Lots of jobs still require college education, or at least a portfolio of what you've done to entice them to hire you. You don't need one, but if you're going to be a doctor, there is no way in hell that can you get away without the medical degree and all. But a great way to get yourself or your kid into a college is to encourage them to get a scholarship by the means of high school activities like spelling bees or robotics. Just know that college education will give you a huge boost over those without it, giving you and/or your kid(s) a better chance at being successful.

Originally posted by Kolaghan The Restored:

Lots of jobs still require college education, or at least a portfolio of what you've done to entice them to hire you. You don't need one, but if you're going to be a doctor, there is no way in hell that can you get away without the medical degree and all. But a great way to get yourself or your kid into a college is to encourage them to get a scholarship by the means of high school activities like spelling bees or robotics. Just know that college education will give you a huge boost over those without it, giving you and/or your kid(s) a better chance at being successful.

It's really not getting into college that's the problem or paying for it. It's more centered upon whether or not they deserve what they're getting paid, and if earning the degree despite ingesting all of the hazardous political waste is worth it.

Of course, I'm an English major in the college of Arts&sciences, I've learned everything there is to know about "queer theory," "post-colonialism," "marxist critical theory," and currently my class is assigned to read a book about a hermaphrodite. I suppose my experience is different.

If you're planning on studying law or med it's really not. College is now a spawning ground for indoctrination like surlaw outlined. It's no secret who's behind it

I'll end with a quote from Turanga Leela from Futurama which is so true even in this century

"Everyone knows 20th century colleges were basically expensive daycare centers"
-Leela

Economically, a degree (not a college education) is worth more now because so many jobs require it. However, it is worth less as evidence of your merit beyond entry-level jobs because everybody has one.

If this trend continues, I'd say that unless your kid is trying to get into a highly specialized field, just get an online degree. Any fool can get one with almost no effort, and I should know, I have completed such course work for others just for fun. If the degrees had gone to the person who did the "work" I'd have four. Much of it is no more difficult than posting here is, and I don't mean my monolithic posts, I mean the one-liners and quick paragraphs more suited to a forum. The only difference is that you're usually required to read something first.

Online degrees also save your kid from the political environment you're concerned about. Otherwise, the only defense is a child who has actually had to work in the private sector and has been taught the value of work.

Academic Instituions, short of perhaps trade schools and military academies, are always going to hold more liberal views as a matter of course. They are comprised of people who, by definition, never have to put anything into practice, and so the laudible, lofty visions of the left seem entirely practicable to them. The same is true even of right-wing religious instituions. Despite conservative views they have very progressive ideas about exactly how much religion could do for society.

One way or the other, the most important thing is that your child has the right piece of paper to get any work in the first place. After that, with maybe the exception of research fields, no company gives a **** about what you learned in college. Half of our time dealing with these kids is spent teaching them that they don't know everything, and most of what they do know is wrong. The other half is training them the right way.

Go ahead and tell the kid to get a degree, just make sure they know exactly what it is useful for and what it is not. That small investment will serve them very well, provided they've mastered basics seemingly everyone screws up, like how to interview and how to write a résumé.

College is a business, most citizens do not understand this. Skills, comprehension, effort, and contacts such as family or friends in high places are far more valuable than a piece of paper. If you value learning, or the aea in which you want to work, you would bcome familiar with it as much as possible and most likely outshine anyone with a degree or atleast be on their level, but with personal effort, you should usually outshine people who do things because someone told them to do it.

With that said, the average person should go to college to work on comprehension skills, I'm not saying that as a in if colege were a must, but as in society really lacks in that area, college is different from high school as your hand isn't held, you get a lecture, an assignment and a due date, which is only how it is in AP classes, which I loved more than regular classes once I got in.

Another reason to go to college is sex, its a place where curious girls are no longer under parental supervision, minus any dorm attendants(which are just older students) school personel, but that's never been a problem.

Sex is good, sex is natural, sex is the only thing we know we are supposed to do as humans. Have sex, everyone. As much as you can.

Originally posted by Big'ol Sloppy Titties:

Sex is good, sex is natural, sex is the only thing we know we are supposed to do as humans. Have sex, everyone. As much as you can.

