Walter Isaacson mentions Ben Franklin’s observation that wealthier American colonists were more cautious about marriage. I can’t find the source, but I wonder that this discussion left out the role of men in in/fertility.
Here’s something I did come across: From Benjamin Franklin’s letter to John Alleyne 1768: “With us in N. America, Marriages are generally in the Morning of Life, our Children are therefore educated and settled in the World by Noon, and thus our Business being done, we have an Afternoon and Evening of chearful Leisure to our selves, such as your Friend6 at present enjoys. By these early Marriages we are blest with more Children, and from the Mode among us founded in Nature of every Mother suckling and nursing her own Child, more of them are raised. Thence the swift Progress of Population among us unparallel’d in Europe.”
He says there can’t be “pro-natalism with an asterisk” but only cites successful examples that are with an asterisk. Israel’s pro-natalism is focused on Jews, meanwhile Georgia’s is focused on Orthodox Georgians. I can’t think of a successful example that isn’t without an asterisk of some sort.
If I were to read it charitably, I would say the he means in terms of American political strategy. It's very hard to sell congress on pronatalism but just for X. We were running close to time then iirc
I will charitably interpret Stone's position on the natalism with an asterisk as pragmatic politics.
However.
When he says "normal people hate racists" I wonder, does he mean the negrolatrous whites who close their eyes on crime? Or the Hispanics that form ethnic militias to patrol their neighbourhoods? Perhaps he means the black ethnonarcisists that see racism in everything [0] and demand reparations? Maybe he means the white people that accept anti-white racism? I can't tell.
Just like Patriarch Ilia gives high status to natalists, the West places irredeemable shame on people who notice ethnicities are different and act different. This was not the case 30-40 years ago. The same thing played out with gay marriage. [1] I wonder how Stone reconciles Lutheranism with gay marriage. Caring about what malleable opportunists believe is not the moral high ground Stone thinks it is.
I don't buy his argument about dysgenic effects. The people who fail with their contraception and have kids out of wedlock are not the smart and highly educated but the 70% percentile and below. Where as previously those babies would've died before the age of 5, current lowered child mortality enables their promulgation. You can read Lynn [2], Galton, and several others who study the effects. They will only accelerate. Here is an UNZ article digesting CDCs data on education and fertility. [3] Clearly dysgenic. I *could* understand Stone's aversion on religious grounds, but he cucked hard on HBD (arguably the most important point).
Minus this one (fundamental) point of contention, great podcast. Stone is very smart, driven, and I learned many new things from him. Thank you Brian for letting his speak, even though I thought you disagree with him in some parts. All the best to both of you!
I disagree with the discussion about two hours in - robot technology that increased the efficiency of daycare would meaningfully impact fertility. Many families are already forced to have their children watched by others from ~8am-5pm while they work. And I suspect that many parents who leave the workforce to care for their kids would stay employed if daycare was substantially cheaper than it is now.
Given the regulatory capture of daycare, I think daycare owners would end up capturing all of the surplus from any efficiency gains. Demand is highly inelastic and supply is constrained by the government.
I think at-home babysitter technology might be impactful though. Think of the marginal parent who is stretched so thin they can't imagine caring for an additional child. Give them a relatively low cost device that can keep their existing children occupied for a few hours per day, and an additional child becomes less unthinkable.
Walter Isaacson mentions Ben Franklin’s observation that wealthier American colonists were more cautious about marriage. I can’t find the source, but I wonder that this discussion left out the role of men in in/fertility.
Here’s something I did come across: From Benjamin Franklin’s letter to John Alleyne 1768: “With us in N. America, Marriages are generally in the Morning of Life, our Children are therefore educated and settled in the World by Noon, and thus our Business being done, we have an Afternoon and Evening of chearful Leisure to our selves, such as your Friend6 at present enjoys. By these early Marriages we are blest with more Children, and from the Mode among us founded in Nature of every Mother suckling and nursing her own Child, more of them are raised. Thence the swift Progress of Population among us unparallel’d in Europe.”
WORK ON THOSE BABIES, LADS
Are your kache lookups really o(1)? Not even O(1)?
listen
He says there can’t be “pro-natalism with an asterisk” but only cites successful examples that are with an asterisk. Israel’s pro-natalism is focused on Jews, meanwhile Georgia’s is focused on Orthodox Georgians. I can’t think of a successful example that isn’t without an asterisk of some sort.
If I were to read it charitably, I would say the he means in terms of American political strategy. It's very hard to sell congress on pronatalism but just for X. We were running close to time then iirc
Super episode. Lot of meat and new insights there, well done
I will charitably interpret Stone's position on the natalism with an asterisk as pragmatic politics.
However.
When he says "normal people hate racists" I wonder, does he mean the negrolatrous whites who close their eyes on crime? Or the Hispanics that form ethnic militias to patrol their neighbourhoods? Perhaps he means the black ethnonarcisists that see racism in everything [0] and demand reparations? Maybe he means the white people that accept anti-white racism? I can't tell.
Just like Patriarch Ilia gives high status to natalists, the West places irredeemable shame on people who notice ethnicities are different and act different. This was not the case 30-40 years ago. The same thing played out with gay marriage. [1] I wonder how Stone reconciles Lutheranism with gay marriage. Caring about what malleable opportunists believe is not the moral high ground Stone thinks it is.
I don't buy his argument about dysgenic effects. The people who fail with their contraception and have kids out of wedlock are not the smart and highly educated but the 70% percentile and below. Where as previously those babies would've died before the age of 5, current lowered child mortality enables their promulgation. You can read Lynn [2], Galton, and several others who study the effects. They will only accelerate. Here is an UNZ article digesting CDCs data on education and fertility. [3] Clearly dysgenic. I *could* understand Stone's aversion on religious grounds, but he cucked hard on HBD (arguably the most important point).
Minus this one (fundamental) point of contention, great podcast. Stone is very smart, driven, and I learned many new things from him. Thank you Brian for letting his speak, even though I thought you disagree with him in some parts. All the best to both of you!
References:
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/05/14/majority-of-public-favors-same-sex-marriage-but-divisions-persist/
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289607000463
[3] https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-generation-after-generation-blacks-dont-make-much-progress/
I disagree with the discussion about two hours in - robot technology that increased the efficiency of daycare would meaningfully impact fertility. Many families are already forced to have their children watched by others from ~8am-5pm while they work. And I suspect that many parents who leave the workforce to care for their kids would stay employed if daycare was substantially cheaper than it is now.
Given the regulatory capture of daycare, I think daycare owners would end up capturing all of the surplus from any efficiency gains. Demand is highly inelastic and supply is constrained by the government.
I think at-home babysitter technology might be impactful though. Think of the marginal parent who is stretched so thin they can't imagine caring for an additional child. Give them a relatively low cost device that can keep their existing children occupied for a few hours per day, and an additional child becomes less unthinkable.