Great! I also want to reduce x-risk to keep my family safe. But do you also strongly endorse the claims listed in the article that are attributed to pronatalism, and do you consider yourself an EA / a longtermist?
i.e. ”fear that falling birth rates in certain developed countries like the United States and most of Europe will lead to the extinction of cultures, the breakdown of economies, and, ultimately, the collapse of civilization.”
″worry that the overlap between the types of people deciding not to have children with the part of the population that values things like gay rights, education for women, and climate activism — traits they believe are genetically coded — is so great that these values could ultimately disappear.”
Do you think focusing on birth rates in “Western Civilization” is a good way of creating ‘intergenerationally, durable cultures that will lead to our species being a diverse, thriving, innovative interplanetary empire one day that isn’t at risk from, you know, a single asteroid strike or a single huge disease?’, and do you think it’s something that longtermists should focus on?
I think the crux here might be differences around the definition of what pronatalism is. I’m clearly not advocating for antinatalism, and you can argue that the article is misrepresenting pronatalism.
But call it whatever you prefer-it doesn’t change the concern of this group of people holding this set of views, the explicit claim around their “faction becoming a real, dominant faction in the EA space” and their well-funded nature. It should be seen as a clear potential risk for the EA movement going forwards, if it does not similarly endorse their ideology. If you’re a pronatalist and don’t think these views represent your movement, this concern applies to you too (perhaps even more so).
Re: “fear that falling birth rates [...] collapse of civilization.”
No, this is not one of the things that scares me. Also, birth rates decline predictably once a nation is developed, so if this were a significant concern, it would end up hitting China and India just as hard as it is currently hitting the US and Europe.
Re: “worry that the overlap [...] could ultimately disappear.”
No. Adoption of Progressive ideology is a memetic phenomenon, with mild to no genetic influence. (Update, 2023-04-03: I don’t endorse this claim, actually. I also don’t endorse the quoted “worry”.)
Do you think focusing on birth rates in “Western Civilization” is a good way of creating ‘intergenerationally, durable cultures that will lead to our species being a diverse, thriving, innovative interplanetary empire one day that isn’t at risk from, you know, a single asteroid strike or a single huge disease?’, and do you think it’s something that longtermists should focus on?
I guess this intervention would be better than nothing, strictly speaking. The mechanism of action here is “people have kids” → {”people feel like they have a stake in the future”, “people want to protect their descendants”} → “people become more aligned with longtermism”. I don’t think this is a particularly effective intervention.
Then it sounds like your idea of pronatalism and the Collinses idea of pronatalism looks quite different-if the article was written about the set of views you’ve expressed, I probably wouldn’t be sharing it.
I disagree—like I said, I personally want nothing to do with a faction of people focused on genetic improvement and low birth rates in “Western Civilization”, who fear that low birth rates might “lead to the extinction of cultures...and, ultimately, the collapse of civilization”. I’m not against genetic improvement like IVF babies for medical reasons or GMO food, but I’m against it as a way of “setting the future of our species”, or “creating durable cultures that will lead to our species being a diverse, thriving, innovative interplanetary empire”.
The longtermism I subscribe to maximises the likelihood of a flourishing future for all of humanity, not just those who can afford genetic modification and surrogacy.
Great! I also want to reduce x-risk to keep my family safe. But do you also strongly endorse the claims listed in the article that are attributed to pronatalism, and do you consider yourself an EA / a longtermist?
i.e.
”fear that falling birth rates in certain developed countries like the United States and most of Europe will lead to the extinction of cultures, the breakdown of economies, and, ultimately, the collapse of civilization.”
″worry that the overlap between the types of people deciding not to have children with the part of the population that values things like gay rights, education for women, and climate activism — traits they believe are genetically coded — is so great that these values could ultimately disappear.”
Do you think focusing on birth rates in “Western Civilization” is a good way of creating ‘intergenerationally, durable cultures that will lead to our species being a diverse, thriving, innovative interplanetary empire one day that isn’t at risk from, you know, a single asteroid strike or a single huge disease?’, and do you think it’s something that longtermists should focus on?
I think the crux here might be differences around the definition of what pronatalism is. I’m clearly not advocating for antinatalism, and you can argue that the article is misrepresenting pronatalism.
But call it whatever you prefer-it doesn’t change the concern of this group of people holding this set of views, the explicit claim around their “faction becoming a real, dominant faction in the EA space” and their well-funded nature. It should be seen as a clear potential risk for the EA movement going forwards, if it does not similarly endorse their ideology. If you’re a pronatalist and don’t think these views represent your movement, this concern applies to you too (perhaps even more so).
No, this is not one of the things that scares me. Also, birth rates decline predictably once a nation is developed, so if this were a significant concern, it would end up hitting China and India just as hard as it is currently hitting the US and Europe.
No. Adoption of Progressive ideology is a memetic phenomenon, with mild to no genetic influence. (Update, 2023-04-03: I don’t endorse this claim, actually. I also don’t endorse the quoted “worry”.)
I guess this intervention would be better than nothing, strictly speaking. The mechanism of action here is “people have kids” → {”people feel like they have a stake in the future”, “people want to protect their descendants”} → “people become more aligned with longtermism”. I don’t think this is a particularly effective intervention.
Yes.
Eh, maybe.
Then it sounds like your idea of pronatalism and the Collinses idea of pronatalism looks quite different-if the article was written about the set of views you’ve expressed, I probably wouldn’t be sharing it.
Your claim that political ideology is not heritable is false
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/#:~:text=Almost forty years ago%2C evidence,be explained by genetic influences.
I disagree—like I said, I personally want nothing to do with a faction of people focused on genetic improvement and low birth rates in “Western Civilization”, who fear that low birth rates might “lead to the extinction of cultures...and, ultimately, the collapse of civilization”. I’m not against genetic improvement like IVF babies for medical reasons or GMO food, but I’m against it as a way of “setting the future of our species”, or “creating durable cultures that will lead to our species being a diverse, thriving, innovative interplanetary empire”.
The longtermism I subscribe to maximises the likelihood of a flourishing future for all of humanity, not just those who can afford genetic modification and surrogacy.