4 ms·
Isn’t the consequence usually unrest and war?
by a2tech 8y ago
Isn’t the consequence usually unrest and war?
- batuhanw 8y agoWars are killing men, which isn't happening for a while like before. So men population grow fast and there is nothing to decrease it.
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoWouldn't your causal mechanism be disproven by the reams of peaceful countries without such imbalances? In any case, the natural overproduction of males versus females at birth is too tiny to explain these gulfs.
- falcor84 8y agoAs I understand it, the grandparent's argument is that earlier on in history, wars (and violence in general) would cause a reduction in the percentage of males. For example[0], in Soviet Russia following WW2, the ratio of young men/women dropped to 0.7. And that given that the China and India are more peaceful now (for various reasons), this violent force does not come into effect. I don't understand how your response is relevant to the above argument. [0] https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2007_820-4g_Brainerd1.pdf https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2007_820-4g_Brainerd1.pdf
- batuhanw 8y agoPeaceful countries with balanced population has better woman rights. What China/India has, isn’t really natural because they tend to abort female babies.
- Arbalest 8y agoAt birth, there is a slight bias towards males born. However that is something in the order of 51% male babies to 49% female babies. That is far less pronounced than what is being observed.
- colanderman 8y agoThat's not too far off from the figures quoted in the article – a 2% difference of 1.4 billion (China's population) would be 28 million, which is not too much less than the 34 million difference quoted in the article.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- emodendroket 8y agoI was just today reading a piece arguing that measures showing historic lows in war deaths are wildly misleading because so much war today takes the form of civil war, rather than inter-state conflict, something which the measures don't cover very well.
- gph 8y agoHistorically that would definitely be true, but there's a couple interesting anecdotes in the article where some of the men mention spending their time holed up alone either on their phone, watching TV, or doing various leisure activities like karoke. In the past they didn't have those kinds of distractions and/or solitariness. The reality is they may just grow old and sad often stuck in their remote village far cut off from any center of power or importance.
- wavefunction 8y agoOr they just kill themselves eventually out of loneliness and despair. I was traveling through Karnataka a few years back and was riding a conveyance from the historical site back to my accommodations and passed through a small town on the way. There was a middle-aged (perhaps even late 20s) man lying in the middle of the road, while traffic dodged around him. The driver told us the man was to poor to start a family and so had gotten drunk and laid in the road to be run-over and killed.
- conistonwater 8y agoHow did the driver know that?
- Rescis 8y agoPresumably it was a normal occurence.
- curun1r 8y agoThose are two things that can happen, but a more generalized version of that is an increased drive for exceptionalism. Men will take more risks to succeed at all costs because the safe route means failure. That can be mean war, where many men die and the survivors are the exceptional ones. But it can also mean a highly-stratified society with a class of unsuccessful men who will never marry or have children who are likely treated as not much above slave labor.