this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
461 points (96.2% liked)
Greentext
3347 readers
2127 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
that notion seems ridiculous to me in general. For the entirety of human history generations have lived in one shared home, all providing for the home in their way. Why the fuck has it suddenly become socially unacceptable to live with your parents? Why would a child need to pay rent to their parents for the "privilege" of continuing to live with them? It's more financially sound nowadays to share a home with other people, your parents, your friends, even strangers. The only time I can think of when that wasn't the case was 50-90s in first world countries when buying a house by a single income working class individual was, like, possible
Society changes over time. It's been a long, long time before multiple generations lived with each other, permanently. It's been the norm, that sometime between a person's early to mid twenties they leave the nest.
You just said that about 1/3 of the world's population doesn't have a society. Anywhere that grows communal crops, such as rice that require multiple families to tend the crops, they still frequently live with their parents, and then the parents move in with the eldest child and live with them.
Western societies didn't even start moving away from these communal societal structures until the start of The Protestant Revolution. It also cause us to stop marrying our cousins, but that was unintentional. The intentional effects were a focus on individualism rather than a focus on family. Even then, it really took until the Industrial Revolution before we really embraced the idea. The Nuclear Family is a concept that's less than 100 years old.
These ideas are far newer than you think.
AFAIC, the not marrying our cousins was the only real benefit of us moving away from societal structures that forced a closer community bond. At least that's the only goal they succeeded in that didn't almost immediately bite us in the ass.
When did I say a third of the world's population doesn't have a society?
This implicitly discounts that at least 1/3 of the world's population that currently live in exactly that model of society exist, or they just don't count because they don't have a society, your pick.
I was referring to my own society. Also, that's not me saying what you claimed I said. That's your interpretation of my statement. Huge difference.
A third of the world's population is approximately 2.7 billion. While possible, I doubt the number of multigenerational households is that high. Though I would be interested to read any material you may have on the subject. Espein comparrison to twenty years ago due to the skyrocketing costs of apartments/houses.
Bruh. If you can't quote me, I didn't say it. That's how it works. You interpreted my statement to mean whatever you want it to mean. Just let it go.
Yes, and I was referring to mine. As that's the one I'm familiar with. I'm not so arrogant to believe I'm an expert on other societies. I don't study them. That's not my field of study.
It is what I intended to say. It's your opinion that it's "very fucking clearly" what I said. If you truly believe I was referring to every society currently in existence, that's on you.
Either way, this conversation is going no where fast. Enjoy your weekend. Stay safe out there.