Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Izukyu]

So basically just any old modern state then...
Basically just look at the demographics of any country since the early modern period where they haven't suffered some horrid issue (be it a war or whatever) or instituted some massive demographic altering political scheme.
I suspect a roughly even balance of the sexes prevails in the vast majority of cases.

But if overwork is a common cause of death then won't the less overworked gender be more numerous.
Also Sharifistan has a state of almost constantly war and would rather lose men than some materiel such as tanks or planes due to their high military numbers.

Again, I would like it to be explained to me in detail how "overwork" is a common cause of death.

Also, way easier to buy new equipment than to wait for your male population to rebuild itself. There's a reason why artillery crews abandon their guns if they're going to be overrun.

[Dayganistan]

Again, I would like it to be explained to me in detail how "overwork" is a common cause of death.

Especially because in this day and age people aren't really working themselves to death. When people die on the job they're usually doing a very labour intensive job with very long hours and end up in a workplace accident because they're tired. Or they're dying because they're turning to substance abuse to keep themselves going through the long hours.

[Gallia-]

karoshi is just cocaine

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Again, I would like it to be explained to me in detail how "overwork" is a common cause of death.

Especially because in this day and age people aren't really working themselves to death. When people die on the job they're usually doing a very labour intensive job with very long hours and end up in a workplace accident because they're tired. Or they're dying because they're turning to substance abuse to keep themselves going through the long hours.

Ok but in a society where 23rds more men than women are in dangerous jobs doesn't it make sense that 23rds more men are getting killed?
Sharifistani men often die in industrial accidents caused by overwork or, more commonly, die of illnesses linked to anxiety. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/new ... ons-life#1

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Also Sharifistan has a state of almost constantly war and would rather lose men than some materiel such as tanks or planes due to their high military numbers.

Do you want to be Somalia? Because this is how you become Somalia. Also even the Soviet Union is WWII would rather lose tanks and aircraft than men. Equipment is replaceable. Men, not so much.

Men eligible for military service are more numerous than tanks or aircraft.
So doesn't it make sense for a purely "means and ends" point of view?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Do you want to be Somalia? Because this is how you become Somalia. Also even the Soviet Union is WWII would rather lose tanks and aircraft than men. Equipment is replaceable. Men, not so much.

Men eligible for military service are more numerous than tanks or aircraft.
So doesn't it make sense for a purely "means and ends" point of view?

Losing disproportionate numbers of a gender from your "nation" without giving the populace a break from the selective pressure is how you become an Ex-Nation.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What aspect of Sharifistan doesn't make sense?
Most of it has a precedence in real life cultures (though exagerrated because it's a parody)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What aspect of Sharifistan doesn't make sense?
Most of it has a precedence in real life cultures (though exagerrated because it's a parody)

Yes and hf surviving as a country past two generations.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Men eligible for military service are more numerous than tanks or aircraft.
So doesn't it make sense for a purely "means and ends" point of view?

Losing disproportionate numbers of a gender from your "nation" without giving the populace a break from the selective pressure is how you become an Ex-Nation.

How would it become an ex-nation?
That's actually reduces the number of bachelors to do stupid stuff
(simple maths) and increases the amount of anger that can be directed at foreign enemies as opposed to the regime.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What aspect of Sharifistan doesn't make sense?
Most of it has a precedence in real life cultures (though exagerrated because it's a parody)

Yes and hf surviving as a country past two generations.

Why would it not survive?
There's 3 women per man.
if the top 20% mostly practice polygyny that's a high birth rate
by the way Gallia-, can you find any find studies to show that "in polygamous societies barely any men find wives"?

Women do find rich men attractive but they also want an emotional connection and often find other qualities (such as physical strength or confidence)
attractive.
Are there any studies to suggest that most women would rather be with a rich man without an emotional connection than with a middle-class man (neither rich nor poor but in the richer half of society) who gives them an emotional connection and is also extremely strong, confident, considered a "hero" by the culture etc.?

The only study I read showed both men and women emphasise love as the top quality but income was also important (especially for women in looking for a husband)

[Izukyu]

Losing disproportionate numbers of a gender from your "nation" without giving the populace a break from the selective pressure is how you become an Ex-Nation.

How would it become an ex-nation?
That's actually reduces the number of bachelors to do stupid stuff
(simple maths) and increases the amount of anger that can be directed at foreign enemies as opposed to the regime.

That's not... really how things work though. People generally get angry at the regime that's sending their sons and fathers to die in constant, pointless warfare, not the enemies that they're told to hate.

Also I have to question if the overall societal effect of "stupid stuff" that bachelors get up to is worth decimating them through constant warfare and industrial accidents. The latter somehow strikes me as more detrimental to a society than the former.

What aspect of Sharifistan doesn't make sense?
Most of it has a precedence in real life cultures (though exagerrated because it's a parody)

I don't think "parody" means what you think it means.

It mainly just seems like you're applying really simplistic logic to complex societal issues.

