The two basic necessities of life are to survive and to reproduce. For many reasons, sexual reproduction is a useful strategy. Nature makes sex automatic, instinctual, pleasurable or all three. 

It takes real perversity to turn something so beautiful and natural into an act of nasty evil. And to frame women as the wicked temptresses who lead “pure” males astray. Yet some cultures have done so, usually with additional male mythology. 

I believe in the “grandmother hypothesis” _ that most tribal socialization has been accomplished by women over the ages. Perhaps men reacted out of annoyance at that. Or maybe they were simply jealous.  Over the long history of civilization, women may get raped, but men get slaughtered. 

The Victorian era was seen as a height of hypocrisy. Any bare skin was taboo, talk of sex forbidden, “good” women virginal. Yet simultaneously there was a massive underground of dirty books and masses of prostitutes. Mistresses and lovers of both sexes, and identical sexes were commonplace. Those complex contradictions led Freud to believe sex and death were the unconscious root of all personalities. 

But modern America makes Victorian society look transparently innocent. Pornography is freely available at the flick of a switch, fashions enhance sexual attractiveness, sex can be contracted or consummated over the phone. And there are no longer pregnancy consequences. Yet somehow children must be protected from nudity (which all children are under their clothes) and sex (which all their parents had to do.)

I know in these times many cultural patterns are in transition, but this set of contradictions is probably the silliest of all. 

I tend to overweight artisanship in my evaluation of just about any cultural object. Mass-produced works, however beautiful, have a different feel than those which have actually been done by a human hand. The magic of personal aura, if you will. 

I know it is kind of silly. Someone, after all, designed these machine-built bits of kistche. But whether it is a painting or a pot, I treasure the idea of a real individual touching and shaping it. And the older it is, the stronger the mystic connection. 

Probably that is no different from the joy everyone gets from a manual hobby, whether it is home remodeling, car care, or drawing. We value the time we put into effort, and we embed that invisible effort in our memory/view of the piece.

Now, naturally, that connection can be intellectual as well as tactile. But we do have a very strong connection to our hands, which are not only an extension but also a foundation of our intelligence and consciousness. 

No need to get crazy about it, of course, especially for the common utilitarian things. I’m glad my everyday dishes are not priceless treasures, so I don’t freak out if they break. I’m happy to be surrounded with mass produced comforts.

But if I am in an art mode contemplating the product of an artisan, I enjoy the feeling of direct connection to that other creative person.

Until very recently, the idea of “private property” was a game played by the ruling elite. In “civilized” societies, slaves and peasants, who did not even own the food they grew, made up the mass of society. Even among the elites, the rule was largely “you only own what you can keep from others somehow.”

Ah but these are better days. Both the common people and the elites now own “private property” guaranteed by the “legal establishment.” That the elites still own most of the “private property” does not matter, right? . It’s “legal.”

But who pays for that de facto and de jure legal establishment? The elite cleverly say everyone. Not, heaven knows, those who have the most to protect. And they have spun the accepted mythology that elite concentrated private ownership makes more things for everyone. So let that fine group not be penalized by paying too much in taxes, theoretically impoverishing us all. 

We need the military and police, of course, to protect this great property revolution. Somehow, it often ends up looking like the far olden days of blue blooded aristocrats. And no need for those aristocrats to pay too much _ they keep civilization going, after all.

I always laugh at the quaint idea that lowering taxes will shrink government and create wealth. It certainly leads to larger estates and bigger yachts. 

Eliminating customary safety nets for the peasants can have unexpected consequences. Taxes may fall, along with a few other things. 

There are many contemporary places rightly considered hell on Earth. Warzones, famines, genocide, and other more localized situations are truly atrocious. It is doubtful that any of them will be nostalgically remembered in 100 years or so as a lost Eden. 

Yet that seems to have happened with the aboriginal inhabitants of North America. Modern stories about them concentrate on the democracy of the Iroquois, the strong physiques of the young men, the spirituality of beliefs, the respect for nature and on and on. All blotted out by the evil invasion of Europeans with their guns, germs, and steel. 

