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 Assuming that fertility de

> 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

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".