Women are rejecting marriage in Asia. The social implications are serious.(economist.com)
economist.com
Women are rejecting marriage in Asia. The social implications are serious.
http://www.economist.com/node/21526350?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/asiasloneyhearts
18 comments
You come up with only a single, high level reason for what could have thousands of reasons, and you seriously come up with one that is a detriment to our entire species. Draw from that conclusions on your capacity and will for logical thinking, sorry this has to be blunt. You are the modern day crusader. You get an idea in your head with next to no logical reasons and then start to proselytize everyone around you.
I'll give you another just as likely reason for past societal collapses (frankly, a lot likelier reason), and you can then fill in more if you are able. In times of peace, leaders have no dire motivation to mold their citizens into specific paths that are catalyst for military purposes. This leads to societes that are directionless. Historically, only military societies prevailed because they had direction and motivation to improve. However, what's so bad about being directionless? What exactly causes the downfall of "peaceful" (=actually just directionless) societies? We have to dig a little deeper. You jumped the gun and proclaimed it was peace itself that was doing the damage. That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Peace itself has millions of little and big effects on society. Among these effects is the loss of need for children, therefore inevitably marriage laws get relaxed. Humans want to have sex a lot and with many other people, and marriage gets in the way of that. In peaceful times we have seen a gradual destruction of marital laws. This leads to marriages which can be formed and destroyed at the whim of any person, and in our society today, it's even worse because women are considerably favored in the break-up. This leads to people being very cautious to form deep bonds, and this ultimately leads to a weaker society, a society devoid of the ultimate motivation for every human being: Providing and protecting your family. It's like taking away one of the primary engines of a spaceship. There is still other engines that powers it: Need for food. Need for sex. However the strongest one, the motivation to protect your own children is gone. Because there are no children, because there are no marriages, because marriages are nowadays too fast and detrimental for male parties. What we need, is actual equality between the genders.
I'll give you another just as likely reason for past societal collapses (frankly, a lot likelier reason), and you can then fill in more if you are able. In times of peace, leaders have no dire motivation to mold their citizens into specific paths that are catalyst for military purposes. This leads to societes that are directionless. Historically, only military societies prevailed because they had direction and motivation to improve. However, what's so bad about being directionless? What exactly causes the downfall of "peaceful" (=actually just directionless) societies? We have to dig a little deeper. You jumped the gun and proclaimed it was peace itself that was doing the damage. That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Peace itself has millions of little and big effects on society. Among these effects is the loss of need for children, therefore inevitably marriage laws get relaxed. Humans want to have sex a lot and with many other people, and marriage gets in the way of that. In peaceful times we have seen a gradual destruction of marital laws. This leads to marriages which can be formed and destroyed at the whim of any person, and in our society today, it's even worse because women are considerably favored in the break-up. This leads to people being very cautious to form deep bonds, and this ultimately leads to a weaker society, a society devoid of the ultimate motivation for every human being: Providing and protecting your family. It's like taking away one of the primary engines of a spaceship. There is still other engines that powers it: Need for food. Need for sex. However the strongest one, the motivation to protect your own children is gone. Because there are no children, because there are no marriages, because marriages are nowadays too fast and detrimental for male parties. What we need, is actual equality between the genders.
"there are no marriages, because marriages are nowadays too fast and detrimental for male parties. What we need, is actual equality between the genders."
I'm not sure I follow this logic. By all indications in both the East and West, it's women, not men, who are driving the changes in marriage rates, ages, and trends.
1) Women are entering and succeeding in the workforce, and accordingly, they see less reason to give that all up for traditional marriages and gender roles.
2) Men outnumber women in many Asian countries (especially China, for obvious reasons). Ergo, the women in these countries can afford to be choosey. It's a buyer's market, and they are the buyers. With the power dynamic in the meat market shifted in their favor, they can be more selective and take their time. Unfortunately, they can't wait too long, because eventually, they'll lose out to younger women entering the same market -- and, when that happens, many will have forfeited their marriage prospects altogether.
[For what it's worth, I am a proponent of gender equality. Please don't misconstrue me there. I am not passing judgment on any of these trends, but rather, am simply observing them.]
I'm not sure I follow this logic. By all indications in both the East and West, it's women, not men, who are driving the changes in marriage rates, ages, and trends.
1) Women are entering and succeeding in the workforce, and accordingly, they see less reason to give that all up for traditional marriages and gender roles.
2) Men outnumber women in many Asian countries (especially China, for obvious reasons). Ergo, the women in these countries can afford to be choosey. It's a buyer's market, and they are the buyers. With the power dynamic in the meat market shifted in their favor, they can be more selective and take their time. Unfortunately, they can't wait too long, because eventually, they'll lose out to younger women entering the same market -- and, when that happens, many will have forfeited their marriage prospects altogether.
[For what it's worth, I am a proponent of gender equality. Please don't misconstrue me there. I am not passing judgment on any of these trends, but rather, am simply observing them.]
> Unfortunately, they can't wait too long, because eventually, they'll lose out to younger women entering the same market
Consider this scenario: a man seeking marriage is likely to continue seeking it through his old age (e.g. doesn't become an eternal bachelor or celibate).
In this case, a woman of that same old age is likely to marry someone young because they can provide for their young husband materially, and from the young mans' point of view marrying an older woman is a good chance for marriage in a market where older men are using their own value to attract younger women.
Consider this scenario: a man seeking marriage is likely to continue seeking it through his old age (e.g. doesn't become an eternal bachelor or celibate).
In this case, a woman of that same old age is likely to marry someone young because they can provide for their young husband materially, and from the young mans' point of view marrying an older woman is a good chance for marriage in a market where older men are using their own value to attract younger women.
The factor you're leaving out is fertility.
Unless I misread something, you didn't actually deny that peace was the ultimate cause of the problems.
"Detriment to our entire species" is also far from proven. This far mankind has done pretty well even with all the wars. While it's certainly unfortunate for the ones actually involved in the war, it might be better for "the greater good". Or maybe it isn't. The point is that you shouldn't dismiss an argument just because it's politically incorrect nowadays.
"Detriment to our entire species" is also far from proven. This far mankind has done pretty well even with all the wars. While it's certainly unfortunate for the ones actually involved in the war, it might be better for "the greater good". Or maybe it isn't. The point is that you shouldn't dismiss an argument just because it's politically incorrect nowadays.
I've always thought that it was the challenge that caused society to work towards a common goal. Violence is one part of that, but the space race worked effectively (though that was closely related to the cold war).
[deleted](1)
Meai, you don't really refute his theory.
His theory still holds true. Unless you can conclusively argue that 'Peace' isn't the MAIN reason for the downfall of non-warring civilizations and countries - don't see where your argument leads.
In a way you're supporting him.
Finally, he's pointing out something that might be The Truth. If it's the truth then it says a lot of positive things about his capacity for logical thinking and his ability to be HONEST with himself and others.
His theory still holds true. Unless you can conclusively argue that 'Peace' isn't the MAIN reason for the downfall of non-warring civilizations and countries - don't see where your argument leads.
In a way you're supporting him.
Finally, he's pointing out something that might be The Truth. If it's the truth then it says a lot of positive things about his capacity for logical thinking and his ability to be HONEST with himself and others.
Another theory:
As this article points out a lot of woman aren't marrying or having kids because "being both employed and married is tough in Asia.".
In other words, these countries have enough equality where women are allowed in the labor force but not enough where the society has set up strong institutions to deal with women in the labor force. Another economist article dealt with the impossibility of finding day care in Japan. Lacking these institutions causes a huge economic cost to exist for having kids.
Indeed, among developed nations, you'll find a positive correlation between gender equality and total fertility rate.
Raw data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...
In Europe, the countries with the least gender gap have the highest fertility rates. (> 1.8 for all the top 5). The countries with the most are among the lowest (< 1.5 for lowest 5).
You see this as well with Asia. South Korea has one of the lowest fertility rates on the planet and extremely high gender inequality. Same is true with Japan. The article notes that it hasn't hit China yet; I'd be surprised if the trend does materialize with (urban) China's vastly higher gender equality. (gotta give the Communist Party props there)
My policy recommendation to maintain replacement level TFR is to follow the example of Norway or Iceland: reduce the economic and social cost of having kids (parental leave policies, free day care, etc.) - a lot cheaper than going to war.
As this article points out a lot of woman aren't marrying or having kids because "being both employed and married is tough in Asia.".
In other words, these countries have enough equality where women are allowed in the labor force but not enough where the society has set up strong institutions to deal with women in the labor force. Another economist article dealt with the impossibility of finding day care in Japan. Lacking these institutions causes a huge economic cost to exist for having kids.
Indeed, among developed nations, you'll find a positive correlation between gender equality and total fertility rate.
Raw data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...
In Europe, the countries with the least gender gap have the highest fertility rates. (> 1.8 for all the top 5). The countries with the most are among the lowest (< 1.5 for lowest 5).
You see this as well with Asia. South Korea has one of the lowest fertility rates on the planet and extremely high gender inequality. Same is true with Japan. The article notes that it hasn't hit China yet; I'd be surprised if the trend does materialize with (urban) China's vastly higher gender equality. (gotta give the Communist Party props there)
My policy recommendation to maintain replacement level TFR is to follow the example of Norway or Iceland: reduce the economic and social cost of having kids (parental leave policies, free day care, etc.) - a lot cheaper than going to war.
Having lived in China, I agree. There is gender inequality there, and there's a lot of gender stereotyping (girls like X, boys like Y), and there's a deep-seated preference for sons (which is gradually changing, as the gener imbalance means men can't find wives unless their parents buy a house as dowry - and people are realizing that propagating the family name is getting a little overpriced); but the roles of women are much different than in Japan and Korea. 70 years ago, that wasn't true - China was even more inequitable (think foot-binding). I think China's improved, while Japan and Korea stayed conservative.
I mean, would you really want to marry if that meant giving up your career and becoming an unpaid cleaner / cook / babysitter, while your SO worked 70 hour weeks to make up for the fact that you weren't contributing? Weird choice.
I mean, would you really want to marry if that meant giving up your career and becoming an unpaid cleaner / cook / babysitter, while your SO worked 70 hour weeks to make up for the fact that you weren't contributing? Weird choice.
I'm not sure how your policy recommendation relates to your initial observation (gender equality -> fertility).
How does forcing the childless (note: people of both genders can be childless) to subsidize parents promote gender equality?
(I'm not disagreeing with your suggesting that you can subsidize something to get more of it, I'm just trying to figure out how your last paragraph relates to the rest of your post.)
How does forcing the childless (note: people of both genders can be childless) to subsidize parents promote gender equality?
(I'm not disagreeing with your suggesting that you can subsidize something to get more of it, I'm just trying to figure out how your last paragraph relates to the rest of your post.)
I may have made that jump too quick.
First note that the childless already massively subsidize parents through taxes that pay for education. Also note that I am considering replacement levels of fertility desirable.
The cost of being a mother, biologically, is vastly higher than being a father. This is further enhanced by cultural expectations for the mother to do most of the child raising.
In other words, female parents take a far greater hit than male ones. (Indeed, child raising explains almost all of the male-female wage gap). Subsidizing parents effectively subsidizes women far more; it's basically an affirmative action program to compensate a disadvantage dealt by biology and society. (How the subsidy flows is tricky. As most people end up having kids, this subsidy is effectively mostly a transfer of wealth from fathers to mothers, across generations).
Some policies that may be clearer are government promotion of fathers taking care of kids via both advertisement and paternity leave. This breaks down traditional gender roles (promotes equality), while reducing the burden on the mother.
First note that the childless already massively subsidize parents through taxes that pay for education. Also note that I am considering replacement levels of fertility desirable.
The cost of being a mother, biologically, is vastly higher than being a father. This is further enhanced by cultural expectations for the mother to do most of the child raising.
In other words, female parents take a far greater hit than male ones. (Indeed, child raising explains almost all of the male-female wage gap). Subsidizing parents effectively subsidizes women far more; it's basically an affirmative action program to compensate a disadvantage dealt by biology and society. (How the subsidy flows is tricky. As most people end up having kids, this subsidy is effectively mostly a transfer of wealth from fathers to mothers, across generations).
Some policies that may be clearer are government promotion of fathers taking care of kids via both advertisement and paternity leave. This breaks down traditional gender roles (promotes equality), while reducing the burden on the mother.
>First note that the childless already massively subsidize parents through taxes that pay for education. Also note that I am considering replacement levels of fertility desirable.
This isn't as simple as that. The tax revenue used for education in Texas comes from property taxes. The majority of that is from homeowners. The overwhelming majority of homeowners have or had children in the home at some point. Aside from those facts, would you like to live in a society where the children were not educated? I think you would find that the reduction in crime and the boost to the cheap labor force would be worth the investment.
The most important point this should make is: all of these things are fabulously complicated and interrelated.
This isn't as simple as that. The tax revenue used for education in Texas comes from property taxes. The majority of that is from homeowners. The overwhelming majority of homeowners have or had children in the home at some point. Aside from those facts, would you like to live in a society where the children were not educated? I think you would find that the reduction in crime and the boost to the cheap labor force would be worth the investment.
The most important point this should make is: all of these things are fabulously complicated and interrelated.
Ok, so by "gender equality", you merely mean "statistically similar representation of women in assorted reference classes" rather than "equal treatment". (The latter is what I originally thought you meant.)
Of course, I'd be rather hard pressed to see what that has to do with fertility. I'd suggest maybe that there is a simpler explanation for the phenomenon you observed - the countries with gender equality also seem to have lots of subsidies for parenthood. Most likely the subsidies are the cause of fertility.
If the subsidies are the actual cause, we could probably get higher fertility by subsidizing parenthood together with higher societal expectations of maternal activities from women. The carrot of free money for the fertile life path, and the stick of lower social status for the less fertile path.
(Not that I advocate this course of action, but I'm not in favor of encouraging fertility in any case.)
Of course, I'd be rather hard pressed to see what that has to do with fertility. I'd suggest maybe that there is a simpler explanation for the phenomenon you observed - the countries with gender equality also seem to have lots of subsidies for parenthood. Most likely the subsidies are the cause of fertility.
If the subsidies are the actual cause, we could probably get higher fertility by subsidizing parenthood together with higher societal expectations of maternal activities from women. The carrot of free money for the fertile life path, and the stick of lower social status for the less fertile path.
(Not that I advocate this course of action, but I'm not in favor of encouraging fertility in any case.)
This is patent nonsense. Every society has its day in the sun, military or not, and then collapses. The US is doing this as we speak - despite having the most powerful military the world has ever known, and almost spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined. It's been far from peaceful in the timeframe that Europe and Japan have been (several official wars, quite a number of unofficial ones). Far from renouncing war, the US both pursues and idolises it. And yet, despite it's magnificent military geographic isolationism, monster GDP and supreme military, its economy is tumbling - the exact opposite of what you're saying about a country that pursues military excellence.
Then there's all sorts of peaceful native societies that did fine for hundreds to thousands of years before the colonial nations came, with no implosion.
Your statement reads far more like you had a predetermined conclusion and decided to simply shoehorn your observations into it.
On the other hand, I'm wondering if you're just trolling - "studied a lot of history" and then saying "exceedingly good relations with China" combined with "japan remilitarises". I don't think you've read enough history there...
Then there's all sorts of peaceful native societies that did fine for hundreds to thousands of years before the colonial nations came, with no implosion.
Your statement reads far more like you had a predetermined conclusion and decided to simply shoehorn your observations into it.
