Chaos Theory, Sick Society and You

[MagnetMan]

This would identify the answer to the question I asked previously. It would seem that your basis is in sociology. This is due to the holistic treatment of the society, rather than the individual oriented compositional view of society. To not look at the system as a whole, is to not look at the system but a single part, which though significant is worthless without the rest of the system.

 

The individual is a microcosmic expression of the macrocosm. If you know the collective, you know the individual - for they are one and the same. The microcosmic differences are only important to each indiviual and in the end, have little or no affect on the course of the whole. .

 

Look at an ant colony and we see the only the collective busy at work. Though each ant is its own individual self, the differences are too minute for us to take note of or remark on. And because the ant has not manufactured its own artiifcial ego, its individual will and sense of being is infinitely magnified by its willingness to conform with the central will that is focused on the queen.

 

The human colony is essentially the same. Any indignant argument that refutes our conformity only reaffirms the Narsissistic characteristics that defines the teenage psyche, which is lost in the stupor of its own refelction.

 

The simple fact of life is that any experience is meaningless unless it is shared with another - and the larger the group it is shared with the greater the enjoyment.

 

Go to a rock concert or a football stadium and agree with this.

 

The Olympic games is the closest we have yet got to global sharing. When we grow beyond teenage games, the adult world of sharing and parenting will be indescribable. And the cultivated Eden we are capabale of creating if we all work towards the same end, will make the collective efforts of the ants and the bees pale in comparison:)

[IDMclean]

Indeed, that would be my opinion of it, even have a term for that. Anatta, which I have discussed at length in the buddhism thread.

 

Go to a rock concert or a football stadium and agree with this.

 

NO. This is what is called conformity and results ultimately in stagnation. I do not agree that the whole can be used to descearn the individual. I take nothing at face value, and scrutinize each piece of information that goes into my head.

 

The individual is a microcosmic expression of the macrocosm. If you know the collective, you know the individual - for they are one and the same. The microcosmic differences are only important to each indiviual and in the end, have little or no affect on the course of the whole.

 

Such a statement must be backed with proof. I ask that you figure out my life, who I am, how I came to be, why my beliefs are as they are, without looking at what I, as an individual, have told you. Looking only through the end of the hose that is society.

 

I liken society to a Molecule. The individual as the Atom, and the Psyche to Quarks.

 

By understanding the dynamics of the individual, you can understand his interaction with the group, and thereby determine the dynamics that make up the group.

 

Obiviously I approach from a bottom up perspective, and you, MagnetMan, from the top down. We talk in General Relativity and Quantum Theory respectably.

 

I see that we are floundering in a sea of minutae. I purpose we indentify angles that are being taken, and can be taken on this subject. Layout what concepts are out there and then dissect them in turn. How's that sound? We can talk pros and cons of each approach and come to a better, more holistic, solution, hopefully.

[Michaelangelica]

The individual is a microcosmic expression of the macrocosm. If you know the collective, you know the individual - for they are one and the same. The microcosmic differences are only important to each indiviual and in the end, have little or no affect on the course of the whole. .

 

Look at an ant colony and we see the only the collective busy at work. Though each ant is its own individual self, the differences are too minute for us to take note of or remark on.

 

The human colony is essentially the same.

 

The simple fact of life is that any experience is meaningless unless it is shared with another - and the larger the group it is shared with the greater the enjoyment.

 

Rubbish

there are big differences between the individual and the society we live in.

 

Human society is in no way analogous to an ant colony.

For a start we don't all blindly follow the Queen.

(see Bush good for the country thread):naughty:

 

You need to read some sociology, anthropology, philosophy, group dynamics, psychology of consciousness, and social psychology.

[MagnetMan]

 

NO. This is what is called conformity and results ultimately in stagnation.

The rock concert and football games of today differ from those of the past and will differ from those in the future. Entertainment via the arts never stagnates it is always progressive.

 

I do not agree that the whole can be used to descearn the individual.

You are little more than an extention of your ancesters. You owe them reverence for being here and being aware enough to enjoy you life. Confucius was very much aware of that. Next time you are in a jet liner flying to NY, try thinking about an oxwagon ride across that same territory and build a civilization from scratch in the wilderness. deMause is entirely at fault here and obviously nows nothing about the social and spiritual values of filial piety. You need to take a closer look at some other social philosphers and not anchor your whole life on his mistaken statements.

 

I take nothing at face value, and scrutinize each piece of information that goes into my head.

