Capitalism: a Love Story

[Kuya]

Yes, it does seem like economics (general term) does play a role in population control, but under the speculation we're discussing, wouldn't this effect be nullified with a system other than capitalism? The high cost of child rearing is a deterrant to childbirth, similarly, the economic value of having children, especially in the often cited example of third world countries, would also increase it if it were an economic asset to have children. The issue is, when children are neither an economic asset or an economic burden, what is the balance? The obvious answer would be culture, but is that too simple of an answer?

edit: How did child rearing/birth work during feudalism?

[Beckwin]

Hasn't history proven that wrong? people who are content and fiscally secure have less sex and less children on average. "Success" is the best birth control, along with TV(we can only assume VR will be even more effective).

In PolySci classes we were always shown it's poor people who statistically have the most sex and children, because they're poor and they can't afford other forms of entertainment. Which humans by all statistics, prefer to sex.

they also have less ability to pay for birth control and historically have needed more children to assist with labor and provide for them in old age. also, religion is stronger among the poor and middle classes compared to the elites, likely due to a lack of education and how organized religions have had a decent history of providing some assistance to the poor. religion has promoted having children/argued against birth control, etc.

[Cadsuane]

It seems like a red herring. The global population is still growing geometrically.

[Darus Grey]

Yes, it does seem like economics (general term) does play a role in population control, but under the speculation we're discussing, wouldn't this effect be nullified with a system other than capitalism? The high cost of child rearing is a deterrant to childbirth, similarly, the economic value of having children, especially in the often cited example of third world countries, would also increase it if it were an economic asset to have children. The issue is, when children are neither an economic asset or an economic burden, what is the balance? The obvious answer would be culture, but is that too simple of an answer?

Good observation, I hadn't entirely thought of the fact that neither factual scenario is really applicable to the proposed scenario.

That said, I can only speak from personal experience in that I decided not to have children because I saw it as a *social* burden and not a financial one. Which I've been told is a very new concept to my generation and beyond. Having children changes your lifestyle.

If I had to *guess* I think the less children scenario would win out in the long-term, cable TV was a huge influence, video games was another, I can only see us having more and better distractions as time progresses. In a scenario where you could have awesome virtual sex every-time that felt better than the real thing, that kind of reduces real sex down to fully planned attempts at procreation.

Though it's really one of those "you'd have to do it to know" kind of things.

It seems like a red herring. The global population is still growing geometrically.

True, but 5/6 of them(or more?) are also poor. Is this a correlative or casual relationship is the real question I suppose.

[Kuya]

So the answer is technology again. Hmm.

[Darus Grey]

Technology is awesome.

[Cadsuane]

Yes, it does seem like economics (general term) does play a role in population control, but under the speculation we're discussing, wouldn't this effect be nullified with a system other than capitalism? The high cost of child rearing is a deterrant to childbirth, similarly, the economic value of having children, especially in the often cited example of third world countries, would also increase it if it were an economic asset to have children. The issue is, when children are neither an economic asset or an economic burden, what is the balance? The obvious answer would be culture, but is that too simple of an answer?

edit: How did child rearing/birth work during feudalism?

Even under no economic duress or encouragement the biological imperative would win out I would think.

In land owning families, the father was the patriarch of the house, and traditionally arranged for his lands and titles (if any) to be inherited by the first born son. Either the father or the first born son would arrange for the marriages and consequent doweries of any daughters. Second and third born sons would persue a career in the clergy or military or merchant navy etc. as necessary, having no inheritence but a name and education.

This sort of mechanism lead to some interesting colonial development for countries like England and Portugal actually. Colonies like Brazil and the US are where the second born sons of landowners and aristocrats ended up to establish estates and so forth, being closely tied to the mother nation by merchant navies and militaries, which is where many of them would be serving, whereas colonies like Angola or Australia didn't have this benefit of exported elite and ended up as colonial piss pots for awhile.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

pohibaba and guartz can argue for libertarianism/capitalism well enough. I've had long discussions with both in the past; I still don't agree with either on much of anything outside of foreign policy issues, but they can definitely put forth a genuine argument without Leif's hannitytalk or sirrus' "hay bitch shit ur dunm hows that dick taste" version of hannitytalk.

