I don’t know about “shitload”. The notion that a modern industrial Monsanto peon is under it all some scion of the soil is, well, idealistic is putting it mildly.
No, they’d lose all of it.
I disagree. strongly. I think they’d flounder* just as much* as any curator, without their tractors, Roundup and subsidies.
I think it may.
And every single one of the people I know in semi-rural Washington state who keep chickens and have fruit trees and vegetable gardens are Bernie Sanders voting liberals. Funny how that works. As I look out from my window onto my chicken coop and fruit trees and vegetables.
This was my point.
With this sort of airy hand-waving of problems, the Conservatopia could claim that there’d be no crime, no issues, etc. in the Conservatopia either.
I think that the point you are missing spectacularly is that, regardless of the occupation, not all the people in an specific one are completely conservative or liberal. In essence the point of telling us that some jobs do attract people with specific ideologies, it is never a 100% deal.
So your point was and remains underwhelming. in the case of the liberal group it is not really reasonable to assume that they will not get enough doctors.
Or, for the other group, I will have to mention again that there are already and we are we are bound to see “Joe the solar panel installer” guys that are conservative to the bone.
I would like to ask another spinoff-but-relevant question:
The Conservatopia, would, presumably, spend more on national defense, maybe develop nukes, etc. than the Liberaltopia.
So, suppose that, one day, the Conservatopia decided to militarily conquer the Liberaltopia. How would the Liberaltopia stop this?
I know, that’s why I used the phrase “a higher number” and not something like ‘all’ in my post.
Edit: I see the OP meant two different worlds to live in, not that the two utopias would be in the same planet. Nonetheless, I am curious how a Liberaltopia would cope with being militarily attacked by a Conservatopia.
By relying on the Conservatives’ inability to travel between worlds (compounded by their low numbers of scientists)?
Plus who do you think is going to develop nukes first, the farmers and insurance salesmen, or the scientists and researchers?
It’s not “hand-waving” if the founding principles of your ideology address the systemic problem under discussion, at its root.
If this is an accurate interpretation of the question in the OP (and I’m willing to believe it is) then doesn’t it all just cancel itself out?
What, practically speaking, is the difference between a “liberal” and a “conservative” without the society that gives those terms meaning? Someone’s position on abortion rights for example is not worth much if there’s no such thing as healthcare.
So the OP is asking which of two groups would thrive better based on an assortment criterion that is essentially unrelated to the skills required for survival. The answer is that both groups are large enough that they would probably be fine in the long term but in the short term both would probably have a rough go. Once things sorted themselves out and society was sufficiently rebuilt for terms like “liberal” and “conservative” to have meaning again, say 10-20 generations on, the distribution of political opinions would probably have fuck-all to do with the initial conditions.
If we had to pick something to point to for why one of these teams (and that’s all they are: randomly selected teams) might have an advantage, I would propose that the one that skewed younger in its demographics would be marginally more successful in the short term. But it would have no impact past the immediate aftermath.
None of the above tells us anything about which of the two political philosophies is better suited to our current society or to the long term preservation and prosperity of the human race.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Plenty of engineers and technicians and researchers in the military-industrial complex are conservative, in fact, maybe the majority. Plenty of such folks who work for the DoD or Oak Ridge, etc. are no doubt conservative as well.
And again, where would be the political will, within the Liberaltopia, to develop nukes?
Really? Do you not think that people who have rebuilt many engines or constructed many houses with power tools would have an advantage over those who have not ever done those things when asked to perform the same task with hand tools?
If you look at the current places that are the most Republican they are in Utah. That is what a conservative dominated polity looks like. It is the most equal state in the country by the GINI coefficent. There is low crime, low taxes and low cost of living.
The most Democratic places in the US are Indian reservations and densely populated cities. The most Democratic city is Detroit. There is high crime, high taxes, and high inequality. That is what a liberal dominated polity looks like.
The two seperated polities would rather quickly revert into tow party states. It is just natural for some portion of the conservative place to want to be taken care of by the government. And in the liberal state they would quickly run out of government money and budget hawks would emerge.
If we’re talking about liberals and conservatives how they appear to me from my perspective here in America:
Libertopia would die quickly because we’re not super good at farming and ranching and aren’t very good at turning minority populations into slave labor to do the necessary grunt work to sustain those industries. If we managed to get past that bump, we’d quickly find that everything would get pretty peaceful and productive for pretty much as long as everyone stayed liberal. But seriously, we’d starve first.
Conservatopia would very rapidly decompose into a caste-based society where the poor were alternatively enslaved and/or left penniless to starve, would occasionally revolt, and be immediately annihilated by an overarmed police and overactive military. Then the next lowest rung of society would be pushed down to being poor and the cycle would continue. This would go on until there weren’t any people left who were willing to work the fields, at which point they would starve - assuming they haven’t been annihilated by some environmental disaster they were actively causing first.
If allowed to develop from our current society into one or the other, Libertopia would be the only one of the two societies with long term viability, if only because we’ve got the bulk of the educated people including virtually all the scientists. But given a sudden transplant to another area I don’t think the population of liberals has the demographics or knowledge base to get a fresh society off the ground, whereas conservatives probably could - for a while.
According to that, conservatives don’t even have the most engineers, maybe when software engineers are taken out it will be less lopsided, but that does not look like a solid technical foundation.
I think my earlier conjecture about how the conservative colony would turn out in the distant future was quite correct.
Depends on when they would try to conquer, at this point in time I think the liberals would have enough superior technology to beat the conservative hordes back.
Going into the future, there was a parallel in stargate sg1.
Let’s say the guauld system lords with their jafaa slaves were the CONSERVATIVE faction, and societies like the Tollans were an advanced race of liberals that prized science and technology.
Here was a confrontation between the two. The Conservative system lords with their more rigid structures and armies had… trouble subduing the Tollans
Bad example, Utah has a much more uniform and homogeneous population of people, it would be more useful to look at conservative states with diverse populations and compare those to similar liberal states.
I’m not sure it’s useful to look at any state, since no state exists in a vacuum, and many/most/all(?) states rely on importing food/water/power from some other state to maintain their current operations. Also, in either topia, the local and national laws would have been made with no hint of the other side’s influence - Conservatopia would have no treehuggers holding them back in their mining operations, there would be no form of government welfare, there would be no regulation on business and banking practices, and so on. No current state avoids the impact of liberal regulation - if not at the state, at the federal level.