LW server reports: not allowed.
This probably means the post has been deleted or moved back to the author's drafts.
I’d be interested to see comparisons of the rate at which rationalists and EAs have children compared to analogous groups, controlling for example for education, age, religiosity, and income. I think this might make the difference seems smaller.
To this I would add:
Beware of the selection effect where I’d expect people with kids are less likely to come to meetups, less likely to post on this forum, etc. than EAs with overall-similar levels of involvement, so it can look like there are fewer than is actually the case, if you aren’t counting carefully.
For EA clusters in very-high-housing-cost areas specifically (Milan mentioned the Bay), I wouldn’t be surprised if the broader similar demographic is also avoiding children, since housing is usually the largest direct financial cost of having children, so you may need to control for that as well.
(I think I agree there’s still some difference here, just flagging some confounders beyond what Buck mentioned.)
fwiw I’m using “Bay Area Rationality” to point to a particular subculture (that which grew out of Overcoming Bias and LessWrong and is now centered around but not entirely contained by the Bay Area), and to disambiguate from the broader notion of “Rationality,” which I understand to encompass many social movements, subcultures, and time periods.
I believe Mormons and Catholics are punching above their weight in the US.
Possibly for the same reasons that people with higher income & education levels generally have fewer children? That is, it could just be a spurious correlation.
Edit: moved this to the comment section & now I see that Buck pretty much made the same comment already.
Why are people with higher income & education levels having fewer children?
it interferes with working life or self-actualisation, which they value more than the average person
they have higher standards for what they deem sufficiently good living conditions for family life, e.g. they suppose one should have acceptably sound personal finances, or a bigger home, etc. in ways that other people don’t
K strategists still need to reproduce at the replacement rate or above to be viable.
in the long run yes. But that’s overly simplistic when considering humans because of all the things we might do to either memetically or technologically undermine evolutionary equilibria.
I don’t think we yet are collectively wise enough to engage in memetic and/or tech projects that undermine evolutionary equilibria, fwiw.
The Plough link is broken; it should be https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/parenting/the-case-for-one-more-child
Thanks, should be fixed now