4 Answers

  1. Many citizens try to biologically explain the behavior of modern man, which is not similar to most of his existence, in any way at all — this is obviously the wrong approach.�

    So, biological evolution has prepared the human body for a life of constant danger, malnutrition, little pleasure and a monstrous hell without porn, sweets, condoms and steam.�

    Evolution didn't have to think through protective mechanisms for cases of overstimulation, which means that we don't have protective mechanisms for addiction formation. Because of this simple circumstance, in conditions of great opportunities for overstimulation, people become addicted and do not follow the evolutionarily profitable strategy of “family-children”. Just because people didn't live in such conditions before, and the path of addictions and simple pleasures is suddenly much easier than career-family-children. �

    No need to look for complex explanations for simple things — playing igruli is more pleasant and easier than raising a child. But when man was born as a species, there was no incentive, there was only the hopeless darkness of dangers and rare opportunities to please yourself with a friend. And then, not at all.

  2. Because men are programmed to change the existing order of things, and women are programmed to preserve it.

    A woman has to raise a child, so she can't take any chances. If the current conditions allowed her to raise a child, then they should be unchanged. Any change carries the risk of becoming a change for the worse, so it is immediately dismissed.

    A man is attached to his child more mentally than physically, and the presence of a reliable rear in the form of a woman allows a man, leaving the comfort of home, to expand his living space, explore the world around him and the boundaries of what is possible. A man is always a researcher, always an experimenter. He is bored with following the rules, he always wants to look beyond the horizon.

    Therefore, a man likes to take risks (gambling addiction, fights), he is interested in new body conditions (alcohol, drugs). A woman initially has a built-in defense mechanism: “I will lose, but what to feed the child for”, “I will get drunk/shirnus, and who will feed the child”, “I will be maimed in a fight, and who will raise the child”. Of course, there are women who are alcoholics, drug addicts, ludomaniacs, and hooligans, but they are much less in percentage terms.

    Men are more susceptible to various hobbies, new ideas, ambitious dreams to conquer the world and defeat cancer. Men give themselves up to their hobbies (including harmful ones) completely, they have no brakes. For women (at least for most), at some stage a stop sign pops up “You need to feed the baby”, and then any hobby goes to the forest.

    It is no coincidence that most scientists and inventors are men. It seems to a woman, to put it mildly, unwise to devote her entire life to a cause that will not bring any practical benefit specifically to the inventor and his family, but will benefit the whole of humanity and only in decades (when children will grow up and even grow old).

  3. From a biological point of view, the function of the male is reduced to fertilization, and the function of the female – to birth and rearing. Therefore, a human male who has passed the peak of reproduction (that is, by the age of 30), loses the biological meaning of his own existence. And in the female, it persists all her life, as long as the children are alive.

    But your question with a bottle in your hand is more likely to imply not this, but psychological problems that lead to the implementation of destructive programs in life. They are common for men and women.

  4. I'll tell you this: all people, regardless of gender, are programmed to self-destruct. But there is no program that tells a person what to do between birth and death.

    Let's take your example from the comments. One person aspires to become a father, the other “aspires to become” a gambler. From the point of view of nature, they are exactly the same. But from the point of view of society, one is good, and the other is not very good. So with the change of priorities in society, the judgment of which occupation is useful and which is destructive also changes. And it has nothing to do with nature.

Leave a Reply