site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26159 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 25, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't understand the people criticizing Biden for pardoning Hunter. Who would let their son go to jail? Is not a parent's truest role to protect their children?

Maybe you have to let him rot if he had committed murder or another horrible crime. But Hunter was convicted on tax crimes and lying on gun forms. Nothing mortal.

Would anyone here actually let their son go to jail for this stuff. I feel like you would have to be a sociopath to do that to your own kid.

I have a level of sympathy for someone trying to protect their family, even in this context. Like Camus said, between my mother and justice, I pick my mother.

But let us not blind ourselves here, Biden did not do this solely because he so loves his son. He did it in part because he wants to prevent the next administration from investigating his own money laundering shenanigans. You don't get credit for sacrifice if you're saving yourself.

Also he broke his own oath not to do this, whilst nobody forced him to commit to that. This should be reason enough for opprobrium.

Because he explicitly said that he wouldn't pardon him.

And because rule of law requires everyone to be subject to the same laws, and not to have members of the ruling family treated differently. America is a republic, not a monarchy where the president has the divine right of kings.

This isn't a case of the president correcting an obvious miscarriage of justice, as pardons are generally used in the free world. This is pure corruption/nepotism. It is, dare I say, Trumpian.

If I thought the prosecution and sentencing was legitimate then absolutely. How is this even a question?

What about all other dudes convicted on tax crimes and lying on gun forms? Everyone understands that parents want to help their children as much as they can, but imagine a small-town deputy busting a rave and arresting the sheriff's son for drug possession among others. If the deputy let the kid go the scandal would be small. But the son was arrested, booked into jail, everyone arrested accepted the plea bargain, the judge even gave everyone the same jail time. Then the sheriff announced that he's going to build a jail extension. On his property. In his house.

It's corruption, but it's not even a scary form of corruption. He couldn't release him and "lose" the paper trail, he couldn't get the charges dropped, he couldn't threaten the jury. He sat and watched as everyone learned that his son is a user and then exercised his power in the most pitiful way.

It's Monday. The next thread is going to go up in a couple hours, I think you'll get more eyes on the conversation if you post it there instead.

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere and I missed it, but Scott recently wrote an essay on prison and crime. I did not love the essay, it seemed very similar to his homelessness essay, where he presents an adversarial system where people have worked very hard to make it expensive/difficult for our society to do something, then he throws up his hands and says given the cost benefit analyses (at the current, inflated prices) it is impossible to do the solution that really sounds like it would work. So I guess we need to do something else (that I just happen to like more).

At least, that is what it felt like to me. I actually wanted to focus on something else though. In the essay he reviews three meta-analyses of the situation, and presents their biases. While it goes unstated (or I missed it), the impression I got was that he was also supposed to be a 'neutral' voice, just looking at the data. However, he got in a bit of an X spat with Cremieux over one aspect of the essay, and in the back and the forth, he said the following,

But also, aren't you supposed to be based and IQ-pilled? Have you met the average prisoner? They've got the IQ and self-restraint of like a ten-year old child. I don't really know who it benefits to keep creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society and then, when they fail to live in modern society, say "Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that".

Which is interesting, because it is bringing in a component that goes totally unanalyzed in the original essay, and yet seems profoundly important to his moral and ethical understanding of the question. Am I reading this wrong, or does Scott think that putting people in prison is the moral equivalent of torturing children?

In the original essay he did drop something that sounded weird to me, but I mostly overlooked it on my first reading,

Whatever career skills you once had are ten years obsolete ... Your partner has long since filed for divorce and is happily remarried to someone else. Your kids have long since moved on; if they remember your name at all, it’s as “that guy who was never there for us”. All of your friends have drifted away, forgotten you, or have nothing in common with you anymore.

Which seems to present the modal criminal receiving a lengthy prison sentence as a married father of 2.5 children with a stable career in the tech industry who one day randomly tripped and fell into a ten year felony conviction. Not only does it seem wildly at odds with reality, it also seems at odds with the quote above, where he seems to be saying that the average prisoner is basically retarded.

Is he just saying whatever he thinks will be most convincing depending on the context to arrive at the conclusion he has already decided is morally correct?

I do not read ACX that frequently any more, but this and the homelessness essay, both feel like pieces that 2014 Scott would have torn apart, whither Tartaria indeed.

Scott’s essay made clear to me how much of this is really a cost issue. Or to put it another way, the reason we have crime and a raft of other problems is because of cost-insensitive idealists. Although it could solve the crime problem, incarceration simply costs too much. So we should look into physical punishment, maiming, the stocks.

But I’d like to propose the fairest and cheapest solution: randomized death sentences. When you’re convicted of a serious crime, they hand you a pair of dice, and if you roll snake eyes, you get two in the back of the head. If not, you’re freed. Incapacitation-wise, it’s the equivalent of a long prison sentence for all who roll for a fraction of the cost. And you avoid negative after-effects for being institutionalized with criminals. "Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot."

Who put Two-face in charge of the criminal justice system - let's kill everyone who commits a serious crime.

I don't want the lucky 35/36 of the El Salvedoran 'Drug, Murder and Satanism 5000' gang back on the street.

Yeah, we're setting some sort of record for bad takes here.

This dice rolling system would make crime downright cool. That alone would increase the crime rate. But since we're also releasing the other 97% of criminals, it would cause crime rates to absolutely soar.

Say it with me: The best way to reduce crime is to keep criminals in prison where they can't commit crime.

This is a solved problem. We don't need "one weird trick". Anything you think of while stone is probably a bad idea. Also, the Purge was just a movie.

I don’t see any evidence that you can influence criminals by making their punishment “less cool”. If there was, we should spank them in public or something.

We’re dealing with total morons here. They don’t really understand cause and effect. They basically have no awareness outside of the next ten minutes, if that.

I admire the endless optimism of people who try to whisper in the ear of criminals : ‘Hey…. Man…. We fiddled with the judicial reform knobs again, and now instead of a low chance of getting caught and a heavy sentence, you get a high chance of getting caught and a light sentence, so can you please do less crime, please?’

“Sir, that is a similar expected sentence per crime. As a rational man, I cannot change my behaviour on that basis.”

Actually, he’s not going to say that, because he did not understand the previous sentence. Incapacitation is the only one who really works because it does not require criminals to understand anything, unlike deterrence and aftereffects.

We've been offered the false choice of "rehabilitation vs. punishment" for so long that it needed Bukele to break the spell and bring "containment" back into the Overton Window.

Say it with me: The best way to reduce crime is to keep criminals in prison where they can't commit crime.

The best way to reduce crime is to hang criminals, which is no only much cheaper than prison (or at least it would be if progressives hadn't deliberately made the process as expensive as possible) but also prevents a future administration from releasing the criminals.

Surprised to see less coverage of these points from the article:

But the deterrent effect of crime being illegal at all, as opposed to basically legal and not even resulting in arrest, is very very strong.

There is substantial evidence that increasing the visibility of the police by hiring more officers and allocating existing officers in ways that materially heighten the perceived risk of apprehension can deter crimes.

Part of me wants to take some time to dunk here on the Defund The Police movement. The really do hate the most at risk communities. But, that's probably mostly fruitless, especially on the Motte.

The fact remains that Scott's article points to the fact that one of the most cost effective ways to reduce the occurrence of all crimes (leaving aside incarceration and rehabilitation dilemmas) is to have more cops all over the play. In one of Roland Fryer's papers, I seem to remember a similar conclusion.

The culture war angle to this is that, as long as I can remember, Cops have been the victims of cultural denigration on the left. This can range from the goofy-humorous (Chief Wiggum on the Simpsons, the trope of donuts, Sooper Troopers and smiliar movies) to the naked hostile; ACAB, Fuck Tha Police, 90s gangster rap that clearly identifies street cops as the primary bad guy in the hood (not the, you know, murderous criminals that kill the friends of the protagonist). Even more nuance depictions of cops often share tropes of personal failings and issues with leadership and corruption - Harvey Keitel in Bad Lieutenant, Matthew McCanaughey and Woody Harrelson in True Detective. The biggest pop culture cop show is probably Law an Order and its many spinoffs. Most of the cops here are pretty immaculate in their personal conduct, with the primary conflict in each episode generally being the dramatic discovery of a smoking gun or other key piece of information. Still, it being a drama, many episodes feature a less than comforting ending where a bad person goes to prison, but the victim is still victim-itized and has an implied hard life after the credits role. Law and Order: SVU had a rolling subplot about the emotional toll of those cases on the lead detectives.

Suffice it to say; the Culture War isn't great for cops. So, if one of the best solutions to crime is to have lots more cops, and we assume some sort of political minor miracle wherein we all agree on this and fund it, I worry about our ability to fill the ranks. Interestingly, this kind of dovetails with the other big thread this week on fertility collapse and population issues - women don't have good incentive to be Moms and we ought to improve the status of motherhood. Id argue that the status of cops - an implicitly male and patriarchal role - is also quite low and in need of some rehabilitation.

The unpersoning of Roland Fryer is quite telling. The whiff of possibility that the US 'carceral state' is not actually a product of systemic racism is so antithetical to the dominant intellectual theme that it must be quashed lest any doubt fester and spread to other 'systemic' narratives.

To recap, Roland Fryer is a black academic at Harvard who focused on racial disparities in minority vs white outcomes. He lead a successful minority-focused program (Opportunity NYC) that had positive ROI in terms of dollar spend to material outcomes. He is most controversially known for his 2016 paper on statistical encounters between police and minorities. Unlike the vast, VAST majority of black and minority studies academics, Fryer concluded that police encounters resulting in shootings or incarceration of minorities is statistically identical (if not actually less harsh) than white encounters when factoring in weapon possession, prior arrests, cooperation or other material factors.

https://jimgeschke.substack.com/p/the-rise-fall-and-redemption-of-roland

He was tarred and feathered by multiple academics subsequently, and a Title IX complaint against him resulted in his exile from academy.

The intense backlash against a successful black intellectual is quite fascinating, and identical to the contempt expressed towards any black man who explicitly rejects grievances. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and John McWorther. The common thread all these men have is that they do not accept that the USA is foundationally racist and that blacks failures are due to external societal factors.

The reason for costs spiralling in the USA for government spending is this externalization of responsibility: the state must prove that the disparate outcome is NOT due to the state failing an unspecified deliverable. The existence of the disparate outcome is taken as proof that the state - as the legal responsible entity of last resort - has failed in its responsibility and therefore must invest even more resources into whatever is required by these champions of the dispossessed. And when these proposed solutions - prison furloughs, death penalty appeals, welfare enhancements that differ by state, special treatment for self declared medical (including mental) conditions, redress of human right violations - fail to change recidivism rates, then it is taken as further proof that even more must be done.

The only way to break this cycle is for a criminal to accept their own responsibility and cooperate with the justice system. But with increasing resources afforded to the noncooperative, why would anyone consider cooperating? There is unlimited incentive to costlessly defect, and minimal incentive to cooperate. The prisoners dilemma fails in real life game theory because iterated games punish defectors in the next round. If there is no punishment now or forever for defecting, and the calculation is performed by do-gooder externals, then dr robotniks pressing that defect button with the biggest smile on his face.

There are in fact circles where becoming a cop is high status and seen as remunerating well. The police force pays quite well by the standards of a job requiring an associates degree(it doesn’t pay fintech level but nothing does), it’s a popular career option in many working class and culturally conservative communities.

But the qualifications for it are in fact difficult. MIP’s and minor pot violations are disqualifying; debt levels are restricted; physical health is checked. The police force is a most attractive offer to the bottom half of the middle of society, and well, a high percentage of the early twenties male population in working class America has a history of the sorts of very minor legal problems and health issues that preclude police academy but don’t impact a more regular career.

Suffice it to say; the Culture War isn't great for cops. So, if one of the best solutions to crime is to have lots more cops, and we assume some sort of political minor miracle wherein we all agree on this and fund it, I worry about our ability to fill the ranks

It isn't just the Culture War; the left isn't 100% wrong. We actually don't have angels in the form of police officers, and a lot of cops get into law enforcement because they get to exercise power over others. We also have a lot of laws which would allow them to do so legitimately. Greatly increase the number of cops, and even if you avoid the anarcho-tyranny trap and do reduce crime, you also make the place more of a stifling police state for people you wouldn't normally consider 'criminals'.

and a lot of cops get into law enforcement because they get to exercise power over others.

I'd argue this is 100% culture war. Has there been any study that replicates that can point to a major motivating factor of police recruits being authoritarian impulses? Related, is there any data that backs up the (goofy) claim that X% of people who join the military do so in order to be able to kill people.

How would such a study even be constructed? Self-surveys? Big 5 personality traits? This is exactly the kind of data that can always been squinted-at in just the right way so as to "back-up" a latent intent kind of assertion.

I don't know about the military claim, but I base my belief in that canard on my own perspective. I knew people as a youth who became cops and they were people who abused power in their teens and went on to abuse power as police. I have daydreamed about being an anti-hero, doing bad things for justice, could I resist the temptation to live out those fantasies if I was in a position to actualise them? I believe I could, I have been tested and stayed strong in the past. And I believe I could the second time and the third and fourth and so on for a while, but the 2054th time? The 20,743rd time? I like to think I would. I don't have that faith in anyone else on this planet however.

Beyond that though, we live in the era of justification. Everything can be justified if you widen or narrow your focus a bit! Principles are for contemptuous chumps and losers who are coping about their failure to win by any means necessary. The DNC came out and said they spent the entire campaign period lying to their supporters and the public in general, telling them they were winning when that was never true and people aren't mad at them for lying, they are mad at Joe Rogan for believing in dragons. That's for the highest office in the land and you think cops are going to be more honest? I'd guess nybbler was wrong saying it was a lot of people joining for power, but it definitely happens more than it should.

and a lot of cops get into law enforcement because they get to exercise power over others.

I'd argue this is 100% culture war. Has there been any study that replicates that can point to a major motivating factor of police recruits being authoritarian impulses?

What difference would it make? If there were, you would (quite possibly rightly) accuse the researchers of bias. But have you ever met any cops? Did you know people in school who grew up to become cops?

But have you ever met any cops? Did you know people in school who grew up to become cops?

Yes, a few regular cops, a campus cop, and a couple conservation officers. (All have arrest powers with varying jurisdictions. I'm using a slightly-broad definition, but nothing too crazy.)

I'll pit my anti-authoritarian anecdotes against your vague implications any day.

Yes. Dozens. Military as well.

None of the cops comes across as authoritarian-seeking power trippers. Most are deeply committed to the idea of justice. A minority are just doing what their Dads did. In High School, they were all athletes except for one who was just sort of a meathead.

I think both perspectives might be accurate. I lived in a conservative area and then a liberal area. The first was pretty pro-cop the second was not.

The cops coming from the pro cop area seemed universally better than the candidates coming from the anti cop area.

And talking to cops, they also tend to know who the shitbags on the force are.

Yes. Most cops expect to make a good living doing rewarding work that benefits the community, and have a job that is high status in the circles they tend to come from.

have you ever met any cops? Did you know people in school who grew up to become cops?

Yes, have you?

I don't really know who it benefits to keep creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society and then, when they fail to live in modern society, say "Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that".

I read that as "if we could retcon reality so that someone who has received a decade of prison sentences had never been born, that would be the moral thing to do".

While we do not have the power of retroactive birth control, we likely prevent the births of some children who are most at risk of becoming criminals themselves. A violent criminal who is locked up for a decade during his 20s or 30s will likely cause fewer accidental pregnancies, which are likely (through either genetics or environment) to later end up in the criminal justice system. I have discussed that here.

That doesn't sound like the sort of position Scott would hold or endorse. I could be wrong though. I'm reading it more along the lines of his UBI post where he argues that because modern society has created all of these artificial restrictions in exchange for massive productivity increases, we owe a share of that to the people modern society has disadvantaged via this bargain. Just in this case its forgiveness/charity/social-services rather than cash.

Is he just saying whatever he thinks will be most convincing depending on the context to arrive at the conclusion he has already decided is morally correct?

Probably, because the idea underlying Scott's belief that imprisoning people is equivalent to torturing children is that those people are blank slates whose actions can be >80% (but for convenience just round up to 100%) attributed to socioeconomic factors and "um, purely socioeconomic factors" and so they have no real moral culpability for their crimes. But that sounds too insane to state directly outside of rationalist circles so you have to reach for an argument that normies are willing to consider. I agree that 2014 Scott would have been a lot less sloppy.

But that sounds too insane to state directly outside of rationalist circles so you have to reach for an argument that normies are willing to consider

Hasn't that been the "normie" and popular position for the past 10-15 years? It's long seemed a radical opinion with no public support to entertain the concept of moral culpability.

In blue tribe areas maybe, but support for punishment (as opposed to rehabilitation) is still quite strong in red and purple areas IME.

he seems to be saying that the average prisoner is basically retarded

He found a median I. Q. of 76.2 (on a basis of 16 years as mental maturity) and made the sweeping conclusion that "the median intelligence of every racial group of prisoners lies either in the middle borderline or upper moron group of intelligence."

Survey of the Intelligence of Illinois Prisoners

Yeah, kind of.

Which seems to present the modal criminal receiving a lengthy prison sentence as a married father of 2.5 children with a stable career in the tech industry who one day randomly tripped and fell into a ten year felony conviction.

Married father of 2.5 children is quite plausible - the marriage is somewhat less likely, but criminals do make kids pretty often. See e.g. the description of Henry here.

Technology's advancing fast enough now that, while the tech industry is certainly the most affected, the majority of jobs are changing somewhat (usually from communications tech or automation) over a ten-year span.

I have noticed that men prisoners behave like literal children, like six year olds with sex drives and muscles. Obviously there’s a certain amount of compassion to be had there(I am not a nature über Alles IQ maximalist even if I acknowledge the very strong influence thereof), but at the same token- uh, you can’t let six year olds do whatever they want, and adding sex drives and muscles does not help. If we had some other solution it’d be great but we don’t and won’t.

If you're making a post about a link, please actually link it.

Scott clearly still has some of the progressive aversion to harming criminals even when it's positive sum. However, he's still right (reality is complicated, you can be wrong about one thing and right about a different more important thing).

This is his final, bolded conclusion: "Prison is less cost-effective than other methods of decreasing crime at most current margins. If people weren’t attracted by the emotional punch of how “tough-on-crime” it feels, they would probably want to divert justice system resources away from prisons into other things like police and courts."

This is, IMO, just true. Consider a hypothetical: Prison sentences are capped at a week, max. But, within a minute of attempting to shoplift or steal a car, the police arrest you, take back the stuff you stole, and send you to jail. What do you think would happen to crime? Conversely, consider another hypothetical: Life sentences for stealing at all, but you'll be arrested and put to jail sometime around five years after you steal. What do you think happens to crime, given how bad at planning for the future low IQ criminals are? I think crime in the first scenario would be much lower than today, and crime in the second scenario much higher.

The biggest problem with fighting crime isn't that prison sentences are too low, it's that the police and justice system - in large part due to progressive activists, but in even larger part due to general government stasis and lack of ambition - has gotten worse at policing. They should'v gotten better at policing at a pace matching the advance of technology! Crime could be so much lower than it is today with just a bit more proactive policing, use of computers, and shaping of culture.

I thought it was well known that certain American states which will remain unnamed are addicted to prison labor. They want a large populace of manual labor they can pay nothing and can put to work.

If crime went down, they'd actually have less free labor.

It's "well known", certainly, but is it true?

I mean, it's kind of trivial to look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

AP I consider a bit more reliable than other mainstream news sources. https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-investigation-c6f0eb4747963283316e494eadf08c4e

Fine, news is news, what bleeds leads. So here's an investor report from Northstar Asset Management... written to clarify that they themselves don't invest in that kind of thing: https://missioninvestors.org/sites/default/files/resources/Prison%20Labor%20in%20the%20United%20States%20-%20An%20Investor%20Perspective.pdf

The list of prisoner-made goods that we have uncovered is both staggering and very likely incomplete. Inmates in the U.S. are involved in sectors ranging from agriculture to defense contracting, from simple electrical wiring to solar panels.

