The perils of short-termism(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The perils of short-termism
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat
92 comments
What this author forgets is that many young people today are not procreating because having children is increasingly becoming a luxury of the upper middle class. Why should childless individuals care all that much about how issues like global warming and growing economic inequality will affect future generations when they're desperately just trying to hold onto their current jobs in order to service increasingly unjustifiable levels of debt (home, medical, educational,...)?
This argument for antinatalism never made any sense to me. A casual glance at history will show you that it’s easier and cheaper to raise children today than at pretty much any point in time, except perhaps for middle class white Americans ~1955-1990. What’s changed is the (perception) that keeping up with the consumerist Jones’ is somehow required to have a family.
Children used to be a help, because they could work much earlier and had to on farms. So it made economic sense to have them. The incentives have changed.
Did the cost of rent, medical care and college go down?
No, they've gone up - but my point is that the baseline costs for raising a child in average, decent-quality conditions (in today's terms) are still drastically lower than even the lowest of salaries. We've simply come to expect all kinds of consumerist goods as "required." Furthermore, even a "poor" childhood today is materially leagues above the average child of 100 years ago. That's not to say we should aim to return to that, but simply that there are a lot of "needs" which are really "wants."
Housing is a good example. Yes, housing prices in coastal cities have spiraled out of the reach of middle class people. Yet, there are thousands, even tens of thousands, of affordable cities all throughout the South and Midwest. The "problem" with those areas is that they are perceived as undesirable places to live. Again - a want, not a need.
The issue of inequality is a separate one and not the direct point that I am making. I'm simply saying that throughout all of human history, people were far poorer and yet still had children. Even today, the majority of the world's population is poorer than the poorest in the west. Clearly the main reason Western people aren't having kids today is not because they legitimately can't afford it - there are other cultural factors at play.
Housing is a good example. Yes, housing prices in coastal cities have spiraled out of the reach of middle class people. Yet, there are thousands, even tens of thousands, of affordable cities all throughout the South and Midwest. The "problem" with those areas is that they are perceived as undesirable places to live. Again - a want, not a need.
The issue of inequality is a separate one and not the direct point that I am making. I'm simply saying that throughout all of human history, people were far poorer and yet still had children. Even today, the majority of the world's population is poorer than the poorest in the west. Clearly the main reason Western people aren't having kids today is not because they legitimately can't afford it - there are other cultural factors at play.
>No, they've gone up - but my point is that the baseline costs for raising a child in average, decent-quality conditions (in today's terms) are still drastically lower than even the lowest of salaries
I don't see how that can be if the core costs - rent, medical care, education have all skyrocketed.
Diapers going down in price by 15% doesn't really help if at the same the price of college goes from $15k to $150k.
I don't see how that can be if the core costs - rent, medical care, education have all skyrocketed.
Diapers going down in price by 15% doesn't really help if at the same the price of college goes from $15k to $150k.
Again, a college that costs $150k is a want, not a need. There are plenty of opportunities to go to community college, gain credits in high school, etc.
Even if you do consider college a want (which is highly dubious in today's wage earning environment and with competition from globalization that didn't exist before), rent and medical care are the furthest possible thing from want.
Again, rent in cities that aren’t the hot, desirable coastal ones is quite reasonable and has been for a considerable amount of time. And as I just mentioned, there are a plethora of ways to earn a college degree without spending $150,000.
>Again, rent in cities that aren’t the hot, desirable coastal ones is quite reasonable
Wages are shit in a lottt of those places. Rents are reasonable as a % of SF programmer income I suppose, but the picture is a little different if it's mostly walmart jobs or nothing available.
Wages are shit in a lottt of those places. Rents are reasonable as a % of SF programmer income I suppose, but the picture is a little different if it's mostly walmart jobs or nothing available.
100 years ago is right after first world war. The kids were dying a lot and what was acceptable back then would caused CPS calls on you. It is not merely "want" to keep up with legal standards. Moreover, the world back then was pretty violent and kids were violent or delinquent too, especially when looking at Europe. There was quite a lot of price to be paid for situation back then.
The areas with high unemployment and high social problems are perceived as undesirable places to live in for a reason. Of course I don't need to live in area with low alcoholism rates, low unemployment and low amount of social problems. But I want to live there for good reasons, namely better chance for me and my kids to not become unemployed and hopeless.
The areas with high unemployment and high social problems are perceived as undesirable places to live in for a reason. Of course I don't need to live in area with low alcoholism rates, low unemployment and low amount of social problems. But I want to live there for good reasons, namely better chance for me and my kids to not become unemployed and hopeless.
The entire South and Midwest have social problems?
The places where people don't go tend to have more of them. People don't go there for a reason. The entire South and Midwest have places where people do go.