Like the poor and those in third-world countries do? Sex may be natural, but so is sexual selection. Selecting the best partner to create the most successful offspring is how you win.

Originally posted by C4Warr10r:

Economically, a degree (not a college education) is worth more now because so many jobs require it. However, it is worth less as evidence of your merit beyond entry-level jobs because everybody has one.

If this trend continues, I'd say that unless your kid is trying to get into a highly specialized field, just get an online degree. Any fool can get one with almost no effort, and I should know, I have completed such course work for others just for fun. If the degrees had gone to the person who did the "work" I'd have four. Much of it is no more difficult than posting here is, and I don't mean my monolithic posts, I mean the one-liners and quick paragraphs more suited to a forum. The only difference is that you're usually required to read something first.

Online degrees also save your kid from the political environment you're concerned about. Otherwise, the only defense is a child who has actually had to work in the private sector and has been taught the value of work.

Academic Instituions, short of perhaps trade schools and military academies, are always going to hold more liberal views as a matter of course. They are comprised of people who, by definition, never have to put anything into practice, and so the laudible, lofty visions of the left seem entirely practicable to them. The same is true even of right-wing religious instituions. Despite conservative views they have very progressive ideas about exactly how much religion could do for society.

One way or the other, the most important thing is that your child has the right piece of paper to get any work in the first place. After that, with maybe the exception of research fields, no company gives a **** about what you learned in college. Half of our time dealing with these kids is spent teaching them that they don't know everything, and most of what they do know is wrong. The other half is training them the right way.

Go ahead and tell the kid to get a degree, just make sure they know exactly what it is useful for and what it is not. That small investment will serve them very well, provided they've mastered basics seemingly everyone screws up, like how to interview and how to write a résumé.

I can definitely see why it'd be more valuable now than ever, thanks to the magic of inflation. It's a great way for these insitutions to make money, sadly also a great way to drain the rest of us.

I'm still of that old mind-set that it matters where you get your degree though, so online courses aren't necessarily my biggest preference, but from your line of input, I think I'll have to rethink that considering my previous university lost half of its alumni and all of its respect after the nationally reported protest. My fiancee is of the catholic persuasion though, so I do ask can you elaborate on what you mean by right-wing religious institutions having very progressive ideas about how much religion can do for society? I'd love to learn more.

That said, you've definitely helped me rethink the value of a degree from anywhere, online specifically; as long as there is one, I guess it doesn't hurt as long as I'm isolated from the idiocy of the atmosphere. It makes me sad to see an entire generation falling to that sort of mindset though, and in truth, I am deeply worried how they're going to turn out and affect the rest of us if that damage is permanent.

Originally posted by C4Warr10r:

Originally posted by Big'ol Sloppy Titties:

Sex is good, sex is natural, sex is the only thing we know we are supposed to do as humans. Have sex, everyone. As much as you can.

Like the poor and those in third-world countries do? Sex may be natural, but so is sexual selection. Selecting the best partner to create the most successful offspring is how you win.

Sex doesn't mean procreation.

Sexual selection in the modern world is flawed as attraction is a social construct.

Females used to choose men who could provide and protect(as time progressed looks played a role, but took a back seat, until feminism). Wars, any conflict started by ignorant males, resulted in the females being the prize.

Sexual selection as it is today is flawed, and most people are losing because the media has programmed females to choose partners based on looks instead of the ability to comprehend.

Sex is natural, and more offspring wouldn't be bad if our society was different, the way we live now is not how an intelligent species will survive, with a main focus being material things and attraction as opposed to intellectual, and social stimulation, although those do occur on smaller levels. Btw, sex is a social interaction.

Originally posted by Surlaw:

My fiancee is of the catholic persuasion though, so I do ask can you elaborate on what you mean by right-wing religious institutions having very progressive ideas about how much religion can do for society? I'd love to learn more.

Sure, my Dad went to a Jesuit College (even though he's a Protestant) and I've had many friends who attended Christian Universities. A big part of those environments is in valuing religion because of what it does for families. The family that prays together, stays together, or so the saying goes. So do billions worldwide, their religions outlast the mightiest nation-states by millenia.

