Next month, I’m speaking at Natal-Con in Austin. The line-up is a who’s who of thinkers advocating more births: the Collinses, Lyman Stone, Catherine Pakaluk, Jonathan Anomaly, Razib Khan, Crémieux, Robin Hanson, and many more.
Even with the 10%-off coupon code, the cost is admittedly high. But remember the upside: At this price, it will be very easy to not only meet but engage with all of the speakers who interest you.
While I have no close friends who are anti-natalist, I have several who you might call “anatalist.” What difference does it make if people have many kids, few kids, or no kids?
Unlike most natalists, I have not convinced that low birthrates will dramatically reduce living standards. Furthermore, I am Darwinian enough to predict that low birth rates will not endure. In a century or two, people who “just don’t like kids” will have largely bred themselves out of the gene pool.
My position, rather, is that low birthrates are a massive missed opportunity. A missed opportunity for faster economic growth. A missed opportunity for people to live more meaningful lives. And above all, a missed opportunity for billions of additional humans to enjoy the gift of life.
Hope to see you in Austin! I’ll likely be scheduling a meet-up while I’m in town, and will also be speaking for Reason Weekend 2025.
Anatalism? Say "anatalism" 10 times as fast as you can.
I would go if there was the debate on the ultimate cause of the fertility collapse.
In my view it is caused by a century of anti-natalist intellectual climate in the west that led to countless legal and cultural changes. Death by thousand cuts.