What you don't have is a paradise where everything is cheap, there is a lot of employment and other opportunities and people somehow refuse to go to in the long term. You have cheap places where there is basically single major employer or low earning industry.
I am not saying that people always have it perfectly right, but in the long term and on average, the mass moves where it makes sense to move to. Those places then become more expensive.
What you don't have is a paradise where everything is cheap, there is a lot of employment and other opportunities and people somehow refuse to go to in the long term. You have cheap places where there is basically single major employer or low earning industry.
I am not saying that people always have it perfectly right, but in the long term and on average, the mass moves where it makes sense to move to. Those places then become more expensive.
>middle class white Americans ~1955-1990.
Isn't that where most people get their idea of family life from?
Isn't that where most people get their idea of family life from?
I don't know about you, but I got my ideas mostly from my parents, and the parents of my friends while in school.
And a large amount of their perception is influenced by the dominant media, which I'm hypothesising generally pushes the idea of a middle to upper class nuclear family as being the norm.
That's a weak argument for antinatalism. The global middle class is much larger and more capable of supporting the necessities that children require. People consider upper middle class lifestyles table stakes for child raising, which is why they choose to opt out of the children having status tournament. Diapers and food are actually not that expensive, but toddler yoga, dual earner flexible childcare, private school and similar absolutely are.
Do you believe raising children should be an act of duty and self-sacrifice?
While I would like to raise a family one day the idea of raising children with just being capable of supporting their necessities doesn't appeal to me at all.
If I can't offer them the best start in life or be the parent I wish I had (due to a lack of resources) I would rather not have children.
While I would like to raise a family one day the idea of raising children with just being capable of supporting their necessities doesn't appeal to me at all.
If I can't offer them the best start in life or be the parent I wish I had (due to a lack of resources) I would rather not have children.
Read Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, Bryan Caplan. Most people are glad to have been born, most parents raise happy, healthy children in the industrialized world and in substantial parts of the world outside it, most children would rather have happy parents who spend time with them than more stuff and while you can effect how happy their childhood is you aren’t going to greatly effect their adult outcomes if you parent within the good enough to be allowed to adopt norms.
The best start in life is a start.
The best start in life is a start.
My parents kind of had children for selfish reasons and objectively speaking neither of them should have had children.
Now as an adult I have issues that seem to stem from childhood emotional neglect that I struggle with. My sibling isn't that much better emotionally adjusted either.
I wasn't a particularly happy child but neither of them noticed or paid much attention even when they could have.
Now as an adult I have issues that seem to stem from childhood emotional neglect that I struggle with. My sibling isn't that much better emotionally adjusted either.
I wasn't a particularly happy child but neither of them noticed or paid much attention even when they could have.
I think that's an entirely valid experience, I don't think anyone is arguing having kids of a universal good, but it also can't be seen as a universal bad. Ideally, as close to 100% of people possible are in a position to make a good choice for themselves.
> My parents kind of had children for selfish reasons and objectively speaking neither of them should have had children.
If you or your sibling regret being born I’m sorry for you.
If you or your sibling regret being born I’m sorry for you.
> Diapers and food are actually not that expensive, but toddler yoga, dual earner flexible childcare, private school and similar absolutely are.
While toddle yoga is fluff for healthy children, it is not that expensive and baby exercising can help to the ones that have mild motoric issues. It is actually often something mom does also for herself so that her time is occupied and she meets other moms (social isolation sux, being in same room whole day sux). It is also literally mom seeing problem in her own mental state and taking steps to fix it before it affects her behavior toward kids and husband. When you are socially isolated and bored, you can stay home and be depressed or find a place with people and something that makes somewhat sense to do.
Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know. So that the child has also middle class future. Good school also eases out situation for parent, as bad school means the parent have to re-teach, have to work around bullying and social pressures on child to be bully or not learn.
Dual earner flexible childcare is something traditional man does not appreciate. But, mom who wants ability to fend for herself too if needed and not be dependent and helpless completely appreciates a lot. If nothing else for psychological reasons - staying home is depression inducing for a lot of reasons. And when husband dies or get sick or get unemployed, yeah, it matters a lot.
> they choose to opt out of the children having status tournament
Well, social status matter to people and always mattered. How others treat you matter a lot to you.
While toddle yoga is fluff for healthy children, it is not that expensive and baby exercising can help to the ones that have mild motoric issues. It is actually often something mom does also for herself so that her time is occupied and she meets other moms (social isolation sux, being in same room whole day sux). It is also literally mom seeing problem in her own mental state and taking steps to fix it before it affects her behavior toward kids and husband. When you are socially isolated and bored, you can stay home and be depressed or find a place with people and something that makes somewhat sense to do.
Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know. So that the child has also middle class future. Good school also eases out situation for parent, as bad school means the parent have to re-teach, have to work around bullying and social pressures on child to be bully or not learn.
