Lord of the Midnight Sun

So for the past ten years or so in Iowa there's been this song and dance ever since the governor put his foot down and told the school districts that they were not allowed to have the start of school until after the end of the state fair. Like most school districts, they had been moving the start of school up by a week every year or two for a long time, and it had, for a long time, started during and even sometimes before the state fair.

Now Iowa is obviously made up mostly of farming communities, and the state fair is The annual event, especially for kids on small, family run farms, who are learning how to run the farm, and things like livestock handling and the like. These things are not taught in school. There are some college courses you can take about it, but the vast majority of the next generation to own small farms are learning how to run them on farms belonging to their parents or friends. And for these kids, the state fair is like graduation. It's essential for them to be there, to show their proficiency in different fields, make connections with their peers and in the various industries they will need to work with, and to take advantage of workshops and resources that are only available once a year during the state fair. (Also, the state fair is just a massive part of the culture here and kids should be allowed to attend and be a part of it, even if they don't plan on going into farming.)

With school starting during or before the state fair, this was obviously a problem. Kids were forced to choose between the first weeks of school and the state fair. If they chose school, they lost out on essential education and name-taking that would pave the road for them further down the line if they chose to go into farming. If they picked the state fair, it put their general education at risk, and there's not a lot of forgiveness going around for kids who miss the first week of school.

The governor told the school districts that they weren't allowed to force kids to choose anymore. The state fair has been at the same time every year for a hundred years, that's their cutoff point for how early school can start. This means school can start on the last week of August, which is more than reasonable IMO. (Edit: I went back and googled it and the exact cutoff date is the 23rd of August. This was signed into law last year -- I'm not sure if there was a specific date prior to that or if the actual law is new.)

This worked for a couple of years, and then the school district tried to move the first week of school up again and were firmly told no. And ever since that's happened every few years.

Now I believe this is happening in more places than just Iowa, but it was called out and stopped in Iowa because of the strong cultural weight of farming here. It goes unnoticed in most other places because it's just not as important culturally.

And it's important because pushing school back to before these essential farming events is pushing future generations out of small farming. I.E. when the people who currently own small farms die or become too old to run the farm anymore, they won't be able to pass it on to younger relatives or friends, because those people won't have the skillset to actually operate the farm. They'll end up having to sell their land to -- mostly Google and Facebook, who loooooove to buy up farmland around here to build datacenters, but also to larger corporate farms, who are going to do everything more shittily and less ethically.

George Washington punching a tiger is probably my fav

Someone scanned all the illustrations and archived it on the web here

Also, political views are correlated with genetics, so by refusing to have kids, you are abandoning your principles and allowing your opponents the opportunity to proliferate their own beliefs while yours with away.

here's my perspective: right now, having children is not particularly attractive for many people, because of the way society is set up. this is a trend in developed countries, where widely available birth control means people who don't want children are generally not having children. i think this is a good thing 👍 less unwanted children, less people who have to grow up in bad situations. having children with the sole reason of "the birth rates are falling" is also a pretty bad idea, in my opinion.

the only two ways governments can fix this is either by REALLY incentivizing having children (more societal help, making it not a financial drain), or heinous human rights abuses (forcing people to have children anyways). they're probably going to choose the second one but we can have hope.

Genetics determine temperament and temperament strongly influences political beliefs. Obviously your environment has a huge influence. There’s no gene that makes you a libertarian, ofc. But if your temperament makes you more independent, not as comfortable with complex social environments and less fearful, you’ll probably be more likely to be attracted to libertarianism than any of the other belief systems out there.

did they pay enough to offset the cost of raising a child (and having one parent out of the job market for years), or was it still a net loss, just less? i can't think of any program ostensibly to give people with children financial assistance, that gave ACTUAL financial assistance, and not something that's not even enough to get one person out of poverty.

