TonesTones's recent activity
-
Comment on Addressing the cause of collapsing fertility: status in ~life
-
Comment on Addressing the cause of collapsing fertility: status in ~life
TonesTones LinkThis is a fantastic piece, and I really enjoyed reading it. There's a well-defined premise—the author presents collapsing fertility rates as a socially exisential problem—and paints a clear story...This is a fantastic piece, and I really enjoyed reading it. There's a well-defined premise—the author presents collapsing fertility rates as a socially exisential problem—and paints a clear story connecting this "status framework" to lower fertility rates. A note before diving into my thoughts: I consider a piece of writing good if it causes me to think about things in a different way; I disagree with a lot of what the author concludes, but it caused me to think quite a lot.
I think the status framework could be quite effective for analyzing socioeconomic issues. Our current society has quite different values than past societies. Society operates off of the decisions of well-educated, well-connected, and sometimes ruthless businesspeople and politicians (i.e., venture-starters), as opposed to religious figureheads or royalty. Far more people view the uncapped accumulation of resources, and thus, power and control, as commendable than in eras past. National elections garner far more attention than local elections, as people look to the most powerful people in the world to solve problems. Pre-communications, local politicians were on the hook for people's issues.
I agree with the author that modern society's value set is opposed to having children, except for the most elite. The parenting standards of the early 1900s would be deeply frowned upon today; children were additional labor. Today, they are expected to be in school until 18. I also agree with the author that a lot of the absurd suggestions he proposes would have the effect of increasing fertility.
However, I think this piece has the same fundamental issues as a lot of strong conservative arguments I read: they accept as axioms the wrong ideas. Even if you have a strong argument, if your premise can't hold up to scrutiny, then your conclusions also can't be accepted.In the past, fertility rates were connected strongly to economic growth. In the future, this does not necessarily hold in my view. As we approach a point in history where we are maximally exploiting the world's resources, and the world's resources (and our ability to exploit them) are going to shrink due to climate change, too many people could be a burden on your society.
If you only have enough farmland, water, and energy to support 1/2 of your population, you'll have a civil war before the other 1/2 decide to lay down and die (and that war will cause further resource depletion). In the future, our ability to sustain our society will be far more important than growth; the groups that thrive will be those that aren't greedy for growth. Even if there are more old people than young people, our technology allows such efficient resource extraction that our limitation will be those resources, and not our access to labor.I think the author notices that our current society's set of values is unsustainable; right now, we depend on continuous growth, which we simply won't get in the next fifty years, due to decreases in both labor and resource availability. We will need to shift our value set, but I'm not convinced increasing the fertility rate will be a solution, or even beneficial, to the problems we will face.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
TonesTones LinkMotion Twin recently released their final update for Dead Cells after six years of development. I decided to pick up the last DLC I hadn’t bought yet (Return to Castlevania) and boot up a new save...Motion Twin recently released their final update for Dead Cells after six years of development. I decided to pick up the last DLC I hadn’t bought yet (Return to Castlevania) and boot up a new save file after a long time away. It’s a well-polished 2D action roguelike, but what’s truly special is how it’s become a love letter to both AAA and influential indie games.
When I last played, there was a small reference to Dark Souls with a campire room in the first stage. Now, I can start a run dressed up as the commando from Risk of Rain, equipped with the King’s Scepter from Shovel Night and a Prismatic Deck from Slay the Spire, walk into the Psychiatrist’s Office from Katana Zero to find a new weapon from that game, and finally enter the Castle’s Outskirts from Castlevania.
They aren’t cheap references either; the Motion Twin devs clearly have played these games thoroughly. The Pure Nail from Hollow Knight rewards you for PoGoing and vertical fighting, which is a distinguisher of HK’s combat compared to other metroidvanias. Katana Zero’s weapon is not the main character’s katana, but the Throwable Objects you pick up in a KZ level. Anyone who has speedran Katana Zero knows how much proper use of throwable objects busts the game wide open. But in Dead Cells, they only regain ammo if you kill enemies, so you must use a different primary weapon just like in KZ. The Slay the Spire deck cycles between 4 “cards”, one for each character from StS and an associated strategy reflecting a signature deck of that character (play defensively with the Ironclad, build up DoT effects with the Silent).
They also separate their OG content from the other-game stuff nicely. Most of the features spice up the first stage (which is the least interesting since you see it the most) and the later stages are very much “Dead Cells”. Honestly, I’m surprised to see how far this game has come. It was a decent action platformer when I first came across it in 2019, but now it’s really a cut above the rest. If you like difficult action games, I’d recommend taking a look at the gameplay and seeing if that’s your thing. It’s very much a “do one thing and do it well” kind of game.
You’re absolutely right. I was making a comparison in my head, not an objective statement. A more precise statement might be: modern society has emphasized values that are opposed to having children, and simultaneously lessened the social stigma around not having children.
Looking at figures with attention (celebrities, businesspeople, etc.), there are substantially more divorces, remarriages, and generally public admissions that the traditional family structure didn’t work for them. This would’ve been unacceptable 150-200 years ago.
I think having children has always required sacrifices from the parents, there’s just more good options nowadays that don’t involve making those sacrifices. More social mobility, more hobbies and interests to invest time in, etc.
I think it’s true that many people would like to have kids, but I think today it’s much easier to fill in the statement “____ is more important to me than having kids.” and you get less social criticism for making that statement than ages past. That’s what I meant when I said our values are opposed to (i.e., adding pressure against) having kids.