Hacker News Reader

> It often feels like we as a society have sort of entered into a weird territory with a lot of these liberal changes.

I feel like you could write this sentence at almost any point in modern history.

> The societal structures that have worked in the past, while you may not like them, did work.

Worked for whom exactly? Almost laughable how people from different backgrounds would have a VERY different opinion on this. Basically any minority, whether that be gender, racial, or religious among other oppressed groups.

> Fertility wins in the end,

Wins in what way? The continued existence of the human race? I think we're seeing a slow down in birth rates for a number of reasons, but heres a few big ones amongst my circles:

- anxiety/fear of the present, leaving no time to consider having offspring - anxiety/fear of the future being enjoyable and/or inhabitable for offspring - a focus on enjoying the present as opposed to striving for a better tomorrow for offspring

If political philosophies care at all about fertility they better start looking at it holistically and not purely from a breeding standpoint, because otherwise people will wise up to being treated like birth & labor livestock.

> I feel like you could write this sentence at almost any point in modern history.

I think so. And I think that most cultural innovations fail the fertility test. This isn't a new phenomenon.

> Worked for whom exactly? Almost laughable how people from different backgrounds would have a VERY different opinion on this. Basically any minority, whether that be gender, racial, or religious among other oppressed groups.

I am merely making the argument that conservative approaches to societal structures, regardless of the specific values, tend to more tried and true as they have been around a long time. Basically if a societal structure is old, it has likely passed the fertility test.

New structures of society I think often do not pass the fertility test and thus can be more temporary and slowly die off and are replaced by more conservative structures which do.

> If political philosophies care at all about fertility they better start looking at it holistically and not purely from a breeding standpoint, because otherwise people will wise up to being treated like birth & labor livestock.

Yes, this is a good point. I think that modern day liberalism is sort of facing a reckoning here with fertility. And I fear it may not pass the test. And we will see Western liberalism start to decay as more conservative branches of society start to out number it and proclaim that this brand of liberalism philosophy has failed - you can see this in a lot of conservative messaging. I mention this because it is something I can see happening, not because I want it to happen.

> Fertility wins in the end

I’m not sure this is actually true.

In the USA, identification as Christian is decreasing and identification as “nothing in particular”, “agnostic”, and “atheist” is increasing. This is in spite of the fertility differences noted

I think philosophies tend to look ‘inherited’ most often in stable societies, with low geographical mobility and low penetration of outside ideas. I don’t think todays society fits that bill.

> In the USA, identification as Christian is decreasing and identification as “nothing in particular”, “agnostic”, and “atheist” is increasing

In general atheist is projected to decrease around the world as a share of the population and that is primarily because of low fertility among atheists.

For example, here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-pr...

> I think philosophies tend to look ‘inherited’ most often in stable societies, with low geographical mobility and low penetration of outside ideas.

I didn't mean to imply they're inherited, but if anyone adopting a particular philosophy has as a result low fertility, it is a very hard philosophy to grow as it constantly needs new converts. It isn't self regenerating.

The issue with this analysis is that culture isn't genetic. A steady stream of people coming from high birth rate cultures are going to be adopting these modern lower birth rate cultures. Especially if they are intrinsically appealing or if they offer social benefits (e.g. higher education, business opportunities, etc).

> The issue with this analysis is that culture isn't genetic.

I didn't say it is genetic or mean to imply it is.

> A steady stream of people coming from high birth rate cultures are going to be adopting these modern lower birth rate cultures.

Yes. People from high fertility cultures who move and adopt a different cultural norm, usually adopt the same fertility as well. This happens constantly to immigrant populations who move to Western nations. Western nations are sort of population sinks for the rest of the world.

How do you conceive of these societal structures? What would a wealthy society, where people have more choice over their outcomes, have to do to put these “societal structures” in place?

It seems a lot of those previous societal structures came into being because of the limitations of previous lives. Couples got married at 20 and had kids because there weren’t really other options on how to live a life.

Should we make it illegal for women to work? Tax single people over the age of 30? You blame liberalism but it seems the entire goal of liberalism is decentralized decision making and personal freedom. Are those things bad? It sounds to me like your suggesting modern society is centrally controlled.

> How do you conceive of these societal structures? What would a wealthy society, where people have more choice over their outcomes, have to do to put these “societal structures” in place?

I think Japan is a wealthy society that has become pretty much completely atheist and this is what its future demographics are projected to be (this is the first link I found on Google, but there are many others that are similar):

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population

Japan is unique in that it doesn't really allow for much immigration, so it is just going to shrink without much internal competition between different competing cultures.

