GENIUS FORUMS

are all thru history when different cultures meet. But is there an effort by social scientists to draw on the latest data- the human genome, biochemistry of the mind, recent archaeological discoveries, paleontology, etc, to outline a more realistic, rather than idealistic, social model?

DNA shows that Native Europeans evolved in yeoman farmer villages of 150-300 over the last couple thousand generations. Africans in tribes of 75-150, other gene pools in the range. Seems understandable that nobody really innately knows how to function in mass urban life.

We all see kids get sick; what we've not seen is the demographic data to suggest that there are mental development problems triggered by infections. The immune systems of kids did not evolve in mass cultures like herd animals, and as the schools get bigger, the pathogens have more time to mutate so the various bugs just keep circulating. Small rural schools that I've looked up routinely have attendance at the 95% level.

I just dont understand why these factors have not come to the attention of social scientists, and why they have not tried to come up with a more suitable social model given the way hominids evolved.

There is more money to be made when people are in dense concentrations. That's why concentrations of people get more concentrated.

When people want to be really rich, with little work, they head for places like New York, LA, London, Tokyo, or Paris.

To get people to live in smaller communities, you would have to do a couple of things: 1. Stop them from being greedy, and 2. Stop them from breeding so quickly.

If people from the big cities spread out into small communities, I suspect it would cause massive environmental devastation.

One of the problems they have in Africa is low population densities, which means it is often not economically viable for them to have schools, hospitals, universities, etc.

Greed dont motivate everyone, altho agreed, it is very popular. Parents are known for sacrificing greed for the sake of their kids. Which are the most vulnerable to the risks of urban culture. So, I am bemused that parents have not looked at the demographic data. Nor has the Pentagon. You'd think they'd look into the social model that produced more of the best soldiers.

Then too, from the standpoint of greedy profit, well, here I actually do see a trend. Small communities have less mobile populations that tend to stay put generation after generation. So, now, I see that the Arkansas Ozark towns are seeing so much investment that manufacturing jobs are actually *increasing*. There is less staff turnover. No risk of WMD. Less sick leave. (altho business does slack off when deer season opens) Lower crime rate. No muggings, streetgangs, drive bys, car theft. Lower cost for company security.

Company towns are doing well. Walmart owns Bentonvillie AR. Another opened up a call center, with 350 jobs, that could have gone to bangalore, but instead is in Conway, pop 12,000, where the cost of living and payrolls is about the same. Only with sweet southern drawls answering the phones. I'm just kinda surprised the social scientists have not picked up on this. The census bureau has. Along with urbanite, suburbanite, there is now the x-urbanite, who owns a hobby farm of 20 or more acres, with berries, orchard, organic veggies, special livestock, or whatever to tide him over during the job changes.

If his job is outsourced to Mexico or wherever, the *homestead* laws protect his investment in the farm. His credit rating may go to hell, he'll have to sell the Lexus, but the place will make a little money and he wont be living on the street or take the first low paying job offer he comes across. You talk about greed, what is that worth? And I keep wondering why the social theorists have not realized this is going on? Maybe cause they are all urbanites?