Maggie's Farm

It must depend on what is meant by suffering. Historically, the pivotal point would be the emergence of antibiotics, clean water, and safer working conditions, at least for people in the West. Up until the modern period, the possibility of pain, tragedy, loss, and suffering was a constant, no matter your status. Maybe today's angst is loneliness, emptiness and lack of purpose or success. Lack of purpose and success for regular folks, could be tied to the emerging new economy. Think about how 200 years ago; 90% of the population was in agriculture, even during the depression more than half the population was. When I was a kid, it was about 7% and now it is less than that. The elimination of ag employment wasn't so devastating due to emergence of steam and the internal combustion engine and after WWII there were new industries like plastics, chemicals, electronics, air travel, television, along with an explosion in construction and all things auto (Interstates)....Digital technology and instant global communication change everything. It isn't that jobs suitable for the average Joe aren't being created but rather they are not being created as fast as they disappear.
automated, computational, technological, where communication is instantaneous. In this world the means of production, investment, and labor are all disconnected, and labor is far less mobile.

As for bourgeois behaviors and , they may have two advantages. One would be living a meaningful life, ALBEIT A SAFE AND CONFORMIST ONE. The other would be the basis for living an economically successful and productive life. And yes, they do overlap. I guess that these values might be more in sync with that cluster of values and traits best suited for the industrial revolution. What ones would be transferable across time? Will the bourgeois values installed in the 20th century etal., still be applicable in an economy that is global, automated, computational, technological, where communication is instantaneous. In this world the means of production, investment, and labor are all disconnected, and labor is far less mobile.

Sorry for the duplicate post. Each time I submitted, I got an error message.

In the past, the strategies and adaptations that have been successful and adaptive would have survived and possibly prevailed by attrition. Today, Darwin’s scythe has been blunted.
It seems to me that Charles Murray has been making this case for traditional family values for some time. I don’t want to put words in his mouth , but, my take is that the “ elites”(not celebs) who cheerlead for (as in “non judgemental”) the antisocial and self destructive behavior of the lower orders, eschew those same behaviors for themselves and for their families, behind closed doors.

Doing for people what they can do forthemselves is very enervating. It leaves them dependent and derails their opportunity to develop resilience, overcome obstacles and mature. There does seem to be, at least anecdotal, evidence that children raised with fathers are more resilient and independent.