On the other hand, I'm wondering if you're just trolling - "studied a lot of history" and then saying "exceedingly good relations with China" combined with "japan remilitarises". I don't think you've read enough history there...
While I don't have an opinion on the theory under discussion, I think the way to read into the OP's definition of 'war' is 'total war', which the US has not been involved in since WW2. The 'total war' part is required for the massive culling that the OP seems to think is needed for a prospering society.
You raise a good point, and I have commented in other forums on the strangeness of the US currently fighting large distant wars with a peacetime economy, which is very expensive.
But if that's the case, isn't the argument then an oxymoron? Total war is a total realignment of society - the society is necessarily broken down and forged afresh. Engaging in total war 'to save a society' necessarily changes that society, often quite profoundly. The total war of WWII made massive social changes when comparing pre- and post-war societies (two big ones were end of colonialism and rising equality of women in developed nations). The society you get at the end of total war is different from the one you may have been trying to preserve.
But if that's the case, isn't the argument then an oxymoron? Total war is a total realignment of society - the society is necessarily broken down and forged afresh. Engaging in total war 'to save a society' necessarily changes that society, often quite profoundly. The total war of WWII made massive social changes when comparing pre- and post-war societies (two big ones were end of colonialism and rising equality of women in developed nations). The society you get at the end of total war is different from the one you may have been trying to preserve.
> I'm wondering if you're just trolling - "studied a lot of history" and then saying "exceedingly good relations with China" combined with "japan remilitarises". I don't think you've read enough history there...
I tried writing up all the credentials I have that make me have a clear understanding here, but I don't know how to do it without looking snarky. But anyways, today I'm in Beijing, yesterday I was in Hong Kong, last week I was in Japan, and tomorrow I'm getting my hair cut with the nephew of one of the top CPC officials who is my friend and occasionally someone I do business with. And yeah, I read a lot of history.
So anyways. I think you might be uninformed about modern Japanese/Chinese relations.
For instance, there's only four countries that get visa free entry into the PRC without any public business.
Guess who is on the list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_People%27s_R...
Huh. Interesting point? Don't the Chinese hate the Japanese?
Answer: nope! The leadership doesn't, anyways. The common people do, it's a common enemy for them, just like illegal immigration from Mexico is a common enemy for much of the American Midwest. But the leadership of China are extremely practical, intelligent, and unsentimental people. If a good relationship with Japan is good for China, they'll do it. If Japan makes friendly overtures simultaneously with re-arming and stays on good terms with the USA, yes that's all very possible.
As for the rest of your comment, man you've seriously got to check your own claims more. For instance -
> Far from renouncing war, the US both pursues and idolises it.
Okay. So, you'd expect a greater number of people among the upper class to be joining the military, a greater number of representatives to be coming from former soldiers, and more presidents to be former servicemen too?
Right? You'd expect those numbers to be increasing if American militarism is increasing? Are they increasing? No...? Is there a hole in your theory...? Hmm...
I tried writing up all the credentials I have that make me have a clear understanding here, but I don't know how to do it without looking snarky. But anyways, today I'm in Beijing, yesterday I was in Hong Kong, last week I was in Japan, and tomorrow I'm getting my hair cut with the nephew of one of the top CPC officials who is my friend and occasionally someone I do business with. And yeah, I read a lot of history.
So anyways. I think you might be uninformed about modern Japanese/Chinese relations.
For instance, there's only four countries that get visa free entry into the PRC without any public business.
Guess who is on the list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_People%27s_R...
Huh. Interesting point? Don't the Chinese hate the Japanese?
Answer: nope! The leadership doesn't, anyways. The common people do, it's a common enemy for them, just like illegal immigration from Mexico is a common enemy for much of the American Midwest. But the leadership of China are extremely practical, intelligent, and unsentimental people. If a good relationship with Japan is good for China, they'll do it. If Japan makes friendly overtures simultaneously with re-arming and stays on good terms with the USA, yes that's all very possible.
As for the rest of your comment, man you've seriously got to check your own claims more. For instance -
> Far from renouncing war, the US both pursues and idolises it.
Okay. So, you'd expect a greater number of people among the upper class to be joining the military, a greater number of representatives to be coming from former soldiers, and more presidents to be former servicemen too?
Right? You'd expect those numbers to be increasing if American militarism is increasing? Are they increasing? No...? Is there a hole in your theory...? Hmm...
Yes, they are good business partners (and from your link, it appears that China's favourite nation ever is San Marino - a nation of 30k landlocked by Italy).
If Japan remilitarised they would be a credible threat to China and it would be difficult to maintain 'exceedingly good relations'. If Japan remilitarises, the question of any military is "who are our credible threats?", and the answer is "China, predominantly, then Korea". So Japanese remilitarisation would necessarily focus on countering China. The fact it could also fight in Korea would add tension to China's pawn in North Korea.
and more presidents to be former servicemen too?
I don't have numbers for congress, but do for presidents. In the last two presidential elections, 50% of the candidates have been former active servicemen. In one case, the serviceman was defeated by a former National Guardsman, the incumbent who had initiated two wars while in office. This same former active servicemen suffered a significant PR loss due to a character assassination campaign where his wounds in action were deemed "not heavy enough to earn a medal, the guy's a fake".
I'm not sure how your highly selective example of 'decreasing militarism' is satisfied here.
Remember that before WWII, the US had a small military. Since WWII it's been kept large and expanded - the cold war, for example, was brought to an end by the US out-producing it's opponent - and the world is constantly reminded that the US has an army and actively uses it, anywhere, any time.
The US is a much more military-oriented society than it's colleagues. What you're doing is taking the wide outlier (the US) and then saying "it's not highly militarised - see it's not increasing", despite the point that it's already way out there.
If Japan remilitarised they would be a credible threat to China and it would be difficult to maintain 'exceedingly good relations'. If Japan remilitarises, the question of any military is "who are our credible threats?", and the answer is "China, predominantly, then Korea". So Japanese remilitarisation would necessarily focus on countering China. The fact it could also fight in Korea would add tension to China's pawn in North Korea.
and more presidents to be former servicemen too?
I don't have numbers for congress, but do for presidents. In the last two presidential elections, 50% of the candidates have been former active servicemen. In one case, the serviceman was defeated by a former National Guardsman, the incumbent who had initiated two wars while in office. This same former active servicemen suffered a significant PR loss due to a character assassination campaign where his wounds in action were deemed "not heavy enough to earn a medal, the guy's a fake".
I'm not sure how your highly selective example of 'decreasing militarism' is satisfied here.
Remember that before WWII, the US had a small military. Since WWII it's been kept large and expanded - the cold war, for example, was brought to an end by the US out-producing it's opponent - and the world is constantly reminded that the US has an army and actively uses it, anywhere, any time.
The US is a much more military-oriented society than it's colleagues. What you're doing is taking the wide outlier (the US) and then saying "it's not highly militarised - see it's not increasing", despite the point that it's already way out there.
How does your theory fit with the enormous counter example you have under the eyes? i mean, China has been peaceful for centuries, underarmed, and did not collapse, or did we learn a different history?
China fought a war with Japan from 1930-1944, concurrent with and followed by its own civil war. Not to mention its involvement in Korea and Vietnam. Not exactly centuries.
History, especially in the case of China, did not start in 1900. During Han, Tang and Ming dynasties at least, the country was not in a military struggle for survival, and while dynasties die eventually, the country survived all them (until now).
Note aside, it is funny to see that when doing some quick blind generalizations on mankind, like "countries at peace die eventually", one can almost always use China as a coutner example. I can trow a fairly lenghty list of them.
Note aside, it is funny to see that when doing some quick blind generalizations on mankind, like "countries at peace die eventually", one can almost always use China as a coutner example. I can trow a fairly lenghty list of them.
This is a appealing theory, marred only by the fact that it is appears to be gibberish.
At the very least, it's an extraordinary claim and makes no reference to the anything not more easily explained by the oft-noted equation between low GBP and high fertility - for example, seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg
If you can furnish a concrete series of examples of countries at a similar economic stage, where the sole difference is warlike behavior, and connect this to fertility, more power to you.
But frankly, I think you're just making stuff up.
At the very least, it's an extraordinary claim and makes no reference to the anything not more easily explained by the oft-noted equation between low GBP and high fertility - for example, seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg
If you can furnish a concrete series of examples of countries at a similar economic stage, where the sole difference is warlike behavior, and connect this to fertility, more power to you.
But frankly, I think you're just making stuff up.
> This is a appealing theory, marred only by the fact that it is appears to be gibberish.
Man, it's very possible to be skeptical without the asshole tone. It's a common theme in your comments, but it's really unnecessary.
Anyways. It's a good point, regardless of tone. Where'd my analysis come from?
I've noted that:
-You see baby booms frequently after the conclusion of war, increasing fertility.
-As nations age and move towards pacifism, you seem to have a cycle of more luxury goods being produced and less trade/usable goods. EG, more Burberry and less fighter planes, which means more status/positional goods and less things that can be technologically built on.
This has been noted at various times in history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
It's also something I've seen and felt in being in lots of countries. That's entirely subjective, but the urge to "live quickly" seems higher in places that where people face their mortality. Mongolia made a notable impression on me, and their fertility is very high (and they have a high general militant disposition, as well).
> If you can furnish a concrete series of examples of countries at a similar economic stage, where the sole difference is warlike behavior, and connect this to fertility, more power to you. But frankly, I think you're just making stuff up.
1. That's a PhD thesis amount of work, or at least a long many-page discussion on a history forum, not a quick comment on Hacker News. Asking the other person you're talking to provide PhD amounts of evidence is asinine. C'mon dude, seriously.
2. You can be skeptical and intelligently asking questions without the asshole tone. I don't mean just to me - go review your own comment history. You're obviously a smart guy, you can ask questions without the haughty manner and you'll probably be better off for it.
Man, it's very possible to be skeptical without the asshole tone. It's a common theme in your comments, but it's really unnecessary.
Anyways. It's a good point, regardless of tone. Where'd my analysis come from?
I've noted that:
-You see baby booms frequently after the conclusion of war, increasing fertility.
-As nations age and move towards pacifism, you seem to have a cycle of more luxury goods being produced and less trade/usable goods. EG, more Burberry and less fighter planes, which means more status/positional goods and less things that can be technologically built on.
This has been noted at various times in history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
It's also something I've seen and felt in being in lots of countries. That's entirely subjective, but the urge to "live quickly" seems higher in places that where people face their mortality. Mongolia made a notable impression on me, and their fertility is very high (and they have a high general militant disposition, as well).
> If you can furnish a concrete series of examples of countries at a similar economic stage, where the sole difference is warlike behavior, and connect this to fertility, more power to you. But frankly, I think you're just making stuff up.
1. That's a PhD thesis amount of work, or at least a long many-page discussion on a history forum, not a quick comment on Hacker News. Asking the other person you're talking to provide PhD amounts of evidence is asinine. C'mon dude, seriously.
2. You can be skeptical and intelligently asking questions without the asshole tone. I don't mean just to me - go review your own comment history. You're obviously a smart guy, you can ask questions without the haughty manner and you'll probably be better off for it.
I'm going to leave the ad homs to one side, though I suspect a review of your comment history would reveal a parade of unwarrantedly self-assured geek autodidacticism... hey, it's milder than 'asshole'. Here's a deal; I'll be less snarky if people like you can be less pretentious.
I'm still baffled as to your evidence; apparently the Mongolians are hard bastards and like fucking, or something. What's asinine is that you have no evidence for your wild, extraordinary claim. None. Never mind PhD level. Give a couple examples that you think support this idea that aren't equally well explained by the traditional 'stone broke and ignorant and breeding like mad to make sure at least one survives' model. Explain why Russia is at a fertility rate of 1.34 and Iceland is at 2.05, for example. New Zealanders are breeding like rabbits compared to Belorussians, etc. Not sure who has the Burberry and who has the fighter planes there, but I doubt it bears out your ideas...
I don't want a PhD thesis. I want you to come out with a single convincing case where your 'let's be warlike' stuff explains the way the world is better than the default "broke people breed more" model.
Appeal to authority are all very well (your idea has been 'noted' by 'notable' guys!), but Gibbon is a contentious source for any kind of assertion about the modern world, having not, well, seen it. Like many pretentious high school students, I've read him, but may not be the better for it. At least you could name-check Spengler or something; this would be just as embarrassing as anything else you've written on this thread but at least more topical.
I'm still baffled as to your evidence; apparently the Mongolians are hard bastards and like fucking, or something. What's asinine is that you have no evidence for your wild, extraordinary claim. None. Never mind PhD level. Give a couple examples that you think support this idea that aren't equally well explained by the traditional 'stone broke and ignorant and breeding like mad to make sure at least one survives' model. Explain why Russia is at a fertility rate of 1.34 and Iceland is at 2.05, for example. New Zealanders are breeding like rabbits compared to Belorussians, etc. Not sure who has the Burberry and who has the fighter planes there, but I doubt it bears out your ideas...
I don't want a PhD thesis. I want you to come out with a single convincing case where your 'let's be warlike' stuff explains the way the world is better than the default "broke people breed more" model.
Appeal to authority are all very well (your idea has been 'noted' by 'notable' guys!), but Gibbon is a contentious source for any kind of assertion about the modern world, having not, well, seen it. Like many pretentious high school students, I've read him, but may not be the better for it. At least you could name-check Spengler or something; this would be just as embarrassing as anything else you've written on this thread but at least more topical.
"...unwarrantedly self-assured geek autodidacticism..."
+1, this really nailed it. Not just this thread either, but the all-too-common, arrogantly presented naive analyses that we see from time-to-time on the HN comment threads.
+1, this really nailed it. Not just this thread either, but the all-too-common, arrogantly presented naive analyses that we see from time-to-time on the HN comment threads.
"This has happened many times through history. It's happening in Japan right now. If I became an advisor to anyone in the Japanese government, I'd advocate two things as chief priorities - (1) exceedingly good relations with China, and (2) re-militarize.
Then join the next war they can on America's or China's side. Combined with some standard messages of nationalism/strength/growth/unity, birth rates would almost certainly increase"
This is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen proposed on this site. An actual war between the three richest countries on the planet could possibly make the world unlivable for all of humanity. It's not a good solution for putting the Japanese economy on track.
This isn't the 20th century. Our mastery over the natural world has grown far too powerful for a war between strong countries. If you can make a convincing argument that war is inevitable even in these circumstances, then you've also explained the Fermi Paradox.
This is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen proposed on this site. An actual war between the three richest countries on the planet could possibly make the world unlivable for all of humanity. It's not a good solution for putting the Japanese economy on track.
This isn't the 20th century. Our mastery over the natural world has grown far too powerful for a war between strong countries. If you can make a convincing argument that war is inevitable even in these circumstances, then you've also explained the Fermi Paradox.
I didn't read the suggestion as applying to a war between China and the U.S., but rather, to joining some conflict such as the U.S. in Iraq, or China in Mongolia. (No, I don't think the situations have anything in common besides involving the respective nations in strife.)
I say that as a clarification of the discussion, not because I agree that it's a good idea.
I say that as a clarification of the discussion, not because I agree that it's a good idea.
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before.
ok, let's hear it.
travel through 60+ countries...study of lots of history.
the anticipation builds....
I think peaceful societies self-destruct.
dude.
a) You obviously haven't read enough history, or you would know this is not a new idea.
b) So if peaceful societies do self-destruct, do warlike societies not self-destruct? Or only the ones that don't lose?
