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 -
An interesting argument. I wonder if I've been overly influenced by propaganda about the resentment millennials feel towards their boomer parents. Of course I know it's likely not true in the general case but there's definitely a narrative of millennials feeling like they're the victims.
But also, I don't think having children as an investment in a future support structure during is truly a compelling argument. Firstly, most of human society throughout history has existed where the truly elderly would not survive. Of course average lifespans tell a misleading story due to infant mortality, but if someone was truly bedridden they would not survive long. Modern society finds people in their 60s fit to continue working, and it's likely that the ancients felt the same, until the elderly rapidly dropped dead.
But the other wrinkle is of course that rationally, sinking so much into a dubious investment that will only pay off in 50+ years in the best case, where the state of the world after that time could be completely different, does not make much sense.
Of course this is the real reason. But the question is whether or not it's truly true, versus a deception.
Speaking only for myself, I am very concerned that the social safety nets we have for the elderly now (which I do not view as an adequate replacement for friends and family, in terms of happiness, but are decent enough at prolonging life) will be in much worse shape in 40 years. From my perspective, having kids is the most sure way to ensure some decent and adequate standard of care in my twilight years.
Might want to ask King Lear about that one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I did say that this was just one of many arguments for pro-natalism, but others have done a good job of advocating for them, and I won't rehash them.
I do not mean to claim that children are necessarily the most sound financial instrument you can invest in to ensure a comfortable retirement. That's probably not true today, at least, you'd probably get a higher yield from investing in the stock market instead of child care and education for your kids.
For what that's worth, that was unlikely to have been the case in the past. Passive investing with returns good enough to retire on, at low risk is a phenomenon that is maybe a few hundred years old, and only decades in certain parts of the world. For the average peasant (and most of your ancestors, and mine, were average peasants), children represented the most secure investment they could make. Both in the distant future, and in the medium term, your field could always use another farmhand. It's no accident that widespread automation of physical labor coincided with a drastic decline in fecundity.
That's going too far in the other direction. Family is immensely useful to have around when you're sick in many cases. A bad flu, or a broken leg, for common examples. Children are family you make, and if you're looking after ailing parents or siblings, well, they're children someone else related to you made.
Even today, even if you're wealthy while you're old and infirm, there are few people you can trust more than your own children. I've seen bad actors and elder abuse, but they're clearly in the minority. Most kids genuinely hold affection for their parents and act as good guardians when the familial contract flips around.
It's true for the majority of people, the majority of the time. Parents sacrifice a lot for their children, even in circumstances where they could get away with doing less without catastrophic social consequences. If that isn't revealed preference (for those inclined to parenthood), I don't know what possibly counts. And even a lot of people more lukewarm on the idea report "a switch being flipped", where suddenly they become far more driven and determined to protect their kids from harm and ensure their well-being.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link