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
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?
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.
"Smart successful people want to have more kids = Hitler adjacent" is a pretty gloomy take.
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?
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.
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.
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.