6 ms·

It's funny how atheists believe in evolution in theory, but fervently religious groups like this are the ones winning at evolution in practice. My theory is ha

by klipt 4y ago

It's funny how atheists believe in evolution in theory, but fervently religious groups like this are the ones winning at evolution in practice. My theory is having kids is just really hard work, but a deeply ingrained religious belief that children are a blessing from God helps groups like the Amish push forward with it anyway.

lalaland1125 4y ago
Evolution isn't a moral theory. Evolution only makes predictions about reality, it doesn't tell you what is more moral or what you should do
- klipt 4y ago
  Sure, but it's literally the definition of evolutionary fitness that having more kids makes you more evolutionarily fit. Nobody said fitness implies morality. But the Amish by definition have higher evolutionary fitness than average Americans.
  - jb_gericke 4y ago
    I think the greater human population is doing just fine - almost exclusively due to scientific and technological advancements. (https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/why-has-the-world-population-grown-so-much-in-the-past-century https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/why-has-the-world-popul...)
    - tresqotheq 4y ago
      > scientific and technological advancements. sure, it does not matter that things that we pay for and consume ends up having a million things that makes us sick in multiple ways, and if you are in some developing nation, you would be hard pressed to find food to feed your babies that is not laced with some kind of harmful pesticides or fertilizer, but hey, we can always pay more in healthcare to extend our diseased misery. We are doing just fine, in the mean while, there are more and more existential threats as the day progress, but hey, say it with me, we are JUST.DOING.FINE.
    - poser-boy 4y ago
      Most countries (including those outside the west) are falling, or have fallen below replacement rate. If we extrapolate this over the next few decades, and accept the conclusion that more technology = less children, and we can expect to see more technology in the future. Almost no new children will be born from within these high-tech societies, we will have to rely on immigration from Africa (the only place where replacement rate is high), and low-tech traditional religious societies. What good is technology in this future scenario?
      - kwhitefoot 4y ago
        People still have children and most countries do not need to be any more crowded than they are already. In fact many countries would benefit from having a lower population density. Technology has already replaced most agricultural workers in most developed countries and I can't imagine anyone wanting to return to pre-industrial agriculture.
        darebak 4y ago
        100 present day South Koreans will have 6 great-grandchildren total. That's an extinction level event. Ofcourse if the current trends continue.
        falcor84 4y ago
        It's only extinction if you extrapolate this continuing over many generations, but of course every generation reevaluates their priorities
        Alt-F4 4y ago
        Wow, interesting. Though my math comes out to 6.64 (== 100*(.5*0.81)**3). https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220223000644 https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220223000644
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - croes 4y ago
    Nope, more children doesn't mean more evolutionary fit. More kids surviving does and on that part the Amish benefit from technology because they can and some do to seek medical help if it's necessary.
    - barry-cotter 4y ago
      Enough food, clean water and knowledge of germ theory does most of the work there. New England has higher rates of natural increase for most of two centuries without benefit of modern medicine, as did Quebec.
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    It only works for the Amish because they are a tiny minority in a larger society that supports, or at least tolerates, them and their lifestyle. If they become dominant or even merely competitive with the larger society then there will be conflict.
legitster 4y ago
Kids are actually pretty easy if you don't have a ton of distractions. Most complaints about how kids are difficult are about how they keep you from the things you want to do. They also have huge economies of scale.
- _delirium 4y ago
  > They also have huge economies of scale. One of my grandmothers was one of 10 kids, and liked to relate that her parents always said it was the first 4 kids who were the hardest. After that, they start to look after themselves! Older kids act as babysitters for younger kids, etc.
woodruffw 4y ago
> It's funny how atheists believe in evolution in theory, but fervently religious groups like this are the ones winning at evolution in practice. There's a logical disconnect here: I can believe in death, but I really don't want to "win" at death.
- klipt 4y ago
  At least some people do want to "win" against death by becoming immortal. Physics suggests true immortality is impossible, but maybe people will live a lot longer in future...
  - kenneth 4y ago
    Biological immortality could be possible. Certain organisms are biologically immortal, and it's possible we can achieve that through technology. I think it's actually not at all unlikely we will get very close within a couple centuries, and that life expectancy will shoot through the roof. (We would have to fix some serious societal issues especially around pollution first though, beyond just the medical breakthroughs.)
- skissane 4y ago
  If the human mind is a product of evolution, how can we be sure that it is reliable at arriving at the truth? What if false or irrational beliefs produced greater evolutionary fitness than true and rational ones? But, if that were so, it would undermine all our confidence in the very belief that the human mind is a product of evolution, making that a self-defeating idea. Hence, if the human mind is a product of evolution, evolution must ultimately prefer truth to falsehood. But, what then to make of evidence that, in the long-run, natural selection prefers religious beliefs to non-religious belief? Can you see how that might be a problem for those who are convinced that all specifically religious beliefs are false and irrational?
  - einherjae 4y ago
    Nah, if religious belief helps group cohesion in such a way that we get societies that overall increase the likelihood of survival, then the truth of said religion is irrelevant. Religions themselves are to some degree affected by their own evolutionary pressures. The views on missionary work, procreation and possibly also military all will effect the group of people that adhere to the religion, and if they lead to a higher survival/birth-rate then the religion itself will also win against alternatives. The truth of its dogma isn’t really relevant for this factor (unless we start considering interventionist deities, but that’s a different discussion entirely, as the above would apply across shared value/belief systems without the need for interventionism)
ajb 4y ago
Don't know if this is true of the Amish, but fundamentalist groups who target large families generally lose a large fraction of those kids to mainstream culture (source: Bob Altmeyer, The Authoritarians). Hence, their culture does not outcompete mainstream culture.
- klipt 4y ago
  There are comments elsewhere on this post saying around 85% of Amish raised children remain Amish.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    From the article: >Reasons for Population Growth. The primary forces driving the growth are sizable nuclear families (five or more children on average) and an average retention rate (Amish children who join the church as young adults) of 85 percent or more. A few outsiders have joined the Amish, but the growth is almost entirely from within the Amish community.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - MandieD 4y ago
    While they have Rumspringa as late teens and can theoretically choose not to get baptized and become adult members, choosing not to means exclusion from the only community they've ever known, into a world they have not been educated to make a living in - particularly, the girls.
- lawn 4y ago
  The same reason that countries with higher child mortality have higher birth rate. Go figure, this has nothing to do with religion.
praptak 4y ago
> by winning at evolution You may roll down a hill but it doesn't mean you win at gravity theory.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  In the fullness of time, those who name the winners are the ones who reproduced.
tomcam 4y ago
Having kids is probably no more work for them that it is you, and probably less. They’re willing to put kids to work doing substantial jobs from an early age.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TheGigaChad 4y ago
Gatsky 4y ago
Beyond the lack of belief in deities part, atheism is not really a coherent philosophy or a label which reliably defines a group of people. As such it doesn’t make sense to put forward an atheism versus X argument. Atheism is the rejection of various belief systems, not an alternative to them. It simply has none of the advantages or disadvantages of such belief systems. It does not even imply that the atheist has actually contended with any metaphysical questions.
kenneth 4y ago
If your goal is simply to increase population as the end goal, then sure I guess the Amish are winning. I know it's generally accepted that population growth is always desirable, but I am not at all convinced of it. I would love to see a significant reversal of the trend and see population decline — especially in deeply religious families. (It's my opinion that religion is a net negative for the world these days, some more than others.)

