Persuasive to me but mere correlation to anyone not already disposed to believe you. You could just as well link it to the publication of “Limits To The Growth”, the Summer of Love, or the Moon landing (fake or not).
Great article overall, though in some respects I think being cautious about tech developments is reasonable. The feminised perspective on nuclear and natalism is objectively wrong, of course.
It's a little ironic that you're basically accusing women of being "too conservative", after a fashion.
Nice post. Two other things come to mind about the turn from optimism to pessimism starting in the 1970s: the rise of fiat currency / getting off the gold standard (https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ ), and peak oil in accordance with Hubbert's 1956 predictions (excluding the shale boom propelled by cheap debt, which has ended): https://grundvilk.substack.com/p/milking-blood-to-keep-from-running
Shale fracking only emerged as a significant energy player within the last 20 years or so- Hubbert's prediction only loosely matches production within the US, and not at the global level.
Really interesting piece. I agree with some of the commentators that the pivot seems quite dramatic to have been caused purely by a gradually starting process of feminisation. You may be interested in my piece which asks to what extent womens gains in the economy and labour force are vulnerable to economic and fiscal shock
What's the source for footnote #2? I'm sure that the Chinese were aware that the Earth was round much earlier than that. I asked an LLM: "When did the Chinese first become aware that the Earth was round?", and it returned the following:
The Chinese understanding of the Earth's shape evolved over time, with awareness of its spherical nature coming through a combination of indigenous developments and foreign contact.
Early Chinese cosmology (Zhou dynasty, ~1046-256 BCE) generally conceived of Earth as a flat square surrounded by a round heaven, known as the "Gaitian" (蓋天) theory. However, by the Han dynasty (202 BCE-220 CE), some Chinese scholars had begun considering more complex models.
The first clear Chinese reference to Earth's sphericity appears during the Jin dynasty (266-420 CE). The mathematician and astronomer Yu Xi (虞喜) observed that stars visible in southern regions were not visible in northern regions, suggesting Earth's curvature.
More substantial understanding came in the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE) through increased contact with Indian astronomy, which had incorporated Greek ideas about a spherical Earth. Tang scholar-monks like Yi Xing (一行) began incorporating these concepts into Chinese astronomical models.
The spherical Earth model became more widely accepted during the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368 CE) when Persian and Arab astronomers brought more advanced astronomical knowledge to China. The establishment of Islamic astronomical observatories in China during this period further spread this understanding.
By the Ming dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the spherical Earth concept was well-established among educated Chinese, though the complete transition in cosmological thinking continued to evolve with further Western scientific exchange during the later Ming and Qing periods.
I am a member of the Progress Studies movement, though I certainly do not speak for the membership.
You make some interesting points about women being less likely to support the policy stands and have temperaments necessary for material progress. It is very clear that the vast majority of the active members of Progress Studies are male, but I am not sure what you mean by “the whole things got to go.”
Are you proposing something specific?
I have written an article that I think might partially respond to your point, although it does not specifically address gender:
I'm guessing arcto would say something like "the civil rights act and the attendant equity-bureaucracy which grew out of it is incompatible with human progress."
That seems to be already happening to a large extent under the Trump administration. I cannot speak for the rest of the Progressive Studies movement, but I strongly favor it and have written about it.
This is something that I've often thought myself with regard to the current mediocrity of culture. However, you need to show the mechanism by which feminisation causes a lack of progress.
It used to be said, after the Roman-Aryan wars, the recapture of Jerusalem, and the recovery of the True Cross, that had Heraclius died then and there, he would've died happy and the most successful Roman emperor of all time…
Okay. But there is no longer academia; no longer university (save fot exceptions); no longer a publishing industry; no longer journalism; no longer culture.
So... arguably, someone or something truly has won a battle, or war, of huge momentum. ✊🏻
Nice post - found it from NLF restacking it. I've seen the phenomenon firsthand with female leadership in engineering. It's better to fail together, than to disagree with the consensus and succeed. Risk taking is not rewarded.
On the topic of space exploration, let me showcase some of that disagreeableness. There are hard problems behind why the moon landing had to be faked. Note that the dates of the Apollo program coincide cleanly with the beginning of the great stagnation you describe. For more detail, look at some of my posts on these hard problems.
Is unrestrained technological progress a good thing? The best counter argument would be Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future". He also corresponded from jail with researcher David Skrbina:
My reading of economics is that all of these problems were caused by Nixon ending gold convertability in August 1971. This changed the US from a manufacturing nation to a consumer nation, financed by large deficits. Trump's economic policies are obviously designed to reverse this process.
Perhaps there is some kind of interplay between culture and economics, where cause and effect are the other way around than you have posited?
America's trade deficit was necessary and intentional in order for the dollar to become the world's international reserve currency (more dollars had to be exported than imported).
In any case, the Nixon shock doesn't explain 90% of what's discussed in the article, so I have no idea why you'd connect them.
Persuasive to me but mere correlation to anyone not already disposed to believe you. You could just as well link it to the publication of “Limits To The Growth”, the Summer of Love, or the Moon landing (fake or not).
But the discipline is a good idea.
Great article overall, though in some respects I think being cautious about tech developments is reasonable. The feminised perspective on nuclear and natalism is objectively wrong, of course.
It's a little ironic that you're basically accusing women of being "too conservative", after a fashion.