And then there's, you know, the whole kerfluffle over this. It's actually been on the ballot several times and failed each time. https://capitolweekly.net/private-prison-firms-make-big-money-in-california/

Okay, so let's not look at the private sector. Firefighting, asbestos removal, making COVID hand sanitizer. https://www.vera.org/news/from-fighting-wildfires-to-digging-graves-incarcerated-workers-face-danger-on-the-job

A study that examined the disaster plans of the 47 states that make them publicly available found that 30 of them have explicit instructions to use incarcerated people for disaster relief. The jobs for incarcerated people detailed in these plans ranged from making sandbags or clearing debris to specialized or especially dangerous tasks like cleaning up hazardous materials.

I don't have the link to it, but I did once read an article detailing just how extensively prison labor is used. I think ConAgra Foods was one of the users of prison labor mentioned in the article.

I think your hypothetical made sense, and I understood what trade-offs you were trying to highlight. I also appreciate that you linked the actual original article.

The biggest problem with fighting crime isn't that prison sentences are too low, it's that the police and justice system - in large part due to progressive activists, but in even larger part due to general government stasis and lack of ambition - has gotten worse at policing. They should'v gotten better at policing at a pace matching the advance of technology! Crime could be so much lower than it is today with just a bit more proactive policing, use of computers, and shaping of culture.

I'm a little less sure on this. It seems some aspects of policing have gotten easier. Cameras and evidence are more ubiquitous, but not as much in high crime areas. Other aspects remain difficult or have gotten worse. Physically restraining an uncooperative human is just as difficult. Tasers have made this somewhat easier. New drugs have have made this harder. Seems easier for people that were likely to cooperate anyways, and harder for people that were unlikely to cooperate anyways. Courts have certainly gotten worse, due to wait times and case loads. I think technology has helped courts handle some of that (remote sessions). But they are still fundamentally limited in getting people to be physically available at a given time, shortly after a crime, and provide enough time for a judge and some lawyers to talk through the case.

I mainly don't think technology is doing much to help. Culture could probably help a bit. But mainly it would be more people involved. More active policing, a much larger court infrastructure to clear out the dockets way faster, and more monitoring or jailing of known past criminals. I just don't know if myself, or voters are really willing to pay the costs necessary for crime reduction. There are diminishing returns at some point.

Courts have certainly gotten worse, due to wait times and case loads. I think technology has helped courts handle some of that (remote sessions). But they are still fundamentally limited in getting people to be physically available at a given time, shortly after a crime, and provide enough time for a judge and some lawyers to talk through the case.

I actually think reforming prosecution and courts to simply take advantage of technology is going to be a huge part of this. Our court system was designed for a century ago. Just adding zoom to the old mountains of process doesn't hurt, but there's a lot of room for efficiency gains without compromising on accuracy or anything else. And just hiring more prosecutors and judges and staff is exactly the kind of thing Scott's suggesting doing in his post instead of spending money on police. (Although I think political energy/will, more than money, is the main constraint)

Technology is a force multiplier for IQ, and criminals are not, actually, that smart. So if you can have some very smart people figure out how to use drones with cameras, or warrants to track phones, or etc etc, in a more systematic way than they currently are (not that that isn't being done, it just isn't being done efficiently because government is slow), that's just good.

The biggest problem is the lack of will to impose the sentence and make it stick. Until the policing and prosecution system are doing that, the sentences don’t matter. What happens right now is that the police come by and take a report. Often, that’s the end of it, there’s a report in a desk drawer somewhere. If you’re lucky the police will do an investigation. If a short investigation leads directly to a suspect or the news media makes them look bad, they’ll arrest someone. Then you go to prosecutors who might prosecute, maybe.

With a system like that, crime, essentially, pays. The 1/25 or so chance that someone arrests you is definitely worth the risk. Especially since in larger cities you need to steal a lot of stuff to reach the felony threshold. In California, you can steal up to $1000 before it’s worth arresting you. In other areas, it’s $500. As long as the TV you’re boosting is on sale for $497, nobody is going to do anything about it. If you and 5-6 buddies go an each boost one of those TVs and sell them, it’s easy money. Drugs are basically not enforced either. People can do them pretty openly on public streets without worrying that the cops are going after them.

While funding plays a role here, the police and prosecutors seem to have lost the spine necessary to do so. I think quite often it’s about the look. You don’t want to be seen as racist for arresting and jailing too many black and Hispanics. You don’t want to look like you’re being mean to poor people. Easy answer is just let them go. Or come up with silly “reforms” that are essentially release but have a service requirement that nobody will actually enforce. If there was one thing I’d do to curb crime it’s to get arrest rates up and prosecute everyone to the full extent. Once it becomes clear that the cops are now back in the crime fighting business, crime should drop.

I mainly don't think technology is doing much to help.

Tech papers over the cracks. The US might have Brazil tier crime rates without it. European countries that have seen big demographic upheaval have only preserved low crime rates through it. London has an almost 100% homicide solve rate, and ubiquitous CCTV is a big part of that, both at the police level and when it comes to convincing a jury.

Prison sentences are capped at a week, max. But, within a minute of attempting to shoplift or steal a car, the police arrest you, take back the stuff you stole, and send you to jail. What do you think would happen to crime?

A huge explosion. It's basically a slap on the wrist, and only when you're caught. It generalizes very poorly to other crime as well. Want to murder somebody? If you're caught, you're looking at one week. Rape? One week. Million-dollar fraud? One week. I don't think a solution exist which doesn't contain punishment which is highly unpleasant for the punished.

I think bringing back violence might actually be an improvement here. I personally dislike it, but if it works on animals, it probably works wonders on really stupid people as well (unlike more abstract punishments). It seems to work for Singapore (Singapore doesn't have a lot of stupid people, though).

And most of what's wrong with society now is not handled effectively by the government or the police as its social issues. Minor crime and inappropriate behaviour is handled through social norms, social pressure, culture, etc. The government should go after corruption and bigger issues plaguing society rather than wasting time harassing individuals for minor things (inappropirate jokes, building shreds in their gardens, not reporting birthday money to taxes, and things of this nature)

It's basically a slap on the wrist, and only when you're caught

The assumption for the hypothetical is that you're caught every time. It's a slap on the wrist, but you can't actually benefit! So organized small groups stealing over and over wouldn't pop up, because they wouldn't benefit from it. That example was specifically for shoplifting and stealing cars. My argument is they would go down, because you wouldn't actually be able to benefit from doing them anymore. It wasn't intended to apply to rape or fraud. I don't really think there's much you can do about rape on current margins, absent everyone having a camera and audio recorder on them at all times, and fraud's a whole different thing anyway.

I think the implicit assumption that most harm society suffers from criminal action is likely untrue.

Cutting the profit incentive through magic will certainly remove some crime (and likely most of the organized crime), but plenty of crime would remain.

Tax fraud would be eliminated, but murder would likely not drop much. Clearly, we will disincentivize killing your grand-mother for the inheritance or murder-for-hire, and indirectly eliminate some murders conducted in organized crime and other for-profit crimes (such as robberies), but plenty of murders would be wholly unaffected.

The thought experiment was intended to be scoped to things like shoplifting and car theft, should've been more specific about that. But I actually think it'd have a moderate effect on murder for a subtle reason - it'd break up cultures of crime by making the moderately profitable activities they sustain themselves not profitable anymore. Like if you couldn't sell drugs, and couldn't steal stuff, and couldn't do welfare fraud, and so on, that culture becomes less attractive

So it's basically the idea that, if your criminal actions are effectively undone with zero benefits, then you learn not to engage in them. In a mathematical sense, I suppose you're right, but people need to get caught in like 99% of cases, and all the benefits will need to be fully reversible in order for it to work. If I steal a cake and eat it, you cannot make me uneat it, for instance. I think it's difficult to get real-life benefits from this thought experiment. A best case scenarios requires surveillance worse than what China has, so I regard it as an expensive solution for that alone

Absent everyone having a camera and audio recorder on them at all times

I think one of the dangers of low punishments is that, even with the punishment, the actions may still worth worth it. Even if you punish rape and murder, the crime is not undone and the victim still suffers. Two wrongs balance out in a sense, but not in a way which cancels the wrong. I think large companies break a lot of laws because the fines they get are smaller than what they gain doing it. Large companies generally do whatever is the most profitable, so it's quite important that we make crime not worth it financially (companies are amoral after all)

The point is that criminals are not deterred by the length and severeness of the punishment but by the likelihood and immediacy of the punishment.

But that's just not true. If we imagine that there's only a 50% chance of getting caught, there'd be a vast different in attempts with a 1 week cap on sentences vs. a 1 year cap on sentences, I'd think?

It depends what kind of criminals you're thinking about, but most of them don't do any kind of reasonned risk/reward analysis. They simply believe punishment doesn't matter because they won't get caught. It's like reckless driving; a likely result is death, the harshest punishment, but it's infrequent enough that the people doing it discount its possibility to zero. Or teens and unwanted pregnancies, even when there wasn't an easy way out, it still happened all the time because the punishment was infrequent enough as to seem unlikely to happen.

Are you really suggesting that, in the example I suggested, you'd have equal crime rates?

More comments

Is that true if the cost is very small?

I mean, the thought experiment is comparing two extremes' effect on irrational actors, but any sane policy would adjust punishments so that it doesn't at the same time create unfortunate incentives for rational actors.

But that’s the problem. There can be a bunch of assumptions but do they describe the real world?

In a mathematical sense, I suppose you're right, but people need to get caught in like 99% of cases, and all the benefits will need to be fully reversible in order for it to work

Yes, this was the point of the extreme hypothetical, which I which I should've been more clear about.

I suppose you're right, but people need to get caught in like 99% of cases, and all the benefits will need to be fully reversible in order for it to work

It works for repeated or organized theft, where the criminal's doing it because they're going to resell the goods for money - you can almost entirely stop that by just making costs > benefits.

I think one of the dangers of low punishments is that, even with the punishment, the actions may still worth worth it

Yeah, I'm not proposing low punishments for rape, because the benefit is intrinsic to the act itself and also a very primitive one that's hard to punish, rather than an economic one you can take away.

This is, IMO, just true. Consider a hypothetical: Prison sentences are capped at a week, max. But, within a minute of attempting to shoplift or steal a car, the police arrest you, take back the stuff you stole, and send you to jail. What do you think would happen to crime? Conversely, consider another hypothetical: Life sentences for stealing at all, but you'll be arrested and put to jail sometime around five years after you steal. What do you think happens to crime, given how bad at planning for the future low IQ criminals are? I think crime in the first scenario would be much lower than today, and crime in the second scenario much higher.

First hypothetical: Many, many police officer hours will be needed to achieve it. Perhaps, within a generation, people will learn not to steal.

Let me present a small variation to your first hypothetical. The police will appear within a minute of attempted theft in 90% of all attempts, and everything happens as you write, the thief gets a week in jail. In 10% of cases, nothing happens to the thief. It is still super unrealistic clearance rate in any country not governed by totalitarian surveillance dystopia of magical fairies, but more realistic, as there will no be human society where the police are 100% effective.

In this altered hypothetical, I expect that thievery will be extremely common. What is one week in prison for almost unlimited amount of free stuff, and you get to network with other prisoners? I expect the police would be so demoralized that they soon stop enforcing the rules. They may join the thieves, even, and the whole 90% rate will collapse.

In your converse hypothetical, assuming it happens as stated, with 100% effective police but 5 year lag period for enforcing a life sentence to thieves -- my conclusion is totally opposite. I presume that stealing will dramatically drop in after the 5 years lag, and possibly wither to nothingness in following decades. If you read statistics in the ACX post, it is quite clear that most crime is done by repeat offenders, who are incapacitated in prison. Some or many first-time offenders become repeat offenders as they enter the criminal way of life in prison, but in your hypothetical they have life sentences without parole and that is not a problem.

Again, realistically, it would be terribly expensive and assumes magically competent cops. Thieves would also become more violent if there is only a little difference between the punishment for a theft and murdering witnesses to the theft.

Yeah. All the prison reform projects I even fisk run into the issue that the primary purpose of prison is incapacitation.

The other issue with prison reform is that all these problems are correlated. If your prisons are expensive, it is because progressive activists have won a lot of victories, why do you think policing and the courts aren't similarly being tied up by progressive activists?

why do you think policing and the courts aren't similarly being tied up by progressive activists?

Well, they are; progressive prosecutors and judges use paper bags to determine whether they should prosecute or not (or how they should sentence), and they absolutely will prosecute police who fail to use them.

The Summer of Love 4 years ago is conclusive evidence that a significant minority of Americans believe this is just and correct.

The hypothetical was an extreme to illustrate the point. Yes, in practice, enforcement isn't perfect, so a week is too short and you want escalating sentences. The point that effective policing is higher leverage than increasing sentences remains.

Again, realistically, it would be terribly expensive and assumes magically competent cops

... no? Like stores do, currently, have security guards. We could just empower them to arrest shoplifters. That would be fine. (edit: this includes fixing the laws that create extreme liability for doing that)

I presume that stealing will dramatically drop in after the 5 years lag, and possibly wither to nothingness in following decades

Isn't most crime committed by young people? There's a steady supply of fresh young people, and arresting them 5 years after they're young isn't even going to stop them from having kids to form the next (on average) generation of criminals. Like the US, today, does up arresting most violent criminals for long periods of time eventually, and it hasn't fixed the crime problem.

The hypothetical was an extreme to illustrate the point. Yes, in practice, enforcement isn't perfect, so a week is too short and you want escalating sentences. The point that effective policing is higher leverage than increasing sentences remains.

I am not convinced it is relevant to the point or real life. The police that appears within a minute to 100% of crime scenes is practically impossible yet causes major consequences of the stated hypothetical. You can make many points with similarly strong but unrealistic assumptions.

If I assume an existence of a 100% effective at 1-month drug and crime rehabilitation program (criminal turned into citizen who will never commit a crime and is no longer drug addict), it is obvious that we should use such program to rehabilitate all criminals. I believe lot of progressive politics are result of median democrat who believes in such program, that with "enough" social services, one could disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline, problem solved. To some extent modern prisons are outgrowth of similar Victorian era ideas. The problem is that such programs don't exist.

Coincidentally, I agree that the legal processing time from arrest to punishment should be reduced. It is more effective to discuss it more realistic assumptions .

Isn't most crime committed by young people? There's a steady supply of fresh young people, and arresting them 5 years after they're young isn't even going to stop them from having kids to form the next (on average) generation of criminals. Like the US, today, does up arresting most violent criminals for long periods of time eventually, and it hasn't fixed the crime problem.

Your hypothetical did not stipulate age limits, by the way. Most criminals start young, too, as teenagers, so a shoplifting 14-year old would be in prison before they turn 20. And even in the US, most prisoners go free eventually. Most crime can't committed by re-offenders unless they have an opportunity to re-offend. If you get to "tag" every criminal today and put them all permanently away with 5 year lag, all habitual criminals are gone after the first wait period, and there will be left only those criminals who started committing crime during those 5 years. Further 5 years down, they are also permanently removed from society. Within the rules of thought experiment, I think this should work to reliably but slowly reduce the number of criminals around.

I agree that realistically it wouldn't be like this, but again, the experiment as specified is not realistic.

We could just empower them to arrest shoplifters. That would be fine.

They're already empowered to arrest shoplifters. It's just so much of a liability concern that it's cheaper to tell them not to in almost all cases.

Yeah, what I mean by empower them to is remove all of the obstacles like that that prevent them from doing so. The liability concerns are a consequence of specific laws and precedents, and laws can be changed.

Consider a hypothetical: Prison sentences are capped at a week, max. But, within a minute of attempting to shoplift or steal a car, the police arrest you, take back the stuff you stole, and send you to jail. What do you think would happen to crime? Conversely, consider another hypothetical: Life sentences for stealing at all, but you'll be arrested and put to jail sometime around five years after you steal. What do you think happens to crime, given how bad at planning for the future low IQ criminals are? I think crime in the first scenario would be much lower than today, and crime in the second scenario much higher.

You're treating the situation as if there exist a pair of control sliders marked "prison time" and "policing power" and that if you slide the former down to 0/10, then you're automatically able to slide the latter up to 10/10 and create godlike supercops. In reality the sliders are demarcated in dollars or man-hours rather than in simple outcome generation, and there isn't enough money in the world (much less in the prison budget) to create a police force of infinite capability that solves every crime in sixty seconds.

It was an unrealistically simple and extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point. Grocery stores have security guards.

It's a hypothetical that boils down to a scenario where the resources for law enforcement are near-infinite versus one where they aren't. Grocery stores having security guards doesn't mean we can reduce all prison terms to a week-long timeout and expect to be fine.

It’s a valid point that long sentences mean little if people aren’t getting caught. Also, I think people here find it hard to model high-time-preference, low IQ criminals. We can likely imagine the abject horror of a 10 or 20 year sentence in a way they can’t.

"Within a minute of attempting to shoplift [...] the police arrest you" is quite possible at reasonable (if significant) cost. Put policemen at all store exits so that the RFID tags going off (or using an emergency exit in a non-emergency, or triggering the metal detectors with a Faraday cage) gets you immediately arrested.

Car theft is harder, though. You could do okay with mandatory biometrics and self-driving and having cars drive thieves to the police station, but it'd be very expensive in money and false positives and still wouldn't get to 100%.

The 'minute' part was hyperbole, but I think a day or two should be trivial? If we can modify the design of the car, just have it disable itself in a way that can't be undone without the owner's consent (have many different components do the verification on their chips so the thief can't just swap out one), and broadcast its location. Just location broadcasting (only with the owner's consent once it's stolen) would be trivial to retrofit existing cars with very cheaply. And then you just, like, have the cops go pick up the car whenever it's stolen.

Wouldn't get 100% (most obvious and effective bypass is to turn the theft into a robbery - "turn over control of the car or I shoot you" - and there's also "EMP the car, pick it up with a truck and repair it later"), and would still be expensive in false-positives (i.e. when the car doesn't recognise the owner).

Also, with most forms of "disablement" that can't be worked around, you'd need to clean up auto manufacturers' cybersecurity to avoid megadeaths the next time somebody goes to war with you and mounts a cyberattack, although frankly some of the "safety features" of modern cars (as well as ~all self-driving cars) are already reaching that threshold (TTBOMK without the necessary cybersecurity in nearly all cases) because safetyists are apparently Mr. Topaz and assume blithely that software will do what they want and not what they don't want (and also don't think probabilistically and thus dismiss the tail risk of the Long Peace failing to hold).

I think those are reasonable points, I'm not expecting that a few minutes of my thinking about this will solve it, just that a few years of smart tech people will. But I think just the location sharing part would be enough - you'd have to make it hard for the thieves to disable without totaling the car, but I think that's doable (just put it on the car's main board? put it in a random location? idk), and then if the cops just reliably physically repossess the car a few days after it's stolen that should make car theft a lot less attractive. A lot of new cars already have GPS and data.

  1. The adversary knows the location of X if X is transmitting EM.
  2. I think it might be hard to render it impossible for thieves to disable without totalling the car without catastrophic issues. After all, the chip's no good without the antenna, and it might be a bit tricky to enforce "the antenna is capable of transmitting to something" (not broken, and also not shielded) without enforcing "the antenna is in communication with a specific system" (the latter of which means any failure in that system or in connectivity bricks All Of The Cars).

The adversary knows the location of X if X is transmitting EM.

At an extreme, make it only transmit for a few seconds every 24h?

For 2 I don't mean enforce it at a software level, just make it physically difficult to disable

This sounds like it would require a lot of cops.

I don't think so? Grocery stores have security guards, you can just let them arrest people.

You'd have to beef them up significantly and/or alter the design of stores (emergency exits unusable unless triggered by central authority (and even then, I suppose there's the "set a fire so that you can shoplift" option), main entrance with lockable gates after the RFID scanners) to avoid the "shoplifter outruns security guard" problem; lots of security guards are would-be police that are too fat to pass the physical.

I mean fixing the laws would allow stores to do the cost/benefit analysis on that themselves, and if they think it isn't then they're probably right.

Robot cops!

Am I reading this wrong, or does Scott think that putting people in prison is the moral equivalent of torturing children?

Utilitarianism doesn't just lead to insane antisocial results in bizzare edge cases, it leads to insane antisocial results in real life. You see it with SBF and FTX, you see it with the shrimp welfare people, and you see it here.

There is no metaphysical or metaethical reason why one should inherently care about the suffering of those who are not even constitutionally capable of agreeing to or following the social contract. There may be contengent reasons to care about their suffering (i.e. family members of impulsive low IQ prisoners who themselves are capable of agreeing to and following the social contract), but this is distinct from the utilitarian framing.

