> "I am amazed at the number of people who cite low Iranian fertility as evidence that feminism, secularism, or education are irrelevant, apparently not knowing about this very successful population control campaign, or that the Iranian population is very secular, Iranian women outnumber men in higher education (more than 60% of the total, rising to 70% in engineering), and Iran has one of the highest education-to-workforce ratios in the world."
Doesn't Iran still have a pretty high male-to-female income ratio, though? Is that purely a function of older age groups and not present in under-30s, or something?
> "And depending on the course of technology, it may never matter. The singularity renders fertility concerns, along with everything else, irrelevant. My gut feeling is that it will probably (>50%) render the question moot, but since I can neither predict nor control this, I’d rather write about the base case where neither happens."
I won't say it's impossible, but I think it's likely we'll get some kind of AI bubble crash in the short-to-medium term. There's also a huge chunk of the creative class and left-wingers that really hate AI, so maybe the post-crash political reset will finally wake up conservatives about this.
Great article overall, though. I'm kind of stunned that Hungarian fathers don't get tax breaks for their kids when the mother does- that seems like a really glaring oversight.
While I understand this is conservative publication, I grew up in communist Yugoslavia. Many things were worse with that system, but promoting full inclusion of women in workforce and high education was great civilizational achievement. Like good kindergartens, female reproductive healh, etc.... This did not exclude biological differences between sexes (men still fought more for high value positions), but it did rule out shameful things like offering female law graduates secretary job (memoirs of O'Connor, US Supreme Justice).
Regarding the first paragraph, you'd be surprised. I've encountered at least a dozen people in the past few years who told me that my population control proposal will never work (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#overpop-solution) because it's "too authoritarian", but they're just ignorant about history.
Quote: "The only really effective high-fertility groups in economically advanced countries are patriarchal and pro-natalist religious groups, which are often separated from mainstream society by technological choices or language barriers. Some examples are the Haredim³, practicing non-ultra Orthodox Jews⁴, the Amish, orthodox Dutch Calvinists (strict enough to oppose women’s suffrage), and Finnish Laestadians. As a rule, the more culturally separated from mainstream society, the higher the fertility and the lower the attrition out of the group."
I'm not saying this is quite the same thing (not patriarchal for instance) but in certain instantiations might be close: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Thus, for instance, in the Epilogue (from A to Z) listing 26 ways this book might be read, I say that the ideal critic will see in it a picture not only of what the final and highest stage of capitalist development is going to look like (which turns out to be a form of socialism in all but name other; see chapter two, note v) but of what can justly be described as the apotheosis of the entire Judeo-Christian project out of which capitalism emerged, the overarching theme of which is the long human struggle from servitude to freedom.
I go on to say that religiously motivated Americans will see in it "a chance to build new Jerusalems all over this land." To enact a new form of Zionism in other words.
Whats more, the new three-generation form of the family being proposed (under two roofs, not one, at opposite ends of the garden) is inherently child friendly no matter one's religious orientation (or lack thereof).
No income taxes paid for any married family with two or more kids by age 30, until all their kids are over the age of 5. No income limits.
This incentivizes marriage, penalizes divorce, encourages starting childbirth early and provides continuing rewards for even larger families. It doesn’t penalize working men, and probably incentivizes full time housewives as well.
I might even add some benefits for free college for the kids, paid in higher tuition by all the other families (those not having at least 2 kids by age 30). Details TBD.
The point of this would be to make it so that nobody can afford NOT to get married and have kids.
Thanks for the interesting article.
The stupidest thing a country can do to increase its population is to allow the immigration of diverse people.
> "I am amazed at the number of people who cite low Iranian fertility as evidence that feminism, secularism, or education are irrelevant, apparently not knowing about this very successful population control campaign, or that the Iranian population is very secular, Iranian women outnumber men in higher education (more than 60% of the total, rising to 70% in engineering), and Iran has one of the highest education-to-workforce ratios in the world."
Doesn't Iran still have a pretty high male-to-female income ratio, though? Is that purely a function of older age groups and not present in under-30s, or something?
https://www.peace-mark.org/en/articles/135-9-en/
> "And depending on the course of technology, it may never matter. The singularity renders fertility concerns, along with everything else, irrelevant. My gut feeling is that it will probably (>50%) render the question moot, but since I can neither predict nor control this, I’d rather write about the base case where neither happens."
I won't say it's impossible, but I think it's likely we'll get some kind of AI bubble crash in the short-to-medium term. There's also a huge chunk of the creative class and left-wingers that really hate AI, so maybe the post-crash political reset will finally wake up conservatives about this.
Great article overall, though. I'm kind of stunned that Hungarian fathers don't get tax breaks for their kids when the mother does- that seems like a really glaring oversight.
While I understand this is conservative publication, I grew up in communist Yugoslavia. Many things were worse with that system, but promoting full inclusion of women in workforce and high education was great civilizational achievement. Like good kindergartens, female reproductive healh, etc.... This did not exclude biological differences between sexes (men still fought more for high value positions), but it did rule out shameful things like offering female law graduates secretary job (memoirs of O'Connor, US Supreme Justice).
Regarding the first paragraph, you'd be surprised. I've encountered at least a dozen people in the past few years who told me that my population control proposal will never work (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#overpop-solution) because it's "too authoritarian", but they're just ignorant about history.
Quote: "The only really effective high-fertility groups in economically advanced countries are patriarchal and pro-natalist religious groups, which are often separated from mainstream society by technological choices or language barriers. Some examples are the Haredim³, practicing non-ultra Orthodox Jews⁴, the Amish, orthodox Dutch Calvinists (strict enough to oppose women’s suffrage), and Finnish Laestadians. As a rule, the more culturally separated from mainstream society, the higher the fertility and the lower the attrition out of the group."
I'm not saying this is quite the same thing (not patriarchal for instance) but in certain instantiations might be close: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Thus, for instance, in the Epilogue (from A to Z) listing 26 ways this book might be read, I say that the ideal critic will see in it a picture not only of what the final and highest stage of capitalist development is going to look like (which turns out to be a form of socialism in all but name other; see chapter two, note v) but of what can justly be described as the apotheosis of the entire Judeo-Christian project out of which capitalism emerged, the overarching theme of which is the long human struggle from servitude to freedom.
I go on to say that religiously motivated Americans will see in it "a chance to build new Jerusalems all over this land." To enact a new form of Zionism in other words.
Whats more, the new three-generation form of the family being proposed (under two roofs, not one, at opposite ends of the garden) is inherently child friendly no matter one's religious orientation (or lack thereof).
No income taxes paid for any married family with two or more kids by age 30, until all their kids are over the age of 5. No income limits.
This incentivizes marriage, penalizes divorce, encourages starting childbirth early and provides continuing rewards for even larger families. It doesn’t penalize working men, and probably incentivizes full time housewives as well.
I might even add some benefits for free college for the kids, paid in higher tuition by all the other families (those not having at least 2 kids by age 30). Details TBD.
The point of this would be to make it so that nobody can afford NOT to get married and have kids.