4 ms·

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 t

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 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.

lionhearted 15y ago
> 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/Ibn_Khaldun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon 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.
- onan_barbarian 15y ago
  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.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    "...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.

lionhearted 15y ago

> 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/Ibn_Khaldun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon 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.

onan_barbarian 15y ago
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.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  "...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.