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've been really thinking about this tweet.
This point is interesting, and I think rather noteworthy. There were many protests over the Vietnam conscription, Muhammad Ali's being the most famous example, so perhaps saying no backlash at all is a bit hastey. And who could forget our poor friends in Ukraine.
Still, I think she raises an interesting point. Most men still, (both legally and socially). Have to abide by the traditional man script. And this pressure is more on them then womens end of the social contract, which (from what I can see) is basically non existent.
Now the easiest explanation for this double standard is probably just gender bias: we simply have less empathy for men as a whole.
The way I see it, there are a couple of plausible solutions to make things for fair or consistent(any additional ones are welcome):
Gender "Equality". Extend "bodily autonomy" rights (for those who are actually consistent and believe in the concept, as a side note, I believe this is just a silly excuse) to men and end the draft, eliminate male disposability. Both men and women ask each other out. Stop valueing men as pure economic units. Men aren't wallets or soldiers, their people! Ect. Basically "Masculism" or some variation of MRA movement.
Extend the social contract obligations to women, and all that entails. Basically bring back some (or all) of the "patriarchy".
From what I can tell, 1 has kinda been tried, and has basically failed, probably due to the gender bias mentioned. I imagine Lauren favors the 2nd option, (& I kinda do). Implementing it may be unrealistic, however, due to various political and environmental constraints. I think realistically though, we are probably gonna have take a hard examination at the female end of the social contract at some-point, when birth rates and their implications become more severe and un-ignorable. Maybe we get lucky technology bails us out, but fundementally, I find the prospect of a society with no children, no families, etc, to be deeply dystopian.
I think one thing conscription shows (and the fact that many societies have it) is that, no society really wants to cease to exist. Nor should we. There is something valuable about societies existing, and continuing on into the future, even if we have to make some sacrifices for it. I think one can make a case (and many indeed do!) for extending some modified version of the social contract/roles to women. I've been deep thought about if societies might attempt this in the future, or what a modified variation of feminine roles/obilgations would look like. What do you think?
Will the implications ever become unignorable?
I'm actually a bit confused by a lot of the right wing concern about birth rates. The people who choose to have kids in the current environment have some combination of genes (personality traits, etc.) and memes that lead to them being more successful at reproducing.
If we do absolutely nothing, the whole problem will sort itself out, because each generation will have a higher share of the reproduction-in-industrialized-information-age genes and memes, and the less fit people with inferior genes and memes that don't lead to reproduction will die out. Why would we even want to dysgenically keep around genes that aren't well suited to reproduction in the current environment?
I'll make the non-standard argument that a lot of non-reproducing genes are good for other values, but that's probably just my own preferences.
The intermediate problem is that many of the environmental constraints here are less 'meme' or 'environment' and more result of TFR-buzzsaw policies. Whether they're intentional or not, they're probably not going to be as stable as human genetic code, and there's a non-zero chance they're going to just focus on the next least-desirable group.
The more serious problem is that modern industrial society doesn't scale down to one person, or ten thousand people, or a million, and I wouldn't want to bet too hard on a half-billion. Even assuming that the TFR-buzzaw ends somewhere, it might not stop at a point where we can still do things like 'build integrated circuits' or 'get to space' -- and if we fall below 'produce and refine fertilizer', you get some bad problems that might shove you down the path further. That's not a likely problem, but it's the sort of problem that comes up all at once.
"Minimum viable industrial society" is a very interesting question. What don't you think could scale down to that level?
Sorry, tangent, but this is really fascinating to me.
Consider the sheer volume of people you need to create, say, a viable rocket to reach the moon and return. Several different kinds of engineer to create the circuits and fuel and engine and craft, right? Support staff. Miners to mine coal and ore, refiners and smelters to make steel for parts and silicon for chips, drillers for oil and refiners for the fuel, construction workers to build their homes and the launch pads and everything else, farmers to grow food to feed all the miners/drillers/refiners/construction workers/support staff/engineers. Doctors to care for all of the above. Et cetera- what about entertainment? Other desires? Is reaching the moon the sole telos of this civilization, and every job aimed at that goal? If not, the scale balloons as people take other jobs towards other goals. And I've left off huge numbers of other factors and 'needs.' Some could be left out or leapfrogged, but not easily.
An industrial civilization is a massive pyramid. One can imagine an ideal civilization perfectly following a tech tree with no deviations and no waste at a smaller population number, but one can imagine six impossible things before breakfast.
There's some Greater Variability there too. Written language only developed independently a few times, so think of Sequoyah- once the idea was demonstrated he sat down and spent years developing the Cherokee syllabary. He had the ability to create written language, but not the spark. In the thousand years before him, how many of his people had the ability and not the spark, and how many lacked even the ability? A bigger population gives you more rolls of the dice to generate people who even have the possibility of doing new things.
Or look at the Congo and Empire of Dust. Or Google Maps of certain parts of Johannesburg 10 years ago versus today. Or Detroit, 1950 versus today (though in some ways it's recovered from rock bottom). Without the right kind of support, the right sort of culture, an industrial civilization decays quite rapidly, and maintaining that requires a lot of people.
I am not sure that a society that can't do "moon mining" isn't an industrial society (...is Earth not industrialized today?) but I am not convinced doing that needs a large amount of people, either. Your minimum viable orbital rocket company (RocketLab) has less than 3,000 employees, a third of a percent of a million-person society. My assumption is that expertise is relatively resource-cheap - after a certain small point, more people are mostly doing things faster, not qualitatively differently.
As regards the supply chain: chip fabs don't need to be big, Polar Semiconductor is operating with staff in the hundreds (likely). Smallest viable mining, farming, and construction operation is a single guy, so that scales very efficiently. USA Rare Earth has less than 200 employees, so it's possible to do refining at a very small level. Doctors are not a high-density need, and neither is entertainment.
I probably should have stipulated that I wasn't imagining a society built from the neolithic on up from scratch, although that's interesting too. More like "how few people could we export to a remote Pacific Island and have them run a vertically integrated industrial society." I think all of your concerns about "how would we produce an Einstein on a seven-digit population" are all worthy objections, but I am more interested in "now that we have Einstein and all the other guys, how far could we slide without losing that."
Realistically, I think the answer varies tremendously based on the population's demographic pyramid. But with a healthy or at least not inverted population pyramid I am not convinced the number is very large.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link