Dual earner flexible childcare is something traditional man does not appreciate. But, mom who wants ability to fend for herself too if needed and not be dependent and helpless completely appreciates a lot. If nothing else for psychological reasons - staying home is depression inducing for a lot of reasons. And when husband dies or get sick or get unemployed, yeah, it matters a lot.
> they choose to opt out of the children having status tournament
Well, social status matter to people and always mattered. How others treat you matter a lot to you.
> Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know.
If you’re familiar with the behavior genetics literature, not really. Judith Rich Harris covers it in No Two Alike and Bryan Caplan does the same in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Who one’s biological parents are matters enormously and after that as long as children aren’t abused they basically turn out like they’re going to turn out. Children who are adopted turn out about as similar to their adoptive siblings as to strangers and as similar to biological siblings as normal whether raised together or apart.
> So that the child has also middle class future.
Greg Clark’s work on social class persistence suggests that’s wasted effort. The heritability of social class is 0.7 in every society with records amenable to tracking lineages across generations, from Sweden, England, China, Korea and many other places. The only temporary exception was during the Cultural Revolution.
> Good school also eases out situation for parent, as bad school means the parent have to re-teach, have to work around bullying and social pressures on child to be bully or not learn.
Sympathetic as I am to the idea of schools for children who want to learn, where the unusually studious or intelligent would actually be challenged, crap schools have incredibly small effects on educational attainment, as do great ones.
Great schools are schools with great students, not great teachers. Teachers can have a temporary, marginal effect but the difference between a school where the average student is ... average, and one where you need to be in the top decile to be admitted is enormous. It’s almost all selection effects, not treatment effects.
If you’re familiar with the behavior genetics literature, not really. Judith Rich Harris covers it in No Two Alike and Bryan Caplan does the same in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Who one’s biological parents are matters enormously and after that as long as children aren’t abused they basically turn out like they’re going to turn out. Children who are adopted turn out about as similar to their adoptive siblings as to strangers and as similar to biological siblings as normal whether raised together or apart.
> So that the child has also middle class future.
Greg Clark’s work on social class persistence suggests that’s wasted effort. The heritability of social class is 0.7 in every society with records amenable to tracking lineages across generations, from Sweden, England, China, Korea and many other places. The only temporary exception was during the Cultural Revolution.
> Good school also eases out situation for parent, as bad school means the parent have to re-teach, have to work around bullying and social pressures on child to be bully or not learn.
Sympathetic as I am to the idea of schools for children who want to learn, where the unusually studious or intelligent would actually be challenged, crap schools have incredibly small effects on educational attainment, as do great ones.
Great schools are schools with great students, not great teachers. Teachers can have a temporary, marginal effect but the difference between a school where the average student is ... average, and one where you need to be in the top decile to be admitted is enormous. It’s almost all selection effects, not treatment effects.
I am 100% sure school matters especially for kids who get into small trouble or tend to rebel. There is massive difference between teachers who write off the kid and mistreat him and the ones who try to help the kid. There is massive difference between class that tolerates bullying and the one that deals with it. There is difference between school who just suspend the kid, call cops on six years old or write the kid with adhd as bad one and school that helps the kid.
It just so happens that parents in those situations deal with them, often by moving kids elsewhere or by having to spend a lot of extra effort and money to overcome that. When you have good teacher, the extra effort and money are just not needed.
Tutors exist for a reason and yes they make difference. Some schools produce kids that are on average good at later math, other schools produce kids that just don't (same city, same socioeconic background, different leadership). Somehow one city is strong in producing young programmers while other is not.
> Greg Clark’s work on social class persistence suggests that’s wasted effort. The heritability of social class is 0.7 in every society with records amenable to tracking lineages across generations, from Sweden, England, China, Korea and many other places.
The inequality as difference between poor and rich in USA right now is getting bigger. The middle class is lowering its numbers. The society is just not the same as it used to and is not actually reproducing the exact same classes.
I did had friends from weaker schools that struggled academically in college. They needed a lot of extra tutoring and help to overcome that. Some did overcomed it, so no they were not stupid and yes it evened out, but they had it much harder and had limited options on choice of major.
The worst off were those whose high school was too easy and were shocked by the system that required them to study hard things and study a lot. Yes, some parents will avoid those schools like a plague and cluster kids in different schools. It is not because they are all stupid.
It just so happens that parents in those situations deal with them, often by moving kids elsewhere or by having to spend a lot of extra effort and money to overcome that. When you have good teacher, the extra effort and money are just not needed.
Tutors exist for a reason and yes they make difference. Some schools produce kids that are on average good at later math, other schools produce kids that just don't (same city, same socioeconic background, different leadership). Somehow one city is strong in producing young programmers while other is not.
