Links to Consider, 3/24

Rob Henderson on happiness and meaning; Niccolo Soldo on the future of the family; Razib Khan and Steven Pinker; Joel Kotkin on woke capitalism;

Rob Henderson writes,

meaning and happiness are somewhat correlated, but the link is far from perfect. People who have experienced a great deal of hardship in their lives report relatively high levels of meaning, but low happiness. In contrast, people who have had comfortable lives report higher levels of happiness but low levels of meaning.

Certain experiences seem to increase one at the expense of the other. For instance, people with young children report slightly lower levels of happiness but higher levels of meaning. Interestingly, monetary scarcity is associated with low happiness but is not correlated with people’s sense of meaning. Residents of poor nations have a greater sense of meaning in life than residents of wealthy nations. Being poor might make you unhappy, but doesn’t seem to remove meaning from life.

The point about children should be underlined. You might think that adopting a floofy gender identity will make you happy. But it will detract from your life’s meaning.

Niccolo Soldo writes,

To seek to undo the Sexual Revolution while maintaining a liberal political culture is like putting spoiled milk back into the fridge and expecting it to be good tomorrow.

To try and move towards a state of affairs that Louise envisions would entail telling people that they are not only wrong in what they are doing, but that they shouldn't engage in rights that have been given to them. Most people do not like to have their personal autonomy restricted, no matter how much sensible argument and good reason is presented to them. This is impossible in a liberal society absent a catastrophe.

To use a different metaphor, he is accusing Louise Perry of trying to squeeze toothpaste back into a tube when she tries to make the case for traditional families. But maybe it will happen naturally, based on who reproduces. The future belongs to the normies, not the floofy gender identities.

Razib Khan interviews Steven Pinker about The Blank Slate. As you know, I have the highest praise for Razib and for that book. The interview is great, but it’s frustrating trying to copy/paste from the transcript, so no excerpt.

Joel Kotkin writes,

The primary means for oligarchic control is not campaign contributions, however. Instead, many gain influence from funding non-profits, which espouse selfless rhetoric even as they push their funders’ own personal agendas and interests. In the US, non-profits’ assets have grown by a factor of 12 since 1980. In 2016, non-profits brought in $2.62 trillion in revenues, constituting over 5.7 per cent of the US economy.

These non-profits are not like old-fashioned charities that give assistance to poor people. Instead, they spend money on causes and salaries. The salaries generally go to highly-educated young people who believe that capitalism is evil.

I have to point out, though, that Kotkin has a somewhat contradictory message about where to place blame. He starts out seeming to fault what some libertarians refer to scornfuly as the “professional managerial class.” The PMC folks let founders take risk and only step in to manage firms when they are large and mature. But Kotkin ends up blaming the founders of big firms, who are more likely to be admired by libertarians.

Substacks referenced above:

@

Steven Pinker: The Blank Slate 20+ years later

@

Chapter 8 - Marriage is Good (and concluding remarks)

@

Life is Characterized by a Fair Bit of Suffering. What Will Sustain You?