On aggregate men are less valuable than women: "sperm is cheep, eggs are expensive". Women are the spoils of war + waging war is a means of controlling your surplus male population. Men still built civilisation, though via cooperation underwritten by competition.
-
-
Replying to @parallaxoptics @Klaus2forKlaus1 and
What does "value" mean in this context?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @parallaxoptics @Klaus2forKlaus1 and
how is it determined whether someone is prized or expendable?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Klaus2forKlaus1 @parallaxoptics and
are children inherently valuable? could someone be prized despite having no children? and could someone be expendable despite having children?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @Klaus2forKlaus1 and
future productivity does, human biology is a contingent aspect of it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Klaus2forKlaus1 and
if we assume markets = value, then - can one person be "worth" 1000x another? - if so, then doesn't the "quality" of a partner become much more important for valuing future offspring? - if so, the aggregate claims still work, but the civilizational results are different.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @cyborg_nomade and
it was a good tweet but I understand why you deleted it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @cyborg_nomade and
didn't want to shift the conversation in that direction/toward that conclusion, would rather see if there are other open positions in possibility space
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

