3 ms·
Society DID recognize it caused problems and basically banned it everywhere (or at least made it frowned upon). It's starting to look like removing some of the
by namelessoracle 4y ago
Society DID recognize it caused problems and basically banned it everywhere (or at least made it frowned upon).
It's starting to look like removing some of the sexual morals that societies had used for hundreds of years is a classic Chesterton's fence style problem. Progressives didn't understand the good effects of some puritan policies and decided to throw it all out because it got in the way of them feeling good right now.
- pas 4y agoSure there was some utility gained from those rules, but then we looked at them and the cost-benefit analysis is pretty clearly against them. Limiting personal freedoms to satisfy old religious beliefs (some of which used to serve useful purposes) makes very little sense nowadays, especially that we have much much much better ways to get much better outcomes with regards to those purposes. (Eg. avoiding genetic defects due to incest, keeping communities growing to have enough people to replace those who are lost due to famines, disease, war, accidents.)
- namelessoracle 4y agoThe cost benefit analysis can take generations and is still ongoing. Cultures that have these rules and restrictions seem to be growing via positive birth rates while cultures that dont are stagnating and not growing and seem to be actively committing cultural suicide. So its not obvious to me which path evolutionary processes will choose to win out in the long run.
- pas 4y agoI'm not against natalism, but simply looking at the size of a culture says very little about it.