That's a good point and question. I got no kids. So I have no direct evidence of this. But I've heard some say that parents want a "better life" for their kids. If that were true, and the parents were rational, eliminating *all* inheritance (including e.g. Nick's baby ward randomization) should reduce the number of children. There'd still be hysterical growth and indoctrination, of course. E.g. if epigenetics matters, the food you feed your kids, whether you vape in the car, whether you mix their gut flora with that of dogs or chickens, etc. would provide for at least some [un]intentional inheritance. But eliminating *only* accrued artifacts and rents may not have much impact on the birth rate. I don't think it would. There's too much of the sense of "self replication" in the breeders. I'm confident my parents wanted to grow little "Mini-Mes". They were devastated when they finally realized I was so damned weird. >8^D
On 3/17/21 9:09 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Nuclear waste comes to mind: There are these things that we don't want to > talk about, and so if we just make them impossible to dispose of, maybe > people will stop making them. The same applies to Styrofoam or > pressure-treated wood here in Berkeley. If many cities start these mandates > then eventually manufacturers will start to pay attention. Is there some > point at which people will stop making more people, if there is not directly > or indirectly inherited wealth? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
