I strongly wanted to go to Natal-Con, but rejected because I'm massively busy in my personal life (moving, career, kids).
More critically, I also wondered what impact it could really have on policy. I'm a big believer that incentives shape and reinforce beliefs. Would it just be internet autistics talking to each other but having no impact on the wider world (I don't know, you were there, you tell me!).
What concrete actionable proposals came of all this? That was my question in deciding whether or not to go. Are parent subsidies to be massively advocated for? What kind? Who is to be lobbied and what the is message? Who is to do the lobbying? What is the message?
Whomever promoted the event, @ $10-20k per ticket, did not have such concerns. These are not first order intellectual engagements despite being highly intellectually engaging at the second and third order. As I said earlier, it's like having Bryan Caplan on Tucker Carlson. You're gonna hear a lot of things but maybe not what you'd expect. Just a bunch of complaining.
If you want to say that the organizers post one thing but then do another (after comping a.few legit researchers to cop their credibility), you’re just making my point.
When I looked in advance a ticket was $1,000. I can't speak to what it included or not.
A flight out there was another $1,000, at least from where I was. Hotel, car, etc. Let's say it cost a few thousand.
The real issue is time. Who can spare a weekend? Not busy people with small children.
But in truth, I would have paid $10k to make a difference. In fact far more!
It just wasn't clear to me that such was possible. It's easy to spend money and time fruitlessly. I couldn't justify it under a fog of uncertainty. I sincerely hope I was wrong. I ask my questions genuinely!
What I’ve seen is that countless “convention” people put on shows and then offer 100% comp to people with actual reputations to essentially, lend them credibility while also doing the dirty work of attracting deep influencers who tend to (let’s call it), not do research but rather, take the place of 10,000 salesmen.
I say this as someone with deep experience in convention and festival production. This is how the sausage gets made. I love both Bryan and Robin, but they keep getting picked by hucksters looking for the real prize. Like you, like me, they care about these issues enough to make us all look like patsy “librards”. I’m guessing that neither Bryan or Robin got paid but they got great comps.
Unlike his interview with Tucker, I’m thrilled that Bryan wrote up the show notes.
Bryan was clearly attending just one of many apparent conferences happening simultaneously while smashed together within the same venue, marketed under the same name - as though they were one vehicle. Looking at the comp'ed people (like Bryan and Robin) so easily leveraged by the "other" YouTube influencer/political entrepreneurs, the confusing result was most obvious. This reminds me of Bryan going on Tucker in early 2023 and exclaiming he did not understand why so many of his subscribers thought anything of it.
Anyway, I expect those other "conferences" will likely be submitting their own reviews, shortly.
"My body, my choice" is a blunt instrument that's meant to communicate "no forced pregnancy." It's entirely consistent to be pro-choice and against embryo selection. There's a rich feminist history that delves into that. (It's a bit dated now, but 'Test Tube Women' is a classic text that grapples with the ethics of reproductive technology.)
Eugenics — which is what the Collins', who are the poster couple of pro-natalism, are practicing — deems some humans more worthy to exist than others. They don't select embryos out of a sense of compassion to avert a known debilitating/lethal disease, but to make "better" people as a company score determines it. That doesn't seem great! They're pro-natal...but just for the right type of people...
I think our biggest reaction difference is on Alex; I think maybe that's just because I'm a massive historical demography nerd. We also differ on Steve Turley, who I thought was almost unbearable. But generally I agree that actually a lot of the keynotes were extremely weak!
Did anyone mention negative eugenics, as a way to suppress unintended childbirths amongst the low SES and the third world? Much of the reason that the West is having fewer children is bc they are being economically pilfered, as they have to subsidize the explosive fertility of the underclass. Quality > Quantity. Did anyone mention this elephant in the room?
People should have as many children as they desire but the idea advanced by some that a smaller population will be problematic is simply wrong.
