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 -
When genetic modification of humans is discussed, it is typically in the context of individual modification/augmentation. Whether in early embryonic stages or on fully developed people via gene therapy techniques, the goal is normally to modify outcomes for the specific individual in question.
Probably the reason we don’t discuss society-wide modification much (except in the context of huxly-esque dystopias) is that its proximity to eugenics makes it unpalatable to western society’s current ethics framework. But thinking in the longer term, I find it highly unlikely that future societies wouldn’t utilize this tool given the potential advantages it offers, especially in terms of group cohesion. This of course comes with the caveat that modeling the large scale implications of a small genetic change would be next to impossible. There would likely have to be a lot of trial and error, with some of the errors being quite horrific.
So in this context, I was thinking about what we could potentially modify that would have an out-sized impact on society with relatively little change on humans’ current genetic makeup. And the answer that seemed the most interesting is to modify the rate at which men are born relative to women. What would a society with far fewer men than women look like? As far as I can tell, there is very little data to go on (maybe USSR after ww2?). There are examples where there are fewer women than men (ex china), but I’ve struggled to find the opposite. Also, most scientific literature about “gender imbalances” is mostly just ideological fluff.
So anyway, the question I guess is what does this look like, and does it actually lead to a more stable/cohesive society.
Arguments in favor:
Arguments against:
-Susceptibility to military conquest by external groups with more balanced gender rations assuming this isn’t implemented everywhere.
Edit: Formatting
If we are thinking of crazy evopsych hacking, why don't we just make women ever so slightly less hypergamous/choosy and less neurotic and ever so slightly more horny?
I think significantly less men would be incels. Just do it enough that men don't entirely lose their drive to build and make things to impress hot chicks (progress civilization), but rather just ease the pressure just a little so it isn't straight up impossible like it is nowadays.
Alternatively, just make the men better.
"Better" doesn't really mean anything here, though. The whole point of the discussion is explicating the what and how of what "better" even means in terms of genetically engineering people for the sake of society.
E.g. we could genetically engineer men to enjoy being celibate to make them "better." This would obviously reduce a lot of the suffering that men are going through, but most women probably wouldn't find it appealing if almost every man they met had basically no sexual desire. Then again, perhaps it would make it easier for women to find the few high status males with mutations that countered the genetic engineering, which would benefit them greatly. But if the few high status males are so rare that each woman has to share a man with a million others, then that would be unsatisfactory. So perhaps we could also genetically engineer the birth sex ratio to be heavily weighted towards males, so that we have roughly the same amount of females and of high status male mutants, along with a 99% population of male volcels.
However, I'm not sure what a world where 99% of the population are volcel males would look like, what kind of political influence they would hold, and what they would do with it. They'd likely be far less productive than a similar population of standard issue males, but if we're in this fantasy scifi world, that productivity might not matter a whole lot.
We already know what a world where a significant chunk of volcel males looks like. They have little political influence; too busy with the video games and porn to acquire money or power. (Also, they were told wanting women was bad, and unfortunately for women by and large listened.)
Again, this is already true. Actually, by that token, since Western society considers the definition of "better men" to be "women", you're going to get a heavy female-weighted genetic engineering demand in areas where that's more locally true, and a more even distribution where that isn't.
Sure, it'll probably even out eventually because increased competition for men means women lose relative power over men- but I don't think the ideal gender distribution in a hyperfeminine world is anywhere near the 50/50 it is when the power of men-as-class and women-as-class are more balanced (by the chance circumstances of the local economy).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
since the allegation is hypergamy is based on a relative metric, it doesn't matter how much better men are as a group
When it comes to hypergamy, men being “better” as a group (or not) does matter.
With regard to sexual and relationship dynamics, hypergamy is relative between men and women. If Becky perceives her boyfriend/husband Brad as her “better,” her hypergamous instincts can be satiated.
It’s polygyny, the degree of winner-take-all-edness, the distribution of women to men, the tendency of women to want the same men (female mate-choice copying), that’s zero-sum and relative within men. It’s not clear ex-ante to what extent men being “better” as a whole would aid with polygyny.
Brad could be taller, stronger, smarter, richer, and more dominant than Becky and satisfy her hypergamous instincts, but still lose her to Chad due to polygyny. If he were shorter, weaker, poorer, or less dominant than Becky, he likely wouldn’t have stood a chance with her in the first place before polygyny came into play.
Excellent encapsulation of the root problem.
And this is exactly what the concept of non-family arranged marriage has tried to solve for thousands of years. You (women) get to be the sexual selectors and a pick a mate. No one can force you, and men must compete. But once the choice is made, you have to stick with it so that society doesn't collapse in on zero-sum Chad-The-Warlord mating patterns.
This is the reason conservatives, like me, point to no-fault divorce as so incredibly damaging. It means mating patterns revert back to a situation that was worse for 99% of men and >50% of women (i.e. most of everybody). Stable marriages make stable communities with longer term outlooks. This is a great way to build society. Fluid marriages with easy opt-out clauses as well as a material incentive in many cases create a constant state of next-optionism and institutionalized anxiety. It's easy to see why your average secular-humanist married couple are neurotic basket cases. They are dealing with the >50% odds that the person they wake up with and go to sleep with will leave them and, maybe, take half of their stuff at any moment.
I see the polyamory movement as a weird cope to some basic realities. They're smart enough to accept human nature, but not pro-social enough to understand the value of discipline and final choice in marriage. So, they settle for what becomes a shared Chad-harem and a weak peace. I don't see how polyamory works out for your median non-Aella woman, however, as mate stealing just becomes (covertly) more acceptable and thus favors inherently more manipulative and anti-social women.
From the men I've seen in polyamorous relationships, I wouldn't describe them as Chad's. Do you have any examples?
I've seen serial monogamous, polygamous, or monogamous relationships (where the man is a rake or cad) where the man might be reasonably described as a Chad.
You've stumbled upon the correct answer.
The Poly relationships aren't full of Chads .... the Chads are sleeping with the women in the Poly relationships outside of the poly relationship. The guys in poly relationships (willingly) are there for the classic beta support role. Chad - external to the poly system - has all of the "fun"
This sounds correct to me.
Chad doesn't want to be in the poly relationship with her 'boyfriend' or the less attractive girl.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you for this explanation.
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