by klipt 4y ago

lalaland1125 4y ago

Evolution isn't a moral theory. Evolution only makes predictions about reality, it doesn't tell you what is more moral or what you should do

klipt 4y ago
Sure, but it's literally the definition of evolutionary fitness that having more kids makes you more evolutionarily fit. Nobody said fitness implies morality. But the Amish by definition have higher evolutionary fitness than average Americans.
- jb_gericke 4y ago
  I think the greater human population is doing just fine - almost exclusively due to scientific and technological advancements. (https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/why-has-the-world-population-grown-so-much-in-the-past-century https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/why-has-the-world-popul...)
  - tresqotheq 4y ago
    > scientific and technological advancements. sure, it does not matter that things that we pay for and consume ends up having a million things that makes us sick in multiple ways, and if you are in some developing nation, you would be hard pressed to find food to feed your babies that is not laced with some kind of harmful pesticides or fertilizer, but hey, we can always pay more in healthcare to extend our diseased misery. We are doing just fine, in the mean while, there are more and more existential threats as the day progress, but hey, say it with me, we are JUST.DOING.FINE.
  - poser-boy 4y ago
    Most countries (including those outside the west) are falling, or have fallen below replacement rate. If we extrapolate this over the next few decades, and accept the conclusion that more technology = less children, and we can expect to see more technology in the future. Almost no new children will be born from within these high-tech societies, we will have to rely on immigration from Africa (the only place where replacement rate is high), and low-tech traditional religious societies. What good is technology in this future scenario?
    - kwhitefoot 4y ago
      People still have children and most countries do not need to be any more crowded than they are already. In fact many countries would benefit from having a lower population density. Technology has already replaced most agricultural workers in most developed countries and I can't imagine anyone wanting to return to pre-industrial agriculture.
      - darebak 4y ago
        100 present day South Koreans will have 6 great-grandchildren total. That's an extinction level event. Ofcourse if the current trends continue.
        falcor84 4y ago
        It's only extinction if you extrapolate this continuing over many generations, but of course every generation reevaluates their priorities
        Alt-F4 4y ago
        Wow, interesting. Though my math comes out to 6.64 (== 100*(.5*0.81)**3). https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220223000644 https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220223000644
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- croes 4y ago
  Nope, more children doesn't mean more evolutionary fit. More kids surviving does and on that part the Amish benefit from technology because they can and some do to seek medical help if it's necessary.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    Enough food, clean water and knowledge of germ theory does most of the work there. New England has higher rates of natural increase for most of two centuries without benefit of modern medicine, as did Quebec.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  It only works for the Amish because they are a tiny minority in a larger society that supports, or at least tolerates, them and their lifestyle. If they become dominant or even merely competitive with the larger society then there will be conflict.