Good for you. That is the way it should be for all of us. But remember you can only weigh input against base ethical values. You did not create the intellectual smarts you have now all by yourself. They are the result of 3 billion years of organic evolution. If this were not so, your mother would have been faced with trying to civilize a chimpanzee from scratch. Your ancesters imprinted the sharing ethic, the work-ethic. courage, community commitment, vision and intellect. Your growth from infancy has been basically a reminder of gifts you already inherited - this is why we have occassional child prodogies who exhibit the skills and wisdoms of sages at an early age.

 

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

The individual is a microcosmic expression of the macrocosm. If you know the collective, you know the individual - for they are one and the same.

 

Such a statement must be backed with proof. I ask that you figure out my life, who I am, how I came to be, why my beliefs are as they are, without looking at what I, as an individual, have told you. Looking only through the end of the hose that is society.

My statement already incorporates you. If I know you, I know society. You are basically one and the same - that is unless you are an alien from another star system.

 

By understanding the dynamics of the individual, you can understand his interaction with the group, and thereby determine the dynamics that make up the group

Obiviously I approach from a bottom up perspective, and you, MagnetMan, from the top down.

You are merely repeating me and contradicting yourself.

 

I see that we are floundering in a sea of minutae. I purpose we indentify angles that are being taken, and can be taken on this subject. Layout what concepts are out there and then dissect them in turn. How's that sound? We can talk pros and cons of each approach and come to a better, more holistic, solution, hopefully.

Will do, provided you realize that I am 65 and you are 19. I have been where you are and you have a long way to go to get where I am. I know teenagers hate to be reminded of that, but it is the sober truth anyway. To quote yourself - "one cannot know what one has not experienced." If it turns out that you are more experienced than I, I will sing your praises loud and clear.

 

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Look at an ant colony and we see the only the collective busy at work. Though each ant is its own individual self, the differences are too minute for us to take note of or remark on.

 

The human colony is essentially the same.

 

The simple fact of life is that any experience is meaningless unless it is shared with another - and the larger the group it is shared with the greater the enjoyment.

 

 

Rubbish

 

All of it? Are shared experiences meaningless?

 

there are big differences between the individual and the society we live in.

How big? Do tell.

 

Human society is in no way analogous to an ant colony.

Yeah? Ever seen stop frame photography of cars rushing back and forth on a freeway, or twenty thousand people streaming into a high-rise all reacting to the commands of the Kingpin (or Queenpin) inside? Same thing on the battle field. Check out an army of soldier ants on a raid. I would suggest, "noway analogous " is not the right way to dispute my analogy.

 

For a start we don't all blindly follow the Queen.

(see Bush good for the country thread):hihi:

Fact is the country is blindly following the queen - er king - or is it president?

 

You need to read some sociology, anthropology, philosophy, group dynamics, psychology of consciousness, and social psychology.

You need to read Psyche-Genetics and get some real first hand knowledge from a man who spent half his life in Africa, where all that psycho-babble first began. I have done my homework young lady and reinvestigated and restated a lot that the guys ahead of me got wrong. .:hihi:

[IDMclean]

You are little more than an extention of your ancesters. You owe them reverence for being here and being aware enough to enjoy you life.

 

No I met my ancestors, all the way up to my greats, of which one is still alive. As for ox and flying over Ny? I am a fourth generation American. 6 of 8 my greats are first generation americans. Never saw the 18th century. And trust me, I don't care if they gave birth to the great or not so great people whom birthed the parents of me, they were Horrible people. I am decendant of them but they are not my family.

 

My Grandmother, Claudia King Mother to my Mother, Author of Life Mastery, Graduate of Chemistry, UC Berkley, Graduate of Art History, Indian University. Valedictorian Of Orland Highschool, Artist, Philosopher.

My Grandfather, Douglas Mclean father to my Mother, Comedian extraordinaire and Santa Claus.

My Mother, Kia Mclean, Master Child wrangler, Poet, Mathematician, Philosopher, Sociologist, and Political Activist.

My Aunt, Kendra Mclean, Child Wrangler, Master Dancer, and Seamstress.

My Great Aunt, Jane King, Writer, Nurse, and Overall Master Human being.

My Great Uncle, Bruce King, Farmer, and Master Photographer.

My Brother, "Builder" Nicholas Mclean, Building Inspector graduate, With Honors from Butte Community College, and Genius.