This is rich. You complain about utilitarianism leading to antisocial outcomes, and then you continue:

There is no metaphysical or metaethical reason why one should inherently care about the suffering of those who are not even constitutionally capable of agreeing to or following the social contract.

Did you just say that it is ok to torture two-year-olds to death? At least if they are without guardians who would care about them, they are terminally ill (so they won't grow up to be an ethics-capable person) and you keep it secret (so you won't upset the general population).

Utilitarianism certainly has its share of problems, but at least it gets "pain is universally bad, even if it is felt by some entity who could never reciprocate with you" right without having to add any epicycles.

I think that hypothetical is correct. It shares a lot of similarities with post-birth abortion, which, while aesthetically repugnant, is probably okay in the strict metaethical sense I am talking about.

There is no metaphysical or metaethical reason why one should inherently care about the suffering of those who are not even constitutionally capable of agreeing to or following the social contract.

Indeed.

And yet there is a valid question about whether you should care about creating such a person as compared to them not existing or as compared to being someone that can follow the social contract.

You can't blame this on utilitarianism, almost every ethical system yields insane results if you try to take it seriously as direct truth instead of just treating it as a grab bag of heuristics. Like, most people would find your second paragraph permitting causing extreme suffering to mentally disabled people without living relatives insane (I don't find it insane personally). You're objecting to 'similarly-weighted universalism among humans', and replacing it with 'universalism among people who can agree to the social contract'. You can easily have a utilitarianism among people who can agree to a social contract, or utilitarianism focused on the health of society. You can also have a deontology that cares deeply the suffering of people who don't agree to the social contract.

The way scott's comment calls out our society's choice to "create" these people also hints at another solution, one he's named more explicitly in the past - choose, instead, to not create them. (Or, if you prefer, use genetic enhancement to "create the same person, but with better genes", but I don't think there's a moral difference between gene-editing a sperm and an egg before fusing them and discarding that sperm/egg and instead using different sperm/eggs)

Well. I think utilitarianism has its weaknesses. One thing to mention here is that you have to actually put a value to every good in view. Shooting everyone who shoplifts baby formula from Walmart will stop that crime, but you’d have to balance it with other goods — justice, humaneness, aesthetic values (pretty sure nobody wants to step over corpses to go shopping), and so on. I’m not even entirely clear how you’d determine whether a given individual was permanently unable to live by the social contract. Perhaps some can actually be rehabilitated,

I’m much more impressed by deontology which simply declares that certain things are simply off limits, and certain things are absolutely required to be a moral society. I don’t think things like collective responsibility or arbitrary detention or punishment make much sense. At the same time I don’t think a moral society would refuse to punish based on a misplaced compassion. That would quite clearly create unsafe and produce more people willing to commit a crime.

I'm not impressed by deontology because those declarations have to come from somewhere, and in practice they either come from explicit utilitarian-ish cost-benefit math done by some philosopher or elite in the past, or from cultural selection on random views where the selection is, also, doing a sort of cost-benefit analysis on what gets selected for. (Well, generally a mix of both)

I'm not impressed by deontology because those declarations have to come from somewhere, and in practice they either come from explicit utilitarian-ish cost-benefit math done by some philosopher or elite in the past, or from cultural selection on random views where the selection is, also, doing a sort of cost-benefit analysis on what gets selected for. (Well, generally a mix of both)

No, traditional they come from divine revelation and religious precepts.

I'm claiming that historically, materially, the reason the divine revelations / religious precepts are what they are are the above - the religious elites actually did think a lot about what the right precepts are, and precepts and revelations were selected across cultures and generations for working and propagating

For me, Scott's write-up is valuable because he (a) surveys the best of the field, (b) reasonably summarizes the findings in layman terms, and (c) does his best to distinguish his own editorial ideas.

Do prisons work to reduce crime? I am sort of interested--my tax dollars support the system, and I and mine are subject to the laws that have the potential to land us there--but I am not sufficiently interested to actually do my own deep dive into the matter. Thus, it's useful to know (and I will trust Scott on this) that, in the vast and varied field of criminology studying the question, there are three meta-studies that are worth a damn. It's useful to know that they (and most criminologists studying the question) share a reasonable framework of Deterrence / Incapacitation / Aftereffects. Knowing how academic research gets done, I am not at all surprised that even the three meta-studies disagree on specifics. However, it's useful to have a general synthesis of how much they agree, and an analysis of the likely roots of their disagreement. Plus, Scott provides a simple though very useful additional framework where effectiveness of a change in incarceration rate depends on current level of incarceration and current level/type of crime.

And it took me a leisurely hour or so to read Scott's post, whereas my own deep dive would have taken me days and I wasn't going to do it anyway.

Am I reading this wrong, or does Scott think that putting people in prison is the moral equivalent of torturing children?

Maybe not all people, but if you create rules that some people are too stupid/impulsive to ever follow and you severely punish them for it, what do you consider this morally equivalent to?

Being an IQ realist means you see these people as not much different from the losers in a hypothetical society where failing a test in college level Differential Equations dooms you to a life of misery.

After learning about how difficult it is for sub 80 IQ people to function in society, I honestly became open to the idea of some form of light slavery or second-class citizenship to prevent them from causing too much harm to themselves and others. Sounds terrible, but so did institutions before we had tent jungles and streets filled with poop and needles.

IQ realist here. When those rules are things like "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal", I consider enforcing them by severely punishing the ones who break them to be basic human decency. If they are too impulsive and stupid to abide by such elementary moral standards, then they are not fit to live in civilized society.

sure, we can shoot murderers into the sun for all I care

but last time I visited the county jail, the primary offense was for driving with a suspended license

not saying driving with a suspended license is fine, just clearly a thing where people are being needlessly tortured because the way society is arranged doesn't suit their level of intelligence

Let's distinguish between common-sense consequences and torture. When someone has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with liberty because he'll use it to do great harm, he must be restrained. There's room in the calculus for social censure, seizure of assets, corporal punishment, incarceration, maiming (e.g. losing a hand), exile, and execution. These can all be reasonable responses given certain assumptions.

What doesn't make sense is inflicting unnecessary suffering upon the person.

The objective here is to safeguard the functional, not be cruel to the dysfunctional for cruelty's sake.

"Do not steal, do not rape, do not murder: these are rules which every man, of every faith, can embrace. These are not polite suggestions - these are codes of behavior!"

Steve Rogers pointing, I understood that reference.

They've got the IQ and self-restraint of like a ten-year old child. I don't really know who it benefits to keep creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society and then, when they fail to live in modern society, say "Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that".

It is my impression that the average progressive thinks this same way, just without the IQ obsession. Whether it is nature or nurture, either way it is not the criminal or homeless man's fault, he is simply a victim of his circumstances. This then leads to some bizarre conclusion that we are morally obligated to suffer their depredations as penance for being a functional part of the society that inflicts this life upon them.

Perhaps we don't need to make them suffer, but I don't understand how this doesn't lead to the conclusion that these people should be locked away for life in a minimally-cruel prison, just for the sake of keeping them away from the rest of us.

I mean it quite literally isn’t their fault. We still shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of their bad behavior, although I will grant Scott’s point that prison is a sufficiently expensive and inhumane way to solve the problem that at least looking for other solutions is very worthwhile.

I mean it quite literally isn’t their fault.

This is one of those views which are so absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them.

After all, even a dog can be trained.

Heinlein was directly on point:

“Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken—whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?”

“Why . . . that’s the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!”

“I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?”

“Uh . . . why, mine, I guess.”

“Again I agree. But I’m not guessing.”

Note that training dogs with only rewards and no punishments is possible, and is indeed the standard approach in a number of dog sports including the one I am most familiar with (agility). The trainers of serious competitive sheepdogs say that a combination of rewards and punishments is needed in their discipline, and I respect their expertise. But that is the very highest level of dog training, alongside police and military working dogs - and there is an ongoing dispute within the police/military working dog community about whether sufficiently skilled trainers get better performance with or without punishment.

The approach Heinlein suggests to housetraining puppies (or toilet-training toddlers, for that matter) does not work and creates traumatised dogs. You housetrain puppies by appropriately directing their natural instinct not to foul their own dens. A smart dog practically housetrains themselves.

So Heinlein wasn't on point - either he was an idiot or his character was. (Note that Heinlein was a libertarian, so we can be reasonably certain that he did not endorse the decidedly non-libertarian Terran Federation as correct about everything).

Interesting analogy, because most people would say that if a dog behaves it isn't its fault. The fault belongs with the human who failed to teach the dog how to behave, not the animal which is gonna follow its instincts without guidance.

But you also put down murderous dogs. Once they get that way, you can’t untrain it easily and there’s nothing to gain by imprisoning it.

Sure, I agree that is the logical conclusion of this line of thinking (although people ascribe a higher value to human life than animal life so it isn't likely to fly). I was just commenting how the analogy doesn't really do much to dissuade the "it's not their fault" thinking.

One reason we get unchecked crime is the excuse that criminals don't have agency when committing crimes, but must be treated as if they have agency otherwise. As long as that and similar thought patterns are ascendant, any attempt to fix the problem systemically will fail

No, the only reason we get unchecked crime is that people choose to allow crime to go unchecked.

I’m a redneck with a GED. Who do you think is supposed to train them to act civilized? Man isn’t born knowing how to behave.

Neutral questions: Then what is anyone's fault? What model of responsibility do you espouse?

This question hangs on the Hobbes-Rousseau debate pretty much.

Which is to say, is society good or evil, and is man inherently evil or good.

If you think that man was doing great in anarchy and society was unjustly foisted upon him, creating all his faults in the process, your project is naturally to destroy society and restore the state of nature.

I'm still not quite sure what to make of the fact they were both wrong anthropologically speaking and that society was never created but always was a feature of humans.

It does make ostracism a harsh punishment that is perhaps too cruel, but it also completely destroys any excuse for antisocial behavior.

However, he got in a bit of an X spat with Cremieux over one aspect of the essay, and in the back and the forth

Come on, let's have the link!

I've never linked to X before, lets see if this works.

People who are not logged into Twitter can only see the linked Tweet, not the context.

Here's the whole thread:

Crémieux Recueil: I just saw a cost-benefit analysis of prisons where prisons save society money until you factor out $50,000 per prisoner per year for "suffering", then they cost society "money".

Scott Alexander: I think this is an inaccurate description of the study.

It costs society money if you take the author's mainline beliefs, if you adjust for current incarceration costs (I didn't do this adjustment because then you'd have to inflate crime costs as well, and I didn't know how to do this, but plausibly cost disease has driven up incarceration costs faster than inflation), or if you're thinking about blue states (which have higher incarceration costs than red states). I described it as saving society a small amount of money under the most generous possible assumptions, but being net negative otherwise.

But also, it does seem like low-key torturing hundreds of thousands of people, ~5% of whom are innocent, is a "social welfare cost". The process used to value that cost at $50,000 is no sillier than the process used to value a murder at -$9.4MM, or any of the other crime numbers in the paper.

Crémieux Recueil: I think it is sillier, since a point of prison for many is to punish, whereas there's no justification for murder.

One commenter posited a reductio that should probably be addressed: by this logic is everything you can buy free after accounting for "joy" or "forgone suffering"?

Scott Alexander: Not just free, but positive sum! If we didn't count the value of joy in buying things, we would have to model all trades as exploitative - stupid people getting tricked into giving companies money for no reason.

If we discount the suffering involved in prison because prisoners are bad people, we should also discount the suffering involved in murder insofar as murder victims may also be bad people (eg drug dealers, gang members, etc). I think a virtue-weighted utilitarianism would be fun to think about, but I've never heard anyone seriously propose it.

Crémieux Recueil: A voluntary purchase should be positive-sum to an individual, but if I buy an expensive truck, I may strain the family budget enough to turn it negative at the household level regardless of my personal enjoyment of the truck.

If I'm involuntarily committing someone to prison and generating enormous surplus for society, throwing in suffering for them, that relatively few outside of prison care about, messes up the whole equation by mixing up costs and benefits across levels of aggregation and treating all the numbers alike when they aren't. If the weight for suffering was adjusted to reflect that, that might make things fine, but no one can reasonably stand on a high estimated cost of prisoner suffering if they're doing cost-benefit analyses for the society we live in.

Given that criminals are generally disliked, suffering is being given a value above prisoners' incomes outside of prison (before and after imprisonment), and false-positive rates are low (especially for long-term prisoners), suffering probably adds value to society anyway. That's part of the now academically neglected retributive function of prison.

Scott Alexander: I think this is a good place to apply Thatcher's Law ("there's no such thing as Society"). Benefits go to individuals - people who don't get robbed, people who don't get stabbed, etc. Even indirect benefits go to individuals - people who live in nicer communities. It's perfectly valid to count costs to other people against the benefits to these people.

But also, aren't you supposed to be based and IQ-pilled? Have you met the average prisoner? They've got the IQ and self-restraint of like a ten-year old child. I don't really know who it benefits to keep creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society and then, when they fail to live in modern society, say "Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that".

I'm totally fine with the consequentialist position of weighing their suffering against the suffering of their victims, I could even potentially be convinced that this suggests incarceration at or above current margins. I just don't see why we have to add "desert" into it, which I think implies some kind of failure to exercise a self-restraint that these people never had in the first place. You wouldn't say that a kid deserves to suffer super hard for some arbitrary number of years because they hit their sibling. You'd give them whatever punishment you expected, through deterrence and/or incapacitation, to either make them a better person or protect their sibling in the future. Why hold criminals to a higher standard?

Crémieux Recueil: Making the analysis entirely individual-level is consistent with what I've said. But I don't think the analysis as it was done actually does that adequately, and it ends up extremely overweighting the suffering of criminals beyond all reason. If you're being "based and IQ-pilled" this stands up: those people average far lower incomes before imprisonment than even $50k/yr.

Now regarding desert, having it as a guiding principle in criminal justice doesn't mean to engage in exorbitant punishment, but it does mean to punish people fairly and equally. If you kill a stranger in cold blood and Bob with a 75 IQ kills a stranger in cold blood, you should both receive the same punishment even if Bob didn't really know any better. If you remove desert from the equation, you necessarily move towards illiberal justice, and I have a strong preference for liberalism and find it hard to imagine rational and workable criminal justice without it.

I don't really know who it benefits to keep creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society and then, when they fail to live in modern society, say "Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that".

Is he saying we should practice eugenics?

Not that I'm opposed, but...he knows about heredity and the poor track record of educational interventions above and beyond what we're already doing, so what else could he mean by "creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society?"

That's such a cop-out and a distraction. Criminals shouldn't have been born in the first place? Unless you have a time machine that's entirely irrelevant as to how to punish them in the meantime.

Relevant post on his Tumblr from 2017 when he was doing child psychiatry:

Public service announcement: if you have a kid with some kind of horrifying predatory criminal, and now your kid is a horrifying predatory criminal, and you have no idea how this happened because the father left before he was even born and your new husband is a great guy and you’ve both always done your best to raise your kid well and give him a good home, your kid’s psychiatrist will listen empathetically to your story, and then empathetically give you a copy of The Nurture Assumption.

…maybe not actually. But it will definitely be on his mind. And maybe it would get people to stop having so many kids with horrifying predatory criminals. Seriously, I’m doing inpatient child psychiatry now and I get multiple cases like this every day.

This part of the followup post also seems relevant:

2 Did you know there are whole institutions for dealing with kids who sexually molest other kids? And these institutions are always full? The world is much worse than anybody thinks and I cannot finish up my child psychiatry rotation quickly enough.

I don't think the tweet Spookykou quoted is nessesarily saying "putting people in prison is the moral equivalent of torturing children", he was just comparing IQ and self-restraint as he said. But note that some of the people who need to be locked up are children. (This also brings to mind the bit in his post Against Against Autism Cures regarding those who are locked in personal sensory hells regardless of whether they also need to be physically restrained or not.)

It seems pretty clear that Scott would favor a voluntary eugenics program and/or genetic engineering.

Back in 2015 he had a fictional op-ed exploring some of the questions about "voluntary" here:

Everything Not Obligatory Is Forbidden

In 2064 there were almost 200 murders nationwide, up from a low of fewer than 50 in 2060. Why is this killer, long believed to be almost eradicated, making a comeback? Criminologists are unanimous in laying the blame on unenhanced children, who lack the improved impulse-control and anger-management genes included in every modern super-enhancement designer baby gene therapy package.

I see in the comments of the post he also established his position more explicitly:

I mean, I am pro voluntary designer babies, although I’m only confident about this in cases where it’s clear enhancement (eg giving kids genes that make them healthier) and not control (eg giving kids genes that make them want to always do what their parents say).

I don’t think I’m pro mandatory designer babies. You might be able to convince me depending on the exact details of the situation. But it probably wouldn’t be through an argument like this.

That “transhumanism is simplified humanism” post at the bottom explains where I’m coming from pretty well.

He's explicit about it in this old post

The more things turn out to be genetic, the more I support universal funding for implantable contraception that allow people to choose when they do or don’t want children – thus breaking the cycle where people too impulsive or confused to use contraception have more children and increase frequency of those undesirable genes. I think I’d have a heck of a lot easier a time changing gene frequency in the population than you would changing people’s locus of control or self-efficacy or whatever, even if I wasn’t allowed to do anything immoral (except by very silly religious standards of “immoral”).

I mean, I think what he’s leaving out is that a lot of underclass single motherhood is essentially voluntary- the girl is baby crazy and bad at future planning, and she’s a hormone addled teenager so she gets pregnant from the sexy bad boy not the guy working to get out of the hood. And there are no marriageable men in most of these ghettos; they leave, so she knows she’s not getting married anyways.

Scott has literally donated money to sterilize drug users.

That link does not warrant that conclusion.

He announced his intention to donate money to sterilize drug users.

On the spur of the moment he said he "thinks" he "probably" will, but also expressed reservations about it. I wouldn't hang a man for such an offhand comment in an informal setting.

I mean on the one hand, yes, but on the other hand, we can assume people do the things they say they would like to do, absent evidence to the contrary.

Disagree. I'd like to do all kinds of things I never get around to. And at times I also find myself expressing interest in doing something which, upon later reflection, I don't actually have.

The link does not indicate that Scott donated money to sterilize drug users and that's that.

genetic engineering

I think most people would support this given the conditions that everyone gets a leg up and it was applied society wide IE the rich are not allowed to just make themselves genetic lords over the rest of humanity.

It doesn't take a super-Straussian read of Scott's material to know that he is into eugenics. I suppose he has always towed the line of encouraging eugenic reproduction rather than discouraging dysgenic reproduction, so this does feel like a newer take.

I think the Tumblr post about "do not have kids with psychopaths" was on the discourge-dysnenics side of the line.

I expect that what he has in mind would be something like government-sponsored genetic engineering or embryo screening for prospective underclass parents.

he has always towed the line

Ah, my favorite pet peeve rears its ugly head again: it’s toe the line

Hm, you learn something every day. For some reason I had always imagined this idiom arrived from something nautical and pictured... a tugboat? Towing some kind of line?

Always nice to encounter a fellow member of C.A.N.O.E.!

And since that's apparently impossible to google, try this.

I am opposed, but I find this excerpt you quote ironic since there's reason to believe that harsher criminal justice systems in the past created eugenic effects (but largely without the horrible effects of modern eugenics programs, since the object was not eugenics but rather justice).

In regards to the IQ thing, I can sympathize with Scott. People get a bad roll of the genetic dice and end up with low IQ and high impulsiveness. Then they grow up in a broken home in Flint or Camden, go to a failing public school and end up a common criminal. It’s hard to walk the straight and narrow in those circumstances.

But we can’t just let these people murder and steal either.

The ideal intervention seems obvious. Far longer prison sentences but also prisons which are far less cruel.

Scott’s cost analysis assumes government waste (maybe fair) but doesn’t factor in the cost of criminals having children which might dwarf even the cost of their crimes.

Perhaps an archipelago solution would be an idea.

No, not that kind. The good kind.

The US has partly outsourced running prisons to private enterprise. This is bad because the incentives of prison companies are not the same as the incentives of society.

Instead, one could outsource the rehabilitation process on a voluntary basis, as an alternative to state-run prisons which can be opted out of at any time.

