You certainly can. Most apes are polygynous, not polygamous or monogamous. One male bullies the rest and has more access to partners than anyone else. Most human groups in history have shown this tendency.

The irony being much of Russia's modern problems likely stem from the generations of kids raised without a father because up to 80 or 90% of men in a generation died in WW2.

The 10-20% that lived were often unfit to serve in one way or another, or con men. And Russian women had to compete for them. Then they had to raise their sons with few men around to help or be good role models.

The American Baby Boom saw the Nuclear Family flourish.

The Russian Baby Boom was considerably more depressing.

Both fell prey to Cold War propaganda.

You didn't answer the question.

Did they choose that, or did their companies make the decision? It's easy to imagine an MBA telling an IT worker not to waste time on something that's not going to generate obvious, immediate value for the company even if it's the right thing to do.

>Those who go to school earn a sufficiently high wage premium that they do not require subsidization. End of story.

You destroyed your credibility in record time.

Stop vomiting up tired old talking points that don't address anything I said. You are unfathomably wrong on this, to the point that it's staggering.

Every single data point says the US is the one with a bloated, broken system that puts all the risk on the public and we're about to face a crisis over it.

No other developed country is struggling this badly or facing this much risk from higher education. For reasons I spoonfed to you but you chose to ignore.

Grow up. Pull your head out of the sand. Go study the topic before pushing your pre-canned Boomer rhetoric on others. End of story.

You can't get a premed degree, an engineering degree, or an MBA from a community college.

Online colleges are sketchy, still expensive, lacking in even more amenities, and suffer from low credibility..

Traveling abroad costs money, and the way most developed nations subsidize universities to keep costs down without flooding them with students is by increasing the required to get in and stay in school, so you're asking Americans to spend thousands of dollars to move abroad and apply to foreign universities and pass much more rigorous entrance and pacekeeping exams after going through the declining American school system. That's also hardly viable for most people.

Instead, we can just use the same solution most other nations have worked all of the kinks and bugs out of: Subsidize higher education with tax dollars, regulate the prices universities may charge, and increase academic rigor at universities to ensure that nobody without the will and the aptitude to succeed enrolls.

That last part serves the dual purpose of revitalizing community colleges and trade schools as more students accept that 4-year universities aren't aligned with their goals instead of going just because it's the thing to do.

2-year degrees and trade schools are often treated like consolation prizes in America. As if only those whose lives haven't panned out would ever end up there because everyone with their shit together gets a bachelor's degree.

We can change that by emphasizing with entry testing that 4-year degrees are highly specialized and intended for those interested in more academic or design-based work; and that those without those goals can and should instead pursue 2-year programs. By making 4-year degrees more selective we can also discourage employers from scorning a 2-year degree that meets every requirement for the job role.

Again: These problems have proven solutions that have been employed for decades all over the developed world. America need not reinvent the wheel.

Except there is no alternative. There are no cheap, no-frills schools that let the consumer choose an education without all the amenities.

There are, however, tons of Midwestern state schools that have absolutely garbage amenities but still cost $24k per year to attend.

You'd think you're going to the no-frills, affordable universities because the dorms are from the 70s and full of mold, the single cafeteria seats about 100-200 at a time, most of the desks are from the 1960s, and the carpet hasn't been replaced anywhere since the 1980s, but then the bill comes due and it's still 70+% what the best state schools charge.

Because they know students have no other options. And there is zero incentive for anyone to come along and "compete" by opening a cheaper school, an endeavor that would cost millions of dollars just to get off the ground. Who would spend millions just to charge less?

What is the capitalist answer to this?

Only in the most obvious of cases, like homicide rates.

Guess what? These problems aren't driven by homicides. These problems aren't being driven by being jumped once or twice. These problems are being driven by a lifetime of day-in, day-out systemic biases and prejudices.

These problems are driven by food deserts, overcrowded schools, discriminatory policing and biased courts, crumbling infrastructure, polluted water, processed food, a lack of quality jobs, a lack of access to healthcare and higher education.

These problems are driven by living in communities where BIPOC don't own anything; where most businesses are owned by corporations or outsiders looking to exploit people that have been deprived of the resources necessary to defend themselves against injustice.

These problems are driven by the accumulated weight of 200+ years of these injustices piling up on the shoulders of BIPOC.

You don't get to dismiss that mountain of trauma because a few thousand frustrated people (out of millions) resort to fighting each other in their struggle to get out from under it.

I can think of one.

> It seems like multiple universes would require a near infinite amount of energy to maintain itself

What makes you think the conditions for generating and sustaining a universe obey the same laws as events within our known universe? We have no idea if causality or anything like it exists beyond our reality. For all we know, our conservation laws are unique to our island of existence, or even change non-trivially beyond the horizon of the observable universe.

There's an asteroid in the belt between Mars and Jupiter with more gold than all that has ever been mined on Earth.

That will be mined and refined, possibly in orbit, and over time manufacturing will migrate into space to join them. The window in which we have to land resources on Earth to process it and relaunch it will be maybe 100 years after it starts.

Every raw resource on Earth you can think of exists in far greater quantities in space, between Earth and the belt. Water, iron, copper, silica, you name it. Only plants, animals, and petroleum are more abundant planetside than in space.

And, of course, they will heavily defend it, and they will crush any effort to threaten them from the surface of the planet.

And if you don't think every oligarch on Earth will be onboard, you haven't been paying attention to recent geopolitics and how the mega-rich in Russia, America, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, even North Korea all play nice together.

It's cute you think that the 1% aren't going to hoard resources up there.

They're salivating at the prospect of finally being beyond the reach of working class revolutions, sitting up there casting bombs down on anyone that would dare threaten their wealth.

They want to become immortal gods floating safely above Earth in a paradise built off the backs of everyone trapped in the dirt.

Not relevant, but even if it were, the filibuster needed to go because the GOP will toss it the second it gets in their way now.

Every time in recent memory the Dems have declined to do something publicly popular because it would "set a precedent" that the GOP would copy, the GOP has done it anyhow the next time they had the chance.