You come up with only a single, high level reason for what could have thousands of reasons, and you seriously come up with one that is a detriment to our entire species. Draw from that conclusions on your capacity and will for logical thinking, sorry this has to be blunt. You are the modern day crusader. You get an idea in your head with next to no logical reasons and then start to proselytize everyone around you.
I'll give you another just as likely reason for past societal collapses (frankly, a lot likelier reason), and you can then fill in more if you are able.
In times of peace, leaders have no dire motivation to mold their citizens into specific paths that are catalyst for military purposes. This leads to societes that are directionless. Historically, only military societies prevailed because they had direction and motivation to improve. However, what's so bad about being directionless? What exactly causes the downfall of "peaceful" (=actually just directionless) societies? We have to dig a little deeper. You jumped the gun and proclaimed it was peace itself that was doing the damage. That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Peace itself has millions of little and big effects on society. Among these effects is the loss of need for children, therefore inevitably marriage laws get relaxed. Humans want to have sex a lot and with many other people, and marriage gets in the way of that. In peaceful times we have seen a gradual destruction of marital laws. This leads to marriages which can be formed and destroyed at the whim of any person, and in our society today, it's even worse because women are considerably favored in the break-up. This leads to people being very cautious to form deep bonds, and this ultimately leads to a weaker society, a society devoid of the ultimate motivation for every human being: Providing and protecting your family. It's like taking away one of the primary engines of a spaceship. There is still other engines that powers it: Need for food. Need for sex. However the strongest one, the motivation to protect your own children is gone. Because there are no children, because there are no marriages, because marriages are nowadays too fast and detrimental for male parties.
What we need, is actual equality between the genders.
"there are no marriages, because marriages are nowadays too fast and detrimental for male parties. What we need, is actual equality between the genders."
I'm not sure I follow this logic. By all indications in both the East and West, it's women, not men, who are driving the changes in marriage rates, ages, and trends.
1) Women are entering and succeeding in the workforce, and accordingly, they see less reason to give that all up for traditional marriages and gender roles.
2) Men outnumber women in many Asian countries (especially China, for obvious reasons). Ergo, the women in these countries can afford to be choosey. It's a buyer's market, and they are the buyers. With the power dynamic in the meat market shifted in their favor, they can be more selective and take their time. Unfortunately, they can't wait too long, because eventually, they'll lose out to younger women entering the same market -- and, when that happens, many will have forfeited their marriage prospects altogether.
[For what it's worth, I am a proponent of gender equality. Please don't misconstrue me there. I am not passing judgment on any of these trends, but rather, am simply observing them.]
> Unfortunately, they can't wait too long, because eventually, they'll lose out to younger women entering the same market
Consider this scenario: a man seeking marriage is likely to continue seeking it through his old age (e.g. doesn't become an eternal bachelor or celibate).
In this case, a woman of that same old age is likely to marry someone young because they can provide for their young husband materially, and from the young mans' point of view marrying an older woman is a good chance for marriage in a market where older men are using their own value to attract younger women.
Unless I misread something, you didn't actually deny that peace was the ultimate cause of the problems.
"Detriment to our entire species" is also far from proven. This far mankind has done pretty well even with all the wars. While it's certainly unfortunate for the ones actually involved in the war, it might be better for "the greater good". Or maybe it isn't. The point is that you shouldn't dismiss an argument just because it's politically incorrect nowadays.
I've always thought that it was the challenge that caused society to work towards a common goal. Violence is one part of that, but the space race worked effectively (though that was closely related to the cold war).
Never more quickly have I realized that there is no point in discussion. There are too many things I'd need to explain to make this anywhere near worthwhile.
I'll just point out a few things and then I'll be on my way. This is nowhere near enough to explain everything to you, but I feel the need to give you a few more pointers.
First of all, it would be common courtesy in any fruitful discussion that if you require me to provide evidence or some sort of logical construct supporting my theory, that you would do the same for yours first.
Secondly, you make the mistake of thinking life is easy. It's a really healthy attitude, and it is certainly born out of real life experiences, but the unfortunate truth is, that it's not easy. It's terribly complicated, and everything has so many reasons that it makes it pointless to try to enumerate them. I only ask that you don't restrict yourself to a single reason, like you did in your post. I only ask that you recognise that life is not easy, and that discussions are not easy and that you can't possibly ever understand a problem fully.