Any organization could, with the prisoners consent, offer them an alternative to state run prisons. If they rehabilitate prisoners at better rates than state prison, they can pocket the costs they saved the criminal justice system. If they do worse, they pay that difference instead.

All kinds of for-profit and not-for-profit orgs could compete. Think that what the criminals really need is Jesus? Just incorporate JesusPrison. Think corporal punishments are the way to go? Fine, as long as you stay within BDSM norms, the prisoners safe word is 'state prison'. Have a shortage of plumbers in your enterprise? Invest in the education of prisoners and offer them jobs afterwards, and benefit from their limited options on the job market. Want to treat criminals for some psychiatric diagnosis? Same rules, with strict oversight. Want to teach the prisoners how this is all societies fault for being racist against them? Whatever you think, as long as you are able to pay the recidivism fine.

Of course, the organizations should be somewhat vetted (the mafia running a 'sex and drugs' based rehabilitation center for their own members is likely not what we want), and the orgs would have to have some kind of liability insurance, but otherwise something like this could work.

Please, please link to the original version of "Archipelago", not the (horrible) revised edition.

Ok, I ran a quick eyeball-based diff, and it looks like in the revised edition, the first two sections were cut, with references to a conworld he ran with Alicorn from which the very name Archipelago was adopted.

The revised edition is much de-nerdified, with the power grantor becoming some generic wizard.

I can see both why Scott wanted a revised edition (which is spending fewer weirdness points on a backstory ultimately not terrible relevant to the point he is making) as well as why you might believe the original version instead of the watered down version edited for mass appeal.

Part of it is that, yes, replacing the rich mythology of Micras and Pelagia with literally "a wizard did it" robbed the piece of much of its pathos and gravitas, but the other part is that deleting all mentions of Mencius Moldbug and Patchwork was an act of cowardice unbecoming of a scholar.

Far longer prison sentences but also prisons which are far less cruel.

I agree completely, along with a more formal separation between prisons for violent and non-violent criminals (rather than the somewhat arbitrary system that exists now), where allocation is also affected by behavior while in the prison system.

Then they grow up in a broken home in Flint or Camden, go to a failing public school and end up a common criminal. [...] The ideal intervention seems obvious. Far longer prison sentences but also prisons which are far less cruel.

Based on your post, I'd say two even better interventions would be to encourage intact homes and improve the failing public schools.

If there was a way to do that, sure.

I don't think executing criminals is outside the Overton Window at all. The death penalty is on the books in most of the world and has remained popular even in countries where it has been abolished, consistently polling majority support in many such nations. Most people want to do it. And lots of people will readily confess that they want murderers and rapists to be executed.

It is specifically unpopular in Western elite circles, for reasons both reasonable and unreasonable, but that's a very unique crowd.

Crime has a very easy and effective solution to it that is known to every civilization: ruthless and immediate enforcement of the law. Delinquents need to be beaten, murderers and rapists need to be hanged, and it all needs to happen as swiftly as possible so as to impress the right connection in the mind of the criminal between the illegal act and the punishment. Criminals need to fear the law as a basis for civilization.

Once you have this basic thing done, you then encounter the two long lasting problems: organized crime and impulsive deviants.

The former is almost impossible to squash totally but can be negotiated with and restrained to specific areas of life (and actually help make law enforcement more practical in some cases).

The latter is the more ugly side of it because if you want to have civilization, the only answer to it is ostracism or death. Some people are functionally incapable of participating in society, and they need to be taken out of it or it ceases to exist.

Now it is not nice to have to face the reality that some people cannot participate in society, that there is such a thing as savages, it's almost unfathomable to Liberal ideology that axiomatically models the individual as a rational educated bourgeois from the 1800s.

But crime as a phenomenon is real, in the sense that it's still there even if you refuse to believe in it. That one guy will reach for a cop's gun in the middle of a precinct because his mind is incapable of connecting fucking around with finding out.

Older Liberals recognized this reality and made some dispensations for it. They just failed to integrate it properly into their ideology and now the logical conclusion of their political formula (helped along by its opponents of course) ends up at absurdities like the idea that the pathological criminal is a victim of society existing, and that we should therefore dismantle society. Conveniently forgetting that in the resulting state, he visits horror upon the innocent.

Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that

They deserve to be excluded from society. Because mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

If you are a violent creature who can't be reasoned with, you are more like a tiger than a human in moral terms, and should be treated as such. Do dangerous animals deserve to be locked behind bars? Perhaps not, but we don't let them feast on human flesh because we don't extend the same moral community to them as we do innocent human life.

OK, to be super explicit:

Crime has a very easy and effective solution to it that is known to every civilization: ruthless and immediate enforcement of the law. Delinquents need to be beaten, murderers and rapists need to be hanged, and it all needs to happen as swiftly as possible so as to impress the right connection in the mind of the criminal between the illegal act and the punishment. Criminals need to fear the law as a basis for civilization.

Yes, this would be ideal if it could be accomplished on exactly the terms that you lay out.

The obvious problem (and come on folks, you're not really this dumb not to get this) is that if you empower any actual institution composed of human beings with the ability to quickly hang criminals, then control of that institution becomes a key locus of power which ends up being used, as power always does, to take spoils and entrench itself. This is such a recurring pattern in historical record as to be a meme -- oh, look, the body for public safety turning to infighting and executing its founding members -- lol.

This is especially true when building a machinery that can then be turned around when someone decide that "hate speech" is now criminal and starts sending journalists and others to jail (happening right now over the.pond) or whatever-it-is-they-are-on-about-today.

Look, I'm not actually here to preach soft on crime bullshit or to suggest that punishment should be slow or that criminals shouldn't fear the law. But things are the way they are for a very good reason. This isn't even a plausibly-useless fence! It's a fence coated in innumerable layers of blood.

control of that institution becomes a key locus of power which ends up being used, as power always does, to take spoils and entrench itself

Of course. This is essentially impossible to prevent. Power cannot be destroyed. And it's always absolute, however many lies it hides itself behind.

I am simply demanding that whoever holds power act as a responsible steward and punish criminals. A sovereign that doesn't have the power or inclination to do so deserves to be deposed. Which is why many a dysfunctional democracy turn to dictatorship. Not in a tragic bout of madness, but in a quite pragmatic demand for a ruler, any ruler, that will take his basic duties seriously.

If the political system of your nation is designed so as to prevent the consolidation of power to a degree that it becomes impossible to rule, then it is ripe for a coup.

Americans should know this, since this is how their constitution was instituted, in exactly this kind of a coup against the articles of confederation.

Of course. This is essentially impossible to prevent. Power cannot be destroyed. And it's always absolute, however many lies it hides itself behind.

That's not quite true. Power cannot be destroyed, but the utility of power is, at some point, super-linear and so dispersal of power functions in practice to dampen and diminish it. This was figured out (at least) as early as the Roman Republic.

Moreover, power can be bound up into systems of formal ritual and circumstance that act as a similar dampener. Again, the Romans stumbled upon this, as did many other effective ruling structures. Even in absolute rule, the emperor would exercise it from a specific place and in a specific manner.

I am simply demanding that whoever holds power act as a responsible steward and punish criminals. A sovereign that doesn't have the power or inclination to do so deserves to be deposed. Which is why many a dysfunctional democracy turn to dictatorship. Not in a tragic bout of madness, but in a quite pragmatic demand for a ruler, any ruler, that will take his basic duties seriously.

And likewise I am demanding that whoever holds power also refrains from using it against the innocent and, in particular, against threats to their political power.

These are not incompatible goals, but you're kind of glossing over the insane difficulty of it. Creating a system that punishes the guilty and not the innocent with any kind of accuracy/speed and that is resistant to corruption remains an unsolved problem. You're posting here saying "I demand they do it" doesn't actually solve anything.

Of course, within the three goals of accuracy/speed/fidelity, there is a tradeoff margin, and it's totally fair to say "they should prioritize X over Y or Z over X". But that doesn't appear (?) to be the case.

If the political system of your nation is designed so as to prevent the consolidation of power to a degree that it becomes impossible to rule, then it is ripe for a coup.

It is better to be unruled than to fall into dictatorship (or worse). I'm reminded of the last part of this book review in terms of the tradeoffs between ungovernability and ability to slip into collective psychosis.

This was figured out (at least) as early as the Roman Republic.

It was "figured out" by every republican form of government and subsequently refuted every single time by circumstance. As in the case of the Roman Republic which died precisely out of a need to split power which necessarily coalesced interest onto two rival factions with no choice but escalation, ultimately leading to a winner take all struggle and a return to monarchy that neither side wanted.

It turns out however fancy your rituals are, the incentives of consolidation are simply stronger.

Republics try to pretend that they can bound power in ritual. But a keen observer of their inner workings will notice that this is a sham. In the state of exception, they act as arbitrarily and beyond the spirit of their own rules as the most temperamental of personal tyrants.

I'd like to remind everyone we personally witnessed this a few years ago.

You're posting here saying "I demand they do it" doesn't actually solve anything.

I'm tempted to point to the obvious that this place doesn't capture the sum total of my political action.

But if you understand how power works you know that making this demand often and publicly is the only way to get a good ruler if you are not an elite yourself.

The mistreated masses cannot solve this problem. They need a counter elite to form and their best bet is therefore to loudly advertise that they will pledge undying loyalty to their would be saviour. I believe this is called "populism".

But I understand your objection is that I'm not engaging in the liberal game of making sophisticated chains for the State.

All I can really tell you is that it is a fool's errand because the nature of power escapes all such chains, that the separation of powers is a myth that has never been instantiated, that politics revolves around group coalitions, not rituals, that every single political regime ever is a totalitarianism in waiting and that you'd understand this if you had considered politics as it is instead of how it ought to be.

Freedom is not to be found in establishing lasting rules to constrain power, it is found in the cracks that exist when it has no need to consolidate itself at one's expense.

A secure ruler can be far less tyrannical than a feckless one. Consider, for instance, how the gridlock of the US parliamentary system has reemerged as vast executive power and legislation from the bench, the total opposite of the intention. Meanwhile laissez faire is a maxim coined under absolutism.

I don't mean to imply that I hate republics. They are perfectly serviceable. But their political formula is fiction, in no less true a sense as divine right is. Acting as if setting up rules will change political reality is a kind of magical thinking. As above, so below. But that's not how it works. It's the incentives and the people that matter ultimately, not the written rules.

It is better to be unruled than to fall into dictatorship

This is simply not true and the only way you can even have this opinion is because you have never set foot in true lawlessness.

I beg you to actually visit a country that is experiencing it, as I have, and you will see what manner of horrors humanity can produce when it is left to mob rule. I hear Libya is nice at this time of year.

Not that the desirability of government is a matter of any import, since it's restoration is inevitable. Feudal rulers start out as successful bandits after all. But chaos can last for a while, and I happen to value my life and property, so the maintenance of public order is a concern.

This is especially true when building a machinery that can then be turned around when someone decide that "hate speech" is now criminal and starts sending journalists and others to jail (happening right now over the.pond)

The problem is that what is also happening right now is rapists being let off with a slap on the wrist, so I don't quite see how being soft on crime is supposed to protect anyone from this.

I think you are conflating being soft on crime in a policy sense (e.g. some knob that increases or decreases the relative punishment) and adopting procedural guardrails (e.g. some knob that tradeoff accuracy(x)specificity).

Crime has a very easy and effective solution to it that is known to every civilization: ruthless and immediate enforcement of the law.

The problem with that approach is that it will quickly become incompatible with liberal democracy when the swift and ruthless standard is applied with political motivation.

Consider how Jan 6 would have worked out in your system of ruthless efficiency: likely either Trump has Pence arrested, convicted and hanged for subverting an election before sundown, or he himself is hanged for treason. (And no, you can't separate political and non-political trials reliably. The best you might do is to have summary justice for commoners (presumed non-political) and some refined justice system for nobles.)

The stable configuration for your efficient system of punishment is some kind of autocratic regime. This is why in the legal system of western democracies, swift efficiency was not the primary design goal. There is a reason why the designers of the US constitution (and subsequently the SCOTUS) were so big on procedural checks. It is not because they were having too much sympathy for murderers.

As H.L. Mencken said:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

--

Also, you say about organized crime:

The former is almost impossible to squash totally but can be negotiated with and restrained to specific areas of life (and actually help make law enforcement more practical in some cases).

I tend to disagree. Sure, if the law prohibits something which is very popular, such as drugs, gambling or prostitution, then trying to stop can be practically impossible. But just turning a blind eye to the mob's enterprises hardly seems like an adequate solution. I mean, it works fine for the upper crust of society, who are unlikely to frequent harsh gambling dens, be sex workers or consume impure drugs.

A better approach would be to legalize and regulate the vices which society can stomach (likely prostitution), and crack down hard on the vices it can not (e.g. snuff movies).

it will quickly become incompatible with liberal democracy when the swift and ruthless standard is applied with political motivation

This simply isn't true historically, except for very loose definitions of "quickly" or "liberal democracy".

Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and the Englishmen of that era were hardcore believers in law and order and in a standard of liberal democracy that is much stronger than what you probably mean.

The missing ingredient isn't lenience. On the contrary, speedy execution of laws makes everyone know where they stand and political participation an important and sacred part of life, since it has tangible effects on your life.

What it's incompatible with is managerialism.

Once you have this basic thing done, you then encounter the two long lasting problems: organized crime and impulsive deviants.

There's an obvious third problem.

I too am failing to see the obvious third problem.

Speak plainly, not with these snide, low-effort jabs that you've been warned about repeatedly now.

I'm real dumb, can you tell me what the obvious third problem is so I feel less dumb?

If you've something to say, please say it.

Delinquents need to be beaten, murderers and rapists need to be hanged, and it all needs to happen as swiftly as possible so as to impress the right connection in the mind of the criminal between the illegal act and the punishment.

Hence the right to a SPEEDY trial.

The reason the average trial takes so long to commence is defendant delay. If you shoot a clerk at 7/11 and get picked up that day. You'll be charged by tomorrow, in bond court the day after, indicted and arraigned within 30 days, and the prosecution will be ready for trial in 60. But your public defender (because lets be honest you dont have and cant keep a real job) wont be. And you will flirt with a private attorney half a dozen times. And they will lose the discovery the state already gave them and demand the same video surveillance 10x before trying to get you to plea, and you will flirt with said plea for 3 years before demanding a trial that you will lose. But now it will be a big pain for everyone because the murder detective retired to Florida and all the 7/11 employees who used to maintain that video system now work for wal mart on the other side of the state.

If the perp gets picked up the same day, why can't he be tried the same day? It sounds like an optimization problem. Maybe you need a drawn-out trial for something like homicide, but for shoplifting you could have a streamlined sentencing center:

  • the cop takes the perp, the victim, any witnesses and any evidence to the sentencing center
  • there the cop, the victim and the witnesses give their testimonies to a cop-LLM and leave (1h)
  • an on-duty ADA and an on-duty public defender review the testimonies and the evidence and come up with a plea bargain (30m)
  • the public defender meets with the perp and offers him the bargain (30m)
  • if the perp pleads guilty, an on-duty judge stamps it and the perp goes to jail
  • if the perp doesn't accept the deal, they all move into the next courtroom
  • there the DA presents the evidence and the testimonies to the on-duty jury (1h)
  • the public defender tries to present the same evidence in a different way (30m)
  • the jury deliberates minutes and gives a verdict: guilty, not guilty, full-scale trial required (15m)
  • the on-duty judge sentences the perp if found guilty (15m)

It's still a lot of time wasted on the jury trial (just 4 cases per jury each day), but hopefully most crimes will be done at the first step, which takes only 2 hours per crime.

By the time they guy is arrested and booked our officer and store clerk are probably on hour 10 of their shift. You want them to hang out for another 2 for some sort of preliminary hearing, then another 3 for a jury trial (where are these jurors coming from, and who is doing voir dire by the way?).

No, they just submit their testimonies and leave. The recorded versions are used during the quicktrial.

The jury comes from the same place all other jurors come from, voter rolls? As for voir dire, do you mean juror selection? Whichever assistant attorney and public defender are the first to arrive in the morning can do this.

Do you want speedy trials or not? Because the alternative is Cousin Wang and his merry gang disincentivizing theft on their turf by breaking bones.

I would think no defense counsel would agree to basically any of your plan.

Why should anyone ask them? I'm talking about a judicial reform, is it a federal legislative matter or a state legislative matter?

More comments

You've denied the perp the right to a lawyer, instead turning his case over to someone who gets his paychecks from the same place the prosecutor (and the judge and the jailers) get them.

Who do public defenders get their paychecks from right now?

Same place; the system is a farce.

Even a public defender trying his middle in the system described (finances aside) would not agree to the system proposed. On call PDs dont currently exist. Their job is, on average, super easy, but from time to time they can actually do good and get an innocent person acquitted, and that takes a lot of time. Maybe some woman's wife is dead and he hated her, but establishing the alibi takes months. This is uncommon, but exists.

Still miles better than an NKVD trojka.

More comments

I worked in a tech hub next to a ghetto. A large number of engineers were terrorized by a small group of young men. There were more engineers who were fit gun owning veterans than there were criminals.

The criminals were generally in poor physical condition, disorganized and not an especially impressive force.

Had the cops not been there the criminals would have been dealt with swiftly. However, the police protected them. If they stole a bike, nothing happened. If an engineer with friends shut it down, they would have had their lives ruined. The criminals didn't mind getting arrested for smaller crimes. The engineers were terrified of even getting arrested. The imbalance in the risk acceptance between tech workers and criminals completely shifted the power dynamic on the street. When they mugged a developer on the way home from work it wasn't by physically overpowering them, it essentially a game of chicken in which the developer was more afraid of going to prison. It is simply cheaper to clean up graffiti on a weekly basis than to spend an night waiting in the bushes with bats and dealing with the problem.

The justice system is too harsh toward people with a life while not being effective at keeping people who can't function of the street. Ideally the dysfunctional crowd shouldn't be punished but warehoused in a place that provides them with structure, meaning and a well balanced life. Mental asylums need to be scaled up.

This is a point which our dear departed permabanned follower of Hobbes liked to make: The government is not there to protect the honest people from the criminals. It is there to protect the criminals from the honest people.

I think about this whenever I see “protestors” shut down highways. If there was a 100% guarantee of no police involvement whatsoever the commuters would physically move them out of the way within a few minutes. But if you did that you’d be arrested and lose your job. Functionally the police are there to protect those obstructing traffic and falsely imprisoning people.

It's like this in prison too. I read extracts from this shocking report about what goes on in US prisons. If it were down to me, this alone would get America expelled from the first world, though considering Rotherham and similar the ranks of the civilized countries would dwindle very quickly:

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html

Joe Schmo gets into prison for some DUI offence. Unfortunately he has a slightly feminine looking appearance and isn't that big. His attitude isn't sufficiently manly, maybe he's not streetsmart, maybe he's too intellectual, maybe he's white...

Punishment for his crime? Vicious anal rape and forced prostitution, HIV infection too.

Wayne "Booty Bandit" Robertson is in prison for murder - life sentence. But he is big and very strong.

Punishment for his crime? Sex on demand with his cellmate and exciting opportunities in the slave-trading business.

This is the reverse of justice. It would be far more humane and civilized to blow Wayne's head off with an autocannon and let Joe serve his sentence in peace. Wayne is a bad hombre and should be liquidated in a spectacular and intimidating way, to demonstrate that we are not in the stone-age anymore, there are more important things than muscle mass and naked aggression.

Imagining a social media intern barging into the HRW editor's office.
"Someone linked your report, sir!"
"Excellent, what conclusion did he draw from it?"
"Um..."

"I want to reduce the prison population."

"Great! The Innocence Project is looking for new advo..."

"That's not quite what I meant..."

According to wikipedia (though others dispute this), the US is the only country on Earth where there's more male-on-male rape than male-on-female, there have been some legal changes but no significant practical improvements since 2001.

It's ridiculous that people who commit the worst crimes are practically untouchable since their sentence can hardly get longer.

I'm fully on board with the death penalty proposal, but also, I don't understand why prison operators can't maintain a monopoly on violence even in its absence. Is it simply jurisprudence that has made corporal punishment and solitary confinement impossible or would it somehow be unaffordable to apply them as needed? A guy alone in a room with food coming through a slot can't rape or intimidate anyone, and I have a hard time believing that the extra number of toilets required wouldn't pay for itself by cutting down on all the violence that prison guards have to deal with, even leaving aside the benefits to cooperative prisoners.

