Michael Lind on Progressive Utopianism; Brink Lindsey on performative politics; River Page on harmful AI simulations; Michael Fritzell contra Zeihan on China; Kling on Warriors and Worriers
Arnold, you left out my favorite passage from Warriors and Worriers:
"A woman could not have sex with an attractive man, go off to help conquer a kingdom or build a corporation, and return to see her child for the first time, well taken care of by her attentive mate. Her genes simply would not be passed on. No one else is available to gestate, breastfeed, and raise a woman's children. Thus, women who produced and successfully cared for children were those who were intuitively very careful about their own health and survival and maintaining proximity to their children. These basic intuitions influence a woman's thoughts and behaviors. With few exceptions, even those women who choose not to have children nonetheless have genes that prepare them to have children." (p. 133) And "If you need to stay alive to make sure that your children do, one of the consequences is staying attuned at all times to potential danger." (p. 136)
Suggesting that "feminization" leads to "safetyism". E.g., COVID lockdowns.
“Symbolic clashes” may seem like a distraction in the short term, but history suggests that it is the non-materialistic symbols, beliefs, ideas, values, and culture that determine the long-term material and spiritual fate and future of our civilization.
Before someone can claim real resources, they have to win the culture war.
You can't pass the Green New Deal until you've imprinted a certain view of environmentalism into society.
You can't double K-12 spending without convincing people of the magic of education.
You can't increase the defense budget until you convince people of an existential struggle.
Etc.
When I look at the culture war I find that non-material victories are always followed up by material demands that seem implied by the principals of the cultural assumptions.
"AI is making it clear that pure, unqualified techno-optimism is, at least in part, the domain of sociopaths, incels and autistics. From what I’ve seen here, they’re the only ones who don’t seem to have any reservations about where things are headed. Everyone else is scared, angry, or despondent. They think something must be done, or that nothing can be done."
The enormous fanfic porn catalog which has existed for more than a decade - most of it written by women, much of it naming mostly male, real people or TV/movie characters played by real people, much of it loaded with purposely, overtly transgressive themes (rape, incest of all kinds...) - might suggest that this problem is split between a female and male perspective. Are the women writing this stuff also incels, sociopaths and autistics?
Women are panicked by visual deepfakes/fakes, but not by written versions. You could write this off as a double standard - and it is - but if we're in a feminized culture, the reaction will probably continue to be outsized for the visual.
My favorite male-reaction to fanfic had the TV show Supernatural (male viewer majority) do an episode about the gay-incest (and highly graphic) fanfic about the main characters (brothers). The two actors did the episode, did interviews and played it as a joke. No offense other than mock offense was shown. The two actors are so well known for their roles on the show that they aren't well known for anything else - meaning if they wanted to, they could take it very personally. My guess is if the genders were swapped (for both the characters/actors and the writers of the fanfic) the negative reaction would have been enormous.
I completely understand how people can feel violated by this - it's mere existence can be offensive, let alone the real risk of reputational damage. If you ignore it you can be blamed for not taking it seriously added another avenue of reputational damage. The gender difference in reactions will probably remain outsized until some sort of #metoo trigger event (which this might be). Hanania's last post "Hitler, Demi Moore, and Other "Pedophiles"" makes this difference pretty stark.
Should have added - the fanfic on "Archive of our Own" on Elon Musk alone is shocking. He's famous, had loads of resources, and this stuff still exists...
I tried reading the Lind piece, but I don't actually understand what he means because his word choices don't fit with my view of recent history. Example
'radical libertarianism in trade and immigration policy' as a characterization of the Regan/Bush years is just, well it means he has not words to describe middle of the road libertarian policy, let alone radical libertarian policy. This is akin to someone subbing their toe and saying 'this is the worst pain ever' but in earnest.
Fritzell's analysis of China is shallow, and representative of the 'GDP factory' thinking flaws you (Kling) criticize so often.
'But construction activity has already come off sharply. In my view, that’s a positive development. The excess construction problem has essentially been dealt with. While it may not be positive that private developers are going bankrupt, employing millions of workers to build housing nobody needs is hardly productive either. '
China's construction slowdown is good in that it needed to slow down, but pointing out that the 'excessive construction problem has essentially been dealt with' is unforgivably naïve. New housing construction (starts) in the US peaked in January of 2006, by the time Lehman brothers failed it was at a post WW2 low. The consequences of overbuilding don't show up right when you stop building, and not continuing to make more mistakes is not the same as being free from the consequences of the mistakes you have already made.