My Sister, Roxanne Mclean, Artistic Prodigal, Fashion Designer, and Cool Person.

My Sister, Nina Conlin, Party Girl and Punk.

My Cousins, Elijah Elizalde, Nora Elizalde, and Joyce Murray.

These are my family. These are the people I respect. These are my mentors and guides through life.

 

Will do, provided you realize that I am 65 and you are 19.

 

If it turns out that you are more experienced than I, I will sing your praises loud and clear.

 

I do not claim to be more experienced, I might proffess to be more learned in a given area of experitise. I do not patronize you, and I do not insult or flaunt given merits before you. I expect to be treated with due respect, as I respect you. I do not approve of the arguement tactic of "Cause I'm older than you". I have gone through way to many people who have in the end defaulted to that as their arguement basis.

 

I may not be your age, but I, like everyone else, is a peer, an equal. My word has weight, and if you chose not to respected on the basis of Age, Gender, Race, Religious Creed, Sexual Orientation, or Ideological basis. Then I will chose the high road and will still respect your opinions and ideas despite what I may think regarding character.

 

I could spend a month on the various sources of my knowlegde basis and Ideology, I could cite till I'm blue in the face and the server is filled to the brim with text on who said this or that. Instead I try to communicate the condensed version what has resulted from years of sleeping on it.

 

-Rawr, Ian Mclean The Indigent Lion.

[IDMclean]

Anyway, to clarify one point:

 

agree with this

No. I do not agree with arguements, on a almost primal level that tell me to just agree with them for the hell of it.

 

The individual is a microcosmic expression of the macrocosm. If you know the collective, you know the individual - for they are one and the same. The microcosmic differences are only important to each indiviual and in the end, have little or no affect on the course of the whole.

 

Such a statement must be backed with proof. I ask that you figure out my life, who I am, how I came to be, why my beliefs are as they are, without looking at what I, as an individual, have told you. Looking only through the end of the hose that is society.

 

My statement already incorporates you. If I know you, I know society. You are basically one and the same - that is unless you are an alien from another star system.

 

This does not address my request for proof. You do not prove anything with your statement. I ask that you meet the claim that you can figure out the individual by looking at the society. Well I am an individual, and I can guarantee that you can not analysis me simply through society. Their records don't show even half of who I am.

 

I have a large number of other Sociologist, Psychologist, Philosophers, and otehr great thinker's movements that I understand. deMause happens to be one of the more recent one's I've read and at current learning.

 

I would suggest reading all (or most all) of what someone has to say before claiming it to be bunk. I have already professed disagreements with some of deMause's work, however for the most part I would agree with his techniques. Where as a number of the so called "soft" sciences are lacking in the emperical data, deMause's findings are based in just that, hard emperical data.

[Michaelangelica]

There are exceptions that further the aim of evolution and must therefore be applied to the general theorem.

The fundamental generality that I work from is that i see humankind as a single evolving consciousness.

 

You must be alone in that opinion.

Even Jung only ever postulated a "Collective Unconscious" and no one seems to believe him. (Pity, it is a nice idea.)

 

Individual idiosynchracies do not concern me, unless one happens to manifest an original creative thought. That only happens once in a blue moon.

 

No, quite frequently, actually.

Check out the last c100 years of Nobel prizes.

 

This single human Being took birth in a Stone Age infancy and is graduating Age by Age towards a transcendental stage of Cosmic sagehood, which will happen sometime in the near uture, when our evolutionary cycle will end its phsyical manifestation. Children will no longer be born in that final Age. Right now we are nearing mid-cycle - we are in a predominantly rebellious teenage mode of independent self-determinations, teetering on the brink of self destruct with all kinds of weapons of mass madness, with only some of us aware of the next stage of young adulthood as respeoonsible global stewards. So, in this respect we are all infected to some degree or another with superficial dysfunctional behavior and incoherrent pseudo-intellectrual ideas and arguments of who we are and what our purpose is.

 

This doesn't make sense to me

Are you saying De Muse's stages are developmental?

If so, how?

I see them as a merely an interesting list of parenting styles.

ALL styles appearing simultaneously in my society NOW.

 

So the general question is what is good for one?

 

To answer that I studied reasonably uncontaminated family groups and extended-family grouos in Africa and was able to determine what kind of upbringing is best for healhty-minded infants and children. The fact that we are all here with our numbers still exploding , is mute testamony to the soundness of that ancestral background (which constitutes more than 99% of the time we have invested in developing our consciousness). Modern society is currently breaking almost every one of those tried and tested family values. They are not old-fashioned values. They remain timeless truths that cannot simply be dismissed without paying a severe price.