According to HRW the problem is due to understaffing and overcrowding in prisons (often poorly designed older ones) and a lack of consequences. De facto, lawyers don't want to prosecute prisoners or prisons, they don't feel like there's any good payoff there (especially if they're basically telling prisons they don't know what they're doing). They want to have a cordial relationship with prisons apparently.

Prison guards basically outsource social control to prisoners because they're lazy and don't care. They'll line up 20 people in front of the victim and go 'alright which one was it' - marking the victim as a snitch who recieves worse treatment. It's indirect corporal punishment, like anarcho-tyranny but for prisons (maximum anarchy and maximum tryanny). If they don't like you, they can see to it that Wayne Robertson is your cellmate.

In the worst cases, prisoners are actually placed in the same cell with inmates who are likely to victimize them--sometimes even with inmates who have a demonstrated proclivity for sexually abusing others. The case of Eddie Dillard, a California prisoner who served time at Corcoran State Prison in 1993, is an especially chilling example of this problem. Dillard, a young first-timer who had kicked a female correctional officer, was transferred to the cell of Wayne Robertson, a prisoner known by all as the "Booty Bandit."(412) The skinny Dillard was no match for Robertson, a huge, muscular man serving a life sentence for murder. Not only was Robertson nearly twice Dillard's weight, but he had earned his nickname through his habit of violently raping other prisoners.

Before the end of the day, the inevitable occurred: Robertson beat Dillard into submission and sodomized him. For the next two days, Dillard was raped repeatedly, until finally his cell door was opened and he ran out, refusing to return. A correctional officer who worked on the unit later told the Los Angeles Times: "Everyone knew about Robertson. He had raped inmates before and he's raped inmates since."(413) Indeed, according to documents submitted at a California legislative hearing on abuses at Corcoran, Robertson had committed more than a dozen rapes inside Corcoran and other prisons.(414) By placing Dillard in a cell with Robertson, the guards were setting him up for punishment.

Whether as a purposeful act or through mere negligence prisoners are all too often placed together with cellmates who rape them. A Connecticut prisoner told Human Rights Watch how he too was raped by a cellmate with a history of perpetrating rape:

It's mostly incentives. Nobody cares what happens to prisoners, especially at the hand of other prisoners, so if there are benefits to allowing it, it won't be stopped. And there are major benefits to the government for allowing it in general, in addition to all the specific benefits to parts of the system. The prospect of prison rape keeps quite a few Joe Schmos on the straight and narrow.

I find an interesting contrast between this and a European country I visited, which shall remain nameless.

Some pickpocket stole the phone of a friend of mine but didn't prevent us from geolocating it. We went to the police fully expecting the usual recording of a police report that would never amount to anything but a piece of paper for his insurance.

But no, the local policeman took the info, told us to wait in the precinct, and after an hour or so turned up with the phone and the (visibly beaten) thief, asking us what we wanted to do with him. I got the sense that we could have roughed him up ourselves without even the need for a bribe.

After that I never really doubted that the police having more respect for criminals than law abiding citizens is a choice.

which shall remain nameless

Why?

And this is a political choice made by people who are not, themselves, police officers.

I have sufficient IRL far-right street cred to have ordinary cops admit to me that they wish somebody would solve the coordination problem to bring sombra negra here, or ensure that self-help vigilantism was ignored by the legal system.

After that I never really doubted that the police having more respect for criminals than law abiding citizens is a choice.

I don't think there are many police anywhere that have more respect from criminals than citizens. It's just that different places have different rules/expectations for how criminals can be treated. Unless by "police" you're referring more broadly to the criminal justice system.

I'm speaking in a The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does kind of way.

I have no doubt the French policeman I talked to a few years ago cared more for me than the guy who mugged me, but in the end the guy got off with a slap on the wrist even though he was a known criminal, and I never saw my wallet again.

It didn't have to be this way. Society has chosen that my property and time is less valuable than some known criminal's freedom. And I think that's clearly dysfunctional.

I'm guessing this was not Northern or Western Europe.

relevant

He's charitably describing even the best-case scenario of someone who was at least functional before going to prison, something blue-collar or menial, had a wife he slapped around occasionally and kids he'd over-discipline when drunk. Not a great human being, but a step or two above the functional scum they are now.

had a wife he slapped around occasionally and kids he'd over-discipline when drunk

We're definitely too soft on that sort of crime.

This is fair, but I highlighted the ten year obsolete job skills for a reason, blue-collar and menial jobs just do not change much on that time scale.

Yes they do. The bottom end of my trade overlaps with the top end of people who go to jail- my memories are that guys who went to jail for aggravated assault or making sex tapes with their teenaged girlfriends or whatever lost their career skills in the meantime.

Obviously, they weren’t top of the field to begin with. And they could usually start over at the very bottom instead of somewhat near the bottom. But still.

I mean, maybe that is true in your trade specifically? I was thinking of jobs that I have done, like working at a bar, or a restaurant, or working retail, or working at UPS loading trucks, even working at an auto-shop the loss of a couple years is basically nothing. I am not even sure what 'skill loss' looks like for most of the menial labor I have done such that it is a coherent concern.

Fair enough, but it can come up at least potentially.

Towards a grand unified theory of birth rate collapse

Ask someone without any interest in the topic why birth rates are collapsing globally or in their own country, and they will usually find some way of saying it's too expensive. Either wages aren't high enough, house prices are too high, childcare costs too much. Often they will bring in their own pet issue as a rationalisation (global warming, inequality, immigration, taxes).

They are of course, wrong. Global GDP per capita has never been higher, and global TFR has never been lower. Countries with higher GDP per capita numbers tend to have lower birth rates, although the relationship isn't necessarily causal. Clearly, 'we can't afford it' isn't factually true.

So what is causing it? There are certainly things that governments and cultures can and have done to encourage births on the margins. Cheaper housing does allow earlier household formation, which increases births. Dense housing suppresses birth rates, even if the dense housing lowers overall housing costs. Religiosity increases birth rates, all other things being equal. Tax cuts for parents increase birth rates. Marriage increases birth rates vs cohabiting. Young people living with their parents decreases birth rates. Immigration of high-TFR groups works until the second generation. Generous maternity leave and cheap childcare seem to help. However, none of these seem to be decisive. There are countries that do everything right and yet birth rates still continue to decline.

The universality of the birth rate collapse suggests that the main cause must be something more fundamental then any of the policies or cultural practices I have named. Something that affects every country and people (with a few notable exceptions that will be the key to working out what's going on).

Substacker Becoming Noble proposes that the birth rate collapse is caused by one thing:

Status

Specifically, I contend that the basic epistemological assumptions which underpin modern civilization result in the net status outcome of having a child being lower than the status outcomes of various competing undertakings, and that this results in a population-wide hyper-sensitivity to any and all adverse factors which make having children more difficult, whatever these may be in a given society.

In such a paradigm, if a tradeoff is to be made between having children and another activity which results in higher status conferral (an example would be ‘pursuing a successful career’ for women) then having children will be deprioritized. Because having and raising children is inherently difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, these tradeoffs are common, and so the act of having children is commonly and widely suppressed.

I won't spend too much time summarising the article. It is excellently written and I wouldn't do it justice. The key thing to take away is that, within global culture, having children is neutral or negative for status.

But let's apply the hypothesis to various groups with unusually high or low birth rates and see if they match the predicition.

Becoming Noble gives the example of Koreans. Infamously, South Korea has the lowest birth rate on the planet. It is also hyper-competitive and status obsessed. Children spend most of their waking hours studying for the all-important college entrance exam, so they can get into the best college, to get into the best company from a small selection of prestigious Chaebols (the most prestigious is Samsung, as you'd imagine). According to Malcolm Collins, the Korean language even requires its speakers to refer to people based on their job title, even in non-professional settings. In a country which is defined by zero-sum status competition, the main casualty is fertility.

Of course, South Koreans aren't the only East Asians to have low birth rates. All East Asian countries have very low birth rates, and the East Asian diaspora also has very low birth rates, even in relatively high-TFR countries like the USA or Australia.

Richard Hanania proposes that East Asians, being particularly conformist, are particularly sensitive to the status trade-offs of having children. This would explain why we see similarly low TFRs among the diaspora.

So now we move on to groups with unusually high TFRs. The most famous are the Amish and the Hasidic/Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

The Amish are rural, religious people, so we would expect them to have a relatively high TFR, but even compared to other rural Americans, the Amish stand out for extremely high fertility. They don't spend long in school, they marry young (and don't allow divorce) and stick to traditional gender roles. But according to this description of Amish life, the key factor is that among the Amish, being married and having a large family is high status, for both men and women. Amish culture is cut off from global culture in important ways. They are not exposed to television or the internet, they don't socialise much with the English, and they are limited in what modern status goods they can buy. So for young Amish, the only way to gain any status is to marry and have children.

Unlike the Amish, the Haredim are urban people. Instead of leaving school at 14, the young men spend their most productive years in Torah study, supported by their wives and government benefits or charity. Meanwhile, their women pop out children and work at the same time. Urban living, extended education, and a rejection of traditional gender roles should all suppress their fertility, but they don't. Tove (Wood from Eden) proposes that the religious restrictions on Haredi men reduce the worry from Haredi women that their menfolk might leave them. This, combined with a religiously-motivated rejection of global culture encourages them to focus their status-seeking energies on having large families. This also seems to have the knock-on effect of increasing Israeli birth rates among other Jewish groups there.

Another interesting example of high birth rates in non-African countries are central Asian countries like Mongolia and Kazakhstan. These countries seem to have been able to reverse, and not just slow down birth rate decline. Pronatalist Daniel Hess argues that this is because these countries make motherhood high status in a way that most others don't. Their Soviet history and the fact that their languages don't use the Latin alphabet means that the populations are not very exposed to English-language global culture.

So what is to be done? There is of course no magic button that a president can push to make parenthood high status. But the most obvious thing would be for governments to simply tell their citizens that having children is pro-social. They should promote having kids the same way they promote recycling or public transport. Promoting marriage would likely help, as well as pivoting school sex education away from avoiding teenage pregnancy (which has essentially disappeared in the developed world) and towards avoiding unplanned childlessness.

So, I had some thoughts on this topic come up when watching the Nostalgia Critic review tv commercials from the 80s and 90s — specifically, the “baby doll” commercials. Ads for dolls that cry, and wet themselves, and such; with those all held up as selling points for the toy. In particular, the 1996 “Take Care of Me Twins,” with their burping, drooling, runny noses, etc., and how stressed out the girl in the ad looks — and this is intended to make girls want these dolls? And yet…

Which reminded me of the 2016 Australian study discussed here, about how baby simulator dolls intended for education programs discouraging teen pregnancy — replacing the old “haul around a bag of flour for a week” method they used back when I was in “health” class — actually increased a girl’s probability of having a kid by age 20 (and, interestingly, also “a 6% lower proportion of abortions, compared with the control group”). This raises a few points, starting with the fact that as family sizes have gotten smaller, society has become more atomized, birthrates have fallen, and childcare has been increasingly professionalized, the amount of exposure people — particularly young people — have to babies and infants has definitely declined.

First, like the article notes, there’s nothing that triggers “baby fever” in some woman like spending time around babies — or even just a quality simulacrum of one. But with no extended family, fewer siblings (and siblings closer together in age), no babysitting the neighbors’ toddler for a couple hours as a teen, fewer of the women in their friend group having kids and bringing the baby around for everyone to coo over, and so on, how many people these days can go most of their life with minimal exposure to cute young humans? So many women end up with their only exposure to maternal-instinct-triggering-stimuli being small animals, and then we wonder why they end up with “fur babies” instead of children? (It’s a sort of feedback loop.)

Relatedly, people have mentioned the decline of alloparenting in the context of not having Grandma around to help with the kids anymore. But go far enough back, and plenty of alloparenting used to be done by younger relatives too. Back when you could have families of five, six, or more siblings, spread out across a decade or more. You’d have the older girls as teenagers helping out with their younger siblings, and then the younger girls as teens helping their older siblings out with their nieces and nephews. Teenagers babysitting younger kids. Many more girls would end up with some level of experience in child care before becoming mothers themselves. Now, how many women have no experience whatsoever before having a kid, making parenthood a sink-or-swim prospect of plunging straight into the metaphorical deep end?

Then, of course, there’s the messages that those anti-teen pregnancy education programs mentioned above end up sending. Sure, they’re supposed to be about delaying parenthood, but the actual message ends up being pretty antinatal. A lot about waiting to have kids “until you’re ready,” but nothing about what that readiness looks like. A lot about being too young to become a parent, but nothing about ending up too old to become a parent. The message is all “BABIES ARE HORRIBLE! HAVING ONE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE FOREVER! PARENTHOOD IS SCARY! SCARY! SCARY!” We make the prospect of motherhood terrifying, give no opportunity to prepare for it, encourage delaying it until conditions are absolutely perfect… and then wonder why people aren’t having kids. Particularly when you add in everything discussed in this thread about safetyism and allergy to responsibility.

Note that this suggests another way we can help address the birthrate issue, by addressing the education issue here. Note, to some degree it’s simply a change in emphasis. That is, go from “don’t have kids (until you’re ready)” and “(teen) parenthood is awful” to “don’t have kids until you’re ready” and “teen parenthood is awful.” And, as noted above, it used to be that we could count on families and communities to teach people parenting skills prior to becoming one (making the prospect less scary), but, as also noted, social atomization and the decline itself have deprived us of this. Hence, the need for institutions to step in to fill that gap, and provide a way for young people to be taught and given practice in basic child care.

All of this, of course, is not to say that many of the other factors people point to — housing, the modern hyper-moble job market, the two-income “trap”, safetyism, decline of religion (or even just positive visions for the future) — don’t also matter quite a lot; nor that fixing middle school sex ed will reverse it entirely. But, as the old saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging it deeper.

I think that this is a very good take, but I would further add that I think "teen pregnancy" as a snarl phrase is a malformed or malicious meme to begin with, antinatalist in itself even before the emphasis is added. We should be trying to discourage unwed pregnancy, while encouraging women to have children inside of wedlock both early and often. Surely our society would be in much better condition than it is now if it was seen as a terribly unfeminine thing for a woman to be unmarried or childless at 16. It might seem gross, backwater, Muslimesque - but what did being liberal and feminist get us?

We should be trying to discourage unwed pregnancy, while encouraging women to have children inside of wedlock both early and often.

Agreed. (The decline of the "shotgun wedding" has probably been a net negative for society.)

I think that this is a very good take, but I would further add that I think "teen pregnancy" as a snarl phrase is a malformed or malicious meme to begin with

In support of this, I'd note that at least some of the statistics on "teen pregnancy" define "teen" in the numerical sense rather than the conventional — that is, they count any female getting pregnant before age 20 ("Nineteen is in 'the teens,' so it counts!"). Thus, a woman marrying the summer after graduating high school at 18, and expecting her first child a year later, gets counted as a "teen pregnancy."

In spite of being exposed to a bunch of supposedly relevant data in the past few weeks, I feel compelled to ramble about myself / my family / other narcissism-flavored anecdata.

So first of all, divorce would appear to run in my family. My maternal grandmother maried at least thrice, and my paternal grandparents maried young and died single. As my parents were maried 3 months before I was born, well, grandma was starting on marriage 3 at the same time, so I'm not sure that "shotgun marriage" is accurate, but...

Then my parents divorced before my episodic memory kicks in, and I remember things (and remember remembering things) from before I was 2 (with evidence, and yeah, there were times when my memory and the evidence disagreed, but that's a whole other ramblement.) I don't remember a time when my dad wasn't dating his current wife / my stepmom, but I do remember when they were dating and vague images of their wedding. My mom took longer to find a second husband, but seemed to always be dating someone in the interim. She's currently on #3, after dating him for several years.

My paternal grandparents had 6 children, 18 grandchildren, and when my grandmother died at 71, 42 great grandchildren and 1 great-great grandchild. My maternal grandparents are harder to figure, because they didn't talk much about family members I didn't know, so ... 2 or 3? Maybe 4? I actually did meet my great grandmother on my mother's side, and it seems she had close to as many children as Grandma, ±- 1. That side of the family did a lot of migrating, so has been harder to keep track of. Stepmom is the oldest of 2, and her sister is still childless.

On my great grandmother's deathbed, my mother and her sister-in-law both promised her they'd have another child. Mom did; aunt did not. My mother's stated goal was to keep having children until she got a girl. She got 3 boys, and then a broken work/life balance, turned out second husband was abusing my brothers, ... wait did she pay for that big roadtrip we took in 2002 with divorce money? :O I just realized that makes a bunch of sense. ... anyway, then she had to have a hysterectomy, so has 3 boys and last I heard, 1 grandchild from the middle brother.

My dad and stepmom had my sister, then my dad got a vasectomy... then they got two more kids, because my cousin went to prison and they were the only family members responsible enough and healthy enough to trust with them. We've always lived closest to my dad's extended family, though on the opposite side of town. Stepmom's family are in the same general area, maybe 30min away by car. Mom's family is a lot of military people who have moved around a lot, but somehow they always arranged it so Grandma was around to help.

So going any further without tripping over my weird identity crap is tricky, particularly as I'm starting to suspect the subjects are somewhat related... But by the time I got to puberty, I defaulted to wanting children. However, I was not at all interested in finding a partner, and one of the earliest instances of me imagining myself with kids I remember, I just kinda handwaved away their mother with "we probably got divorced; everyone gets divorced." I had one flash-in-the-pan crush in high school that lasted all of until I found out she already had a boyfriend. Plus, my dad told me in no uncertain terms that I should not mess with girls until college. I got to college, and was not interested in anyone there, even though the hormones would not STFU.

By that point, I'd flipped on the subject of children. Theidea was terrifying, and luckily the antinatalists and environmentalists had given me pre-made rationalizations. It wasn't until I got out of college, was exposed to the likes of Lesswrong, and started questioning even more that I concluded that, no, I always wanted children, but when I got enough wisdom to realize how big a responsibility it is, and how antiprepared I was, and also the conflicts with my special snowflake identity crap, I recoiled in panic and took shelter in rationalizations.

Oh, and my sister has one kid, and finds it so stressful that she's got a progesterone implant and stepmom encourages brother-in-law to get a vasectomy (he is not comfortable with the idea).

My dad is the only of his siblings to avoid jailtime, avoid substance abuse, get out of the white trash ghetto, go to college, hold a long-term job and own multiple businesses, and send 3 of his four kids to college (the other took up welding and farming). Though he is a bit more pronatal than stepmom, his branch of the family appears to be an evolutionary dead-end. It kinda pisses me off when I think of it that way. He did everything right, lived the American Dream and pulled himself up by his bootstraps when that was going out of style, but unless my nephew single-handedly raises family TFR, it seems to have all just been converted into a Disney Vacation Club membership. ... OK, now I'm more sad than pissed.

But for me, personally, that "wants children, but is repelled by the things that go into making them" thing, combined with the super atomized and isolating social situation, renders that super unlikely. Even were I to go back to HS or earlier, I doubt I'd have much success overcoming that, unless a magic marriage candidate just randomly appears.

... So, about that time a magic marriage candidate appeared, and I couldn't convince myself it would work long-term, or be worth the sacrifices (she was clearly not planning to live anywhere near me, so I'd functionally be giving up everything I couldn't bring with me on a gamble that it would work out)... At a not-to-be-repeated 9-month training center that was bizarrely effective at constructing a halfway functional temporary community.

What is the unifying factor in all that mess? ... IDK; economics? Social pressures? Too much aspiring to travel? Parenting failing to adapt productively to the changes in technology resulting in Boomers, GenX, Millennials, and GenZ all having unique excuses that are probably manifestations of an underlying unifying principal?