I shouldn't have lumped poh or guartz in with with the rightfielders but those two still don't debate it from an academic standpoint that Darus laid out.

[Beckwin]

Doesn't even have to be technology. Look at the developed Asian nations. Largely free of prominent organized religion (SoKo has a Christian presence,about 30% of the population, but it mostly feels a bit superficial/flavor du jour in a way). Developed economies, modern amenities, and the cost of raising children definitely functions as a deterrent to having too many, as does increasingly metropolitan living that engenders apartment living and whatnot. Simultaneously, in Korea for example, the sex industry is extremely active- accounting for 3% of the countries GDP (unfortunately it's mostly employing females, and some of them are trafficked or debtors... although I've heard of establishments that service trophy wife clientele). Abortions are the #1 medical procedure, and birth control is over the counter and cheap. Japan is a bit more sexually repressed, but similar in many ways. Both countries have low birth rates- Japan at 1.1ish, Korea at 1.3.

No virtual sex yet.

I agree that technologic distractions and personal enjoyments could/do play a role in the decision to have less children, but I also see the simple removal of procreation from the sexual act to have a greater impact, and I feel that reaching physical population thresholds (lack of space, etc) factors in as well.

[Rhinox]

Jesus christ. Darus just completely shut down this thread rofl. Think probably the only conservative with the wit to go toe to toe with Darus on this is probably Pohi. But sadly he stays away from Political threads now.

[Kuya]

I can't put these into a coherent form so i will put them this way:

- I suppose the question is, what is stronger, human desire for entertainment or for reproduction? And to what degree are both changed by social narrative (a social constructivist term, but for the benefit of other posters here, change social narrative for education).

- Under what we're speculating, that is, where technology seems to play a vital role, it would be easier to avoid reproduction and increase sex as entertainment (or some other value), also, this would, hypothetically, mean gradual increases in human longevity.

- Under what we're discussing, i would imagine that we would see a decreasing population or some form of balance, because there is less birth and an increase of longevity, but this situation is currently posing a substantial problem for countries with those very same characteristics. An aging work force and decreasing natality, but it would seem that this might only be an issue in capitalism.

In land owning families, the father was the patriarch of the house, and traditionally arranged for his lands and titles (if any) to be inherited by the first born son. Either the father or the first born son would arrange for the marriages and consequent doweries of any daughters. Second and third born sons would persue a career in the clergy or military or merchant navy etc. as necessary, having no inheritence but a name and education.

This sort of mechanism lead to some interesting colonial development for countries like England and Portugal actually. Colonies like Brazil and the US are where the second born sons of landowners and aristocrats ended up to establish estates and so forth, whereas colonies like Angola or Australia didn't have this benefit of exported elite and ended up as colonial piss pots for awhile.

Am i correct to conclude that from what you're saying, the importance was on the contuining ownership of both land and title rather than a higher importance attributed to economic assets?

edit: actually, aren't colonies properly objects that happened during capitalism? I mean America.

[Darus Grey]

This thread has asked much better questions than my classes ever had.

When I presented this, 90% of questions of both professors and students focused on how I would prevent SKYNET from gaining intelligence and destroying humanity...I wish I was kidding.

[pohibaba]

Jesus christ. Darus just completely shut down this thread rofl. Think probably the only conservative with the wit to go toe to toe with Darus on this is probably Pohi.

I'd freely admit that Darus could make a better case than me on this. He certainly knows his shit and economic theory is probably my weakest political sphere. I can debate the everyday applications of economics pretty well, but I'm still learning how to properly convey that using theory. Give me a few years and I'd love to have this debate.

But sadly he stays away from Political threads now.