It's easy to see you have never tasted labour and delivering a baby. 🤓
Too easy, to be "objectively right" on "natalism", being you.
Okay. Have fun with the version of feminism where women go extinct.
Nice post. Two other things come to mind about the turn from optimism to pessimism starting in the 1970s: the rise of fiat currency / getting off the gold standard (https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ ), and peak oil in accordance with Hubbert's 1956 predictions (excluding the shale boom propelled by cheap debt, which has ended): https://grundvilk.substack.com/p/milking-blood-to-keep-from-running
Shale fracking only emerged as a significant energy player within the last 20 years or so- Hubbert's prediction only loosely matches production within the US, and not at the global level.
Really interesting piece. I agree with some of the commentators that the pivot seems quite dramatic to have been caused purely by a gradually starting process of feminisation. You may be interested in my piece which asks to what extent womens gains in the economy and labour force are vulnerable to economic and fiscal shock
https://sfhwebb.substack.com/p/does-the-future-really-belong-to?r=1cycu5
What's the source for footnote #2? I'm sure that the Chinese were aware that the Earth was round much earlier than that. I asked an LLM: "When did the Chinese first become aware that the Earth was round?", and it returned the following:
The Chinese understanding of the Earth's shape evolved over time, with awareness of its spherical nature coming through a combination of indigenous developments and foreign contact.
Early Chinese cosmology (Zhou dynasty, ~1046-256 BCE) generally conceived of Earth as a flat square surrounded by a round heaven, known as the "Gaitian" (蓋天) theory. However, by the Han dynasty (202 BCE-220 CE), some Chinese scholars had begun considering more complex models.
The first clear Chinese reference to Earth's sphericity appears during the Jin dynasty (266-420 CE). The mathematician and astronomer Yu Xi (虞喜) observed that stars visible in southern regions were not visible in northern regions, suggesting Earth's curvature.
More substantial understanding came in the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE) through increased contact with Indian astronomy, which had incorporated Greek ideas about a spherical Earth. Tang scholar-monks like Yi Xing (一行) began incorporating these concepts into Chinese astronomical models.
The spherical Earth model became more widely accepted during the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368 CE) when Persian and Arab astronomers brought more advanced astronomical knowledge to China. The establishment of Islamic astronomical observatories in China during this period further spread this understanding.
By the Ming dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the spherical Earth concept was well-established among educated Chinese, though the complete transition in cosmological thinking continued to evolve with further Western scientific exchange during the later Ming and Qing periods.
I am a member of the Progress Studies movement, though I certainly do not speak for the membership.
You make some interesting points about women being less likely to support the policy stands and have temperaments necessary for material progress. It is very clear that the vast majority of the active members of Progress Studies are male, but I am not sure what you mean by “the whole things got to go.”
Are you proposing something specific?
I have written an article that I think might partially respond to your point, although it does not specifically address gender:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/three-mega-trends-of-the-last-60
> Are you proposing something specific?
I'm guessing arcto would say something like "the civil rights act and the attendant equity-bureaucracy which grew out of it is incompatible with human progress."
That seems to be already happening to a large extent under the Trump administration. I cannot speak for the rest of the Progressive Studies movement, but I strongly favor it and have written about it.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/intro-to-my-diversity-equity-and
I also mention it in my proposed policy reform agenda when Trump first took office:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/priorities-for-the-second-trump-administration
It seems like Arcto is proposing something much bigger without really stating what it is.
This is something that I've often thought myself with regard to the current mediocrity of culture. However, you need to show the mechanism by which feminisation causes a lack of progress.
It used to be said, after the Roman-Aryan wars, the recapture of Jerusalem, and the recovery of the True Cross, that had Heraclius died then and there, he would've died happy and the most successful Roman emperor of all time…
Okay. But there is no longer academia; no longer university (save fot exceptions); no longer a publishing industry; no longer journalism; no longer culture.
So... arguably, someone or something truly has won a battle, or war, of huge momentum. ✊🏻
Nice post - found it from NLF restacking it. I've seen the phenomenon firsthand with female leadership in engineering. It's better to fail together, than to disagree with the consensus and succeed. Risk taking is not rewarded.
On the topic of space exploration, let me showcase some of that disagreeableness. There are hard problems behind why the moon landing had to be faked. Note that the dates of the Apollo program coincide cleanly with the beginning of the great stagnation you describe. For more detail, look at some of my posts on these hard problems.
Is unrestrained technological progress a good thing? The best counter argument would be Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future". He also corresponded from jail with researcher David Skrbina:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7Jo7eVGckGkm
Is it possible that the halt in progress from the 1970s onwards was caused by the Nixon shock?
You may be interested in https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ which shows a multitude of key economic indicators that suddenly got worse starting in 1971 and never recovered. Of particular note to today's political discussion is the trade deficit which went negative in 1976: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A019RE1A156NBEA#.
My reading of economics is that all of these problems were caused by Nixon ending gold convertability in August 1971. This changed the US from a manufacturing nation to a consumer nation, financed by large deficits. Trump's economic policies are obviously designed to reverse this process.
Perhaps there is some kind of interplay between culture and economics, where cause and effect are the other way around than you have posited?
America's trade deficit was necessary and intentional in order for the dollar to become the world's international reserve currency (more dollars had to be exported than imported).
In any case, the Nixon shock doesn't explain 90% of what's discussed in the article, so I have no idea why you'd connect them.