Mary Harrington on content police; Scott Alexander and me on David Brooks' Bobos; Rob Henderson and Chris Williamson; Julia Black on tech stars and pronatalism; and some of my impressions of Austin
Well, less that part, but the focus on getting the be set to breed, too many other people means society is doomed, etc. That part is a bit worrisome, as it implies someone should take control of other people’s behavior so that they don’t mess everything up. That is usually a very bad sign.
You already support population control. It's called *borders*. And the prime reason you oppose Open Borders is that too many of the wrong kind of people would doom society, and you have a strong reason to believe that would happen under open borders.
Bryan Caplan would no doubt say your stance on borders is a violation of basic human rights, and that it's undertaken out of FOOL. You would probably counter that sometimes FOOL is completely rational, as it is in this case.
So why are borders OK and eugenics bad? In fact we already accept some degree of eugenics. We subsidize planned parenthood and society more or less agrees there is nothing wrong with aborting down syndrome kids.
Part of the answer is that murder is more intrusive then preventing someone from crossing a border. Though its worth noting that the enforcement of all laws carry the ultimate resort of lethal force and people do die trying to cross the border.
But I think the real reason is simply that TFR on the low end just isn't a problem in the first world. It clocks in at barely over replacement. If there is any dysgenic drift from non-immigration fertility patterns then its pretty low. Not fast enough to destroy society. And any "problem" is from low fertility at the upper end, which this movement intends to fix through positive messaging.
By contrast, there are enough people in the third world right now to swamp the first world in short order.
If TFR in the ghetto were Nigerian levels, maybe there would be more talk of what to do about it. In The Bell Curve Charles suggested cutting a lot of the government subsidies poor mothers get. But there really isn't a need to worry about a hypothetical that isn't actually occurring.
I feel this requires a more in-depth response than I am willing or able to tap into a phone. I will try and address it when I have time at home on the pc.
Well it isn’t bad now, but something to keep an eye on. That’s what I meant by my response to DoJ a little lower int the thread: it is easy to go from “too many of you and not enough of me” to “we need to get rid of you” when it turns out that removing population is a lot faster than growing the parts you want.
Just saying, people should have all the kids you want, but maybe keep an eye on the people that say something along the lines of “we are so much better than everyone else, we have a moral duty to reproduce as much as possible to save the human race from becoming made up of bad people.” Sooner or later such types realize it is faster to remove the bad people.
Of course someone who was expressly worried about depopulation or population collapse and so favors natalism with a focus on their group because that’s what they can influence, well nothing wrong with that that I can see.
This vaguely 'Chesterton's fence' criticism of tech pronatalism might make sense if it threatened to upend a stable status quo in the name of a purportedly utopian goal, but the status quo is not stable, it's declining (biologically speaking). Developed countries (and soon enough, all countries) are facing or are about to face terminally declining populations, as well as declining IQ and increasing class stratification, due to smart and rich people having fewer children. A group of smart and/or rich people voluntarily choosing to have more kids is probably the most ideal solution from a libertarian perspective, and arguably the most epistemologically humble. What are the alternatives, aside from do nothing and let the world become Japan? There's 1) convert everyone to orthodox judaism or mormonism (more frightening to me than the silicon valley solution); 2) artificial wombs and baby factories. What else?
I vote 1. We need a religious revival. It has to happen at some point. It will probably be sparked by a major earth-shaking catastrophe or the next world war.
Under the logic of your last paragraph, a mini-movement making an emphasis on working and earning a lot would be a suspect totalitarian-adjacent ideology. Such people lack epistemic humility - why do they think _they_ should be the ones making more effort, why should _they_ work and earn a lot rather than relax and rely on everyone else just going about their business and making the best of their lives? It's a bad case of FOOL to think that _you_ should make more of an effort than the average person, work and earn a lot rather than... I don't know, sit under trees waiting for bananas to fall perhaps? collect your Soviet I-pretend-to-work paycheck? Anyway, it's clearly totalitarian-adjacent.
" I saw many, many young people who appeared to be emotionally healthy. Hardly anyone seems to have a tattoo or a body piercing or purple hair. "
I was recently in a contentious but civil conversation where my position was closer to Kling's than the other person yet I'm not sure if I'm more bothered by his position or Kling's comment.
I think there is a long list of social behaviors we really don't have more than the crudest understanding of how they relate to emotional health. Additionally, even if body art does have some correlation with emotional health, I suspect it is pretty small and there's a good chance it doesn't tell us anything about most people's health.
"Pronatalism" sounds like this century's version of "Eugenics," which early 20th century Progressives foisted on American society, very despicably. Woodrow Wilson was a fan as was Hitler. Very ugly chapter in US history.
I suspect that what Kelsey Piper and Scott Alexander mean by tech is really the "big journalism/advertisement industry based on technology of the internet". That means Facebook (especially Feed), Twitter, Google (news), and any other "tech" company that now competes directly with the traditional news industry or facilitates competition with them (Substack, Spotify podcasts, Youtube podcasts, etc...).