Working full time, being a full time graduate student, listening/watching every Giants game, all the while trying to maintain a healthy relationship with a girlfriend takes a lot of my time Don't really have the time to get into extended debates, and I would just rather come in and stir the pot every now and then. This has been a very fun thread to read though. Someone needs to bring up the virtues of selfishness!

[Darus Grey]

Geesh guys, I don't take praise well.

[Sirrus_Asura]

If you want to talk about corruption in generalities but be vague enough about it to say big government doesn't work then chew on this fuckstick: the regulation that hurts government is as a result of lobbyists representing corporations who write and inject policy into bills that defends the businesses making the most money - the problem with corruption is capitalism my friend.

That isn't the gov. fault for taking the handout and allowing themselves to be influenced by this?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I must have missed that post. It's amazing how the founding fathers knew lobbying would be an issue and provided a way to render it ineffective. If congress hadn't limited itself to 435(?) members there would be over 7500+ members in the house. Would be hard to spread enough money around for politicians to give a shit in that case.

[Cadsuane]

I can't put these into a coherent form so i will put them this way:

- I suppose the question is, what is stronger, human desire for entertainment or for reproduction? And to what degree are both changed by social narrative (a social constructivist term, but for the benefit of other posters here, change social narrative for education).

I only feel I have an adequate response for your first point.

Something I learned about grape vines in a vineyard my family owns. When the growth season begins with an abundance of rain and the vine is well provided for, it ends up putting forth nothing but more vine. If rain is scarce and the vine is under duress, it spends more effort on fruit. It would make sense that humans are sensitive to ecological cues like this as it would certainly explain the baby boom after world war II.

Am i correct to conclude that from what you're saying, the importance was on the contuining ownership of both land and title rather than a higher importance attributed to economic assets?

edit: actually, aren't colonies properly objects that happened during capitalism? I mean America.

Land is a precious commodity in Europe, still is. There are very few unowned plots of land and inheritance is still a big deal for ancestral families. Land ownership can translate into income much more easily than it tends to over here.

I'm not sure about your last question. I think it'd be more precise to call it mercantilism since Brazil and the US became independent during the enlightenment and existed as colonies well prior.

[Solefald]

Quoting from the top of the page:

Yes, it does seem like economics (general term) does play a role in population control, but under the speculation we're discussing, wouldn't this effect be nullified with a system other than capitalism? The high cost of child rearing is a deterrant to childbirth, similarly, the economic value of having children, especially in the often cited example of third world countries, would also increase it if it were an economic asset to have children. The issue is, when children are neither an economic asset or an economic burden, what is the balance? The obvious answer would be culture, but is that too simple of an answer?

edit: How did child rearing/birth work during feudalism?

I've never read Malthus, but didn't he prove that population growth was always kept in check by the resultant population pressure? I.E. a new farming method increases crop output, therefore more food is available, therefore more babies are born. When those babies grow up, there is no longer a surplus of food, so the population no longer grows, until something else occurs to reduce population pressure (new farming tool, emigration, war, etc)

[Rhinox]

I must have missed that post. It's amazing how the founding fathers knew lobbying would be an issue and provided a way to render it ineffective. If congress hadn't limited itself to 435(?) members there would be over 7500+ members in the house. Would be hard to spread enough money around for politicians to give a shit in that case.

BIG GOVERNMENT HISSSSSSSSS

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

That isn't the gov. fault for taking the handout and allowing themselves to be influenced by this?

The gumment isn't a singular entity, it's a group of elected officials, you're posing a question against democracy now, not governments. Government is merely a vehicle. When you hear of a car accident do you blame the car?

Of course this leads to more questions yes? Was it the engineers who designed the cars fault? The mechanics that built it? Quality controls for not being thorough enough? Was the driver inable to properly drive the car?

No one ever blames the car for a bad accident, we need to look deeply at the many reasons this car crashed and fix it, making the car smaller than before and taking parts out isn't going to make the car safer and more reliable.

This analogy applies directly to government.