Nice article. When it comes to birth rates I think they cannot be increased solely by family policies. Family policies can increase birthrates from 1.3 to 1.5 for example (with huge financial costs), but will not be able to increase them to replacement levels. To increase birthrates a cultural reorientation will be needed, rather than an economic one. Israel has high birthrates not because of its economic policies but because of the extinction of its secular liberal social elements.
FWIW, if one supports a eugenic immigration policy (primarily or at least mostly letting in those who are smart and talented rather than the dull and lazy), then it's actually perfectly logical to apply a similar policy in regards to fertility: As in, ecourage the smart and talented to breed a lot through incentives while also encouraging the dull and lazy to breed less through incentives (unless they will breed eugenically with the help of super-smart donor sperm/eggs, in which case an exception might be made for them). In fact, a eugenic policy in regards to fertility, if non-coercive, would actually be an improvement over a eugenic immigration policy because the latter often condemns the dull and lazy to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and oppression while the former simply prevents dull and lazy people from ever being born and conceived, thus ensuring that these potential people never actually suffer. As you said, a eugenic immigration policy is also very often dysgenic for the sending countries, whereas a eugenic fertility policy is more of a win-win. Even the domestic poor benefit from it because their children get larger inheritances due to them having less siblings to share and split their inheritance with.
Craig, nice to see you blogging again - I think it's a much better medium than Twitter for intellectual discourse!
You probably won't be surprised to know that I see things very differently. Where you describe yourself as a realist, I'm would call myself a constructivist (I would even call myself a "radical constructivist"). Nevertheless, above all I am interested in dialectic and synthesis, so I'm keen to follow your blog and listen to what you have to say (I will agree with what I agree with, and disagree with what I disagree with). You have a subscriber.
Your mega-trends are interesting to me for what you leave out as much as for what you include. GDP is, IMO, a crude indicator of progress (better to look at wage growth, productivity, Geni coefficient, average longevity / healthspan, environment, climate, educational attainment, skills, amount and quality of leisure time, satisfaction with life, etc., etc.). I have similar issues with the use of patents as an indicator of scientific progress. Mariana Mazzucato has critiqued patents as an indicator of progress extensively, and there was an interesting article on the BBC today about how we measure scientific progress: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220615-do-we-need-a-better-understanding-of-progress
Still, we're basically guaranteed to disagree (given you're a realist and I'm a constructivist), so it might be more interesting to focus on where I agree with you. I do agree we should take a more long-term approach, and I agree that "mega-trends" are worth paying attention to (though my mega-trends might be different to yours). I also agree, I think, with your general solutions ("restoring our continent’s unity, rebuilding Europe’s technological sovereignty and prowess, and wholeheartedly embracing the future through family-friendly policies and renewed confidence in ourselves"). I'd need a bit more definition in terms of what that means in practice, but I agree with the general approach.
I agree a rebalancing of values in favor of families and intergenerational heritage will be necessary.
Nice article. When it comes to birth rates I think they cannot be increased solely by family policies. Family policies can increase birthrates from 1.3 to 1.5 for example (with huge financial costs), but will not be able to increase them to replacement levels. To increase birthrates a cultural reorientation will be needed, rather than an economic one. Israel has high birthrates not because of its economic policies but because of the extinction of its secular liberal social elements.
FWIW, if one supports a eugenic immigration policy (primarily or at least mostly letting in those who are smart and talented rather than the dull and lazy), then it's actually perfectly logical to apply a similar policy in regards to fertility: As in, ecourage the smart and talented to breed a lot through incentives while also encouraging the dull and lazy to breed less through incentives (unless they will breed eugenically with the help of super-smart donor sperm/eggs, in which case an exception might be made for them). In fact, a eugenic policy in regards to fertility, if non-coercive, would actually be an improvement over a eugenic immigration policy because the latter often condemns the dull and lazy to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and oppression while the former simply prevents dull and lazy people from ever being born and conceived, thus ensuring that these potential people never actually suffer. As you said, a eugenic immigration policy is also very often dysgenic for the sending countries, whereas a eugenic fertility policy is more of a win-win. Even the domestic poor benefit from it because their children get larger inheritances due to them having less siblings to share and split their inheritance with.
Craig, nice to see you blogging again - I think it's a much better medium than Twitter for intellectual discourse!
You probably won't be surprised to know that I see things very differently. Where you describe yourself as a realist, I'm would call myself a constructivist (I would even call myself a "radical constructivist"). Nevertheless, above all I am interested in dialectic and synthesis, so I'm keen to follow your blog and listen to what you have to say (I will agree with what I agree with, and disagree with what I disagree with). You have a subscriber.
Your mega-trends are interesting to me for what you leave out as much as for what you include. GDP is, IMO, a crude indicator of progress (better to look at wage growth, productivity, Geni coefficient, average longevity / healthspan, environment, climate, educational attainment, skills, amount and quality of leisure time, satisfaction with life, etc., etc.). I have similar issues with the use of patents as an indicator of scientific progress. Mariana Mazzucato has critiqued patents as an indicator of progress extensively, and there was an interesting article on the BBC today about how we measure scientific progress: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220615-do-we-need-a-better-understanding-of-progress
I also shudder at the idea that "economic decline mechanically follows" from anything. I think that language risks trivialising a non-linear system (i.e. saying input A mechanically produces output B). Kate Raworth says it better than me: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/apr/06/kate-raworth-doughnut-economics-new-economics
Still, we're basically guaranteed to disagree (given you're a realist and I'm a constructivist), so it might be more interesting to focus on where I agree with you. I do agree we should take a more long-term approach, and I agree that "mega-trends" are worth paying attention to (though my mega-trends might be different to yours). I also agree, I think, with your general solutions ("restoring our continent’s unity, rebuilding Europe’s technological sovereignty and prowess, and wholeheartedly embracing the future through family-friendly policies and renewed confidence in ourselves"). I'd need a bit more definition in terms of what that means in practice, but I agree with the general approach.
Anyway, subscribed!