7 ms·

A world with declining population. Full of old people due to population pyramid inverted. Full of stupid, and impulsive, and likely religious zealots, as those

by alecco 8y ago

A world with declining population. Full of old people due to population pyramid inverted. Full of stupid, and impulsive, and likely religious zealots, as those are the only groups with fertility rates above replacement level.

joshuacc 8y ago
Everyone who wants more than 2.1 kids is stupid, impulsive, or a religious zealot? That seems unlikely.
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  No, but it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. there are lots of stupid, impulsive religious zealots with quiverfuls. But also a lot of wonderful, loving religious folks with quiverfuls. I wish there were more other types who had a birthrate above replacement, but outside of religious circles, having more than 2 kids is rare and even considered uncouth. If lots of couples have 1 or no kids and lots of people aren't even in couples, then we're going to need a LOT of people having 3 or more kids. But we aren't. Especially among the non-religious. It could be that in the future, religion is a social trait selected for because it leads to higher birth rates. I haven't seen a lot of introspection on this idea that doesn't quickly verge into, um, questionable rhetoric, and I'd like to see a lot more of it.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Quiverfuls are quite rare even in religious families with multiple children. It takes extraordinary conviction to continue when you are already feeding 10 children on one income. Even if those children do some of work.
    - Robotbeat 8y ago
      Agreed. But I suppose I was using a broader definition, like anything more than 3 or so kids.
    - agensaequivocum 8y ago
      It's not uncommon in some circles. I personally know many families with 7-12 children spread among all parts of the income scale.
      - watwut 8y ago
        In some circles, surely. But I took quiverful literally as that sect where they don't use anticonception at all (including counting days) and accept as many kids whenever they come. E.g. no conscious birth control at all. They move in similar circles, because it is ideology. But I don't think they are much sizeable even among religious.
  - koolba 8y ago
    > I wish there were more other types who had a birthrate above replacement, but outside of religious circles, having more than 2 kids is rare and even considered uncouth. I’ve never heard people having more than two children being referred to as uncouth. Honestly that’s disgusting.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    >It could be that in the future, religion is a social trait selected for because it leads to higher birth rates. Why could it not also have been the case in the past as well? Many religions have tenets about raising many children. Could it be that this is why religion is very highly ingrained in society to begin with?
  - itronitron 8y ago
    >> it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. I doubt that very much, that has not been my experience, my colleagues, or my relatives. In fact, I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      > I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families. That would be pretty silly then. Most successful religions have two things, both of them based on growth. One is a means to capture people not in their religion by conversion. The other is by codifying good parenting and breeding habits. The biblical old testament is rife with teachings like this for example. Population fade with success is not a modern problem, it is an ancient one. In the past if you didn't have a large enough population you were at risk of attack by stronger nations.
      - itronitron 8y ago
        Most religions are not 'successful', they are probably declining in numbers because the religious people in those religions are not having big families.
seatdrummer 8y ago
I think you are experiencing the same gene pool concerns a racist would experience. In the end the only thing one can really do it have your own kids.
- alecco 8y ago
  It is happening across all “races” and cultures.
robmccoll 8y ago
I think there's a documentary you might enjoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
jkingsbery 8y ago
Lots of religious people are perfectly nice and reasonably, by the way.
- alecco 8y ago
  And they have lower fertility rates than zealots. See Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. The more tolerant, the lower the fertility rates.
  - jkingsbery 8y ago
    As someone who is a practicing Catholic and therefore knows lots of people who are not family members who also regularly attend services, I can say at least anecdotally that tolerance and zeal for one's faith are not terribly correlated (as are intelligence and zeal, for that matter). I'm not sure about any studies, but the presence of counter-examples would make me look to confounding factors.
dilyevsky 8y ago
Idiocracy on steroids!
malvosenior 8y ago
I’m not sure I’d call the people who successfully reproduce stupid. I wouldn’t call people that don't reproduce stupid either but there’s a case to be made around failing your primary objective as a living being not being a “smart” move.
pqokdwpokqp 8y ago
>Full of stupid, and impulsive, and likely religious zealots, They are so stupid, yet everyone else let themselves be out-bred by them? I think if that happens in the long-term, it more or less suggests "religious zealots" have adapted better.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  Pew's numbers [0] predict greater than normal increase in Muslims over the next 30 years, by percentage of the world population. I'm not suggesting that all muslims are "religious zealots", but yes, growth of population sections by religion is a real thing. On the other hand atheists are expected to stay the same, or even decline. No one can say what percent of people are going to be "zealots", but you could say it's hard to be a "religious zealot" without a religion. So, it seems likely, all other things being equal, that yes, religious zealotry (and all religious activity) will increase. [0] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-201...
- magduf 8y ago
  It's not stupid to be "out-bred": you're enjoying your own personal life more by keeping more resources for yourself, rather than sacrificing your time and resources on kids with the goal of continuing your family line. Your kids, grandkids, and descendants aren't likely to be of much help after you're dead. This is an individual vs. society issue: having few kids is better at the individual level, but for society it's not sustainable unless we can figure out how to significantly extend lifespans (i.e., reduce the death rate in-line with the reduction of the birthrate).
  - jpetso 8y ago
    One may argue that if you expand "for society" to a worldwide "for humankind", it's perfectly sustainable not to have kids at the current population level. I think it's a safe assumption that those with religious dogma and those in regions of high child mortality will continue to have many kids, one way or another. The "educated" non-religious class is probably the only one that has a real choice to make. If they keep up reproducing at 2.1x replacement level while everyone else exceeds that level, the worldwide population is just going to continue to grow and then we're in real trouble. I'm perfectly happy to let "my society" be taken over by "the other kind" who out-reproduced me and my peers. One way or another, we'll have to stop growing as a species, and one group's excesses have to balanced out by another group's shortfalls.

by alecco 8y ago

joshuacc 8y ago

Everyone who wants more than 2.1 kids is stupid, impulsive, or a religious zealot? That seems unlikely.

Robotbeat 8y ago
No, but it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. there are lots of stupid, impulsive religious zealots with quiverfuls. But also a lot of wonderful, loving religious folks with quiverfuls. I wish there were more other types who had a birthrate above replacement, but outside of religious circles, having more than 2 kids is rare and even considered uncouth. If lots of couples have 1 or no kids and lots of people aren't even in couples, then we're going to need a LOT of people having 3 or more kids. But we aren't. Especially among the non-religious. It could be that in the future, religion is a social trait selected for because it leads to higher birth rates. I haven't seen a lot of introspection on this idea that doesn't quickly verge into, um, questionable rhetoric, and I'd like to see a lot more of it.
- watwut 8y ago
  Quiverfuls are quite rare even in religious families with multiple children. It takes extraordinary conviction to continue when you are already feeding 10 children on one income. Even if those children do some of work.
  - Robotbeat 8y ago
    Agreed. But I suppose I was using a broader definition, like anything more than 3 or so kids.
  - agensaequivocum 8y ago
    It's not uncommon in some circles. I personally know many families with 7-12 children spread among all parts of the income scale.
    - watwut 8y ago
      In some circles, surely. But I took quiverful literally as that sect where they don't use anticonception at all (including counting days) and accept as many kids whenever they come. E.g. no conscious birth control at all. They move in similar circles, because it is ideology. But I don't think they are much sizeable even among religious.
- koolba 8y ago
  > I wish there were more other types who had a birthrate above replacement, but outside of religious circles, having more than 2 kids is rare and even considered uncouth. I’ve never heard people having more than two children being referred to as uncouth. Honestly that’s disgusting.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  >It could be that in the future, religion is a social trait selected for because it leads to higher birth rates. Why could it not also have been the case in the past as well? Many religions have tenets about raising many children. Could it be that this is why religion is very highly ingrained in society to begin with?
- itronitron 8y ago
  >> it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. I doubt that very much, that has not been my experience, my colleagues, or my relatives. In fact, I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    > I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families. That would be pretty silly then. Most successful religions have two things, both of them based on growth. One is a means to capture people not in their religion by conversion. The other is by codifying good parenting and breeding habits. The biblical old testament is rife with teachings like this for example. Population fade with success is not a modern problem, it is an ancient one. In the past if you didn't have a large enough population you were at risk of attack by stronger nations.
    - itronitron 8y ago
      Most religions are not 'successful', they are probably declining in numbers because the religious people in those religions are not having big families.

seatdrummer 8y ago

I think you are experiencing the same gene pool concerns a racist would experience. In the end the only thing one can really do it have your own kids.

alecco 8y ago
It is happening across all “races” and cultures.

robmccoll 8y ago

I think there's a documentary you might enjoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

jkingsbery 8y ago

Lots of religious people are perfectly nice and reasonably, by the way.

alecco 8y ago
And they have lower fertility rates than zealots. See Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. The more tolerant, the lower the fertility rates.
- jkingsbery 8y ago
  As someone who is a practicing Catholic and therefore knows lots of people who are not family members who also regularly attend services, I can say at least anecdotally that tolerance and zeal for one's faith are not terribly correlated (as are intelligence and zeal, for that matter). I'm not sure about any studies, but the presence of counter-examples would make me look to confounding factors.

dilyevsky 8y ago

Idiocracy on steroids!

malvosenior 8y ago

I’m not sure I’d call the people who successfully reproduce stupid. I wouldn’t call people that don't reproduce stupid either but there’s a case to be made around failing your primary objective as a living being not being a “smart” move.

pqokdwpokqp 8y ago

>Full of stupid, and impulsive, and likely religious zealots, They are so stupid, yet everyone else let themselves be out-bred by them? I think if that happens in the long-term, it more or less suggests "religious zealots" have adapted better.

ggggtez 8y ago
Pew's numbers [0] predict greater than normal increase in Muslims over the next 30 years, by percentage of the world population. I'm not suggesting that all muslims are "religious zealots", but yes, growth of population sections by religion is a real thing. On the other hand atheists are expected to stay the same, or even decline. No one can say what percent of people are going to be "zealots", but you could say it's hard to be a "religious zealot" without a religion. So, it seems likely, all other things being equal, that yes, religious zealotry (and all religious activity) will increase. [0] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-201...
magduf 8y ago
It's not stupid to be "out-bred": you're enjoying your own personal life more by keeping more resources for yourself, rather than sacrificing your time and resources on kids with the goal of continuing your family line. Your kids, grandkids, and descendants aren't likely to be of much help after you're dead. This is an individual vs. society issue: having few kids is better at the individual level, but for society it's not sustainable unless we can figure out how to significantly extend lifespans (i.e., reduce the death rate in-line with the reduction of the birthrate).
- jpetso 8y ago
  One may argue that if you expand "for society" to a worldwide "for humankind", it's perfectly sustainable not to have kids at the current population level. I think it's a safe assumption that those with religious dogma and those in regions of high child mortality will continue to have many kids, one way or another. The "educated" non-religious class is probably the only one that has a real choice to make. If they keep up reproducing at 2.1x replacement level while everyone else exceeds that level, the worldwide population is just going to continue to grow and then we're in real trouble. I'm perfectly happy to let "my society" be taken over by "the other kind" who out-reproduced me and my peers. One way or another, we'll have to stop growing as a species, and one group's excesses have to balanced out by another group's shortfalls.