Smaller populations will not be a negative but will help humanity soften the impact of climate change and save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence (thanks Elon) will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
In response to Caplan's comments on Keenan, how does he even know genetic material "selected" by parents as opposed to spontaneously contributed by parents is superior? And even if he does somehow know that, how does he know that knowing you were manufactured by your parents rather than generated through the loving union of your parents will not have bad effects on your character and your learning ability that outweigh the "advantages" of having genetic material your parents purchased? There is no possible way Caplan can know that. The fact that he doesn't even think to ask the question is a demonstration of just how shallow even super-intelligent atheist tend to be when they are reflection on human nature.
Sounds great! Very sad to have missed it (living in the UK). My only comment is that I had thought Cremeiux (who has written some of my favourite blogs) was a woman!
I don't think that's necessarily true across the board. A survey of the research on this showed conservatives had more neurotic traits: fearful, anxious, suspicious, obsessive, but also low-neuroticism traits like stability, consistency (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20447169). Some people think this difference is because neuroticism correlates with both low-class right-wingers and high-class left-wingers (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886918301466).
So, it only listed those prices on the website? Apparently, they have product marketing managers to enforce segment rules. But I saw them. They were 10,000-20,000 each.
I strongly wanted to go to Natal-Con, but rejected because I'm massively busy in my personal life (moving, career, kids).
More critically, I also wondered what impact it could really have on policy. I'm a big believer that incentives shape and reinforce beliefs. Would it just be internet autistics talking to each other but having no impact on the wider world (I don't know, you were there, you tell me!).
What concrete actionable proposals came of all this? That was my question in deciding whether or not to go. Are parent subsidies to be massively advocated for? What kind? Who is to be lobbied and what the is message? Who is to do the lobbying? What is the message?
Whomever promoted the event, @ $10-20k per ticket, did not have such concerns. These are not first order intellectual engagements despite being highly intellectually engaging at the second and third order. As I said earlier, it's like having Bryan Caplan on Tucker Carlson. You're gonna hear a lot of things but maybe not what you'd expect. Just a bunch of complaining.
Hey lazy guy _ is this your way of saying “show me the data cause I’m too lazy?”
Yes. They were - $10,000-20,000.
Always a risk of reply-people wanting to just waste your time - Especially those who don’t bother to look for themselves.
did you even look?
https://lu.ma/zw2e4lff
If you want to say that the organizers post one thing but then do another (after comping a.few legit researchers to cop their credibility), you’re just making my point.
I went to the conference, paid 1k for my ticket. I didn't give any credence to your comment since you didn't provide any evidence for your claim.
Sounds like you got an awesome deal to help same humanity.
I had a lot of fun.
When I looked in advance a ticket was $1,000. I can't speak to what it included or not.
A flight out there was another $1,000, at least from where I was. Hotel, car, etc. Let's say it cost a few thousand.
The real issue is time. Who can spare a weekend? Not busy people with small children.
But in truth, I would have paid $10k to make a difference. In fact far more!
It just wasn't clear to me that such was possible. It's easy to spend money and time fruitlessly. I couldn't justify it under a fog of uncertainty. I sincerely hope I was wrong. I ask my questions genuinely!
Well, I know you do.
What I’ve seen is that countless “convention” people put on shows and then offer 100% comp to people with actual reputations to essentially, lend them credibility while also doing the dirty work of attracting deep influencers who tend to (let’s call it), not do research but rather, take the place of 10,000 salesmen.
I say this as someone with deep experience in convention and festival production. This is how the sausage gets made. I love both Bryan and Robin, but they keep getting picked by hucksters looking for the real prize. Like you, like me, they care about these issues enough to make us all look like patsy “librards”. I’m guessing that neither Bryan or Robin got paid but they got great comps.
Unlike his interview with Tucker, I’m thrilled that Bryan wrote up the show notes.
