Nuance and critical thought is difficult in the current media environment. For those primed to outrage, Hyakuta preceded the entire comment with this quote "Im not saying this is a good solution- I mean, it really isnt good." [1]. It seems like the primary complaint amounts to people not wanting to imagine or think about distasteful topics.
I wonder what kind of headlines Jonathan Swift's modest proposal would generate in the modern clickbait era. "Irish influencer apologies for abhorrent suggestion that the poor feed their children to the rich."
Im not saying it was satire; it wasn't meant to be humorous or hypocritical. It was an intentionally hyperbolic example to illustrate what the concept of radical social engineering is, and how it could drive a sense of immediacy.
Why is it a stupid thing to say? It wasn't proposed as a validated or effective solution. I agree that a marriage ban after 25 probably wouldn't help.
The point wasn't to propose viable solutions - they were repeatedly stated to be bad.
I agree that the concept could have been presented more clearly, and used an unnecessarily distasteful example.
I just dont think that justifies the lying, disinfo, and manufactured outrage about what he said.
He clearly was not "advocating for a ban on women marrying after the age of 25 and having their uteruses removed at the age of 30." and didn't "[suggest] barring women from attending college after the age of 18"
If the headline read "politician uses horrific example with unclear point" there would be fewer clicks. Lies sell adds and fear drives up engagement.
Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering?
If so, it might have been more useful to start with a more plausible example. As it is, it looks like it's trying to make the notion of "radical social engineering" look bad.
Unfortunately, it's hard to "think outside the box" because the box often exists for a reason. Most of what's outside the box is bad. Maybe it has also excluded something extraordinarily good, but you won't find it by casting about at random. Just telling people to think more radically doesn't seem to be helpful.
>Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering?
That was my take away from the interview. And yes, I would agree the interview did not present the well.
My point is that those are legitimate criticisms, deceitful journalism and outright lies are not legitimate criticism.
We can debate how valuable it is to think outside the box is, and when to do it.
That said, hopefully we both agree that spreading lies, misinformation, and outrage amongst people is not productive either.
Heck, there are even legitimate reasons to be upset by what he said, but that doesn't justify lying about what was actually said. That benefits nobody but those who profit from clicks.
I'm puzzled how he thought this would encourage women to have children. I should think "forced hysterectomy at 30" would be met with plenty of, "ok, guess I'm just not having kids" rather than "ok, better hurry up and have kids".
But also, what, women don't have kids in their 30s ever? This is baffling from every angle.
This is how political ideology often gains ground:
First, an initially outrageous idea is introduced.
Over time, this idea is gradually normalized, becoming more acceptable.
Eventually, it’s implemented with the support of hidden allies who were quietly aligned all along."
Birthrate issues in east asia come down to short term rewards vs long term rewards. Income/leisure/career vs national security/sustaining ethnic identity. This fixes nothing and helps no one
I think planned is far to strong a word. I think that instead, it is simply a byproduct of the cultural adoption of hedonism (which places happiness above other human goals) and consumerism (Which places material acquisition as the primary means to achieve ones goals).
Hedonism and consumerism are pushed by a broad by swath of interests, from industry to government, so there is no need for a grand conspiracy.
It's not. There were literal campaigns across the world to limit childbirth.
> I think that instead, it is simply a byproduct of the cultural adoption of hedonism (which places happiness above other human goals) and consumerism (Which places material acquisition as the primary means to achieve ones goals).
All culture is planned.
> Hedonism and consumerism are pushed by a broad by swath of interests, from industry to government, so there is no need for a grand conspiracy.
It's not a "conspiracy". It was open government policy. All over the world. China's 1 child policy being the most prominent and heavy handed approach. But governments around the world implemented a 2 child policy.
In the US, we didn't even have to implement such government because of media control over the masses. The "native" US birth rate has been below replacement since the late 1960s. Thanks to media conditioning.
To show you how easily people are manipulated, people now think everything they disagree with is a "conspiracy theory" because the media told them to.
While yes, I agree that governments tried to control population, I disagree that this is the outcome they were looking for, and disagree that planned government policy is largely responsible for the current situation.
To break that down. I agree people would be a fool to think that governments don't have population objectives and act on them. The part I disagree with is:
1) What those objectives were. No government wanted to create a population bubble.
2) The impact of government reproductive policy relative to popular culture. I think these impacts are tiny in comparison to (other) economic policies, and general culture outside of the government.
3) The idea that policy on population size is treated as an end in of itself, versus a means to achieving other policy goals, such as economics and stability.
If the wrong people are in charge, all you can do is take rational actions that protect yourself from suboptimal outcomes (as women are doing). Democracy and governance have a lot of shortfalls, as the evidence shows.
> The minister proposed prohibiting women from getting married after the age of 25 and having forced hysterectomies ( uterus removal procedures) at the age of 30.
> The politician also suggested barring women from attending college after the age of 18, allegedly in order to concentrate on having more children.
Even worse than the headline lead me to believe.
> Hyakuta became recognised on the far right of Japanese politics in part because of his best-selling book The Eternal Zero, which was adapted into a movie that glorified kamikaze pilots in the closing days of World War II.
Just who we should listen to about ideas.
> Sumie Kawakami, a lecturer at Yamanashi Gakuin University and author of a book on gender issues, told This Week in Asia, “I cannot believe that a Japanese politician has said such a thing. I can only see these comments as a call to violence against women.”
Yep.
> He explained that these concepts were not intended to be taken literally, but rather were presented as a “science-fiction storyline” to start conversation. He added on X that he does not support such extreme actions against women and that his remarks were “extremely harsh.”
Sounds like he’s an L, Ton Hubbard type. Time to start a grifting, litigious religion.
My friend, who is going through IVF to have a child in her 40s, would love this.
Seriously, this man should not have any type of leadership role after this. What a dystopian hellscape in his head.
> He explained that these concepts were not intended to be taken literally, but rather were presented as a “science-fiction storyline” to start conversation.
I think we need more space for devil's advocacy. We don't really know what we believe unless we can calmly, rationally argue for it rather than evading it. Modest proposals have a lot to teach. Failing to engage with alternatives to our values makes us more vulnerable to them, not less. The world would not be improved if The Handmaid's Tale had been suppressed, and a non-fictional debate on a similar topic is no different.
This example amounts to a gedankenexperiment simulation of an alternative incentive structure. We have a lot to learn about the effect of incentives, and simulations are the best available teacher that doesn't require tuition in blood.
The charitable takeaway is the suggestion that Japan should think about more radical social engineering and incentives to promote motherhood, including those that would highlight a sense of urgency or immediacy.
Similar concepts mentioned in the interview would be sex education about the real benefits of having children earlier.
Oh good the world is becoming even more hostile to women. This is exactly what we need! Here’s hoping the Japanese wise up and don’t go along with this insanity.
I wonder what kind of headlines Jonathan Swift's modest proposal would generate in the modern clickbait era. "Irish influencer apologies for abhorrent suggestion that the poor feed their children to the rich."
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uterus-removal-for-women-at-...