Form: Question

–Q: Curt: “What subtle things can a society do to encourage smart people to have more children and possibly encourage the -[rest] to breed less?”–

ie: “What does practical soft eugenics look like?”

The problem in that sentence is the word ‘subtle’. Because it’s been tried for two thousand years and while it has a tiny initial bump, it dissipates rapidly. Because most of it’s caused by cultural values: does your joy and status come from consumption and entertainment, or from production and children and family and friends? In other words, the social order matters as much as the economic costs.

Given restoring the eugenic reproduction has been tried throughout history, we have learned a few things – mostly how little effect policies can have. Add the reduction of child mortality, and the high cost of urban living, rendering children costly instead of an advantage on the farm has exacerbated the problem. And high investment parenting in urban and suburban areas exacerbates the problem further.

I could write ten pages on this subject with ease, but in simple terms:
(a) Policy necessary would be politically difficult (very) in a democratic polity.
(b) Reducing the reproduction of the underclasses is more effective than increasing the reproduction of the upper, because it moves the mean the fastest, and the mean determines the economy, society, and polity. Voluntary sterilization in exchange for minor compensation is enough.
(c) Genetic rotation up and down from the middle class provides genetic reserves in a polity. Persistent upper classes tend to preserve themselves and we would only need to roughly increase their numbers – largely through tax reduction and ending the death (estate) tax.
(d) Restore liabilty for interference in marriage, employment, or business. And restore liability for dissolution of marriage. And remove common property alimony and child support. While at the same time restoring education in manners, ethics, morals, friendship, marriage, and family, despite that it will expose less effective parents to criticism by their own children. (This was far more effective in 19th century UK than we want to admit.)
(e) Restore dependence on the family for elder care (singapore model of job loss, health, retirement), meaning your redistributive income in retirement is dependent upon the number of your offspring and their tax production.
(f) Limit access to positions of status particularly in government, business, and finance to people without replacement levels of reproduction (children) because status is the strongest motivator (It’s common knowledge that left politicians have few or no children).
(g) Restore parental liabilty for the behavior of errant children (a disincentive for dysfunctionals). This is likely more effective than we imagine.
(h) The end result is ‘you pay them a lot’ because genetically superior children from persistently accomplished families, practicing high investment parenting are doing the same work for the benefit of the polity as all other economic social and political production. In other words europe did it through upward redistribution of income and limiting access to land, marriage, and reproduction for the unfit, then culled the population aggressively through ‘genetic pacification’ (hanging largely) from 1200 onward with outstanding results.

Is this something we can do given that we have sold the world the promise of liberalism, freedom, democracy, consumer capitalism, consumption? I dunno. I solve for true. It’s not my job to solve for approval. 😉

I think the best we can do is aggressive sterilization and compensation at the bottom, and to direct investment to human capital at the top. Particularly requiring children in order to hold responsibility for others.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @watercarousel @JaredAberach