I think people are still in willful denial about how much the unforced costs of childrearing have increased in the past decades. Starting around age 2, I would routinely be left with a grandparent for the day or multiple days while my mother went to work (harder nowadays since mobility in upper strata of society increased, and nobody I know lives within 100km of their parents anymore). Starting around age 7, I would spend large stretches of the day home alone, or playing outside (in the streets, or the abandoned gravel pit beyond our housing development) alone or with any number of neighbourhood kids who were also outside unsupervised or could be easily summoned by just walking up to their apartment block and ringing the doorbell. (Much of this is probably illegal an/ord might result in loss of parenting rights nowadays in most Western countries.) If I needed something from my parents, I would take the bus into town to find them at work (another CPS case?), where they would probably get me some food at the university cafeteria and then drive me home (in a way that is no longer legal, since Germany now mandates child seats in cars up until age 12 (!?)). I got into a good free public school just based on an admissions exam, and into a series of very good universities just on strength of grades and math/science olympiad participation; nowadays I gather you have no chance without an array of eclectic extracurriculars that also need to be found, organised and paid for by your parents. As a result of this increase in safetyism and credentialism, I now see little possibility to raise children and give them remotely as good a life as I had without investing a much larger fraction of my money and time than my parents (really: my single mother and her series of boyfriends) had to for me.

"Status" is only relevant insofar as I think it would both be low-status to raise kids that are obviously miserable and have no prospects, and we would also coincidentally have to sacrifice other things that convey us status (like having full-time academic jobs) to make it not so. To overcome this, you wouldn't just need to fix some putative recent drop in the status conveyed by parenthood; rather, you would need to socially engineer a status reward for it that exceeds all the novel status penalties, which would require entirely new and hypothetical types of machinery. To roll back the cost increase seems like a hopeless ambition - while there may be groups of people (especially here) who could be convinced to oppose the credentialism ratchet, the consensus for safetyism is entrenched to the point that the tribes mostly wage war against each other in the language of harms and dangers that their opponents have not done enough to address.

Starting around age 2, I would routinely be left with a grandparent for the day or multiple days while my mother went to work (harder nowadays since mobility in upper strata of society increased, and nobody I know lives within 100km of their parents anymore).

This made me wonder how many American TV series with multigenerational non-Hispanic White households I could come up with. And the number is... zero? The protagonist of Hey, Arnold is an orphan who has to live with his grandparents. Chris Hansen's Jim Henson's Dinosaurs weren't dinosaurs of color quadrupedality, so I guess they should count?

The Waltons (of course)

Mama's Family (very dysfunctional, but happy families make bad sitcoms)

ChatGPT suggested The Waltons as well, but it's a series from the seventies about the Great Depression. Are there really no series about the Great Recession instead, with a Millennial couple forced to start a family in the same house one of them grew up in?

Here where I live, in the same damn village I grew up in, kids get to play outside unsupervised just like they used to. But good luck convincing my wife that there isn't a ruthless violent pedophile lurking behind every bush - our daughter will never be allowed to go outside without a chaperone.

Social media and anxiety disorders fuck people up.

Funny enough, when I was in primary school (this was in Germany, though probably further north than your username suggests), perhaps around 3rd grade (though memory is fuzzy on that), we had an incident when several girls actually reported having a stark naked exhibitionist jump out from the bushes in front of them on the way home from school. This resulted in some evening information session for parents and a special lesson where we were told to run away and scream for the kids, but at least as far as I remember it put no long-term dent in the frequency of kids (of either gender) playing in the gravel pit, which was right next to unpaved road (cutting through some fields) where the flasher flashed.

My daughter's in college, and based on the Facebook parent groups, having your daughter tracked with a phone app is completely reasonable, and not some bizarre invasion of privacy for an 18-22 yr old. I understand we've extended childhood, but if my 18-22 yr old can't navigate college without me knowing her location every single second, I've failed. When young adults, who should still be in their "nothing can harm me" phase, are so willing to surrender independence in the name of safety, it seems to signal something seriously wrong.

And back to the child thing. How does a 22 year old go from "my parents are tracking me on my phone" to "I'm ready to marry and be totally responsible for an infant" without it taking years?

That’s basically the status quo for traditional multi generational households, except the mother in law actually provides physical benefits, like a floor of the house, pooled cooking, and childcare.

I mean, we let very young teens babysit. ‘Taking care of a baby’ is not actually beyond the capacity of a 22 year old being tracked by her parents.

No one in my experience of raising my child let very young teens babysit. I babysat when I was young, but I am genx. I would have been considered a neglectful mother if I had ever allowed someone younger than college aged and infant/child CPR certified to watch my genz child. Several of her peers - a couple of whom are now in Ivy League schools - weren't allowed to cook anything on the stove in HS ... You think those parents would have allowed a 14 yr old to babysit a 2 yr old (with their child on either side)?

We live in very different worlds.

Wasn't the latchkey kid phenomenon basically peculiar to Generation X and thus a historical anomaly in the grand scheme of things?

Also, I just had to look up that car seat thing on the interwebz and actually found this: "German law requires children up to 12 years of age who are less than 1.5 metres (59 inches) to ride in an approved car seat or booster. If all other restraints are being used by other children, the child may ride in the back seat with a seat belt."

Maybe in the US? I'm pretty much core millennial, but nothing I heard in Europe suggested that children were supervised more at any point since WWII.

To begin with, "latchkey" seems to suggest that you go home and stay home alone. We were playing outside alone, and maybe half the time the parents were actually home - it's not that they couldn't supervise the children, they just didn't choose to.

"Latchkey kids" were called as such because they had to enter the house with a key when they got home because nobody was home yet, as both parents were / the single parent was working late i.e. the kids had to spend a couple of hours on their own everyday. Neither the parents nor the grandparents were around to supervise them, as the latter usually lived somewhere distant etc. They would normally go outside to play actually, because PC games weren't around much yet, cable TV wasn't that widespread and safetyism wasn't yet the social norm. And they often carried the key around their necks to make sure it didn't get lost.

Again, I think it was a peculiar phenomenon facilitated by a combination of social factors that mostly aren't around anymore.

Much of this is probably illegal an/ord might result in loss of parenting rights nowadays in most Western countries

It's more of an Anglosphere (particularly American) thing. In continential Europe children have tons of freedom. Here's Norway, the Netherlands, France, Japan (admittedly not western, but still WEIRD).

Japan seems much, much less WEIRD than Western Europe, similar to the deep deep red dirt part of the red tribe or Galicia or something. It just emphasizes education to a peculiar degree.

I think it registers as clearly WEIRD on the one fairly culture-independent marker of weird self-actualization (as in Scott's "black people less likely"), perhaps in excess of any Western demographic apart from White Americans. As for the rest, the congeniality to the red tribe is being severely overstated in part due to American culture war projection, turning Japan into some sort of anti-Sweden in American memespace (which is funny because, having pretty deep familiarity with both, I keep being surprised at how similar they turn out to be to each other in random aspects). There are some aspects of Japan that code right wing in the American scheme, but all in all it's very "blue-and-orange morality" to the black-and-white of the Western left-right divide.

Surely Japan is, by global standards, and even compared to Western Europe, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (that last one is debatable). It’s hard to argue that they’re on the whole more Westernized than Western Europe, the literal birthplace of Western-ness, but certainly in some respects Japan is very Westernized.

I think you are arguing that Japan is not as woke/culturally Blue as Western Europe, which seems broadly true to me. But this is, strictly speaking, distinct from WEIRD-ness, and more importantly there are senses in which Japanese culture displays the same lack of memetic antibodies against wokeness as Western European cultures (namely, relatively low emphasis on extended family/clan relationships, and “pathological altruism”).

I’m really struggling to see how Japan is culturally much closer to deep Red Tribe. Respect for ancient traditions perhaps? But Red Tribe (like all of America) doesn’t really have much in the way of ancient traditions. And if Japan is so culturally, whence their much-lower-than-US-Red-Tribe TFR? Do you think that’s entirely explained by their greater emphasis on education?

It’s far less individualistic than Europe or the Anglosphere; the idea that an adult can be obliged to obey a family member is normal there. It’s not western and is generally socially conservative.

My comparison was of degree, not kind.

The discussion is really about how to fix the fertility crisis. Talking about what's caused the fertility crisis is distracting and drives me a little nuts, because the cause simple and obvious: increasing access to safe, cheap, effective contraception depresses fertility.

Imagine if humans, historically, could just choose when to have children. All else being equal, our ancestors never would have made it out of their tiny niche. The only reason we flourished was our sex drive, which obliterates our intentions and exerts irresistible pressure to reproduce. (Hormones, oxytocin, etc. play a complementary role, but couldn't have carried the day alone.)

The solution that suggests is also simple: the Ceaușescu regime demonstrated that outlawing contraception can get the job done: Romania raised TFR, from 2 to 3.5.

Simple, but not sustainable. Ceaușescu also showed how difficult it is to maintain those policies: a sharp decline quickly followed. By the 80s, Romania's TFR was hovering just above replacement-level and trending downward. When the regime fell, so did the restrictions and TFR went down to 1.3. It has recovered, but has not ever reached replacement since.

Where does that leave us? The Romainians offered economic incentives for larger families, but those programs shouldn't get much credit, since they have been tried many other places to little effect. Sure, economic and status incentives can help on the margin: relaxing car seat mandates will improve things a bit, for example, and would be good in itself. Maybe we can even find a few dozen policies like that, which could add up to a measurable but inconsequential boost. Ultimately, though, there's nothing that's going to make large numbers of young people in WEIRD countries to consider their lives and say "yes, a(nother) baby will make my life better". Dreaming of a cultural solution is a dead end: we do not engineer specific outcomes via cultural change. Cultural change and its outcomes are emergent.

But I'm not here to call for a ban on contraception. Restriction proponents are like anti-auto crusaders and other activists unable to accept a new technology. There's no turning back on technologies that profound, immediate positive effects on people's lives, whatever the tradeoffs or externalities. Mail-order Mifepristone is the 3d printed gun of the left.

If there is an answer, it's to go deeper. We have ample survey data that tells us people (well, Americans) want more children. There's some reason to be skeptical of that survey data: we clearly want other things more than children. But at least it suggests a plausible path for the future of humanity. I think the most likely solution involves enlisting human desires instead of restraining them, which means improving fertility-extension technologies is our best hope (and perhaps easing the process of giving birth).

There's no turning back on technologies that profound, immediate positive effects on people's lives,

If that were true, most electricity would be nuclear and I'd have plastic straws right now.

Cultural campaigns can have lasting effect.

In the long run, Luddism is fated to lose because your society stops to exist if it doesn't adopt better technology. But for the specific case of technology that causes your society to become unsustainable, it is fated to win.

Religious fundamentalists who anathemized contraception will be proven right and their children will inherit the Earth. I welcome our new Islamo-Mormon overlords and their actual concern for family life.

Both Mormon and Muslim TFR are in extreme, rapid decline worldwide.

A quick google suggests that the same is true for secular Jews in Israel, leaving Modern Orthodox Jews (in Israel and the west) as the only group capable of maintaining above-replacement fertility in a way compatible with modernity.

Everyone's is, worldwide. But there's spots where it isn't, and all the ones I know about are radically religious compared to the average.

Religious fundamentalists who anathemized contraception will be proven right and their children will inherit the Earth.

There's a reasonable chance this is right. I can't find the comment, but someone here recently summed up that position as "evolution works". Correct! But it just means that negative-fertility species will lose (on a geological timescale), not necessarily that the fundamentalists will win. Most of the fundamentalist groups have a problem keeping children onside, and even their fertility is in decline, with a few notable exceptions.

Surely Romania disproves your argument? You claim that contraception caused the fertility crisis, and then point out that Romanian TFR collapsed in spite of contraception being illegal.

Meanwhile, the baby boom happened across the western world while contraceptives were freely available.

Imagine a world where condoms, the contraceptive pill and hormonal implants don't exist, but where credential inflation, atomisation, the internet and social media do exist. In my mind that world would have the same crisis that our current one does. After all, Japan didn't get the pill until 1999 and yet birth rates were barely at replacement in the 1950s and 60s, only to decline below it in the 1970s. Even hunter gatherers have effective methods of birth control that don't require contraception (long periods of breastfeeding, timing, the withdrawal method and infanticide, primarily).

Meanwhile, both the Amish and the Haredi Jews can and do use contraception. They just prefer to have larger families because their cultures assign high status to having a large family.

I don't think this responds to my claim, which are that the default human position on kids is "not worth the trouble" and therefore making contraception cheaper, more effective, or more accessible mechanically reduces fertility.

I agree that there are legal regimes, beliefs, and customs that foster fertility. I'm just annoyed whenever people write about what "caused" the fertility crisis. There's no theory that makes sense or matches history apart from "people don't want kids and will take measures to avoid having them" except "mo' better contraception."

Japan didn't get the pill until 1999 but its TFR fell from 5 to 2 between between 1925 and 1960. What happened?

Sparked by the visit of Margaret Sanger to Japan in 1922, and through the dissemination of printed information, and the opening of clinics, birth control became widely understood by the general public.

The article goes on to say "Governmental thinking of population as a marker for national power and international strength, however, remained steadfast and led the Japanese government to ban the sale and use of birth control in the 1930s, considering it harmful to the user." I freely admit that there are innumerable confounding factors, but I'm going to take "the introduction of a new technology did exactly what it promised to" as the null hypothesis. (Also, wow, what shitty prose. Do better, Wikipedia.)

Or read Cremieux's post about Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, "The Fruits of Philosophy". TLDR: family-planning advocates disseminate information out to the English population, fertility craters.

Romania only proves that it's hard to stop people from practicing contraception for long.

The Amish and Haredi communities are interesting and useful, but they don't contradict what I'm saying. In fact, the Amish formally prohibit contraception. People infer that some Amish communities quietly accept contraception use, based on differential fertility rates between communities where more conservative communities have higher fertility rates.

The Haredi might prove me wrong, in some sense, but they are also a world-historical outlier that are not obviously reproducible (pun intended).

At any rate, I'm not saying we shouldn't look at communities and societies that have done better. I'm just pessimistic that we can overcome the default human bias by copying them.

People infer that some Amish communities quietly accept contraception use, based on differential fertility rates between communities where more conservative communities have higher fertility rates.

Rad trads ban contraception without quietly using it anyways, and have an overall TFR from our shitty internal data of 3.6. Not 7. There’s lots of different practices that can make big differences in ‘natural’ fertility rate. Female age of marriage, for one thing. Or acceptance of men spending lots of time away from home doing travel jobs; less time with their wives makes a difference at the margins.

I would argue it's just feminism. And I don't mean that in a bad way. Pregnancy sucks for women, it takes 9 months and does permanent damage to their body. It's only natural that as women gain more power in society, they make the rational choice to not have kids and do other things instead.

It jumps out at me that all the high fertility socities you list- Mongolia, the Amish, the Haredim- are, uh, not very feminist groups. I think people get distracted looking at the economy, because most socities get more feminist as they get wealthier.

I know some people will argue with this by saying "but what about Korea!" And I would argue that Korea is actually a very feminist society now, maybe not in the same way as the US, but in the sense that women have a huge amount of social power there. Notably, they elected a woman president, while still excluding women from the draft. The men are killing themselves at work just so they have a chance at getting married, but the women are under no obligation to produce a baby.

Japan, South Korea and China aren't exactly bulwarks of feminism compared to western countries and yet they have even lower birth rates than most European countries.

this is one of those things that gets 10000x updoots on reddit and yet no one can ever show the work to actually prove it. why do you think that east easian countries are all horribly unfeminist?

I guess I remember reading about sexual harassment in Japan being more common, like women getting groped on the subway and stuff. But yeah, to be honest, I don't really know why the idea is my in head that they are less feminist now that I think about it.

This did get me thinking on how you would quantify feminism in a country. There are things like the Global Gender Gap Report and the Gender Inequality Index, but I am generally pretty sceptical of these types of reports, because they tend to oversimplify the matter at hand. For what it's worth, the Global Gender Gap Report has the East Asian countries a bit lower than Western countries but the Gender Inequality Index has Japan and South Korea right up there with Western European countries.

However, my argument might still stand with other examples. Eastern European countries tend to have low birthrates as well, if anything usually lower than Western European ones. Although it is anecdotal, I do know some people from various Eastern European countries and have discussed cultural differences with them and as best I can tell, countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine all have low birthrates as well despite having generally much more conservative ideas about gender roles than say Sweden or the Netherlands.

as best I can tell, countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine all have low birthrates as well despite having generally much more conservative ideas about gender roles than say Sweden or the Netherlands.

Eastern European countries had and have much more progressive ideas about gender roles thanks to socialism. However, their birth rates were higher due to the elimination of the rat race:

  • they had a relatively solid QoL floor: if you had more kids you were entitled to a bigger apartment and even a car, you had ubiquitous daycare and your old position was reserved for you at your job
  • they had a relative solid QoL ceiling as well: if you weren't a cunning wordcel planning to climb the party ranks, you had no real reason to delay childbirth: your salary by the time you retired could be 200% of your starting one or it could be 190%, not really worth it

When the Iron Curtain came tumbling down, all these limits were gone as well. Forget about doubling your income by retirement. You could double it EVERY YEAR. Worse, you HAD to double it every year because hyperinflation. And at the same time, there were no glass ceilings like in the West: while some heavy industrial jobs were verboten for the weaker sex, women managers were the norm.

I was writing a reply about my anecdata that led me to the view that Eastern Europe is less progressive about gender than Western Europe, but when I was trying to fact check some related claim I wanted to make I stumbled across the Eurobarometer about Gender Stereotypes. Quickly scanning through some of the results, it doesn't actually seem like there is a clear trend of EE being more or less sexist than WE.

Interestingly, Galicia(Ukraine) is likely the most conservative area of the Christian world about stuff like that, and is a fertility bright spot in Europe despite the overall Ukrainian fertility rate being east asia tier.

Thanks, that's a good response. I don't know how to quantify it or prove it either. I've just noticed that a lot of people on the internet seem to think "oh, those east Asian countries are all so sexist" to the point where its becoming a stereotype.

Eastern Europe I think is more of an economic problem. A lot of this countries really cratered with the end of the USSR, but have since recovered a bit

But they are bulwarks of feminism compared to 1920s America, as is everywhere else in the developed world.

"Permanent damage to your body" is something millions of people will willingly do if the STATUS incentive is high enough:

  • Military Special Operations
  • Professional Athletes
  • High stress jobs with extreme levels of compensation (Banker, High end Surgeon, big Litigator etc.)

In fact, what I just listed above are some of the tippy-top status markers for men. Personal health is not at all sacrosanct (flip the coin; millions of people smoke, drink too much, eat too much, and never exercise).

"millions" means about 0.1% of world population yet we want >80% women to become mothers.

I don't think I see your point and, to the extent that (I think) I do, I reject it.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect 80%+ of women to go through pregnancy and labor? I mean, I get it, it's not like this is a species level existential issue - oh, wait, that's exactly what we're talking about.

This is a deeply values based discussion. Pregnancy and childbirth might "suck" and "ruin your body" but the end result is the creation of a human life and, if done during peak fertility years, decades of love and joy. Furthermore, it's necessary for the species to continue itself.

That this observation (about minority of men) is a very weak evidence whether median woman would be affected by it

I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.

Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect 80%+ of women to go through pregnancy and labor?

It's obviously unreasonable to expect 80% of women to be held to the same standards of special military operators or pro athletes, and, if that's not relevant, why did you bring it up?

This is an amazing conflation of two points. I wouldn't want to debate you in person as you seem adept at twisting an argument.

Point 1: Incentives matter. People will put themselves through extreme hardships given proper incentives (this was the Special Ops / pro military argument)

Point 2: We should expect the overwhelming majority of women to go through childbirth as the species is dependent upon it.

Your franken-counter-assertion "We are demanding that women be like special operations!"

I see what you did there. It was well done, my congratulations.

That’s more succinct than what I was going to say, but yes. More than half of women are still having children.

It’s a bit odder in Korea, which still has mandatory conscription for men, but fewer than half of women are having babies. Seems related to almost their entire childhood being stressful, not just a year here or there.

Yup.

You can convince a young guy to literally endure repeated blows to the head if the payoff is high enough.

I have yet to see evidence that reticence about pregnancy and childbirth is responsible for more than a non-negligible percentage of the fertility decline, although I suppose you can say every little bit adds up.

Instead I think people don’t want babies, rather than not wanting pregnancy. People don’t look forwards to sleepless nights and changing diapers(yes I’m aware this isn’t a huge deal in practice), they want the flexibility to not have to worry about childcare arrangements, they dread paying for daycare or remember parts of their own childhoods that sucked(and I think this is underdiscussed- by all evidence a big part of the conservative fertility advantage is literally republicans looking forwards to going to t-ball games), they’re afraid the man in their life isn’t committed enough(and extended periods of premarital cohabitation are an increasing problem).

