Population Growth = Bad Society

[totah]

So I had this revelation last night:

Steady population growth, as we've been having in the West for about 600 years, is actually bad for the society, from a psychological perspective. Think about it: children learn to behave (ie. social and personal habits etc) and socialise by watching adults, this is also how they pick up moral code. Now in a sample society whose population is a steady 2000-odd people over several centuries, the newest generation is always equal in number to the generation preceding it, which is equal in number to the senior generation before it. What you get here is that there's always exactly the right number of adults (give or take, it's not a precise science) to give their attention to the children; ie. one adult for one child (as opposed to one adult for 30+ children).

This means that members of the newest generation are not socially neglected and learn their society's moral codes and behaviours more thoroughly and more intimately, and as they grow up they develop the code and pass it on.

This has interesting implications. Discuss.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except that you've decided that children in one or two child families are more moral than children from families with multiple children.

And that inherited morals in smaller societies will be "better" morals than in larger ones.

All of which you pulled out of your arse.

[Smokey D]

And that population growth is the only relevant sociological variable.

[jaredong]

yea i think its a stretch. im not sure if theres any evidence saying that parents => children means good morals. how about spoiled single kids?

how about extended families? even if the mother and father might have more than 2 kids, a larger group of family members take responsibility for their upbringing as well.

i'd say in today's society, it isnt so much about number of children, as the cost of living going up. Because of that, more families have to have 2 income households. Though, im sure theres many more factors involved.

though im not sure if our society's morals are any worse. I think in every time in history people go "oh noes, kids these days have no moral fiber" regardless whether you're in ancient greece or new york.

[totah]

Except that you've decided that children in one or two child families are more moral than children from families with multiple children.

"Moral" was definitely a bad choice of vocabulary there. I meant "socially adapted" (I was assuming that the more you are in line with a society's moral code then the more adapted you are, but I see now that's not the case). And I didn't have the nuclear family unit in mind specifically when I thought this up. This could apply to the Innuit way of raising children as to any other. It's just a matter of numbers and relations between the younger and older generation (obviously this would be completely incorrect if the older generations left the kids well alone to raise themselves).

And that inherited morals in smaller societies will be "better" morals than in larger ones.

The size of the society is irrelevant. The emphasis is on the steady growth. It could be a society of fifty million people, but as long as every new generation isn't bigger than the one preceding it, then:

I didn't mean to say the morals would be "better", but I assume that just like we develop in science and art, we also develop in social code. We make it more complex, more egalitarian (hopefully, though equality is unfortunately not a default goal for most privileged people), more anything. But as I see it, the more a generation is detached from its predecessor, the more radically-changed will be its social code. Like old people (and I'm talking about my parents and people who are now 30-somethings too) always go on about "kids these days" as if we're so very different from how they were when they were kids: we probably are, because we've had to make more and more of it up for ourselves than they did, or their grandparents, etc.

But in a society of steadily balanced population then the social code will more likely (as I see it) continue developing in a specific direction, as opposed to being random and reactionary (and that's what a lot of it is these days; a knee-jerk reaction to the preceeding social code).

All of which you pulled out of your arse.

Yeah I made quite a few assumptions without really mentioning them properly. My bad. Criticise again please.

[1338 h4x0r]

Well, you're right but for the wrong reasons.

Less resources available per capita means a hell of a lot more nastiness, period.

[Smokey D]

I say again population growth is only one of many factors that might affect social norms, behavior etc.

[totah]

But if people had all they needed, what would be the problem? Just because they could have more doesn't mean they don't have enough.

Or is that not what you're saying at all. Economic lingo confuses me.

I say again population growth is only one of many factors that might affect social norms, behavior etc.

Definitely. But it's the one we're discussing right now.

[PerpetualBurn]

I really don't think you have much of a point here.

This is really down to how precisely we raise our children. It's obvious that we don't have too many kids to handle.

Definitely. But it's the one we're discussing right now.

It's entirely meaningless without balancing its importance in relation to all other key aspects.

[mph4ever]

orality was the method by which things were handed down from generation to generation, things were spoken and people listened, there was little dissent from the moral codes until competition came along. printing and motion pictures have caused a serious decline in the quality of orality. they act as alternatives to what a parent or elder might be trying to convey. its cooler to listen to the guy on disney than your folks. this covers it for me


We figured out a long time ago that it's much easier to control people
when we're all watching the same T.V. shows,
Listening to the same radio stations, going to the same movies,
looking at the same billboards, eating the same food,
And speaking the same language...

[PerpetualBurn]

there was little dissent from the moral codes until competition came along

Seriously though.

No.

