3 ms·

This is a very well reasoned article. The central thesis is that if culture follows economic realities (a notion I first encountered in Sapiens but have come to

This is a very well reasoned article. The central thesis is that if culture follows economic realities (a notion I first encountered in Sapiens but have come to strongly believe), then readers (seems the audience consists of US cultural conservatives) should focus their efforts on changing the underlying economics, not waging the culture war. > No amount of snappy YouTube videos decrying the “degeneracy” of current elite trends, no amount of influencers selling the “trad lifestyle” to Instagram followers, no amount of pithy arguments aimed at defeating some imagined foe with “facts and logic” will affect these issues in any meaningful way > In the struggle between tradition and economic reality, tradition simply ends up being destroyed, excepting the few parts that can be adapted to serve completely new ends. I would posit that a 3rd option exists that the author dismissed, but it would be to move to a new system (which is self-sustaining, unlike birth + immigration that the author dismisses) to match the new realities. I get that conservative thought is that it's safest to cling to that which we know, but with all the changes so far (and to come with automation), it might be as fruitless as running a knowledge economy like a feudal monarchy.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
> I would posit that a 3rd option exists that the author dismissed, but it would be to move to a new system Do you mean changing the American system, or do you mean moving, as an individual, from America? If "changing the American system", then I think that's what he wants. He seems to want industrial policy, possibly state control of industry -- whatever it takes to employ everyone and give them good wages. A Republican pivot to the working class. (Or even a Democratic one? (Though that's arguably what the Green New Deal is supposed to be about, even if it ends up being modest.)) If "moving from America", then I agree that's the option he didn't even consider. It may be possible to simply escape the competition. Doing this would rest on geographic arbitrage and the privilege of having been born in a developed country. That might make it "bad" in some peoples' eyes, but it might work for the individual. Even a fairly poor American could be a fairly rich person in another part of the world, by taking their (unfair) Fedbucks with them.
- chillacy 5y ago
  > If "changing the American system", then I think that's what he wants. He seems to want industrial policy, possibly state control of industry -- whatever it takes to employ everyone and give them good wages. A Republican pivot to the working class. Yea I also read it that way. Reading between the lines a bit, I see some of a desire for the America in the 50s and 60s, not super uncommon of a sentiment for a variety of reasons. In retrospect I should have just co-opted the author's language: > In the struggle between tradition and economic reality, tradition simply ends up being destroyed If there are two dependent variables: economic reality and tradition, the author wants to fix tradition and find the economic reality which allows for that. I would posit that historically, the long term trend is for tradition to change to match economic realities, so the way out of this might be to find new traditions which are self sustaining (positive birth rates or birth+immigration as the author says).

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

> I would posit that a 3rd option exists that the author dismissed, but it would be to move to a new system Do you mean changing the American system, or do you mean moving, as an individual, from America? If "changing the American system", then I think that's what he wants. He seems to want industrial policy, possibly state control of industry -- whatever it takes to employ everyone and give them good wages. A Republican pivot to the working class. (Or even a Democratic one? (Though that's arguably what the Green New Deal is supposed to be about, even if it ends up being modest.)) If "moving from America", then I agree that's the option he didn't even consider. It may be possible to simply escape the competition. Doing this would rest on geographic arbitrage and the privilege of having been born in a developed country. That might make it "bad" in some peoples' eyes, but it might work for the individual. Even a fairly poor American could be a fairly rich person in another part of the world, by taking their (unfair) Fedbucks with them.

chillacy 5y ago
> If "changing the American system", then I think that's what he wants. He seems to want industrial policy, possibly state control of industry -- whatever it takes to employ everyone and give them good wages. A Republican pivot to the working class. Yea I also read it that way. Reading between the lines a bit, I see some of a desire for the America in the 50s and 60s, not super uncommon of a sentiment for a variety of reasons. In retrospect I should have just co-opted the author's language: > In the struggle between tradition and economic reality, tradition simply ends up being destroyed If there are two dependent variables: economic reality and tradition, the author wants to fix tradition and find the economic reality which allows for that. I would posit that historically, the long term trend is for tradition to change to match economic realities, so the way out of this might be to find new traditions which are self sustaining (positive birth rates or birth+immigration as the author says).