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 previously posted on the Motte about the Swedish state-funded Investigative Committee For a Future with Children (Swed. Utredningen för en framtid med barn) with instructions to look into the recent decline in fertility and suggest solutions to the problem. Another report has dropped, this time analyzing the broader effect the declining fertility will have on the Swedish state budget – and reaching some surprising conclusions! As before, here's a link in case you know Swedish or want to use an AI to give you the uptake. https://framtidmedbarn.se/nyhet/utredningens-nya-skrift-lanceras-farre-barn-och-fler-aldre-vad-hander-med-sveriges-offentliga-finanser/
After a few poor showings the reports have really returned to form, and this is another excellent and informative review. The main insight – which is obvious after you've thought about it, but significantly less obvious before it's been shown to you – is that declining fertility and aging population is indeed very bad for both the government budget and the broader economy long-term, but in the short-term it actually benefits the government fiscally. This is because another little baby child that's born in the ghetto is an immediate drain on the state or municipal budget, while the long-term drawbacks of, y'know, having an entire population which can't fucking work only become apparent 20 years down the line when those baby children were supposed to be grown-ups doing grown-up-things (i.e. paying for the two or three generations who are now retired and demanding pensions).
In a way this is good, because it means many states will soon be facing a slight cost-relief, potentially providing an opening to solve the situation through increased spending. In another and probably more important way though it's very bad – mainly because it makes the negative effects of low fertility a lot more insidious and difficult-to-show than if the economic consequences were immediate. It's also bad in that the government and municipalities have major incentives to cut costs on schools and kindergartens in the short term, which in turn is liable to exacerbate the situation long-term. I actually reckon that this is a big part of what's happend and is happening in South Korea and Japan – perversely, their unsustainable fertility rates are economically sustained by the momentum of declining fertility itself, sort of like when Wile. E. Coyote runs off a cliff but refuses to fall because he won't look down.
Between the lines, the report more than it did previously hints that immigration could be one way to compensate for the decline in fertility. This is an argument I expect all Europeans will soon be hearing a lot more often again – I reckon the Spaniards used it to justify their completely insane amnesty for illegals. Sweden will soon hold an election and the current right-wing government seems prone to lose to the Social Democrats, and for that very reason I am displeased with this new direction the report seems to be taking. There's a small but non-zero risk that the left-wing parties, if they seize power, will again open the floodgates of mass immigration, once and for all drowning Sweden in third-world dysfunction beyond hope of repair. This would be very sad, and I sincerely hope it does not come to be; and for that same reason I hope the Committe doesn't sway from its goal (solving the fertility crisis) if and when the current government does get ousted.
Immigration isn't going to be a viable solution for much longer. Every country outside of Africa pretty much has a below 2.0 fertility rate. Even if it does work out it's just can kicking.
If we do somehow figure out how to raise fertility rates (unlikely) the generation that manages to do so is going to have a very rough time because of sky high dependency ratios (both more kids and more elderly people).
There is a very simple solution - decrease the extra care elderly people receive. It seems unpalatable now, because who wants to let grandma develop bed sores and die? But the proportion of old people who do not have descendants will increase, and the people who are working and paying taxes will not have strong emotional ties to the childless old people. I can see Social Security and Medicare being gutted in favor of people caring for their own elderly relatives themselves.
Alternative solutions are to increase working years through outbreaks in medicine - retirement age is 100 if the median life expectancy reaches 110. Or automation/robotics gets to the point where 90% of jobs are taking care of the young and old (the remaining 10% being managing the robots).
These systems don't last because of pity. They last because the old are more numerous because of the baby boom and they can vote. How many do you need to die off before the young (who themselves are delusional about benefiting from these systems) can actually vote them down?
Especially in countries that don't have a large Millennial cohort (iirc America is better off here). They're fucked.
If you have the young enforcing the laws, the young paying the taxes, the young doing everything, what power do the old people have? The power of the state? But the state is powered by the young.
Eventually there wont be enough to go around. When that happens, force comes out and the young have a monopoly on force.
More options
Context Copy link
At a certain point if the bottom 30-50% of young(er) people get pissed off and poor enough, the protests up to and including genuine physical violence to seize the reins of power could be in play.
Old people can outvote the young handily, and that won't change for ~100 years given current demographics. But they're power is only on paper, a revolution, where physical power rules, is much less favorable.
I'm not advocating for a butlerian jihad against Simon & Linda, but at the extremes it is a possibility
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