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 -
This sound really similar to the "cities are IQ shredders" argument. IMO the only way to fix this is by gov't fiat since the benefits from incentivizing eusocial/high IQ people to reproduce accrue to a society as a whole over a long time period rather than to a specific company or individual, and so they are not selected for in a liberal, capitalistic, relatively hedonistic society.
How are you going to have government make the eusocial/high IQ people have children? You can't pay them enough to give up time for having babies. Look at all the fear-mongering about 'forced birth' due to the Roe versus Wade decision on abortion. A woman who thinks becoming pregnant and becoming a mother is going to ruin her life is not going to be enticed by "we'll give you a free childcare place for every baby you pop out". She doesn't want any babies in the first place.
Have fun being compared to Ceaușescu when the government tries to bring in pro-birth policies:
You sure about that? How much do you think it would cost?
More options
Context Copy link
I wasn't specific enough in my post. No need to tell me to "have fun being compared to Ceaușescu." I don't think it's a good idea for the governments in present day western democracies to try to implement pro-natal policies for exactly the reasons you described in your post. These policies wouldn't address whatever phenomena are causing men and women to delay or forgo having children. You would first need to fix those issues. What I was trying to get at in my previous post was that even if you fixed those issues you wouldn't be able to rely on the market or individuals to encourage high IQ people to reproduce. Individuals (absent religious belief, and sometimes even with it) and the market have short time horizons. You would need a state, a church, or some institution with deep and secure foundations to invest in something that will only show dividends after several human lifetimes.
More options
Context Copy link
You could tie corporate advancement to the number of children someone has. California has rules about how many women and ethnic minorities must be on the board.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/10/10/new-law-requires-diversity-on-boards-of-california-based-companies/
You could legislate that companies must have a certain number of parents in high positions. You could adapt it further by saying you get a composite score based on X number of children who meet X educational/health/other standards if you're worried about people neglecting their children.
I reckon this would have enormous impacts in East Asia, where kids study for ages to get good exam results, good university scores in the hope of getting a good job, where they then work really hard for very long hours. They obey incentives. If they were told to have children, they'd probably do that too. Shouldn't it be easier to make people have unprotected sex than study calculus?
More options
Context Copy link
Funnily enough given the large shortage of babies to adopt this would not be an issue nowadays in the west.
More options
Context Copy link
The simple way to do it would be to make the marginal tax rate on female labor and female owned businesses 101%.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link