6 ms·

Religion and Fertility: Will the Religious Inherit the Earth?

13 points by DantesKite 4y ago

smt88 4y ago
No, because religious people don't reliably raise religious children. Most current atheists were raised by religious people. It's likely been true in the US for decades that the birth rate among religious groups (e.g. Latino people) has been far higher than non-religious groups, but there has still been a stunning decline of religiosity.
- jleyank 4y ago
  This is probably made worse when the religious folks talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. The next generation sees the hypocrisy and moves on.
- skissane 4y ago
  > No, because religious people don't reliably raise religious children. There is a great deal of variation between religious groups in terms of their reliability in passing on their views to their children. Some groups have very high retention rates (>80%, even >90%), many others are at the opposite end of that spectrum. Natural selection is at work: those groups who do a good job of passing on their beliefs will grow and prosper, those groups who do a poor job of doing that will dwindle and die. Right now, the religious marketplace is dominated by massive-yet-sclerotic incumbents, whose children are abandoning religion en masse–they may still be huge, but these groups have a very dim future. Meanwhile, there are many smaller groups who have a far brighter future, due to high birth rates and low attrition rates, but they are coming up from such a low base, it is going to take them many decades, even centuries, to overtake the incumbents. But I think it is likely to happen - the next two centuries may end up being far more religious than this one, and the contemporary rise in irreligiosity may well turn out to be "just a phase".
  - smt88 4y ago
    > those groups who do a good job of passing on their beliefs will grow and prosper, those groups who do a poor job of doing that will dwindle and die This is wrong because it ignores missionary activity. If a religion fails to retain its adherents' children, but it recruits adults at a greater rate, it will still grow despite failing to transfer beliefs to offspring. > Meanwhile, there are many smaller groups who have a far brighter future, due to high birth rates and low attrition rates, but they are coming up from such a low base, it is going to take them many decades, even centuries, to overtake the incumbents. Which groups, exactly? The fastest-growing major religion appears to be Islam, which is likely a consequence of its presence in many economically depressed countries with high birth rates, low security, and low education.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > If a religion fails to retain its adherents' children, but it recruits adults at a greater rate, it will still grow despite failing to transfer beliefs to offspring. The problem with conversion, is there is only a limited pool of converts. It is easy for small groups to grow rapidly by conversion, but soon they start to run out of potential targets for recruitment. In the long run, the "breed-your-own" strategy, if it can be sustained, will vastly outperform conversion. One does occasionally observe a new religion take over a society by conversion (much as Christianity did to the Roman Empire, or Islam to 7th century Arabia), but those are rare historical exceptions, which the vast majority of religious groups have no hope of ever achieving. > Which groups, exactly? The fastest-growing major religion appears to be Islam, which is likely a consequence of its presence in many economically depressed countries with high birth rates, low security, and low education. The right level of looking at this isn't religions, but rather much lower in the taxonomic hierarchy. Consider Catholics – despite Catholicism's immense size (over 1 billion adherents), Catholics have (on the whole) a rather low and declining birth rate, and do a pretty poor job of retaining their children – in many countries today, the biggest religion is "ex-Catholic". But, on the other hand, if you look at the conservative fringes of Catholicism, you find groups such as Opus Dei and SSPX, both of whom I believe do a far better job at retaining their (often large) broods in the parental faith than mainstream Catholicism does. Similarly, if you look at Judaism, non-Orthodox Judaism has low birth rates and high rates of assimilation and intermarriage, while Modern Orthodoxy does much better in those areas, and Traditional Orthodoxy does very well. I know less about Islam, but I'd be surprised if Salafists and Khomeinists didn't do a better job of retaining their children than more mainstream Muslims do.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- quantified 4y ago
  Does that extend to places like Pakistan and India? Religion seems pretty strong from generation to generation outside of the European-derived nations, but I admit that news reports of religious fervor don't necessarily correlate to overall behavior.
  - smt88 4y ago
    There isn't great data from Pakistan, partly because of biased census takers and partly because it was founded as a Muslim nation and there is social pressure to be Muslim. In India, Hinduism is declining as a share of the population and Islam is increasing, but there, the Hindu-nationalist Modi regime has been cracking down on non-Hindus and has potentially skewed statistics. So with those caveats, it seems like India's religiosity hasn't changed much, but (if anything) has declined slightly, and Pakistan is anyone's guess. I can't find any data about it.
fallingfrog 4y ago
In the short term- maybe, but in the long term, I don't think so. There was a time when the percentage of religious people was virtually 100%, but advances in science have made religious explanations for a lot of things obsolete and that percentage has been steadily falling for decades. Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things. As the rest of the world develops and people in all the world's nations become better educated, I would imagine that religion would naturally fade away. Of course- conservatives realize this, and that's why they are seeking to prevent younger generations from getting too educated, or as they see it, spoiled by the sinful world. But you can't have both a modern economy and a deeply religious populace.
