Well e.g. One Billion Americans isn’t addressed at readers to tell them to have more kids. It’s addressed at policy makers to pursue policies to allow for more population growth—including through immigration, not just pro-natalist policies.
You are right that Matt’s places a larger share of his hope in immigration than birthrates. However, Matt argues that immigration leads to assimilation and that includes assimilating to Western birthrates. His commitment to the political project of one billion Americans seems to require escaping the current equilibrium birthrate.
Sure, but he’s not giving an argument for you as an individual to have more children. He’s saying government should support policies which increase birthrates. So his having one child is not hypocritical.
Well e.g. One Billion Americans isn’t addressed at readers to tell them to have more kids. It’s addressed at policy makers to pursue policies to allow for more population growth—including through immigration, not just pro-natalist policies.
You are right that Matt’s places a larger share of his hope in immigration than birthrates. However, Matt argues that immigration leads to assimilation and that includes assimilating to Western birthrates. His commitment to the political project of one billion Americans seems to require escaping the current equilibrium birthrate.
Sure, but he’s not giving an argument for you as an individual to have more children. He’s saying government should support policies which increase birthrates. So his having one child is not hypocritical.
That’s fair! The cynic’s voice was definitely too unfair in that context.