gwern comments on Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids - Less Wrong

17 Post author: jsalvatier 29 May 2012 06:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (257)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 29 May 2012 11:29:49PM 4 points [-]

I believe Caplan's reply is basically that choosing to have kids affects the margin very little because any abdication on your part will be picked up by developing countries, and that having a kid is a net benefit because the more people there are, the more innovations and whatnot are created (positive externalities).

Comment author: athingtoconsider 11 June 2012 06:31:13AM *  0 points [-]

any abdication on your part will be picked up by developing countries

Having trouble parsing, could you explain what that means, perhaps by example?

Comment author: gwern 11 June 2012 03:20:26PM 4 points [-]

The demand for offspring is sufficiently inelastic that a Westerner refusing to have offspring is replaced by a developing country kid (or multiple kids, inasmuch as a Westerner kid consumes so many resources).

Comment author: athingtoconsider 12 June 2012 12:13:27AM *  0 points [-]

I'm having difficulty mapping that line of reasoning for some reason.

How, in practice, might a Westerner couple not having a kid exert influence on a non-Western couple having a kid? By what mechanisms are non-Western births influenced by Western births?

Comment author: gwern 12 June 2012 12:14:46AM 3 points [-]

Prices are the obvious mechanism that comes to mind - prices of things like food or top American universities.

Comment author: athingtoconsider 12 June 2012 05:27:54PM *  0 points [-]

Wouldn't lower prices for top American universities, e.g., lower the number of children born? I am under the impression that poverty is conducive to birthing more children.

Comment author: Shephard 30 May 2012 06:11:04PM -1 points [-]

That sounds like what he might say, but I agree with Waveman. For one thing, the overall economic and environmental impact of one child in the developing world far outweighs that of one child born in poorer countries. Furthermore, if there's any detrimental impact of the bloated world population, then we need as many people as possible encouraging self-restraint, even if any one group of citizens can afford to indulge themselves.

Also, the claim that the percentage of innovators born to each generation is enough to offset the overall negative externalities is dubious at best. I'd say that our pace of innovation is still very obviously struggling to keep up with the pace our reproduction.

Comment author: gwern 30 May 2012 07:15:42PM 12 points [-]

For one thing, the overall economic and environmental impact of one child in the developing world far outweighs that of one child born in poorer countries.

This also holds true for their positive impacts too. Not much good science is conducted by Africans in Africa.

Comment author: Emile 30 May 2012 08:00:30PM 9 points [-]

I'd say that our pace of innovation is still very obviously struggling to keep up with the pace our reproduction.

That's not "very obvious" to me at all.