Even a pro-natalist like Morland, who describes himself as “unapologetically rightwing”, accepts that humanity must have a population limit. But he argues that its decline needs to be better managed and should be delayed until AI and robotics can replace labour.
So let me understand Morland’s view here. He believes in right-wing, thus most likely is against government assistance for new families (I feel i may be taking a leap here, being Canadian and feeding my view of right wing here). However he doesn’t want people to give up on having kids prior to AI and robotics being able to replace labour.
Both of these things are years off. Some AI skeptics feel AI is decades off being able to replace labour in a significant way. Tesla recently had robots that couldnt even handle being bartenders without people controlling them. Thus his answer is… to nag people to go through worse lives and have kids (due to the costs/time commitments, I’m not trying to Slag off having kids here, the joy you get is wonderful, I’m just pointing out the costs and sacrifices) until they fix the issues? I know they didn’t write an answer attributed to him, but I really don’t understand his position here. We seem to hit a point where I, personally, would be questioning my own rightwing beliefs.
That’s an honest question. There was a recent F.D. signifier video on edgewood films and if satire works or not.
To save you an hour: While yes, satire is funny and informative for those of us on the left, and they show a great degree of well made art which you should enjoy, those who support what’s being satired aren’t impacted. Rather they ignore the overall message and cheer on the negative aspects being made fun off. Which wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t amp up terrible aspects (violence against marginalized groups, for instance) and thus end up getting people hurt and/or killed.