This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
When genetic modification of humans is discussed, it is typically in the context of individual modification/augmentation. Whether in early embryonic stages or on fully developed people via gene therapy techniques, the goal is normally to modify outcomes for the specific individual in question.
Probably the reason we don’t discuss society-wide modification much (except in the context of huxly-esque dystopias) is that its proximity to eugenics makes it unpalatable to western society’s current ethics framework. But thinking in the longer term, I find it highly unlikely that future societies wouldn’t utilize this tool given the potential advantages it offers, especially in terms of group cohesion. This of course comes with the caveat that modeling the large scale implications of a small genetic change would be next to impossible. There would likely have to be a lot of trial and error, with some of the errors being quite horrific.
So in this context, I was thinking about what we could potentially modify that would have an out-sized impact on society with relatively little change on humans’ current genetic makeup. And the answer that seemed the most interesting is to modify the rate at which men are born relative to women. What would a society with far fewer men than women look like? As far as I can tell, there is very little data to go on (maybe USSR after ww2?). There are examples where there are fewer women than men (ex china), but I’ve struggled to find the opposite. Also, most scientific literature about “gender imbalances” is mostly just ideological fluff.
So anyway, the question I guess is what does this look like, and does it actually lead to a more stable/cohesive society.
Arguments in favor:
Arguments against:
-Susceptibility to military conquest by external groups with more balanced gender rations assuming this isn’t implemented everywhere.
Edit: Formatting
I categorically reject literal cellular biological modification when we have already developed, employed, and enjoyed a social, cultural, and legal mechanism to address the problem. Namely; monogamous marriage.
Societies have a funny way of coming out about 50/50 men and women. It's almost like the species wants to remain capable of replication and self-propagation. Evolution be like that. In fact, as your posts points out, when you mess around with that rough 50/50 ratio, things get bad. China today is an excellent example. In Post WW2 Russia / Soviet states, the insane loss of men created similar odd circumstances.
I wholeheartedly agree that lonely, sexless young men can easily turn violent and up end communities if not societies as a whole. But the answer there is to give them a progressing (not progressive) life narrative, roughly; learn, work, serve, get married, raise children, die with dignity. Society then backs this up by demonstrating and exalting the value of this life pattern. This, however, is what the sexual revolution dismantled in the 1960s. It replaced it with .... nothing.
Edit: Societies the world over have also, rightly, prioritized dealing with male aggression because that leads to murder, rape, and injury. What we're seeing with the destruction of the family paired with female economic self-sufficiency is female aggression. It's far less overt than its male counterpart and doesn't result in immediate massive physical harm. Yet, it does exist and it can still have massive societal negative effects. Dealing with it is hard. Women shouldn't go to jail for cheating or leading men on or playing gossip and indirect power games. The historical solution was very harsh social pressure - look up what they did to scolds in puritan New England. Hell, despite the very online attitudes against "slut shaming," the median western woman still uses sexualized gossip to malign her opponents. I'm not going to say I'm in favor of institutionalized mean girl-ism. That's ridiculous. I put my faith (literally) in social conventions, however, that have much more rigid guidelines for both inter and intra sex relationships up to and including marriage. Choose-your-own sexual and social norms create ambiguity, uncertainty, anxiety, and neuroticism. Does this sound like your median Millenial single person and married couple? Don't even start with Gen-Z who have all managed to hyper neruoticiziezize themselves into digital multi-personas paired with real world hermeticism.
I've said this more than a few times on the Motte; I'm not out to paint 1950s American suburban marriage as the idyllic to end all idyllics. There were real problems. But since the destruction of the nuclear family began, there has simply been no meaningful alternative. It's a boundary-less personal "freedom" out to infinity. Phrased differently; it's nihilism. Hedonic nihilism, but nihilism none the less.
I think your "modify genes at the species level" theory is, at best, a techno-liberal solution (to a problem that was previously addressed) with a whole host of side-effects and just the teeniest little bit of lace between itself and eugenics. At worst, it's full bore eugenics with a side dish of state sponsored misandry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link