Perhaps you ought to turn your attention from demagoguery to speculative fiction. I'm sure there's a great novel in you about militant nations fighting ritualized wars to keep their edge, while deftly avoiding any real conflict. Add some authentic texture from those 60+ countries, and you'd have a bestseller for sure.
ok, let's hear it.
travel through 60+ countries...study of lots of history.
the anticipation builds....
I think peaceful societies self-destruct.
dude.
a) You obviously haven't read enough history, or you would know this is not a new idea.
b) So if peaceful societies do self-destruct, do warlike societies not self-destruct? Or only the ones that don't lose?
Perhaps you ought to turn your attention from demagoguery to speculative fiction. I'm sure there's a great novel in you about militant nations fighting ritualized wars to keep their edge, while deftly avoiding any real conflict. Add some authentic texture from those 60+ countries, and you'd have a bestseller for sure.
Yes, we all dream up these world-formulas in the bathtub.
Without going deeper into your "analysis" I assure you that there is no single, unifying causality to the effects you describe.
I also assure you that my country (germany) has a really bad track-record of listening to guys with "easy answers" whose arguments started out strikingly similar to yours.
Without going deeper into your "analysis" I assure you that there is no single, unifying causality to the effects you describe.
I also assure you that my country (germany) has a really bad track-record of listening to guys with "easy answers" whose arguments started out strikingly similar to yours.
> I also assure you that my country (germany) has a really bad track-record of listening to guys with "easy answers" whose arguments started out strikingly similar to yours.
Right. That's the whole point - there will be beligerent nations, and pacifist nations will get rolled by them unless they've got a strong ally to bail them out.
It was the militant nations (USA, Britain, Russia) that bailed out the appeasement/pacifist nations from Nazi conquest and rule.
No easy answers, indeed!
Right. That's the whole point - there will be beligerent nations, and pacifist nations will get rolled by them unless they've got a strong ally to bail them out.
It was the militant nations (USA, Britain, Russia) that bailed out the appeasement/pacifist nations from Nazi conquest and rule.
No easy answers, indeed!
there will be beligerent nations, and pacifist nations will get rolled by them unless they've got a strong ally to bail them out.
Over here in europe we have that ally, it's called NATO.
And despite all its flaws it seems like a more reasonable approach, rather than encouraging individual nations to build nationalistic regimes (all the way down to the "standard messages") in order to protect against potentially "beligerent" neighbours.
Over here in europe we have that ally, it's called NATO.
And despite all its flaws it seems like a more reasonable approach, rather than encouraging individual nations to build nationalistic regimes (all the way down to the "standard messages") in order to protect against potentially "beligerent" neighbours.
You claim to have 'studied lots of history' and then claim that the UK 'bailed out the appeasement nations'!? That Russia 'bailed out' the pacifist nations (whatever they were in Europe at the time)
The UK is known as the appeasement nation. 'I hold in my hand a piece of paper' are the immortal words. When someone says 'appeasement', Chamberlain is the guy who comes to mind.
Russia didn't get a choice to bail anyone out - they were invaded, and through dint of favourable geography and stubborn nationalism, they prevailed.
Russia and the UK were both hastily militarising at the end of the '30s in response to rising German militarisation. And in counter to your earlier idea that in order to be more 'military' a society, you have to have more upper-class people in the military: you claim that Russia was a militant nation at that time, despite the Great Purge removing a solid chunk of the officer corps, including most of the top brass.
Keep in mind that even Russia's allies at the start of WWII considered them a backwater military, unsuited for playing with the 'big boys'.
Honestly, your comments read more as if you're just finding ways to support your predetermined conclusions than incorporating things you should have learned from studying lots of history.
Out of curiousity, who do you frame as an 'appeasement/pacifist' nation in the WWII timeframe? Is it just a jab at the early French surrender, you know, the French who weren't pacifist, but were heavily investing in military defense, just the wrong way? Or is it a jab at (I'll give you these for free) Denmark and Norway, neither of which could stand up to the German military machine, even if they were highly militarised? Surely you're not thinking of Poland, which had a strong-but-outdated military? Certainly not Czechoslovakia - that country had been left to the wolves by the countries you claim 'bailed them out'? Sweden and Switzerland were both pacificst... but didn't need bailing out. Perhaps you mean Benelux... but again, you're talking about small countries being steamrollered by a powerful military using never-before-seen tactics (paratroopers and armored spearheads) which was subsequently able to bring a world power to its knees in only a couple of months?
And despite all this, the US was not highly militarised in the period before WWII, when isolationist politics had led to a reduction in the size of the military. All three nations you report had small or underdeveloped armies (two did have very large navies, but it wasn't the navy that defeated Nazi Germany) in the lead-up to WWII.
When you say you've 'studied lots of history', are you actually delving into the actual events and reading about them, or are you just pulling from 'an interest in the populist zeitgeist mythology'?
Yes, there are no easy answers, but that doesn't mean you should skip the reading requirements...
The UK is known as the appeasement nation. 'I hold in my hand a piece of paper' are the immortal words. When someone says 'appeasement', Chamberlain is the guy who comes to mind.
Russia didn't get a choice to bail anyone out - they were invaded, and through dint of favourable geography and stubborn nationalism, they prevailed.
Russia and the UK were both hastily militarising at the end of the '30s in response to rising German militarisation. And in counter to your earlier idea that in order to be more 'military' a society, you have to have more upper-class people in the military: you claim that Russia was a militant nation at that time, despite the Great Purge removing a solid chunk of the officer corps, including most of the top brass.
Keep in mind that even Russia's allies at the start of WWII considered them a backwater military, unsuited for playing with the 'big boys'.
Honestly, your comments read more as if you're just finding ways to support your predetermined conclusions than incorporating things you should have learned from studying lots of history.
Out of curiousity, who do you frame as an 'appeasement/pacifist' nation in the WWII timeframe? Is it just a jab at the early French surrender, you know, the French who weren't pacifist, but were heavily investing in military defense, just the wrong way? Or is it a jab at (I'll give you these for free) Denmark and Norway, neither of which could stand up to the German military machine, even if they were highly militarised? Surely you're not thinking of Poland, which had a strong-but-outdated military? Certainly not Czechoslovakia - that country had been left to the wolves by the countries you claim 'bailed them out'? Sweden and Switzerland were both pacificst... but didn't need bailing out. Perhaps you mean Benelux... but again, you're talking about small countries being steamrollered by a powerful military using never-before-seen tactics (paratroopers and armored spearheads) which was subsequently able to bring a world power to its knees in only a couple of months?
And despite all this, the US was not highly militarised in the period before WWII, when isolationist politics had led to a reduction in the size of the military. All three nations you report had small or underdeveloped armies (two did have very large navies, but it wasn't the navy that defeated Nazi Germany) in the lead-up to WWII.
When you say you've 'studied lots of history', are you actually delving into the actual events and reading about them, or are you just pulling from 'an interest in the populist zeitgeist mythology'?
Yes, there are no easy answers, but that doesn't mean you should skip the reading requirements...
I don't think I'd let Britain duck the charge of being an "appeasement nation".
Your point of view is not particulary controversial or shocking, or unique to you. But I find little evidence for it and much to the contrary. For example, take a look at WW2 in USA:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12179705
or simply look at birth rates in Israel, a very militarized country.
True purpose of war lies elsewhere. As Orwell said:
The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
And obviously, lots of subjects will internalize values of ruling group and believe that war is good for economy or birth rates ;)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12179705
or simply look at birth rates in Israel, a very militarized country.
True purpose of war lies elsewhere. As Orwell said:
The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
And obviously, lots of subjects will internalize values of ruling group and believe that war is good for economy or birth rates ;)
Have you read "The Fates of Nations" by Paul Colinvaux? It's a fascinating - and disturbing - book, covering the exact topic you are talking about.
But where Colinvaux and myself would disagree with you, is the direction of the cause and effect.
My interpretation is that a society starts off warlike. At some point it either conquers, or is conquered by its neighbors. Once the empire is at its natural borders, war no longer provides a good economic rate of return. People avoid the army and instead go into trade or farming. The imperial peace provides a stable base for commerce and industry. People become rich. As they grow rich, and as the need for martial valor declines, people become more decadent. They spend more on luxuries, they have less need for children. Thus both a decline in fertility and a decline in aggressiveness are symptoms of the underlying cause (war no longer being necessary for survival, and war no longer providing a good rate of return). Eventually though, on the borders of the empire some new, highly fertile, highly aggressive population arises. Meanwhile the old growth civilization has long lost its martial prowess, and each individual resident faces a game theory optimum of continuing the decadence, rather than face the rigors of a martial life. Thus the bordering tribe eventually is strong enough to invade, the old civilization falls, and the cycles of history continue.
But where Colinvaux and myself would disagree with you, is the direction of the cause and effect.
My interpretation is that a society starts off warlike. At some point it either conquers, or is conquered by its neighbors. Once the empire is at its natural borders, war no longer provides a good economic rate of return. People avoid the army and instead go into trade or farming. The imperial peace provides a stable base for commerce and industry. People become rich. As they grow rich, and as the need for martial valor declines, people become more decadent. They spend more on luxuries, they have less need for children. Thus both a decline in fertility and a decline in aggressiveness are symptoms of the underlying cause (war no longer being necessary for survival, and war no longer providing a good rate of return). Eventually though, on the borders of the empire some new, highly fertile, highly aggressive population arises. Meanwhile the old growth civilization has long lost its martial prowess, and each individual resident faces a game theory optimum of continuing the decadence, rather than face the rigors of a martial life. Thus the bordering tribe eventually is strong enough to invade, the old civilization falls, and the cycles of history continue.
According to Robert Wright in his book Non-Zero, future generations of both the conquering bordering tribe and the conquered old civilization (at least, those who survive) will derive benefits from the resulting cross-fertilization of cultures. That, he says, drives the combined civilization further up evolution's escalator. An example that comes to mind is England after the Norman Conquest.
I would dare to hypothesize that America history of immigration and cultural cross pollination could be a framework for a somewhat peaceful means of reaching the same ends.
And apart from a flawed analysis of the Japanese society, on what historical examples are you basing your "theory"?
Oh, and just to have a counter example: Switzerland
Oh, and just to have a counter example: Switzerland
> Oh, and just to have a counter example: Switzerland
The Swiss are a strange bunch of people. As recent (or as long ago) as 500 years Machiavelli was praising their military spirit compared to the mercantile and money-oriented one of his Florentine fellows. He was predicting that the city of Florence's reliance on mercenaries instead of building a military spirit from the bottom up would finally lead to its submission. He was of course proven right, because while the Swiss have managed to preserve their independence through the centuries Tuscany was soon to fall under external dominance, but it begs the question if we would have been better off with a more militarized Florence but presumably less inclined to works of art (so no Michelangelo or Galleria degli Uffizi), or if it's ok that things happened just the way they did. Also, see Sparta vs. Athens.
The Swiss are a strange bunch of people. As recent (or as long ago) as 500 years Machiavelli was praising their military spirit compared to the mercantile and money-oriented one of his Florentine fellows. He was predicting that the city of Florence's reliance on mercenaries instead of building a military spirit from the bottom up would finally lead to its submission. He was of course proven right, because while the Swiss have managed to preserve their independence through the centuries Tuscany was soon to fall under external dominance, but it begs the question if we would have been better off with a more militarized Florence but presumably less inclined to works of art (so no Michelangelo or Galleria degli Uffizi), or if it's ok that things happened just the way they did. Also, see Sparta vs. Athens.
I'm confused by your comment. Are you proposing Switzerland as a "peaceful" country as a counter example? Due to mountainous terrain, they are fairly "isolated"/protected from invasion (one of the points above re what works to provide long term peace) and they also have about 2/3's of the adult (male?) population as part of a standing militia (which is in line somewhat with another point: "military supremacy").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society".
Unknown (at least by me): "A man of peace must be strong".
I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions drawn by the OP but I don't see how Switzerland is some kind of "counter example". Please clarify as I am honestly baffled.
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society".
Unknown (at least by me): "A man of peace must be strong".
I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions drawn by the OP but I don't see how Switzerland is some kind of "counter example". Please clarify as I am honestly baffled.
Thanks.
An armed society is a polite society
Go check out sub-Saharan Africa, and see if that aphorism holds.
If you can think of more than just guns, Switzerland is a counter-example because of its politics - instead of the OP's suggested "Japan should just join in the next war, it's necessary to save it's society", Switzerland has pursued a long policy of neutral politics. It doesn't "simply join in on wars on whatever side looks stronger". It specifically avoids doing so.
Go check out sub-Saharan Africa, and see if that aphorism holds.
If you can think of more than just guns, Switzerland is a counter-example because of its politics - instead of the OP's suggested "Japan should just join in the next war, it's necessary to save it's society", Switzerland has pursued a long policy of neutral politics. It doesn't "simply join in on wars on whatever side looks stronger". It specifically avoids doing so.
There are exceptions to any saying.
I would still be curious to hear exactly what yaix was trying to say. Your assertions don't necessarily cast any light on what they had in mind.
I would still be curious to hear exactly what yaix was trying to say. Your assertions don't necessarily cast any light on what they had in mind.
'exceptions to any saying'?
What I'm pointing out is that it's not the guns that make the society polite. Sub-saharan africa is a vast conglomeration of countries and tribal societies, bigger than the US and Europe combined, and there you are calling it an 'exception'.
And nice job dodging someone trying to help you be less 'baffled'.
What I'm pointing out is that it's not the guns that make the society polite. Sub-saharan africa is a vast conglomeration of countries and tribal societies, bigger than the US and Europe combined, and there you are calling it an 'exception'.
And nice job dodging someone trying to help you be less 'baffled'.
So in the midst of a global recession you are advocating military expansion to increase birthrates even as resources are dwindling. There has been no greater self destruction in recorded history than the second world war, and that's what results from what you advocate. Conveniently, you fail to mention any of the self destructed nations. God awful.
World War II was indeed the greatest tragedy and mistake in all of human history. The start of the war, the conduct of the war, and the conclusion of the war were all disasters, killing millions, destroying millions of people's lives, and finally delivering millions into the clutches of totalitarianism.
No, no one sane would advocate for another WWII.
However, a nation that implodes is also incredibly unpleasant. The most well-known is going from Rome to the Dark Ages. This path should also be avoided.
Re: resource scarcity, it's counter-mainstream but I'm not sure that's correct... net actionable resources might even be increasing - see, ex, all the energy that can now be gotten out of thorium. If you're a believer in cold fusion being possible (hot fusion already is possible, but isn't economical) then fossil fuels are basically a non-issue. But that's a long conversation. Suffice to say, I think the Earth can prosperously contain many more people than today, and that if it did so, it would be more prosperous. Much moreso, actually, since all gain comes from talented people and groups doing interesting things. But that's a long conversation.
Anyways. My argument is "completely pacifist societies seem to self-destruct" - there are a few rare exceptions that are extremely mountainous or islands or mountainous islands. Even they have some defense forces. But yes, I think a small amount of militarization goes a long ways towards having a more healthy nation that isn't self-destructing, which is important.
No, no one sane would advocate for another WWII.
However, a nation that implodes is also incredibly unpleasant. The most well-known is going from Rome to the Dark Ages. This path should also be avoided.
Re: resource scarcity, it's counter-mainstream but I'm not sure that's correct... net actionable resources might even be increasing - see, ex, all the energy that can now be gotten out of thorium. If you're a believer in cold fusion being possible (hot fusion already is possible, but isn't economical) then fossil fuels are basically a non-issue. But that's a long conversation. Suffice to say, I think the Earth can prosperously contain many more people than today, and that if it did so, it would be more prosperous. Much moreso, actually, since all gain comes from talented people and groups doing interesting things. But that's a long conversation.