 

Our numbers are going down actually (in the "West") and may even become negative soon.

 

If anthropology has taught us anything it is that "timeless truths" are different in every society.

You cannot make huge assumptions about what is right in our society by studying another.

Sure we have problems, but so too do the societies you and various anthropologists mention.

 

The one thing we have going for us is our incredible adaptability-socially, genetically, mentally and biologically.

 

The rest of your post is just a pessimistic rant

-----------------

[HydrogenBond]

People are not all the same when it come to dealing with abuse. Some shrug it off better than others. Some vow not to repeat the past on the next generation while other learn by it and pass on the abuse.

 

Sociopathy is a subjective judgement. If one was a rational scientist in an irrational religious culture, that person would be out of touch with the norm, even if they saw hting clearly. They may even be considered a threat, just like a criminal.

 

In western culture, self seeking capitalistic pleasure seekers, without religion or faith in God and therefore free of conscience and without any belief in natural human instincts may be considered the ideal. The Sociopath just takes this philosophy to the nth degree.

[MagnetMan]

People are not all the same when it come to dealing with abuse. Some shrug it off better than others. Some vow not to repeat the past on the next generation while other learn by it and pass on the abuse.

 

Sociopathy is a subjective judgement. If one was a rational scientist in an irrational religious culture, that person would be out of touch with the norm, even if they saw hting clearly. They may even be considered a threat, just like a criminal.

 

In western culture, self seeking capitalistic pleasure seekers, without religion or faith in God and therefore free of conscience and without any belief in natural human instincts may be considered the ideal. The Sociopath just takes this philosophy to the nth degree.

 

If what you say were true mankind would never have made it through 100,000 generations of evolutionary development and arrived at a universal concensus on ideal family values. :eek_big:

 

Modern intelliegence is founded on a logical sequence of fundemental ethical disciplines that took two and half million years of ancestral struggles to seat themselves in every new born.

 

There is no parent in any society on this planet who will not agree that the only way to keep peace among the siblings is to instill an ethic of meticulous sharing. Favor one child and the war inside the family starts and spills over from there.

 

If one examines the sharing ethic objectively, one sees how essential it is as a vital foundation stone for every evolutionary social development that followed after the Stone Age of hunting and gathering. The difficulty in seating that ethic in the greedy ape is evidenced by the fact that a full 99,000 generations were invested in that foundation Age. Without the sharing ethic an agricultural contract among extended-families during the Bronze Age, could never have happened, for nobody would have had the sense to cooperate for the good of all.

 

The next fundamental family value is the chore-based work-ethic, which is founded on the sharing ethic. Every parent on the planet will once again agree that the war starts when one child refuses to do their share of the chores. A Bronze Age of agricultural traditions ensured and seated this ethic in every one of us.

 

Looked at objectively. the tedium involved in the chore-based work-ethic is another fundamental building block, without which, evolution would have gain stopped dead in its tracks. The short attention-span of the orginal primate mind, required 600 generations of tedius farming to get itself focused long enough to accomplish more complex industrial challenges.

 

The next most important family value is courage. Courage is multi-facetted. The courage to face a lion that preyed on our herds with just a spear was vital, if man was to develope beyond being just a dirt farmer. Courage is required in the emotions as well as in personal conviction of thought, especially in proposing radical new ideas without fear of personal redicule (ha ha). Every parent on the planet will tell you that they want courage in their kids.

 

The next vital family value is conscientiousness, especially when engaged in fashioning expensive materials into tools and utensiles needed for the home or work. What makes a child industrious and conscientious? The only infalible strandard of goodness, is God - a jealous God omnicuent God that sees everything and who demands excellence in everything. So it is vital for parents to evoke that superstitious faith and belief in a higher standard and be answerable to the Laws of Cause and Effect..

 

All of these ethics added together give us a rationaly sound and compasionately aware, propetrly socialized human being, one that is common and recognizable and respected by all societies.

 

All other arguments to the contrary refer to obvious social distortions that prove the general rule - and if dwelled upon on, are simply unhealthy superficial pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble that continues to confuse the average parent to the point of such distraction, they no longer know how to use their common sense.