> Greg Clark’s work on social class persistence suggests that’s wasted effort. The heritability of social class is 0.7 in every society with records amenable to tracking lineages across generations, from Sweden, England, China, Korea and many other places.
The inequality as difference between poor and rich in USA right now is getting bigger. The middle class is lowering its numbers. The society is just not the same as it used to and is not actually reproducing the exact same classes.
I did had friends from weaker schools that struggled academically in college. They needed a lot of extra tutoring and help to overcome that. Some did overcomed it, so no they were not stupid and yes it evened out, but they had it much harder and had limited options on choice of major.
The worst off were those whose high school was too easy and were shocked by the system that required them to study hard things and study a lot. Yes, some parents will avoid those schools like a plague and cluster kids in different schools. It is not because they are all stupid.
All that effort washes out in the end because you can’t always be there for your child and you can’t make them do what you think they should. In the short run you can help them with their homework or get them a tutor, or deal with the fact that their teacher is a dickhead but one day they’ll leave and they’ll rapidly turn into themselves, the kind of person they were always going to be. If you broke your back making them study all through high school and they decide to just stop in college, they will, and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you put great effort into saving their soul by getting them to attend some religious service every week they’ll probably stop attending except when they visit you.
Parents can make a small short run difference through massive effort, if they really want to. It just doesn’t matter in the end.
What you can make a long term difference in is how fondly your children remember their childhood, if their parents were there, loved them, and were happy, rather than tired, stressed and angry.
Parents can make a small short run difference through massive effort, if they really want to. It just doesn’t matter in the end.
What you can make a long term difference in is how fondly your children remember their childhood, if their parents were there, loved them, and were happy, rather than tired, stressed and angry.
The kid is itself the whole time. Realistically, being really bullied is not something kids just overcome right after it all ends. It has impact on their behavior long after. The "dick teacher" which is your framing not mine, is same case, the impact is long term or require a lot of parental resources to overcome.
The parental success being hereditary is not merely random, it is because parents put a lot of effort into making sure kids do end up the same. Intervening when things go wrong is one of ways how it happens. Changing school when peers or teachers are bad is also how it happens. If you don't care and kid don't care and you are fine with it, the kid will grow up into person that don't care when when left on own devices.
The tutor makes difference when preparing for tests that decide which school you go to. You being yourself when you actually finished the degree and you being yourself when you did not is not the same for jobs that require degree. In many jobs and societies, credentials, the degree and school and network do matter. Which is why those with resource push for those credentials.
When you don't know high school math well, you will have hard time in those STEM classes that require difficult math. They are difficult enough for students from good schools, those from bad schools were literally drawning. It makes difference between finishing it and having access to those jobs and not finishing it and not having that access. I don't know how in your school, but ours kicked a lot of people out on these.
You know who is in worst economic situation in USA right now? Students who did not managed to finish college, but do have debt.
The parental success being hereditary is not merely random, it is because parents put a lot of effort into making sure kids do end up the same. Intervening when things go wrong is one of ways how it happens. Changing school when peers or teachers are bad is also how it happens. If you don't care and kid don't care and you are fine with it, the kid will grow up into person that don't care when when left on own devices.
The tutor makes difference when preparing for tests that decide which school you go to. You being yourself when you actually finished the degree and you being yourself when you did not is not the same for jobs that require degree. In many jobs and societies, credentials, the degree and school and network do matter. Which is why those with resource push for those credentials.
When you don't know high school math well, you will have hard time in those STEM classes that require difficult math. They are difficult enough for students from good schools, those from bad schools were literally drawning. It makes difference between finishing it and having access to those jobs and not finishing it and not having that access. I don't know how in your school, but ours kicked a lot of people out on these.
You know who is in worst economic situation in USA right now? Students who did not managed to finish college, but do have debt.
> Greg Clark’s work on social class persistence suggests that’s wasted effort. The heritability of social class is 0.7...
...which is not because social class is genetic, but because the things you do while raising your child are, by and large, the things of your social class.
If you say, "Well, my child will be middle-class either way, so I don't have to worry!" and do nothing to help them...then they don't get the middle-class upbringing.
Sure, there are still aspects of "being middle-class" that come along "for free," but there's enough that requires actual effort on the parents' part that your apparent philosophy would be quite counterproductive.
...which is not because social class is genetic, but because the things you do while raising your child are, by and large, the things of your social class.
If you say, "Well, my child will be middle-class either way, so I don't have to worry!" and do nothing to help them...then they don't get the middle-class upbringing.
Sure, there are still aspects of "being middle-class" that come along "for free," but there's enough that requires actual effort on the parents' part that your apparent philosophy would be quite counterproductive.
If something maintains its behavior across continents, centuries, language groups and religions I’m going to bet it’s a normal psychological trait in being highly heritable, rather than the only example of one that’s culturally transmitted.
