Migratory_Coconut
No bio...
User ID: 1029
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
The difference is chiropractors can't cure you, so they can't produce evidence that they're trying to help.
Whereas real doctors generally do cure people when physically possible.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
But the actual statistics show that participation in casual sex is very low, not even a majority of women do it.
It's a case of a promiscuous minority having an outsized impact on the market, because they remain on the market longer.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
Not to mention there are all kinds of biases and social pressures against even considering the downsides of life-changing decisions you already made.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
I'm arguing that the maximum sustainable population, which does not depend on preserving women, is the only relevant factor. The rate at which you can produce babies doesn't matter much because it takes so long for them to grow.
Most tribes could produce more babies than they can support within a few years, regardless of losing 3/4 of their women. Unless you think 5-year olds can contribute to the defense of territory, the slight delay in baby production caused by a loss of women doesn't matter.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
If the community has no neighbors, it'll survive this ordeal regardless of which gender is lost. That means there's no selective pressure. When we're talking about cultural evolution, population size in isolation doesn't matter, only survival of the culture does.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
A tribe/society that loses 3 quarters of it's adult male population, can readily bounce back inside a generation so long as it's women and children remain safe and fed. Meanwhile a tribe that loses 3 quarters of it's women and children in a single go will find itself significantly diminished (if not on the verge of extinction) for centuries to come.
If we remove the "and children" part of this, because we're talking about the relative value of men and women, not children, this isn't true at all. The growth of tribes was limited by food far more than the number of women. Consider, as you stated, a tribe that lost 3/4 of its women. Recovering to its previous population only needs each remaining woman to give birth three times. Easily done within a few years as long as you have enough food for all of them. Compared to the time it takes for a child to grow to productive age and the resources needed in that time, the time a woman needs between births is insignificant.
If you want to grow a tribe quickly, territory and the labor needed to work it are really all that matter. Under that framing, you could conclude that men are more valuable for growth, as they have a greater labor output and can defend territory!
Back to the question of why men are considered expendable: It's simply because men, being generally stronger, are more useful in war. They're the ones you want on the battlefield (pre-modernity). Naturally, culture adapts to make this palatable by adopting an attitude of male expendability. It's not that they are expendable, it's that we need to consider them expendable because we need to be willing to expend them in war.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
I also have doubts about the importance of a doctor's education in the long run.
Given two doctors who have been practicing for 10 years. One had a much more thorough education, but the other has a good habit of reading the latest advancements. Which would you prefer? Under these conditions it seems a bit silly to make such sacrifices just to maximize the capabilities of doctors at the moment they enter practice, with much less attention paid to their continual training.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
Very interesting point about college. It's a trap for so many people, so maybe the ease with which women enter college isn't the benefit it looks like. I'm not sure which comment I agree with more, which is a sign of a worthwhile debate!
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
I'm with you on having no sympathy for the movie industry themselves. Still, any push back against AI is probably a good thing, if it gives us more time to solve alignment. So I plan to loudly support their strike in public.
Migratory_Coconut
1yr ago
I have a theory to partly explain the fertility pattern we see: Fertility depends on both the means to support children, and the intellectual capacity to carry out family planning.
-Low income people generally rate lower in IQ and self-control, and may be more likely to fail at using birth control or fail to realize that they can't afford kids. So even if they don't have the means to support children, they end up having children anyway.
-Middle class people generally have the IQ and self control to assess their finances and control their fertility. So they end up having 1-2 kids, which is ideal if you want to follow the strategy of pouring all your money into your kid's education.
Yes, the majority of the population is incapable of suppressing taboo-based emotional reactions, and moreover is incapable or uninterested in engaging with this sort of reasoning.
Then add in that no one can speak in support of Singer, because doing so would involve saying things that could be construed as supporting bestiality. People do not want to get disowned by their loved ones.
If I were more popular on this site, I'd be unwilling to say this, but I'm mostly a lurker, so: There's nothing wrong with bestiality. Animals are not moral patients, it's OK to both eat them, have sex with them, or do anything else with them. People have a disgust reaction to this, which is fine, but shouldn't be taken so seriously.
More options
Context Copy link