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 -
Given that obesity is sorta culture war related and in the news a lot, I figured this story would be relevant: Weight-Loss Stocks Soar After Obesity-Drug Study Spurs Investor Frenzy
I am more convinced than ever that these drugs are not only the future of wright loss, but similar to Paxil, is also going to a part of culture too and another tool or crutch to mitigate the downsides of modernity, except instead of social anxiety , it's too much food. We're sorta collectively inflicted this on ourselves, as victims of our own success. The pendulum if progress has swung so far towards abundance that we need modern technology just to try to undo it.
Purchasing power parity is the measurement commonly used in order to compare how much a certain amount of money can buy in a country. I believe there needs to be an additional factor, the technological cost compenesation. For example Americans spend far more money on health care than Turks yet live roughly as long. This is only in part because health care is more expensive. An equally important factor is that it requires a lot more effort to keep an obese person who drives everywhere alive.
Commuting is a similar cost. Urban sprawl is expensive and vast quantaties of money are spent moving people between beds and desks. Having worked with people from the developing world I am fascinated at their relatively affluent life styles despite low salaries and the fact that prices aren't that much lower. They just don't spend tonnes of money on gym cards, commuting, diabetes meds, child care and other expenses that most of humanity never new they needed.
The most extreme examples proposed would be carbon capture from the atmosphere. Partitioning the air to get more than a kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere for each liter of gas burned would cost a fortune. The effort to burn the fossil fuels would be lesser than the effort to reverse the process.
GDP per capita should be measured at (purchasing power parity) * (percentage of money spent not combating progress induced costs)
I’m pretty sure that most people in say, Mexico or China prefer to use cars over walking when they can. It’s just that many can’t afford to.
I mean you can create a metric of ‘is it possible to be poor in this country’, but realistically Mexicans and Chinamen who can afford cars strongly prefer them. It’s not as if there are large numbers of people in these countries who live otherwise affluent lifestyles except for not having cars or whatever; it’s the poor that don’t have cars there.
True of Mexico and China specifically, but not of actually-first-world Asia (mostly Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), where middle class people living in cities without a car (or more commonly with one car shared between multiple employed adults such that most trips are not by private car) is even more normal than it is in Europe.
I mean he did specify the developing world, and that’s why I picked two random large middle income countries. Obviously Taiwanese and Dutch people drive less because they choose to, but his comment seemed much more geared to China and Latin America.
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