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 -
I find this point interesting, because I distinctly remember a zeitgeist a few decades back in which "gender equality" was being pushed specifically because it would reduce birth rates to ward off Malthusian catastrophe. This was specifically in the lens of low Western birthrates being preferable to higher ones in largely Third-World nations. Admittedly, "the zeitgeist" is hard to cite, so perhaps I didn't really understand the full situation at the time.
I'm not particularly convinced that either direction is unilaterally correct: it's quite possible that the results are contextual based on a number of other variables, but it does provide an example of how "more feminism and gender equality" seems to be pushed (primarily by the Left) as a cure for all societal ills. That last part I think is a drastic oversimplification, but probably also a bit of a weakman of the actual arguments.
We are quite specifically in the year when the global fertility trends - if you follow the closest trends through, say, this account - will reach the point where global fertility rate, ie. the average number of children per women, will go under the global replacement rate needed to keep a stable population level, which is somewhere around 2.3 (I would actually guess the replacement rate will rise a bit if the food crisis has the expected famine effects in African countries). In other words, pretty near the specific point where we can fairly conclusively say that the population boom is cancelled, that we know the level at which the population will peak, and after that level global population will start coming down, perhaps not even coming down all that slowly.
As such, one might expect that, consciously or unconsciously, in the coming years the arguments that we need to prevent overpopulation will generally start losing credence and arguments that we should instead be concerned about underpopulation will start gaining it, and indeed the process has probably already started! It won't involve most people admitting they're wrong or that they have changed their viewpoint or anything like that, just barely perceptible social indicators.
More options
Context Copy link
I remember that as well. It was essentially secular population reductionists against often religious pro-natalism types.
The fashionability of Westerners telling people in the Global South to have fewer babies has diminished since then, weirdly putting progressives closer to Catholic conservatism stateside that hated the efforts of the United Nations etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Here is a citation that of thinking from Scientific America in 2009 "How Women Can Save the Planet: [Empowering young women through education will help reduce overpopulation in areas that cannot support it and avoid extremism in the children they raise"
Or United Nations University in 2019: "Female Education: a Solution for a Crowded Planet"
Time Magazine in 2013: "Why Empowering Poor Women Is Good for the Planet Overpopulation isn't the great environmental fear that it once was, but there are still parts of the planet where large family sizes are a problem. Female education can help change that"
The most charitable explanation is that they honestly believe that empowering women will lead to a more optimal level of child-bearing -- thus more children in countries who are rich and encountering problems of low fertility and less children in countries that are poor and already overcrowded.
A less charitable explanation is that these arguments aren't made by the same people, but since "feminism good" is the only acceptable opinion if over-population is presented as a problem Cathedral editors signal-boost writers who believe that feminism can prevent over-population and if population decline is presented as a problem then they signal boost writers who can take some subset of the data to show how feminism can help with under-population.
More options
Context Copy link
It reminds me of the debate surrounding torture. It can't be admitted that feminism has downsides/torture can in some situations work. No, just world demands that the morally preferable solution is also better in every other way than the alternative.
Noah Millman notably avoids this trap, writing,
That works until you are below replacement. At which point the alternative you are choosing is extinction, unless you have a good reason to think the fertility rate will increase before then.
More options
Context Copy link
What if the alternative to low-fertility world was something like the 1950s United States of America ... why cannot that be an alternative vision?
More options
Context Copy link
Is Israel, a country in which even secular indigenous population has above replacement TFR, also likely to be perceived to be an example of a state to avoid? Probably not, but it goes unmentioned.
Sure, there is criticism of Israel's treatment of Arabs, but for Jews the Israeli government and society doesn't seem oppressive.
Argentina has also had high fertility rates for a while as a developed and not particularly religious country.
More options
Context Copy link
Millman mentions "if it stays much higher, as, for example, Israel’s has" but seems to consider it an outlier. Not sure why he wouldn't consider murderous theocrats or communists to be equally outliers, though.
TFR for secular Israeli women isn't quite above-replacement; it's only around 2.0, typically a little below. It's not plummeting the way it is in most countries, though, it's even back up a bit since the 1990s. Secular Israelis do seem to qualify as a completely-modernized-but-yet-stable demographic. There's also the Mormons, who I'd guess Millman might find objectionable (patriarchy: not just a metaphor!) but who at least ought to be considered a more tempting alternative than ISIS.
On the other hand, just using the word "alternative" seems to be assuming a level of agency that we see in the Hari Seldon books, not so much in real life. In particular:
That's ... not how the differential equation works.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I was reminded of the debate here regarding torture watching this Breaking Points video earlier, where torture comes up in the conversation with the implication that actually yea, it works. I think when that issue is not salient everyone falls back on "of course torture works." And introspection certainly tells me it does. The idea that it doesn't work was a weird 2000s era blip born of disliking George W Bush and company.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lS3vyB7gcNA (a little past 3:30 in)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link