Biology is my Religion: The Bible was wrong, the meek do not inherit the earth!

There is a cycle between two types of societies, between two things. A self-centered society and a society-centered society. The meek are the society centered and during hard times yes they do inherit the earth but during good times they do not, during good times nature does not want us to just survive, during good times nature wants us to compete and have only the very best survive. So both the meek and the self-centered inherit the earth and if I am to judge things by my internal selfishness vs. my internal socialness it would seem that more often than not the self-centered inherit the earth!

Also to note, there is not one patriarchy or one matriarchy or one socialism or one capitalism, over time it is a cycle that has happened an uncountable number of time in every layer of society and even within our minds. We settle with the parts that favor society that we need while taking the parts that favor self that we can. We settle with governments and laws and schools (all on the social sides), while taking the parts of the self side that we can.


Biology is my religion: for the meek shall inherit the earth!

I am not religious, but I think that a lot can be learnt from religion. The bible says “Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”. And this seems to be true.

Meek people are humble people, and humble people are okay with putting the needs of others and the needs of society above their own needs. In this case the bible meant that people who were not self-serving, self-centered, or selfish will inherit the earth and that seems to be very true.

Meek people do very well in traditional setting because they are okay with accepting guidance from the past or from “God” (if they believe). Meek people are better at co-operation, they are more inclined to have more children (since having children take a lot of self-sacrifice), and their children are more inclined to survive (because they follow a system or culture that prioritizes the lives of children).

It is the genetics of the meek that shall make it in to the future and so, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.

Self-centered people also make it into the future (or it would not be encoded so well into our genetics), but in recent history it is the meek that have built larger and more successful societies. Self-centered societies simply could not compete with traditional societies.

Early societies. How I imagine the social structure of at least one early society was.

Picture this: Women give birth and live together with other women and all of the children who have been born. The women go out and search for food and water and other resources which exist in safe spaces near enough to their community.

Men lived separately; boys joined the males when they were old enough to no longer need their mothers (maybe around 10-12 years old). Males hunted and gathered; generally not in the same places as women. They hunted in places further away and gathered in more dangerous territory. They did this because it often meant less work for the same quantity/quality of food and it meant they could access resources which they could use to trade with women.

Women and men were generally uncommitted to each other and most were bisexual. The women mostly slept with each other however from time to time they would trade sex for something of value that one of the males had to offer.  Homosexuality was human’s first all-natural birth control.

Males competed among each other and that drove the ‘’economy”. It was a capitalist economy and it was a capitalist mating system. Something along the way changed though and we switched to a socialist mating system. To monogamy, to traditionalism and it worked. I think for the betas in society (like me!!!) it would be good to hold on to this system; but for the alphas the old system is better. Who will win and what are your thoughts?

Cultural evolution: Do cultural norms have an evolution of their own?

The social structure and cultural norms that we have today are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of war and luck and conquest. It is not simply by chance and it does have a lot to say about what it takes to survive through some of life’s most harsh conditions, through famine, war and all of the other horrible things that we as humans can face.

Do you ever think about religion in terms of what it is? How did it come to being? How did it evolve? I know a lot of people look at it as coming from the bible or starting as a conspiracy or so. But look at the fact that the bible is very disconnected from many of the core beliefs of Christians. I mean polygamy is bad to Christians but it was okay in the Bible.

I do not know so much about Christianity though but it does seem to me that religion is more about culture than it is about a book or the book they claim to follow. It seems that in many cases the culture may have even come before the book. I think that in the same exact same way that physical traits have an evolutionary history which rest on the ‘’survival of the fittest’’ principle, cultural norms also had an evolution.

The cultural norms that led to better societies survived for a reason. Societies that were Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc., those that had monogamy survived for a reason. They were the fittest societies and they won the most wars.

Everything is connected. How traditionalism is socialist, while liberalism is capitalistic!

You ever notice how everything in life is connected. Every little thing. I mean really deeply connected. How did I even start blogging about feminism, it was through looking at things about children and babies and toddlers, which led me to working mother versus stay at home mother things, which led to feminism, and that to family and social structure, which recently led me to capitalism versus socialism, which leads me to human instincts, which leads back to children and babies.

EVERY thought can be connected to every thought and every person and every leaf and everything that exist and does not exist is all so deeply connected. The world is beautiful and we should celebrate it!

Traditionalism is the socialist model of structuring families. It is model of co-dependence that does not rely on competition to drive it. It promotes monogamy so that everyone gets a piece of the pie. Everyone gets access to sex. Everyone gets a spouse and can get access to ‘’work/the profits of male work’’ and access to sex and children. It is socialist at its heart.

Liberalism is the capitalist way of structuring society. We sleep around and there is no commitment. Sex or work is not guaranteed. In these societies many people go without being able to have children. The men who are richest or compete and end up successful with the biggest prey etc. get the most sex. This is the most natural way and it is the way we spent most of our existence.

It seems very interesting to me that conservatives are for capitalism while being for traditionalism, while liberals are for socialism while being for liberalism. It suggests that most of us truly are balanced and searching for something in-between. I am drawn more to socialism although capitalism seems far more natural. But the question still remains which one is truly better?? Whose interest should we seek; self or society?

Is the concept of capitalism better than the concept or socialism or the other way around? What do you think?

Undervalued parenthood; why I think taking care of children is so drastically undervalued!

Every time I read a blog post about ‘’why I regret being a stay at home mom’’ I get the impression that these people do not regret being stay at home mothers but rather that they feel as though society has refused to acknowledge their work as real work and that is what depresses them.

And it gets me angry to think about just how much parenting is undervalued. A part of me understands why but a part of me does not and gets furious that people cannot see that there is no future without kids.

Reading statements like ‘’do not have kids if you cannot afford it’’, ‘’having kids is a luxury’’, ‘’do not expect us single people to sponsor the lifestyle choices of parents, we did not have kids for a reason’’,  ‘’stay at home moms; your kids do not need you’’. It all makes me sick to my stomach. Society does not value kids, society does not value the work of parenthood, society does not value parenting, and society therefore does not value people.

I see my purpose in life as to have kids. I respect that others do not see it this way but I want to know from them what do they think is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of life to you? Biology is my religion and so happiness, feeling joy and of course having kids (which brings joy) is my purpose in life. My life exists because someone birthed me, and my life exists to birth others.

And the more I think about it, and the more I explore the idea of feminism the more I realize that one of my core issues with feminism is that it seriously undervalues motherhood and parenting. Parenting for the most part has historically been the female’s job simply because she was the one who got pregnant and evolutionarily speaking the guy who got her pregnant may not have always been around.

Child care is women’s work, while going out into places that have been historically speaking unsafe (ie. the working world) is male work. Women’s work is undervalued. It is undervalued because we took it for granted, because we could not avoid it, it was a fact of life and half of the population did it. Times have now changed though, we have control over whether we have kids or not and so we have to start valuing parenthood again.

We have to start changing society to make parenthood enjoyable. We have to start treating parenthood as a birthright. Everyone should have the right to enjoyable parenthood. At least to have 1 or 2 children. Isn’t it sad that we live in a world where people think parenting is a chore and no one is doing anything to change it?