- skissane 4y ago
  > Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things Yet some people remain religious – or sometimes even become religious – despite having been extensively "exposed to secular explanations for things". How do you explain that?
  - quantified 4y ago
    We all have our quirks.
  - djokkataja 4y ago
    For people remaining religious: People often double down on their own arguments when they feel their beliefs are attacked. For people remaining or becoming religious: there are obvious benefits to being part of a community (assuming that the community isn't harmfully dysfunctional in any apparent way, from the perspective of the person considering it), and giving that up or turning that down can be very undesirable even if someone has considerable doubts. Religious traditions can also provide narratives that make various parts of living seem more meaningful and satisfying to people who buy into them. And again, even if someone has considerable doubts, they may choose to ignore them simply because they find a religious story more pleasant to consider.
skissane 4y ago
> Furthermore, both nations have witnessed significant religious revivalist movements (Hindutva and Political Islam) which has led to a resurgence in religious identity and outward expressions of faith. This, however, has not been able to arrest the general trend of fertility decline. Indians and Bangladeshis are expressing the religious identity more boldly while also having fewer children. But are they the same Indians and Bangladeshis? Instead of just looking at fertility rates at a national level – do Hindutvists and Islamists have as small families as their more politically moderate compatriots?
- akhivae 4y ago
  Interesting theory. Though I would also stress that given the high prevalence of religiosity in these countries it would be inaccurate to assume a lifestyle difference between supporters of religious politics and secular politics. Right now fertility rates in India most closely map to development of the region and social class, not political beliefs.
rayiner 4y ago
> India and Bangladesh, for example, are two countries with fertility rates at or approaching the replacement rate of 2.1. However, both nations are still some of the most religious, conservative, traditional and patriarchal countries in the world. I think the article overlooks that the reasons for declining birth rate in different places are different. Among white Americans and Europeans, declining birth rates are due to post-modern views about families, social obligations, and self determination. In Bangladesh (where I’m from) it’s a matter of population control in a densely populated country. The Islamic mandate to marry and have children is still nearly universal in Bangladesh. Mohammad said: “The best people of my nation (Ummat) are those who get married and have chosen their wives, and the worst people of my nation are those who have kept away from marriage and are passing their lives as bachelors.” Birth rates in Bangladesh didn’t decline because people stopped believing that. My dad worked in family planning in the developed world (I.e. population control) his whole career, including for a planned parenthood affiliate. But he wouldn’t have much common ground with a young American when it comes to the idea that having kids is optional, especially in America, where resources are plentiful. As countries develop economically (and face demographic inversion) I wouldn’t assume birth rates wouldn’t go back up. The US fertility rate got down to 2 in 1940 (likely due to the economic pressures of the Great Depression) before bouncing back to 3.5 in 1960.
- akhivae 4y ago
  >I think the article overlooks that the reasons for declining birth rate in different places are different. Among white Americans and Europeans, declining birth rates are due to post-modern views about families, social obligations, and self determination. In Bangladesh (where I’m from) it’s a matter of population control in a densely populated country. OP here. You're correct, I didn't get into specific reasons for why fertility has declined. This was primarily because it would send the article of on a tangent but also because the final outcome is the same regardless of the reasons behind it. The key point I was trying to highlight was that religious people can be persuaded to drastically reduce their fertility. Within Bangladesh, there was a persistent Islamic resistance to the adoption of birth control, though its adoption eventually won out despite their ultra-conservative religious views. which is what I wanted to stress. >As countries develop economically (and face demographic inversion) I wouldn’t assume birth rates wouldn’t go back up. The US fertility rate got down to 2 in 1940 (likely due to the economic pressures of the Great Depression) before bouncing back to 3.5 in 1960. Also a very interesting point you bring up, though the 1950s baby boom was predicated on the end of WWII + post-WWII prosperity. In countries like India and Bangladesh the middle class and aspirants towards upward mobility often face significantly more expenses that a 1950s American did. For example, education is a major financial expense. Private schooling is often viewed as a must by anyone who can afford it, owing to the poor quality of public schooling in these countries. So is private tuition. Unlike 1950s America it is very difficult to achieve middle class status without a university education (and even then it is not a given), these factors serve as strong incentives too reducing the number of children in these countries. Likewise conservative practices like dowries also may be driving the birth rate down as it is viewed as the responsibility of the parents to raise a substantial enough dowry to ensure their daughter can land a decent husband. Families who cannot achieve this will be viewed as parents who failed their daughters. Unfortunately, neoliberalism has increased not decreased the size and prevalence of dowries. So for this reason, I do not foresee a South Asian baby boom as it enters middle-income status. Asian nations like South Korea didn't see one for the same reasons.
known 4y ago

