Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dating, education, and sex ratios

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#281

Post by politician »

knightofmars wrote: post #265
politician wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your individual right to this attitude, but consider that the wonders you enjoy today are sustained by a population of a particular size. As populations contract, the number of places that support the activities and adventures you want to have will necessarily contract as well. Imagine a campfire, throughout the night you'll have to move the dwindling coals closer together if you can't add more wood. So, on…

The opposite side, consider the fact that overpopulation leads to the inability to access the activities and adventures a person may want to enjoy. Imagine a campfire, throughout the night you'll have to move the dwindling coals closer together because the forest has been stripped clear and there's no more wood to add. In this world, the parasitic nature of individuals on the environment robs it of its bounty.

In the original, the analogy was that the fire and wood represented the economic capacity of humanity and the population, respectively. Your rebuttal doesn’t make sense.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#282

Post by cultofmetatron »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #9
kholdstayr wrote: post #7

Programmers don't have time for love. /s

More like most women don't find men who program interesting/fun. or Most men who program aren't "good with socializing" let alone "good with socializing with women".

thats a first world thing. I've met plenty of women outside the united states who found it interesting including my last two girlfriends. I ended up teaching them both the basics of javascript!

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#283

Post by murphyslaw »

aaomidi wrote: post #21
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #12

What I find interesting and I am curious if these conversations can happen anymore. I no longer discuss anything related to gender, relationships, or personal life dynamics with anyone outside of my bubble. I would enjoy the conversation, learning about another's ideas and understanding although despite assurances of maturity and openness conversation ends due to their inflammatory pronouncements. I do not believe id…

> I do not believe ideas and ideals can be discussed with the general public. On the contrary, I love having these discussions.

> On the contrary, I love having these discussions.

Same, although my lawyer insists not to have them anymore when drinking.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#284

Post by azemetre »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #191
dnissley wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to view the relationship between the religious part of our society and the secular as being symbiotic in a sense. What makes people defect from religious communities on the border to secular centers? Some combination of money, freedom, and power (to participate in shaping the wider society at scale). The cost of that defection is an uprooting and disconnection from "traditional values". I'm not as certai…

I love this, but there's one thing I'd point out. With few exceptions, there's little defection from secular society into fundamentalist religious communities. Almost everyone in those communities was born there.

Reminds me of the period of people coming to America during colonial times. That there were stories and tales of people joining Native American tribes, completely leaving their old lives behind and becoming happier but you never heard accounts of the reverse. Native Americans willing joining the colonist, this rarely, if ever, happened.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#286

Post by politician »

Manuel_D wrote: post #278
politician wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your individual right to this attitude, but consider that the wonders you enjoy today are sustained by a population of a particular size. As populations contract, the number of places that support the activities and adventures you want to have will necessarily contract as well. Imagine a campfire, throughout the night you'll have to move the dwindling coals closer together if you can't add more wood. So, on…

A dwindling population also has lesser impact on the environment. Ironically, with your example a smaller population would also mean you have fewer people to compete with in finding a camp site and gathering firewood. In terms of long-term health of humanity on Earth a shrinking population is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don’t think you understood the analogy either, but I’ll try to address your point.

Yes, fewer people means less human-generated impact on the environment. It follows that zero people minimizes the impact of humans on the environment. I don’t think that’s the direction you have in mind, or at least I hope not.

Let’s assume that you want a balance between the number of people on the planet and the carrying capacity of the planet, inclusive of all of the negative externalities caused by humans. Moreover, you probably want to build in some buffer so that people with disabilities or with varying lifestyles and ideologies that lead them to not reproduce can still exist in this world without causing populations to collapse utterly.

So what percent does that look like to you? Do the people of this world, intent on maintaining your ideal equilibrium, have compassion for 5% of their fellows who can’t or won’t reproduce? 20%? 99%? And why not one more?

What is the proper ratio between the members of society responsible for supporting the ongoing existence of the species and those who do not shoulder that responsibility?

Does that help you understand why I said that there is some threshold beyond which it seems parasitic to only take the benefits of a healthy population?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#287

Post by akomtu »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #263
akomtu wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hinduist "four ugas" capture this idea very well: the golden age when strong and good create values, the silver age when weak and good uphold the values, the bronze age when weak with sloppy morals let the values decline, the iron age when strong and evil destroy the values. I doubt that the current situation with marriage institute is seen as a problem by those in power. As we're progressing towards the iron age, th…

Deveraux's blog makes a good argument that this meme is ahistorical: https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... Tldr: we glorify the men of harsh societies shaped by scarcity, but soft liberal societies actually outcompete them militarily and economically.

"Strong" in the golden age has nothing to do with physical strength. It's about moral strength, when one does the right thing even under grave pressure. The harsh strength comes into play in the iron age when might is the right.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#288

Post by cudgy »

chad1n wrote: post #171
friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

Men suffer from "their own success" and are probably more romantic than women are overall and expect their relationships to be like dreams, hence they really can't put too much in a relationship that might fail, considering that the "market" is huge and it's hard to trust most people. It was way easier before to get laid, wasn't it?

Surely it’s easier to get laid now than before online dating became mainstream. Before online dating, relationships were formed mostly by proximity, convenience and timing. Now, there is a huge list of candidates to attempt contact, advertising themselves in apps and providing some details on what they want.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#289

Post by paulryanrogers »

dnissley wrote: post #174
keiferski wrote: post #52

I read a book awhile ago called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? , which basically argues that cultures which strongly promote traditional values, having children, etc. will evolutionarily outcompete groups that don’t. It made me think that there must be a kind of cycle in human societies, where certain social values (like the ones mentioned in the article) are able to become popular for a short period of time…

I'm starting to view the relationship between the religious part of our society and the secular as being symbiotic in a sense. What makes people defect from religious communities on the border to secular centers? Some combination of money, freedom, and power (to participate in shaping the wider society at scale). The cost of that defection is an uprooting and disconnection from "traditional values". I'm not as certai…

I'd argue the religious are actually causing cultural destruction and are a net loss in every way except raw childbearing output. Having been born into one and 'defected', I found the community insular, stuck on platitudes, little to no critical thinking, full of unspoken rules and expectations, and with a ever shrinking dating pool.

They produce poorly educated children, heartache, cognitive dissonance, and perpetuate destructive traditions in the name of long dead / imaginary people.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#290

Post by cudgy »

UncleMeat wrote: post #272
friend_and_foe wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, my expectation is more general. I expect a give and a take, a natural process of finding roles, I expect a partner to do what it takes to keep a household going, you know, a partnership. I expect two people to find their strengths and act accordingly for the benefit of the family. What I think is too common is that any mention of housework has a stigma attached to it for women now and what you wind up wit…

> What I think is too common is that any mention of housework has a stigma attached to it for women now and what you wind up with is a situation where men have to fit the gender role of being a successful breadwinner and still do their own laundry. Yet, when we actually measure things and include both professional work and home labor, women perform more labor than men in relationships.

How was this labor measured? What about the non-labor portions of life like financial planning and purchasing decisions which take time as well?
Post reply on HN