Bryan was clearly attending just one of many apparent conferences happening simultaneously while smashed together within the same venue, marketed under the same name - as though they were one vehicle. Looking at the comp'ed people (like Bryan and Robin) so easily leveraged by the "other" YouTube influencer/political entrepreneurs, the confusing result was most obvious. This reminds me of Bryan going on Tucker in early 2023 and exclaiming he did not understand why so many of his subscribers thought anything of it.
Anyway, I expect those other "conferences" will likely be submitting their own reviews, shortly.
"My body, my choice" is a blunt instrument that's meant to communicate "no forced pregnancy." It's entirely consistent to be pro-choice and against embryo selection. There's a rich feminist history that delves into that. (It's a bit dated now, but 'Test Tube Women' is a classic text that grapples with the ethics of reproductive technology.)
Eugenics — which is what the Collins', who are the poster couple of pro-natalism, are practicing — deems some humans more worthy to exist than others. They don't select embryos out of a sense of compassion to avert a known debilitating/lethal disease, but to make "better" people as a company score determines it. That doesn't seem great! They're pro-natal...but just for the right type of people...
I think our biggest reaction difference is on Alex; I think maybe that's just because I'm a massive historical demography nerd. We also differ on Steve Turley, who I thought was almost unbearable. But generally I agree that actually a lot of the keynotes were extremely weak!
What made Turley unbearable?
his entire mode of being to be honest. it was like listening of a sort of mediocre right-wing Slavoj Zizek impersonation.
and at 9 PM at night on a friday as the last after-dinner speaker at an open-bar event!
neither the time nor the place!
Did anyone mention negative eugenics, as a way to suppress unintended childbirths amongst the low SES and the third world? Much of the reason that the West is having fewer children is bc they are being economically pilfered, as they have to subsidize the explosive fertility of the underclass. Quality > Quantity. Did anyone mention this elephant in the room?
Interesting…something is afoot
People should have as many children as they desire but the idea advanced by some that a smaller population will be problematic is simply wrong.
Smaller populations will not be a negative but will help humanity soften the impact of climate change and save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence (thanks Elon) will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
I'll have to tell my DC friends about your event:
At George Mason is Capla-Con
By Brian Caplan now decreed:
Where once a singing game he ran
For child and elder, woman, man
I think it's even free.
> Journalists aside, I doubt there were any pro-children Democrats in attendance
I asked if any left-wing people attended, and Razib Khan pointed out Liz Bruenig.
https://x.com/TeaGeeGeePea/status/1906570108379467897
https://x.com/razibkhan/status/1906570250834907148
In response to Caplan's comments on Keenan, how does he even know genetic material "selected" by parents as opposed to spontaneously contributed by parents is superior? And even if he does somehow know that, how does he know that knowing you were manufactured by your parents rather than generated through the loving union of your parents will not have bad effects on your character and your learning ability that outweigh the "advantages" of having genetic material your parents purchased? There is no possible way Caplan can know that. The fact that he doesn't even think to ask the question is a demonstration of just how shallow even super-intelligent atheist tend to be when they are reflection on human nature.
I mean, I'm not known for my feminism, but seems you need more women at a conference devoted to *making babies*...
Sounds great! Very sad to have missed it (living in the UK). My only comment is that I had thought Cremeiux (who has written some of my favourite blogs) was a woman!
His identity is not actually very secret so he tries to mislead people into thinking he’s a woman
I wonder if so many reporters were there because they thought there might be an unannounced visit by Musk or Vance.
Possibly low neuroticism is a correlation with pro natalism nowadays.
Leftists tend to be more neurotic then right wing people
I don't think that's necessarily true across the board. A survey of the research on this showed conservatives had more neurotic traits: fearful, anxious, suspicious, obsessive, but also low-neuroticism traits like stability, consistency (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20447169). Some people think this difference is because neuroticism correlates with both low-class right-wingers and high-class left-wingers (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886918301466).
Interesting!
I would read more conference recaps like this!
So, it only listed those prices on the website? Apparently, they have product marketing managers to enforce segment rules. But I saw them. They were 10,000-20,000 each.