Fertility rate may be important but to me itās not worth restricting (directly or indirectly) peopleās personal choices for. A lot of socially regressive ideas have been justified in the name of āraising the fertility rateā ā for example, the rhetoric that gay acceptance would lead to fewer babies (as if gay people can simply āchoose to be straightā and have babies the straight way). I think itās better to encourage people who are already interested in having kids to do so, through financial and other incentives.
Fertility rate may be important but to me itās not worth restricting (directly or indirectly) peopleās personal choices for. ā¦ I think itās better to encourage people who are already interested in having kids to do so, through financial and other incentives.
Providing financial and other incentives to do X, if provided by the government, mean higher taxes on people who donāt do X, an indirect restriction on their choices.
Fertility rate may be important but to me itās not worth restricting (directly or indirectly) peopleās personal choices for.
This is a radical libertarian view that most people donāt share. Is it worth restricting peopleās access to hard drugs? Letās abstract for a moment from the numerous negative secondary effects that come with the fact that hard drugs are illegal, as well as from the crimes committed by drug users: if we can imagine that hard drugs could be just eliminated from Earth completely, with a magic spell, should we do it, or we āshouldnāt restrict peopleās choicesā? With AI romantic partners, and other forms of tech, we do have a metaphorical magic wand: we could decide whether such products ever get created or not.
A lot of socially regressive ideas have been justified in the name of āraising the fertility rateā ā for example, the rhetoric that gay acceptance would lead to fewer babies (as if gay people can simply āchoose to be straightā and have babies the straight way).
The example that you give doesnāt work as evidence for your argument at all, due to the direct disanalogy: the āyoung manā from the āmainline storyā which I outlined could want to have kids in the future or even wants to have kids already when he starts his experiment with the AI relationship, but his experience with the AI partner will prevent him from realising this desire and value over his future life.
I think itās better to encourage people who are already interested in having kids to do so, through financial and other incentives.
Technology, products, and systems are not value-neutral. We are so afraid of consciously shaping our own values that we are happy to offload this to the blind free market whose objective is not to shape values that reflectively endorse the most.
Fertility rate may be important but to me itās not worth restricting (directly or indirectly) peopleās personal choices for. A lot of socially regressive ideas have been justified in the name of āraising the fertility rateā ā for example, the rhetoric that gay acceptance would lead to fewer babies (as if gay people can simply āchoose to be straightā and have babies the straight way). I think itās better to encourage people who are already interested in having kids to do so, through financial and other incentives.
Providing financial and other incentives to do X, if provided by the government, mean higher taxes on people who donāt do X, an indirect restriction on their choices.
This is a radical libertarian view that most people donāt share. Is it worth restricting peopleās access to hard drugs? Letās abstract for a moment from the numerous negative secondary effects that come with the fact that hard drugs are illegal, as well as from the crimes committed by drug users: if we can imagine that hard drugs could be just eliminated from Earth completely, with a magic spell, should we do it, or we āshouldnāt restrict peopleās choicesā? With AI romantic partners, and other forms of tech, we do have a metaphorical magic wand: we could decide whether such products ever get created or not.
The example that you give doesnāt work as evidence for your argument at all, due to the direct disanalogy: the āyoung manā from the āmainline storyā which I outlined could want to have kids in the future or even wants to have kids already when he starts his experiment with the AI relationship, but his experience with the AI partner will prevent him from realising this desire and value over his future life.
Technology, products, and systems are not value-neutral. We are so afraid of consciously shaping our own values that we are happy to offload this to the blind free market whose objective is not to shape values that reflectively endorse the most.