'But in the real world, substitution happens. That means that slow-moving processes, like demographic shifts can be accommodated.'-
For market economies? Sure. For communist countries running command economies? No, they move even slower than demographics. The early one child policies were instituted in the late 70s and within a decade they had 'achieved' their supposed goals, but those policies persisted for almost another 30 years. In the US the housing bubble peaked in 2006, and in 2008 policy makers were declaring that subprime was 'contained', and lowering interest rates. They still didn't head off the crisis with a 2 year head start because technocrats don't understand the economy.
I wonder how Benenson accounts for the large and continuing proportion of exceptions to her stereotypical claims. Many of the traits she paints as stereotypically male, notably the love of physical fighting and team competition, are things that not only don't resonate with me at all, but don't resonate with my son or any of my close male relatives either. I do see some of these traits in my wife's male relatives. I would put this down to differential socialization -- would Benenson say it's genetics instead?
It'd be a lot easier to be a techno optimist if there were similar progress in the world of atoms. "AI might put you out of a job, but you can always start over on the colony on LB-422, doing maintenance on the atmospheric processors that are slowly terra-forming it" is an easy sell, at least until the aliens are discovered. But "AI is going to put you out of a job in the US in 2023, and you'll have to entertain yourself with Twitter and Youtube in between SNAP-financed meals" is not a prospect many people find mollifying.
"Benenson claims that what underlies these differences is that women pay more attention to their survival as individuals, while men pay more attention to survival in group competition."
Direct result of warfare - "Y-chromosome replacement" is a common feature of prehistory. Men in societies that lost wars usually didn't leave descendants (either killed or enslaved) in prehistory, but the women were taken as prizes, and did. This was particularly prevalent in the millenia or so following the rise of agriculture and especially pastoral nomadism in both Eurasia and (less so) sub-Saharan Africa. Can be seen in a graph of Y chromosome vs mtDNA diversity over time. Means male fitness is directly tied to group functionality in a way that female fitness is not.
Men having an evolutionary-ingrained concern for group fitness lacking in women has Implications - women in positions of political power is Bad, if you care about building a functional society, and while men will sometimes sacrifice their own personal/familial interests for group interests, women almost never will.
Given the trendy degrowth, "you will live in a pod and eat bugs, rice and beans" ideology at work among elites, I think they understand your disregard for material well-being just fine.
Arnold, you left out my favorite passage from Warriors and Worriers:
"A woman could not have sex with an attractive man, go off to help conquer a kingdom or build a corporation, and return to see her child for the first time, well taken care of by her attentive mate. Her genes simply would not be passed on. No one else is available to gestate, breastfeed, and raise a woman's children. Thus, women who produced and successfully cared for children were those who were intuitively very careful about their own health and survival and maintaining proximity to their children. These basic intuitions influence a woman's thoughts and behaviors. With few exceptions, even those women who choose not to have children nonetheless have genes that prepare them to have children." (p. 133) And "If you need to stay alive to make sure that your children do, one of the consequences is staying attuned at all times to potential danger." (p. 136)
Suggesting that "feminization" leads to "safetyism". E.g., COVID lockdowns.
“Symbolic clashes” may seem like a distraction in the short term, but history suggests that it is the non-materialistic symbols, beliefs, ideas, values, and culture that determine the long-term material and spiritual fate and future of our civilization.
Before someone can claim real resources, they have to win the culture war.
You can't pass the Green New Deal until you've imprinted a certain view of environmentalism into society.
You can't double K-12 spending without convincing people of the magic of education.
You can't increase the defense budget until you convince people of an existential struggle.
Etc.
When I look at the culture war I find that non-material victories are always followed up by material demands that seem implied by the principals of the cultural assumptions.
This line from River Page looks unaware:
"AI is making it clear that pure, unqualified techno-optimism is, at least in part, the domain of sociopaths, incels and autistics. From what I’ve seen here, they’re the only ones who don’t seem to have any reservations about where things are headed. Everyone else is scared, angry, or despondent. They think something must be done, or that nothing can be done."
The enormous fanfic porn catalog which has existed for more than a decade - most of it written by women, much of it naming mostly male, real people or TV/movie characters played by real people, much of it loaded with purposely, overtly transgressive themes (rape, incest of all kinds...) - might suggest that this problem is split between a female and male perspective. Are the women writing this stuff also incels, sociopaths and autistics?
Women are panicked by visual deepfakes/fakes, but not by written versions. You could write this off as a double standard - and it is - but if we're in a feminized culture, the reaction will probably continue to be outsized for the visual.
