I think this is completely correct. If airplanes hadn't completely outcompeted ships as cost-effective travel, we would surely still have ships carrying low-cost passengers. They didn't get rid of steerage out of a sense of class sensitivity. Today's cruise ships are all-in on luxury travel because that's the only profitable niche for them. (Also, any appetite for an extra-luxury class is eaten away by air travel as well, leading to the modern situation where cruises are mostly a middle class luxury. The rich have yachts these days.)
Bryan's point about open immigration stands, though. Open immigration is an overwhelming, life-changing benefit to the global poor.
The real change is what it represents as a % of income, especially disposable income after necessities.
A crewmen on the titanic would earn 60 pounds in a year. Nearly all of that would go towards necessities of life, making setting aside about 10% of income a difficult task. Keep in mind to that there is would be other expenses related to the crossing beyond the ticket price, and if the person wanted to bring their family that would take multiple tickets.
Further, that is wages in 1912 Britain, relatively rich compared to other European countries and earlier time periods in the Victorian age. Jack as an impoverished Irishmen would be lucky to earn such a wage.
The cost of immigration during this era were quite daunting and those that could afford it really were often not the absolute poorest of Europe.
My 34 year old daughter seriously doubted today's males would allow the women and children to go first in a similar incident today. I did not have an answer and the Concordia's captain was clearly a rather strong point on her side.
However, I recently heard that during the Islamic attack in Paris 2015, in the Bataclan, several boyfriends covered their girlfriends with their body to protect them from the bullets. So chivalry is still present in some of today's men.
As a side note, what I always found most intriguing was that it is "women and children first" instead of "children and women first"
There's a world of difference between protecting *your* woman and agreeing to be prioritized below strange women. Children are a different matter; if you won't prioritize them, there's something wrong with you.
Though I'd probably agree with Bryan's point that parents of young children (who live with them) should be prioritized ahead of the childless or those whose children are grown, with moms ahead of dads but dads ahead of everyone else.
I do not think in those moments you can make a balanced trade off, the intuition that we got from evolution kicks in. I think the rule is summarized in the "Women and children first" cry, where we intuitively prioritize women because they are our genes best bet. Though I just learned from ChatGPT that in Hebrew it is קודמים :-)
Presumably if you have a plan with any complexity, you've already set up the priority list ahead of time. Otherwise, you'll need a much simpler heuristic. Mine would be: families with children first (children must be physically present), everyone else after.
I suppose I'm also not really convinced that we have any kind of biological instinct to protect strange women; this is a culturally-imposed custom. The most basic instinct that evolution would point us to is "every man for himself," with some exception for close kin and women to whom we are romantically attached (the presumed current or future mothers of our children).
Indeed, it's the general rule of disasters that men (being stronger and faster) have a higher survival rate than women, and women than children.
This article made me think a lot about my own personal reactions to the Hollywood version of the past. I like Titanic, it’s a good film, but what I hate about it (and many other films) is the cartoonish clumsy way it flags the social and sexual divisions of the past. So when I’m watching it, I’m thinking how clunky and facile it is about social issues - Jack saying “that’s so we know where we rank”, Rose bemoaning that her lot is “unfair”. These are exactly the things a MODERN person would say about 1912. And the “villains” are saying ridiculous things that surely no one in 1912 would have thought to say, even if they did look down on the lower orders.
But the article made me rethink a bit. Obviously other people don’t get annoyed like I do. Maybe getting annoyed is missing the point. Maybe it’s fair enough to cartoonishly emphasise the things that are different- maybe that’s the point. It’s a parable. I’m reacting in the wrong register- it’s not a history movie, it’s a story set in the past.
Women and children first maximizes fitness at the group level. A single man can impregnate many women.
There are very few old people up until modern times. Life expectancy in 1912 England was like 50, which would be much higher than most of human existance.
The concept of productivity is a very modern invention. Before the Industrial Revolution everyone is about as productive as anyone else and we are all up against the Malthusian edge no matter what anyway.
Worse in Titanic's economic morality: Rose self-indulgently throws overboard a priceless necklace. If she was really concerned about all those people in steerage this asset could have gone a long way to helping improve some lives.
In April of 1912, the water is very cold, almost freezing. So why do Jack and Rose go about the ship in and out of the water surging in to the ship with no ill effects?