I don’t know exactly what the contributors to high social class are but intelligence and conscientiousness are no doubt among them and they’re highly heritable.
There are aspects of being middle class that come for free, they’re the ones children are born with. That’s why adoptive siblings are as similar in their educational outcomes as strangers and biological siblings are far more similar.
The mechanism is genetic, not cultural. If you can disprove it there’s a lot of publications in it for you.
I don’t know exactly what the contributors to high social class are but intelligence and conscientiousness are no doubt among them and they’re highly heritable.
There are aspects of being middle class that come for free, they’re the ones children are born with. That’s why adoptive siblings are as similar in their educational outcomes as strangers and biological siblings are far more similar.
The mechanism is genetic, not cultural. If you can disprove it there’s a lot of publications in it for you.
Your argument is compelling.
I'm not completely convinced, but you certainly raise some good points.
However, I do have some questions. What, exactly, is it that you say "maintains its behavior" in that way? Because from my perspective, what we have is not obviously a single thing that can be said to track across all those shifts for a given individual or family, but rather a metric that maintains a high degree of stability from generation A to generation A+1—and thus, a moderate degree of stability to generation A+2, and so on.
Furthermore, my understanding of that 0.7 number is that it's true for the US, now, not something that's static worldwide and across history.
Finally, I would note that there's probably just as much publication in conclusively proving it is genetic.
I'm not completely convinced, but you certainly raise some good points.
However, I do have some questions. What, exactly, is it that you say "maintains its behavior" in that way? Because from my perspective, what we have is not obviously a single thing that can be said to track across all those shifts for a given individual or family, but rather a metric that maintains a high degree of stability from generation A to generation A+1—and thus, a moderate degree of stability to generation A+2, and so on.
Furthermore, my understanding of that 0.7 number is that it's true for the US, now, not something that's static worldwide and across history.
Finally, I would note that there's probably just as much publication in conclusively proving it is genetic.
> While toddle yoga is fluff for healthy children, it is not that expensive
I looked this up, near me in SW London it looks like the cheapest monthly membership is £45pm, which is less than an average gym membership, up to £100pm for unlimited classes. I'd go for it if it was a big benefit to the baby.
> Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know. So that the child has also middle class future.
I don't know if it's how it was intended but this is a concise & scathing description of how class structures become entrenched.
I looked this up, near me in SW London it looks like the cheapest monthly membership is £45pm, which is less than an average gym membership, up to £100pm for unlimited classes. I'd go for it if it was a big benefit to the baby.
> Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know. So that the child has also middle class future.
I don't know if it's how it was intended but this is a concise & scathing description of how class structures become entrenched.
> Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know. So that the child has also middle class future.
Nail on the head. Virtue signal all you want, but I know that I'll be putting my money into making sure that any kids I have see a lot of these advantages.
Nail on the head. Virtue signal all you want, but I know that I'll be putting my money into making sure that any kids I have see a lot of these advantages.
Just wanted to add that diapers are really expensive for lots of middle-class people from around the world. Baby food is also more expensive compared to food for grown-ups.
Baby food is as expensive as finely chopped or mashed vegetables. It does not take long to mash carrots or potatoes. Even making meat paste is trivial with a blender. Diapers really are expensive but baby food should not be breaking the bank because they just don’t eat much. Unsalted mashed up vegetables and small portions of fish, egg or meat aren’t really expensive.
Baby food makes no sense. Chew your own food and put it in baby's mouth, just like humans did for the past 100k+ years.
Good for microbiome, too. Lazy parenting is (usually) good parenting.
Good for microbiome, too. Lazy parenting is (usually) good parenting.
I would advise against that for anyone with oral herpes (cold sores) even if you’re not presenting. Also there’s a limited amount of food baby can eat when small. Don’t chew pizza and give that to a three month old.
The risk of being destroyed financially if something goes wrong with your kids is sobering.
[deleted]
This is nonsense born from classist contempt. Every day middle class people are struggling not with luxuries but with everyday essentials like housing.
The correct response to this is not antinatalism but anticapitalism: Why should we have a system that systematically subjects people to financial hardship for having children?
It's easily fixed with a sensibly-designed welfare state, but we don't have one because we'd rather be judgemental to the poor about wanting "luxuries" like a decent house to live in.
The correct response to this is not antinatalism but anticapitalism: Why should we have a system that systematically subjects people to financial hardship for having children?
It's easily fixed with a sensibly-designed welfare state, but we don't have one because we'd rather be judgemental to the poor about wanting "luxuries" like a decent house to live in.
If you're struggling with essentials then you're not middle class.
Disagree. Plenty of middle class people who struggle with housing costs. I'm one of them. If you know the state of Australia's housing market this is obvious.
What definition of "middle class" are you using that includes "can't pay the rent/mortgage"?
