Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I am very pro taking care of people for the sake of having them cared for, and I do think there are other positive community externalities derived from safety nets. I'm just disappointed that there seem to be fewer levers for natalism than one might think

I wish we spoke more openly about "buffers" -- isn't a buffer in general necessary if we want and want to encourage people to make the bold steps needed for both basic personal freedom and on occasion becoming the outlier who moves the world forward?

This ^^^ is my strongest reason for (intelligently attempting) basic income. I think knowing that you/family won’t starve or die due to lack of healthcare will get a lot more people to take good risks. Free up a lot of population from bullshit jobs- create true wealth.

Isn't the success of mammals over reptiles (due to cooperation that precedes systems of finance) the empirical evidence you are looking for?

It’s almost shocking how well this doesn’t work. Strange innit Although it almost does in France... but the number of other incentives they provide for you are intensely aggressive. I think they actually divide your tax rate by the # of kids you have. Over the top stuff.

It's an an incredibly obvious and sensible narrative that unfortunately explains nothing we actually see

pretty much any anti poverty policy is also a pro-fertility policy, since children and parents are more likely to be poor than single adults.

But this doesn't seem borne (heh) out by the global data, e.g. comparing rich countries with strong social protections to poor ones without?