In a situation of survival, doesn't "women and children" make sense? A society's' capacity for reproduction is far more dependent on the number of women (and future adults) than it is on adult males (of whom you only need a relative few). A more rational policy might be, "women of child-bearing age, and children, with a preference for girls over boys", but that seems like a mouthful 🤣
Slave Morality vs Master Morality (male vs female)
1) Before the agricultural revolution, slave morality. The most "natural" morality for Homo Sapiens. Don't believe me. Go see some chimps in the zoo.
2) The agricultural revolution brought us Master Morality.
3) Master Morality was a malthusian adaptation and a malthusian dead end.
4) Slave Morality liberated the 90%+ of society (95%+ of both genders) to participate in meritocracy.
I remember a line from C.S. Lewis. The pilots and mechanics of the Battle of Britain were the "intelligencia of the proletariate". The people who defeated the Kerensky Government were drunk fools.
5) The modern era was a transition period where "christian mercy" was a "marginal revolution".
6) The post war era exposed the "diminishing returns" of extending that mercy from the "contextual underclass" to the "absolute underclass".
> Modern cruise ships got rid of steerage by getting rid of poor passengers altogether!
Aren't ships the wrong reference category, since they are no longer much used for practical transportation of passengers? Probably travel by air, a more common option now, would be more appropriate choice. The price you give for a Titanic ticket is 7 British pounds in 1912; according to https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator that's equivalent to 632.8 pounds today; at the current exchange rate of 1.217 US dollars per British pound, that's equivalent to about $770 in modern US dollars. Meanwhile, http://archive.today/2023.03.14-171806/https://www.travelocity.com/Flights-Search?filters=%5B%7B%22numOfStopFilterValue%22:%7B%22stopInfo%22:%7B%22stopFilterOperation%22:%22EQUAL%22,%22numberOfStops%22:0%7D%7D%7D,%7B%22numOfStopFilterValue%22:%7B%22stopInfo%22:%7B%22stopFilterOperation%22:%22EQUAL%22,%22numberOfStops%22:1%7D%7D%7D,%7B%22numOfStopFilterValue%22:%7B%22stopInfo%22:%7B%22numberOfStops%22:2,%22stopFilterOperation%22:%22GREATER_THAN_EQUAL%22%7D%7D%7D%5D&leg1=from:London%20(LHR-Heathrow),to:New%20York,%20NY%20(NYC-All%20Airports),departure:6/1/2023TANYT&mode=search&options=carrier:*,cabinclass:,maxhops:1,nopenalty:N&passengers=adults:1,children:0,infantinlap:N&sortOrder=INCREASING&sortType=PRICE&trip=oneway lists the minimum price of a plane ticket across the Atlantic as just $443.
I think this is completely correct. If airplanes hadn't completely outcompeted ships as cost-effective travel, we would surely still have ships carrying low-cost passengers. They didn't get rid of steerage out of a sense of class sensitivity. Today's cruise ships are all-in on luxury travel because that's the only profitable niche for them. (Also, any appetite for an extra-luxury class is eaten away by air travel as well, leading to the modern situation where cruises are mostly a middle class luxury. The rich have yachts these days.)
Bryan's point about open immigration stands, though. Open immigration is an overwhelming, life-changing benefit to the global poor.
The real change is what it represents as a % of income, especially disposable income after necessities.
A crewmen on the titanic would earn 60 pounds in a year. Nearly all of that would go towards necessities of life, making setting aside about 10% of income a difficult task. Keep in mind to that there is would be other expenses related to the crossing beyond the ticket price, and if the person wanted to bring their family that would take multiple tickets.
Further, that is wages in 1912 Britain, relatively rich compared to other European countries and earlier time periods in the Victorian age. Jack as an impoverished Irishmen would be lucky to earn such a wage.
The cost of immigration during this era were quite daunting and those that could afford it really were often not the absolute poorest of Europe.
Curiously, the heroine, now grown old, does something no woman I’ve ever known would ever do.
Or man!
A man would know she was no longer below the depths. And so would she.
My 34 year old daughter seriously doubted today's males would allow the women and children to go first in a similar incident today. I did not have an answer and the Concordia's captain was clearly a rather strong point on her side.
However, I recently heard that during the Islamic attack in Paris 2015, in the Bataclan, several boyfriends covered their girlfriends with their body to protect them from the bullets. So chivalry is still present in some of today's men.
As a side note, what I always found most intriguing was that it is "women and children first" instead of "children and women first"
There's a world of difference between protecting *your* woman and agreeing to be prioritized below strange women. Children are a different matter; if you won't prioritize them, there's something wrong with you.
