Let's take your "we don't live in the natural world as the way animals do" statement.
Consider natural selection. It doesn't have a 'purpose' the way us humans understand, it just is, but it's effect on biological organisms is making them adapt to the changes in environment by killing a percentage of members who are not genetically viable to survive.
Society used to tell me that all life is precious, now society is telling me if I die, it's my own fault, ok
Unless if I'm a nigger, that is, then hopefully I may be paraded along the country with a golden casket.
This is not necessary a good thing, many 'good' and 'smart' people die because they couldn't bother to learn to lie, deceive, manipulate or force through violence the forces that killed them (whenever that be natural disasters, hunger, predators or sociopaths).
Society tells people that is virtuous to not lie, but be honest, to help, rather than cause deception, goodwill instead of malevolence. When you're equipped with just those, it's good for a person(man) to die, ok
How dare he, to follow societies wants, and feel betrayed for being cast out after doing that, which was expected of him.
The unintended (because laws of life have no agenda) side effect was evolving bigger brains in humans, enough to allow them to understand and use technology and, most importantly, to improve themselves and maybe someday escape this hell on earth leftist morons call "Mother Nature, who cares about you" - yeah, right, tell that to someone with multiple sclerosis or parasites.
Humans have improved their surroundings, but not themselves - they are still the animals as you describe.
Where's natural selection where humans, as a species, have no natural predators anymore and don't have to bother with hunger and disease? It's women, plain and simple.
Makes one wonder why the patriarchy ever took off. Men ought to have continued competing(killing) with each-other for the glorious prize of having your seed pass on to the next generation. Why, what a great existence for me.
Other natural selection ersatz is our tendency to outsmart ourselves and beat the other ape to resources, but that tends to breed psychopathy (Ayn Ryan much?) and I assume you're like me and you don't want that to flourish.
Ever seen that movie with Alec Baldwin plays in
Glengarry Glen Ross ? The most successful guy there was like that, basically.
In order for women (it can also be men, but that creates a horde of problems that hinder more than they help in the long run) to work as a natural selection mechanism you need an environment where men 'prove' their genes of being adaptable enough. This implies there has to be a bunch of men who will not breed at all (because you can't have quality control otherwise), also there has to be an society that creates incentives for men to test their genome: where the biggest lust of a man - woman - needs effort to attain.
Eliot Rodger was a good-looking, eloquent young man, who was studying in college and had a nice car. He did everything that was asked of him, yet it wasn't enough. How long should have he competed? What was the price? It's his fault for not measuring up, huh?
A society you wish to come true, where every guy has a sex toy and children will stagnate first, die off second when times change while genome does not.
Except I wasn't talking about sexual debauchery with a single woman, I was talking about partnership. I don't understand how it's going to die off, save for some cataclysmic event, where in such an event, even harborers of good genes, a substantial number of them will surely perish.
There are other ways (better for my taste) to adapt your species' genetics to change (and the biggest change now is technology, which advances much faster than blind-idiot-luck reproduction will ever be able to and will doom humanity someday if someone doesn't take action) but they need some kind of overseer to decide what genes are worth propagating and unless it's some kind of autistic AI with no human desires (and humans making this AI will surely fuck that up) and some kind of artificial incubators which will make biological wombs (and myriads of problems like mother's hip width/newborn's head circumference ratio, pregnancy being a drain on body/worktime etc.) obsolete - and 'test-tube babies' is such an ingrained negative trope in society that you'll have everyone opposing this idea even if it could salvage civilisation (just imagine explaining the idea to the Vatican and trying convince those boneheads).
Artificial wombs is the only answer I can think of, but I'm not a very imaginary person, either.
"A (nation)state is supposed to provide the abilities necessary for every member to survive and create offspring." - a nation-state is fundamentally a tribe cheftain in macro scale. It isn't supposed to provide for anything - it consists of people who strong-armed their way to power. In order to not spark rebellions, state has to make people content at least and that's its only job. In practice, nations make sure their subjects don't feel fear (violent crime, injustice, foreign invasion, starvation, medicine) so they go out and work and are eligible for taxation.
I disagree, because I see a nation as the collective will of a group of individual males (I do not think women are part of nations) pouring their tillage into one commonwealth, based usually, but not necessarily, of a common paternal heritage, where a worker has the ability to contribute and be undismissably rewarded for his efforts - reproduction being one of those rewards. The state provides the means for the implementation of such a system, but the examples you provided existed even in more "egalitarian" societies.
Since fear and injustice are motives for school/mass shooters to enact their vengeance, it can be assuredly said that the nation-state has failed them wholeheartedly.
"Modern (democratic/capitalist) states use men as work horses to provide the means for women to buy useless shit." - I understand your frustration and also see this as a problem, but friggin' men created such environment.
The greatest scapegoat of them all - man. Whatever he does, man must be at fault.
Men always berated each other for not being 'good enough' and loved to spoil women with trinkets or spoils of war so they would put out without rape.
It's not to spoil, it's to retain female "affection" and to show off wealth. Men have a hoarder mentality, where they say "I have more stuff on my woman, and my woman's hotter than yours, that means I'm better than you, faggot".
We live in a time where administrative work (which women are good enough to do) and social work (which women are better than men at) is the most important and profitable. If you have any idea how to change that for the better, I'm interested (no sarcasm).
Surely, if women were better than man at social work, they would have been the leading force in human affairs for the past 8 millennia. As it turns out, it's men that have created every social institution and construct, from the creation of spoken tongue, then to its written form. From small hunter-gatherer societies to large and vast bureaucratic empires.
To change it... something resembling the GE from the sci-fi series LOGH would have to be created.
"Modern (democratic/capitalist) states use men as work horses to provide the means for women to buy useless shit." - and it will fail. Not the first time, not the last. Men were always expendable, compare societies with warrior women to societies which used women mainly for babies - the egalitarian ones died out fast due to lower soldier/worker replacement rate. There's no need to stress about our society because it won't stand the test of time anyway and something with more sense will replace it.
There are no societies with female warriors.
Great, I can be expendable until the society I live in is replaced by something.
"You said that EVERY organism has to fight for the right to breed - women don't have to fight for it, men fight for them." - don't know much about women, don't you? You have no idea how rotten women can be when fighting among themselves for hunks.
If that hunk can provide for two partners, there wouldn't be a battle.
After this 'free love' hippie shit which degenerated into 10% of men fucking 90% of women with little backlash, women are now going lesbian and tearing each other's heads off over best girl picks. Hilarious, I know. My point is, for evolutionary selection to work there has to be a 'strong sex' struggling to make life livable and fighting for attention of the 'weak sex' which has the priviledge to cherrypick, there's no changing that no matter how sad you are, I'm sorry.
Men ought to be slaves, and there should be a few breeders who get to fuck, got it, ok
tl;dr: NO ONE IS FUCKING ENTITLED TO BEING LOVED, PERIOD.
No one is entitled to my labor.
Hail men like Howard Lovecraft, who didn't give up on their dreams, just so they could be a slave to a woman. A (((woman))), no less!
www.hollywoodreporter.com
nypost.com
