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 -
I appreciate the clarification on your religious framework, though I confess I'm not entirely sure how Traditionalism divorced from Christianity solves the problems you're pointing at. That's a digression though. I'm aware we share very different belief systems.
Your invocation of 20th century horrors as evidence against improving material conditions strikes me as erroneous. Are you seriously positing that things were better before? That sectarian strife, genocide, jihad and crusade didn't exist? Modern ideologies caused more damage because they had better tooling. The Crusaders would have cluster-bombed Mecca if they could. The wars of religion between the Protestants and Catholics might have gone nuclear, had they possessed nukes.
The atrocities of communism and fascism weren't failures of abundance but of totalitarian systems imposing their vision through violence and coercion. They murdered millions who didn't fit their mold. That's precisely the opposite of what I'm advocating for. I want tolerance and freedom in a world of genuine abundance, not mandatory participation in someone else's utopian scheme enforced at gunpoint.
For a fleshed out look at such a world, you can look at Scott's writing on the Archipelago. I just want to consider what that would look like after a Singularity.
The claim that perfecting material conditions "liberates one from morality" is asserted but not demonstrated. Why would meeting our basic needs destroy ethical behavior? Scarcity is what historically drives immorality. People steal because they're hungry, fight wars over resources, exploit others for economic advantage. The novel experiment would be seeing what humans do when survival isn't so obviously a zero-sum game. Maybe we'd finally have the luxury of being genuinely moral rather than merely prudent.
And in most ways that matter, we are more moral in this age of relative abundance. We're certainly less violent or cruel, compared to almost any point in history.
Yes, many people with material security feel empty. On the other hand, the people without material security are fighting tooth and nail to acquire it, while suffering from hunger, homelessness and disease. I think the revealed preference is rather clear.
You ask who would have children in a society that perfectly caters to material needs. People already have children for non-economic reasons. They want families. They find meaning in nurturing life. They enjoy watching someone grow. If anything, removing economic pressure might mean people only have children when they genuinely want them, rather than as accident prevention failure or retirement insurance. That seems preferable to me. And after all, billionaires have children despite having no material wants. Past a certain inflection point, the wealthy have more children than the mere middle class.
As for the claim that struggle is necessary for motivation and self-actualization, I'm baffled. Do you believe artists only create because they're hungry? Scientists pursue knowledge just for grant money? Friendship matters solely because we need social networks for survival? The most meaningful human activities are precisely those we pursue for their own sake, divorced from material necessity. People are curious, creative, social, status-seeking even absent material need. Give someone unlimited time and resources and many will waste it, sure. Many others will learn languages, make art, explore ideas, build communities, compete in sports, pursue a thousand forms of engagement with life.
The real question isn't whether we need struggle for meaning. It's whether baseline humans will remain economically relevant against AGI, or whether cognitive enhancement becomes necessary to compete. That's a choice individuals should make, and one that as a society, we must make.
I have argued as much many times here and elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that human society was much healthier before the modern era. But of course my understanding of quality of life goes beyond mere material conditions, hence I suppose your disbelief.
I'm well acquainted with the worst impulses of humanity, but this is precisely why I refuse to give it ultimate moral authority over itself. You can point to all the sectarian conflict in the world, it simply doesn't compare to the levels of brutality brought about by modern ideologies since the French Revolution and the advent of social contract theory. We're talking orders of magnitude here.
Total means are just the natural outcome of total ends. Read Hannah Arendt.
What you want is entirely irrelevant in the face of what your longing actually produces.
It's such a frequent critique of the combination of utopia and consequentialism that I feel trite saying it once again, but it is true nonetheless: heaven on earth has infinite utility, therefore all is permitted in the name of its creation. Near infinite levels of suffering are the price of a perfect society free of suffering forever.
As a Traditionalist, I hold that history has no moral arc or direction, so it is easy for me to reject this argument. I see no reason to reject it for someone who believes in progress except for a disbelief in the efficacy of the method.
I prefer Dancers at the End of Time and That Hideous Strength, personally.
We know what mice do at least. Groom themselves and die. I see no reason to ascribe to ourselves a higher nature in this particular matter. I think you only do so in hubris.
It is no question that people want security and comfort. People have a revealed preference for heroin as well, I see no reason to assume that what people want is virtuous.
One of the main lessons that turn a child into an adult is precisely that goodness requires we not always follow our wants.
I think what the evolution of TFR says is that people's revealed preferences are the opposite of this, actually.
Yes. Appeals to our good nature are cope. People do things because they have to, and rationalize them as whims after the fact.
Good art in particular is famously and obviously a byproduct of struggle and constraint.
The virtue required to make good use of wealth can only be learned through scarcity.
Something given has no value.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link