Note that losses from rental properties don't count as housing costs, that's just poor business return.
Note that losses from rental properties don't count as housing costs, that's just poor business return.
We were talking about people delaying/avoiding children for financial reasons.
That doesn't imply "can't pay" necessarily, but when rent/mortgage payments are high, that leaves less spare cash floating around for the additional/unexpected expenses, a scary prospect.
Even those on comfortable incomes can find them unexpectedly disappear.
That doesn't imply "can't pay" necessarily, but when rent/mortgage payments are high, that leaves less spare cash floating around for the additional/unexpected expenses, a scary prospect.
Even those on comfortable incomes can find them unexpectedly disappear.
I think taneq is implying that while you might beleive you're middle class, the fact of struggling with rent, by some definition of middle class, makes you not middle class.
In the US, I’ve been hearing this point of view consistently amongst co-workers for almost two decades. But talk is cheap and if this was really something people wanted, especially the middle class, I imagine votes would go this way — in the US they do not. It doesn’t even seem to scratch the top 3 issues list.
People do not make these choices in a vacuum. They are determined by the limited options available to vote for, and the enormous media and cultural resources dedicated to convincing people to vote against their own interests.
I feel like the main misconception propogated by this argument is the idea that to be pro-welfare, one must be anti capitalist. In fact, socialism (Viz., state support of human needs not met by market) and capitalism (Viz., state support of health of market economy) go hand in hand. Markets are healthier when states selectively intervene to manage externalities, shocks, unemployed, education, health. Of course devil is in the details, but the point here is that capitalism and socialism are two different axes and, hypothetically, the best society maximises both.
Capitalism doesn't mean "markets", just as socialism doesn't mean "not markets" (hence the existence of "market socialism" as a concept).
The defining feature of capitalism is ownership of the means of production aka capital, by a capitalist class. Socialism is common ("social") ownership of the capital, and thus the abolition of the capitalist class.
The defining feature of capitalism is ownership of the means of production aka capital, by a capitalist class. Socialism is common ("social") ownership of the capital, and thus the abolition of the capitalist class.
This is why yours and similar arguments speak past other people. The defining feature of capitalism is private ownership and competitive markets. Against the accumulation of capital? Don't describe that as capitalism. Against monopolistic forces? Again, those forces are dangers to successful capitalistic systems.
Marxists can define capitalism and socialism with precision. But when people defend capitalism and when people argue against capitalism, they are referring to different things. People defending capitalism are defending markets and "the invisible hand" as a mechanism for positive social development. People arguing against capitalism are arguing against monopolies and market distorting accumulations of wealth.
Trying to convince people that capitalism doesn't mean markets is not a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, you might accomplish your goals better by helping people realize that socialism and govt regulation can lead to stronger, healthier markets.
My overall point is that capitalists and anti-capitalists use different definitions of capitalism and therefore the arguments are doomed to futility.
Marxists can define capitalism and socialism with precision. But when people defend capitalism and when people argue against capitalism, they are referring to different things. People defending capitalism are defending markets and "the invisible hand" as a mechanism for positive social development. People arguing against capitalism are arguing against monopolies and market distorting accumulations of wealth.
Trying to convince people that capitalism doesn't mean markets is not a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, you might accomplish your goals better by helping people realize that socialism and govt regulation can lead to stronger, healthier markets.
My overall point is that capitalists and anti-capitalists use different definitions of capitalism and therefore the arguments are doomed to futility.
But I do not care about "stronger, healthier markets" as a goal. What interests me is liberation from the market and collective ownership of capital.
Capitalists generally do not care about markets in the abstract either: what motivates them is class domination. But they don't want to state that plainly, and so dress up the discourse with talk of markets, efficiency, etc etc.
Capitalists generally do not care about markets in the abstract either: what motivates them is class domination. But they don't want to state that plainly, and so dress up the discourse with talk of markets, efficiency, etc etc.
What is the appeal of liberation from the market? Aren't you participating now in a market of ideas?
I don't know why you "other" capitalists. It doesn't seem right.
I don't know why you "other" capitalists. It doesn't seem right.
I cannot find a woman who will be a full time mother after giving birth. I will not put my children into day care for 12 hours a day. I could afford to support a family in my own, but only with my very frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, no eating at restaurants etc)
Well, I don't want to patronize nor be disrespectful but :
>>> frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, no eating at restaurants etc)
This sounds like a very normal lifestyle to me. I have a "cheap" car (but have one nonetheless), I go to restaurants maybe 2 times a year (and not expensive ones; cooking myself is often much better), my holidays remains rather expensive though (around 1500 euros for the whole family).