And it seems plausible to me that people would conflate "tech" with that particular tech industry, because I recall having many conversations with non technology people who would make the same assumption in those years. Nowadays it's not so often that I get to tell people that I've been working in tech for 20 years and they seem to be confused about what tech is.
That said, thanks as usual for the interesting links. The quoted bit from Harrington seems like an important insight, although the rest of the piece was less strong.
In what way has effective altruism ever exhibited "FOOL"? It's always been a matter of what you yourself can do with your own resources and time.
And in the very same piece you come across very strongly as afraid of others' liberty when it comes to non-traditional relationships, or even hairstyles.
Jesus this is the most dystopian thing I have read here because of the corollaries and conclusion I am drawing, not from the great links. Reading this makes me think of DeFi efforts as an attempt to resurrect a more anarchic time where everyone could attempt to be an Irish King with his own little hill to govern. And I thought the withering of the parable of the Good Samaritan with regard to the new elite faith was bad, but apparently a subset of tech elite want to resurrect their own star phylogenies in reaction to the present.
Not sure that’s so unreasonable. She’ll be immunocompromised after the transplant and thus at increased risk of severe COVID. I think Duke is within its rights to decide who is in the best position to benefit from scarce donor organs.
No one is “entitled” to receive a kidney without conditions attached. This is little different from Duke deciding to withhold a scarce organ from someone they judge at risk of noncompliance with the perioperative immunosuppressant regimen required to maximize transplant success. All transplant programs make such judgments routinely.
Covid ideology is a religion and for curious reasons the faith is much stronger in the USA and Canada then it is in Europe. I just read that Denmark has removed Covid as a priority disease and advised that a Covid infection requires no special personal response, such as isolation or additional testing. In other words, in Denmark and other European countries, Covid is treated the same as the common cold.
And for many months the Scandinavian countries have been downplaying the vaccines and discouraging their use by any but the elderly.
Yet in the USA we have the Biden administration and many health officials pushing the Covid shots and boosters and in certain blue cities of the USA we have public health officials still recommending masks - an absolutely useless policy but one the faith embraces with fervor.
"Smart successful people want to have more kids = Hitler adjacent" is a pretty gloomy take.
Well, less that part, but the focus on getting the be set to breed, too many other people means society is doomed, etc. That part is a bit worrisome, as it implies someone should take control of other people’s behavior so that they don’t mess everything up. That is usually a very bad sign.
You already support population control. It's called *borders*. And the prime reason you oppose Open Borders is that too many of the wrong kind of people would doom society, and you have a strong reason to believe that would happen under open borders.
Bryan Caplan would no doubt say your stance on borders is a violation of basic human rights, and that it's undertaken out of FOOL. You would probably counter that sometimes FOOL is completely rational, as it is in this case.
So why are borders OK and eugenics bad? In fact we already accept some degree of eugenics. We subsidize planned parenthood and society more or less agrees there is nothing wrong with aborting down syndrome kids.
Part of the answer is that murder is more intrusive then preventing someone from crossing a border. Though its worth noting that the enforcement of all laws carry the ultimate resort of lethal force and people do die trying to cross the border.
But I think the real reason is simply that TFR on the low end just isn't a problem in the first world. It clocks in at barely over replacement. If there is any dysgenic drift from non-immigration fertility patterns then its pretty low. Not fast enough to destroy society. And any "problem" is from low fertility at the upper end, which this movement intends to fix through positive messaging.
By contrast, there are enough people in the third world right now to swamp the first world in short order.
If TFR in the ghetto were Nigerian levels, maybe there would be more talk of what to do about it. In The Bell Curve Charles suggested cutting a lot of the government subsidies poor mothers get. But there really isn't a need to worry about a hypothetical that isn't actually occurring.
I feel this requires a more in-depth response than I am willing or able to tap into a phone. I will try and address it when I have time at home on the pc.
The saving grace, for now, is that human breeding is so limited and slow. They are using tools that are inherently safe.
However, if they start getting serious about more “efficient” ways to advance their goals…
Yea, “too many of you, not enough of me” often gets solved by “let’s just get rid of you”.
Well it isn’t bad now, but something to keep an eye on. That’s what I meant by my response to DoJ a little lower int the thread: it is easy to go from “too many of you and not enough of me” to “we need to get rid of you” when it turns out that removing population is a lot faster than growing the parts you want.
Just saying, people should have all the kids you want, but maybe keep an eye on the people that say something along the lines of “we are so much better than everyone else, we have a moral duty to reproduce as much as possible to save the human race from becoming made up of bad people.” Sooner or later such types realize it is faster to remove the bad people.
Of course someone who was expressly worried about depopulation or population collapse and so favors natalism with a focus on their group because that’s what they can influence, well nothing wrong with that that I can see.
That last paragraph is very important. A very valuable point.