Though I'd probably agree with Bryan's point that parents of young children (who live with them) should be prioritized ahead of the childless or those whose children are grown, with moms ahead of dads but dads ahead of everyone else.
I do not think in those moments you can make a balanced trade off, the intuition that we got from evolution kicks in. I think the rule is summarized in the "Women and children first" cry, where we intuitively prioritize women because they are our genes best bet. Though I just learned from ChatGPT that in Hebrew it is קודמים :-)
Presumably if you have a plan with any complexity, you've already set up the priority list ahead of time. Otherwise, you'll need a much simpler heuristic. Mine would be: families with children first (children must be physically present), everyone else after.
I suppose I'm also not really convinced that we have any kind of biological instinct to protect strange women; this is a culturally-imposed custom. The most basic instinct that evolution would point us to is "every man for himself," with some exception for close kin and women to whom we are romantically attached (the presumed current or future mothers of our children).
Indeed, it's the general rule of disasters that men (being stronger and faster) have a higher survival rate than women, and women than children.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17693480
This article made me think a lot about my own personal reactions to the Hollywood version of the past. I like Titanic, it’s a good film, but what I hate about it (and many other films) is the cartoonish clumsy way it flags the social and sexual divisions of the past. So when I’m watching it, I’m thinking how clunky and facile it is about social issues - Jack saying “that’s so we know where we rank”, Rose bemoaning that her lot is “unfair”. These are exactly the things a MODERN person would say about 1912. And the “villains” are saying ridiculous things that surely no one in 1912 would have thought to say, even if they did look down on the lower orders.
But the article made me rethink a bit. Obviously other people don’t get annoyed like I do. Maybe getting annoyed is missing the point. Maybe it’s fair enough to cartoonishly emphasise the things that are different- maybe that’s the point. It’s a parable. I’m reacting in the wrong register- it’s not a history movie, it’s a story set in the past.
I don't think you're wrong to react those ways, but I think Bryan's reactions is a very thoughtful and interesting counterpoint.
Women and children first maximizes fitness at the group level. A single man can impregnate many women.
There are very few old people up until modern times. Life expectancy in 1912 England was like 50, which would be much higher than most of human existance.
The concept of productivity is a very modern invention. Before the Industrial Revolution everyone is about as productive as anyone else and we are all up against the Malthusian edge no matter what anyway.
Regarding point #12: Would you let your 17 year old (Rose's age in the movie) run off with someone she's known for 2 days?
Worse in Titanic's economic morality: Rose self-indulgently throws overboard a priceless necklace. If she was really concerned about all those people in steerage this asset could have gone a long way to helping improve some lives.
But hey, if you can't put a price on closure...
I'm #TeamCal
What evidence do we have that she cares about people in steerage? She cares about a specific man as a romantic partner.
In April of 1912, the water is very cold, almost freezing. So why do Jack and Rose go about the ship in and out of the water surging in to the ship with no ill effects?
The libertarian anti-feminist deconstruction of mass media! :)
There is an interesting comparison between Titanic and modern cruise ships here : https://cruisenonstop.com/cruise-tips-and-guides/titanic-compared-to-cruise-ship/
In a situation of survival, doesn't "women and children" make sense? A society's' capacity for reproduction is far more dependent on the number of women (and future adults) than it is on adult males (of whom you only need a relative few). A more rational policy might be, "women of child-bearing age, and children, with a preference for girls over boys", but that seems like a mouthful 🤣
Slave Morality vs Master Morality (male vs female)
1) Before the agricultural revolution, slave morality. The most "natural" morality for Homo Sapiens. Don't believe me. Go see some chimps in the zoo.
2) The agricultural revolution brought us Master Morality.
3) Master Morality was a malthusian adaptation and a malthusian dead end.
4) Slave Morality liberated the 90%+ of society (95%+ of both genders) to participate in meritocracy.
I remember a line from C.S. Lewis. The pilots and mechanics of the Battle of Britain were the "intelligencia of the proletariate". The people who defeated the Kerensky Government were drunk fools.
5) The modern era was a transition period where "christian mercy" was a "marginal revolution".
6) The post war era exposed the "diminishing returns" of extending that mercy from the "contextual underclass" to the "absolute underclass".
Chimps aren't slaves, they don't work for anybody.
https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/sexism-part-1-plus-homophobia-plus.html
https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/sexism-part-2.html
https://www.mattball.org/2023/03/sexism-part-3-insidious-and-unrecognized.html
Why are you spamming links to your own blog that have nothing to do with this post?