Now, to make a joke : once you have kids, you don't have much time to enjoy a luxury car, expensive restaurants, or expensive holidays : all those little humans want is quality time with me (preferably, all my time) :-) You can also easily have cheap baby sitting in the form of a smart phone :-) (end of the joke)
>>> frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, no eating at restaurants etc)
This sounds like a very normal lifestyle to me. I have a "cheap" car (but have one nonetheless), I go to restaurants maybe 2 times a year (and not expensive ones; cooking myself is often much better), my holidays remains rather expensive though (around 1500 euros for the whole family).
Now, to make a joke : once you have kids, you don't have much time to enjoy a luxury car, expensive restaurants, or expensive holidays : all those little humans want is quality time with me (preferably, all my time) :-) You can also easily have cheap baby sitting in the form of a smart phone :-) (end of the joke)
> very frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, no eating at restaurants etc)
That's not "very frugal and minimalistic lifestyle", that's just living for 95%+ of the world population. It's not so bad.
That's not "very frugal and minimalistic lifestyle", that's just living for 95%+ of the world population. It's not so bad.
I didn't say it was bad. But women who work tend to do all of this and want to maintain that lifestyle which is clearly ridiculous to do on a single income with children.
1) Church
2) Internet dating
3) Write about your quest. Publicize it.
1) Lots and lots of women want to be stay at home moms and they disproportionately go to some kind of religious service and are part of an associated community. Alternatively move to Utah. Even if you don’t want to marry religious there are ex-Mormon women who are still into children because that’s the culture.
2) If your internet dating profile says you’re seriously looking to get married you will attract entirely different people from the less serious dating/hook up crowd. And if you message women in other, more traditional countries you’ll find plenty of women who would be more than happy to be housewives in the US.
3) Have you heard of the Polgar sisters, who are all chess champions? Their father found their mother by looking for someone to run an experiment in child rearing. If you’re willing to be loud about your quest for a housewife you’ll definitely find one.
2) Internet dating
3) Write about your quest. Publicize it.
1) Lots and lots of women want to be stay at home moms and they disproportionately go to some kind of religious service and are part of an associated community. Alternatively move to Utah. Even if you don’t want to marry religious there are ex-Mormon women who are still into children because that’s the culture.
2) If your internet dating profile says you’re seriously looking to get married you will attract entirely different people from the less serious dating/hook up crowd. And if you message women in other, more traditional countries you’ll find plenty of women who would be more than happy to be housewives in the US.
3) Have you heard of the Polgar sisters, who are all chess champions? Their father found their mother by looking for someone to run an experiment in child rearing. If you’re willing to be loud about your quest for a housewife you’ll definitely find one.
I'm not religious so going to church would feel wrong.
Internet dating is awful. My standards are too high.
The truth is finding a suitable mother is very far down my list of priorities. I know I could easily find one, but probably not a beautiful one. I don't think it's worth putting that much effort into something that is ultimately putting my heart into the hands of another person. Computers don't lie and cheat. I have sex with women but none of them are suitable to receive my support to raise children.
Internet dating is awful. My standards are too high.
The truth is finding a suitable mother is very far down my list of priorities. I know I could easily find one, but probably not a beautiful one. I don't think it's worth putting that much effort into something that is ultimately putting my heart into the hands of another person. Computers don't lie and cheat. I have sex with women but none of them are suitable to receive my support to raise children.
So you do what I did - marry a woman with a good career and become a stay at home dad. Even better if you have a skill set that allows you to do some work from home, around nap times to allow you to keep your eye in.
I firmly believe that the key to happiness is to do what you're good at. For me that means working and not raising children. I will never be a stay at home dad.
Yeah, you are totally different from women who want to work. In their case it is selfishness and wanting things most people can easily live without.
In your case it is because work gives you happiness and totally nothing to do with material things.
Majority of women live without expensive holidays and expensive cars. Majority of men live without expensive car and men are more car-focused and tend to be the ones who control the car when car is in family. Most people, neither males nor females go to expensive restaurants.
You know what else second income does? No one can tell you that he earned money and you are wasting them. It means that you can leave when relationship goes bad. It means you can handle when husband goes sick or dies. It means that you are less vulnerable and safer.
In your case it is because work gives you happiness and totally nothing to do with material things.
Majority of women live without expensive holidays and expensive cars. Majority of men live without expensive car and men are more car-focused and tend to be the ones who control the car when car is in family. Most people, neither males nor females go to expensive restaurants.
You know what else second income does? No one can tell you that he earned money and you are wasting them. It means that you can leave when relationship goes bad. It means you can handle when husband goes sick or dies. It means that you are less vulnerable and safer.
Yeah, that's all great. But I don't want to be a part of a relationship where I'm disposed of as soon as I stop being useful.
And in order to achieve that, you want partner to be helpless, vulnerable and trapped?
> What this author forgets is that many young people today are not procreating because having children is increasingly becoming a luxury of the upper middle class
For a small part of the world's population, that's mostly true, everywhere else it is not.