 

Cheers :)

[Michaelangelica]

If what you say were true mankind would never have made it through 100,000 generations of evolutionary development and arrived at a universal concensus on ideal family values. :dead:

 

There is no "universal consensus". De Muse's list proves that, if nothing else!

 

Modern intelliegence is founded on a logical sequence of fundemental ethical disciplines that took two and half million years of ancestral struggles to seat themselves in every new born.

You are arging for the "iinheritance acquired traits". Few, including Darwin, would agree with you

 

There is no parent in any society on this planet who will not agree that the only way to keep peace mong the siblings is to instill an ethic of meticulous sharing. Favor one child and the war inside the family starts and spills over from there.

 

Yes there is. A 'friend' of mine used to always encourage sibling rivalry. She said it would help them cope with the 'real' world.

 

If one examines the sharing ethic objectively, one sees how essential it is as a vital foundation stone for every evolutionary social development that followed after the Stone Age of hunting and gathering. The difficulty in seating that ethic in the greedy ape is evidenced by the fact that a full 99,000 generations were invested in that foundation Age. Without the sharing ethic an agricultural contract among extended-families during the Bronze Age, could never have happened, for nobody would have had the sense to cooperate for the good of all.

 

There is a barney going on I think in "is there acquired genetic reasons for our behaviour" ( Do asearch for "altruism") looking at the idea of altruism and if or when o weather it has developed.

you might look at that thread.

I find the argument a bit passe. I can't see how you can prove it either way

 

The next fundamental family value is the chore-based work-ethic, which is founded on the sharing ethic. Every parent on the planet will once again agree that the war starts when one child refuses to do their share of the chores. A Bronze Age of agricultural traditions ensured and seated this ethic in every one of us.

 

The protestants gave us the work ethic. Aboriginals in Australia, before invasion by the English, managed to get by on 2-3 hours of "work' a day.

Italy, a Catholic country,has a slightly different "work ethic" to many protestant societies.

You can't make bold statements like "Every parent on the planet will once again agree. . " It can never be true. Lots of kid never do chores. Look at the "Little Emperors" in Chinese families

 

Looked at objectively. the tedium involved in the chore-based work-ethic is another fundamental building block, without which, evolution would have gain stopped dead in its tracks. The short attention-span of the orginal primate mind, required 600 generations of tedius farming to get itself focused long enough to accomplish more complex industrial challenges.

 

For many, work is not "tedium', it is their life. Without it they would be bereft

Again,you are arguing for the "inheritance acquired traits".

 

The next most important family value is courage. Courage is multi-facetted. The courage to face a lion that preyed on our herds with just a spear was vital, if man was to develope beyond being just a dirt farmer. Courage is required in the emotions as well as in personal conviction of thought, especially in proposing radical new ideas without fear of personal redicule (ha ha). Every parent on the planet will tell you that they want courage in their kids.

 

Every parent. . ?

So how do you instill, let alone define, courage?

 

 

The next vital family value is conscientiousness, especially when engaged in fashioning expensive materials into tools and utensiles needed for the home or work. What makes a child industrious and conscientious? The only infalible strandard of goodness, is God - a jealous God omnicuent God that sees everything and who demands excellence in everything. So it is vital for parents to evoke that superstitious faith and belief in a higher standard and be answerable to the Laws of Cause and Effect..

 

God is a leap of faith. Personally I believe in the Spaghetti Monster, much more believable

You are a protestant with an over-developed work ethic

 

All of these ethics added together give us a rationaly sound and compasionately aware, propetrly socialized human being, one that is common and recognizable and respected by all societies.

 

How do you get "rationally sound" from above lot. You are not.

"Compassionately aware" would be nice - but above argument does not make that.

The most compassionately aware people I have met have been Buddhists -who have no god

 

All other arguments to the contrary refer to obvious social distortions that prove the general rule - and if dwelled upon on, are simply unhealthy superficial pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble that continues to confuse the average parent to the point of such distraction, they no longer know how to use their common sense.

 

Cheers :dead:

Of course they are. :dead:

Cheers

[MagnetMan]

Of course they are. :cup:

Cheers

Angel, beautiful women should been seen rather than heard. I have a feeling you are drop-dead gorgeous! ;)

[Michaelangelica]

Angel, beautiful women should been seen rather than heard. I have a feeling you are drop-dead gorgeous! :)

You should see me in my underwear .

You little sexist cutie:)

[IDMclean]

beautiful women should been seen rather than heard.