Anyways. My argument is "completely pacifist societies seem to self-destruct" - there are a few rare exceptions that are extremely mountainous or islands or mountainous islands. Even they have some defense forces. But yes, I think a small amount of militarization goes a long ways towards having a more healthy nation that isn't self-destructing, which is important.
Oswald Spengler made a similar argument in 1918:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
It was also one of the main factors Edward Gibbon blamed in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. However he had a somewhat different mechanism in mind than lionhearted's comment: he argued that Romans, as they got wealthy, no longer wished to personally serve in the military, so they hired mercenaries instead, which had the three effects of reducing the military readiness of normal Romans, filling the army with less loyal foreigners, and increasing the tax burden on agriculture. (It's worth noting that there's a lot of debate among later historians over whether that's the correct analysis.)
> Oswald Spengler made a similar argument in 1918
Not really, his main argument was that the western society has lost control of its technology. We (the west) are like a horse carriage where the driver has been thrown of and the horses (technology) are driving the carriage (us) in a wild ride towards the cliff. [An updated version of this philosophical thinking is Bill Joy's Grey Goo article "Why the future doesn't need us." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html]
Not really, his main argument was that the western society has lost control of its technology. We (the west) are like a horse carriage where the driver has been thrown of and the horses (technology) are driving the carriage (us) in a wild ride towards the cliff. [An updated version of this philosophical thinking is Bill Joy's Grey Goo article "Why the future doesn't need us." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html]
You have become lost in high level reasoning. This theory is akin to saying that wakefullness is caused by sleep, therefore if you are sleepy and want to stay awake, the way to fix that is to go to sleep, so that you can wake up. True, but not profound, because the problem was how you could avoid sleep in the first place.
On the other hand, considering that humans are on top of the food chain, maybe what you describe is a good thing (and we have it in our genes):
Population can not grow forever on a planet with a limited amount of resorces. So people either stop having children, or begin killing each other.
Population can not grow forever on a planet with a limited amount of resorces. So people either stop having children, or begin killing each other.
malthusian arguments have been debunked. humans are wealth producing, not destroying.
"Humanity grows exponentially, food production grows linearly" has not been debunked. People have starved in the last few decades, and we barely managed to avoid a widespread catastrophe through a big one-time upgrade to the best farming techniques known. How many other improvements are left before we reach biology's productivity limits? How long until we run low on natural gas to make fertilizer, having long since mined the pre-existing fertility from the soil?
Almost every case famine during last few decades had to do with some kind of local conflict (e.g. local gangs interfering with delivery of food aid) as opposed to resource shortage. Developed countries produce much more food than they need and then consume it in a very inefficient way. Growing grain and using it to feed livestock as opposed to consuming grain directly is one such example. Earth could comfortably support much large population than we have now.
But what if we actually want to eat meat? What if we want a TV? A refrigerator? A dishwasher? A mobile phone? A car?
Being both a carnivore and a big consumer electronics junkie I can relate to your argument. I was mostly answering to parent poster's comment about people starving. However I'm a big believer in technology being able to overcome that kinds of limits. Here's an excellent essay illustrating how 15 billion people could be supported at the level of American living standards:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html
(As a nice bonus, this is written by John McCarthy, the inventor of LISP).
(As a nice bonus, this is written by John McCarthy, the inventor of LISP).
But on the other hand, people want more and more wealth. For example, I cannot imagine myself living today without a washing machine. Yet 50 years ago it would have been considered a luxury.
> humans are wealth producing, not destroying.
Why should this statement be independent of the number of humans in the world?
Why should this statement be independent of the number of humans in the world?
You may very likely have been right about it in the past, but at least in Europe, two world wars essentially killed any military spirit left -- for everybody. There are no barbarians at the gates, they have all been (mostly) civilized.
With regard to the rest of the western world, I think the kind of large scale war you talk about is permanently over -- both because it would be far too expensive for everybody and because there is no winning a nuclear war.
With regard to the rest of the western world, I think the kind of large scale war you talk about is permanently over -- both because it would be far too expensive for everybody and because there is no winning a nuclear war.
I'm not so sure about your view of Europe. I agree that a large scale war in Western Europe, especially involving Germany like the ones in the 19th and first half of the 20th century seem extremely unlikely. But Europe is larger than that.
The war in Yugoslavia was not so long ago, for one thing.
For another, Hungary got itself a nice extreme right regime that seems rather keen to transform the country into an authoritarian state. What if they decide, at some point, that the land occupied by some of the Magyars in neighboring countries should really belong to Hungary again?
Keeping the peace in Europe is far from a finished project.
The war in Yugoslavia was not so long ago, for one thing.
For another, Hungary got itself a nice extreme right regime that seems rather keen to transform the country into an authoritarian state. What if they decide, at some point, that the land occupied by some of the Magyars in neighboring countries should really belong to Hungary again?
Keeping the peace in Europe is far from a finished project.
>There are no barbarians at the gates, they have all been (mostly) civilized.
Given the resurgence of nationalism and right movements holding anti-immigration feelings in Europe right now, that's far from an universal opinion. According to these guys, our gates are wide open and the barbarians are breeding in our backyards. Barbarians being, of course, undesirable immigrants from poor third-world countries, not cool white guys from across the pond.
Given the resurgence of nationalism and right movements holding anti-immigration feelings in Europe right now, that's far from an universal opinion. According to these guys, our gates are wide open and the barbarians are breeding in our backyards. Barbarians being, of course, undesirable immigrants from poor third-world countries, not cool white guys from across the pond.
Your tone makes it sound like you're dismissing some of the concerns that have given rise to these movements. Make no mistake: importing a large class of people with differing values to society at large will carry frictional costs. How you deal with those costs is much more serious than just calling people racists can solve.
> There are no barbarians at the gates, they have all been (mostly) civilized.
We still have the same "barbarians" as we always had. For the last two decades we just happened to be in a little better relations with them.
There is currently a war in progress in Libya in which one side is supported by the European forces. In 2008 Russian army entered parts of Georgia, mere 15 years after the Red Army was pulled from Eastern Europe.
Nothing changed. It never does.
> I think the kind of large scale war you talk about is permanently over
I agree that large-scale warfare is currently not very likely but I don't think it was ever that common as the twentieth century had led us to believe.
We still have the same "barbarians" as we always had. For the last two decades we just happened to be in a little better relations with them.
There is currently a war in progress in Libya in which one side is supported by the European forces. In 2008 Russian army entered parts of Georgia, mere 15 years after the Red Army was pulled from Eastern Europe.
Nothing changed. It never does.
> I think the kind of large scale war you talk about is permanently over
I agree that large-scale warfare is currently not very likely but I don't think it was ever that common as the twentieth century had led us to believe.
A great point, but not very controversial. Mainstream historians often propose that the USA's late 20th century economic, technical, and military prowess was a direct result of WWII.
As far as Japan goes - IMO their population is too old to solve the problem on their own. No matter how much propaganda you feed them, 50 year old women cannot have 4 kids.
As far as Japan goes - IMO their population is too old to solve the problem on their own. No matter how much propaganda you feed them, 50 year old women cannot have 4 kids.
Japan isn't completely devoid of fertile women. If you convinced them all to want six kids the population would rebound pretty impressively. Hell, my great grandmother had twelve children, and it wasn't that uncommon at the time.
Personally I think the Japanese population will rebound without any meddling. Every large population has sub-populations of people who have lots of kids. Think Mormons in the US. Eventually one or more of these sub-populations will have enough critical mass to affect the overall fertility rate.
In terms of militarization, well, the Japanese navy is still the most powerful navy in Asia. It would make pretty short work of the Chinese navy in any conflict out of range of Chinese land-based aircraft. Just calling a navy a "naval self defense force" doesn't mean it can't hold its own in a fight. This will still be true even when the Shi Lang is fully operational, though I agree the trends are in China's favor.
Personally I think the Japanese population will rebound without any meddling. Every large population has sub-populations of people who have lots of kids. Think Mormons in the US. Eventually one or more of these sub-populations will have enough critical mass to affect the overall fertility rate.
In terms of militarization, well, the Japanese navy is still the most powerful navy in Asia. It would make pretty short work of the Chinese navy in any conflict out of range of Chinese land-based aircraft. Just calling a navy a "naval self defense force" doesn't mean it can't hold its own in a fight. This will still be true even when the Shi Lang is fully operational, though I agree the trends are in China's favor.
I think that today, it's hard to learn from history about such things because of some disruptive changes that happen to war and politics.
1. Democracy
According to the democratic peace theory[1], two stable , long term democracies, rarely or never go to war between them.
2. Nuclear weapons
The threat of nuclear weapons does change the rules of war substantially. I can't see a peaceful nation, that has nuclear weapons , totally conquered by an enemy.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
1. Democracy
According to the democratic peace theory[1], two stable , long term democracies, rarely or never go to war between them.
2. Nuclear weapons
The threat of nuclear weapons does change the rules of war substantially. I can't see a peaceful nation, that has nuclear weapons , totally conquered by an enemy.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
I can't see a peaceful nation, that has nuclear weapons , totally conquered by an enemy
Then we are doomed to conquer ourselves. Or at least, be totally conquered in the economic sector. I don't think we can use nuclear warheads to settle China's stake in the US, lest we receive a serious credit downgrade from S&P.
P.S. It's funny because it's true.
Then we are doomed to conquer ourselves. Or at least, be totally conquered in the economic sector. I don't think we can use nuclear warheads to settle China's stake in the US, lest we receive a serious credit downgrade from S&P.
P.S. It's funny because it's true.
Well, what's China going to do as we print our way out of our debt to them? If they get bellicose, then our nukes will come in handy. If they sit there and take what will essentially be a default on our debt via printing, then will be be conquered by them economically?
What will happen is no other country will invest in us again, and considering our addiction to debt, we will run into some... problems.
Heck, if we inflate our currency aggressively enough, other countries could wind up simply not accepting our money. It's hard to imagine today, but it's a real possibility- the value and purchasing power of your money is entirely rooted in everyone else's confidence in it's stability.
Heck, if we inflate our currency aggressively enough, other countries could wind up simply not accepting our money. It's hard to imagine today, but it's a real possibility- the value and purchasing power of your money is entirely rooted in everyone else's confidence in it's stability.
There is no way other countries would stop accepting the US$, as long as the US has things that those other countries want to buy. The US has a lot of those things ranging from food to high-tech, so there's absolutely no risk that other countries would totally reject the US currency.
Yes, the exchange rates may well decline further, and this will force you to reduce your net imports - but that's only fair. You can only profit from other countries' work for so long without sending something tangible in return.
And as far as the "addiction to debt" is concerned, it gets a bit old to repeat the same things over and over again, but have you heard of the sectoral balances? Analyze the flows of money between the three macroeconomic sectors (the federal government, the domestic private sector, and the foreign sector), and it should become clear to you that the massive increase in debt over the last two years is simply a reflection of the fact that the US private sector has managed to amass insane amounts of wealth. [1]
The distribution of that wealth may be very lopsided, but then it's the distribution of that wealth that needs to be challenged, not the buildup of debt.
[1] Part of the debt build-up obviously also reflects foreign holdings, but the one thing that really stands out in the last few years in the US is how the private sector has gone from a deficit to a surplus as people attempt to fix their balance sheets.
Yes, the exchange rates may well decline further, and this will force you to reduce your net imports - but that's only fair. You can only profit from other countries' work for so long without sending something tangible in return.
And as far as the "addiction to debt" is concerned, it gets a bit old to repeat the same things over and over again, but have you heard of the sectoral balances? Analyze the flows of money between the three macroeconomic sectors (the federal government, the domestic private sector, and the foreign sector), and it should become clear to you that the massive increase in debt over the last two years is simply a reflection of the fact that the US private sector has managed to amass insane amounts of wealth. [1]
The distribution of that wealth may be very lopsided, but then it's the distribution of that wealth that needs to be challenged, not the buildup of debt.
[1] Part of the debt build-up obviously also reflects foreign holdings, but the one thing that really stands out in the last few years in the US is how the private sector has gone from a deficit to a surplus as people attempt to fix their balance sheets.
> What will happen is no other country will invest in us again
Again? Over what time period?
I think an investment ban, even one widely hailed as a good thing would fall apart within 30 years of its inception.
Governments change, companies rise and fall, and people die. After a while, others would be looking at America and asking "hmmm why don't we invest in those guys, they're a whole different generation different from their parents".
Again? Over what time period?
I think an investment ban, even one widely hailed as a good thing would fall apart within 30 years of its inception.
Governments change, companies rise and fall, and people die. After a while, others would be looking at America and asking "hmmm why don't we invest in those guys, they're a whole different generation different from their parents".
> I can't see a peaceful nation, that has nuclear weapons , totally conquered by an enemy.
You don't need soldiers to control a country a puppet dictator will do.
You don't need soldiers to control a country a puppet dictator will do.
"its consequences will be exacerbated by the sex-selective abortion practised for a generation there."
Or, more likely, it's part of the cause. Maybe women in Asia are delaying marriage in part because they have more leverage, similarly to the black men in the U.S. who aren't in prison.
Or, more likely, it's part of the cause. Maybe women in Asia are delaying marriage in part because they have more leverage, similarly to the black men in the U.S. who aren't in prison.
Interesting idea. I'd love to hear more about the birth rate numbers historically. I wasn't aware that any large societies experienced sub-replacement fertility levels until the late 20th century, which are typically attributed to the empowerment of women (education, entering workforce, legal equality, etc.), huge reduction in infant mortality, and strong economies/social safety nets.
I don't have source handy, but I remember reading that the middle and upper classes had sub-replacement fertility in the late Roman Empire. You need to investigate differences within societies too. In pre-modern times there was a much more significant break, both culturally and militarily, between the upper (and middle where they existed) and the lower classes (which were often effectively slaves, even if not called that).
[deleted]
History always repeats itself. If you know about the history of ancient China, your theory makes sense to some extent. Smart rulers could have the country in his (and his offspring's) control for more than 300 years. Bad ones could merely last for 100 years.
As another poster remarked, strong nations adopting a warlike attitude to preserve their vigor is probably not going to work out well in a world full of nukes and bioweapons. If that becomes a popular approach, we're all dead.
It's an interesting claim. I don't think I buy it--the U.S. is entering our period of decline right now, and our belligerence is, if anything, accelerating that--but maybe you'll make a longer argument with examples on your blog.
It's an interesting claim. I don't think I buy it--the U.S. is entering our period of decline right now, and our belligerence is, if anything, accelerating that--but maybe you'll make a longer argument with examples on your blog.
Perhaps US entered its period of decline a long time ago and it's only now that all the good work of past generations has been undone.
The last few wars were attempts to strengthen the US - quite frankly Oil really is more valuable for the US than winning the title of prom king.
Regardless of your or my personal opinion on what the war is doing there can be little doubt that Iraqi and Afghanistani Oil is going to play a huge part in the US keeping its position in the world.
The thing that actually unsettled things is that the Wall Street people got out of control and made too many inroads into the Government and started stealing from the Average American.
The last few wars were attempts to strengthen the US - quite frankly Oil really is more valuable for the US than winning the title of prom king.
Regardless of your or my personal opinion on what the war is doing there can be little doubt that Iraqi and Afghanistani Oil is going to play a huge part in the US keeping its position in the world.
The thing that actually unsettled things is that the Wall Street people got out of control and made too many inroads into the Government and started stealing from the Average American.
