Connecticut

[Zlaxer]

The problem is collectivism/marxism - it's not an innately city issue....cities just make it easier for the cancer to take hold and grow....

[Speaker to Animals]

It is innately a city issue. It has been since the bronze age. This happens cyclically. As urbanism rises, the degeneracy makes a comeback to threaten the civilization.

[Zlaxer]

It is innately a city issue. It has been since the bronze age. This happens cyclically. As urbanism rises, the degeneracy makes a comeback to threaten the civilization.

It's because the larger the population the more useful idiots there are....If you expelled proles from cities, cities would not be the problem.

[MilSpecs]

Also, I don’t want to leave. I will reach a point where I don’t produce enough to stay at my current lifestyle yet am not willing to downgrade my lifestyle enough to remain. I produced enough to go elsewhere and thus reaped reward for previous gumption. That is the way of the metropolis. More reward for people who are willing to go outside their comfort zone.

Do you realize how arrogant on condescending you sound ?
Honest question.

Jeez, I said I’m being kicked out of my ancestral homeland by people who deserve it more, so I kind of consider that an honest assessment than braggadocio. I don’t expect anyone to hand me a living or hold a place for me, so I guess that’s arrogance. I expect my fellow citizens to get up off their asses and move like their ancestors did for more opportunity, so I guess that’s condescending.

Sugarcoating doesn’t make things better.

[Speaker to Animals]

It is innately a city issue. It has been since the bronze age. This happens cyclically. As urbanism rises, the degeneracy makes a comeback to threaten the civilization.

It's because the larger the population the more useful idiots there are....If you expelled proles from cities, cities would not be the problem.

My hypothesis is that the genetic root of moral behavior (not the reasoning behind a moral argument, but the behavioral bias for it) derived from the in-group bias genetic behavior that gave rise to hominids' group selection. Early hominids likely viewed out-group behavior, language, and customs as revolting in a guttural fashion the way we react to grossly immoral behavior (some of us anyway). Human morality as a genetic adaptation evolved from in-group preferences and group selection.

Group selection is what catapulted hominids towards sapience and general intelligence.

The problem of urbanization lies in the fact that the urban environment is still a collection of environmental variables, and like all environmental variables, they play a role in natural selection. Strong in-group preferences are a detriment in an urban environment compared to any genetic adaptation that down-regulates in-group preferences and group selection in general. The less foreign and immoral shit offends you, the better adapted you are to living in a large urban environment filled with strangers and foreign peoples. Lower in-group bias also drastically increases your reproductive chances in an urban environment. Thus after many generations of urban living, the genetic adaptations that down-regulate group selection and in-group biases predominate in the cities.

The side effect of this is a group of people with severely weakened moral compasses. They also have adapted genetic behavior that places great value on tolerance. This is why urbanites talk about tolerance like it is one of the greatest moral goods. They are evolved to think and behave this way, the same as the rest of us are evolved to think and behave in more moral and in-group preferred lifestyles (I guess what you might call conservative).

The most dangerous aspect is that I believe a significant number of urbanites actually are ill-disposed to the very genetic adaptations that make complex society and even our evolution into sapience possible (group selection). It's an evolutionary dead end and ultimately destructive of complex society, especially a civilization.

If you really think about it, this religion of "diversity" and "tolerance" constitutes a direct rejection of human evolution towards sapience.

[C-Mag]

Also, I don’t want to leave. I will reach a point where I don’t produce enough to stay at my current lifestyle yet am not willing to downgrade my lifestyle enough to remain. I produced enough to go elsewhere and thus reaped reward for previous gumption. That is the way of the metropolis. More reward for people who are willing to go outside their comfort zone.

Do you realize how arrogant on condescending you sound ?
Honest question.

Jeez, I said I’m being kicked out of my ancestral homeland by people who deserve it more, so I kind of consider that an honest assessment than braggadocio. I don’t expect anyone to hand me a living or hold a place for me, so I guess that’s arrogance. I expect my fellow citizens to get up off their asses and move like their ancestors did for more opportunity, so I guess that’s condescending.

Sugarcoating doesn’t make things better.

What I hear you saying is that urbanites work harder, are smarter and more productive than rural folks and they deserve to reap the benefits of their superior lives.

It's time you urbanites and entrenched blue states understand you are the big business, crony capitalism that you claim to fight against.

[MilSpecs]

What I hear you saying is that urbanites work harder, are smarter and more productive than rural folks and they deserve to reap the benefits of their superior lives.

I wrote a very long reply and lost it.

We have different lives, not superior. Anyone can be smart and productive given the ambition and opportunity. The reality is that there’s more opportunity in the population centers. We can’t insist that opportunity be brought to us; we have to go get it. Our ancestors gave up everything and crossed oceans to live under horrible circumstances because they saw that their world had changed. Many people do the same now. We need to get that back.

[Zlaxer]

Our ancestors gave up everything and crossed oceans to live under horrible circumstances because they saw that their world had changed. Many people do the same now. We need to get that back.
[/quote]

This argument ignores that times are different - America no longer has a need for unskilled labor like we did in the 1800's....we also have massive unfunded social programs....The ancestors of the people coming now had the same opportunity as our ancestors - yet they chose to stay put....we should not be made to pay for their mistakes.

[C-Mag]

I wrote a very long reply and lost it.

That sucks when that happens.

We have different lives, not superior. Anyone can be smart and productive given the ambition and opportunity. The reality is that there’s more opportunity in the population centers. We can’t insist that opportunity be brought to us; we have to go get it. Our ancestors gave up everything and crossed oceans to live under horrible circumstances because they saw that their world had changed. Many people do the same now. We need to get that back.

What do you consider opportunity ?
You seem to equate opportunity to financial gain. I find much more opportunity in rural areas, and I think you would too if you move your focus off monetary wealth.

Our ancestors did give up everything. It's a sad statement that it would only be done to create greater wealth. When you submit to urban life, you cash in personal Liberty for money. I and folks of my mind set have willing made the conscious and deeper decision to choose Liberty and the opportunities of Freedom for the increased wealth we may gain from living in an Urban setting. We've looked hard at the responsibilities of raising a new generation and what is best for the children, and we have chosen to raise them in a harsher, less entertaining area to grow the type of values that our ancestors who gave up everything would appreciate.

I just ask you and your Deep Blue neighbors to consider values outside of monetary desires as more important.................... consider that many the hicks aren't so stupid, maybe they have made the more intelligent and far more responsible decision all along.

[MilSpecs]

It’s definitely a matter of personal preference as well. City Mouse/Country Mouse. I really don’t think one is better than the other as far as the people. It’s more a willingness to change when the circumstances demand it.

You would do well anywhere, C-Mag, since you clearly have a work ethic and smarts. I believe you when you say you choose to remain in the country out of preference for the lifestyle. Believe me when I say that many urban and suburban folks aren’t just driven by money. For many of us, it’s that we’d be bored out of our minds with the slower paced lifestyle. There’s always something better somewhere else. We have to move - it’s the way we’re built. That mindset just aligns well with capitalism.