3 ms·

Is this just another case where people are poor at understanding complex systems (ie, large numbers of people interacting with large sets of incentives) and att

Is this just another case where people are poor at understanding complex systems (ie, large numbers of people interacting with large sets of incentives) and attribute a top-down elite conspiracy when they should really be studying game theory and market trends? I'm struggling to think of a a less controversial comparison, but for instance when people believe the literal conspiracy-theory version of great replacement vs. a combination of demographic facts, the capitalistic need for growth, and the general consequences of industrialization?

mg794613 1y ago
Yes, do not question the goodwill of these benevolent companies. What seems unfair sounds just like a skill issue, "gitgud" am I right? Don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist now, do we? I am happy for you to be able to have these kind of perspectives.
- everdrive 1y ago
  That's an unfair strawman, and you're putting words in my mouth which I really did not intend. (or even imply)
zmgsabst 1y ago
Creating programs that lower fertility, discussing how that causes demographic issues, and then proposing replacement migration[0] rather than restructuring fertility incentives looks really bad. Especially when done by a small cabal of technocrats at insular meetings over the objections of most people. That’s not more happenstance than the eradication of the four pests leading to famine, ie, technocrats often conspire and then catastrophically fail. [0] - Actual term in UN reports.
- everdrive 1y ago
  I think a lot of this stems directly from industrialization itself, even if there are specific policies which also go in this direction. The UN doesn't _really_ have the ability to set meaningful policy in countries across the world, however fertility drops off a cliff more or less universally as any country -- with any background, culture, etc. -- industrializes. To the extent that even countries which wish to oppose it are at best fighting an uphill battle.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    The US industrialized in 1820–1920. Modern low fertility levels didn't come until much much more recently.
    - everdrive 1y ago
      I personally would have attributed that to the drift of the downstream effects: - industrialization ultimately allows for women to meaningfully enter the workforce, which is a major pressure on fertility. This entering of the work force is quite delayed due to legal, cultural, and training issues. - People probably don't just magically know when to have fewer kids, and I'm imagine the ramp-down happens over time. - More specific things which suppress fertility might happen even later in the cycle. (as just one example: the accident of requiring car seats requiring the purchase of a much more expensive 3rd row vehicle, and so disincentivizing) Is that along the lines of what you were thinking? I'm curious for what you think is causal here. (I'm not an expert, and am not trying to claim any expertise!)

mg794613 1y ago

Yes, do not question the goodwill of these benevolent companies. What seems unfair sounds just like a skill issue, "gitgud" am I right? Don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist now, do we? I am happy for you to be able to have these kind of perspectives.

everdrive 1y ago
That's an unfair strawman, and you're putting words in my mouth which I really did not intend. (or even imply)

zmgsabst 1y ago

Creating programs that lower fertility, discussing how that causes demographic issues, and then proposing replacement migration[0] rather than restructuring fertility incentives looks really bad. Especially when done by a small cabal of technocrats at insular meetings over the objections of most people. That’s not more happenstance than the eradication of the four pests leading to famine, ie, technocrats often conspire and then catastrophically fail. [0] - Actual term in UN reports.

everdrive 1y ago
I think a lot of this stems directly from industrialization itself, even if there are specific policies which also go in this direction. The UN doesn't _really_ have the ability to set meaningful policy in countries across the world, however fertility drops off a cliff more or less universally as any country -- with any background, culture, etc. -- industrializes. To the extent that even countries which wish to oppose it are at best fighting an uphill battle.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  The US industrialized in 1820–1920. Modern low fertility levels didn't come until much much more recently.
  - everdrive 1y ago
    I personally would have attributed that to the drift of the downstream effects: - industrialization ultimately allows for women to meaningfully enter the workforce, which is a major pressure on fertility. This entering of the work force is quite delayed due to legal, cultural, and training issues. - People probably don't just magically know when to have fewer kids, and I'm imagine the ramp-down happens over time. - More specific things which suppress fertility might happen even later in the cycle. (as just one example: the accident of requiring car seats requiring the purchase of a much more expensive 3rd row vehicle, and so disincentivizing) Is that along the lines of what you were thinking? I'm curious for what you think is causal here. (I'm not an expert, and am not trying to claim any expertise!)