Also see Athen's bellicose behavior wrt its "empire" (the Delian league) which lead directly to its decline and eventual defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Or Rome is the fourth century. Or many other ancient examples...
Great theory. Having lived on 3 continents and observed how countries and people behave and reading lots of history -> There might be a lot of truth to what you say.
The standard quote about all the peace in Switzerland leading to nothing other than the Cuckoo Clock and all the strife in Italy leading to the Renaissance comes to mind.
*
As human beings we want to give 'meaning' to our lives and underplay the role genetics and survival of the fittest play.
We also want to pretend that we don't have a baser nature and that we can 100% 'civilize' ourselves.
So we often make the wrong assumption that the perfect natural state is perfect harmony where everyone taps into some global 'peace wave frequency'.
Is it possible? Who knows.
It's just interesting that it's never happened. Ever. There has never been a point of time when the entire world was at peace. There are always wars because human nature never changes - no amount of 'civilizing' can change that, nor can everyone pretending that we are flawless perfect peace-loving creatures.
The standard quote about all the peace in Switzerland leading to nothing other than the Cuckoo Clock and all the strife in Italy leading to the Renaissance comes to mind.
*
As human beings we want to give 'meaning' to our lives and underplay the role genetics and survival of the fittest play.
We also want to pretend that we don't have a baser nature and that we can 100% 'civilize' ourselves.
So we often make the wrong assumption that the perfect natural state is perfect harmony where everyone taps into some global 'peace wave frequency'.
Is it possible? Who knows.
It's just interesting that it's never happened. Ever. There has never been a point of time when the entire world was at peace. There are always wars because human nature never changes - no amount of 'civilizing' can change that, nor can everyone pretending that we are flawless perfect peace-loving creatures.
Orson Wells came up with that line in the motion picture _The Third Man_. The screenwriters didn't come up with it. The author of the original novel didn't come up with it either (though he liked it). There was a space of time in the film that needed to be filled, so Orson Wells filled it.
The full quote is:
Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love — they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
The full quote is:
Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love — they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
The problem is, we've reached the unique point in our history where one major war can be the end of all wars. With so many nuclear armed countries it is a really bad idea of thinking about another major war. One major war could start a chain reaction that could easily send us back to the stone age, if we even make it. So much for progress.
The thing is that all countries eventually collapse just like all things eventually collapse. Remember, stars die too. I could easily make the claim that a lot of countries destroy themselves in a time of war. The loser of a war doesn't always rises from the ashes.
A nation probably has a timespan that it can be alive. Eventually it will just die and a new one will be formed.
Finally, correlation is not causation. Just because the two seem to show up together doesn't mean that one causes the other. It is an interesting idea though.
The thing is that all countries eventually collapse just like all things eventually collapse. Remember, stars die too. I could easily make the claim that a lot of countries destroy themselves in a time of war. The loser of a war doesn't always rises from the ashes.
A nation probably has a timespan that it can be alive. Eventually it will just die and a new one will be formed.
Finally, correlation is not causation. Just because the two seem to show up together doesn't mean that one causes the other. It is an interesting idea though.
Tunisia is self-destructing, has one of the world highest divorce rate, slow birth rate that will make it disappear if not solved early, more than 10% of the population working/living abroad, and enough social/life mess that I/my friends want to somehow leave the country and live in another place.
Yet, we did no wars, made no commercial/art explosion (even food we don't produce).
It's not about wars, allies or anything else. I summarize it to the following:
- Justice: Yes, justice is point number one. You must have justice.
- Values: That's why religion works, it keeps values deep inside and transmit them from a generation to another.
- Education: To avoid mess, and poverty.
Military? No, you don't really need it. You need values. Look at 2006 war between Isreal and a few folks in Huzb Allah. Isreal has the strongest military in the region, along with support from the USA and Liban (gov), yet they failed.
Yet, we did no wars, made no commercial/art explosion (even food we don't produce).
It's not about wars, allies or anything else. I summarize it to the following:
- Justice: Yes, justice is point number one. You must have justice.
- Values: That's why religion works, it keeps values deep inside and transmit them from a generation to another.
- Education: To avoid mess, and poverty.
Military? No, you don't really need it. You need values. Look at 2006 war between Isreal and a few folks in Huzb Allah. Isreal has the strongest military in the region, along with support from the USA and Liban (gov), yet they failed.
>- Values: That's why religion works, it keeps values deep inside and transmit them from a generation to another.
More people have died on armed conflicts in the name of religion than for any other reason. National Socialism, for example, is a drop in the bucket compared to it.
In the 'States, non-religious people are much less likely to be in jail.
Religion is great at transmitting values, no doubt, but it's usually the wrong ones.
More people have died on armed conflicts in the name of religion than for any other reason. National Socialism, for example, is a drop in the bucket compared to it.
In the 'States, non-religious people are much less likely to be in jail.
Religion is great at transmitting values, no doubt, but it's usually the wrong ones.
Let's not turn this into an atheism circle-jerk. I really don't come to Hacker News for this...
You have no idea what the relevant numbers are. The estimated loss of life during the Crusades ranges from 3-10 million lives. Current estimates place the Russian loss of life alone from WWII at 19.5 million.
This[1] page puts the sum of deaths of religious wars at 800 million.
[1]: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm
[1]: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm
[deleted]
> I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before.
Nietzsche represented this point of view better in his 'Will to Power' back in the 19th century. In the decades since, a lot of paper was devoted to criticism of his work.
Also, one nation that actually tried to live by his principles failed spectacularly.
Nietzsche represented this point of view better in his 'Will to Power' back in the 19th century. In the decades since, a lot of paper was devoted to criticism of his work.
Also, one nation that actually tried to live by his principles failed spectacularly.
I expect that it's not a theory well supported by data.
I would expect that peaceful societies are conquered by warlike societies, at a lower rate than warlike societies are conquered by other warlike societies.
Logically this ought to be true since (a) the conditions for long standing peace should necessarily mean either a protection from warmongers due to natural geography or political reality and (b) warlike societies seek out conflict and each conflict carries with it the chance of societal death.
I would expect that peaceful societies are conquered by warlike societies, at a lower rate than warlike societies are conquered by other warlike societies.
Logically this ought to be true since (a) the conditions for long standing peace should necessarily mean either a protection from warmongers due to natural geography or political reality and (b) warlike societies seek out conflict and each conflict carries with it the chance of societal death.
So what exactly have you seen that makes you lead to this conclusion?
The theory you have can be noticed by other travellers and students of history; so I would have to ask: what have you observed and analyzed that led you to this conclusion?
The theory you have can be noticed by other travellers and students of history; so I would have to ask: what have you observed and analyzed that led you to this conclusion?
Your theory fits with continued economic growth of United States.
I've heard this thesis before, but I can't find a link. It was put in terms of patriarchal versus matriarchal societies. It posited the same sort of cycle.
In other words, when women have more economic freedom.
Interesting observation - I think another way to describe this phenomenon is that every society has to convince it's members to accept their individual role as members of society in order for it to function (you might argue that is society's only purpose). We can't all be kings, senators, business tycoons, etc. -- someone has to be the janitor or the street sweeper or the factory worker, and society's basic purpose is to re-enforce the individual's choice in accepting their fate.
Long enough ago, this was as simple as raising certain classes and races of people as slaves and telling them what to do and enforcing it with violence. However it seems that no matter how much you try to control it, societies eventually achieve enough self-awareness of the general inequality of things to revolt and re-order society to make things more fair. The next system of control is then instituted, and is seen as a vast improvement, and thus accepted by those who rebelled against the previous, even though it may be simply a more complex version of the previous system (slave-owners/slaves,land-owners/indentured servants,royalty/peasants,ruling class/working class, etc.).
In this way, I believe it's similar to the quote from HHGTTG: "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." I think that what happens is every time a society reaches the level of self-awareness required to realize what's happening to them and has the will to change it, a simply more complicated and harder to understand and harder to destroy system ends up replacing it.
I think in this way, you can describe the cyclical nature of societies coming and going, and applying the reasons behind this fundamental change, understand why your theory of war being beneficial fits right in: war simply leaves no room for questioning society's demands of the individual. The reason this works is that members of a militarized or war-time society are indoctrinated, and those who end up members of the military trained from day one to obey orders and follow authority. After leaving the military, if you do you happen to survive and get out of the war, working a factory job and having a few kids is damn near paradise compared to the hell you went through. It is a very effective way to keep individuals from questioning their place in society or the fairness of it's structure and thus why I think it has the society-prolonging effect you've observed. War shifts individual's thinking from long-term (career, legacy, mark on the world, children's future) to short term (survival, employment, simply procreating).
If you buy into any of what I am saying, you might also hypothesize that the U.S came close to becoming self-aware of and motivated to change it's societal inequalities around 2008 with the reaction to the Government bail-outs and the housing market crash. I think the only reason that energy hasn't really gone anywhere yet is twofold: 1) With the economy in the shape it's in, it makes those who are employed more happy with their current employment situation than usual, and more unlikely to try to change things in general, since they are "lucky to even have a job in this economy", and aren't really feeling the inequality in their day to day lives. And it's not bad enough to where mass unemployment is giving people enough free time to organize and actually try to restructure the way our government works. 2) The act of electing public officials to office helps stave off the idea that "we need to restructure society" as it lets people restructure a symbol of society to them. Elections act as a relief valve for political pressure, since it allows people to 1) have input and make changes and 2) it buys time for the newly elected official to "get settled" in their office before people become dissatisfied again or economic/societal conditions improve, whichever comes first.
Sources: Just my theory on the matter, please point out where I am wrong (I'm sure I am in more than one way)
Long enough ago, this was as simple as raising certain classes and races of people as slaves and telling them what to do and enforcing it with violence. However it seems that no matter how much you try to control it, societies eventually achieve enough self-awareness of the general inequality of things to revolt and re-order society to make things more fair. The next system of control is then instituted, and is seen as a vast improvement, and thus accepted by those who rebelled against the previous, even though it may be simply a more complex version of the previous system (slave-owners/slaves,land-owners/indentured servants,royalty/peasants,ruling class/working class, etc.).
In this way, I believe it's similar to the quote from HHGTTG: "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." I think that what happens is every time a society reaches the level of self-awareness required to realize what's happening to them and has the will to change it, a simply more complicated and harder to understand and harder to destroy system ends up replacing it.
I think in this way, you can describe the cyclical nature of societies coming and going, and applying the reasons behind this fundamental change, understand why your theory of war being beneficial fits right in: war simply leaves no room for questioning society's demands of the individual. The reason this works is that members of a militarized or war-time society are indoctrinated, and those who end up members of the military trained from day one to obey orders and follow authority. After leaving the military, if you do you happen to survive and get out of the war, working a factory job and having a few kids is damn near paradise compared to the hell you went through. It is a very effective way to keep individuals from questioning their place in society or the fairness of it's structure and thus why I think it has the society-prolonging effect you've observed. War shifts individual's thinking from long-term (career, legacy, mark on the world, children's future) to short term (survival, employment, simply procreating).
If you buy into any of what I am saying, you might also hypothesize that the U.S came close to becoming self-aware of and motivated to change it's societal inequalities around 2008 with the reaction to the Government bail-outs and the housing market crash. I think the only reason that energy hasn't really gone anywhere yet is twofold: 1) With the economy in the shape it's in, it makes those who are employed more happy with their current employment situation than usual, and more unlikely to try to change things in general, since they are "lucky to even have a job in this economy", and aren't really feeling the inequality in their day to day lives. And it's not bad enough to where mass unemployment is giving people enough free time to organize and actually try to restructure the way our government works. 2) The act of electing public officials to office helps stave off the idea that "we need to restructure society" as it lets people restructure a symbol of society to them. Elections act as a relief valve for political pressure, since it allows people to 1) have input and make changes and 2) it buys time for the newly elected official to "get settled" in their office before people become dissatisfied again or economic/societal conditions improve, whichever comes first.
Sources: Just my theory on the matter, please point out where I am wrong (I'm sure I am in more than one way)
There is a significant body of work done by Lev Gumilev on the death and genesis of ethnoi (the cyclical nature of societies, as You've put it). It will certainly let you see things from a different perspective.
Sadly, most of his books weren't translated from russian. One that I could find is http://www.amazon.com/Ethnogenesis-biosphere-L-N-Gumilev/dp/....
EDIT: found a free on-line version of the book - http://cossackweb.narod.ru/gumilev/contents.htm
Sadly, most of his books weren't translated from russian. One that I could find is http://www.amazon.com/Ethnogenesis-biosphere-L-N-Gumilev/dp/....
EDIT: found a free on-line version of the book - http://cossackweb.narod.ru/gumilev/contents.htm
thanks, will definitely check this out!
One of the Roman emperors did this. He ensured there was perpetual war in order to unify Rome.
Also a theme that shows up in 1984.
Also a theme that shows up in 1984.
I think p̶e̶a̶c̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ societies self-destruct.
I actually really agree with you. But- I don't think Japan can re-militarize without essentially declaring war on America. Part of the treaty we set up at the end of WWII and all.
Wait... Maybe that means the reason they are declining is because we neutered them...?
P.S. I suspect the reason your theory has not been explored much in public writings is because it has an implied support of continued military activity, funding and dominance, which is a very unpopular position in the US today. Ironically, probably because we reside exactly in the part of your described cycle corresponding with military decline!
Wait... Maybe that means the reason they are declining is because we neutered them...?
P.S. I suspect the reason your theory has not been explored much in public writings is because it has an implied support of continued military activity, funding and dominance, which is a very unpopular position in the US today. Ironically, probably because we reside exactly in the part of your described cycle corresponding with military decline!
> I don't think they can re-militarize without declaring war on America. Part of the treaty we set up at the end of WWII and all.
I think things have sufficiently changed since the 1940's that re-militarizing could happen without too much hostility, given good diplomacy with USA and China.
I actually think America would like another friendly military power in the Pacific.
It might lead to diplomatic tension, but there's like a 0% chance it'd lead to a declaration of war. They've got their hands way, way too full elsewhere.
I think things have sufficiently changed since the 1940's that re-militarizing could happen without too much hostility, given good diplomacy with USA and China.
I actually think America would like another friendly military power in the Pacific.
It might lead to diplomatic tension, but there's like a 0% chance it'd lead to a declaration of war. They've got their hands way, way too full elsewhere.
What are they going to do with a military? Why not just go through Tokyo with a baseball bat and break as many windows as possible? That'll put people to work without risking the peace.
I don't disagree with your thesis that peaceful societies tend to amuse themselves to death, but I don't see how military spending is a magical way out of that trap, unless you go looking for trouble.
I don't disagree with your thesis that peaceful societies tend to amuse themselves to death, but I don't see how military spending is a magical way out of that trap, unless you go looking for trouble.
Good for them. More people need to reject this archaic sexist tradition. Legal enforcement of the fantasy notion of "true love for life" is damn near barbaric.
If you and your partner can swing it, more power to you, but social pressure on others to place themselves into legally binding situations revolving around this notion is something that need to die.
In the west (at least the states) these are legally binding arrangements that are heavily biased against males, but if women are rejecting that in Asia then all the better.
If you and your partner can swing it, more power to you, but social pressure on others to place themselves into legally binding situations revolving around this notion is something that need to die.
In the west (at least the states) these are legally binding arrangements that are heavily biased against males, but if women are rejecting that in Asia then all the better.
Whether or not marriage as an institution is biased against males or females (honestly, it seems to be biased against both) I am always astounded by people who see no value whatsoever in marriage.
America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it?
Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, and the world is full of roses and daisies!" it would be a ridiculous sham. But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that.
