By improving working conditions and monetary value so that a home needs only one working parent.

The best financial incentives for childrearing are ones that remove the financial deficits caused by having a stay at home mom.

I seem to recall defending monarchy back in '12:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2/tell_your_rationalist_origin_story/7e8p?context=3

The point of reaction is thus:

Conservatism and liberalism are each spectrums of political ideas: conservatism is based on correspondence to the logic underlying reality, liberalism is based on projection of the logic of the human mind and its desires.

Thus liberalism clusters all of its ideas around the notion of "equality" where conservatism focuses on consequences; this is why we might draw a line between preference-based utilitarianism and consequence-based reasoning.

If you are anywhere on the leftist spectrum, neoreaction will seem to you like the worst thing ever. To #nrx folk however modern society is the worst thing ever, because in the pursuit of the individual it has replaced real life with technology, government and product-based entertainment. It has rotted out our souls and our decisions are correspondingly bad, but people act in a vast conspiracy to ignore the effects of their actions.

Many people speak of wanting a way out of politics. The only way to do this is to go to philosophy. And then you do not have handy packages in which to wrap up your ideas; how do I vote for "existentialism" (or as said before, where do I vote to end democracy)? But at a philosophical level, we can see how politics does us a disservice. It exists to cripple governments in order to prevent abuses, but in doing so, it prevents societies from taking any forward action especially against the slow creep of consumerism, entertainment culture and other forms of modern blight.

At a philosophical level, once you affirm nationalism (ethnic self-determination) and monarchy (rejection of democracy), you have also rejected equality and thus have rejected the fond human notion that we are all capable of deciding what is best for us and thus that conjecture is equal to results-based analysis.

That is the line in the sand that #nrx has drawn.

When I was a child, I read the classics of literature and philosophy and quickly became a realist.

I don't say I'm a rationalist because rationalism implies a universal quality to human judgment, when empirical evidence convinces me no such thing exists.

Since then, I've left behind liberalism (pure emotion, defensiveness) and become a conservative realist, monarchist, conservationist and idealist (in the Kant/Schopenhauer sense).

If you like the Aurelius, also read the Schopenhauer book of aphora:

http://www.amazon.com/Parerga-Paralipomena-Short-Philosophical-Essays/dp/0199242216

I agree.

GG&S has crossed the line from "exploring possibility" to "fanatical propaganda."

I realize he just wanted to rebut The Global Bell Curve, but it's poorly done.

Collapse, on the other hand is great, especially if you read it in conjunction with its clear inspiration, Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons"

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

Not to be a cynic, but:

Zero-sum is not an illusion.

Every single thing has opportunity cost.

It may not be another person that pays if I pick up my toys, and go found my own community elsewhere.

It may be fewer trees and less open land.

We're all in this together, on the same planet, sharing the same air and water. Nothing is positive-sum if it involves using physical resources.