Your simple request for evidence to reject equality of gender as a requirement for peaceful societies is not simple to answer. This question is really a symptom of what I pointed out before. Your question would require extensive research into gender history, statistical analysis of marriage data, sexual encounters, the change of laws over history, how governments evolved under different societies, how governments treated genders, how that affected them, and many more personal assessments like how equality is historically always fought for and therefore it would be a pointless battle to reject it in the long run, ...the list is endless.
I hope you can now see that discussion is pointless. What we are all left with is the belief that we can achieve stable peace, that we can achieve gender equality and at the same time maintain a thriving society. This is what I want, and therefore I try to find theories to support that. Do not take that as naivety. Many will, but only people who have thought this through will agree that all their facts are in essence belief. You are doing the same thing, but labeling it differently. It's like the chicken or egg problem. What came first, your belief or the fact? In order to form any sort of belief, you need facts. In order to find facts, you need some beliefs first.
I deleted my comment before I knew you were writing a reply.
My comment originally said that I think there's two ways of exploring the world.
1. Start with a conclusion you want to be true and looking for evidence that supports your view, or
2. Start by gathering facts and trying to find conclusions in them.
You write:
> This is what I want, and therefore I try to find theories to support that.
Right. I think that view fundamentally leads to disastrously bad places. It leads to assuming you're correct and looking for confirmation instead of truth.
Truth is often unpleasant. Confirmation is easily found, even for the stupidest and craziest arguments - look at some of the clearly insane views that people hold with no backing.
Why do they think that way? Because they start with the idea that they're right and look to prove that. It's easy to prove you're right, especially if your views are the norm in your community.
It's much harder to say, "What if I'm wrong?" and to constantly seek out counter-arguments and test your views.
Everyone has views that are wrong, mistaken, poorly informed, and counter-productive. The challenge of becoming an informed person is challenging your views constantly - even your sacred ones - looking for smarter arguments.
It's difficult and stressful. I can't even recommend it if your goal in life is happiness, because if you succeed then everyone in your social circle starts to think you're nuts. But ideally, you become gradually less wrong over time and can do a lot of good for the world, even when your views look crazy to people who never stopped and asked, "What if the world isn't the way I thought it was...?"
3. Look for multiple often contradictory world views and evaluate them over time.
Most people try and create a world view where they have the 'facts' and there may be a few unimportant things they don't know and a few things they are wrong about but they got the big picture. Unfortunately, it's easy to answer 'What is the best car company?' with Ford and then always buying that. Even if sometimes Honda might be a better option.
>This is what I want, and therefore I try to find theories to support that.
It is easy to find theories to support anything you want, look at all religions and other pre-scientific belief systems. It is facing reality, whether or not it supports your beliefs, that is hard. And that is something only modern, Western-derived civilizations have ever even come close to achieving.
His theory still holds true. Unless you can conclusively argue that 'Peace' isn't the MAIN reason for the downfall of non-warring civilizations and countries - don't see where your argument leads.
In a way you're supporting him.
Finally, he's pointing out something that might be The Truth. If it's the truth then it says a lot of positive things about his capacity for logical thinking and his ability to be HONEST with himself and others.
I'll give you another just as likely reason for past societal collapses (frankly, a lot likelier reason), and you can then fill in more if you are able. In times of peace, leaders have no dire motivation to mold their citizens into specific paths that are catalyst for military purposes. This leads to societes that are directionless. Historically, only military societies prevailed because they had direction and motivation to improve. However, what's so bad about being directionless? What exactly causes the downfall of "peaceful" (=actually just directionless) societies? We have to dig a little deeper. You jumped the gun and proclaimed it was peace itself that was doing the damage. That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Peace itself has millions of little and big effects on society. Among these effects is the loss of need for children, therefore inevitably marriage laws get relaxed. Humans want to have sex a lot and with many other people, and marriage gets in the way of that. In peaceful times we have seen a gradual destruction of marital laws. This leads to marriages which can be formed and destroyed at the whim of any person, and in our society today, it's even worse because women are considerably favored in the break-up. This leads to people being very cautious to form deep bonds, and this ultimately leads to a weaker society, a society devoid of the ultimate motivation for every human being: Providing and protecting your family. It's like taking away one of the primary engines of a spaceship. There is still other engines that powers it: Need for food. Need for sex. However the strongest one, the motivation to protect your own children is gone. Because there are no children, because there are no marriages, because marriages are nowadays too fast and detrimental for male parties. What we need, is actual equality between the genders.