(Not to mention, kids are a thing we kind of need as a species, and I think most everyone is familiar with the plight of single parents)
America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it?
Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, and the world is full of roses and daisies!" it would be a ridiculous sham. But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that.
(Not to mention, kids are a thing we kind of need as a species, and I think most everyone is familiar with the plight of single parents)
I don't think that marriage in USA is biased against anyone. But the divorce is HEAVILY biased agains men. For example, more than 70% of divorces are initiated by women, while they also get the custody of the children 90% of the time.
When it comes for child support, it's even worse. If in a family the husband begins to get a lower salary due to the state of the economy, then everybody should/will spend less. But if a divorced father gets a lower salary, "the child's standard of living must not change". Did you earn $200,000 per year pre-divorce, and now you barely can find work for $50,000? Too bad for you, you'll have to get an extra job to be able to pay the same amount of child support. If you fail to pay, you get to jail, but the support payments accumulate, so when you get out you'll be in even more debt, which will land you back in jail, and so on. And of course, this whole time, you will be considered a "deadbeat dad".
BTW, I was shocked to find out that, in some states, men* have to pay lifetime alimony. With all due respect, guys who get married on these terms are insane.
When it comes for child support, it's even worse. If in a family the husband begins to get a lower salary due to the state of the economy, then everybody should/will spend less. But if a divorced father gets a lower salary, "the child's standard of living must not change". Did you earn $200,000 per year pre-divorce, and now you barely can find work for $50,000? Too bad for you, you'll have to get an extra job to be able to pay the same amount of child support. If you fail to pay, you get to jail, but the support payments accumulate, so when you get out you'll be in even more debt, which will land you back in jail, and so on. And of course, this whole time, you will be considered a "deadbeat dad".
BTW, I was shocked to find out that, in some states, men* have to pay lifetime alimony. With all due respect, guys who get married on these terms are insane.
Marriage itself can be quite biased against males in the states. I have a friend who's wife successfully divorced him because she was not being "sexually satisfied". If a male tried to do the same, people would scream "domestic rape". Expectations of each sex, viewed through the lense of the courts, are very uneven.
And of course after the divorce the situation only becomes more dire.
And of course after the divorce the situation only becomes more dire.
If only that was the worst of cases. My mind is continually blown by the cases in which husband catches wife cheating, husband sues for divorce, wife gets custody, half of assets and alimony.
please cite your sources
This is one of those things teetering on the edge of "public knowledge". I have never met a single person who believes women receive the short end of the stick in divorce. In fact the only complaint from the women's end of things I've ever heard is '50% of his income is not enough'.
It is of course anecdotal, but as best I can tell, it is anecdotal evidence that is shared by every person in America- aka, 'public knowledge'.
It is of course anecdotal, but as best I can tell, it is anecdotal evidence that is shared by every person in America- aka, 'public knowledge'.
I won't base too much too heavily on it. The idea that blacks were sub-human was once "public knowledge" because everyone had an anecdote about a black person doing something stupid.
It should be stated that:
* 'Common sense' is not necessarily common.
* 'Public knowledge' doesn't always match up to reality and can often be influenced by social biases (i.e. you may only remember the cases of a man getting the shaft in a divorce, but easily forget the ones where he makes out like a bandit).
It should be stated that:
* 'Common sense' is not necessarily common.
* 'Public knowledge' doesn't always match up to reality and can often be influenced by social biases (i.e. you may only remember the cases of a man getting the shaft in a divorce, but easily forget the ones where he makes out like a bandit).
http://web.archive.org/web/20070627182454/http://www.grant-t...
^60% of divorce settlements favorable to women, 40% even, 10% favorable to men. UK, 2004.
http://www.attorneys.com/legal_center/articles/child_custody...
^10-15% of men have sole custody of children
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html
^3.6% of alimony recipients are male, 2006
I am not a fountain of sources, so I hope this will do for now.
A fun story illustrating how weird things are getting: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-or...
^60% of divorce settlements favorable to women, 40% even, 10% favorable to men. UK, 2004.
http://www.attorneys.com/legal_center/articles/child_custody...
^10-15% of men have sole custody of children
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html
^3.6% of alimony recipients are male, 2006
I am not a fountain of sources, so I hope this will do for now.
A fun story illustrating how weird things are getting: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-or...
1. I agree that most divorce proceedings do favor women.
2. As a friend of an attorney who tells me that most of his male clients never seek custody and don't even petition for visitation rights until the CS payments start coming due this is completely inline with our society. I'm sorry, but once the divorce is finished most guys just want to move on with their life, the family they had becomes an encumberment. Most would prefer to be free to start over than continue being reminded of a failed relationship. That's just the way it is.
3. The primary purpose of the act of having sex is reproduction. The courts have already decided that every time you have sex you implicitly agree that a baby might result. It doesn't matter if it's oral, anal, or vaginal if someone gets pregnant out of it you can't back out you've already given consent. Even before reading the article I already knew the outcome, skimming to the bottom confirmed 30-40 years of court cases on the same matter.
2. As a friend of an attorney who tells me that most of his male clients never seek custody and don't even petition for visitation rights until the CS payments start coming due this is completely inline with our society. I'm sorry, but once the divorce is finished most guys just want to move on with their life, the family they had becomes an encumberment. Most would prefer to be free to start over than continue being reminded of a failed relationship. That's just the way it is.
3. The primary purpose of the act of having sex is reproduction. The courts have already decided that every time you have sex you implicitly agree that a baby might result. It doesn't matter if it's oral, anal, or vaginal if someone gets pregnant out of it you can't back out you've already given consent. Even before reading the article I already knew the outcome, skimming to the bottom confirmed 30-40 years of court cases on the same matter.
Point #3 is not entirely true. The article seemed to imply that the law was all about advocating for the child, instead of pandering to a disagreement between the biological parents at the (possible) expense of the child.
This implies that I may not even need to have sex to be forced into child support payments. For example, what if someone sneaks into my bedroom at night (or maybe we're sharing a hotel room while travelling) and is able to make off with some semen while I sleep? By the legal argument that we must advocate for the child, I would be forced into child support. Sure, I could attempt to seek some sort of relief from the mother for what she did, but that would be completely separate from whether or not I am legally obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years.
Maybe all men should be forced to wear locks on their genitalia lest some crazy woman somewhere decide that they want to force the man to create a child?
This implies that I may not even need to have sex to be forced into child support payments. For example, what if someone sneaks into my bedroom at night (or maybe we're sharing a hotel room while travelling) and is able to make off with some semen while I sleep? By the legal argument that we must advocate for the child, I would be forced into child support. Sure, I could attempt to seek some sort of relief from the mother for what she did, but that would be completely separate from whether or not I am legally obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years.
Maybe all men should be forced to wear locks on their genitalia lest some crazy woman somewhere decide that they want to force the man to create a child?
There was actually another case I don't have a link to at the moment where a guy passed out drunk at a party and a women he had never met essentially raped him in his sleep. Yup, he was forced to pay child support too.
some crazy woman somewhere decide that they want to force the man to create a child?
The third verse of every other rap song is about this very topic.
The third verse of every other rap song is about this very topic.
Imprison the woman for rape and get full custody due to criminal ineligibility of the woman? (And being in prison at the time). Then when she get's out of jail you get child support payments. It sucks to have some stranger's child, but usually women who do this know the man in some way.
That would require convicting the woman for rape. Good luck with that.
I love children, but as a specie, we've secured our dominant position on this planet a long time ago. There's over 7 billion of us now. If children isn't your thing, why bring some into the world, and risk neglecting them?
The main problems are these:
1) Due to social values, we build momentum. If marriage ceases to happen and children cease to be born, 50 years from now we won't have 50 million fewer people- we'll have 1 billion fewer people, and it will take decades to reverse the trend. (made-up numbers, but I hope you take my point)
2) It's not just about protecting the species. We have a tiny bit of a Ponzi scheme going. The young support the old, and as a result graphs like this: http://japanfocus.org/data/fig3.jpg (Japan's population) As a taxpayer, make your blood run cold.
1) Due to social values, we build momentum. If marriage ceases to happen and children cease to be born, 50 years from now we won't have 50 million fewer people- we'll have 1 billion fewer people, and it will take decades to reverse the trend. (made-up numbers, but I hope you take my point)
2) It's not just about protecting the species. We have a tiny bit of a Ponzi scheme going. The young support the old, and as a result graphs like this: http://japanfocus.org/data/fig3.jpg (Japan's population) As a taxpayer, make your blood run cold.
1) I understand your point, but according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
It only took a decade to go from 6 to 7 billion. We can build up a population in the blink of an eye.
2) Do parents have children to bring more tax payers into the world? :) Ponzi scheme or not, people taking the time to establish themselves first means fewer children, but also fewer neglected children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
It only took a decade to go from 6 to 7 billion. We can build up a population in the blink of an eye.
2) Do parents have children to bring more tax payers into the world? :) Ponzi scheme or not, people taking the time to establish themselves first means fewer children, but also fewer neglected children.
Do parents have children to bring more tax payers into the world? :)
You say it like it's a silly idea, but not long ago people in America had children expressly for the purpose of helping around the farm, and in Asian cultures there is still an explicit overtone that parents have children so that they have someone to depend upon in old age.
And by 'explicit overtone', I mean your parents say it to your face and you become a social pariah if you abandon your family- at least as best I understand it from my Asian friends.
You say it like it's a silly idea, but not long ago people in America had children expressly for the purpose of helping around the farm, and in Asian cultures there is still an explicit overtone that parents have children so that they have someone to depend upon in old age.
And by 'explicit overtone', I mean your parents say it to your face and you become a social pariah if you abandon your family- at least as best I understand it from my Asian friends.
Agreed, in asia a family unit is not just parents and their children. It involves, grandparents, and great grandparents if they are around. It's not a "you have to take care of me" kind of a deal but something like "family takes care of itself" -> when you have kids, grandparents help out actively in raising them, then you are adults you help your parents, physicall, financially. Families often have assets stowed away as a collective unit.
surprisingly enough, 'species' is both the singular and plural form of the word.
In what sense are we the dominant species?
You can "handle things as a team" without bringing into bring into the equation the full force of a modern judiciary system and a stone-age property rights system.
The judiciary system and stone-age property system instill a certain permanence. It is much harder to give everything you've got when the other party can up and walk away whenever they please. Maybe in modern times we have better solutions than a modern judiciary system, but the system is the way it is for a reason.
Would you co-found a company without the full force of a modern judiciary system?
I wouldn't co-found a company with someone I had an emotional attachment to.
"But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that."
I agree! Why do those links have to be marital? I'm not sure they have to be. Which is why the we need to be more open.
I agree! Why do those links have to be marital? I'm not sure they have to be. Which is why the we need to be more open.
because, marital/blood link are more stronger than open/causal links.
janees' grammar is terrible, but he's not entirely wrong. We like to think we are above 'foolish' things like being related to people, but as my grandparents have put it, my brothers will always be my brothers. That is one thing that cannot change- and somehow, that is special. Call me base, call me old-fashioned, but I have come to feel that blood ties are not as imaginary as I used to believe.
If you want a concrete reason that "blood" ties are non-imaginary, there's kin selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
I think "true love for life" is a very american possibly western fairy tale. In asia it's more like "a partnership in the ups and downs of life" and is centered on creating a solid foundation to raise a happy and prosperous family.
Like everything else, it's good to have diversity. Like you say, it is too socially and possibly legally costly to discuss openly other arrangements. The pressures need to relax to allow other lifestyles blossom.
It's not about being able to talk about it on the Internet or with friends. Imagine the hacker who has a business and unusual lifestyle. Can she be open with it without fear of judgment from investors and the community? I like to think she can, but I'm not so sure. Even if so, does that hold on a more general level?
It's not about being able to talk about it on the Internet or with friends. Imagine the hacker who has a business and unusual lifestyle. Can she be open with it without fear of judgment from investors and the community? I like to think she can, but I'm not so sure. Even if so, does that hold on a more general level?
Just curious -- how does this mindset handle having kids that grow up in a loving and positive environment?
Do what they do in other civilized countries like France... allow non-marriage unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarité
The union isn't just for same-sex couples, but also for non-standard families like say siblings w.o parents and such... it would be perfect as it eschews traditional mores and keeps the good part of marriages.
The union isn't just for same-sex couples, but also for non-standard families like say siblings w.o parents and such... it would be perfect as it eschews traditional mores and keeps the good part of marriages.
Sorry let me explain -- I'm not talking about a lack of marriage, but lack of a stable union. The incentive to "give up" is so much stronger when you can just leave when (not "if") life's ubiquitous unpredictable and uncontrollable difficulties arise. So naturally there's a much greater chance of not having that positive environment...
And what I'm saying is that the PACS (the french civil union) is actually a very strong contract, just not bound up with traditional titles and roles like {husband=breadwinner,wife=homemaker}. In fact today, over 95% of civil unions in France are heterosexual couples:
"Although originally intended for same-sex couples, currently in France the majority of couples taking advantage of its law are now heterosexual couples who for one reason or another choose civil union rather than marriage, and that more heterosexual couples are opting for civil union rather than marriage. In fact, this trend was already in place in 2000, with 75% of unions between heterosexual couples (42% the previous years) and 95% in 2009."
If these folks didn't have the stability of an enforceable social contract (and tax benefits), most probably wouldn't marry either.
"Although originally intended for same-sex couples, currently in France the majority of couples taking advantage of its law are now heterosexual couples who for one reason or another choose civil union rather than marriage, and that more heterosexual couples are opting for civil union rather than marriage. In fact, this trend was already in place in 2000, with 75% of unions between heterosexual couples (42% the previous years) and 95% in 2009."
If these folks didn't have the stability of an enforceable social contract (and tax benefits), most probably wouldn't marry either.
It is an unrelated topic.
Let me clarify- you are saying that children are unrelated to marriage?
You know full well what I am saying. The concept of legally binding marriage and a "loving and positive environment" are fundamentally unrelated.
Little Johnny doesn't know or care if the government sanctions his parental figures' relationship. In fact, the only case in which Little Johnny might become aware of the governments involvement is when the resulting legal/social/economic pressure causes a dramatic deterioration of this "loving and positive environment".
Little Johnny doesn't know or care if the government sanctions his parental figures' relationship. In fact, the only case in which Little Johnny might become aware of the governments involvement is when the resulting legal/social/economic pressure causes a dramatic deterioration of this "loving and positive environment".
I suggest you extrapolate just a tad more next time. I may have a good guess at what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you don't need to say it.
[deleted]
this happens largely because contract law is ignored by judges whenever contracts violate their ideals. activist judges are a very serious issue that has huge costs for society. corporations are resorting to third party arbitration because enforcement of contracts by the prevailing legal system is not reliable.
activists judges are a serious issue?
yes, unreliable enforcement of contract terms discourages investment.
A friend of mine has lived in Japan teaching one-on-one English lessons for a number of years. A good chunk of his customers are recently married women. Their husbands don't want them to work, but with nothing to do at home they end up taking English lessons out of a desperate need to find something mentally stimulating to pass the hours.
"So far, the trend has not affected Asia’s two giants, China and India."
It is not fair to label a trend as "Asian" when you need to exclude China and India.
It is not fair to label a trend as "Asian" when you need to exclude China and India.
Actually the first trend of delayed marriage age is now very much evidence in India. Working professionals are marrying at quite a late age - 35 for boys and 30 for girls is now very common. This is very quickly going to turn into the rejection of marriage trend mentioned in the article. So in case of India it is only a question of when not if.