That's just one example of religious progressivism, as their next position is that if everyone shared their faith, the world would be a better place. Kind of like how Marxists need everyone to practice Communism for it to work. Or how everyone has to be involved in Socialism. I'm not saying that to disparage religions at all, they at least have some evidence of working and I'm Faithful myself, but there you have it.

That said, you've definitely helped me rethink the value of a degree from anywhere, online specifically; as long as there is one, I guess it doesn't hurt as long as I'm isolated from the idiocy of the atmosphere. It makes me sad to see an entire generation falling to that sort of mindset though, and in truth, I am deeply worried how they're going to turn out and affect the rest of us if that damage is permanent.

They're hardly any worse off than they were with public school. This is just the same usually sub-standard education with a sperate price-tag. Unless college becomes "free" for everyone and then it will be the exact same one.

As for where a generation will end up, my friend, that's not really your problem. That's the sort of thing University Professors worry about to the point where they can't actually do any work. You already have all the generation you need to worry about in your arms. Take care of that first.

The rest? Well, many of them will fail and the best thing you can do about it is create one success to help them out. By natural or spiritual law, that's all you're expected to do.

Originally posted by Big'ol Sloppy Titties:

Sex doesn't mean procreation.

Not on purpose sometimes, sure. But it does happen, and even with 99.9% effective birth control, there is a 100% chance that a child will be conceived if you have enough hetero sex, about 3000 times. Maybe it's aborted, or maybe it's not, but now there's a good chance it's a child without a proper support structure.

Sexual selection in the modern world is flawed as attraction is a social construct.

Oh I know, right? I have been telling solitary species like Tigers and various microbes this for years but they just insist it's a biological one. Lesser animals, go figure.

Females used to choose men who could provide and protect(as time progressed looks played a role, but took a back seat, until feminism). Wars, any conflict started by ignorant males, resulted in the females being the prize.

Oh? When was it females chose males? In Peacocks? In fruit bats? In Arachnids? I know it was never in any Great Apes.

Now, while I also hate the Aperiachy, it rather evolved by itself and is quite distinct from other animals where the female is larger and stronger. There, the females fight the wars and bear the children. Certainly, modern females have never fought, we all know they don't do that ever. They never poison or stab each other in the back, they have never urged males to fight on their behalf and never been attracted to the victors, so they're clearly blameless in this social construct.

However with such a view you're dead.....Wrong about looks never playing a role. Peacocks, silly one. Colofrul fishies and birds who actually attract predators, but also attract mates, like many tropical birds.

And you're right out if you think humans never valued looks. Why then, did even the most primitive socieies wear jewelry? Before then, why have females evolved to concentrate fat on the hips and breasts? It doesn't make hips wider, nor produce more milk, but it's there. How else other than a preference for what looked like larger breats and hips?

Sexual selection as it is today is flawed, and most people are losing because the media has programmed females to choose partners based on looks instead of the ability to comprehend.

Sex is natural, and more offspring wouldn't be bad if our society was different, the way we live now is not how an intelligent species will survive, with a main focus being material things and attraction as opposed to intellectual, and social stimulation, although those do occur on smaller levels. Btw, sex is a social interaction.

No, sexual selection is as it is today because it has always been the same way. Media advertising can certainly chang eperceptions of attractiveness, people flock to what others think is attractive because it means their offspring will be attractive like that, too.

Doesn't mean anything has changed. You just want to blame modern society for what you see as problems, when thos problems pre-dated its existence and extend to all life. You believe such a foolish thing because you, and others like you, actually think you can do something about it.

Maybe you'll be able to one day. Genetic tailoring is already here, and then you can create the more equal society you dream of, just by changing the way life works. Or at least the life of who you modify. Nobody else is going to give a **** and their far more reasonable creations will annihilate yours. You might be able to control life, but you can't control nature. Survival of the fittest.

Worth it for the personal growth and intellectual development that is hard to obtain without rigorous studies enforced by the pressures of failure and financial ruin if you dont.

