[nostrademons]

On a factual level the relationship between kinship societies and economic headwinds is fairly well documented [1] [2]. The mechanism is the same reason that communist/socialist societies often fail: when wealth belongs to everyone, nobody has either the incentive or the means to accumulate wealth, which prevents capital formation within the society [3].

The part that the article glosses over is that "Kinship societies destroy economic growth" is a Russell conjugate [4] of "economic growth destroys family formation". Kinship networks provide important intangible support to several important community functions, notably child-rearing. That's the whole "it takes a village to raise a child" aphorism. When you allow people to defect on their social obligations in the name of accumulating wealth, then it turns out they do, and the village suffers. It is exactly as the article said: "The kinship network has a strong interest in preventing any of its members from becoming prosperous enough to no longer need it: someone who no longer needs your help is also someone who might not help you." That's exactly what we've observed happening in modern industrialized economies, where people become increasingly atomized and those informal community organizations that create things like belonging and mutual aid (not to mention group childcare and socialization) die off as everyone chases the promotion that will let them afford ever-higher institutional childcare costs.

And this is why the fertility rate in every major industrialized country has cratered, usually right as it industrializes.

[1] https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/awi/forschung/paper_e.bulte...

[2] https://edepot.wur.nl/14918

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation

[BobaFloutist]

>And this is why the fertility rate in every major industrialized country has cratered, usually right as it industrializes.

I'm pretty sure it's actually because industrialization is upstream of the education and supply chains to make hormonal birth control widely available, and being pregnant and giving birth is an incredibly challenging, risky, and frequently unpleasant burden that's only shouldered by half our population.

[shimman]

Why are you acting like a vast majority of the population are capitalists? You're describing the actions of less than 1% of the worlds population, acting like it's the norm of human history and not the extreme aberration that it is. Not too mention we're living in the corporatist neoliberal dream that is a massive hellscape for workers where income inequality is at the highest levels, worse than the gilded age, where your single life is determined by factors the majority of workers can never control since the system is designed to benefit capitalists at the expense of everyone else.

Why are you assuming capital formation is even beneficial for people? Poor workers in Arkansas do not benefit when Ford sells their crappy wares around the world. Children in Utah aren't getting a better education when Zuckerberg sells more ads.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Why are you acting like a vast majority of the population are capitalists?

Anyone who has saved money to buy something that makes them more productive is a capitalist. At least for any meaningful definition of the word. It's not 1%, it's some very large minority or even majority.

>Why are you assuming capital formation is even beneficial for people? Poor workers in Arkansas do not benefit when Ford sells their crappy wares around the world.

The guy that squirrels away $20,000 so he can buy a food truck, or hell, $300 for a hot dog cart is a capitalist. Every programmer here that ever bought a new laptop or phone acquired the "means of production" for the jobs they work.

The thing about marxists is, unfortunately, they're still stuck in the 1850s with him, trying to solve the problems of the 1850s, and refusing to engage in reality with any of us who don't want to live in the 1850s with them.