To some extent, of course, that is true. But if one delves into original written records, or the histories written by those immersed in such documents, a different perspective is available. An example is the Hurons of 1640 as described by Francis Parkman in the late 1800s, from original writings of the French priests and administrators. 

Life as a Huron was not Edenic bliss. Starvation and comatose endurance in the winter, frequent murder, enslavement, cannibalism, torture by other tribes particularly the Iroquois. Childish, often cruel and capricious activities, often based on dreams and visions. Much of it, in fact, “brutal, nasty, and short.” The lives of women generally that of cattle. But you can read it yourself…

I consequently mistrust most armchair anthropology, where folks imagine what life must have been like “back then.” Whenever that “then” may be. Modern day Rousseaus who ignore the evidence of those who actually lived the conditions. 

You don’t hear too much about the “population crisis” anymore. People assume that one way or another we can feed as many people as we want. And somehow we think it is good that as many people as possible should be kept alive. 

I’m an old curmudgeon who thinks the population levels of my youth in the 1950s were just dandy. Humans had managed to mess up parts of the planet, but a lot remained pristine. The oceans thrived, and climate alteration was moderate. So I believe that a lot of our problems would be solved if we just lost 5 or 6 billion folks, taking world population levels back to that time. 

I know we could support a lot more in some kind of tight fragile matrix. Perhaps the natural world as I remember it fondly was already beyond many of its tipping points. But I believe that when all is said and done in the long run the natural numbers level of the species, if it survives, will be much lower than now.

Civilization would be fine with a “mere” one or two billion. Depending, of course, on the way that level comes about. But I had my life and times, and I can only hope something like it could one day arrive again. 

“Life” doesn’t really care. Bacteria are happy no matter if the dominant species is humans, dinosaurs, mice, or cockroaches. Or trees, for that matter. And I suspect that no matter how inhospitable the Earth finally becomes, it will remain nicer than Mars or anywhere else for a few billion years more.

Ignore the idea of “work,” which could be any useful activity. A “job” is something that must be done, often for money. Finding a permanent “good desirable job” _ enough income to support lifestyle, a more or less pleasant way to spend paid hours _ is the holy grail of most in a corporate capitalistic society.

In olden days, we think, it was oh, so simple. Women raised children and took care of households _ or did menial or “immoral” chores. Men usually followed the footsteps of their fathers. Sure, there were exceptions, but those were exceptions. There is probably a kernel of truth in that generalization.

The increasing pace of industrial revolution and the changes of its technology upended all that. Less farmers, less artisan shoemakers, and eventually even less clerks were necessary. Lots of new jobs required more brains than brawn, providing openings for women. All that meant a constant upheaval as old trades vanished and new ones appeared as if from fantasy. 

So there is a lot of choice open to a young person. And it is practically all about money _ we are far divorced from almost anyone being self-sufficient. We need electricity, food, even cell phones. And it all must be paid somehow. 

So what is “desirable?” Working conditions, number of hours, satisfaction with accomplishment? Security? The most maddening issue is that the very definition of “desirable job” now mutates almost as rapidly as the requirements of the job itself. 

It’s hard to feel comfortable when surrounded by constant anxiety. These days that’s what almost any job actually delivers.

The key is to differentiate  “free enterprise” from “corporate capitalism.” We all admire free enterprise, whether from an artisan or a shopkeeper. They put life and wealth on the line, add sweat equity, and provide society with immense benefits in return for whatever income they can generate. 

Importantly, their business remains entangled with their actual person. If an enterprising wicked witch sells a poison apple, she can be sent to jail and her property confiscated, just as if it were a crime committed by any other citizen. 

Corporations, on the other hand, are barren bureaucracies with a simple goal of surviving and growing by making money. They have no individuality, and no owner is accountable. If a wicked corporation sells a poison apple, good luck getting past the lawyers. And if convicted, the shareholders are only on the hook for the money they put in, never going to jail nor risking other property. 

