/b/ - Random

This article sounds like a meme but if "heavy community support" looks like something similar to an extended family network or local community, then yeah. Kids used to have not only their moms, but their grandmas, aunts, older siblings etc looking after them.

>In this framing, marriage between the First and Third Sexual Revolutions functioned as a kind of de facto affirmative action program for low-value men. After the Church’s insistence on monogamy, it was no longer a legally sanctioned option for women to share the highest-value men in polygynous relationships (Henrich, Reference Henrich2020). This radical intervention could be seen as “DEI for men,” or more precisely, for the low-value men who previously would have been outcompeted by men who could attract and afford multiple mates
lmao

>>324116
That's what it says.
>We suggest that two main elements are key to making individualistic reproduction sufficiently appealing, one economic and the other social. Women must feel economically secure, regardless of whether they want to work fulltime, parttime, or not at all while raising their children. That is why we propose experiments should begin soon, to find out what level of economic resource transfers are required for enough women to choose to have children on their own.
>The other element is the social environment. As we explored, while hominins evolved to sexually reproduce as couples, this pairing up does not extend to raising children in small, atomized units. Even when females mated promiscuously, not having the father around typically did not entail the mother being on her own. Kin and other alloparents often made crucial contributions to help feed and raise the child (Hrdy, 2009; Sear & Mace, 2008). In our modern world, such social networks have eroded. Women who move away from kin to seek education or work mostly lack the support that bands, tribes, farms, and villages provided in the past. We therefore propose that governments consider experiments with establishing apartment buildings or other living arrangements centered on the needs of solo parents and their children

>>324118
Yeah, that sounds like what I'm talking about. Though I am not sure what they're suggesting is enough. One of the reasons (IMO) people have less kids is because in our modern world they require a lot of investment, not just financial, but in everything that would make their child more competitive in society, nowadays they have to be supported way past 18 yo.

This is why peasants had a shitton of kids, they would be able to contribute to the lifestyle fairly early on in their life. Positive ROI. They couldn't just shitpost all day like we do so there's nothing to take incentive away from reproduction either.

Who knows, maybe communal childcare would help take care of this by reducing the perceived investment required. Something still feels iffy about this experiment of theirs, but I guess that's a start.

Also in some way it doesn't address the problem of social atomization still. You'll be creating a huge chunk of population that will have to resort to an emotionless machine (artificial wombs) for reproduction. Humans aren't meant for this I don't think. We're all lonely enough already thanks to the Internet. Not sure how'd they address this. They're just responding to atomization with more atomization.

>>324121
Yeah.
>This is not ideal, as most people still desire to partner up and tend to be happier in relationships (Argyle, 1999; Diener et al., 2000; Grover & Helliwell, 2019; Stern et al., 2024). After all, our psychologies are strongly shaped by millions of years of pair-bonding (Fisher, 2016). But we are in a situation where the ideal is not available; mating markets have become so frustrating for both sexes that many are giving up. Not only are 42% of Americans unpartnered (Pew Research Center, 2025), but 50% of single men and 65% of single women report that they are looking for neither short- nor long-term mating (Gelles-Watnick, 2023).
>Unless we are able to turn this trend drastically around, which we consider unlikely, the next step for human reproduction could be to facilitate more individuals having children without a partner. Offspring were historically a responsibility for the forager band, then the tribe, and then three- and two-generational families. A future with more single parents would fit this trend; it could be viewed as a return to our early hominin starting point, framing the past few million years as an era of pair-bonding— a temporary evolutionary compromise.
Basicly: "Not everyone gets a person, tough shit".

>>324122
It's true but it's fucked up and I don't look forward to a world where most people are some sort of incels or volcels
Idk tho good thing they're at least experimenting with ideas

>>324123
>I don't look forward to a world where most people are some sort of incels or volcels
You best start believin' in ghost stories, Miss Turner…