Your quotations are less pro-natalist than they are anti-anti-natalist. His conclusion (even if it's a rhetorical one) is that complainers should kill themselves, not that anyone should have children.
The claim that Nietzsche was an incel is an oversimplification of the facts, but no one forced Nietzsche to waste almost a decade of his life chasing a slut like Lou Salomé to be his wife and the mother of his children.
People should have exactly as many children as they desire but the idea advanced by some that a smaller population will be a disaster are wrong.
Smaller populations will not be a negative but will help humanity soften the impact of climate change and save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence (thanks Elon) will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
> Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise
Were you unaware of how wages have been going up since the Industrial Revolution even as population increased? Or how the Japanese economy has been stagnant while its population declined?
As there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos, it'll be a home run. And so that'll make it a 4-0 ballgame...
If you're going to copypasta the last four paragraphs into so many of Dr. Caplan's posts, could we at least see some citations--specifically, how close we actually are to Rosie from the Jetsons existing, how people are going to cope with a generational wipeout of wealth (most Anglophonic individual wealth is tied up in home values--not saying it's a good thing, just is), and when Dr. Krugman penned that analysis. Is it still valid now, with public debt at over 250% of GDP and the Japanese government repeatedly saying that the window is closing before inexorable decline?
The fact that you can only quote Nietzsche's Zarathustra does not make you an authority on his thought, but the opposite. The fact that you consider him the most famous atheist already says enough about the superficiality of your reading. Vitalism, which Nietzsche is a supporter of, is a philosophy with very pronatalist edges; you should inform yourself more before drawing utilitarian conclusions about religious people, as if all religions were also the same.
"almost all high-fertility Americans are highly religious"
Would've been nice if most of them were also highly intelligent. Or at least if their median intelligence were no less than that of the population at large.
The problem is that for millions of people for whom life is unending mental and emotional anguish, the vast majority of people want the government to force you to endure that. For what purpose? What could possibly justify the invasion of bodily autonomy and increased societal costs, not to mention increased competition for resources?
Your quotations are less pro-natalist than they are anti-anti-natalist. His conclusion (even if it's a rhetorical one) is that complainers should kill themselves, not that anyone should have children.
> Nietzsche died childless, while Catherine Pakaluk has eight kids
For a man to have a child, it requires the consent of another person. For a woman to have a child, it requires only her own decision.
The claim that Nietzsche was an incel is an oversimplification of the facts, but no one forced Nietzsche to waste almost a decade of his life chasing a slut like Lou Salomé to be his wife and the mother of his children.
People should have exactly as many children as they desire but the idea advanced by some that a smaller population will be a disaster are wrong.
Smaller populations will not be a negative but will help humanity soften the impact of climate change and save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence (thanks Elon) will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
"Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise"
That's not how wages work.
We aren't going to get such robots with a shrinking population. https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/after-eating-software-will-bite-the
> Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise
Were you unaware of how wages have been going up since the Industrial Revolution even as population increased? Or how the Japanese economy has been stagnant while its population declined?
As there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos, it'll be a home run. And so that'll make it a 4-0 ballgame...
If you're going to copypasta the last four paragraphs into so many of Dr. Caplan's posts, could we at least see some citations--specifically, how close we actually are to Rosie from the Jetsons existing, how people are going to cope with a generational wipeout of wealth (most Anglophonic individual wealth is tied up in home values--not saying it's a good thing, just is), and when Dr. Krugman penned that analysis. Is it still valid now, with public debt at over 250% of GDP and the Japanese government repeatedly saying that the window is closing before inexorable decline?
The fact that you can only quote Nietzsche's Zarathustra does not make you an authority on his thought, but the opposite. The fact that you consider him the most famous atheist already says enough about the superficiality of your reading. Vitalism, which Nietzsche is a supporter of, is a philosophy with very pronatalist edges; you should inform yourself more before drawing utilitarian conclusions about religious people, as if all religions were also the same.
"almost all high-fertility Americans are highly religious"
Would've been nice if most of them were also highly intelligent. Or at least if their median intelligence were no less than that of the population at large.
The problem is that for millions of people for whom life is unending mental and emotional anguish, the vast majority of people want the government to force you to endure that. For what purpose? What could possibly justify the invasion of bodily autonomy and increased societal costs, not to mention increased competition for resources?