I've seen conservatives gloat about this as a huge win.
They see it as liberal men voluntarily limiting their future contribution to the gene pool, and thereby reducing competition for their own offspring to thrive and take control of the future.
They see it as liberal men voluntarily limiting their future contribution to the gene pool, and thereby reducing competition for their own offspring to thrive and take control of the future.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-pandemic-caus...
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advant...
That said, you can probably query the CDC Wonder dataset to see the breakdown of vasectomies by state.
I actually think overturning Roe will accelerate abortions in some regions (and completely stop others). There were previously limits on abortions based on age. In Colorado, you can now abort up to birth, for instance.
Imo this will lead to a much larger change in the fertility rates.
Of course, it didn't really work. I'm now a wayward atheist, and none of my 4 siblings seem likely at this point to reproduce themselves to continue the process.
But the fact is, if you have two populations with very different reproductive rates, the one with the higher rate (assuming it's sustained over many generations) absolutely will subsume the other given enough time. It's just math.
But, you don't have two different populations. Identity groups (whether socially constructed races or religions) aren't isolated lineages.
Politics is the new religion, and at least current trends seem to show that it's initiating a new genetic rift.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/really-...
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/522987-the-partisan-...
A lot of conservatives have decided they don't like the indoctrination that the state is giving to kids in public school, so they are starting to homeschool their kids to make it more likely that they are indoctrinated in the parent's memes and not the state's.
I'm sure everyone does it to some degree, but surely not every "indoctrination" is equal, right? If you help foster critical thinking and show proper scientific methodology incl. how to discern good and bad sources, I'd say you're doing less indoctrination than if you don't do this and e.g. just block resources you don't like.
> I'm sure everyone does it to some degree, but surely not every "indoctrination" is equal, right?
Yes, but it depends on your point of view. I'm an A, so I think A-indoctrination is best, but you're a B, so you disagree think B-indoctrination is best (and perhaps that A-indoctrination is bad and I'm bad for doing it). If you think you're in a position to objectively evaluate which is better, you've just presented of an example of someone who's confused their point of view with objectivity. The "not equal" is in the sense of "not equally close to me."
> help foster critical thinking and show proper scientific methodology incl. how to discern good and bad sources
and B-indoctrination doesn't, we can still say that one is more indoctrinated than the other, since one doesn't simply follow their indoctrination, but actually has the tools to evaluate their position properly.
No, I didn't. Someone who is indoctrinated to "foster critical thinking and show proper scientific methodology" and does so is simply following their indoctrination.
There's always ideology that goes so unquestioned that it's hard to see it for what it really is, an ideology.
Child A is raised with homeschooling by parents that strictly believe in flat earth, reject "mainstream physics" and science in total, and Child A fully believes it all and sees conspiracies everywhere.
Child B is raised in the public school system and they have a standard science education, incl. the basics of how gravity works and so on. They also have talked in class about flat earth and disproved the theory on multiple grounds any person can try - but they have honestly tried to look into it. Child B believes in our standard models, to the best of their knowledge.
Who is more indoctrinated?
You're still not getting it. Quit looking at things from your point of view for a minute. They're both indoctrinated, and "more" in this case is simply a function of how far they are from your ideology.
Try to consider whether you really wish to treat every single viewpoint as equal.
I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe.
> If you give somebody the tools to find the truth themselves they will not be necessarily follow their parents indoctrination.
You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination.
It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie.
> Try to consider whether you really wish to treat every single viewpoint as equal.
I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity."
Funnily enough that's what you're arguing - there is no truth, all knowledge is indoctrination, the only important thing is what you believe. I think that there is knowledge beyond humanity, and we are able to explore and discover more and more through scientific processes. We're not at the center, we're outside looking in.
> You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination.
No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion", which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway!
> It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie.
Is your moral framework really this shallow? I simply acknowledge that I am fallible, and most of my knowledge is wrong. So instead of focussing on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. But obviously there is no way someone else is doing something better than you! After all, you're at the center of the universe. You know how everything works, and what all things are. So of course you know there can't be any difference between what I do and what you do.
> I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity."
You should really, really look into epistemology. There is a lot more to this world than "I thought of it, so it's what I think" - people have spent a lot of time thinking about how knowledge works, how you can gain it, and how you can differentiate truth from untruth. It seems you've either read a lot and rejected all of it, or you haven't read anything - in both cases you should give it another go, there might be interesting thoughts in there for you which you didn't come up with yourself!
