>These changes in culture undermined and destroyed the sociological foundations that had held the family together from antiquity. Industrialism meant that a man no longer necessarily followed his father's trade. New industries required new skills and a son could often improve his economic status simply by learning those skills, skills he did not learn from his father. As agriculture became increasingly mechanised, fewer workers were required, a situation not only fuelling the exodus to the cities, but also removing the economic incentive for large families. Children now were perceived as an economic liability. Rather than having more workers, a large family simply meant more mouths to feed and more children to educate in the specialised school systems. In a similar way, mechanisation removed much of the woman's traditional work, making her almost unnecessary in the home. By the Twentieth Century, women found themselves bored and feeling useless since housework was no longer challenging or fulfilling. Technology also eliminated the traditional distinctions between men and women's work. By World War II enormous numbers of women entered the work force in the defence industry. Technology allowed women to work in factories doing the same work as men (for lower wages, which then became the moral justification for feminism). Women then became competitors with men for the same jobs.
Was industrialization a mistake? Destruction of family, women being now viewed as useless and whose only value is being baby makers and whoring around, children are now viewed as liabilities instead of blessings, no sense of community and neighborhood now as it's every man for himself, technology eliminating the distinctions between men and women, are all social ills that the leftists and conservatives decry the result of industrializations?
Seems the elephant is visible in the room but no one even dares point at it because correctly pointing at it would mean letting go of our modern conveniences at the expense of our social structures. Seems all talk about reforms are just band-aid solutions until the problem of industrialization is tackled.
Connor Scott
It doesn't matter whether it was a "mistake" or not, it's inevitable and there's no going back to the way things were before.
Cameron Russell
Yes it was. We, as a specie, are regressing while technology is evolving. We're basically replacing ourselves and acting proud about it
Xavier Thomas
Anything technologically "above" a fridge was a mistake.
Alexander Thompson
You should watch Manhunt Unabomber, sort of relevant.
Connor Clark
Rubbish. The Georgian era was full of people who were polygamous, had affairs and got divorced. The nuclear family unit is completely a product of industrialisation.
Brody Baker
You should read Ted Kaczynski manifesto. Industrialization won't last as it just wants to consume and destroy our natural resources for the sake of "progress" and profits all at the expense of our humanity. Something's gotta give eventually. Hell, industrialized society is so dependent on systems in place now that any collapse in one infrastructure will have an effect on all other infrastructures in place (see what happened to Detroit when Ford couldn't keep up with the globalized network of car manufacturing. The US car industry eventually collapsed). A monster that only keeps on feeding without giving anything back is nothing short of a virus. Man lived in equilibrium with his environment before industrialization. Now he only destroys for the sake of profits and technological progress or whatever even that leads to.
Thomas Wilson
The Georgian era coincided with the industrial revolution which happened during the 1820s-1840s. What you posted just confirms what I said.
Jack Young
>flipphinobenis
No wonder you're an luddite, your fucking whole economy is based on slave labour textiles sold to the west.
Aiden Gray
> nuclear family unit is completely a product of industrialisation.
Nolan Long
The Nuclear Family is a recent phenomenon.
Cameron Turner
>mongolian unironically says this while white people are dying off. You're so technologically progressive Finland that western cucks like you are willing to get their people replaced as long as your elites and leaders still have money in their pockets. So progressive! So tolerant!
Samuel Bennett
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family >Historians Alan Macfarlane and Peter Laslett postulated that nuclear families have been a primary arrangement in England since the 13th century . This primary arrangement was different than the normal arrangements in Southern Europe, in parts of Asia, and the Middle East where it was common for young adults to remain in or marry into the family home. In England multi-generational households were uncommon because young adults would save enough money to move out, into their own household once they married. Sociologist Brigitte Berger argued, "the young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving."[9] Berge also mentions that this could be one of the reasons why the Industrial Revolution began in England and other Northwest European countries.
Jaxon Jackson
>The modern Christian family now too often looks something like this. Dad and Mom come from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds with no sense of their cultural history. They may also come from completely different parts of the country. Consequently they often have divergent goals, interests, expectations, etc., except for a common commitment to self-fulfilment. In college (or wherever), they met, "fell in love", and decided to get married. Because of large college debts, Mom goes back to work after the honeymoon, trying to recapture some of the massive investment her education required. After several years of increased consumer debt, Mom and Dad decide to have a family, but they cannot afford to have very many children. As soon as possible, Mom needs to go back to work to keep their affluent, debt-ridden, life-style going. As the children grow up, they are immediately sent into the public school system; Christian schooling is too expensive and home-schooling too difficult. Time with the family is severely limited due to Dad's career, Mom's work, and the myriad of recreational activities the children are enrolled in. Quality time is defined as everyone watching the same program on TV.