Where are you pulling that data from? The Article makes no mention of average marrying age for Indians. Anecdotally,as a middle class Indian - I see average marrying age for Males around 27-30 and for females 25-28.
And again, Indian values are quite different from Japanese, Chinese or Thai values.
And again, Indian values are quite different from Japanese, Chinese or Thai values.
Makes me wonder of the biological implications for the children to-be-born
What would you label it as then? SingaJapaTaiwaVietnian?
Besides, you can always argue that the trend simply hasn't penetrated the larger entities yet, but will in the future.
Besides, you can always argue that the trend simply hasn't penetrated the larger entities yet, but will in the future.
East Asian would do just fine. Just because the largest land mass in the world contains lots of people does not mean we have to label them together.
George Gilder's "Naked Nomad's" is a great book studying single men in America. Unmarried men own the majority of bad statistical categories to be in. Higher death, suicide, crime, and disease rates. No society wants that burden.
This could also mean that women avoid getting married to men who are prone to "higher death, suicide, crime, and disease rates". For example, how many women would really get married to a hobo?
Yeah, selection bias. Not just shiftless hobos, either. As a man you're going to have a harder time finding a wife if you're sick or have unhealthy habits (like obesity or heavy drinking).
Edit: I expect the same is true for single women, too. I doubt single women live as long as their married counterparts on a statistical basis.
Edit: I expect the same is true for single women, too. I doubt single women live as long as their married counterparts on a statistical basis.
On a crude statistical basis children born out of wedlock don't fare too well either, yet the Economist article paints them as some kind of Western demographic advantage.
I haven't read the book so I wouldn't know whether the Gilder successfully separates cause from effect when examining unmarried men, but extrapolating his conclusions to Asia may be difficult anyway. On the one hand it may be rather more socially unacceptable to be unmarried over a certain age in Asia but on the other, unmarried men at the bottom of the social pile will perhaps be heartened by the relative prevalence and social acceptability of the sex industry. Then you have the vast differences between crime and suicide rates in general.
I haven't read the book so I wouldn't know whether the Gilder successfully separates cause from effect when examining unmarried men, but extrapolating his conclusions to Asia may be difficult anyway. On the one hand it may be rather more socially unacceptable to be unmarried over a certain age in Asia but on the other, unmarried men at the bottom of the social pile will perhaps be heartened by the relative prevalence and social acceptability of the sex industry. Then you have the vast differences between crime and suicide rates in general.
On a crude statistical basis children born out of wedlock don't fare too well either,...
True, but the crude statistical basis fails to account for wealth (and to a lesser extent race). In the US, marriage is for rich people. Since the children of rich people fare well in general, the bias here is obvious.
I'd love to see stats comparing children born out of wedlock holding income and race fixed.
True, but the crude statistical basis fails to account for wealth (and to a lesser extent race). In the US, marriage is for rich people. Since the children of rich people fare well in general, the bias here is obvious.
I'd love to see stats comparing children born out of wedlock holding income and race fixed.
I believe that book used to be titled Men and Marriage, right? Essential social science book, I agree.
EDIT: Actually, I see now that those are two different books. Men and Marriage was a re-titling of Gilder's Sexual Suicide, and the sequel to Naked Nomads.
EDIT: Actually, I see now that those are two different books. Men and Marriage was a re-titling of Gilder's Sexual Suicide, and the sequel to Naked Nomads.
Is it really the women who are avoiding marriage?
Do this experiment: go to a newspaper stand and look for magazines about weddings. Look for books about marriage. I have never ever seen one addressed to men (there are ones which seem to be, but on a quick glance I actually think they were written to feed the women's ego), which means IMHO that men wouldn't spend money on subjects like these. Meanwhile you sholdn't be surprised to find at least half a dozen for women. So I really really doubt that men are more willing to marry EITHER.
I would actually dare to say that men were (and still are) the ones who don't really care about marriage.
Do this experiment: go to a newspaper stand and look for magazines about weddings. Look for books about marriage. I have never ever seen one addressed to men (there are ones which seem to be, but on a quick glance I actually think they were written to feed the women's ego), which means IMHO that men wouldn't spend money on subjects like these. Meanwhile you sholdn't be surprised to find at least half a dozen for women. So I really really doubt that men are more willing to marry EITHER.
I would actually dare to say that men were (and still are) the ones who don't really care about marriage.
If someone likes marriage as a concept and a form of art, doesn't mean they want to be married themselves, now and with all the implications.
By analogy: many women enjoy and write slash stories about male homosexuality, which they obviously can't participate in. Same for wedding stories, dresses and shots.
By analogy: many women enjoy and write slash stories about male homosexuality, which they obviously can't participate in. Same for wedding stories, dresses and shots.
"Japanese women, who typically work 40 hours a week in the office, then do, on average, another 30 hours of housework. Their husbands, on average, do three hours."
"Marriage socialises men: it is associated with lower levels of testosterone and less criminal behaviour. Less marriage might mean more crime."
"Marriage socialises men: it is associated with lower levels of testosterone and less criminal behaviour. Less marriage might mean more crime."
And the proof is...? How about, more crime might mean less marriage?
I know it's not about Asia, but: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/05/us-work-couples-pr...
"London School of Economics sociologist Catherine Hakim's research shows that when both paid work and unpaid duties such as housework, care and voluntary work are taken into account, men do pull their own weight."
I know it's not about Asia, but: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/05/us-work-couples-pr...
"London School of Economics sociologist Catherine Hakim's research shows that when both paid work and unpaid duties such as housework, care and voluntary work are taken into account, men do pull their own weight."
The "women do more housework" thing has been debunked over and over, at least in the west. You can only arrive at that conclusion by excluding traditional "man's work" jobs like yard work and car repair.
On the other hand, I have heard Japanese and Chinese men say they expect their wives to do all the housework, so maybe there really is a difference.
On the other hand, I have heard Japanese and Chinese men say they expect their wives to do all the housework, so maybe there really is a difference.
Now hold on there. Just because the employed member of the family puts in 60+ hours per week at the office doesn't mean they should do any less work around the house...
Whaaat? So are you basically saying that one shold do half of the house chores no matter how much he/she works at their job? If one spouse is unemployed, and the other spouse works 60 hrs you consider it fair only when each does 50% of the house work?
Sorry, but sarcasm doesn't really work over the web.
[deleted]
Yes, an aging population might be worrisome on the surface, but I find overpopulation more worrying. Therefore, I am happy that people in really populated countries are having less babies overall!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE
Longer (but more boring) version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=relat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE
Longer (but more boring) version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=relat...
I am married to a Japanese and live here right now, so I can only comment on the situation of the country.
I will try to give an economical assessment of the situation. As you might be aware Japan had a “lost decade” during the 90s. It experienced almost no growth of the GDP. There are many theories as to why, but the most convincing one is: The Japanese “Baby Boomers” retired during this decade. In fact the percentage of workers in the population (age 15-64) decreased by 5.6% during this time, as the number of retirees increased by 10.7%. http://goo.gl/kVZxB
What does this have to do with anything? / What happens when you have fewer people in the expected working age? 2 things happen:
My wife held a managerial position before our son was born, amongst her friends hardly any of them want to stay single, they simply don’t have a choice. If they want to sustain their current life standard, marriage would be impossible. One man working has a hard time providing for his wife, kids, paying for a decent home & the mandatory elderly taxes. The taxes are almost 2000 USD per person / year, no matter if employed, or not. And those are just to pay for the pensions; insurances, social etc. come on top of that.
Many women still life / moved back in with their parents, even in their late 40es. It is not because they want to, or cannot find a partner (many of them look quite stunning). The pensions simply don’t suffice and they feel obliged to support their parents. The same holds true for many men.
I very much disagree with the statement that women in Japan enjoy their single life so much, as they choose not to marry. I have yet to meet a Japanese woman, who will state this. Compared to Europe, where this kind of ideology is quite common.
Edit:
Japanese women are expected to do 90% of the housework, where as American women will “only” do 60% of the work. http://goo.gl/qj64W This fact and the very big distance Japanese develop for their spouses are certainly not helping. http://goo.gl/QlAfx Surprisingly no women I ever conversed with, complained about this lack of love between a married couple, on the contrary it is expected by the women. And it often leads to problems in marriages with foreigners.
Edit #2:
If my experience with the Japanese Culture is in any way representative employing more men in the military will be the worst thing imaginable. The country has a deficit of 180% /GDP and every person in the army is one person less doing productive work to keep country afloat.
Edit #3:
When the "Baby Boom" generation will retire in the United states, do you expect the country to sustain a positive GDP? This would mean that every person working will have to work harder and produce more just to reach 0 growth. Something the Japanese managed to do. The only solution to this is immigration, something Japan is battling against.
What does this have to do with anything? / What happens when you have fewer people in the expected working age? 2 things happen:
1. More people have to work
2. People have to work longer
My wife held a managerial position before our son was born, amongst her friends hardly any of them want to stay single, they simply don’t have a choice. If they want to sustain their current life standard, marriage would be impossible. One man working has a hard time providing for his wife, kids, paying for a decent home & the mandatory elderly taxes. The taxes are almost 2000 USD per person / year, no matter if employed, or not. And those are just to pay for the pensions; insurances, social etc. come on top of that.
Many women still life / moved back in with their parents, even in their late 40es. It is not because they want to, or cannot find a partner (many of them look quite stunning). The pensions simply don’t suffice and they feel obliged to support their parents. The same holds true for many men.
I very much disagree with the statement that women in Japan enjoy their single life so much, as they choose not to marry. I have yet to meet a Japanese woman, who will state this. Compared to Europe, where this kind of ideology is quite common.
Edit:
Japanese women are expected to do 90% of the housework, where as American women will “only” do 60% of the work. http://goo.gl/qj64W This fact and the very big distance Japanese develop for their spouses are certainly not helping. http://goo.gl/QlAfx Surprisingly no women I ever conversed with, complained about this lack of love between a married couple, on the contrary it is expected by the women. And it often leads to problems in marriages with foreigners.
Edit #2:
If my experience with the Japanese Culture is in any way representative employing more men in the military will be the worst thing imaginable. The country has a deficit of 180% /GDP and every person in the army is one person less doing productive work to keep country afloat.
Edit #3:
When the "Baby Boom" generation will retire in the United states, do you expect the country to sustain a positive GDP? This would mean that every person working will have to work harder and produce more just to reach 0 growth. Something the Japanese managed to do. The only solution to this is immigration, something Japan is battling against.
The Japanese insistence on working 80 hours a week is also doing much to kill marriage, and families for that matter. You can't have a successful marriage when you're at work or at a (mandatory) after-work drinking session with your idiot and over-the-hill boss. I'm not convinced the government can do much about this either, since it certainly isn't a matter of legislation or enforcement and labor protection is (or can be) quite strong in Japan. Rather the Japanese will typically voluntarily submit to these awful practices. When the government fact-finding commission tasked with finding out why Japanese will take on onerous working hours when they are often encouraged not to, itself wound up working people 80+ hours each week, what can you possibly do?
I love it here and I'm not going anywhere, but this is not a problem with any clear solution. And if its impact on marriage is as large as I suspect, marriages aren't going to get any healthier soon, either.
I love it here and I'm not going anywhere, but this is not a problem with any clear solution. And if its impact on marriage is as large as I suspect, marriages aren't going to get any healthier soon, either.
Can you elaborate on this "mandatory elderly tax"? I've never heard of such a thing.
I choose to mention the nickname Japanese have for this tax. Really it is the municipal-tax which is either 7% (I think) of the income, or minimum of 180 USD/month (in my area, in Tokyo it is higher). The tax is used for the local infrastructure, but has risen dramatically in the past years to cover the costs of pensions. Therefor it got the nickname "elderly tax".
Wouldn't massive immigration solve the problem very rapidly?
Edit: Never mind. I just saw your third edit.
Edit: Never mind. I just saw your third edit.
I'm curious about the problems that Japanese women have when marrying foreigners stemming from the women expecting a loveless marriage. Could you elaborate? I am assuming that you are not Japanese from your opening sentence. Have you encountered these problems in your marriage?
Your assumption is correct, I am European.
I don’t feel comfortable to discuss private things in public, but I will state some facts. In my social circle there were 8 marriages between Japanese (all women) and foreigners. 4 ended in the past 3 years and were mainly attributed to different expectations of intimacy. The article http://goo.gl/QlAfx gives a very good description. I am unable to find a reputable source, but if you search for the frequency of intercourse, Japan will always be the lowest on the list. Japanese simply don’t want / need to have sex. Furthermore mentioning that you “love” someone is very uncommon. Frequent physical contact (e.g. hugging) with spouses / kids is not expected. It is a different culture.
I don’t feel comfortable to discuss private things in public, but I will state some facts. In my social circle there were 8 marriages between Japanese (all women) and foreigners. 4 ended in the past 3 years and were mainly attributed to different expectations of intimacy. The article http://goo.gl/QlAfx gives a very good description. I am unable to find a reputable source, but if you search for the frequency of intercourse, Japan will always be the lowest on the list. Japanese simply don’t want / need to have sex. Furthermore mentioning that you “love” someone is very uncommon. Frequent physical contact (e.g. hugging) with spouses / kids is not expected. It is a different culture.
Japanese don't need/want sex? Surely the Japanese are as horny as the rest of us. You'd have to come up with some pretty convincing data (surveys aren't worth anything when asking questions about sex) to convince me that there is some great difference in libido between Western and Eastern cultures.
There is no data other than surveys I could think of to prove this “allegation”. I am sorry; you will have to remain unconvinced.
On a side note, I did not believe it either. But the fact that a couple would want to have sex every week, or even more never ceased to blow the mind of Japanese people I talked to.
On a side note, I did not believe it either. But the fact that a couple would want to have sex every week, or even more never ceased to blow the mind of Japanese people I talked to.
Could this be repressed sexuality? How can one explain the fact that Japanese produce some of the weirdest and sickest fetish porn?
The difference could be less in libido and more in the general state one finishes the day. After a series of 12~14h work day for example, you're usually not longing for a night of sex.
Now there must be thousands of other possible factors, but it is commonly accepted as a stereotype that 10 or 20 years couple would be sexless.
I don't agree that Japanese don't want sex. How else do you explain love hotels being found everywhere?
Shame culture. Japanese couples are ashamed that their neighbors might notice something. Therefor they prefer to go to some anonymous place. Furthermore have you ever been to an average Tokyo, Osaka flat? They are incredibly tiny and the most unromantic surrounding imaginable.
One of your links http://goo.gl/QlAfx is interesting, because it states what "marriage" means. Western means love, eastern means children.
I was confused, because here (Germany) a marriages have financial advantages (less taxes). Having children is the expensive thing. So i wondered, why someone would reject a marriage for financial reasons. However, if marriage means children, then i understand the rejection.
I was confused, because here (Germany) a marriages have financial advantages (less taxes). Having children is the expensive thing. So i wondered, why someone would reject a marriage for financial reasons. However, if marriage means children, then i understand the rejection.
As you might be aware Japan had a “lost decade” during the 90s. It experienced almost no growth of the GDP. There are many theories as to why, but the most convincing one is: The Japanese “Baby Boomers” retired during this decade.
Richard Koo has a different view on this, one that should also inform the thinking in the US and rest of the Western world these days. According to him, the Japanese "lost decade" was caused by an asset price bubble collapse in housing. The parallels to the global financial crisis are fascinating.
See, for example, his talk which is linked here: http://seekerblog.com/2009/04/11/richard-koo-more-on-the-bal...
