upvote

points

by DiscourseFan15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby throwawaypath3 hours ago|
next
[-]
>Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.

This is Europe. Women won't have more children, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.

>Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime.

This is Europe. Women won't take over a large share of industrial labor, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.

reply
upvoteby oreally14 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I'm in a country ~5mil population (less than israel's) where men are conscripted and there is a fair amount of angst regarding their sacrifice. IMO, the cause is a mix of patriarchy and voteshare.

Factor #2 is no longer true, nowadays more and more stuff is being produced by machines. Moreover women can pick up guns. Drones can be piloted. Lethality is only going to go up.

No one sane would want to go fight in a war where lethality is high. Nor train for something that requires looming, recurring obligations for a good 10-20 years of their life. This is real sacrifce. If you want respect, at some point you have to put skin in the game.

reply
upvoteby HappyPanacea14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Finland?
reply
upvoteby SenHeng14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Could also be Singapore or Taiwan.
reply
upvoteby throw-the-towel14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Taiwan has waaaay more people, like 20ish million I think?
reply
upvoteby diath15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Easier to repopulate... at the expense of men being considered essentially disposable by the society. I should have as much right to not being forcefully sent to my death to wage billionaires' wars as the other half of population.
reply
upvoteby agrishin15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, you see, if men stay alive, but women are killed, society collapses eventually as not enough new people are born. It sucks being a man in this scenario, but it is what it is.
reply
upvoteby parchley15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
And if you include women (well, all genders) directly in the war efforts you double the amount of soldiers you have, which would increase your chance of winning and not needing to repopulate.
reply
upvoteby SauntSolaire14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You can lose a war, yet still keep your country. You can also win a war, yet still need to repopulate.
reply
upvoteby mr_toad10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Someone has to stay behind and make ammunition.
reply
upvoteby rvnx15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If you refuse to fight, you lose.

If you all agree to refuse to fight, you win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

The key here is to refuse fighting. Nobody becomes a hero by becoming a murderer whose goal is to defend the political power of Stalin, Napoleon, Bush, or whoever.

reply
upvoteby throw-the-towel13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Arguably, not enough people are being born as it stands. We're already in your collapse scenario.
reply
upvoteby Qem12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I suspect one tool governments across the world will resort to when they get desperate about sub-replacement fertility is changing mandatory conscription from males to the childless. Quite strong incentive, not be sent to the meatgrinder.
reply