Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 54
- 2
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If some race of people lived for 200 years, would their civilization progress faster or slower relative to the control civilization? Assume no cross-contamination of ideas and comparable periods of youth and senescence (no struldbrugs)
On one hand, their rulers would grow increasingly conservative with age, projecting their influence far into the future. Imagine the Founding Fathers sticking around for the civil war and WWI, explaining what exactly their intent was when they wrote this or that amendment.
On the other hand, imagine one of the brilliant scientists that had an outsized impact on the world. Borlaug, Pasteur, von Neuman, etc. Now give them 120 more years to live. This won't just quadruple their output: now they can collaborate with a much larger cohort of scientists. Building dream teams like the Manhattan project will be much easier.
On the gripping hand, all these long-lived people are going to have sex, validating the worst predictions Malthus had regarding carrying capacity. Who has time for science, unless it's the science of waging war against your neighbors before they do the same to you? Would a civilization like this hit a worse local optimum and be passed by the shorter-lived one, stuck with the sharpest and deadliest stone or copper tools in existence?
On the other gripping hand, elephants and parrots haven't outbred all other birds and mammals. Perhaps the longer-lived people would have evolved into extreme K-strategists even before their discovery of fire or tools?
I could go so many ways with this. On the one hand, it may cause civilization to progress slower. Even now, with all the dying boomers, and their deathgrips on the levers of power, the US seems utterly incapable of meeting the challenges it faces. Their beliefs, and what they think the world is, is just too ossified in their minds. Give them another 100 years, and I can't fathom the hell of stagnation and decline we'd be in. And it's arguable this has been an increasingly severe problem the last 30 years.
I'm just not sure allowing the old blood of a civilization to further fester, stagnate, and stand in the way of the youth is beneficial. I think such a civilization would trend even harder towards some sort of stagnation, like an uncontacted African tribe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link