I've considered this before, and while it isn't really a bad idea, there are two problems.
The first is that, so long as there are no restrictions on the fertility of underclass women, it will be hard to convince people that they're really in competition. Any competition won by welfare mothers will be seen as not worth engaging in.
I've considered this before, and while it isn't really a bad idea, there are two problems.
The first is that, so long as there are no restrictions on the fertility of underclass women, it will be hard to convince people that they're really in competition. Any competition won by welfare mothers will be seen as not worth engaging in.
The second is more an issue about what might happen if children actually do become a clear status signal, because this could potentially give rise to a harsh social reality. While it is at least possible to discretely hide the amount of wealth one has accumulated, or to obscure it by raising questions of income vs property vs credit or inheritance, there is absolutely no way to obscure or avoid the raw number of children a couple has produced.
The very wealthy often dress modestly, drive unpretentious cars, and avoid expensive areas to live. Friends have told me of their aging relatives sitting quietly on enormous piles of money.
>>The first is that, so long as there are no restrictions on the fertility of underclass women, it will be hard to convince people that they're really in competition. Any competition won by welfare mothers will be seen as not worth engaging in.
It seems like fertility is falling fast among the lower classes of the mainstream population. So that problem might disappear on its own. Which is unusual for a problem.
>>The second is more an issue about what might happen if children actually do become a clear status signal, because this could potentially give rise to a harsh social reality. While it is at least possible to discretely hide the amount of wealth one has accumulated, or to obscure it by raising of income vs property vs credit or inheritance, there is absolutely no way to obscure or avoid the raw number of children a couple has produced.
As I said to Piotr, the ingenuity of the Amish is that they say competition-is-very-bad. If Amish people compete consciously over who has the most children, they could probably not admit it. I think that a fertility competition in mainstream society would have to be covert and modest that way.
> that problem might disappear on its own. Which is unusual for a problem.
A popular misquotation of Confucious has it that "If you sit long enough by the river, you'll see the bodies of your enemies float by." It's not so unusual to imagine there are some problems it's possible to outlive. However, dropping fertility in the lower classes is simply trailing the upper classes; what would be necessary would be for the fertility rates to reverse, or at least equalize. I doubt that there is any widespread sociological phenomenon it would please me more to see float by than differential fertility, but others have died watching that river rush on and on and on.
> the ingenuity of the Amish is that they say competition-is-very-bad. If Amish people compete consciously over who has the most children, they could probably not admit it. I think that a fertility competition in mainstream society would have to be covert and modest that way.
The Amish do have the advantage of extreme homogeneity. The growing heterogeneity of Western societies exacerbates many cultural problems. If some group or groups differ from others, you can bet that everyone will become instantly aware, and no amount of modesty will be able to completely deflect the envy that naturally arises.
I've considered this before, and while it isn't really a bad idea, there are two problems.
The first is that, so long as there are no restrictions on the fertility of underclass women, it will be hard to convince people that they're really in competition. Any competition won by welfare mothers will be seen as not worth engaging in.
The second is more an issue about what might happen if children actually do become a clear status signal, because this could potentially give rise to a harsh social reality. While it is at least possible to discretely hide the amount of wealth one has accumulated, or to obscure it by raising questions of income vs property vs credit or inheritance, there is absolutely no way to obscure or avoid the raw number of children a couple has produced.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure that the second factor makes a difference. Here in metro Boston, people do know what suburb you could afford to buy a house in.
The very wealthy often dress modestly, drive unpretentious cars, and avoid expensive areas to live. Friends have told me of their aging relatives sitting quietly on enormous piles of money.
>>The first is that, so long as there are no restrictions on the fertility of underclass women, it will be hard to convince people that they're really in competition. Any competition won by welfare mothers will be seen as not worth engaging in.
It seems like fertility is falling fast among the lower classes of the mainstream population. So that problem might disappear on its own. Which is unusual for a problem.
>>The second is more an issue about what might happen if children actually do become a clear status signal, because this could potentially give rise to a harsh social reality. While it is at least possible to discretely hide the amount of wealth one has accumulated, or to obscure it by raising of income vs property vs credit or inheritance, there is absolutely no way to obscure or avoid the raw number of children a couple has produced.
As I said to Piotr, the ingenuity of the Amish is that they say competition-is-very-bad. If Amish people compete consciously over who has the most children, they could probably not admit it. I think that a fertility competition in mainstream society would have to be covert and modest that way.
> that problem might disappear on its own. Which is unusual for a problem.
A popular misquotation of Confucious has it that "If you sit long enough by the river, you'll see the bodies of your enemies float by." It's not so unusual to imagine there are some problems it's possible to outlive. However, dropping fertility in the lower classes is simply trailing the upper classes; what would be necessary would be for the fertility rates to reverse, or at least equalize. I doubt that there is any widespread sociological phenomenon it would please me more to see float by than differential fertility, but others have died watching that river rush on and on and on.
> the ingenuity of the Amish is that they say competition-is-very-bad. If Amish people compete consciously over who has the most children, they could probably not admit it. I think that a fertility competition in mainstream society would have to be covert and modest that way.
The Amish do have the advantage of extreme homogeneity. The growing heterogeneity of Western societies exacerbates many cultural problems. If some group or groups differ from others, you can bet that everyone will become instantly aware, and no amount of modesty will be able to completely deflect the envy that naturally arises.