Not on purpose sometimes, sure. But it does happen

I didn't really go into this, but you're saying people in third world countries should not procreate? How are they to be stopped from doing something natural? Big'ol strong America? Do you know there are still tribes living in the wild procreating? Having lots of sex, and their tribes don't grow enough to even matter to the rest of the developed world? Stop thinking only within the mindset of media that's been fed to you.

Oh I know, right? I have been telling solitary species like Tigers and various microbes this for years but they just insist it's a biological one. Lesser animals, go figure.

Wait, what the hell are you saying? Are you really saying what I think you are? Wait, are you saying that when a larger lion kills a smaller lion, kills all the cubs and the ♥♥♥♥♥ lionesses, that the lioness lets him do it because she's attracted to him???? The real world isn't disney, animals that fall in love in the jungle like nayla and simba. LMOA!!!

I think you misunderstood my statement. Let me say it again. Attraction, as in those abs, those eyes, that hair, those muscle arms is a social construct created by the media to make money in various ways.

No, no, you don't really think animals have attraction, next...

Oh? When was it females chose males? In Pea♥♥♥♥♥? In fruit bats? In Arachnids? I know it was never in any Great Apes.

...

Now, while I also hate the Aperiachy, it rather evolved by itself and is quite distinct from other animals where the female is larger and stronger. There, the females fight the wars and bear the children. Certainly, modern females have never fought, we all know they don't do that ever. They never poison or stab each other in the back, they have never urged males to fight on their behalf and never been attracted to the victors, so they're clearly blameless in this social construct.

You think all men were attracted(which I said was a modern social construct, usually only posessed by those females in noble families, or it just didn't matter if she was attracted if poor, she had to eat and not want to get raped by men who went without sex for longer periods, again as time progressed, weapons advanced, things changed, slowly, and then drastically after feminism), anyway, I'm sure all the men looking to pillage and rape weren't attracted to the poor smelly vagina without the technology today(and you'd be surprised how much it doesn't matter), most of it was like a dog seeing meat laying around after he scared all the other dogs away.

I did point out the idea that ignorant males started the wars, to conquer another mans land, to steal his women, as opposed to creating and coexisting through value on a peacefull level, they tried to take things, thus begins a history of retaliation and offense fronts to defend, this basic principal can applied to many wars.

Females have played large parts in wars starting throughout history, they usually had the ear of the men followed by other men. This ofcourse is another flaw of feminism, in its early stages. I'm done with this one, you were all over the place with that one, almost makes me not want to continue, but I'm killing time.

However with such a view you're dead.....Wrong about looks never playing a role. Peacocks, silly one. Colofrul fishies and birds who actually attract predators, but also attract mates, like many tropical birds.

Okay, now you're reaching. You're comparing natural mating actions of animals who communicate differently to how our media(begining with literature, books such as Jane Austen for example) that pushed the idea of attractiveness bein a key element to relationship.

Even today, during sex, all the things a female raves about is nothing they pay attention to when getting plowed.

Most men are visual, physical, while female stimulation is mental and physical, a softt touch, a hug, a or communication.

And you're right out if you think humans never valued looks. Why then, did even the most primitive socieies wear jewelry?

No, no, men have been visual since mankind existed, its natuarl, females on the other hand, are not, and only do so today due to the media raising them that way.

Do you think the men throughout history looked like they did today? Lol, I'd love to see a modern girl go through history, LMAO!!!! Oh and if you did happen to meat a rich noble who was groomed, had clean teeth and didn't smell or didn't have a gut, you would most likely find yourself in a harem the next day, if he liked you, and didn't just throw you to his soliders, or back out on the streets.

Jewely would have most likely been a sign of status, meaning wealth, meaning safety, still meaning you get plowed, and go back to helping clean the house, or tend to what ever you had to do to help out.

Before then, why have females evolved to concentrate fat on the hips and breasts? It doesn't make hips wider, nor produce more milk, but it's there. How else other than a preference for what looked like larger breats and hips?

Many women become round as technology progressed and they did not get phsyical activity, other than chores around the house, or even farms, in some cases.

No, sexual selection is as it is today because it has always been the same way.

