4 ms·

this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past. All human experience so far

this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past. All human experience so far has been: this trend is irreversible. But, you came up with this random idea that a little economic reshuffling will quickly fix things when needed. How do you know that? You also came up with the idea that it's really no big deal, even though the prime minister of Japan and other authorities publicly say that they are losing their ability to function as a society and this trend is hurting them very much already. So much for "not a huge problem" and "it's just silly fearmongering".

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
He seems to think that the "constraints will ease" as the Japanese economy implodes even further. It might even be true that with the right incentives, they could convince the childless to have children. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get that just because there is a theoretical incentive that could work doesn't mean that same theoretical incentive is anything anyone could hope to afford.
GloomyBoots 3y ago
> this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past Assuming that fertility decline is irreversible, this would mean that you should have specific examples of entire populations that have died not of disease or conquest, but reproductive ennui. I don’t think so.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  1. There's a first time for everything. 2. The "ennui" as you refer to it, is clearly a modern phenomenon. It couldn't have happened before now. 3. We've already seen this verified experimentally with animal models, multiple times. Despite having unlimited food, water, and entertainment, the populations crash and never recover. If you don't think so, it's just because you haven't bothered to think about it.
  - GloomyBoots 3y ago
    1 and 2 directly contradict the point I was responding to. If you want to claim that this is a novel phenomenon, fine (I agree at least in part). But I was directly addressing the claim that this is a historical one. I don’t think so because, as you agree, it hasn’t happened before. I’m somewhat familiar with Calhoun’s studies if that’s what you’re referencing, but I don’t think they’re perfectly applicable to human societies where there’s no outside force maintaining everything for us. Reproduction slows, accompanied by economic stagnation and infrastructural failures, and all of a sudden we’re not in our little mouse utopia anymore. These little collapses aren’t necessarily bad. It’s artificially pushing onward in the name of GDP that I think leads to even bigger collapses down the road.
- twelve40 3y ago
  > you should have specific examples no i shouldn't you should give examples of this trend reversed, the original claim is "this is easy", "humans respond to incentives". but guess what? there are no examples of this trend reversed. Briefly, for a decade, Iran maybe. Your turn to defend the original claim that "just give them some incentives and everything will be just fine".

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

He seems to think that the "constraints will ease" as the Japanese economy implodes even further. It might even be true that with the right incentives, they could convince the childless to have children. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get that just because there is a theoretical incentive that could work doesn't mean that same theoretical incentive is anything anyone could hope to afford.

GloomyBoots 3y ago

> this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past Assuming that fertility decline is irreversible, this would mean that you should have specific examples of entire populations that have died not of disease or conquest, but reproductive ennui. I don’t think so.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
1. There's a first time for everything. 2. The "ennui" as you refer to it, is clearly a modern phenomenon. It couldn't have happened before now. 3. We've already seen this verified experimentally with animal models, multiple times. Despite having unlimited food, water, and entertainment, the populations crash and never recover. If you don't think so, it's just because you haven't bothered to think about it.
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  1 and 2 directly contradict the point I was responding to. If you want to claim that this is a novel phenomenon, fine (I agree at least in part). But I was directly addressing the claim that this is a historical one. I don’t think so because, as you agree, it hasn’t happened before. I’m somewhat familiar with Calhoun’s studies if that’s what you’re referencing, but I don’t think they’re perfectly applicable to human societies where there’s no outside force maintaining everything for us. Reproduction slows, accompanied by economic stagnation and infrastructural failures, and all of a sudden we’re not in our little mouse utopia anymore. These little collapses aren’t necessarily bad. It’s artificially pushing onward in the name of GDP that I think leads to even bigger collapses down the road.
twelve40 3y ago
> you should have specific examples no i shouldn't you should give examples of this trend reversed, the original claim is "this is easy", "humans respond to incentives". but guess what? there are no examples of this trend reversed. Briefly, for a decade, Iran maybe. Your turn to defend the original claim that "just give them some incentives and everything will be just fine".