You're doing the same assuming "good times = comfort = weakness" as a thing you already think, which is what the long reply I linked is debunking. What you said implies an opposite, something like: scarcity and famine strengthens the social fabric by encouraging long-term thinking over short-term maintenance. Actually it doesn't, scarcity leads to dog-eat-dog short-term survival tactics anything from stealing from neighbours, eating next year's seeds, up to eating the farm dog or selling the farm machinery or cannibalism, and leads to squalor, disease, and fire risks because nobody has time or energy or resources to spare on anything but the most urgent survival.

Abundance, by contrast, allows seed saving, food storage for winter, spare resources to use on washing and hygiene and medicine and recovering from illness, rule of law and enforcement, time away from subsistence farming and scavenging for food to enable things like developing metalworking skills, inventing, practicing archery, spending time on other society-building rituals like building churches and going to church.

> "A aimless or misdirected male population is an incredibly corrosive and/or dangerous thing"

If they are "incredibly dangerous" does that not make them "strong"? These are supposed to be the "weak men" created by "good times", aren't they? Are they strong men created by weak times who are themselves creating weak times by rotting society? Or are they strong because they are men, independent of the times? Does this fit into the saying at all?