3 ms·

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.

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.