> It seems a lot of those previous societal structures came into being because of the limitations of previous lives. Couples got married at 20 and had kids because there weren’t really other options on how to live a life.

Very true.

> Should we make it illegal for women to work? Tax single people over the age of 30? You blame liberalism but it seems the entire goal of liberalism is decentralized decision making and personal freedom. Are those things bad? It sounds to me like you're suggesting modern society is centrally controlled.

I am not saying I know the solutions, but I think we are not explicitly trying to find good ones in a way that will work. In many ways the current abortion debate is about reversing population trends, but this is sort of a crude hammer based approach derived from religious teachings, rather than being modern about it. I worry that this is generally how things will be solved in our society, not proactively by liberals but reactively by conservatives who advocate a religious solution. And this will happen increasingly as liberals become further out numbered because they do not have the fertility rates that religious conservatives have.

> And this will happen increasingly as liberals become further out numbered because they do not have the fertility rates that religious conservatives have.

While your argument is intuitively correct it seems like there are forces working against it. Religiosity has been declining in America. I wonder if there's sort of a cultural inequality that can occur. Religions have as strong cultural influence, but most pop culture is dominated by a secular liberalism. I imagine that secular libertal pop culture has a strong impact in religious communities. Either you choose to give up your religion, or you just realize you just don't want to live in whatever limited small town way that your religious upbringing necessitates. The stronger the progressive cultural forces, the more people born into religion that don't end up being conservative or religious long term. That along with liberal immigration policies may outweigh the birthrate impacts.

> The societal structures that have worked in the past

I think you are vastly over-estimating these "societal structures". You don't clearly define them but based on conservative ideology they represent a temporary family and economic structure that really only existed in some parts of the USA and only for the recent past. "Marriage" in the pre-1900s outside the educated rich class that got written about was more or less "start living together". No licenses or ceremonies. Family structures got strange. People left their spouse and children by moving west or across the pond.

The supposed problems can be easily solved with money. Free childcare (including funding for better worker pay, better facilities, training more caregivers, etc). Universal healthcare. Universal after school care. 18 year tax credits for having kids. Free training on parenting techniques and discipline. Mail every new parent a "baby box" with useful things. Mandate lactation rooms. Mandate parental leave. Mandate emergency paid leave (eg kid got sick so stayed home).

Conservative ideology as practiced in the USA is more about the super rich not wanting to pay taxes or be told what to do (eg environmental or safety regulations) so by definition it is not an ideology capable of solving many problems. Everything else is a smoke screen to corral the rabble ("liberal" ideology has shibboleths used for similar purposes). The best modern US conservatives can do is eventually ban all family planning to attempt to force as many kids to be born to unhappy poor people as possible because that's "free" (though look for anything early childhood or child education related to see severe funding cuts if they're successful).

Reminder that I'm saying this is what the super rich funding conservative movements want, not what actual conservatives want. If you pill supposed liberal and conservative voters they're much more closely aligned on policies and desired outcomes than the news would have you believe. But implementing any of those things needs money and regulations so it's out of the question.

> I think you are vastly over-estimating these "societal structures". You don't clearly define them but based on conservative ideology they represent a temporary family and economic structure that really only existed in some parts of the USA and only for the recent past. "Marriage" in the pre-1900s outside the educated rich class that got written about was more or less "start living together". No licenses or ceremonies. Family structures got strange. People left their spouse and children by moving west or across the pond.

Okay. I am fuzzy with pre-1900s families in North America.

> The supposed problems can be easily solved with money. Free childcare (including funding for better worker pay, better facilities, training more caregivers, etc). Universal healthcare. Universal after school care. 18 year tax credits for having kids. Free training on parenting techniques and discipline. Mail every new parent a "baby box" with useful things. Mandate lactation rooms. Mandate parental leave. Mandate emergency paid leave (eg kid got sick so stayed home).

This makes sense and would love to see it. I think it isn't going to come to the US any time soon... probably will come to other countries first and maybe it can be proved out and then come to the US after many decades.

> Conservative ideology as practiced in the USA is more about the super rich not wanting to pay taxes or be told what to do (eg environmental or safety regulations) so by definition it is not an ideology capable of solving many problems. Everything else is a smoke screen to corral the rabble ("liberal" ideology has shibboleths used for similar purposes). The best modern US conservatives can do is eventually ban all family planning to attempt to force as many kids to be born to unhappy poor people as possible because that's "free" (though look for anything early childhood or child education related to see severe funding cuts if they're successful).

Yup. I can not disagree with this, as it sort of seems to be the general direction.