Live data from Hacker News

Human history in the very long run (2021)

slowboring.com

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#101
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A problem I have is there are hundreds of pages of stuff he wrote so he's hard to pin down. It sounds like you're referring to a book? Maybe you can clarify. I read Capital Vol 1 during COVID, and I've come to realize that, without being hyperbolic, I've encountered zero people with criticisms of Marx who have read what he's written. It's commenting without reading the article on steroids and it frankly makes the c…

Well it's true I haven't read much of Marx. Glancing at Amazon the combined capital 1-3 is 1392 pages and the Communist Manifesto 176 pages and god knows what else he's knocked out and I don't much like his stuff I have read so I can't be bothered to plow through that. But when you get statements like the capitalistic system will inevitably destroy itself that seem obviously rubbish it makes me ok disliking his stuff…

I never read Nietzche. Because of this, I refrain to criticize Nietzsche, or making assumptions about the meaning of ideas that I do not fully understand.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, What's the point you think I'm trying to make?

That no one who has read Marx can have significant criticisms of his work.

There is a certain legitimacy that comes with reading a work one wants to criticize, no?

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That no one who has read Marx can have significant criticisms of his work.

There is a certain legitimacy that comes with reading a work one wants to criticize, no?

But that wasn't what you said.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a certain legitimacy that comes with reading a work one wants to criticize, no?

But that wasn't what you said.

Sorry, but this has a certain, "I'm going to disagree with everything you say"-vibe which then devolves into not really making a point

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that wasn't what you said.

Sorry, but this has a certain, "I'm going to disagree with everything you say"-vibe which then devolves into not really making a point

You were starting to get a bit slippery there with that attempted rewording of that rather peculiar claim you made.

That was my point, stated much more clearly this time.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but this has a certain, "I'm going to disagree with everything you say"-vibe which then devolves into not really making a point

You were starting to get a bit slippery there with that attempted rewording of that rather peculiar claim you made. That was my point, stated much more clearly this time.

I'm really getting a sense that you're trying to catch me in some sort of contradiction. Why don't you get curious instead? That's the sort of community we're trying to create.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dental insurance in the US is more like a subscription service than actual insurance. It only really covers preventative care, and only to a very limited extent. You should make a list. I would find it very helpful. The people claiming the world progresses in a single direction will eat their words one day.

Dental care at least exists in the modern US, along with antibiotics and cavity fillings and of course, anesthesia. Comparing it, with its defects, to anything passing for dentistry or medicine from the preindustrial past is simply foolish. > The people claiming the world progresses in a single direction will eat their words one day. That's a completely unfounded assumption on your part. It may end up being true, sin…

It's a completely reasonable assumption on his part because it is literally 100% guaranteed that society must fundamentally change due to fertility rates alone. Perhaps some think that fertility decline means populations will gradually decline on a scale of centuries or something? Which I agree would be generally just not that big a deal. But unfortunately that's not how it works. Fertility rates are exponential system that kick in hard once they start going.

It's easy to intuit this by thinking about society in terms of generations. Since a peak fertility window is around 20 years, a generation also tends to be around 20 years. So how much will population rates change as one generation dies, every ~20 years? It's easy to work out by example. Imagine a fertility rate of 1. That means each woman is having 1 child on average. You need to have 2 for replacement. It generalizes to a factor of fertility_rate/2, so with a fertility_rate of 1 the population will decline by 50% per generation, per 20 years. If you start with a generational population of 8, then you'd have child populations of 4, 2, 1. Once that 8 generation starts dying, the 4 generation will start dying about 20 years later. And when the 8 generation dies you lose 50% of your total population, and 50% again when the 4 generation dies, and so on every 20 years. That's going from 8 population to 1 in 60 years! This also emphasizes why immigration is obviously not a solution, the scale is simply far too large.

Also bear in the mind the vicious cycle these outcomes will create. With a growing population your economy also naturally grows, even if it stays (proportionally) the exact same size - because there's more people, more consumption, and so on. The exact opposite is true in cases of population decline. So you're going to be trying to encourage people to have more children at the same time that your economy is collapsing. You will also have totally screwed up age ratios - in our example your 60-80 year old group will make up 50% of your population, forever! So you also have a lower labor forces, extremely high costs in terms of social security/healthcare/etc, and so on.

So there is no way that any civilization can persist on any reasonable timeframe with a subreplacement fertility rate.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were starting to get a bit slippery there with that attempted rewording of that rather peculiar claim you made. That was my point, stated much more clearly this time.

I'm really getting a sense that you're trying to catch me in some sort of contradiction. Why don't you get curious instead? That's the sort of community we're trying to create.

Okay, let's try curiosity then:

"Didya really mean to say that there's literally no one walking this Earth with meaningful criticisms of Marx who has in fact also read what he's written? "Without being hyperbolic", no less?" 'Cause it sounds like an awfully weird and authoritarian thing to say."

Inquiring minds want to know.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really getting a sense that you're trying to catch me in some sort of contradiction. Why don't you get curious instead? That's the sort of community we're trying to create.

Okay, let's try curiosity then: "Didya really mean to say that there's literally no one walking this Earth with meaningful criticisms of Marx who has in fact also read what he's written? "Without being hyperbolic", no less?" 'Cause it sounds like an awfully weird and authoritarian thing to say." Inquiring minds want to know.

I didn't say walking the earth, I said that I've encountered. Can you please not reword what I've written and then dismiss it. It's not showing a good faith effort.

I find it hard to believe you're more of an authority over who've I've encounter than I am.

It's a really good example of the point I'm trying to make. Which is folks who dismiss Marx tend to conjure a fantasy and then dismiss that fantasy and then claim victory. Just take what I write at face value. I'm not trying to trick you or anything.

Post reply on HN