Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Millennium Crash -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (5329)	6/12/2000 7:56:00 AM
From: Arik T.G.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5676

- OFF TOPIC - DAK, I think that the bigger question is not if marriage is a sound micro economic decision, but the much more important question why is the rate of success for marriage is so low. First, my definition for success: 1. Improving emotional and economical status over single state. 2. Raising children in a loving and supportive environment (number of children immaterial). 3. Lasting "until death do us part". I think that 1. Living in the modern world people tend to forget their animal side which will need millennia to evolve accordingly. The tension between the demands of modern life and the behavior and limitations of our natural (animal) being result in stress and illness of body (heart attacks etc.) and mind (depression). 2. Most people are compelled (we are a tribal animal) to favor the economical scale for success over mental and emotional success, for themselves and others. In the extreme, there's the Japanese karoshi (sp?) - people who work themselves to death. 3. On average, married people enjoy far better emotional state at old age then singles. As a result, they also live longer. So the question is one of values. When society values economically measured success over mental and emotional success, I believe it sows the seeds of its own destruction. On the bright side, I believe that this set of values will soon change, and the importance of economical success will diminish in the future. The task of adapting to the technological change of the last 180 years is a great one. The new way of life put many strains on our natural systems. We were built to gather and hunt in small groups, to mate in couples, to combine both into a tribe that takes care of itself. We are not designed to fly a jet plane or even drive a car. And ultimately the technological advancements should make it easier on us to deal with them, or they backfire. The crowded cities brought plagues- we made technology to deal with that. Other tech used to increase crops and feed the increasing numbers. But- Electric light cut out our natural daily cycle. TV, the mock tribal fire, lowered our moral standards. Traffic gets on our nerves. We are fat (on the average). We lack fresh air, sunlight and natural physical exercise. To keep our body in shape we run the treadmill like hamsters. I'm not saying that tech is bad. Just that we have to adjust, and it's not an easy task. Part of adjusting is assimilating the tech but rejecting the underlying values. Back to the marriage issue- I believe that the rate of success is so low because the maintenance and success of marriage is not prioritized. People prefer to invest their time and efforts at work over their families and the outcome is obvious. This is a moral choice. One should consider it carefully. If economical success is more important to one then marital success, then one should divert one's resources to work. If, however, one's family is more important to one, then one should put one's best efforts there. I think people know that, and make their choices accordingly. The low rate of marital success only shows us what they think is more important. ATG