a lot of sense in some ways since England is an island nation that relied a lot on its navy. This actually jives with history that isn't particularly partisan today, that following the black death, lords were having to deal with people migrating from territory to territory since the value of an individual would have risen in that time. Part of the reason for the peasant revolts of the 1300s-1500s is that lords were trying to keep their peasants from migrating using tyrannical means and the peasants wanted to leave. This matches more with the nuclear family structure where individuals go where the opportunity is instead of a clan or extended family structure that would much more leave you tied to a certain geographical region unless you could convince your entire clan to pack up and leave.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-roots-of-the-nuclear-family/
Secondly, here's a video from whatifalthist that examines family structures as a driving force throughout history. The interesting thing is realizing how many family structures there are in the world today, and whether you agree with all his conclusions it's nonetheless thought provoking and some of the statements he says about family structures and the societies that form around those family structures are incontrovertable (of course there's that pesky causality problem again, not gonna pretend)
https://youtu.be/-RFFwhbVqeU
I'm a member of a nuclear family society, and I'm afraid that the first article has me dead to rights. My life's meaning and work is my son, and we did wait until I was 'worthy' of having a family to have kids, and I wrote a damn book for the little guy showing I care deeply about his education under the assumption that someday he will have to go off and do the same. The nuclear family is implicit in my suggestion that Grayson be prepared for his "walz", or his journey to learn his craft. The existential and individualistic tone of my book and telling him to find his own way is all part of that too. In one of the clan or extended family based societies, it's likely that I'd be readying him to conform to the family's expectations instead.
The other thing is "be careful what you wish for", since it really does seem that if you switch out family structures, you also switch out basic cultural assumptions, and that's going to lead to fundamentally different societies that you might not actually want. The Nuclear family society is the most open to strangers, the most free, and it isn't an accident that successful feminism came from nuclear family societies. It seems like many other forms of society are more likely to be less free, much less equal, less prosperous, less agile, and often deeply socially conservative. I think we need to be careful when assuming that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the nuclear family structure inherently is likely to result in better outcomes for kids, because of the following narrative:
1. Fathers must be "worthy" of having a family and need to become someone a woman can fall in love with, you won't get married solely by virtue of your mother or father or aunt or uncle picking a spouse for you, and they need to individually achieve that worthiness, since they won't have the value of their clan behind them. Compare with many clan structures where your mate is chosen for you by the family.
2. The fathers who have more material resources because they have become worthy, are older and wiser, and selected for success. The women who fall in love with them select them in part because they have virtues that will help them survive as a unit, and women take more time choosing than if they were just forced into a marriage. In some clan based societies, women are married off before they've even hit puberty. Compare to a clan structure where the elders likely have the most control over resources.
3. Because both parents are older, there are fewer kids, and smaller families do mean that there are more resources to dedicate to each child compared to other family structures.
4. The kids are born, with both parents knowing that in 20 years the child will have to prove themselves worthy if they are a boy, or find and attract a worthy boy if they are a girl, and so the parents focus on raising a child who is as good as possible to help sustain the bloodline by producing meritorious heirs who will go out and find independent success. Contrast this with clan structures where fitting into the clan or extended family is likely to be the top concern.
It really becomes clear why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies in a short period of time, going from clan structures being the most dominant society type on earth to nuclear family societies covering much of the globe.
In spite of that, I think it's safe to say that the nuclear family is a two sided sword, on one side it's a highly meritocratic system that results in better outcomes and people competitively working to become virtuous enough to succeed. on the other hand, it's destabilizing, and it's contrary to fundamental human nature in many ways.
I don't think I can imagine a good society centered around single parenthood. The data from India and sub-saharan Africa both show that kids are more likely to face big problems including infant mortality when they are in a single parent family, and both india and sub saharan africa are not nuclear families. It's a "law of physics" problem where it's always going to be harder alone.
I was also just thinking that the whole concept of single parenthood is predicated on cultural assumptions that arise from the liberal societies arising in part from the nuclear family. In many societies, if your clan picks who your spouse is, that's your spouse. You don't get an option to be a single parent because the same group that will support you will also not allow you to leave that spouse. In some more clan based societies, you may be killed for indulging in sex outside of your arranged marriage (not all, admittedly, but it's quite common)
You're suggesting that people from nuclear family-based societies are more violent and more likely to be violent than people in other societies and that's the reason why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies.
Such a stance appears to me to be counterfactual.
- Many of the bloodiest wars in history happened in Asia, including examples like the taiping rebellion which killed 20-30 million people and the anlushan rebellion which killed 10 million people. The Asia has a number of different types of society including chinese, indian, and southeast asian societies.
Another whatifalthist video on some of the bloodiest atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZ0Z1Bw2is
While there are some terrible things on that list done by societies that had nuclear families at the time (the indian famines being a particularly tragic example), it shows there's no monopoly on violence.