13 points by DantesKite 4y ago

No, because religious people don't reliably raise religious children. Most current atheists were raised by religious people. It's likely been true in the US for decades that the birth rate among religious groups (e.g. Latino people) has been far higher than non-religious groups, but there has still been a stunning decline of religiosity.

jleyank 4y ago
This is probably made worse when the religious folks talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. The next generation sees the hypocrisy and moves on.
skissane 4y ago
> No, because religious people don't reliably raise religious children. There is a great deal of variation between religious groups in terms of their reliability in passing on their views to their children. Some groups have very high retention rates (>80%, even >90%), many others are at the opposite end of that spectrum. Natural selection is at work: those groups who do a good job of passing on their beliefs will grow and prosper, those groups who do a poor job of doing that will dwindle and die. Right now, the religious marketplace is dominated by massive-yet-sclerotic incumbents, whose children are abandoning religion en masse–they may still be huge, but these groups have a very dim future. Meanwhile, there are many smaller groups who have a far brighter future, due to high birth rates and low attrition rates, but they are coming up from such a low base, it is going to take them many decades, even centuries, to overtake the incumbents. But I think it is likely to happen - the next two centuries may end up being far more religious than this one, and the contemporary rise in irreligiosity may well turn out to be "just a phase".
- smt88 4y ago
  > those groups who do a good job of passing on their beliefs will grow and prosper, those groups who do a poor job of doing that will dwindle and die This is wrong because it ignores missionary activity. If a religion fails to retain its adherents' children, but it recruits adults at a greater rate, it will still grow despite failing to transfer beliefs to offspring. > Meanwhile, there are many smaller groups who have a far brighter future, due to high birth rates and low attrition rates, but they are coming up from such a low base, it is going to take them many decades, even centuries, to overtake the incumbents. Which groups, exactly? The fastest-growing major religion appears to be Islam, which is likely a consequence of its presence in many economically depressed countries with high birth rates, low security, and low education.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > If a religion fails to retain its adherents' children, but it recruits adults at a greater rate, it will still grow despite failing to transfer beliefs to offspring. The problem with conversion, is there is only a limited pool of converts. It is easy for small groups to grow rapidly by conversion, but soon they start to run out of potential targets for recruitment. In the long run, the "breed-your-own" strategy, if it can be sustained, will vastly outperform conversion. One does occasionally observe a new religion take over a society by conversion (much as Christianity did to the Roman Empire, or Islam to 7th century Arabia), but those are rare historical exceptions, which the vast majority of religious groups have no hope of ever achieving. > Which groups, exactly? The fastest-growing major religion appears to be Islam, which is likely a consequence of its presence in many economically depressed countries with high birth rates, low security, and low education. The right level of looking at this isn't religions, but rather much lower in the taxonomic hierarchy. Consider Catholics – despite Catholicism's immense size (over 1 billion adherents), Catholics have (on the whole) a rather low and declining birth rate, and do a pretty poor job of retaining their children – in many countries today, the biggest religion is "ex-Catholic". But, on the other hand, if you look at the conservative fringes of Catholicism, you find groups such as Opus Dei and SSPX, both of whom I believe do a far better job at retaining their (often large) broods in the parental faith than mainstream Catholicism does. Similarly, if you look at Judaism, non-Orthodox Judaism has low birth rates and high rates of assimilation and intermarriage, while Modern Orthodoxy does much better in those areas, and Traditional Orthodoxy does very well. I know less about Islam, but I'd be surprised if Salafists and Khomeinists didn't do a better job of retaining their children than more mainstream Muslims do.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quantified 4y ago
Does that extend to places like Pakistan and India? Religion seems pretty strong from generation to generation outside of the European-derived nations, but I admit that news reports of religious fervor don't necessarily correlate to overall behavior.
- smt88 4y ago
  There isn't great data from Pakistan, partly because of biased census takers and partly because it was founded as a Muslim nation and there is social pressure to be Muslim. In India, Hinduism is declining as a share of the population and Islam is increasing, but there, the Hindu-nationalist Modi regime has been cracking down on non-Hindus and has potentially skewed statistics. So with those caveats, it seems like India's religiosity hasn't changed much, but (if anything) has declined slightly, and Pakistan is anyone's guess. I can't find any data about it.

fallingfrog 4y ago

In the short term- maybe, but in the long term, I don't think so. There was a time when the percentage of religious people was virtually 100%, but advances in science have made religious explanations for a lot of things obsolete and that percentage has been steadily falling for decades. Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things. As the rest of the world develops and people in all the world's nations become better educated, I would imagine that religion would naturally fade away. Of course- conservatives realize this, and that's why they are seeking to prevent younger generations from getting too educated, or as they see it, spoiled by the sinful world. But you can't have both a modern economy and a deeply religious populace.