Wrong, I've given you many reasons above as to why it hasn't been.

Media advertising can certainly chang eperceptions of attractiveness, people flock to what others think is attractive because it means their offspring will be attractive like that, too.

Again, this is a modern concept, socially constructed. Throughout history, marrying specific bloodlines was prominent, especially with nobility, and poor tried to marry up.

Throughout history, wanting to be with a healthy person was a factor, but yeah, the sociallly growing idea of mating someone to create accepted offspring began growing, first starting with the wealthy/rich and nobility.

Doesn't mean anything has changed. You just want to blame modern society for what you see as problems, when thos problems pre-dated its existence and extend to all life. You believe such a foolish thing because you, and others like you, actually think you can do something about it.

We can do something about the media infesting the minds of our young females, using them as tools to make money, making them ignorantly blind at a young age and falling to attraction, creating zombies with cellphones.

The media has to change, but I know it won'tt any time soon. Also, the best relationships are based on friendship, meaning two people having things in common, this is also another direction, alongside finding intellect a draw that humans should push forward to.

But yeah, I'm a futuristic humanist, I believe we should get rid of houses, cars, increase citizen policing, and build smart apartments, and focus on building things that progress humans into space exploration, and advanced science, a human workforce, of order.

Young men who are interested in intellectual growth should be the guys females go after,, pushing the human race into progression.

Competition shouldn't be elminiated, but it shouldn't be an economical focal point.

Get rid of the idea of currency, make educaton a lifelong mandaory passtime.

And much more.

Lol, my utopia will never be, any time soon atleast.

Originally posted by Big'ol Sloppy Titties:

I didn't really go into this, but you're saying people in third world countries should not procreate? How are they to be stopped from doing something natural? Big'ol strong America? Do you know there are still tribes living in the wild procreating? Having lots of sex, and their tribes don't grow enough to even matter to the rest of the developed world? Stop thinking only within the mindset of media that's been fed to you.

I didn't say they shouldn't or that we should stop them. Their own behavior will eventually work that out, sinc ethey die very quickly as well. However, we rather shouldn't follow suit, I mean, look where they are.

No, no, you don't really think animals have attraction, next...

I don't think animals have attraction, I know they do. What do you think is going on When Sage Grouse build impressive mounds for females to peruse if not trying to attract them? What are the females doing if not being attracted? How do you explain any animal courtship?

Remember, your position was that attraction was a social construct. Well, if that's so then how do even simple animals demonstrate sexual selection? Why do certain snails search for days to find a mate and fire a small dart into the other to communicate their desire?

It's not a social construct, it's biology. You just need it to be a social construct so you can make asinine claims.

Oh? When was it females chose males? In Pea♥♥♥♥♥? In fruit bats? In Arachnids? I know it was never in any Great Apes.

... go get a federal loan before trump cancels them...

Why, so I can competently compare my example to your nothing? In Peacocks, the pea-hens DO choose the male, as they do in certain varieties of fruit bat and arachnid. One has to go back that far in evolution to find your society where females choose males. You have no examples of one before that.

What are you talking about? You name a few species in which the female is dominant, or even if there are numerous species, it doesn't matter, because we're talking about humans, I wonder how many more times will you bring up "other animals" and compare them incorrectly.

Answering this after the above answer is redundant, but you seem like you need it. You have no previous examples of human societies where females choose males as a matter of course. It has always been the other way around.

There are isolated exceptions, certainly, a female elopes or she brings home a guy the family approves of, but the rule has been the same as it is for other great apes. Ultimately, it's not up to her. Only very recently has that become a thing due to feminism, and that very much IS a social construct. It relies on men respecting laws and rights set forth by others.

You think all men were attracted.......*snipped for page space*

And I'm the one who needs an education loan? What is that paragraph-sentence even trying to say? How does it, in any way, support your original position that women used to choose men? Moreover, what on God's green earth makes you think that everyone didn't end up choosing intellect by some form? How did we get these brains? I know, but it sounds like you have no idea how any of this works.

I did point out the idea that ignorant males started the wars, to conquer another mans land, to steal his women, as opposed to creating and coexisting through value on a peacefull level, they tried to take things, thus begins a history of retaliation and offense fronts to defend, this basic principal can applied to many wars.