>The children are carefully separated from the family as soon as possible and given mindless entertainment in various youth activities. Children develop their core values from school, television, friends, and the other kids at church (hence what bad habits they don't learn on their own, their peers will soon teach them). Since the culture emphasises personal gratification, a significant number of children will become involved in premarital sex, drug abuse, indolence, etc., much of which they will carefully hide from their parents. Many of these children will drop out of Christianity before 25.
Wow, this speaks a lot about our modern society. Even my country is increasingly looking similar like this.
Lincoln Johnson
Of course it had setbacks but we should work on them rather than go back to the fucking stone age, even in 1700's London some 80% of children died before reaching age 5. Life sucked for most people real hard.
Kayden Young
>Kaczynski
That manifesto was rationalisation for his withdrawal from society, he was a complete sperg from day one, some guy kept posting info about him on here and once you keep following his life properly you see he was just a weirdo.
That being said...
>in equilibrium
Constant warfare, disease and famine limiting surplus population is not peace and harmony the way you make it out to be. There is a reason why the world population skyrocketed in the past few hundred years, people before prosperity were dying in masses upon masses.
Michael Watson
you're splitting hairs here. the nuclear family presupposes each household cut off from relatives and/or organic community. a couple that gets married and moves to a subdivision in texas to raise their children is distinctly different from a couple who gets married and raises their children within walking distance of their entire extended family
Eli Young
if it wasn't for insulin 80% of children would die before age 10 in the united states
Ryan Fisher
So nuclear family isn't a recent invention then. Good to know. Even if nuclear family is just a recent invention, how does that disprove what has been said about industrialization destroying the concept of community, family and nation? Industrialization has eroded these things away then you wonder why the destruction of traditional values, white men becoming "traitors" to their own people and not valuing their own culture has become the norm.
Charles Allen
no, it is. the authors you cite are just saying that two-parent households are old and equate that with the nuclear family. a series of connected single family households is different from unconnected single family households, which is a modern condition. therefore, the nuclear family is a recent development. i actually agree fully with the idea that industrialism corrodes everything it touches ("all that is solid melts into air")
Ayden Sullivan
I think you're the one splitting hairs here. Nuclear family simply means a household moves away from their extended family instead of living together. It doesn't matter if it's walking distance or horse ride distance. Nuclear family = basic family unit (husband, wife, children) living on their own household.
>i actually agree fully with the idea that industrialism corrodes everything it touches ("all that is solid melts into air") Well good to know. Why are we arguing again?
Xavier Hughes
It's only going to get worse.
Biotechnology and artificial wombs will make our descendants literally aliens when that happens and tinkering with the brain is only going to get easier.
Eventually you end up with a hive mind.
Jaxon Kelly
>even in 1700's London some 80% of children died before reaching age 5 This is obviously bullshit. People had 8-10 children per household back then during agrarian times. More children = more people helping the household. It's not like the population remained stagnant either. Population was booming even back in those times. Husbands and wives were busy fucking. I think you're one of those people who are arrogant enough to think those in the past were somehow inferior and more stupid than the current generation. If that were the case, why are you willingly choosing to destroy your own countries and let people in to replace you?
Christopher Myers
I don't think it's going to last though. We're already seeing discontent and the rapid decline of industrialized nations. Developed countries are having low birth rates, dysfunctional societies, rising discontent, rising wealth disparity between the upper classes and those lower, rise in single parent households, youth today lacking social graces and manners, etc. Something's got to give eventually. I liken it to the bronze age. Intricate systems and global interdependence developed but as time went by, only those in power benefited from it and became tyrants. The masses revolted and plunged the whole world into the bronze dark ages. It took even hundreds of years before humanity found another alternative to climb itself out of the first global collapse with the discovery of iron forging techniques. Industrialization will collapse soon. Whether humanity becomes better or worse due to it and finds an alternative that doesn't poison our humanity and society remains to be seen.
