site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34909 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Israel has a great many advantages in terms of parenting that we can export to the rest of the world! Not just culturally, but also in terms of policy:

  1. A healthcare system using the voucher system, paid by the government, rather than tied to employment. This is more related to the US than anything.

  2. A voucher system for maternity wards. Hospitals compete to get the most births, and as a result the maternity ward in most hospitals is really nice.

  3. Healthcare includes a large battery of tests & information kits during pregnancy.

  4. Facilities to monitor & help with babies' and toddlers' growth, and vaccinations (Family Health Centers / Tipat Halav).

  5. Pre-school and elementary school operates 6 days a week, leaving parents with 1 day / morning a week to make more kids.

  6. We don't do this in Israel, but it's really important - build more housing units. High prices seem a-priori bad for fertility.

As a counterexample, Finland has equally good policies in the field of healthcare/childcare, but their TFR is abysmal. I get closer and closer to the conclusion that it's the Jewish memeplex that preserves Israel's TFR, not anything else.

There are probably more examples of low TFR with good healthcare than high TFR with good healthcare. Other than Israel, I can't even think of any for the latter.

That said, I think the general direction of causation is both (modern country/culture) --> (low TFR) AND (modern country/culture) --> (good healthcare), rather than (good healthcare) --> (low TFR). I do think you can increase TFR with better healthcare policy, but I admit I have no empirical data to back that up, only personal experience. I'm also not familiar enough with the actual workings of European healthcare, so I don't know if their policies actually match my suggestions or not.

Hospitals compete to get the most births, and as a result the maternity ward in most hospitals is really nice.

Huh. Interesting. This made me wonder if Israel might have unusually high quality of maternity care as regards how birthing mothers are treated on a personal level. Looking it up, the country apparently has the lowest rate of C-sections per 1,000 live births. Impressive. This is a potentially under-rated way of increasing birth rates, in that people with less birth trauma are more likely to give birth again.

I agree. It is also worth noting that doctors will recommend limiting births after a c-section, since a woman can only have a limited number of them (2-3, depending on doctor and the hospital's policy from my limited experience) and one c-section increases the chance of needing another c-section dramatically. Some places don't even risk vaginal birth after c-section (VBAC) and will automatically schedule a c-section for women that already had one. On the margin, I do expect a higher c-section rate to decrease TFR, then, even divorced from birth trauma - which is also very very real.

However, I'm not sure how much of that can be credited to the healthcare system, rather than other factors. C-sections IIRC are more commonly needed for older mothers. In Israel, a large portion of births are from the ultra-orthodox community which starts very young. That alone can explain some of the difference. Some more of it might be explained by the stricter monitoring pregnant women undergo here, but I'm not familiar of any data on that specifically.

There is definitely policy-level pressure to reduce c-section rates/hospitals proudly citing their low C-section rates/other things going in with the C-section rate aside from younger mothers. And lots of support for VBAC and even for VBA2C

It both reduces birth trauma and reduces health risks of further births — once you have a cesarean section it becomes progressively more and more dangerous to get pregnant with each subsequent c-section. (This is why some people try to have vaginal birth after c-sections)

.... In writing this comment, it occurs to me to wonder if this is an underappreciated factor in lower fertility rates in modern times. One reason Israel tries hard to avoid c-sections is because they assume it will be upsetting to mothers to have their fertility curtailed by having them. My understanding from people I know in the states is the attitude towards c-sections is much more cavalier, since it's no big deal it ends up meaning you can't have more than one kid after this. This must obviously have at least some depressing effect on birth rates...

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats