We don’t know what conditions are sufficient to improve humanity’s lot, but, like it or not, we do know that having and raising children is a necessary one. It is also the only such useful contribution that most people are capable of making. Ergo, enlightened&#x2F;progressive[1] policies will spend most prescriptive effort in <i>at least</i> encouraging people to raise the children that they already have and <i>at least not</i> discouraging them from having as many as they can raise well.<p>Basic research and public invention also seem to be necessary conditions for “capital-P” Progress[2], but since far fewer people are capable of such contribution, it would be a mistake to provide equal subsidy. Indeed, given the comical brevity of human lifetimes, it might even be kind of evil.<p>Finally, it’s easy to forget that the actual purpose of business is to do whatever the owner wants[3]. If I am an enlightened owner, it seems obvious that I should help people raise kids (for the benefit of humanity), even though it makes my individual life marginally less enjoyable. On the other hand, allowing anyone to take off work to go and pursue some personal interest also makes my life marginally less enjoyable, but since there is no clear societal benefit, I should, at best, remain neutral; and that’s why we childless people are usually and justly screwed.<p>[1] Keep in mind that The Enlightenment was literally about using reason to improve humanity.<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Progress_(history)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Progress_(history)</a><p>[3] N.b, businesses are not necessarily for maximizing shareholder value: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3392357" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3392357</a>