Absolutely. But what is interesting is that the family structure doesn't breakdown. The Parents work themselves to the bone and send money back to help their Parents and Children in the village. The Grand Parents take care of the Grand Children. When the children grow up, depending upon the Parent's situation in the City, they move to the city to live with their parents and study/grow up there or if they are already at the employable age join the workforce in the city. And through it all they hang together.
But that's just an Industrial-stage family structure. Loosely speaking. It's not that interesting and not fair to compare that with post-industrial neoliberal societies in the West.
I am not quite sure whether your comment is sarcasm or not.
But assuming it is not, this is exactly what i wanted to point out. Societies have changed but the fundamental Human values have not and so that should have been maintained in some form during the process of change. We are Biological organisms with the same desires/fears/emotions/feelings as our forefathers but only the societal context has changed. While we don't have to go full retrograde nor should we go to the other extreme of negating all structures which have brought us to this point. It is in this light that one should look at all current-day "social progress" issues.
It's your opinion what changes are too much, but your metaargument cannot answer that question which makes it sophistry to use the metaargument to argue for political moderation. Also, find a scientist who agrees with you that human values are historically invariant. It's just not true.
What's more likely is you are conservative and misusing logical arguments to rationalize your actual political opinion. It's ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.
First off, do not insinuate motivations to my comments by using phrases like "you are conservative", "your actual political opinion" etc. (loaded terms in the US and i am not even American) and go off on tangential "strawman" arguments. Also if you don't (or want to) understand something don't use phrases like "metaargument", "sophistry" etc. since they mean nothing. It is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Finally, do not make inflammatory statements hiding behind anonymity since that is the very definition of a "Troll".
Human Values/Ethics/Morals are the subject pf Philosophy from time immemorial and in the modern world also of Psychology/Sociology/etc. Their manifestation, and variations over time, modulated in a socio-cultural context is what has-been/is-being studied/researched by philosophers/sociologists/ethnographers/anthropologists/etc. For your edification, the following are some introductions which are recommended for study;
You're just doing what conservatives do, act obnoxious when criticized and maximally deny the accusations.
I said you were employing sophistry in your argument and gave a simple explanation why.
I "insinuated" nothing, because I explicitly called you a conservative because the amount of ignorance and sophistry in your position forces me to conclude you must be one, not the other way around.
If you had paid attention and had basic reading comprehension skills (since, like a troll you don't know the difference between "insinuate" and the overt explicit statement about your political biases) , I had originally separated my comment into arguments, separated by paragraph spacing. My second argument (BELOW the blank space) was the conclusion that you must be an ignorant conservative. My first argument (ABOVE the blank space) was simply applying basic critical thinking skills about previous claims. You should focus on that, the substance of criticism, but instead you employ deflection tactics and whine about my deciding that you are a conservative.
Again, all you're preaching with those Wikipedia links is reducible to naive cultural relativism. It is a gross political ideology, employed by the worst: neoliberals. And you don't have to be an American to be one. Clearly your background in philosophy and social studies is in dire need of an update patch, since you are not even aware of this.
And, speaking as an overeducated Asian American with a busy life, I find ignorant discussions about social issues quite tiresome so if you have nothing new beyond your last comment about how much you buy into cultural relativism, please leave me be.
It is only people who are not educated enough that feel the need to call themselves "overeducated". That single phrase tells me all that everybody needs to know about you i.e. a self-aggrandizing "troll" hiding behind anonymity on the Internet.
Given your ignorance (both of the domain knowledge and basic communication etiquette) I had tried to educate you by pointing to actual resources but of course you are incapable to studying/debating them. To say that all are "reducible to naive cultural relativism" is the height of ignorance. Nowhere in any of your comments has there been even a indication of coherent thought and ideas but merely empty verbiage and needless vitriol. You would do well to follow this age-old advice - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/