So to “control capitalism” is not _ as often bleated about by their paid propagandists _  to stifle true “free enterprise.” Let the artisans and shopkeepers be. Control what are, in effect, amoral bureaucracies which have become the original existential forerunner of bad AI. 

How to control them? Well, government (simply another bureaucracy but at least nominally responsible to people and with multiple goals for greater social good) already tries. But at least there should be heavier taxes, strict regulation, and absolute transparency.

And no more foolish chatter that certain bureaucracies “really are people too.”

Any elite promotes an ideology to justify its role. The apocryphal tribal “strongest man” theory of leadership requires too much energy _ a new challenger all the time _ both to ruler and ruled. 

Now we claim not to have a hereditary aristocracy anymore, but in fact the movers and shakers of society do tend to come from the same families, or at least the same milieu. Wealth and power move nepotically from generation to generation, as they always have, with just a little leavening by “new men.”  It has been thus throughout history, and we fool ourselves not to believe it is so now. 

The myths have been varied. The aristocrats might be favored by the gods, or have blue blood, or be the most intelligent or most honestly just be necessary to society. And wealth is always associated with power, power with rulers. 

To preserve their purity, elites try to dissociate themselves from the rabble. 

They rely on family connections, or behavior, or philosophy, or simply wealth. A great show of pretensions, manners, and display to prove they are not like everyone else. 

Current aristocrats claim to be meritocrats. They “deserve” what they have because they are the “best” _ intelligent, hardworking, whatever. Of course, many have simply won the lottery of life, as in all previous aristocratic claims. 

I suppose the new crop is no worse than any of the others. But I dislike their crowing arrogance, especially when so many of us can see it is so clearly artificial.

Perhaps the greatest divide between ancient and modern thought concerns stability. The ancient world considered the natural world as something eternally unchanging, affected perhaps by a disaster here or there, the whims of gods off and on, maybe some long slow path to destruction or rebirth or recycling. Modern belief is that all stability is an illusion of consciousness. 

There is still tension between both ideas. For although we may know that scientifically the earth is spherical, rushing through space, constructed of floating tectonic plates _ it just doesn’t feel that way. We accept that the wind blows, but it is harder to understand that oxygen and other gas levels are maintained by various massive invisible life forces.

And it’s much worse than that. We think we see a picture of the universe as it is, but in fact our sight is a mashup composed of restricted wavelength streams of photons hitting a constantly moving eyeball which somehow excites specialized nerve cells to “make sense” to other billions of neurons. Even at rest, we breathe, blood moves, trillions of cells go about their frantic uncountable internal reactions. 

Future thought, should humans survive, will focus on systems and stress. Nothing is in equilibrium, all is maintained by opposing, supporting, adjusting forces. A difficult cosmology, that goes against all our basic intuitions.

It’s a common complaint of old folks that “young people have no manners.” Possibly because young people see elders as mostly irrelevant, I suppose. 

Why don’t people make an extra effort to be nice? Ah, wait right there, why does being nice take extra effort? Shouldn’t that be the normal effortless response? And that is how society has changed into rule by the rude. 

It’s probably a side effect of universal victimhood. Everyone now believes that they are afflicted by unfair forces. Winners are the meanest, most ruthless, asocial slugs. Gifted and wealthy individuals use unfair advantage. The deck is stacked.

So the response of almost anyone is to put up a barrier, assume everyone else is against them. “The hell with you!” they shout, feeling there is little other recourse. And, of course, with the often envious belief that just about everyone else is better off at my expense.

Perhaps I’m naive or betrayed by nostalgia, but I don’t remember it being so bad before the internet. Sure there was a lot of rudeness and social demonstrations, but mostly people were pretty calm with one another. Or maybe, as noted, it is simply that old age changes my perspective.

I am amazed that when I am habitually polite, the response is often a kind of shocked astonishment. Perhaps I’m one of the few remaining without a grudge. I suppose it will get me in trouble someday.