> Why should childless individuals care all that much about how issues like global warming and growing economic inequality will affect future generations
Apparently they do though, many of those who demonstrate (FFF etc.) are still in school.
For a small part of the world's population, that's mostly true, everywhere else it is not.
> Why should childless individuals care all that much about how issues like global warming and growing economic inequality will affect future generations
Apparently they do though, many of those who demonstrate (FFF etc.) are still in school.
[deleted]
[deleted]
this is not a new problem. it's been around since at least the industrial revolution
When the next collapse of civilization happens those that caused it will be holding most of the money. They will then use this money to rebuild civilization and make yet more profit...
There's a good chance that the next collapse will be more comprehensive than previous ones though. In particular, it's very easy to imagine nukes getting thrown around as nations compete for rapidly diminishing topsoil & fresh water.
It's also easy to imagine the financial elites burrowing down into their premade bunkers to wait it out.
The problem is that wealth is tied to functioning society. Law and our current monetary system need order to function.
You can move wealth into all sorts of assets that you can then protect with that wealth... When the Roman empire fell the rich did not suffer only the poor did. Same thing will repeat.
> When the Roman empire fell the rich did not suffer
How do you define “suffer”?
They lost their previous lifestyle and creature comforts. Their public infrastructure fell into disrepair and the ability to build its like was lost. Trade networks were disrupted and many products and materials became unavailable. They lost much of their power and wealth (lands, houses, possessions, businesses, ...). Many were killed. In Rome proper foreign invaders came and demanded tribute, sacked their city, tortured them for information about where their wealth was hidden, stripped all of their public buildings of valuables, and so on.
How do you define “suffer”?
They lost their previous lifestyle and creature comforts. Their public infrastructure fell into disrepair and the ability to build its like was lost. Trade networks were disrupted and many products and materials became unavailable. They lost much of their power and wealth (lands, houses, possessions, businesses, ...). Many were killed. In Rome proper foreign invaders came and demanded tribute, sacked their city, tortured them for information about where their wealth was hidden, stripped all of their public buildings of valuables, and so on.
I wouldn’t say that. Roman governance was distributed and the governors turned into petty Kings. Some held on to land and gold. Many affiliated with the church, etc. There are probably families in Europe who can trace back to those ancestors.
The difference today is that intellectual property is more highly valued. When law and order breaks down, software, for example, has zero marginal value.
The difference today is that intellectual property is more highly valued. When law and order breaks down, software, for example, has zero marginal value.
Didn't work out so well for the Aztecs.
Unless pale skin aliens from distant lands are coming to Earth on ships to cause our problems I see no parallels between their situation and ours.
The pale skin guys were the catalyst. The Spanish rounded up everyone who hated the Aztecs (ie. everyone who interacted with them) and used that with their horses, guns and crossbows as shock troops to defeat them.
Future conquests (Inca, etc) were aided by the devastation of disease that wiped out stove populations.
Our situation isn’t so different. Look at how quickly the Soviet state degraded into near anarchy and what happened when the pieces stabilized.
Future conquests (Inca, etc) were aided by the devastation of disease that wiped out stove populations.
Our situation isn’t so different. Look at how quickly the Soviet state degraded into near anarchy and what happened when the pieces stabilized.
Ok, French Revolution, revolution in Russia, the Chinese civil war, in all of those cases rich people were the first targets.
[deleted]
The way 'money' exists today, if civilisation collapses money disappears with it.
Quite the opposite, most of the elite did not survive the French Revolution or the Russia revolution.
The opposite is true. We're currently so occupied with imagined problems from the future that we forget to take care of present issues. The interesting time span for normal folks and most politicians to deal with should be the next 5 years, not the end of the century. Leave that to science fiction authors. Better and more interested people will deal with problems in 81 years, whatever they will be.
A lot of great projects -- subways, tunnels, bridges, constitutions, the metric system, manifest destiny, the marine chronometer, GNU -- wouldn't have happened if people only cared about the next five years.
All of these were built in order to immediately improve the current situation, not the one in 100 years.
It takes longer than 5 to pay back the investment, and many are planned in anticipation of future growth.
The horizon of our problem-solving should be based on the scope of our activities. If we are making decisions with 100 year outcomes then we should certainly be thinking about 100-year problems.
> If we are making decisions with 100 year outcomes then we should certainly be thinking about 100-year problems.
Can you name a few decisions that were actually made only with 100 year outcomes in mind and not to solve current problems?
Can you name a few decisions that were actually made only with 100 year outcomes in mind and not to solve current problems?
We need a positive vision. We need to be optimistic that we are addressing the environmental issues and that humans will be thriving and flourishing in 2100. Therefore, what will that look like? And what is the work we need to do to design and develop that positive future?