Females have played large parts in wars starting throughout history, they usually had the ear of the men followed by other men. This ofcourse is another flaw of feminism, in its early stages. I'm done with this one, you were all over the place with that one, almost makes me not want to continue, but I'm killing time.

And what made the men ignorant, I wonder? Did they just decide one day "You know, I think I'll go take that fellow's stuff because I can't think of anything better to do"?

All animals fight, including humans. Large-scale societal co-existence is a very recent innovation. Before that it was all tribes, which you seem to sort of know. But why should we trust that other tribe? How do we know they're not out to get us? They've been doing suspicious things, and the very human quality of empathy is about putting yourself in another's shoes. What if they're thinking of breaking the alliance to take all OUR stuff!?

No surprise, a lot of co-existence is fraught with stories of betrayal, tricks, under-handed tactics. To assume another side is capable of and might use them is not ignorance, it is wise.

That is why people like you end up dead, or subjugated. With your head lost in the clouds, thinking very biological things are societal constructs and not biological facts, you lie to yourself. You create a false sense of security, which will **** you every time.

That's why you think it's okay to have sex with just anyone as often as possible, too. The biological desire rather is to do that, for males. But then you run into the problem of other males killing you, or in the modern world, maybe seeking other ways to ruin you. To say nothing of the unintended consequences. You might beget a child or five. You may get stuck with them and no partner to help raise them. Where does that leave you?

The products of feminism are learning that lesson the hard way right now, and you seem eager to join them. Quality over quantity.

Okay, now you're reaching.....

In what way? All I have done is demonstrate repeatedly that biology is the prime factor here, using more than just our own species, and your answer to that is to name an author, like a Liberal Arts major would do because they can't name anything else.

Poor choice, too. Austen's novels are mostly about the base nature of society beneath the civilized veneer. Pride and Prejudice, anyone? Her speaking out about that is a social construct, the original problem is not, it's a biological one. If you were correct in your views then media like that rathe rought be able to override biology, but it never does.

No, no, men have been visual since mankind existed, its natuarl, females on the other hand, are not, and only do so today due to the media raising them that way......

At least here we might find some common ground. As a social species we do base our perceptions of what is attractive on what others think to an extent. It's a co-evolutionary process, you want your children to be like the people others desire most, because then they can beget more successful children.

We are not the only species to do this. As I pointed out, some species create what seem like evolutionary disadvantages for themselves, birght colors, long tailfeathers, etc, because attracting a mate outweighs the possibility of predation.

Yet this changes nothing. When my case is evolution you believe I am stupid enough to think humans always looked as they do today? They rather evolved into their current form, and that form hasn't changed much in the past 100,000 years or so. Better hair care, cosmetics, jewelry, these are mere accentuations to a form and a desire that already existed, hence why you didn't need modern advertising conglomerate to tell Native Americans to make jewelry we're still finding.

Many women become round as technology progressed and they did not get phsyical activity, other than chores around the house, or even farms, in some cases.

You fool. That does not explain why fat deposits accumulate where they do. It certainly doesn't explain wider female pelvic bones. Nor does it explain why even ancient cultures, or primitive ones, left behind all sorts of works showing women with accentuated hips and breasts. Hell, go ask the modern Inuit. Go tell them their women look like they do because they don't do anything.

You just want to blame this stuff on society because some idiot needed you to believe that in order to change it.

No, sexual selection is as it is today because it has always been the same way.

Countered thoroughly.

We can do something about the media infesting the minds of our young females, using them as tools to make money, making them ignorantly blind at a young age and falling to attraction, creating zombies with cellphones.

The media has to change, but I know it won'tt any time soon. Also, the best relationships are based on friendship, meaning two people having things in common, this is also another direction, alongside finding intellect a draw that humans should push forward to.

I'd be the first to side with you when it comes to teaching any children, not just females, proper values needed for a good life. It is the role of a parent, or in my case, an elder brother. I have all the tools I need in religious Faith, my education, and my experience.

