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 -
In the Middle Ages, it was supposedly not uncommon for rich people to spend the end of their lives in a small cell in a monastery, forgoing all Earthly pleasures for the promise of redemption.
And while there's probably not much loss to society in retiring a few old lions early, lots of young fertile people entered monasteries and convents, forgoing any chance of having a family line. These people didn't have any personal assets, but their institutions become incredibly wealthy. By the time of Henry VIII, the monasteries supposedly owned 1/3rd of the land in England. Shutting them down unlocked massive gains in prosperity.
And the priesthood likely acted as an IQ shedder as well.
The fact that Europe rose relentlessly despite a large percentage of its population being devoted to heavenly pursuits is really remarkable.
I suppose the problem with today's ascetics is they don't exist within the fabric of a vibrant, growing, pro-natal society.
An institution that collects knowledge and spurs technological growth but also hoards societal wealth and prevents all its high-IQ members from ever reproducing? We have that today, it’s called “Silicon Valley”
Monasteries seemed to take mostly younger children of the nobility which society had no good answer for anyways.
Nobles usually endowed a monastery with some land in exchange for taking in their runts. I reckon the kids would have been fine spending the cash squeezed from the starving peasantry on hookers and blow directly instead of having to re-earn it through prayer.
Who would advance civilization and pray for the salvation of humanity if they did that though?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How many is "lots" here? We talk about this every so often here and I've never gotten a good idea.
According to Perplexity about 2% of the population of England were under holy orders at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries.
Probably higher among the upper classes.
More options
Context Copy link
I think estimates for the monastic population in Europe in the period 1200 to 1500 vary wildly by country, time and methodology (a lot of extrapolation from census estimates by historic demographers coupled with estimates of average monastic population multiplied by the total number of monasteries in a province, which were often somewhat well recorded). Figures online seem to cluster around the 0.4% to 2% range for the total of all clergy.
Thanks. That range seems high, higher than I assumed, but not high enough for many of the theories about the problems caused by their absence (e.g. monasteries as release valve/containment zone for autists and other types)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it possible that the two are related?
Cistercian monasteries spread new technologies through high and late medieval Europe much faster than the historical norm.
Yes, and I think that aligns with the point @TitaniumButterfly was making.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link