6 ms·

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success

by skrbjc 3y ago

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you with someone that will result in a successful long term relationship. This has terrible long-term outcomes for a population at a large enough scale. With all of the talk of how algorithms can affect our society through news and social media, I've been somewhat surprised that dating app algorithms have not had much attention.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?
- thriftwy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Retric 3y ago
    US conservatives have nothing to do with maintaining or returning to historic norms. From massive government subsidies and radical tax policies to wild spending sprees they’ve completely abandoned past stances only keeping the name. Similarly modern democratic politicians have no real connection to the glass of water theory and similar stances. Voters on each side are extremely diverse to the point there’s little universal on either side. As should be obvious from the two party system.
    - Retric 3y ago
      To be clear I am not saying those stances are good or bad just different. Historically heroine was legal and women couldn’t vote. That’s not part of what people mean by conservatives, it’s a modern political ideology. Similarly, Democrats stances on tariffs etc have changed through the years. They aren’t particularly tied to 100+ year old ideas either.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      They are authoritarian, not conservative. The family values crap is just bread and circus for the religious zealots.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Both parties in the US are fairly authoritarian. They've dine an excellent job at riling up the public into picking sides while the parties themselves sure seem to be one and the same. Sure they get into public debates and throw political mud at each other, but at the end of the day they agree on direction and end up only debating details. For example, both parties want to shut down the southern border and only debate how to do it. Both parties want larger government with more regulations, they just occasionally debate which regulations to add. Both want to spend like there's no tomorrow, debating only who to give the newly printed money/debt to. They both agree that banks and many large corps are too big to fail. They both continue to pull more power to the federal level, only pulling state-level stunts when its a political show. They both lean heavily on executive power when in charge, wielding more and more power from the Oval Office and circumventing congress. The list goes on, but from where I sit we aren't offered the choice between a more liberal or conservative party, we're offered to pick one of two sides in a fight that is largely chummed with political hot topics that keep us all arguing with each other while the politicians largely do whatever they want.
        Spooky23 3y ago
        I didn’t mention any political party. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.
        _heimdall 3y ago
        You didn't, no. Though you were replying to a comment specifically about US conservatives and that is generally considered to be the Republican party. I should have clarified though, and wasn't even meaning it as a comment directly or argumentatively at you so much as a comment on our current political system.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Thanks, great link and concept. Think I heard Peterson remark on this Bolshevik dehumanisation of relations before, but this is a memorable handle on it. edit: also, while we're talking of glasses, that whole conservative-progressive axis is through the looking glass now. A lot of what looks "progressive" now is simply restorative to common sense.
  - sapphicsnail 3y ago
    Conservative doesn't necessarily == old. I'm a woman who loves other women, we've been around forever, but conservatives want to make it difficult for us to have relationships.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - shiroiushi 3y ago
      Conservative means old-fashioned, not old. More specifically, it means returning to some halcyon (usually mythical) "good old days" when things weren't "degenerate". Sure, homosexuals have been around forever, but societal acceptance of homosexual relationships is relatively new. Conservatives (in the US) want to turn the clock back on that, and make those relationships socially unacceptable or even illegal. Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        The definition of conservative isn't nearly as black and white, especially in the US. What is conservative, in the sense of wanting things not change, is a constant moving bar and requires more context. Conservative, in the sense of going back to something in the past, requires context of how far you want to go back. > Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days. This is a perfect example of the latter. Anyone in the US that considers removing protections for sexual identity must first pick a time in the past where the laws and norms fit their preferences. That can be called conservative, but is it really? For the former, my generation's big push was to finally make gay marriage legal. It was progressive for sure, and classically liberal in the sense that we were trying to further protect individual rights and freedom to choose. Once it passed, though, does it become conservative? Personally I prefer the definition of conservative that is more present focused, preferring to leave things as they are today unless we have a very good reason to change it. In that sense, protecting gay marriage and similar protections on the books today would be very conservative and trying to remove them would fall into some other bucket that likely doesn't have a name (reductivist? destructionist?).
- StillBored 3y ago
  Well, in the USA, for the past at least 50 years, "family values" means "fundamentalist Christian" rather than supporting families/childrearing/parenting/etc. This is why "family values" politicians are usually against family leave, prenatal programs, early childhood programs, or well any social programs designed to support poor families
- rayiner 3y ago
  Progressivism in the west has decided to take the track of individualism rather than collectivism, and this is the result. If people are lonely, it’s not “power and profits” causing that. It’s the decline of what used to be the strongest forces bonding people and communities together: religion and kinship. And progressivism has helped achieve that decline, by making social liberalism a core part of the platform—and indeed the most important part. When you tell people that they’re unique individuals and self actualization is the highest virtue, there’s little room for family.
  - ozim 3y ago
    Decline of kinship and religion has also its roots in abuse caused by toxic religion and toxic kinship. Kinship and religion has its downsides. Will it swing back? Because now we see other toxic stuff showing up that comes from individualism. Loneliness epidemic, scammers because lonely people are easier targets. I wonder if there is a sweet spot somewhere in between.
romwell 3y ago
>I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children Yeah, and many people in the US would be way more eager to do that had we had: - affordable housing - minimum wage that allows a single parent to support themselves - universal healthcare - mandated paid (and then, unpaid) parental leave - free childcare - substancial financial assistance to new parents - walkable safe environments, transportation, and regulations that allow children to move around on their own - widely available after-school programs - free college education ...you get the drift. Dating isn't the bottleneck here.
- skrbjc 3y ago
  Most people in the past and in the current day have none of that and still have children. The most well-developed and stable countries will most of what you laid out have some of the lowest birth rates.
- claytongulick 3y ago
  What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? How much would you have left over for raising children?
  - delecti 3y ago
    I dunno, why not ask most of Europe. Those are not radical policy suggestions.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    > What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? I guess the middle class needs to pay 45% effective tax rate on all income. And, upper incomes would need to pay about 55% effective tax rate. > How much would you have left over for raising children? How much more do you need if you have all of those benefits? Not much.
bee_rider 3y ago
I imagine whatever the matching algorithm, somebody will object to it. For example, if one political orientation is generally considered less attractive by women, the platform will have to decide if they want to artificially boost those people or not. I think either decision will upset somebody.
- antifa 3y ago
  The algorithm should be matching on similar-enough politics, hard-coding against specific politics makes no sense.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    There’s a pretty strong correlation between gender and political affiliation, if we match between similar politics, some people might be hard to match.
renewiltord 3y ago
That's what everyone says but they're just Maginot lining it. There's a new frontier: gametogenesis, embryo sequencing, and paid surrogacy if not artificial gestation. When that frontier opens the storyline changes. That's the real paradigm shift.
- skrbjc 3y ago
  It's still very difficult to raise a baby on your own and even with two people. It will still feel like someone's career is harder to manage with a child, and so I don't think these things are really going to make much difference for the average person that will likely not be able to afford these things anyway. A committed married couple having children at a healthy age, feeding them well, and keeping them safe are going to still perform extraordinarily well against what you've laid out, and will likely also have higher happiness levels.