This vaguely 'Chesterton's fence' criticism of tech pronatalism might make sense if it threatened to upend a stable status quo in the name of a purportedly utopian goal, but the status quo is not stable, it's declining (biologically speaking). Developed countries (and soon enough, all countries) are facing or are about to face terminally declining populations, as well as declining IQ and increasing class stratification, due to smart and rich people having fewer children. A group of smart and/or rich people voluntarily choosing to have more kids is probably the most ideal solution from a libertarian perspective, and arguably the most epistemologically humble. What are the alternatives, aside from do nothing and let the world become Japan? There's 1) convert everyone to orthodox judaism or mormonism (more frightening to me than the silicon valley solution); 2) artificial wombs and baby factories. What else?
I vote 1. We need a religious revival. It has to happen at some point. It will probably be sparked by a major earth-shaking catastrophe or the next world war.
Under the logic of your last paragraph, a mini-movement making an emphasis on working and earning a lot would be a suspect totalitarian-adjacent ideology. Such people lack epistemic humility - why do they think _they_ should be the ones making more effort, why should _they_ work and earn a lot rather than relax and rely on everyone else just going about their business and making the best of their lives? It's a bad case of FOOL to think that _you_ should make more of an effort than the average person, work and earn a lot rather than... I don't know, sit under trees waiting for bananas to fall perhaps? collect your Soviet I-pretend-to-work paycheck? Anyway, it's clearly totalitarian-adjacent.
" I saw many, many young people who appeared to be emotionally healthy. Hardly anyone seems to have a tattoo or a body piercing or purple hair. "
I was recently in a contentious but civil conversation where my position was closer to Kling's than the other person yet I'm not sure if I'm more bothered by his position or Kling's comment.
I think there is a long list of social behaviors we really don't have more than the crudest understanding of how they relate to emotional health. Additionally, even if body art does have some correlation with emotional health, I suspect it is pretty small and there's a good chance it doesn't tell us anything about most people's health.
That was a great essay from 2001, and I think I have read it before, so you probably linked back to it in the last handful of years.
"Pronatalism" sounds like this century's version of "Eugenics," which early 20th century Progressives foisted on American society, very despicably. Woodrow Wilson was a fan as was Hitler. Very ugly chapter in US history.
Yes, it is a very different thing to say “these people should have more kids” and to say “those people should not be allowed to have more kids.”
I suspect that what Kelsey Piper and Scott Alexander mean by tech is really the "big journalism/advertisement industry based on technology of the internet". That means Facebook (especially Feed), Twitter, Google (news), and any other "tech" company that now competes directly with the traditional news industry or facilitates competition with them (Substack, Spotify podcasts, Youtube podcasts, etc...).
If that is the case, then the reason for deriding your competitors is pretty obvious. They are taking away the customers that should be reading your content, or even "stealing" your content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market).
And it seems plausible to me that people would conflate "tech" with that particular tech industry, because I recall having many conversations with non technology people who would make the same assumption in those years. Nowadays it's not so often that I get to tell people that I've been working in tech for 20 years and they seem to be confused about what tech is.
That said, thanks as usual for the interesting links. The quoted bit from Harrington seems like an important insight, although the rest of the piece was less strong.
In what way has effective altruism ever exhibited "FOOL"? It's always been a matter of what you yourself can do with your own resources and time.
And in the very same piece you come across very strongly as afraid of others' liberty when it comes to non-traditional relationships, or even hairstyles.
You are confusing "fear of" with "fear for" is my guess.
Jesus this is the most dystopian thing I have read here because of the corollaries and conclusion I am drawing, not from the great links. Reading this makes me think of DeFi efforts as an attempt to resurrect a more anarchic time where everyone could attempt to be an Irish King with his own little hill to govern. And I thought the withering of the parable of the Good Samaritan with regard to the new elite faith was bad, but apparently a subset of tech elite want to resurrect their own star phylogenies in reaction to the present.
Your essay from 2001 could have been written yesterday. Well done.
Not sure that’s so unreasonable. She’ll be immunocompromised after the transplant and thus at increased risk of severe COVID. I think Duke is within its rights to decide who is in the best position to benefit from scarce donor organs.
No one is “entitled” to receive a kidney without conditions attached. This is little different from Duke deciding to withhold a scarce organ from someone they judge at risk of noncompliance with the perioperative immunosuppressant regimen required to maximize transplant success. All transplant programs make such judgments routinely.
Covid ideology is a religion and for curious reasons the faith is much stronger in the USA and Canada then it is in Europe. I just read that Denmark has removed Covid as a priority disease and advised that a Covid infection requires no special personal response, such as isolation or additional testing. In other words, in Denmark and other European countries, Covid is treated the same as the common cold.
And for many months the Scandinavian countries have been downplaying the vaccines and discouraging their use by any but the elderly.
Yet in the USA we have the Biden administration and many health officials pushing the Covid shots and boosters and in certain blue cities of the USA we have public health officials still recommending masks - an absolutely useless policy but one the faith embraces with fervor.