On the contrary, this demonstrates that evolution has forced society to grow stronger to the point where it can support a given number of single mothers. They do not starve to death with the same rapidity as they used to. It does not make it immune to being dragged, down, but rather "increases the amount of ruin in a nation" (to abuse Adam Smith).Thius is a perfect example of why trying to apply evolution to societies does not work.
but none so powerful or controlling. Nor does it make it any less accurate to point out that there are other factors at play. That is like saying that a good goalie is not important to a soccer team because it is important to also have good forwards.It is also not necessarily accurate as there are other factors at play in success of children
On the contrary, trying to predict the future is how the vast majority of us live our lives. I, for example, predict that I and my family will survive the next few years, and so I am saving money now in order to be able to purchase a home then. Nor is it an exercise in futility; many of the outlines in the future are already known. For example, when we are looking at populaces, demographics are slow moving targets. If we wish to know how many 75 year olds we shall have in the world in 2038, we need only look to see how many 50 year olds we have now, and then give apply an average range of how many we are most likely to lose in the meantime in order to get a high probability depiction of future septuagenarians.Trying to predict the future is an exorcize in futility
Really? Nations do not pursue power? People do not continue to fight each other over resources or ethnic or religious divisions? Trade does not occur? You are mistaking the expressions of the rules for the rules themselves. The Soviet Union is gone. George Kennan might not be astonished. Russia is attempting once again to secure her near-abroad. Halford Mackinder would not be.The world now is not only nothing like what any one predicted when I was a kid, it is nothing like what any one predicted when I was your age.
Reminds me of the old saw about Americans and Canadians - that Americans are blissfully unaware of Canada, while Canadians are virulently well-informed on America. Conservatives, from what I see, tend to be virulently well-informed on the history and tenets of progressivism, Liberals tend to be... less so on the history of conservativsm. It seems to basically boil down to a rough sense that "conservatives were racists who didn't like unions". Point out that the great racists in American history were the progressives and you'll get a mixture of angry denial followed by a claim that somehow magically they all switched parties (not to dive into that debate, but to use it as an example). There is no Liberal equivalent to Glenn Beck diving into Woodrow Wilson, but Beck did and conservatives flocked to that show.Not surprisingly, I find the opposite. Might be something in that difference in experience...