by skrbjc 3y ago

nonrandomstring 3y ago

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

thriftwy 3y ago
[flagged]
- Retric 3y ago
  US conservatives have nothing to do with maintaining or returning to historic norms. From massive government subsidies and radical tax policies to wild spending sprees they’ve completely abandoned past stances only keeping the name. Similarly modern democratic politicians have no real connection to the glass of water theory and similar stances. Voters on each side are extremely diverse to the point there’s little universal on either side. As should be obvious from the two party system.
  - Retric 3y ago
    To be clear I am not saying those stances are good or bad just different. Historically heroine was legal and women couldn’t vote. That’s not part of what people mean by conservatives, it’s a modern political ideology. Similarly, Democrats stances on tariffs etc have changed through the years. They aren’t particularly tied to 100+ year old ideas either.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    They are authoritarian, not conservative. The family values crap is just bread and circus for the religious zealots.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Both parties in the US are fairly authoritarian. They've dine an excellent job at riling up the public into picking sides while the parties themselves sure seem to be one and the same. Sure they get into public debates and throw political mud at each other, but at the end of the day they agree on direction and end up only debating details. For example, both parties want to shut down the southern border and only debate how to do it. Both parties want larger government with more regulations, they just occasionally debate which regulations to add. Both want to spend like there's no tomorrow, debating only who to give the newly printed money/debt to. They both agree that banks and many large corps are too big to fail. They both continue to pull more power to the federal level, only pulling state-level stunts when its a political show. They both lean heavily on executive power when in charge, wielding more and more power from the Oval Office and circumventing congress. The list goes on, but from where I sit we aren't offered the choice between a more liberal or conservative party, we're offered to pick one of two sides in a fight that is largely chummed with political hot topics that keep us all arguing with each other while the politicians largely do whatever they want.
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        I didn’t mention any political party. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.
        _heimdall 3y ago
        You didn't, no. Though you were replying to a comment specifically about US conservatives and that is generally considered to be the Republican party. I should have clarified though, and wasn't even meaning it as a comment directly or argumentatively at you so much as a comment on our current political system.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Thanks, great link and concept. Think I heard Peterson remark on this Bolshevik dehumanisation of relations before, but this is a memorable handle on it. edit: also, while we're talking of glasses, that whole conservative-progressive axis is through the looking glass now. A lot of what looks "progressive" now is simply restorative to common sense.
- sapphicsnail 3y ago
  Conservative doesn't necessarily == old. I'm a woman who loves other women, we've been around forever, but conservatives want to make it difficult for us to have relationships.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    Conservative means old-fashioned, not old. More specifically, it means returning to some halcyon (usually mythical) "good old days" when things weren't "degenerate". Sure, homosexuals have been around forever, but societal acceptance of homosexual relationships is relatively new. Conservatives (in the US) want to turn the clock back on that, and make those relationships socially unacceptable or even illegal. Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      The definition of conservative isn't nearly as black and white, especially in the US. What is conservative, in the sense of wanting things not change, is a constant moving bar and requires more context. Conservative, in the sense of going back to something in the past, requires context of how far you want to go back. > Of course, conservatives have certain ideas of when exactly the "good old days" were. Homosexuality was very accepted (even encouraged) in ancient Greece, for example, but Christian US conservatives obviously don't want to go back to those days. This is a perfect example of the latter. Anyone in the US that considers removing protections for sexual identity must first pick a time in the past where the laws and norms fit their preferences. That can be called conservative, but is it really? For the former, my generation's big push was to finally make gay marriage legal. It was progressive for sure, and classically liberal in the sense that we were trying to further protect individual rights and freedom to choose. Once it passed, though, does it become conservative? Personally I prefer the definition of conservative that is more present focused, preferring to leave things as they are today unless we have a very good reason to change it. In that sense, protecting gay marriage and similar protections on the books today would be very conservative and trying to remove them would fall into some other bucket that likely doesn't have a name (reductivist? destructionist?).
StillBored 3y ago
Well, in the USA, for the past at least 50 years, "family values" means "fundamentalist Christian" rather than supporting families/childrearing/parenting/etc. This is why "family values" politicians are usually against family leave, prenatal programs, early childhood programs, or well any social programs designed to support poor families
rayiner 3y ago
Progressivism in the west has decided to take the track of individualism rather than collectivism, and this is the result. If people are lonely, it’s not “power and profits” causing that. It’s the decline of what used to be the strongest forces bonding people and communities together: religion and kinship. And progressivism has helped achieve that decline, by making social liberalism a core part of the platform—and indeed the most important part. When you tell people that they’re unique individuals and self actualization is the highest virtue, there’s little room for family.
- ozim 3y ago
  Decline of kinship and religion has also its roots in abuse caused by toxic religion and toxic kinship. Kinship and religion has its downsides. Will it swing back? Because now we see other toxic stuff showing up that comes from individualism. Loneliness epidemic, scammers because lonely people are easier targets. I wonder if there is a sweet spot somewhere in between.

romwell 3y ago

>I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children Yeah, and many people in the US would be way more eager to do that had we had: - affordable housing - minimum wage that allows a single parent to support themselves - universal healthcare - mandated paid (and then, unpaid) parental leave - free childcare - substancial financial assistance to new parents - walkable safe environments, transportation, and regulations that allow children to move around on their own - widely available after-school programs - free college education ...you get the drift. Dating isn't the bottleneck here.

skrbjc 3y ago
Most people in the past and in the current day have none of that and still have children. The most well-developed and stable countries will most of what you laid out have some of the lowest birth rates.
claytongulick 3y ago
What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? How much would you have left over for raising children?
- delecti 3y ago
  I dunno, why not ask most of Europe. Those are not radical policy suggestions.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? I guess the middle class needs to pay 45% effective tax rate on all income. And, upper incomes would need to pay about 55% effective tax rate. > How much would you have left over for raising children? How much more do you need if you have all of those benefits? Not much.

bee_rider 3y ago

I imagine whatever the matching algorithm, somebody will object to it. For example, if one political orientation is generally considered less attractive by women, the platform will have to decide if they want to artificially boost those people or not. I think either decision will upset somebody.

antifa 3y ago
The algorithm should be matching on similar-enough politics, hard-coding against specific politics makes no sense.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  There’s a pretty strong correlation between gender and political affiliation, if we match between similar politics, some people might be hard to match.

renewiltord 3y ago

That's what everyone says but they're just Maginot lining it. There's a new frontier: gametogenesis, embryo sequencing, and paid surrogacy if not artificial gestation. When that frontier opens the storyline changes. That's the real paradigm shift.

skrbjc 3y ago
It's still very difficult to raise a baby on your own and even with two people. It will still feel like someone's career is harder to manage with a child, and so I don't think these things are really going to make much difference for the average person that will likely not be able to afford these things anyway. A committed married couple having children at a healthy age, feeding them well, and keeping them safe are going to still perform extraordinarily well against what you've laid out, and will likely also have higher happiness levels.