Richard Koo has a different view on this, one that should also inform the thinking in the US and rest of the Western world these days. According to him, the Japanese "lost decade" was caused by an asset price bubble collapse in housing. The parallels to the global financial crisis are fascinating.
See, for example, his talk which is linked here: http://seekerblog.com/2009/04/11/richard-koo-more-on-the-bal...
Yes I am aware of this point of view. I think, the trigger for the lost decade can be attributed to the housing bubble. Yet, the almost complete stop in the GDP's growth and the complete immunity to monetary stimuli (~0% interest rate for 20 years) are impossible to explain by the bubble collapse.
~0% interest rate doesn't imply monetary stimulus. At least not when the rate gets hiked as soon as inflation goes over 0% or so, which is what the Bank of Japan has been doing.
In other words, BoJ has _explicitly_ targeted stable to falling prices in its monetary policy. That's not monetary stimulus; that's just contractionary policy. What interest rate target they use to implement that policy isn't really relevant.
In other words, BoJ has _explicitly_ targeted stable to falling prices in its monetary policy. That's not monetary stimulus; that's just contractionary policy. What interest rate target they use to implement that policy isn't really relevant.
It would have been useful if this article had taken into account the fact that the laws of certain SE Asian countries (i.e., the Philippines) do not provide for divorce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_around_the_world#Ph...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_around_the_world#Ph...
However annulments are increasingly easier to get. Cost about $4K USD from what I understand and a lot of paperwork.
> in Bangkok, 20% of 40-44-year old women are not married
In Bangkok, 20% of the women you see in couple on streets are part of a woman-woman couple, holding hands - usually one with short hair and a shirt, and one with long hair and a dress - something I've never seen as prevalent anywhere else in the world, and something the locals don't look twice at.
In Bangkok, 20% of the women you see in couple on streets are part of a woman-woman couple, holding hands - usually one with short hair and a shirt, and one with long hair and a dress - something I've never seen as prevalent anywhere else in the world, and something the locals don't look twice at.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
I believe marriage and career are mutually exclusive for women in Asia
Seems to me that the article missed the most central point. Let's start with a little, simple, relevant background:
(1) In the past, e.g., in tribal or agricultural communities, women had children whether they really 'wanted' to or not.
(2) Now in more industrialized countries, a significant fraction of women have some options. Some women still have children but some women do not want to have children and do not.
(3) The change in number of children per woman is a 900 pound gorilla in the room: The article mentioned numbers under 2 children per women with a rate a low as 1 child per woman. There is some recent data that Finland is at 1.5 children per woman.
Of course, for any rate much under 2, each 20 years or so the population will be going down significantly. "Get your old houses, furniture, dishes, baby clothes, etc. cheap, cheap, cheap!".
So, net, heavily women who don't want to have children won't. These women will be 'weak, sick, dead limbs on the tree' and will be pruning their genes from the tree. What will be left are women who, given the choice, actually, effectively WANT to have children.
The big point: After a few such generations, we will be left with a much smaller population with many fewer women but nearly all of whom WANT to have children. Then the population will start growing again.
One more big, surprising point: We are now, in much of the world, in the most rapid change in the gene pool of the last 40,000 or so years.
Where did the 40,000 come from? Humans walked out of Africa back there somewhere. At one point, ballpark 40,000 years ago, they reached, say, India. One branch went west to Western Europe, and another branch went east to China and Japan. Mostly the two branches haven't much mixed since then.
Okay, at the common branch, ballpark 40,000 years ago, what were women like? Well, take women from Japan and women from Western Europe. Take some 'characteristic' in common, say, desire of a major fraction of the women, given an economic opportunity, not to have children. Now, start in either Japan or Western Europe and count genetic 'changes' on this 'characteristic' going backwards in the tree to the common branch, about 40,000 years ago, and, then, continuing to count changes, going forward in the other branch of the tree to the present.
So, if on this characteristic the women in Japan and Western Europe are close, that is, have few changes, then on this characteristic the common ancestor 40,000 years ago has still fewer, that is, is closer to the women in both Japan and Western Europe than they are to each other.
Net, since a significant fraction of women in both Japan and Western Europe will, given an economic opportunity, choose not to have children, that is, these women are close to each other, both are still closer to their common ancestor 40,000 years ago. So, for 40,000 years, many women had children not really because they 'wanted' to but because of economic necessity.
So, now that women who don't really want to have children are being pruned from the tree, we are, on this characteristic, in the most rapid change in the human gene pool of the past 40,000 years. And, the change is VERY rapid, should have a huge effect in just a few generations, say, just 100 years, which on the scale of 40,000 years, is FAST.
(1) In the past, e.g., in tribal or agricultural communities, women had children whether they really 'wanted' to or not.
(2) Now in more industrialized countries, a significant fraction of women have some options. Some women still have children but some women do not want to have children and do not.
(3) The change in number of children per woman is a 900 pound gorilla in the room: The article mentioned numbers under 2 children per women with a rate a low as 1 child per woman. There is some recent data that Finland is at 1.5 children per woman.
Of course, for any rate much under 2, each 20 years or so the population will be going down significantly. "Get your old houses, furniture, dishes, baby clothes, etc. cheap, cheap, cheap!".
So, net, heavily women who don't want to have children won't. These women will be 'weak, sick, dead limbs on the tree' and will be pruning their genes from the tree. What will be left are women who, given the choice, actually, effectively WANT to have children.
The big point: After a few such generations, we will be left with a much smaller population with many fewer women but nearly all of whom WANT to have children. Then the population will start growing again.
One more big, surprising point: We are now, in much of the world, in the most rapid change in the gene pool of the last 40,000 or so years.
Where did the 40,000 come from? Humans walked out of Africa back there somewhere. At one point, ballpark 40,000 years ago, they reached, say, India. One branch went west to Western Europe, and another branch went east to China and Japan. Mostly the two branches haven't much mixed since then.
Okay, at the common branch, ballpark 40,000 years ago, what were women like? Well, take women from Japan and women from Western Europe. Take some 'characteristic' in common, say, desire of a major fraction of the women, given an economic opportunity, not to have children. Now, start in either Japan or Western Europe and count genetic 'changes' on this 'characteristic' going backwards in the tree to the common branch, about 40,000 years ago, and, then, continuing to count changes, going forward in the other branch of the tree to the present.
So, if on this characteristic the women in Japan and Western Europe are close, that is, have few changes, then on this characteristic the common ancestor 40,000 years ago has still fewer, that is, is closer to the women in both Japan and Western Europe than they are to each other.
Net, since a significant fraction of women in both Japan and Western Europe will, given an economic opportunity, choose not to have children, that is, these women are close to each other, both are still closer to their common ancestor 40,000 years ago. So, for 40,000 years, many women had children not really because they 'wanted' to but because of economic necessity.
So, now that women who don't really want to have children are being pruned from the tree, we are, on this characteristic, in the most rapid change in the human gene pool of the past 40,000 years. And, the change is VERY rapid, should have a huge effect in just a few generations, say, just 100 years, which on the scale of 40,000 years, is FAST.
> After a few such generations, we will be left with a much smaller population with many fewer women but nearly all of whom WANT to have children. Then the population will start growing again.
This is a fascinating and well-thought-out analysis, but it seems to make two potentially-dangerous assumptions:
1) It assumes that those women who really WANT to have children, have this desire mainly because of their genetic heritage.
Unfortunately, we don't know enough about human motivation to be able to say this with any confidence.
Even if the vast majority of a generation of women really wanted to have children, I don't know how we could confidently predict that their daughters would feel the same way.
2) The analysis assumes that such a genetic trait is inherited maternally. If instead the trait comes from a mix of the mother's and father's genes, or even from the father alone (let alone a combination of genetics and environment), we probably won't know how to predict what will happen N generations on.
This is a fascinating and well-thought-out analysis, but it seems to make two potentially-dangerous assumptions:
1) It assumes that those women who really WANT to have children, have this desire mainly because of their genetic heritage.
Unfortunately, we don't know enough about human motivation to be able to say this with any confidence.
Even if the vast majority of a generation of women really wanted to have children, I don't know how we could confidently predict that their daughters would feel the same way.
2) The analysis assumes that such a genetic trait is inherited maternally. If instead the trait comes from a mix of the mother's and father's genes, or even from the father alone (let alone a combination of genetics and environment), we probably won't know how to predict what will happen N generations on.
Nice points. Okay, I revise my argument! What will be left are genes, in the society, in both men and women as required, that make the people, men and women as required, really WANT to have babies! Then back to my argument: The population will shrink on the way there and then will grow again.
There is another point on my side: It is commonly accepted that what children do is a mixture of both 'nature' (genes) and 'nurture' (that is, what they learned from their parents). There are common, strong suggestions that a daughter of a women who is really happy being a mommy is more likely to want to be a mommy. So, net, for a woman to WANT to have children can have come down from nature or nurture.
In my experience, some women REALLY want to have children, and some women REALLY do NOT want to have children. When I was in the ninth grade, I met and dated a girl in the seventh grade, natural blond, great figure, very sweet, who REALLY wanted to have children, knew it, admitted it. E.g., each time she saw the face of a baby with its common characteristics, she wanted to have a baby. Now, I'm not saying that she wanted to have a baby there in the seventh grade, but she wanted to be a MOMMY eventually. And she was, eventually.
And I've known women who had children or not and, in both cases, looked at motherhood as "giving up the best years of their lives and their careers doing low grade, menial scut work to take care of some MAN'S [bitter resentment and anger about the man] children". Sure, the position was partly just negotiations as "don't throw me into that briar patch" but also was meaningfully genuine.
Net, now, some women WANT to be mommies, and some don't. Does this situation inherit, via nature and/or nurture? My observations say that it does. My observations are not very good data, but if the observations are roughly correct then we conclude that the effect, even if weak, could be how Mother Nature will "find a way".
More generally I have confidence that Mother Nature will 'win' this one, will meet the challenge, will "find a way"!
While I believe that the 'way' I mentioned, that women WANT to have children, and that this will get passed from mother to daughter, is the one Mother Nature will select, there can be other ways. E.g., a society can get rid of anything like US Social Security and, thus, tell people in stark terms that they need to have children as a source of support in old age. A society can tell girls that it does not support single women or single mothers and, net, girls should look for good husbands or hope that they have good brothers or have good inheritance from their fathers.. There can be a role for some traditional religions that strongly emphasize 'traditional family values' and having children, whether the women want to or not. Some people might say that the result will not be a change in the gene pool but in the popularity of some religious, social, and/or political values.
Or one might just say that the 'Darwinian' effect will apply to whole societies, e.g., Finland: Finland beat Sweden, Russia, and Germany in wars but is losing out to the 'feminists'! Whatever the politics, at 1.5 children per woman, Finland is on the way out of it as surely as some genocide. So, maybe it's countries that will die off instead of people with the wrong genes. Still, I trust the influence of genes more than that of politics.
Your issue of "N generations on" is interesting: In part my analysis is saying that the women were much the same 40,000 years ago, which would be about N = 2000 generations! So, it would seem that we could extrapolate a few generations from the N = 2000 generations! But, in part my analysis is saying that, if you will, the current, big 'environmenal' changes, i.e., from women having jobs, will bring the biggest changes in the gene pool in 40,000 years and bring the changes very quickly, in, say, just a few generations, say, just 100 years. My reading of evolution is that, when the 'enviroment' changes, then genes can change very quickly. E.g., the genes in some of those weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree are already gone forever.
There is another point on my side: It is commonly accepted that what children do is a mixture of both 'nature' (genes) and 'nurture' (that is, what they learned from their parents). There are common, strong suggestions that a daughter of a women who is really happy being a mommy is more likely to want to be a mommy. So, net, for a woman to WANT to have children can have come down from nature or nurture.
In my experience, some women REALLY want to have children, and some women REALLY do NOT want to have children. When I was in the ninth grade, I met and dated a girl in the seventh grade, natural blond, great figure, very sweet, who REALLY wanted to have children, knew it, admitted it. E.g., each time she saw the face of a baby with its common characteristics, she wanted to have a baby. Now, I'm not saying that she wanted to have a baby there in the seventh grade, but she wanted to be a MOMMY eventually. And she was, eventually.
And I've known women who had children or not and, in both cases, looked at motherhood as "giving up the best years of their lives and their careers doing low grade, menial scut work to take care of some MAN'S [bitter resentment and anger about the man] children". Sure, the position was partly just negotiations as "don't throw me into that briar patch" but also was meaningfully genuine.
Net, now, some women WANT to be mommies, and some don't. Does this situation inherit, via nature and/or nurture? My observations say that it does. My observations are not very good data, but if the observations are roughly correct then we conclude that the effect, even if weak, could be how Mother Nature will "find a way".
More generally I have confidence that Mother Nature will 'win' this one, will meet the challenge, will "find a way"!
While I believe that the 'way' I mentioned, that women WANT to have children, and that this will get passed from mother to daughter, is the one Mother Nature will select, there can be other ways. E.g., a society can get rid of anything like US Social Security and, thus, tell people in stark terms that they need to have children as a source of support in old age. A society can tell girls that it does not support single women or single mothers and, net, girls should look for good husbands or hope that they have good brothers or have good inheritance from their fathers.. There can be a role for some traditional religions that strongly emphasize 'traditional family values' and having children, whether the women want to or not. Some people might say that the result will not be a change in the gene pool but in the popularity of some religious, social, and/or political values.
Or one might just say that the 'Darwinian' effect will apply to whole societies, e.g., Finland: Finland beat Sweden, Russia, and Germany in wars but is losing out to the 'feminists'! Whatever the politics, at 1.5 children per woman, Finland is on the way out of it as surely as some genocide. So, maybe it's countries that will die off instead of people with the wrong genes. Still, I trust the influence of genes more than that of politics.
Your issue of "N generations on" is interesting: In part my analysis is saying that the women were much the same 40,000 years ago, which would be about N = 2000 generations! So, it would seem that we could extrapolate a few generations from the N = 2000 generations! But, in part my analysis is saying that, if you will, the current, big 'environmenal' changes, i.e., from women having jobs, will bring the biggest changes in the gene pool in 40,000 years and bring the changes very quickly, in, say, just a few generations, say, just 100 years. My reading of evolution is that, when the 'enviroment' changes, then genes can change very quickly. E.g., the genes in some of those weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree are already gone forever.
[deleted]
Good thing. But being gay this never bothers me.
I smell a business opportunity.
its called human trafficking and organized crime is way ahead of you.
It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please.
I think peaceful societies self-destruct.
With a few notable exceptions that require a geography suitable to isolationism, long term peace has historically been achieved through your country or one of your ally's having military supremacy over the rest of your neighbors.
Obviously, diplomacy can keep the peace for long periods of time, even human lifetimes, but eventually incidents happen when there's a hothead in one government, and then that's when the military supremacy determines whether you get attacked or not.
Anyways, I've found the more a country renounces war and gets further away from it, the more birth rates go down. You get an explosion of commerce and art for ~30 to ~70 years, and then the society self-destructs.
No longer forced to confront mortality and with no externally unifying cause, people start living for luxury, pleasure, and consumption. They stop having children. Birth rates fall off.
Eventually, this destroys a country's economy, the military supremacy fades, and one of their neighbors comes in and cleans house, and the cycle begins anew.
This has happened many times through history. It's happening in Japan right now. If I became an advisor to anyone in the Japanese government, I'd advocate two things as chief priorities - (1) exceedingly good relations with China, and (2) re-militarize.
Then join the next war they can on America's or China's side. Combined with some standard messages of nationalism/strength/growth/unity, birth rates would almost certainly increase.