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 -
There are many factors explaining the decline of fertility rates in the developed world, but one that I feel like I don't see mentioned often enough is the simple fact that across animals, favoring K-strategy as opposed to r-strategy in reproduction tends to be correlated with high intelligence. Whales, elephants, humans, all are relatively K-strategic compared to the average animal. So it is not surprising that the world's most highly developed human cultures are dominated by K-strategists.
Also keep in mind that the effectiveness of modern medicine has made being a hardcore K-strategist more viable now than it has ever been before in human history. In pre-modern times, you kind of just had to have multiple kids to make sure that some of them were still around a few decades later. That is no longer as much the case.
I think that significantly raising fertility rates without turning a society into a primitive shithole is a pretty tough problem. Many societies of various kinds of political persuasions have tried to use social engineering to raise fertility rates, but it seems to me that the results have been mixed and the successes were largely negated as soon as the society further developed towards something that resembles what we in 2024 would consider contemporary modernity.
One approach that might theoretically work is to maintain a culturally primitive but genetically relatively high-quality subgroup of society that the rest of society essentially farms for offspring. Imagine the Haredim in Israel, but if half of all their offspring were somehow seduced into becoming more fully functional members of society once they got old enough. So then you would have some subgroup of the population that the broader society basically uses as breeding stock. I have my doubts that this would work, though.
In general, centralized "command economy" style social engineering is a blunt tool that does not seem to have a good track record when used to try to address subtle issues. Social engineering is good at doing things like ethnically cleansing an unpopular social group and stealing their resources, or cracking down hard on crime, or mobilizing a society for total war, but it is not good at more subtle things like creating an efficient economy, and for somewhat similar reasons I'm not sure that it would be good at encouraging reproduction.
But I'm not sure this explains things. For example, Western Europe in 1700 was a shithole. Birth rates were sky high. But by 1900, Western Europe very much wasn't a shithole.
So not did these high birth rates not cause shitholery, they reduced it!
Of course it's not so simple. When we look at what happened in Europe, we see massive downward mobility. Things got better because the rich had far more children than the poor for hundreds of years. And by 1914, the average working class soldier was writing literal poetry to their loved ones back home.
Now, of course, this process works in reverse, and our society grows ever courser.
This could work and indeed has worked before. In the Roman Empire as in Medieval Europe, the cities suffered massive population loss due to poor fertility and disease. They were continuously replenished by immigrants from the countryside.
I mean, by 2024 standards, a lot of 1900 Western Europe was indeed a "shithole."
Maybe the rural parts. Major cities were already looking pretty nice, and with much lower crime and decay than today. Here's Berlin prior to WWI: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dZFulqdFgW0
And here are some letters from WWI soldiers, including enlisted men: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/letters-first-world-war-1915/
The average Western European in 1900 was far more literate than today. We're so obsessed with GDP that we don't see all the ways society has gotten worse.
1910-
In Germany, industrialization and urbanization went hand in hand, as individuals and entire families left the countryside and moved to cities in search of work. Living conditions were often miserable: working-class housing was dank, cramped, and overcrowded, with little fresh air or natural light. Entire families lived in narrow rooms without indoor plumbing. One such quarter on Berlin's Liegnitzer Straße is depicted here. The rent for this type of space would have consumed a large portion of a family’s income.
https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=1632
Literacy was great in germany and england and scandinavia, other places...not so much. I would think 99% of germans are literate now unless they have a learning disability. I understand your use to mean that they wrote with better vocab. But everyone can read still.
https://preview.redd.it/p8v0ewbb67u51.png?width=850&auto=webp&s=4176b957198c45f79a78ba7a3690c16473dcadf1
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