'Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures.'
'some moral laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing long term.'
Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s and are now in a position to test the conclusions he arrived at more than 40 years earlier. '
'Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later. '
'Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.'
....to contrast,
'Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin
view the rest of the comments →
Merchant_Menace ago
Here's a starter set of morals: Ensure the security and future prosperity of your family and then do the same for your people. Once that is done you can have other concerns, however, you are not even close to achieving those goals so focus on this and nothing else.
All other systems of morals such as capitalism vs communism vs democracy vs environmentalism vs blah blah blah blah - this is all fake and gay insofar as it doesn't relate directly to the above and they are only good or bad insofar as they contribute or serve as a detriment to those.
Never ever ever believe that because you have achieved a victory for some kind of ism that you have secured the existence of your people and have guaranteed their flourishing and prosperity now and for the future. Only achieving that specifically will do that. Isms are almost universally a way to confuse midwits into wasting their efforts in this regard.
INB4 counterarguments: If you say something like fascism is the way to achieve the above then I would say it can only be good or bad insofar as it achieves the above and/or fights for it. If you claim that some religion is necessary for the above then again, the religion is only good or bad insofar as it achieves those primary goals. A political or religious ideology that dicks your people over and does things to lead to their downfall is not "good" it is "bad" and you are a fool for getting tricked. Trust nothing but your own judgement because the goal is too important.
Examples of what I'm talking about. Someone might claim that Catholicism is the light and the way and only by achieving the dogma of Catholicism can we secure our existence. To this I say that not all of Catholicism does this as you have a traitor pope kissing the feet of our enemies. If someone says that Conservativism alone can save us from extinction then I would say that I can name you hundreds of traitor conservatives that would never save you from bogus charges should some soros DA give you a bum rap. If you tell me your secular humanism can save us all then I would criticize you for your arrogance. You cannot save everyone. You can save your family and maybe some of your people. If we all work together then maybe we can secure our future. Beyond this, it's all just fantasies. You should focus on the attainable.
prairie ago
I'm a strong libertarian but I can't disagree at all. If the very people who can actually carry out the ideals die, so do the ideals. Other cultures and people just can't manage it, as they require having enough foresight to care about the long-term future. It does no good if you defend the "rights" of people who will destroy you and your values. They don't deserve those rights because they are beneath you, as shown by their actions and how they live.