I’m sure there’s another name for this, but I’m gonna call “demographic collapse” and example of a “Devil’s Premise.” A Devil’s Premise is a purely descriptive idea which could, given some additional background assumptions, be used to justify a separate normative conclusion which OP evidently doesn’t want to infer. I’m calling it a Devil’s Premise because the thing you do want to say (which contains no prescriptive element whatsoever) is only one tiny step removed from the kinds of prescriptions that OP absolutely does not want to proscribe.
OP is evidently making this point in the article. “More people are needed to avoid demographic collapse in X society” is a (probably true) premise which, given certain other background assumptions (e.g., PANIC!!! nothing matters right now besides preservation of X society) is only one tiny step removed from “we should compel our female population to produce more children.”
So OP points out that this is a Devil’s Premise, and concludes that because the premise is true, and because the authorities and influencers in society X are soon going to realize it’s true, those of us who prefer that the authorities DO NOT EVER compel the female population to produce more children will soon have to invest some resources in preventing those authorities from doing so.
Like I said, Devil’s Premise is a big communication issue that it’s worth discussing openly. I would be willing to bet part of the reason the Collins’ are getting this nasty response (current total votes −38) is because of Devil’s Premise issues.
Issue 1: Jumping to conclusions: Because Devil’s Premise (DP) is one tiny step removed from Unwanted Conclusion (UC), readers conclude that OP endorses UC.
Issue 2: Inertia/Soldiering: When OP explicitly and carefully rebukes UC, readers refuse to change their minds about what OP believes, probably because readers find UC so gnarly and inflammatory that trusting OP’s self-revelation is just way too risky.
Issue 3: Personal Ad Homonym: Because OP endorses all the premises for UC, but refused to admit they believe in UC, OP must also be manipulative and deceitful, and OP is not to be trusted.
Issue 4: Conceptual Ad Homonym: Readers then associate manipulative and deceitful X-ists (e.g. misogynists’) with the very idea of affirming DP. Therefore, they will not affirm DP themselves, nor will they trust anyone who does affirm DP.
Idk what the solutions are, but my mind is usually calmed on these issues when I recall the all important is/ought distinction. Just because OP says Demographic Collapse is going to happen in X society, doesn’t entail that OP is endorsing that one evil policy that just popped into your mind, nor (and this is the most important part) does it entail that you cannot believe in demographic collapse unless you also endorse that same evil policy.
In fact, I think this article only really makes two prescriptive points. 1) The solutions currently on the books for demo collapse are inadequate, and we have to come up with new ones, and 2) Insofar as we have any solutions on the books in the first place, those solutions are evil paperclip optimizer type solutions.
A communication issue I want to flag:
I’m sure there’s another name for this, but I’m gonna call “demographic collapse” and example of a “Devil’s Premise.” A Devil’s Premise is a purely descriptive idea which could, given some additional background assumptions, be used to justify a separate normative conclusion which OP evidently doesn’t want to infer. I’m calling it a Devil’s Premise because the thing you do want to say (which contains no prescriptive element whatsoever) is only one tiny step removed from the kinds of prescriptions that OP absolutely does not want to proscribe.
OP is evidently making this point in the article. “More people are needed to avoid demographic collapse in X society” is a (probably true) premise which, given certain other background assumptions (e.g., PANIC!!! nothing matters right now besides preservation of X society) is only one tiny step removed from “we should compel our female population to produce more children.”
So OP points out that this is a Devil’s Premise, and concludes that because the premise is true, and because the authorities and influencers in society X are soon going to realize it’s true, those of us who prefer that the authorities DO NOT EVER compel the female population to produce more children will soon have to invest some resources in preventing those authorities from doing so.
Like I said, Devil’s Premise is a big communication issue that it’s worth discussing openly. I would be willing to bet part of the reason the Collins’ are getting this nasty response (current total votes −38) is because of Devil’s Premise issues.
Issue 1: Jumping to conclusions: Because Devil’s Premise (DP) is one tiny step removed from Unwanted Conclusion (UC), readers conclude that OP endorses UC.
Issue 2: Inertia/Soldiering: When OP explicitly and carefully rebukes UC, readers refuse to change their minds about what OP believes, probably because readers find UC so gnarly and inflammatory that trusting OP’s self-revelation is just way too risky.
Issue 3: Personal Ad Homonym: Because OP endorses all the premises for UC, but refused to admit they believe in UC, OP must also be manipulative and deceitful, and OP is not to be trusted.
Issue 4: Conceptual Ad Homonym: Readers then associate manipulative and deceitful X-ists (e.g. misogynists’) with the very idea of affirming DP. Therefore, they will not affirm DP themselves, nor will they trust anyone who does affirm DP.
Idk what the solutions are, but my mind is usually calmed on these issues when I recall the all important is/ought distinction. Just because OP says Demographic Collapse is going to happen in X society, doesn’t entail that OP is endorsing that one evil policy that just popped into your mind, nor (and this is the most important part) does it entail that you cannot believe in demographic collapse unless you also endorse that same evil policy.
In fact, I think this article only really makes two prescriptive points. 1) The solutions currently on the books for demo collapse are inadequate, and we have to come up with new ones, and 2) Insofar as we have any solutions on the books in the first place, those solutions are evil paperclip optimizer type solutions.