[mph4ever]

you lived by the rules of the tribe, what the elders passed on was law, thats why councils were old, they knew best and had the greatest reach across time to hand the ideals down and ensure they were adhered to or judge if they weren't. found guilty and you were sacrificed to the rock god to some other deity that needed to be appeased ;)

[Smokey D]

I think there's some measure of truth in that, especially in extremely small communities. But you might be overstating the effect.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think you'd have a hard time establishing that in tribal communities of the past there haven't been some obscenely stupid or shocking moral codes.

And a harder time establishing that everybody adhered to them happily.

[mph4ever]

i'll drop the "moral" and discontinue the distraction

[Smokey D]

I'm not going to make any assumptions about the inherent value of any given morality because that's not what eran's talking about. From what I can tell, he's referring to the purported tendency of small (or self-repeating) communities to reproduce social norms not that the norms they were adhering to were objectively better.

I don't think you could say everybody in small tribal societies adhered to the same social code. Obviously they didn't otherwise they wouldn't have really progressed. But I'm willing to bet that anthropological evidence would back the position that small societies are more conservative, more risk averse and generally less tolerant of change than larger more cosmopolitan socities. However, this is slightly different from eran's initial position.

[1338 h4x0r]

And a harder time establishing that everybody adhered to them happily.

To be fair, it was probably harder to violate these codes due to threat of exile (essentially death).

[mph4ever]

I'm not going to make any assumptions about the inherent value of any given morality because that's not what eran's talking about. From what I can tell, he's referring to the purported tendency of small (or self-repeating) communities to reproduce social norms not that the norms they were adhering to were objectively better.

I don't think you could say everybody in small tribal societies adhered to the same social code. Obviously they didn't otherwise they wouldn't have really progressed. But I'm willing to bet that anthropological evidence would back the position that small societies are more conservative, more risk averse and generally less tolerant of change than larger more cosmopolitan socities. However, this is slightly different from eran's initial position.

thats very well put

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm not going to make any assumptions about the inherent value of any given morality because that's not what eran's talking about. From what I can tell, he's referring to the purported tendency of small (or self-repeating) communities to reproduce social norms not that the norms they were adhering to were objectively better.

I don't think you could say everybody in small tribal societies adhered to the same social code. Obviously they didn't otherwise they wouldn't have really progressed. But I'm willing to bet that anthropological evidence would back the position that small societies are more conservative, more risk averse and generally less tolerant of change than larger more cosmopolitan socities. However, this is slightly different from eran's initial position.

Maybe I've been slightly tangential. But then the thread title and first post do refer to what is good for society, so I don't think I'm off topic in saying that establishing a reasonable moral code for society is more important in passing on the existing one.

[totah]

Clearly my ideology distorted the way I interpretted the fact. Smokey's right.

[Futue te Ipsum]

population declines can be devastating to the nations economy

[Ando!]

I just read some of O.S. Card's Ender Prequels and must say he rips population laws quite hard

[totah]

population declines can be devastating to the nations economy

In what sense? And yes, when populations get smaller bad things tend to happen, but when they get bigger just as bad things happen.

I just read some of O.S. Card's Ender Prequels and must say he rips population laws quite hard

Like how?

[jaredong]

just from my civ 3 knowledge...

more people means that more production, more research, more money made by trade.

but, it also means more unhappy faces in the city. if you dont build enough entertainment or religious buildings to keep them happy, they'll have anarchy and start rioting.

plus, just when you thought you're city will run out of food, technology improves and builds irrigation so more food can be produced.

i think population studies are really complex and its not as simple as "more people = good / bad".

[Ando!]

Like how?

Well idk how familiar you are with Ender's Game and the related books but basically the premise in the particular prequel I read is this:

The international fleet, the military division of the world hegemony needs a general capable of destroying the buggers

The hegemony has in place population control laws that restrict couples from having more than 2 children

Poland is a nation that is noncompliant with hegemony policy, and thus has sanctions placed on it by the international fleet.

The most brilliant mind happens to come from an outspoken non compliant family that has nine children

the child, indoctrinated with anti-hegemony beliefs, doesn't want to go to battle school

thus, the international fleet is left without a capable general, and the population laws have proven counterproductive


He later explains with a better, less anecdotal, argument why the laws are bad but I didn't really follow the conversation entirely so i won't butcher it here

this all makes much more sense if you're aware of the Ender universe, so maybe you don't follow this

[totah]

Not at all, but it sounds good. which books should i start with?

[rasputin]

Not at all, but it sounds good. which books should i start with?
Ender's Game

[Futue te Ipsum]

In what sense?Aging populations.

[Futue te Ipsum]

just from my civ 3 knowledge...civ 2 was much better. Build a massive, russian style country. Get to fundamentalism and waste the planet with your insane production, 0 waste and low unhappiness :D

[Ando!]

Not at all, but it sounds good. which books should i start with?

Ender's Game is the obvious starting point