 

This is the kind of drible that made my mother quickly aware that my father was not fit to raise children.

 

I would ask that you base your arguements on the content there in, and you respect a person based upon the content of their character. Further I would ask that discrimitory remarks be kept to one's self in this thread at the very least, I am trying to conduct an intellegent exchange of ideas here.

 

This would be warning number two.

[MagnetMan]

You should see me in my underwear .

You little sexist cutie:)

In my dreams!:eek:

 

Kickass. Without the spice of a little humor all our laughs would be hollow and we truly would be a sick society. Try and Lighten up a bit young man.:doh:

[IDMclean]

I have a detachable leg, expecially when I can't make out body langauge and othersuch subtle ques. Make humor fall flat for me over the internet for the most part, as I don't have a context.

 

Even so, all things are based in truth, with all that implies.

 

Further my conviction is thaat society as a whole is sick, has been sick and is still recovering from it's birth. We just have entered a new phase, akin to toddlerhood. Far from adult hood but a major step up from total dependency on the "parents".

 

I see it in terms of, it was incredibly bad and it is currently moving towards getting better. I have not met a single person on this planet that was not broken in some way.

 

To be human is to err. For perfection, as it should be, remains out of reach.

 

-Be well, and do well in all things. The Clown.

[MagnetMan]

 

Further my conviction is thaat society as a whole is sick, has been sick and is still recovering from it's birth. We just have entered a new phase, akin to toddlerhood. Far from adult hood but a major step up from total dependency on the "parents".

 

I see it in terms of, it was incredibly bad and it is currently moving towards getting better. I have not met a single person on this planet that was not broken in some way.

 

To be human is to err. For perfection, as it should be, remains out of reach.

.

 

Not a bad collective analysis for one so young, if a little too dark.

 

When one considers the fact that two super-powers invested forty years and unimaginable expenses in an insane arms race in order to gain hegemony over an entire planet, when both can hardly manage their own estates and budgets, there can be no doubt that we suffer from mass dysfunction to some large degree. But that state of mind is only superficial.

 

We are a long way onwards from our birth in the Stone Age, which was far healthier than most know. Those earky family groups were far from skull-bashing brutes as is popularly portrayed. And our Bronze Age ancesters not only mastered the domestication of Nature and reared thoroughbreds, but they also found the courage to fight off the lions from predating on our herds, armed only with primitive spears, which is hardly an infancy stage of development.

 

We owe whole a lot more to the soundness of our prehistoric past than anybody has acknowledged to date, despite all the vendettas and wars those warriors engaged in. If that were not so, there would be no hope for our future, for the mass dysfunction would be far more serious than just skin deep.

 

If we can put down the dice and survive the current teenage gamble with global commodities on the temple floor of our Father's estate, and stop toying with weapons of mass destruction, the innate goodness and decency of our kind will win through, and the future will look a lot more responsible for the prodigal son.;)

[IDMclean]

on the temple floor of our Father's estate

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

the future will look a lot more responsible for the prodigal son.

 

This is talked about by deMause extensively in his writings. This is what I meant by our "parents".

 

Those early family groups were far from skull-bashing brutes as is popularly portrayed. And our Bronze Age ancestors not only mastered the domestication of Nature and reared thoroughbreds, but they also found the courage to fight off the lions from predating on our herds, armed only with primitive spears

 

This brings to light much of which is argued by Anthropologist. It is a justification for the less than ideal things that were done to children and others within early society. It leaves out things like, stoning, brutal scarification and physical punishment that was visited upon the whelps of the day.

 

This is argued as a norm within these societies by some, however deMause and myself agree on this point, I see these things as universally damaging, they will, no matter the social context, create broken people.

 

In my ancestor's homeland of Ireland, and Scotland I would have been caste unto the misty moors with my mother at birth, with a stone weighing it all down in the leather sack. All that simply because I would be what is known as a bastard, and the so-called family values demanded such.

 

For the kinds of things I speak about now, I would have been burned at the stake but only a few hundred years ago, and would have been stoned to death, for the amusement of the city, only a few thousand years ago. That is assuming I survived the harsh treatment of a poor mongrel, peasant.

 

You don't want me to go back to the Tool Age or the Stone Age. Golden Age? Hardly. The child rearing practices of that time shouldn't even be compared to the current times. Sure there were good things that came from every age, and each had it's own time in the spotlight. Important, even, is that we should understand what happened and why. However ideation to return to those times? Ludicrous.