- The deadliest war in history would be World War 2, which was started by a civilization (Nazi Germany) with an authoritarian family structure, and the most brutal fighting in the war was with another country which had an authoritarian family structure, the soviet union (which tried to eliminate the family as a source of power like China did but had not succeeded and in fact by the 1930s made strong family a core part of their policy)
- The most violent places on earth right now would be places that don't have a nuclear family structure, such as certain parts of Africa (which can vary considerably in structure including practices like polygamy which I think can arguably be in the running for the ideology that promotes the most violence). Ethiopia is a nuclear family society and is notable as relatively peaceful and prosperous.
-The conflict everyone is paying attention to right now is in the middle east, which pits jewish culture which isn't a nuclear family society against arab muslim culture which isn't a nuclear family society (and neither are both russia and ukraine as I understand it).
-Meanwhile, almost every country on earth that has a nuclear family structure is at peace, with the notable exception of Guyana and Venezuela which look like they could come to blows over a stretch of ocean.
Instead, I think there is a good argument for polygamy being the family structure whose societies produce the most violent people since powerful men get all the women and most men get nothing, which would drive them to extreme desperation including throwing themselves at meaningless wars for status to try to get wives and access to sex. I think it's no mistake that the areas with more violence at the moment tend to have more polygamy.
In the case of monogamous nuclear families, I'd expect less violence because the men are more likely to get wives and children and so have a good reason not to get themselves killed in a war.
The Muslims who were able to roll over india in the 9th century presumably didn't defeat the Indians because they were more violent, but because they were more effective including using better strategies. They were outnumbered 100 to 1, much like the Khitan people north of China who took over northern China in the 9th century and formed the Lian dynasty, and with that level of overwhelming numberical disadvantage, there's something other than violence at work.
In the same way, I think it's arguable that the nuclear family societies won through superior economic might, superior military technology, and also some diplomatic acumen. The Assyrians and Nazi Germany were both supremely violent, but their raw violence and brutality convinced everyone to gang up against them because raw violence scares people. Those competitive advantages would have come from the young men working hard to become worthy of raising a family going out and making something of themselves.
Anyway, I need to stop, my brain is numb from looking through sources all evening. :P
Such a stance appears to me to be counterfactual.
- Many of the bloodiest wars in history happened in Asia, including examples like the taiping rebellion which killed 20-30 million people and the anlushan rebellion which killed 10 million people. The Asia has a number of different types of society including chinese, indian, and southeast asian societies.
Another whatifalthist video on some of the bloodiest atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZ0Z1Bw2is
While there are some terrible things on that list done by societies that had nuclear families at the time (the indian famines being a particularly tragic example), it shows there's no monopoly on violence.
- The deadliest war in history would be World War 2, which was started by a civilization (Nazi Germany) with an authoritarian family structure, and the most brutal fighting in the war was with another country which had an authoritarian family structure, the soviet union (which tried to eliminate the family as a source of power like China did but had not succeeded and in fact by the 1930s made strong family a core part of their policy)
- The most violent places on earth right now would be places that don't have a nuclear family structure, such as certain parts of Africa (which can vary considerably in structure including practices like polygamy which I think can arguably be in the running for the ideology that promotes the most violence). Ethiopia is a nuclear family society and is notable as relatively peaceful and prosperous.
-The conflict everyone is paying attention to right now is in the middle east, which pits jewish culture which isn't a nuclear family society against arab muslim culture which isn't a nuclear family society (and neither are both russia and ukraine as I understand it).
-Meanwhile, almost every country on earth that has a nuclear family structure is at peace, with the notable exception of Guyana and Venezuela which look like they could come to blows over a stretch of ocean.
Instead, I think there is a good argument for polygamy being the family structure whose societies produce the most violent people since powerful men get all the women and most men get nothing, which would drive them to extreme desperation including throwing themselves at meaningless wars for status to try to get wives and access to sex. I think it's no mistake that the areas with more violence at the moment tend to have more polygamy.
In the case of monogamous nuclear families, I'd expect less violence because the men are more likely to get wives and children and so have a good reason not to get themselves killed in a war.
The Muslims who were able to roll over india in the 9th century presumably didn't defeat the Indians because they were more violent, but because they were more effective including using better strategies. They were outnumbered 100 to 1, much like the Khitan people north of China who took over northern China in the 9th century and formed the Lian dynasty, and with that level of overwhelming numberical disadvantage, there's something other than violence at work.
In the same way, I think it's arguable that the nuclear family societies won through superior economic might, superior military technology, and also some diplomatic acumen. The Assyrians and Nazi Germany were both supremely violent, but their raw violence and brutality convinced everyone to gang up against them because raw violence scares people. Those competitive advantages would have come from the young men working hard to become worthy of raising a family going out and making something of themselves.
Anyway, I need to stop, my brain is numb from looking through sources all evening. :P
You're making some big assumptions that if I pursue either of these topics I'll hit exactly the same documents you did and I'll interpret them exactly the same way you did.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0