Alright, if you insist, before getting onto points about Japan, I think I ought to continue responding to the other points you made.
The Great Eye wrote:Third, my own look into historical cannibalism didn't find this in Ancient Rome. I could easily be wrong on this, so linky?
Okay, here's a linky:
Someone on Amazon KDP Support Forum called achcrivens wrote: There are a lot of reasons the Roman Empire fell, one was that the in the later part of the empire, the emperors were incompetent, and most often were assassinated by rivals, or even their own guards, and corruption ran rampant. Another was they were unable to man the legions with Romans and had to rely on legions made up of conquered barbarian tribes. One of these tribes, lead by a former legion commander, actually sacked Rome for three days. They left after three days because they had laid siege to Rome, and cut off their food supply, so there was no food in the city. Oddly, even though the people were starving, they still attended the Colosseum to watch the gladiators fight. It's recorded that when a gladiator was killed the people would shout "How much for that meat? Sell that meat to me." Finally, it has been suggested that their use of lead for pipes causes lead poisoning and a general decrease in health and intellect, which may have contributed to the corruption and decadence that marked the later part of the empire.
https://kdp.amazon.com/community/messag … eID=312660
Don't like the source? Hmm... what to do...? Maybe give this achrcrivens a message and ask him or her? Maybe ask them why they didn't give a source? Who might achrcivens have been referring to who supposedly reported
when a gladiator was killed the people would shout "How much for that meat? Sell that meat to me.
Maybe he or she didn't give a source because it wasn't necessary, due to it being common knowledge?
Maybe you could continue your own study of the history of medieval sieges / societal collapses / the Dark Ages / other societal collapses in ancient times (including sieges / sacks of Ancient Rome) and see that it is common knowledge / unsurprising that people (regardless of race) resort to cannibalism during societal collapses.
The Great Eye wrote:your example is, ridiculously unlikely to be what was meant in this discussion because a spontaneous decision to engage in cannibalism wouldn't affect the fertility rate.
You refer to my using the example of sacks of / the fall of Ancient Rome because I had previously stated the following:
Xeno wrote:You can have nations with economic instability and experiencing a societal collapse and yet still have high fertility rates: fertility rates might not decline in some societies until the late stages of that society's collapse. They might not see a decline in fertility rates until, for instance, people start actually starving and become physically infertile due to malnutrition. Also, even in such late stage of societal collapses where there is still >2 fertility rates, it might be because children are seen as commodities: labor, or, in extreme cases, food.
https://imperialconflict.com/forum/view … 3#p1774513
This statement refers to societies of peoples of any culture, as a sociological phenomenon pertaining to the human condition over the course of human history.
I am saying the fertility rate would remain higher than it otherwise would during later stages of societal collapse IF offspring were seen as commodities to be exploited, and exploited in many ways, not only as food. I mention 'as food' as only one of the many possible ways offspring could be regarded as commodities and only "in extreme cases". Why you focused on this 'extreme case' of exploitation and connected it with certain present-day nations is your problem to sort out, I think, with some deep personal reflection, and, maybe, therapy?
Anyway, you focus on how it's 'ridiculous' that fertility rates would be affected at all by cannibalism and you explain why as follows:
The Great Eye wrote: If a parent raised a kid to age 8, and was later "encouraged" by the rich to give up their children, that would have absolutely no effect on the fertility rate because that child has already been born. A parent raising a child who lives to age 80 has the same effect on the fertility rate for the year the child was born as a parent who raises a child that will die at age 5.