Sure, babies too. the whole package deal is kind of a crappy deal when you think about it logically. worst deal in the history of deals, etc. It's not surprising that women are choosing not to take it.

the whole package deal is kind of a crappy deal when you think about it logically.

I think you ought to stop and examine exactly why you think this, i suspect the answers may surprise you.

i can't find it right now, but someone linked a substack here a few months ago that laid out in brutal detail just how bad the entire process of childbirth is for women. Of course maybe it pays off in some longterm, ineffable, spiritual joy, but you should be able to appreciate why a lot of women wouldn't willingly take that deal.

Nobody I know who has children thinks the suffering of pregnancy or childbirth is on the same order of magnitude as the benefits of having children

Presumably those were all people who had a choice to have kids? At least the choice to not abort. You might hear differrently from women in 3rd world countries where they really don't have a choice (if you can even get them to speak honestly)

Uh, it pays off not in some long-term, ineffable, spiritual joy but in a baby.

I remember the piece you're talking about. It was of course, written by a woman who has never had children.

Meanwhile, women who have children usually have more than one.

do you have a link to it, or remember the author's name? I wanted to read it again but I can't remember it.

Again I think you ought to stop and examine why you would believe such a thing seeing as (as @Gaashk observes) childbirth is arguably a "better" deal than it has ever been in human history and yet birthrates have declined. What do you think is up with that?

On the other hand, birth rates have been dropping especially fast over the past decade, when women have had choices for generations, and things like ultrasounds, epidurals, prenatal testing, formula, c-sections for the convenience of the doctors, and whatnot have been improving. Childbirth is less bad than before. Even feeding babies is less bad than before. Freedom of women is about the same, at least in the anglosphere. Yet birth rates continue to drop.

As you said, the birth rate has dropped despite healthcare getting better, which suggests that it's not a simple matter of healthcare. But while women might have had the same legal rights for a while now, their social and economic power continues to increase.

But while women might have had the same legal rights for a while now, their social and economic power continues to increase.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it, however, is that as wages are equalized, the wife's income is more likely to be essential to the household budget, such that she is expected and needed to go back to work as soon as possible.

Also, the prenatal programs are pushing breastfeeding. So she's expected (not able, I mean expected) to work until she gives birth, then breastfeed for a month or two, then drop her infant off at daycare and pump at work, and still get up in the middle of the night to feed her infant, while also working a full day outside the home. Even elementary teachers are struggling with this, with a generally easy schedule/ They hide their children in windowless offices on "professional development" days, for instance, because they aren't allowed to organize childcare amongst themselves.

Maybe making childbirth safer, easier, and more delayable has led to women putting off having a baby, because now it's not a now-or-never, might-as-well-get-it-over-with kind of thing like it was?

This appears as you typical minding to me. Honestly, the more I think about the deal, the more it appears to be, logically, the best deal in the history of deals, and someone who can make deals that are better than that one is someone who must be in an almost unimaginably privileged position.

not have to worry about childcare arrangements, they dread paying for daycare

This is only a reason if both parents work outside the home. If one parent is a homemaker no daycare is required.

If lack of daycare / affordability was impacting fertility I'd expect to see higher tfr in countries that have improved access / lower cost care available. Is this what we see?

My suspicion is that what they want is the flexibility to not have to worry about children. The cohort of childless or low fertility women I've the most exposure to other than the lesbians, would see themselves dipicted in fiction as the women from 'Sex in the City' or the strong capable lady doctors of 'Grey's Antotomy'. Free childcare would be unlikely to promote children in this cohort.

Whether free childcare raises the TFR is a question with an answer that depends on how you adjust for confounders IIRC, which almost certainly means that even if it does work it doesn’t work very well. But that’s one thing in a list and I mostly agree with you about what it actually codes for.

That would be a lot more convincing if we didn't incur permanent damage to our bodies merely by staying alive.

As it happens, "why bother caring about my body's state if I'll die anyway" is in fact not very convincing counterpoint to me.

It is a different situation.
It's like I'm asking you to spend money on something I think is worthwhile, and you say "but then I will have less money" except the government keeps the printer on 24/7, you know?

Preserving one's decaying youth at the price of preventing the next generation is literally fairy tale evil queen levels of morality.

I believe the canonical fate for people who make such a bargain is to be cast in a bottomless abyss.

Not exactly esoteric symbolism. But there are few moral choices that are less universalizable than this one.

It's a fertility crisis, not a parenting crisis. Can it really be called selling out your children if you never have any?

Well it's not exactly leaving hungry kids in the woods to fend for themselves but it certainly is selling out the future for the present.

As it happens, there are tons of thing people do to their body regularly that incurs damage. The idea that pregnancy is unique is the outlier position.

I'm not sure the concept of 'status' as this drive we semi-unconsciously pursue adds any explanatory value. The reason that having kids isn't 'high status' anymore is that the moral values we hold and express have shifted away from ones that name having children and a family as a duty, and a good, to ones that name 'freedom' from the coercion of patriarchy as a good. So if people are having fewer children, it's because they value them less. That it's higher status in Amish and Haredi communities to have children is just a direct consequence of them valuing children more! A reasonable number of people in liberal communities have two children, and some have 3+, because they, personally, value it, even though it's 'low status'.

I think removing that layer explains why this is harder than the government merely telling citizens they should have children - the reasons we value children less are very deep ideological ones tied with the growth of liberalism and progressivism over the past few centuries. And the reason the government isn't doing that is because the people in government, and the voters, don't value having more children. If everyone (or even all elites) valued having children as much as you or Elon do, the game would already be over!

I've seen that article before. It's plausible, I suppose, but I don't think that in countries like the US, the government confers much status, so there's not much to do there. The Trump administration probably confers anti-status.

There's a lot about this on the message boards this week, including a link to a fairly interesting article on the Reddit (by CanIHaveaSong, who sometimes used to post here). DSL is going on about nannies and au pairs, because they're upstanding citizens like that.

Clearly, the transition to a post industrial economy has been bad for birthrates everywhere. But, also, the population of many of these places doubled in living memory, while the political entities, "good jobs," and "good colleges" did not double. At least agricultural output more than doubled, so we don't have famine, but if we really want to sustain the current population level, we should probably have more top tier institutions, more cities, more high quality corporate jobs -- twice as much of the things people aspire to and work for. Apparently Georgia's population sank by a million from 1993, and is about the same as 1960. Mongolia's rose, but the country still has fewer people than the Phoenix metro area.

The Trump administration probably confers anti-status.

Except among the 40% of the country which supports him, I suppose.

It's very plausible that Trump can raise their TFR by somehow making babies higher status among that subset. It doesn't seem like he will actually do this, obviously, but it doesn't seem like there's any reason he can't.

It's very plausible that Trump can raise their TFR

Believe it or not, that already happened in 2016. I'd put money on it happening again, since the conservative-liberal fertility divide has deepened since then.

Most of my immediate family voted for Trump, but I'm still having trouble imagining anything he says or does increasing the social status of parents.

I guess if he actually succeeded at revitalizing jobs by which a man of modest ability can support a family of five. But even among the evangelicals and Christian homeschoolers of my youth that ship had already sailed, and the families with decent status needed the father to be an engineer at least, so that he could support his six children and still go on retreats that cost some amount of money, and send his wife and children likewise. Several of my friends also have at least three children and may have voted for Trump, and I still feel like if we got awards we would all laugh and think "that's so weird."

But you have several children in an environment where you're bucking the trend. Maybe such a recognition would be more aimed at encouraging people like me (one and done) to have more? Wouldn't have worked. I know my limits. But I know folks who wavered on the second/third who might have been budged by messaging that doing so was "good" in some way. I wonder though if making access to fertility treatments cheaper/easier might not work more if you want more kids. While having kids younger would make some of that less necessary, at our current state of later marriages and child bearing, it has to play a significant role.

Yeah. I had a second partly because I wanted someone to eventually play with my older daughter. But I'm living in a 2500 sq ft mobile home on a half acre, with a wagon/SUV that fits three child car seats already, so have different costs/benefits than someone in a dense city with expensive housing.

I guess if he actually succeeded at revitalizing jobs by which a man of modest ability can support a family of

I'm not sure this is possible? The reason one can't support a family of five is that our standards have gone up. All the material goods you need to support a child are cheaper relative to median income than 100 (to say nothing about 200!) years ago.

Yeah, that's why I don't think it's likely to work out.

laugh and think "that's so weird."

I have four children and I'm with you on this. Yet I think there may be something to the discomfort in accepting the thanks / reward for doing something pro-social that not enough capable people are doing.

What is the source of the "that's so weird" discomfort? It feels a bit like embarrassment to me. I'd rather heap shame on the childfree.

It's probably related to America not generally having many meaningful awards outside of the military, so it would kind of feel like it was coming out of left field. It would seem less weird to be part of some sort of ceremony involving the Georgian patriarch, even as an American, since he already belongs to an extremely ceremonial church (and culture more generally).

I think that's part of it, to some it sounds like the, Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter, something Nazi's would do.

Is there a form it could take that would be not weird?

If the award was a free 7 or 8 passenger SUV that let you buy untaxed fuel and park in handicapped parking spots or a license to buy gold from the gold window at 1971 prices.

If it had real tangible benefits to the recipient is it less weird?

It would be less weird, but much, much more expensive.

I'm not sure what the government could do at this point to get me to have another child. Maybe a year of maternity leave at my full salary and a vehicular upgrade. I absolutely did not like going back to work with a month old newborn, and having to hand deliver a check to pay back their side of my insurance for that time.

There are countries with significantly more maternity leave and public health care, still with low fertility.

Could you be tempted to have four or more children if the government canceled / retired your student loans / and or mortgage debt? No income tax for the rest of your life? The elderly giving up their seats for you on public transit, boy scouts, police and other public servents saluting you? You get the veterans and first responders discount at Lowe's?

More comments

I mean, lots of people would take a free car and $.40 off per gallon no matter how weird it is.

Something I've been thinking about writing an effort post on is the seeming death of "the adult", and the issue of delining issue seems directly related.

My 30-second elevator pitch is that the people talking about dysigeninics and raising the status of big families are either burying the lede or missing the point. That lede/point being that the modern secular European blue/grey-tribe mindset is just not conducive to, and in many respects actively hostile towards, the forming of families and rearing of children.

In the immediate aftermath of the election there was a user here asking who were the 40-something percent of women who voted for Trump because the didn’t know any. In contrast the answer seemed obvious to me because I know many women who voted for Trump, and the answer was "Moms".

The reason big families are "low status" is that they signal a rejection of many core secular liberal beliefs. A married couple with multiple car seats in the back of thier vehicle may as well be screaming "the things you care about are not the things we care about" at every member of the intellectual, activist, and managerial classes they drive past.

You have a "fur-baby"? That's cute, call me when you're ready to stop playing the game on "beginner mode".

the seeming death of "the adult"

I mean, you'll get engagement from me, at least.

But you won't quite get what you're expecting; I'm going to posit that the people who do raise families are not properly equipping their children as a direct response.

The active anti-adult memes are part of this, but they don't entirely explain it among the children; the typical failing of the wise parent is that they refuse to delegate and make time for delegation, because they're too busy believing the meme about their kids not becoming fully human until way later than it actually happens. I've seen this first hand from parents I consider to be pretty wise, but at the same time they're failing their children because they didn't grow up in a memetic/economic environment that's far more blatantly hostile to human development (and no, it's not 'social media' or 'video games' or other purely reactionary Boomer cope; if anything, they're more popular than they otherwise would be because every other avenue of "actually doing something" has been shuttered for safety or cost reasons- it's not a surprise they spend every waking hour in the only free space they're allowed [for now] to participate in).

A married couple with multiple car seats in the back of thier vehicle may as well be screaming "the things you care about are not the things we care about" at every member of the intellectual, activist, and managerial classes they drive past.

So's a 10 year old walking down the street or riding his bike unsupervised. He screams that his parents don't put an absurd value on safety and hiding under the bed from all risk whatsoever.

The PMC, and people with that mindset, respond in kind; the fact they're allowed to is kind of the central issue there. Safety arrests development; and kids are inherently a very unsafe thing to do. Hence fur-babies, where you're [for now] allowed to kill them or otherwise dispose of them if they turn out wrong, can send them to multi-day daycare whenever you want, can keep them in a cage to prevent them from wrecking the house, and their purpose [to us] generally matches their intellectual capabilities quite well- something that it's a meme for parents to bemoan without end the minute this stops being true for their children ('teenagers').

I'm going to posit that the people who do raise families are not properly equipping their children as a direct response.

Sure, you can always blame the parents but that's also part of what I'm talking about when I say that "the modern secular European blue/grey-tribe mindset is just not conducive to, and in many respects actively hostile towards, the forming of families". You see, I actually agree with you that having kids is inherently "unsafe", and therein lies the rub. Because if there's anything in the world that the modal secular blue/grey-tribemember seems desperate to avoid, it is personal risk, or more pointedly blame.

I believe this aversion is at the root of many modern pathologies including the seeming death of the adult. That desperate desire to avoid or minimize risk/blame ultimately bleeding over into a more generalized aversion to anything resembling personal responsibility or agency, and ultimately emotional and cognitive infantilization.

Furthermore I am positing that the collapse in birth rates is largely downstream of this phenomenon.

I enjoy theories like this, but personally I separate:

1: The anxiety of intelligent (and often autistic) people, who feel like they need to control the world and make everything legible and predictable, because they hate risk.

2: The mentally fragile, who is afraid of being a "bad person", afraid of being judged, and afraid of anything which might push them out of the category "mediocre" because such things poses a social risk.

Group 1 tend to be individualistic and unafraid of questioning the narrative, whereas group 2 is the polar opposite of this. Group 1 is neurotic and tends to have low EQ, whereas group 2 has high EQ but avoids risk because they have very little faith in themselves as individuals, and they need to be part of something bigger in order to act, so they're always looking for some cause or group to be a part of. Group 1 are often childish and sort of naive in that they trust people too easily, and they're higher in the trait "openness" which allows them to believe in more far-out ideas, part of this naivety is likely that they dislike lies, and project this onto others, and another cause is probably spending a lot of time alone, so that they more easily retain childhood naivety. Group 2 are are childish and naive in that they are afraid of negative emotions and anything else which might aid their personal growth. They tend to consume whatever helps distract them from reality (modern entertainment), and they have plenty of friends who will aid them in keeping their delusions intact (You're so valid! Being a little chubby is okay! Being triggered over mean words is totally normal!)

It's hard to cut these two groups perfectly in two, but if I had to try, group 1 are rigid and logical people in an illogical world which requires flexibility, and group 2 are flexible but weak-willed normies who live in shared social delusions (blank slate, etc) and care more about emotions and social reality than they care about objective reality.

Yep, another way to say this is that our response to shame is dramatically over exaggerated exaggerated.

having kids is inherently "unsafe"

Used to be the opposite. Not having kids was how to be unsafe. Kids were your safety net.

You're not wrong.

Isn't this death of the adult the same as described downthread here https://www.themotte.org/post/1199/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/257235?context=8#context

By

@jeroboam as

government competency crisis

And

@Capital_Room as

Weber's "rationalization," it's a hallmark of "modernity,"

And

@The_Nybbler as

the essence of modern management theory

All describe the same aversion to agency and personal responsibility.

I would say that what @WhiningCoil, @jeroboam, @Capital_Room, @The_Nybbler, Et Al. are describing is the downstream effects of what I am describing. IE the afore mentioned "modern pathologies"

And @Capitol_Room as

It's Capital_Room, with "capital" as in letters, city, or punishment, not "capitol" as in legislative building.

And I'd agree that, yes, these do all point toward the same thing.

I've fixed it.

Sure, you can always blame the parents

Well, and in fairness that's not the complaint I'm answering (or rather, it's the far more complicated version of "protect your kids from hostile social memes" that, unless you have time [and most parents don't], you won't have neither the presence, energy, or finances to combat it correctly- which is part of why parental rights are a dead letter these days, but I digress).

That desperate desire to avoid or minimize risk/blame ultimately bleeding over into a more generalized aversion to anything resembling personal responsibility or agency, and ultimately emotional and cognitive infantilization.

Furthermore I am positing that the collapse in birth rates is largely downstream of this phenomenon.

Humorously, the people blue tribe love to import have a much healthier relationship with risk than the natives do (risk-taking is obviously selected for when immigration is illegal). And then blues are shocked when their imports won't vote for the party of risk-aversity.

or more pointedly blame

2 thoughts (that say mostly the same thing):

First, when blame (and failure) becomes rare, the ability to assign it (or threaten such) becomes a far more powerful force than it otherwise should be relative to the objective risk.

Perhaps, in economic booms, there are very few ways to truly fail, so the ability to properly weight failure is diluted; then, when that boom ends and more ways to fail appear, the people who grew up in the 'too much opportunity to fail' times can't handle weighting risk correctly. After that, if the bust continues for long enough, you'd get another generation passing on that problem, and the negative feedback loop of "too scared to do anything" continues until the next generation has more opportunity than the last.

Second, we did such a good job (in that boom time) engineering all risk (and the human factor in general- WEIRD people automate everything, it's just how we are) out of our systems that when something does blow up, now it's a big deal.

It is, quite literally (on a social level) an allergy to risk; then, when kids are born into a society that has such an allergy that metastasizes into an allergy to blame.

2 thoughts (that say mostly the same thing)

These are legit points that I l will have to bring up if/when i get around to writing said effort post.

Global GDP per capita has never been higher Well, some part of GDP increase is fake and some part of GDP is not owned by population at fertile years. A hairdresser doing same work in 2020 as in 1950 is counted as higher GDP but you can't eat it.

Their Soviet history and the fact that their languages don't use the Latin alphabet means that the populations are not very exposed to English-language global culture. Kazakhstan actually switched to Latin recently. The common in these countries is nationalism.

As I’ve said before, it is possible to reduce declining fertility by making having more children higher status. It wouldn’t even be hard (to paraphrase Moldbug). But it would require:

  1. Blocking college admission to the 70th+ percentile of colleges for anyone with fewer than 2 siblings.

  2. Reserving 90% of seats on corporate boards (for major public companies), and cabinet positions, along with senior federal and state government jobs for adults with at least 3 children

  3. Implementing a 70% inheritance tax on adults with no children for all assets over $500k, which would fall by 20% per child. This encourages families with one or two children to have more so.

  4. Require all full professors at universities that receive any public funding to have at least 2 biological children; 70% should have at least 3.

  5. Require 75% of actors over 30 on all film and television productions that receive state tax credits and other incentives to have at least two children.

  6. Legally mandate 9 months of paternity pay (which can be split or taken all at once) per child at full pay for all American men, but only if married (and make it much harder to fire fathers under threat of federal civil rights investigation than it woul be to fire childless men).

I’m not advocating these things (necessarily). But low tfr is always a choice, and that should be remembered.

I don't think it would take that much to merely reduce declining fertility. If you treat "conservatives" in the United States as a social group, they reproduce at or above replacement rates. Partially I think this is because kids make people conservative, but partly because in their circles having children is an honorable thing that is encouraged.

People forget there was a lot of anti-natal propaganda in schools, television, etc. I suspect that simply running that experiment, but reversed, on another generation of kids would get birth rates to rise/decline more slowly.

It seems possible that bigger-stick stuff like what you lay out would be better at getting to quicker rates more rapidly.

It's because conservatives live in rural areas, close to their extended families from which they receive millions of dollars in free child care.

So perhaps what you're suggesting is making pre-K childcare free would boost fertility? I'd buy that.

Working/middle class families in the US already get free pre-K(not younger though) and Children’s health insurance through means testing.

No, all the way until they are like 14.

I agree this would work, but I'm not even sure it's the hard part. The hard part is convincing the 'best people', those that drive culture and policy, that it's necessary. But if you've done that, it'll probably already trickle down to the masses anyway (and not just via pure cultural diffusion, but because if a set of ideas has convinced most of the 'best people', it's probably a very convincing set of ideas, and it'll probably work for others too! I also think this is a general way in which the influence of the elites on culture is somewhat overstated.)