Another term for those? Doctrine.
> You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion"
That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up.
> which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway!
You seem to be overreacting.
> So instead of focussing [sic] on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge.
That's an artificial distinction, which is really the only point I've been trying to communicate throughout this whole discussion. What you call "the ability to gain knowledge" is still a collection of "knowledge and opinions," but perhaps obscured and not always clearly labeled as such. Obscuring doctrine like that is actually characteristic of deep and thorough indoctrination.
Your doctrine isn't privileged such that training someone in it is somehow not indoctrination or less so than training other doctrines.
> You should really, really look into epistemology.
Which one?
> Another term for those? Doctrine.
you show that there is literally no sense in attempting to convince you. You divide everything into black and white, where seemingly any kind of knowledge is automatically doctrine. If I bring up ways to analyze how we attain knowledge and how we can make sure knowledge follows "facts" in a philosophical sense, you just declare that to be doctrine too. You're not responding to any arguments or thoughts beyond automatically declaring them doctrine.
> That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up.
Sure, let's do it! Cambridge says: "the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question"
Dictionary.com says: "the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view"
So your definition is completely different from the first (since I mentioned critical examination), and it falls under one specific part of the second (but fails the others completely). So sure, if you completely ignore the other - more commonly known - definition, you are technically correct. If you accept the word as it is commonly used (we don't want to put you at the center of the universe, do we?) suddenly your rants are pretty baseless.
We get the last laugh.
Could you rephrase to try to help me understand?
The liberal guys are getting laid.
My consideration is here is how this might effect larger societal moves as the balance of how reproduces and who does not changes.
Getting snipped can at least be done after you've figured out what kind of family you want.
>> They see it as liberal men voluntarily limiting their future contribution to the gene pool, and thereby reducing competition for their own offspring to thrive and take control of the future.
> These are the same conservatives who complain that they ain't getting sex any more, and women are too up-tight.
Chances are you're just failing to differentiate the different members/factions of a loose grouping, so trading in useless stereotypes.
Or you might have data showing the same individuals are making all these claims and they comprise a significant portion of the "conservative" population. But if that's the case, show us.
Hearsay!
There is some truth in that.
Almost all religions place emphasis on progeny. So religious conservatives tend to procreate more.
Hedonists don't follow any such strictures. They tend towards seeking of pleasure in the here and the now, and avoiding multi-decade responsibilities that accompany child-birth. Which means their contribution to the future of humanity will be zero.
While passing on your genes is incredibly important and powerful, so is passing on memes. And a person who doesn't get caught up in the sacrifice of child rearing may be much more likely to study and develop novel ideas that spread and infect many minds.
A teacher is in some ways more influential on the future than a single parent, because the teacher influences hundreds of children's minds over a career, while a parent only creates a handful of children.
This is also why conservatives are increasingly concerned about putting their kids in public school which is seeding their minds with memes that they don't like.
The conservatives even commenting on this phenomenon mostly champion personal responsibility. ie. they would prefer you act responsibly before you require an abortion.
They like that people are taking more personal responsibility to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, and therefore not committing what they believe to be murder in the form of abortion.
They also like that liberal minded people who consider abortion an option for an unwanted pregnancy are now increasing their rates of voluntary sterilization, thereby decreasing their future contribution to the gene pool.
This could be some side-effect, but your political ideology is not genetic and therefore self-sterilization has zero impact on the country's future political makeup. Anyone making that argument fundamentally does not understand genetics and child raising. Even within families, children will often hold wildly different political views from each other, let alone their parents.
In conservative circles, it's become a sort of meme. People running out and deciding to become responsible after the "safety net" was removed in some select areas. It should be noted that repealing of Roe had zero impact on significant portions of this country - making the meme even more funny within conservative circles.
From some conservative's perspective, sure, no abortion is permissible. But that is a hard-liner's perspective, and just like the Democrat party has shifted enormously over the past few decades, so is the Republican party.
There are fewer and fewer hard-liners, and more and more folks that just think abortion is supposed to be a last resort - not the first resort.
To that end, this was a clear win for that perspective. I think more of us can agree on this perspective than we would think...
Gay people, trans people, and liberal folks who do stuff like this, are significantly less likely to reproduce.
I wonder if after a generation of this we’ll see a drop in liberalism. Kind of seems like we will.
You can already see some examples of it in Europe. Europeans are not reproducing, Islamic folks are moving in and bringing their own form of conservativism with them.