[Crookfur]

So basically just any old modern state then...
Basically just look at the demographics of any country since the early modern period where they haven't suffered some horrid issue (be it a war or whatever) or instituted some massive demographic altering political scheme.
I suspect a roughly even balance of the sexes prevails in the vast majority of cases.

But if overwork is a common cause of death then won't the less overworked gender be more numerous.
Also Sharifistan has a state of almost constantly war and would rather lose men than some materiel such as tanks or planes due to their high military numbers.

Did britain experience a massive gender imbalance during the darkest days of the industrial revolution?
Being constantly at war is a major outlier, unless by at war you mean something like western efforts in the GWOT.

If you mran constant total war then yes obviously there will develop an imbalance but you won't be able to keep that up for more than 5-10 years before your nation falls apart and the people or the enemy will put someone who will stop the war in charge. After 5vyears you are probably looking at France post ww1.

[Izukyu]

But if overwork is a common cause of death then won't the less overworked gender be more numerous.
Also Sharifistan has a state of almost constantly war and would rather lose men than some materiel such as tanks or planes due to their high military numbers.

Did britain experience a massive gender imbalance during the darkest days of the industrial revolution?
Being constantly at war is a major outlier, unless by at war you mean something like western efforts in the GWOT.

If you mran constant total war then yes obviously there will develop an imbalance but you won't be able to keep that up for more than 5-10 years before your nation falls apart and the people or the enemy will put someone who will stop the war in charge. After 5vyears you are probably looking at France post ww1.

Speaking of WW1 and France, it's also worth mentioning that the French army essentially mutinied on a mass scale due to the incompetence of their commanders and the pointless loss of men they were experiencing.

If you're going to send soldiers to die en masse, you're going to need to reckon with their comrades who start to question if it's worth it and if they're going to be next.

[Manokan Republic]

I think the issue is that cultural factors are nearly impossible to gauge as objective factors and there are no clear cut answers to it. Also shotgunning questions just gets annoying after a while, it would help to be more concise and ask more general questions rather than wanting specific answers to dozens of random questions, many of which have significant overlap.

Gender relations in a society likely have little impact on the military as most of the military is generally male and woman are capable of the same things as men, in less numbers, serving at a rate of 1 to 6 to men in most cases. Married men, bachelors and so on exist in the military of most nations are various rates, and it has almost no impact on performance. A varied diverse group of people seem to do all right, so a homogeneous cultural society is not necessary or even physically possible. Trying to force marriages on men and woman or vice versa is just silly and accomplishes little. Cultural factors such as technological levels (some cultures have little to no formal education), militarized or duty/honor based cultures, and things like this can impact performance, but a lot of these things relating to marriage are irrelevant. I just don't think it will do much if any at all. Many a great leader were married or not.

As far as a hyper polygamous society goes, it wouldn't be all that different from a monogamous one, other than woman would be more desperate for a mate then men, changing the balance of who can get married more or less easily.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Am I correct that ex-cops often work in the higher levels of the security industry and behaviour support in schools?

[Kazarogkai]

Wi A nation that somewhat like the us city of DC bans buildings being constructed above a certain height. Specifically the law states no building shall be greater in size than the largest church within that individual municipality. Assuming the largest churches present are only about 3 stories or so what effect would that have on the nations settlement patterns and the way their cities develop over time assuming the law remains in place and is enforced from say independence(1800 AD) into the modern day(2000s).

I imagine this would result in rather low density and rather "wide" cities rather than the usual modern pattern of tall cities filled with skyscrapers and the like. Cities arguably having a natural limit in terms of how physically big they can get before they in effect split apart into multiple independent communities in effect this would probably lead to a pattern encouraging decentralized municipalities. No Chicagos or the like. Unlike the United States whose population tends to concentrate rather heavily in a small handful of areas the population would probably be encouraged to spread and disperse more evenly across the land preventing the creation of a flyover country effect like seen in the aforementioned which would have some interesting effects. Also the population might potentially be more rural, less big cities and more large towns than anything else.

Your thoughts?

[Triplebaconation]

Unlike the United States whose population tends to concentrate rather heavily in a small handful of areas the population would probably be encouraged to spread and disperse more evenly across the land preventing the creation of a flyover country effect like seen in the aforementioned which would have some interesting effects.
Your thoughts?

lol

[Kazarogkai]

Unlike the United States whose population tends to concentrate rather heavily in a small handful of areas the population would probably be encouraged to spread and disperse more evenly across the land preventing the creation of a flyover country effect like seen in the aforementioned which would have some interesting effects.
Your thoughts?

lol

Yes?

[Triplebaconation]

Have you ever been to any of those counties? Do you think people there are living and working in particularly tall buildings?

That map just shows how enormously "wide" the typical American large city is.

It also shows why flyover country exists. People don't live in metropolitan areas because they want to look at skyscrapers. They live there because there's more economic opportunity around a major port or railroad hub or whatever than around a dirt crossroads in the middle of Idaho.

[Kazarogkai]

Have you ever been to any of those counties? Do you think people there are living and working in particularly tall buildings?

That map just shows how enormously "wide" the typical American large city is.