How this helps you arrive at your conclusion is beyond me. Why didn't you consider that if offspring is regarded as a commodity (of various sorts, not only as food) in later stages of societal collapses, of course there would be a systemic incentive to have more offspring than people otherwise would. This already inflated fertility rate would be even higher if offspring were being regarded as commodities by people taking the children, be it at birth or any time thereafter. Regardless of the reason the offspring might be taken and regardless of the parents knowing what might happen to their offspring after they have been taken, the parents, in their emotional sense of loss, as well as the community as a whole, in their sense of loss, would WANT to replace the offspring they have lost with others. Even more 'incentive' would be placed upon parents living within an authoritarian structure that so incentivized parents to have more children (such as a authoritarian leader in control of the household or community, or a slave-owner who would take and sell offspring, or a horde of bandits that frequently demanded a quota of offspring as tribute). Parents would be systemically 'encouraged' to have more children after the loss of another in many ways in such societies. Furthermore, if the children that the parents / community were permitted to keep were regarded as commodities by the parents and community itself (such as labor to help collect ever-more distant firewood to fuel the Roman baths for the well-to-do citizens, or to help with the harvest, or to beg in the streets, etc.), the parents and community would have that much more of an incentive to have other children to replace the ones that have been taken from them. This all leads to a higher fertility rate. I really do fail to see how it wasn't plain to you from the beginning that the fertility rate would be affected and affected higher than it otherwise would be IF (the condition being KEY here) the offspring taken from parents (regardless of the reason they had been taken) were being regarded as commodities (of any kind). I also fail to understand why you focus on the one, most extreme ways which I mention offspring might be regarded as a commodity during societal collapses. I also fail to understand why you don't consider that societal collapses might last decades, and sometimes, in the case of the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages to follow, even centuries, and why you don't consider the implications of prolonged societal collapses.
The Great Eye wrote:the biggest problem... your example is not relevant (and, in fact, justifies every accusation of racism I have levied) because your example doesn't talk about ANY country that was in that discussion. We were specifically talking about countries in the modern world that had the highest fertility rates... Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.
My statement was a universal, sociological fact pertaining to the human condition; indicating the example of ancient Rome is I think exceptionally relevant, therefore. We were not solely talking about Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.. you only thought we were. I have to address why again? Okay.
You regarded the point to be represent-day Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., because of your own imperialistic, social-darwinistic, neo-malthusian, innately racist intellectual preconceptions at work behind the scenes in your intellectual machinations. I'd reflect on this possibility, seriously, if I were you.
I am and have always maintained that present-day LOW fertility rates is the indicator of societal collapse. The difference between the societal collapses of today and in those in the past is that those in the past experienced low fertility rates only when malnutrition set in and rendered people actually infertile. Today, low fertility rates are due to 'inverted totalitarianism' manufacturing the widely-held idea that we CHOOSE not to have offspring; therefore LOW fertility rates as such are being caused by 'inverted totalitarianism' is the indicator of societal collapses today.
When I simply QUALIFIED such with the SIDE-POINT that fertility rates MAY remain high even during later stages of societal collapses (again in the universal sense of societal collapse as it applies to the human condition over the course of human history as a whole) due to offspring starting to be regarded as commodities, you picked out one of the most extreme ways I mentioned children might be regarded as a commodity (which I could very well have put in parentheses) and constructed a derailment of the primary issue at hand, the systemic 'inverted totalitarianism' causing societal collapses today.
The Great Eye wrote:I pointed out a problem with a statement... a thing that can be edited, apologized for, and corrected.
Nothing to apologize for. Nothing wrong with the statement, it pertained and always pertains to societal collapse in general, not in regards to any particular country, race, or historical period. You thought it, did though. And thus your assessment of the point as racist is thus not only erroneous but is also indicative of your own inherent racism. The statement can only be interpreted as racist if the person interpreting it does so from a imperialistic, totalitarian, neo-malthusian, social darwinistic intellectual perspective; and I rightly point out your erroneous interpretation as evidence of your own adherence to such a neo-malthusian social darwinistic perspective and I do so by your very own explanation of your interpretation of the statement.
The Great Eye wrote:You've decided to attack me personally.
Such is not a personal attack; its simply pointing out a matter of how you erroneously interpreted a statement and how you did so indicates your underlying intellectual perspective as neo-malthusian, and social darwinistic. I may not have been courteous in pointing this out because I was angry (I find the neo-malthusianism, social-darwinistic ethos morally abhorrent) but, well, you must admit, neither were you been very courteous to start with.
The Great Eye wrote:Do NOT expect this to be me backing down on the general argument raised.
Okay, so be it; if you want to continue in this derailment, fine. But I will not participate very often. Be wary of your pride in doing so.
Better would be to regard what I have pointed out as your underlying preconceptions and reflect on such a possibility rather than simply regard such dismissively as a personal attack. This way you can give some careful consideration to the possible soundness and validity of whether or not your own underlying, (perhaps even subconscious) imperialistic, neo-malthusian, social darwinistic perspective might be at work in having interpreted the aforementioned statement the way you did, and, possibly, other interpretations of other peoples' statements, and thus revisit your beliefs to see if they might derive from a perspective to which you should be disillusioned.
Again, your points about Japan I will leave for another time.