The issue with this idea is that it encourages all the super high powered innovators etc. who would otherwise have created massive new companies to emigrate to another country without these laws if they don't want to have children.

One solution would be to have the laws only apply to the half of the population that has traditionally focused on child rearing, while the half of the population that has traditionally focused on innovating and building companies would be exempt.

But that's certainly a conversation that no one wants to have.

You can have that conversation, but it would lead to a lot of aimless women rather than many more children because most 24 year old men don’t want to be married with three children at that age.

most 24 year old men don’t want to be married with three children at that age.

24 year old men, for the overwhelming majority of human history, absolutely wanted to be married with multiple children. Modern society is the exception, not the rule. Now, let's not resists temptation to hit the RETVRN button.

Instead, let's figure out how to encourage earlier family formation while still enjoying the benefits - and avoiding the pitfalls - of modern technology and industrial capacity.

Uh, in human history most men did not marry by 24, and there isn’t a lot of evidence that they wanted to.

Non-WEIRD societies had a typical marriage of teenager+30 year old. Europeans in the late medieval and early modern era married later as women, but not earlier as men. The fifties saw most 24 year old men married and having children.

There's no law of nature saying women can't marry older men. I suspect that if women actually had strongly restricted prospects they would do just that, because it's what women do in societies where there prospects are strongly restricted.

In many conservative Muslim countries both men and women marry older, and in most trad communities men aren’t significantly older than women at age of first marriage. What examples are you thinking of?

The US, circa 1900.

But that's certainly a conversation that no one wants to have.

Oh? I hear the faction of childless unmarried women talk about what you’ve described- equity, not equality- all the time.

They know what the solution is, it’s just that if it was implemented correctly they’d be in the crosshairs.

Would be bad in Britain. But America can afford it, there is nowhere else like it.

Wouldn't rich people just adopt an adult, Japanese style, in order to avoid the penalty. They could pay the adoptee a small amount for their trouble and leave the rest to the Richburger Fund For Getting Skinsuited By Activists like they all do now.

“Couldn’t people just lie to the IRS?”. Yeah, sure, but you scare a few people with enforcement and make sure the rules include “the spirit of the law” (as they do with tax) and violation will be limited.

That's not lying to the IRS though. They're legally your heirs, they're your children, and iirc at least in the US you can still give them $50k for their trouble and do whatever you want with the rest. Unlike France, say, where they could sue for an equal share.

Sure but if you are already talking about a sweeping legislative change with the explicit goal of increasing the number of children born, it seems like the political will to say, no you can't adopt adults to get around it, should not be very hard to find, relative to the will needed to actually do all the other stuff in the first place.

Seems like the solution is to allow children in the US to also sue for an equal share.

I’m fully in board with this, but I think going back to keeping married women out of high powered positions. This would reduce women going to college and therefore increase the likelihood that they end up marrying early and having more kids. Heck, as much as I as a woman enjoyed college, I think keeping women out would help here.

Within Finland (and as far as I know, other Nordic countries as well) there's a persistent pattern of women with high education having higher fertility rates than those with low education, which at least somewhat challenges the idea of education being universally disruptive to fertility. (Of course all these segments have fertility rates below replacement, but still, just limiting university education would not solve anything here, and there must be other factors keeping TFR low for those with lower education.)

Could this not be explained by women with high education marrying men with high or even higher education (i.e. wealthy men), which has a positive effect on fertility. Confounder?

I mean, I assume you want these babies born in wedlock, yes? Where do you think high-IQ women are going to meet high-IQ husbands at an early age if not college?

"Go to a school with a strong engineering program and pretend to struggle with your math homework in the engineering commons until a senior in the program helpfully explains what your professor couldn't" is and remains the best way for a middle class woman to become a tradwife. The Christian Nationalist Revolutionary Guard Corp is not coming to restructure our society, and the people who would have to staff this organization if it existed don't want to. We won't have arranged marriages outside of very small, insular subcultures that don't really care about the prevailing TFR.

Why would you want to keep top women away from college? They have just as much right as top men to contribute to the future of humanity. It's the middling women you want to discourage if anything because the top ones will by and large not fall for the negative messaging of college anywhere near the middling women will.

Unfortunately, saying that top women should have careers and middling women should have babies makes ‘not having a baby’ a status symbol. Which is how we got here.

Again, I’m trying to optimize births, and particularly high quality births. If a woman goes to college, she’s going to delay childbearing until after college, and if she’s highly intelligent and goes as far as she can, she’ll get a masters so she’ll only begin to think about having children after she graduates from a Master’s degree programs at 24-25. Even if she doesn’t buy the negative messages, the loss of a good chunk of her fertility is going to mean that she’s probably at best having one child.

And if we’re shooting to simultaneously try to get high IQ people to have more kids, then the above is the worst thing to do. A woman with high IQ giving birth to 3-5 high IQ kids is likely to do more to raise the general IQ of the country than anything she could accomplish in the workplace. I’m sure there might be one or two high IQ women who will make life-altering contributions to science, but if you lost that and had that woman give birth to 3-4 high IQ kids who go on to do similar things you end up getting a better return.

she’ll get a masters so she’ll only begin to think about having children after she graduates from a Master’s degree programs at 24-25. Even if she doesn’t buy the negative messages, the loss of a good chunk of her fertility is going to mean that she’s probably at best having one child.

That would be true if masters degree programs ended in a woman's thirties. They don't. An average woman who marries at 25 is totally capable of having 3+ children and there's lots of examples known to me personally of this happening. Heck, there's an example downthread of a man whose wife had four children after finishing her residency first.

Yes, but people typically do masters degrees because they want masters-degree-level careers. The masters degree itself is probably only the first stepping stone; they will need to do oversubscribed entry-level jobs that may require them to move around a lot and/or devote lots of hours per day. If you get a masters and then start having 3+ children then I think you're either going to be a very absent mother or you might as well burn the diploma now. I would say it's going to be another 5 years until that woman feels stable enough to consider children.

contribute to the future of humanity

The best way for top women to contribute to the future of humanity is by bearing humanities future directly.

Ehhh... in the strictest sense yes, and it's inevitable that women will bear the brunt of childbearing/childrearing, but the burdens of both don't seem great enough to be any woman's sole occupation. It's already well established that people massively overestimate how much work needs to be put into raising children, leading to terribly stifling parenting styles that are net negative for the affected children. With how trivialized housekeeping has become, it seems to me that intelligent, childbearing women would be well served by WFH positions so they can contribute to the household in a more tangible sense.

Besides, you be the one to tell a curious young woman that the boys get to do all the cool shit while she gets to be the factory to make more boys.

Often these stifling parents will only have one or two children. If the goal is four or more different styles of parenting are necessary along with greater demands on home making for a larger family.

Is it the top women selecting WFH positions? These typically don't have the challenge or prestige top women are looking for. The bulk of the WFH ladies are mid, many in fake email jobs.

...why would they tell curious young women that the boys get to do all the cool shit, as opposed to telling them that boys have to do all the boring, tedious, monotonous, and dangerous shit?

Like, sure, you can, but that's a weird framing to take for what even you concede as the strictly superior option for society. Why would a society want to approach persuasion in that way?

It's already well established that people massively overestimate how much work needs to be put into raising children, leading to terribly stifling parenting styles that are net negative for the affected children.

This is not the well established conclusion, since the comparison isn't terribly stifling parenting styles versus beneficent parenting styles, but rather terribly stifling parenting styles versus no parenting at all.

The repugnant conclusion of ethics is only repugnant if you think sub-optimization is worse than non-existence. Certainly the general child is not better off for having never been born to suffer parents (or worse, puberty). Those that disagree can and would resolve that issue themselves, but the survivors will- by definition- prefer the life with bad parents to no life.

The male equivalents of the women in question aren't the ones doing the dirty work, we're talking >85th percentile IQ. It is true that women have a certain baseline privilege, but with it comes a certain cap on their expected competence. It's a tradeoff that works to the favor of some, perhaps even most, but certainly not all women.

...why would they tell curious young women that the boys get to do all the cool shit

It's not explicitly said, but that's the message that at least one teenage girl got (though granted, perhaps she isn't a representative sample)

The male equivalents of the women in question aren't the ones doing the dirty work, we're talking >85th percentile IQ.

Again, this is reversing the paradigm to assume the conclusion. It's not about 'the male equivalents of the women in question,' it's how you are characterizing the jobs these women's spouses would be doing if they were expected to be breadwinners, i.e. "the cool shit while she gets to be the factory to make more boys."

Most bread-winning jobs are boring, tedious, monotonous, and/or dangerous because that is why they are paying you breadwinning wages in the first place. Higher wages aren't correlated with fun or excitement, but with the compensation required for people to take them, generally because the work is not generally desirable 'cool shit.' Quite often the greater the wage advantage the worse the desirability, because if it was highly desirable then other workers would want that job and be willing to do it for less.

Which returns to the question of framing bias.

Why would you insinuate to high IQ women that they should be envious of the often unpleasant jobs of their bread-winning spouses, while denigrating the alternative, except for the purpose of elevating the former over the later?

Aella is like the textbook example of a high-testosterone woman. She's definitely not a representative sample.

your mom finds you crying one night alone in your bed, crying in grief that god hadn’t made you be born a boy

This is not a thing that normal little girls do.

Also she does that stupid zoomer not using capital letters thing even though she's a millennial. Very annoying.

More comments

Very wealthy women already have more children than almost every other demographic.

Are these very wealthy women, or the wives / partners of very wealthy men?

Assortative mating means they are often both.

I'd guess there's an old money / new money cultural difference in the assortive pairings.

In my experience new money wealth marries young / hot not necessarily wealthy.

Another interesting example of high birth rates in non-African countries are central Asian countries like Mongolia and Kazakhstan. These countries seem to have been able to reverse, and not just slow down birth rate decline

Kazakhstan fertility rate is declining. You are thinking of Mongolia and Georgia. I already talked about them two months ago they are very unusual countries and the reversal in TFR is probably just a fluke.

The reason for the fertility rate decline is simple: the cost of children greatly outpaced growth in wealth for various reason deeply rooted in how modern western societies are organized. It can't be fixed without some deep changes nobody is willing or capable of making. Telling people something is high status doesn't work, you actually have to make them perceive the high status and in a capitalist society high status roughly correlates with more disposable income, therefore you either have to abandon capitalism or shower parents with so much money that having a child is a cash positive decision at any level of income.

Mongolia and Georgia share the common thread of awards to big families from widely respected institutions playing a big part of their story.

Yes, this is completely correct.

American pop country music has lots of pro-natal messages, and while country music listeners would have a higher TFR anyways(because ruralness etc), you also tend to see higher fertility rates in situations where you wouldn’t already expect it.

So the question becomes ‘what else can the government do to make large families high status’. You could hand out awards for having large families, as Mongolia does. You can meddle in entertainment; it shouldn’t be hard to find a 19 kids and counting family that doesn’t come with the baggage and ridiculousness of the Duggars. You can reach down increasingly lower to reward large families with the tax code- no property taxes for families with 3+ kids, for example.

I don’t think any of these will be enough for the general population. Let’s face it, the fertility success stories are mostly populations that are ruraler and more religious and conservative anyways(Mongolia, Georgia the country, the stans, the faroes, Byzantine Catholics in Europe, and maybe Afrikaners and conservative Americans). You would, I think, have to make religion high status somehow- Byzantine Catholics, Georgia the country, and the stans saw this as a major driving factor for their fertility booms, and it’s certainly where I would look to explain the faroes continuing high fertility.

One small anecdote in favor of the status explanation. About ten years ago, my wife's cousin (around age 9 or so at the time) was in elementary school and the teacher had each student say what they wanted to be when they grew up. My wife's cousin said she wanted to be a mom, and this was apparently concerning enough that it earned her parents a call from the teacher after school that day. The teacher was concerned they weren't "encouraging" her enough. Today she identifies as a lesbian.

I wonder what the teacher would have said to a boy who said he wanted to be a dad.

She probably would have started making veiled hints about homosexuality and said that she’d be happy to talk to him about his confusing feelings.

I’m puzzled by this response. Why would a kid who wants to grow up to be a dad be presumed by anyone to be gay, when gay men are less likely to have kids than straight men?

Since stay at home dad is even less a long term plan than stay at home mom, it comes across as non sequitur in the context of school. Kids know that by 9, even four old boys all say things like "firefighter" or "policeman" (the girls said "princess" at my child's pre-K). So they must be odd in some way, possibly effeminate or gay?

So they must be odd in some way, possibly effeminate or gay?

Exactly. The progressive's response to a kid who is different is that he must be gay or trans or something. In fact, the teacher may even be hoping for this outcome!

It's of course perfectly fine for a kid to want to be a dad, or to just be different, without a label getting stuck on the them.

Same thing adults have been telling boys for millennia: "Insufficient".

Status is key, however there is another mechanism that is playing in here.

With hypergamy and women not needing men for protection and provision women can seek higher status men. Men can achieve higher status by spending more time. Even if you wanted to just have kids at a young age it is going to be hard to find an attractive wife without going to college, without traveling, without buying a nice house etc. The status that you get from getting a low skilled labour job and from renting a place that a 22 year old can afford doing unqualified labour is shooting yourself in the foot on the dating market.

There is no time pressure to have kids. We have effective contraception and people are pushing through grad school, trying to buy a place in the right side of town or trying to take the right tinder pics on Bali so they can get an attractive partner. If people were more naturally paired up more kids would be born.

This is only true because our culture does not like age gaps, though.

Old women do not like age gaps. Young women and older men are happy enough with them. And nobody cares what young men want.

And nobody cares what young men want.

Only prosperous societies care about that; whether or not that's causal or a consequence is still up for debate.

Young women mostly don’t like the idea of age gaps, though, even if they’re happy enough with them in practice.

I think there’s another factor here. The Western WEIRD culture actually discourages having kids young. Both parents are highly pressured to go through 4 years or more of college, then work for a few years before getting married. Then you spend a few years building up a nest egg and a career before you start thinking about kids.

Given the relatively short real fertility window, the delay in childbearing means fewer kids just because of biology. A woman’s best fertility is between 18 or so and 25. So she might well be too old to have kids by the time that she’s secure enough to think of having them. She’s not even getting married until 22 at minimum. Three years after that, her fertility is starting to decline, but she’s not yet getting pregnant.

Getting married at later than 22 wasn't uncommon as a historical norm. Although I agree that people often don't think clearly about biological realities, we know that getting married in the mid-twenties on average wasn't by itself a barrier to population growth.

Uh, who waits for years after getting married to start having babies? Is it really something that's common in the blue tribe?

Like even very secular people I know, or know of, do not do this- if they're dead set against having kids for years, they do not get married.

Uh, who waits for years after getting married to start having babies? Is it really something that's common in the blue tribe?

Yes, very.

The marriage is a big, self-referential celebration of Disney style True Love. Marriage inside of an actual church is less and less common and, for the couples that are doing it because Mom and Dad would be otherwise displeased, the "ceremony" is one reading and the vows. The real ceremony is always the reception which is a strange bacchanalia devotion to the Wife. The husband is pretty much a slightly drunk usher. The "best" weddings are the ones where everyone gets incredibly hammered, but there is no violence, vomiting, or immediately broken vows.

Usually it's about 2 years before the first kid.

Narcissism is strong.

Had our first around 4/5 years after our wedding. Despite what I was taught by Risky Business, it's not always that easy to get a woman pregnant.

Sure, fertility issues are understandable. I’m confused more by people who marry with the intention of delaying childbirth.

To clarify, do you find this more confusing or uniquely confusing compared to not marrying until later?

I find it confusing that a non-negligible number of people marry without intending to go ahead and have babies whatever the cost. Delaying marriage because you don’t want no baby seems pretty easy to wrap my head around. Having a baby and stopping at one because you don’t think you can handle more seems easy to grasp. Going ahead and getting married with the intention of not having a baby for years just seems confusing.

I loved my husband. He loved me. We wanted to spend our lives together. Marriage provided a legal structure to that decision, and offered protections that living together wouldn't. We didn't even have the "do you want kids" conversation until we'd been married several years, and were fortunately on the same page when we got to it. OTOH, both of our siblings married specifically with child-bearing in mind.

IME, religious weddings seem to focus a lot more on the idea that marriage exists for kids. Health insurance, property inheritance, SS, medical care decisions, and specifically committing to building a life together with someone you love and respect were plenty of motivation for us.

I had my kid about 10 years after I got married. I wouldn't say it's common to wait that long after marriage but if you add dating + marriage, several friends fall into a similar time frame. I am not blue tribe, some friends are, some aren't. It's not that weird to marry to commit to your spouse, especially for those of us who are secular. Children are a separate choice.

Most people (I know) don't view the purpose of marriage to be producing kids, and therefore don't think it's weird to get married without any intention of producing kids.

We 'waited' seven years. We'd likely have more than 4 if we started earlier. My wife was trying for a top decile career.

Not blue tribe in any sense.

....Why? Is it really impossible to have children and be a lawyer or a doctor or what have you?

It's just mindboggling that people actually do this.

@hyrdoacetylene

Can you share your most commonly seen models of family formation and early child rearing where you are? Genuine question / curiosity.

People don’t marry when they don’t intend to have children fairly quickly. They might date ‘for fun’ but not ‘seriously’ up until that point. The woman’s parents can veto a prospective groom; family goes to the wedding along with a few close friends. When the woman’s father begins referring to them as ‘engaged’ is an inflection point in the relationship that comes well before the actual proposal, or even the prospective groom speaking to him about it. If the couple has a ‘church home’ that’s where they marry, if they don’t then they marry outdoors with a clergyman in someone’s extended social circle officiating, the denomination is irrelevant, using classic Christian vows and following a brief prayer service- even if they only go to church a couple of times a year. The bride’s parents would not allow the wedding if they didn’t think both parties meant every word of their vows. Child free weddings are not a thing, and the reception afterwards allows considerable latitude for teenagers and older children to do things normally not allowed on account of age(eg sneak a few beers, stay up very late). There is a dance floor and some toasting, it’s normal to get a bit tipsy. The maid of honor catches the bouquet and the garter is caught by a photogenic preadolescent boy.

Babies come quickly after marriage. It’s not a sin to marry poor or have babies poor, it is a sin to neglect them. The grandparents are very involved and usually a young couple has a female relative come stay to help for a few weeks after the first and second baby. Not having at least two is weird. It’s ideal for a woman to stay home until her youngest is at least out of diapers, or maybe in elementary school if she can swing it, but if not childcare from relatives or on the market has to do. The children have to come before the parents’ wants or ambitions, and it weighing heavier on the woman is just the way the world works.

It would be better if people could marry young, but they are no longer as wise, selfless, mature, and virtuous as they were in the fifties, and particularly young men take longer to grow up these days. Some of that’s their fault and some of it isn’t. It is normal for parents and grandparents to provide extra help to try to overcome this by co-signing loans or making gifts, to try to get around the socioeconomic factors like high housing costs. An elder who cannot see when doing this is destructive rather than constructive has a serious character flaw for co-signing on a corvette purchase or giving money to a wastrel who will lose it sports betting or what have you. Most women will not accept a large age gap, so people are into their twenties before they marry.

That’s more or less a description of the extended branches of my extended family doing things.

It's not impossible. It is hard. I have one kid. I am a programmer, so work in male dominated environments. There was no work support for a lactating mother. Fortunately I was senior so had flexibility in schedule and an office. But I had to pump every 2 hours. I could do that because my job allowed for it. A litigator would have had a much harder time. I could bail on work for random sick or injured kid needs (spouse work wasn't as flexible). When we had a childcare problem, my 4 yr old spent a month at work with me, hanging out under my desk until I got it sorted. Doctors or lawyers would likely have had a harder time with that. These things are the sorts of things that kill a woman's career. I could struggle through with one. More than one? Unlikely. I could struggle through as a senior in a flexible career. Not a senior or in a less flexible career? Unlikely. If my spouse had had a less demanding career and was able to be more helpful it would have been easier, but in my experience women with excellent career options tend to be married to men with equivalent or better options.

I'm not going to say it's impossible, but there wasn't an abundance of successful examples.

Despite the efforts to reduce the working hours of junior doctors, it's still alot of work frequently at odd hours. If the program has an academic commitment or requirement this is often on-top.

We were fortunate that there was no school debt.

We were also fortunate to have a very easy time conceiving.


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats