Evolutionary morality, more gulag, and even more Stalin. Alzheimer's fraud, pro-union supply chain chaos, juicy Facebook stories and delegation in business.
>> "But it’s interesting to reflect that even when you’re talking about the perpetuation of the species, no one wants to mention the word “duty” or anything that might imply that even if having children ends up being a sacrifice we might still need to do out of an obligation to the wider group."
I wonder if the best way to sell pro-natalism is to avoid both the extremes of "self-interest" and "duty" and take the mean of "gratitude". Something like: "this world is broken but it's also wonderful, and I'm thankful that I've gotten to be a part of it. It seems fitting to give back to it."
Obviously, there are pieces of that which need to be unpacked, but my hunch is that there's something to this. A better flavor, somehow.
I think you're probably on to something, particularly when it comes to phrasing things in a way that resonates with a modern audience. But resonance and efficiency don't perfectly overlap. Some things resonate very deeply, but produce almost no outward change. And sometimes a resonant epiphany can entirely change the course of someone's life.
I think the advantage of duty is that it's not quite so slippery.
>> "Some things resonate very deeply, but produce almost no outward change."
That's a sharp (and smart) observation. I think I'm imagining a spectrum, starting with extreme self-interest (something like "having kids is PURE FUN EVERY SINGLE MINUTE!!!") and ending with extreme duty ("close your eyes and think of England"). Marketing (/evangelism?) is about helping people want to move in one direction. So for people to whom all duty sounds extreme, we want to identify points in the middle.
...I think I'm mixing metaphors there, or something. (Maybe the extremes I picked are unhelpfully extreme.) But now I'm curious — what did those pitches you heard at the pronatalist conference (the ones that struck you as grounded in self-interest) sound like?
The opening talk by the organizer, Kevin Dolan, mentioned that the average woman reports that they want more than two kids. And so he framed that as "We're not radical, we're just trying to get people what they say they want." And as I pointed out, lots of kids want a pony, but they don't get one. So while I think Dolan's point sounds straightforward. In practice people's wants are easily displayed by other wants. Once again my argument would be that a true sense of duty is harder to displace.
>> "But it’s interesting to reflect that even when you’re talking about the perpetuation of the species, no one wants to mention the word “duty” or anything that might imply that even if having children ends up being a sacrifice we might still need to do out of an obligation to the wider group."
I wonder if the best way to sell pro-natalism is to avoid both the extremes of "self-interest" and "duty" and take the mean of "gratitude". Something like: "this world is broken but it's also wonderful, and I'm thankful that I've gotten to be a part of it. It seems fitting to give back to it."
Obviously, there are pieces of that which need to be unpacked, but my hunch is that there's something to this. A better flavor, somehow.
I think you're probably on to something, particularly when it comes to phrasing things in a way that resonates with a modern audience. But resonance and efficiency don't perfectly overlap. Some things resonate very deeply, but produce almost no outward change. And sometimes a resonant epiphany can entirely change the course of someone's life.
I think the advantage of duty is that it's not quite so slippery.
>> "Some things resonate very deeply, but produce almost no outward change."
That's a sharp (and smart) observation. I think I'm imagining a spectrum, starting with extreme self-interest (something like "having kids is PURE FUN EVERY SINGLE MINUTE!!!") and ending with extreme duty ("close your eyes and think of England"). Marketing (/evangelism?) is about helping people want to move in one direction. So for people to whom all duty sounds extreme, we want to identify points in the middle.
...I think I'm mixing metaphors there, or something. (Maybe the extremes I picked are unhelpfully extreme.) But now I'm curious — what did those pitches you heard at the pronatalist conference (the ones that struck you as grounded in self-interest) sound like?
The opening talk by the organizer, Kevin Dolan, mentioned that the average woman reports that they want more than two kids. And so he framed that as "We're not radical, we're just trying to get people what they say they want." And as I pointed out, lots of kids want a pony, but they don't get one. So while I think Dolan's point sounds straightforward. In practice people's wants are easily displayed by other wants. Once again my argument would be that a true sense of duty is harder to displace.