[bobbydroptables]

How is it undisputably bad? This woman now has access to higher quality men around the world instead of a random farmer without much to offer (no offense to the random farmers in the audience).

She now has the option to leave a dead end rural lifestyle is she chooses. And if she's into the dead end rural life (insert whatever dumb american tropes we have that idealize wasteful rural modes of living), she won't find rich, high flying city guys very appealing and it's all a wash. Or maybe she wants to move to a different dead end rural community with a better match than the random farmer she happened to be born next to. Now she can do that on farmers only.

You could say some good and some bad (and of course very bad for the random farmer whose main reproductive strategy was apparently counting on his mate not realizing he's not a catch and there are much better options), but you can't say it's only bad.

Ideally, none of these people reproduce at all since we already have plenty of humans. Hopefully the shift to digital relationships can greatly reduce our headcount in the long run. This trend seems well underway already thankfully.

[eric4smith]

So... this “dead end rural lifestyle” that feeds the world now will be populated by young men only running the machines abd tending the crops and animals by themselves.

Hmmmm...

Now let’s extrapolate that to every country. Because that’s what social media did.

That example was taken from outside the United States. It’s only worse inside North America now.

[Gibbon1]

Well unless you force women back into coverture rural girls are going do like a couple of my friends, leave and never look back.

[curtainsforus]

>This trend seems well underway already thankfully

On average, for now, yes. Not across the entire national population, though. We're just selecting for the sorts of people who thrive (reproductively/evolutionarily speaking) in the modern high competition/low scarcity environment. Because this environment is very different from the environment, say, 200 years ago, people that are more fit to the current environment are relatively rare now- which is why you see trends pointing towards overall population decline- but those small subgroups are there, quietly reproducing at >2.1 children per woman. As such, over time, they'll come to make up the majority of the population, as the relatively non-competitive phenotypes numerically stagnate or dwindle.

Ironically, the prediliction to be convinced of viewpoints like your own (given things like personality and political tendency have a significant hereditary component) is one of the things likely to be selected against!

The future is a dwindling relative population of midwit liberals, lots of live-fast die-young r-selection chads, and one 150 IQ guy who made a billion clones of himself.

[vulcan01]

> dead end rural lifestyle

Sorry, but who's growing your food?

[bobbydroptables]

Machines, immigrant laborers and huge agribusinesses, mostly. I don't engage in the trendy family farm fad if that's what you're asking.

More to the point, are you implying that it wouldn't be possible for a dead end community to grow food? If so, why? Seems like a bizarre argument but I'll bite.