My favorite male-reaction to fanfic had the TV show Supernatural (male viewer majority) do an episode about the gay-incest (and highly graphic) fanfic about the main characters (brothers). The two actors did the episode, did interviews and played it as a joke. No offense other than mock offense was shown. The two actors are so well known for their roles on the show that they aren't well known for anything else - meaning if they wanted to, they could take it very personally. My guess is if the genders were swapped (for both the characters/actors and the writers of the fanfic) the negative reaction would have been enormous.
I completely understand how people can feel violated by this - it's mere existence can be offensive, let alone the real risk of reputational damage. If you ignore it you can be blamed for not taking it seriously added another avenue of reputational damage. The gender difference in reactions will probably remain outsized until some sort of #metoo trigger event (which this might be). Hanania's last post "Hitler, Demi Moore, and Other "Pedophiles"" makes this difference pretty stark.
Should have added - the fanfic on "Archive of our Own" on Elon Musk alone is shocking. He's famous, had loads of resources, and this stuff still exists...
I tried reading the Lind piece, but I don't actually understand what he means because his word choices don't fit with my view of recent history. Example
'radical libertarianism in trade and immigration policy' as a characterization of the Regan/Bush years is just, well it means he has not words to describe middle of the road libertarian policy, let alone radical libertarian policy. This is akin to someone subbing their toe and saying 'this is the worst pain ever' but in earnest.
Fritzell's analysis of China is shallow, and representative of the 'GDP factory' thinking flaws you (Kling) criticize so often.
'But construction activity has already come off sharply. In my view, that’s a positive development. The excess construction problem has essentially been dealt with. While it may not be positive that private developers are going bankrupt, employing millions of workers to build housing nobody needs is hardly productive either. '
China's construction slowdown is good in that it needed to slow down, but pointing out that the 'excessive construction problem has essentially been dealt with' is unforgivably naïve. New housing construction (starts) in the US peaked in January of 2006, by the time Lehman brothers failed it was at a post WW2 low. The consequences of overbuilding don't show up right when you stop building, and not continuing to make more mistakes is not the same as being free from the consequences of the mistakes you have already made.
'But in the real world, substitution happens. That means that slow-moving processes, like demographic shifts can be accommodated.'-
For market economies? Sure. For communist countries running command economies? No, they move even slower than demographics. The early one child policies were instituted in the late 70s and within a decade they had 'achieved' their supposed goals, but those policies persisted for almost another 30 years. In the US the housing bubble peaked in 2006, and in 2008 policy makers were declaring that subprime was 'contained', and lowering interest rates. They still didn't head off the crisis with a 2 year head start because technocrats don't understand the economy.
I wonder how Benenson accounts for the large and continuing proportion of exceptions to her stereotypical claims. Many of the traits she paints as stereotypically male, notably the love of physical fighting and team competition, are things that not only don't resonate with me at all, but don't resonate with my son or any of my close male relatives either. I do see some of these traits in my wife's male relatives. I would put this down to differential socialization -- would Benenson say it's genetics instead?
It'd be a lot easier to be a techno optimist if there were similar progress in the world of atoms. "AI might put you out of a job, but you can always start over on the colony on LB-422, doing maintenance on the atmospheric processors that are slowly terra-forming it" is an easy sell, at least until the aliens are discovered. But "AI is going to put you out of a job in the US in 2023, and you'll have to entertain yourself with Twitter and Youtube in between SNAP-financed meals" is not a prospect many people find mollifying.
"Benenson claims that what underlies these differences is that women pay more attention to their survival as individuals, while men pay more attention to survival in group competition."
Direct result of warfare - "Y-chromosome replacement" is a common feature of prehistory. Men in societies that lost wars usually didn't leave descendants (either killed or enslaved) in prehistory, but the women were taken as prizes, and did. This was particularly prevalent in the millenia or so following the rise of agriculture and especially pastoral nomadism in both Eurasia and (less so) sub-Saharan Africa. Can be seen in a graph of Y chromosome vs mtDNA diversity over time. Means male fitness is directly tied to group functionality in a way that female fitness is not.
Men having an evolutionary-ingrained concern for group fitness lacking in women has Implications - women in positions of political power is Bad, if you care about building a functional society, and while men will sometimes sacrifice their own personal/familial interests for group interests, women almost never will.
"That means that slow-moving processes, like demographic shifts can be accommodated."
How do you define as "slow-moving" and "fast moving"?
Given the trendy degrowth, "you will live in a pod and eat bugs, rice and beans" ideology at work among elites, I think they understand your disregard for material well-being just fine.