However, I don't see you doing that. You blame the media exclusively for something it wasn't around to create, assume that if you could control it, you could change things. I wonder if they would ignorantly launch a war against you for that. Or you them?

In any case, you proffer no actual solution, you just say they need to change. Are you quite certain that you're not the zombie or puppest here?

But yeah, I'm a futuristic humanist, I believe we should get rid of houses, cars, increase citizen policing, and build smart apartments, and focus on building things that progress humans into space exploration, and advanced science, a human workforce, of order.

I'm a firm believer in order myself. Just not your order. You would kill us all by destroying the very incentive we have to create. You may wish to live in an apartment, ditch your car, be policed or help police, and buy rocket fuel, but a great many people do not. ONes far more successful than you.

Why should they lend their ability to be a slave to your vision? What even makes your vision any good? It may look like a Utopia to you, and let's say it is. What reason would people have to do anything else?

Young men who are interested in intellectual growth should be the guys females go after,, pushing the human race into progression.

Nice of you to tell females what to do. Stupid of you to assume they won't just pick that and more if they can get it. Even stupider to assume they don't already focus on intellect. We ended up with these marvelous brains for a reason, and it wasn't because, as you laughably imply, that "Ignorant men" chose females for their intellect alone.

Instead, it was the most intelligent who won. Those who could guess the motives of others, manipulate them, eliminate competitors without dying themselves in a fight. Females rather embody the more subtle aspect of that nature, though we're all basically the descendants of the biggest a$$holes on the planet. Or if you're Judeo-Christian-Muslim, the descendants of Cain.

I have a Utopian vision, too you know. It's one where we can modify ourselves and our offspring to be whatever we want to be. We use that diversity, harness it through trade, or possibly war if it comes to that, to reach even greater heigths through refinement. I cannot even imagine what those heights are, but then I don't need to. Humans are remarkably little if they don't have something to aspire to, some pride in their being, some purpose to bend their incredible will towards.

Competition shouldn't be elminiated, but it shouldn't be an economical focal point.

And you no doubt have a fascinating model for that. Or at least I hope you do. If it's socialism you're just a zombie.

Get rid of the idea of currency, make educaton a lifelong mandaory passtime.

And much more.

Lol, my utopia will never be, any time soon atleast.

Not a promising start in either of our cases. How does a social species prosper without trade? How do we trade stuff to the schools and people who staff them so they can live as they train others for eternity? Bring them sheep ourselves? Pay others in goats to bring them sheep? Pay the overseers of this trade in cows?

I'm sure you're not advocating anything that patently stupid. And I just KNOW you're not advocating something even stupider, like Communism. What is your vision for the future and how would you bring it about? You are long on ideas and deleteriously short on examples.

Every cashier i meet has a university ring. People running universities have long known most people aren't going to find good jobs, if they manage to find a job at all, but they still want to get dat money and so they mislead them. It's never a good sign when a civilization begins sacrificing its children.

I actually have to go, but you thinking natural animal interactions or their unique methods compares to learned behavior is a bit interesting. As I've said, its a form of communication for them, if an animal builds a mound, it's communicating, which is not the same as being told this is what you should look for in a possible mate, especially when it really doesn't even matter. Before girls hit puberty, they're friends with kids that are nice to them or the ones that are around, THEN the learned behavior kicks in, and feminism corrupts their mind, thus our society today, when it comes to choosing partners.

Also, trade doesn't mean there has to be a currency, we've traded things of value since mankind has lived, different parts of a cow, a dear, vehicle parts for computer parts, currency is just an item, paper from a tree, that has been taught to have value, when paper, or the trees from which they come from have more value. Go watch a document on the federal reserve, paper, money, any currency in any country is only an item saying the person who has it owes someone else. Trade itself is a different thing, but anyway I'm really thinking of a society without a large focus on material gain. I wouldn't waste the time explaining everything here though.

Anyway, I skimmed through your reply, I should've said it in my last post, but I wanted to see if you'd reply and to what degree.

But yeah I'm done. I may come and make an actual reply to your clouded judgement, usually people enjoy the ideas that the majority of society agrees with, again those ideas have been taught, and blindly accepted.