skissane 4y ago
> Right now religion is most common among people who just haven't been exposed to secular explanations for things Yet some people remain religious – or sometimes even become religious – despite having been extensively "exposed to secular explanations for things". How do you explain that?
- quantified 4y ago
  We all have our quirks.
- djokkataja 4y ago
  For people remaining religious: People often double down on their own arguments when they feel their beliefs are attacked. For people remaining or becoming religious: there are obvious benefits to being part of a community (assuming that the community isn't harmfully dysfunctional in any apparent way, from the perspective of the person considering it), and giving that up or turning that down can be very undesirable even if someone has considerable doubts. Religious traditions can also provide narratives that make various parts of living seem more meaningful and satisfying to people who buy into them. And again, even if someone has considerable doubts, they may choose to ignore them simply because they find a religious story more pleasant to consider.

skissane 4y ago

> Furthermore, both nations have witnessed significant religious revivalist movements (Hindutva and Political Islam) which has led to a resurgence in religious identity and outward expressions of faith. This, however, has not been able to arrest the general trend of fertility decline. Indians and Bangladeshis are expressing the religious identity more boldly while also having fewer children. But are they the same Indians and Bangladeshis? Instead of just looking at fertility rates at a national level – do Hindutvists and Islamists have as small families as their more politically moderate compatriots?

akhivae 4y ago
Interesting theory. Though I would also stress that given the high prevalence of religiosity in these countries it would be inaccurate to assume a lifestyle difference between supporters of religious politics and secular politics. Right now fertility rates in India most closely map to development of the region and social class, not political beliefs.

rayiner 4y ago

> India and Bangladesh, for example, are two countries with fertility rates at or approaching the replacement rate of 2.1. However, both nations are still some of the most religious, conservative, traditional and patriarchal countries in the world. I think the article overlooks that the reasons for declining birth rate in different places are different. Among white Americans and Europeans, declining birth rates are due to post-modern views about families, social obligations, and self determination. In Bangladesh (where I’m from) it’s a matter of population control in a densely populated country. The Islamic mandate to marry and have children is still nearly universal in Bangladesh. Mohammad said: “The best people of my nation (Ummat) are those who get married and have chosen their wives, and the worst people of my nation are those who have kept away from marriage and are passing their lives as bachelors.” Birth rates in Bangladesh didn’t decline because people stopped believing that. My dad worked in family planning in the developed world (I.e. population control) his whole career, including for a planned parenthood affiliate. But he wouldn’t have much common ground with a young American when it comes to the idea that having kids is optional, especially in America, where resources are plentiful. As countries develop economically (and face demographic inversion) I wouldn’t assume birth rates wouldn’t go back up. The US fertility rate got down to 2 in 1940 (likely due to the economic pressures of the Great Depression) before bouncing back to 3.5 in 1960.

akhivae 4y ago
>I think the article overlooks that the reasons for declining birth rate in different places are different. Among white Americans and Europeans, declining birth rates are due to post-modern views about families, social obligations, and self determination. In Bangladesh (where I’m from) it’s a matter of population control in a densely populated country. OP here. You're correct, I didn't get into specific reasons for why fertility has declined. This was primarily because it would send the article of on a tangent but also because the final outcome is the same regardless of the reasons behind it. The key point I was trying to highlight was that religious people can be persuaded to drastically reduce their fertility. Within Bangladesh, there was a persistent Islamic resistance to the adoption of birth control, though its adoption eventually won out despite their ultra-conservative religious views. which is what I wanted to stress. >As countries develop economically (and face demographic inversion) I wouldn’t assume birth rates wouldn’t go back up. The US fertility rate got down to 2 in 1940 (likely due to the economic pressures of the Great Depression) before bouncing back to 3.5 in 1960. Also a very interesting point you bring up, though the 1950s baby boom was predicated on the end of WWII + post-WWII prosperity. In countries like India and Bangladesh the middle class and aspirants towards upward mobility often face significantly more expenses that a 1950s American did. For example, education is a major financial expense. Private schooling is often viewed as a must by anyone who can afford it, owing to the poor quality of public schooling in these countries. So is private tuition. Unlike 1950s America it is very difficult to achieve middle class status without a university education (and even then it is not a given), these factors serve as strong incentives too reducing the number of children in these countries. Likewise conservative practices like dowries also may be driving the birth rate down as it is viewed as the responsibility of the parents to raise a substantial enough dowry to ensure their daughter can land a decent husband. Families who cannot achieve this will be viewed as parents who failed their daughters. Unfortunately, neoliberalism has increased not decreased the size and prevalence of dowries. So for this reason, I do not foresee a South Asian baby boom as it enters middle-income status. Asian nations like South Korea didn't see one for the same reasons.

known 4y ago