My argument was that Americans are concentrated with wide areas of relatively lower population dispersion. Hence flyover country. My point is proved. I have nothing more to say.

[Purpelia]

Have you ever been to any of those counties? Do you think people there are living and working in particularly tall buildings?

That map just shows how enormously "wide" the typical American large city is.

My argument was that Americans are concentrated with wide areas of relatively lower population dispersion. Hence flyover country. My point is proved. I have nothing more to say.

You can literally substitute human civilization for americans in there and you'd also be right. Problem is that the very fact fundamentally undermines your original premise.

[Gallia-]

Tall buildings are literally paper mache facades hiding the fact that no one lives in NYC anyway because cities are fake the real population of the world is probably no more than like 700 million at most.

Duh.

Have you ever been to any of those counties? Do you think people there are living and working in particularly tall buildings?

That map just shows how enormously "wide" the typical American large city is.

My argument was that Americans are concentrated with wide areas of relatively lower population dispersion. Hence flyover country. My point is proved. I have nothing more to say.

Los Angeles is bigger than Ireland lol.

The vast majority of a "city" is actually single to triple story residential homes, especially in the United States, but it's also true in other places to an extent. You just don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

[Triplebaconation]

Have you ever been to any of those counties? Do you think people there are living and working in particularly tall buildings?

That map just shows how enormously "wide" the typical American large city is.

My argument was that Americans are concentrated with wide areas of relatively lower population dispersion. Hence flyover country. My point is proved. I have nothing more to say.

No, your argument was "I imagine this would result in rather low density and rather "wide" cities rather than the usual modern pattern of tall cities filled with skyscrapers and the like. Cities arguably having a natural limit in terms of how physically big they can get before they in effect split apart into multiple independent communities in effect this would probably lead to a pattern encouraging decentralized municipalities. "

This is exactly what the largest cities are, but an ass-backwards way of how they got there.

The vast majority of a "city" is actually single to triple story residential homes, especially in the United States, but it's also true in other places to an extent. You just don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

The average American city is just Blade Runner LA.



Everybody in Memphis would probably move to North Dakota if they could only build a small Bass Pro.

[The Akasha Colony]

Wi A nation that somewhat like the us city of DC bans buildings being constructed above a certain height. Specifically the law states no building shall be greater in size than the largest church within that individual municipality. Assuming the largest churches present are only about 3 stories or so what effect would that have on the nations settlement patterns and the way their cities develop over time assuming the law remains in place and is enforced from say independence(1800 AD) into the modern day(2000s).

I imagine this would result in rather low density and rather "wide" cities rather than the usual modern pattern of tall cities filled with skyscrapers and the like. Cities arguably having a natural limit in terms of how physically big they can get before they in effect split apart into multiple independent communities in effect this would probably lead to a pattern encouraging decentralized municipalities. No Chicagos or the like. Unlike the United States whose population tends to concentrate rather heavily in a small handful of areas the population would probably be encouraged to spread and disperse more evenly across the land preventing the creation of a flyover country effect like seen in the aforementioned which would have some interesting effects. Also the population might potentially be more rural, less big cities and more large towns than anything else.

Your thoughts?

Most American cities have relatively small skylines. There are only a handful of US cities in which a significant percentage of the population lives and works in large high-rises, and it's basically the NY metro area, Miami, Honolulu, and Chicago. But if you visit a city like San Francisco or especially Los Angeles, you'll have a small core of high-rises downtown that are mostly for commercial purposes but the vast majority of the population will be living in single-family homes or small townhouses. This is by design: most cities start out small (of course!) with lots of low-rise homes and then when the city gets more developed, local zoning ordinances end up protecting these neighborhoods for historical purposes even if there might be substantial economic pressure to build more efficient housing. This is why San Francisco is still a flat city (aside from the hills) despite sky-high real estate values. Los Angeles is the ultimate flat city.

And the continent-wide distribution of the population has nothing to do with banning high-rises. Washington, DC is still one of the largest cities in the country despite having strict limits on building height. European capitals are still densely populated despite having similar restrictions on high-rises for the same reason as older American cities like San Francisco (historical preservation). Populations concentrate at transportation hubs. It's that simple. Banning tall buildings and making people spread out so they're a 30 minute drive from downtown rather than a 10 minute drive isn't suddenly going to make someone decide to live in small-town Nebraska over NYC, especially if they aren't interested in growing soybeans and corn.

[Kedri]

So, I'm trying to flesh out the religious demographics of Kedri. Given it's history as a haven for Golden Age pirates, I always assumed most Kedrians were at least nominally Anglican since they came from England, but actually deist in practice.

While piracy is no longer practiced by Kedrians, Anglicanism never really gained a foothold due to the chaotic state the archipelago was in for the longest time.

I would presume other Protestant denominations managed to become quite influential on the islands, instead, but trying to figure out which ones.

I was thinking the Kedrian Evangelical Church would be the largest denomination, with its beliefs being similar to Baptists.

Basically, I see Kedri as being a haven for many Separatists and non-conformist Protestants kinda like how the American Colonies were.