People in the past faced famines, plagues, wars and slavery and they had children anyway.

because they had no choice. basically all your questions can be answered by the availability of birth control, which i hope we can both agree is a good thing.

the fact that you think that that’s a reasonable conclusion to make is a little suspect imho

And my retort to the eugenics accusation is very valid. Most left-of-center people think that equality is supreme virtue. So the accusation that I want to eradicate certain groups for the crime of being different on an essential level just makes you seem very insecure in your belief in absolute equality. Or something. Idk at this point the fact that people are inherently different just seems so self-evident to me that I’m honestly having trouble getting into the head of a Blank Slate Equality true believer. Or it could just be the whole “everything the Nazis wanted is bad so we have to be as opposite of the Nazis as possible” thing. Whatever.

yeah, a lot of people are, especially when there is no other option. but true, birth control is only one part of the equation, another one is the systematic oppression of women.

Most left-of-center people think that equality is supreme virtue. So the accusation that I want to eradicate certain groups for the crime of being different on an essential level just makes you seem very insecure in your belief in absolute equality.

sorry about that, it comes from previous experience. you'd be surprised how many ostensibly leftist people are pro eugenics if you don't phrase it as "that thing the nazis did". i still stand by the fact that political views don't have a heritable genetic component though. it's way too variable for that.

Also, political views are correlated with genetics, so by refusing to have kids, you are abandoning your principles and allowing your opponents the opportunity to proliferate their own beliefs while yours with away.

here's my perspective: right now, having children is not particularly attractive for many people, because of the way society is set up. this is a trend in developed countries, where widely available birth control means people who don't want children are generally not having children. i think this is a good thing 👍 less unwanted children, less people who have to grow up in bad situations. having children with the sole reason of "the birth rates are falling" is also a pretty bad idea, in my opinion.

the only two ways governments can fix this is either by REALLY incentivizing having children (more societal help, making it not a financial drain), or heinous human rights abuses (forcing people to have children anyways). they're probably going to choose the second one but we can have hope.

Genetics determine temperament and temperament strongly influences political beliefs. Obviously your environment has a huge influence. There’s no gene that makes you a libertarian, ofc. But if your temperament makes you more independent, not as comfortable with complex social environments and less fearful, you’ll probably be more likely to be attracted to libertarianism than any of the other belief systems out there.

did they pay enough to offset the cost of raising a child (and having one parent out of the job market for years), or was it still a net loss, just less? i can't think of any program ostensibly to give people with children financial assistance, that gave ACTUAL financial assistance, and not something that's not even enough to get one person out of poverty.

People in the past faced famines, plagues, wars and slavery and they had children anyway.

because they had no choice. basically all your questions can be answered by the availability of birth control, which i hope we can both agree is a good thing.

the fact that you think that that’s a reasonable conclusion to make is a little suspect imho

And my retort to the eugenics accusation is very valid. Most left-of-center people think that equality is supreme virtue. So the accusation that I want to eradicate certain groups for the crime of being different on an essential level just makes you seem very insecure in your belief in absolute equality. Or something. Idk at this point the fact that people are inherently different just seems so self-evident to me that I’m honestly having trouble getting into the head of a Blank Slate Equality true believer. Or it could just be the whole “everything the Nazis wanted is bad so we have to be as opposite of the Nazis as possible” thing. Whatever.

Also, political views are correlated with genetics, so by refusing to have kids, you are abandoning your principles and allowing your opponents the opportunity to proliferate their own beliefs while yours with away.

here's my perspective: right now, having children is not particularly attractive for many people, because of the way society is set up. this is a trend in developed countries, where widely available birth control means people who don't want children are generally not having children. i think this is a good thing 👍 less unwanted children, less people who have to grow up in bad situations. having children with the sole reason of "the birth rates are falling" is also a pretty bad idea, in my opinion.

the only two ways governments can fix this is either by REALLY incentivizing having children (more societal help, making it not a financial drain), or heinous human rights abuses (forcing people to have children anyways). they're probably going to choose the second one but we can have hope.

Genetics determine temperament and temperament strongly influences political beliefs. Obviously your environment has a huge influence. There’s no gene that makes you a libertarian, ofc. But if your temperament makes you more independent, not as comfortable with complex social environments and less fearful, you’ll probably be more likely to be attracted to libertarianism than any of the other belief systems out there.

Also, political views are correlated with genetics, so by refusing to have kids, you are abandoning your principles and allowing your opponents the opportunity to proliferate their own beliefs while yours with away.

Also, political views are correlated with genetics, so by refusing to have kids, you are abandoning your principles and allowing your opponents the opportunity to proliferate their own beliefs while yours with away.