legitster 4y ago

Kids are actually pretty easy if you don't have a ton of distractions. Most complaints about how kids are difficult are about how they keep you from the things you want to do. They also have huge economies of scale.

_delirium 4y ago
> They also have huge economies of scale. One of my grandmothers was one of 10 kids, and liked to relate that her parents always said it was the first 4 kids who were the hardest. After that, they start to look after themselves! Older kids act as babysitters for younger kids, etc.

woodruffw 4y ago

> It's funny how atheists believe in evolution in theory, but fervently religious groups like this are the ones winning at evolution in practice. There's a logical disconnect here: I can believe in death, but I really don't want to "win" at death.

klipt 4y ago
At least some people do want to "win" against death by becoming immortal. Physics suggests true immortality is impossible, but maybe people will live a lot longer in future...
- kenneth 4y ago
  Biological immortality could be possible. Certain organisms are biologically immortal, and it's possible we can achieve that through technology. I think it's actually not at all unlikely we will get very close within a couple centuries, and that life expectancy will shoot through the roof. (We would have to fix some serious societal issues especially around pollution first though, beyond just the medical breakthroughs.)
skissane 4y ago
If the human mind is a product of evolution, how can we be sure that it is reliable at arriving at the truth? What if false or irrational beliefs produced greater evolutionary fitness than true and rational ones? But, if that were so, it would undermine all our confidence in the very belief that the human mind is a product of evolution, making that a self-defeating idea. Hence, if the human mind is a product of evolution, evolution must ultimately prefer truth to falsehood. But, what then to make of evidence that, in the long-run, natural selection prefers religious beliefs to non-religious belief? Can you see how that might be a problem for those who are convinced that all specifically religious beliefs are false and irrational?
- einherjae 4y ago
  Nah, if religious belief helps group cohesion in such a way that we get societies that overall increase the likelihood of survival, then the truth of said religion is irrelevant. Religions themselves are to some degree affected by their own evolutionary pressures. The views on missionary work, procreation and possibly also military all will effect the group of people that adhere to the religion, and if they lead to a higher survival/birth-rate then the religion itself will also win against alternatives. The truth of its dogma isn’t really relevant for this factor (unless we start considering interventionist deities, but that’s a different discussion entirely, as the above would apply across shared value/belief systems without the need for interventionism)

ajb 4y ago

Don't know if this is true of the Amish, but fundamentalist groups who target large families generally lose a large fraction of those kids to mainstream culture (source: Bob Altmeyer, The Authoritarians). Hence, their culture does not outcompete mainstream culture.

klipt 4y ago
There are comments elsewhere on this post saying around 85% of Amish raised children remain Amish.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  From the article: >Reasons for Population Growth. The primary forces driving the growth are sizable nuclear families (five or more children on average) and an average retention rate (Amish children who join the church as young adults) of 85 percent or more. A few outsiders have joined the Amish, but the growth is almost entirely from within the Amish community.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MandieD 4y ago
  While they have Rumspringa as late teens and can theoretically choose not to get baptized and become adult members, choosing not to means exclusion from the only community they've ever known, into a world they have not been educated to make a living in - particularly, the girls.
lawn 4y ago
The same reason that countries with higher child mortality have higher birth rate. Go figure, this has nothing to do with religion.

praptak 4y ago

> by winning at evolution You may roll down a hill but it doesn't mean you win at gravity theory.

deepdriver 4y ago
In the fullness of time, those who name the winners are the ones who reproduced.

tomcam 4y ago

Having kids is probably no more work for them that it is you, and probably less. They’re willing to put kids to work doing substantial jobs from an early age.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

TheGigaChad 4y ago

Gatsky 4y ago

Beyond the lack of belief in deities part, atheism is not really a coherent philosophy or a label which reliably defines a group of people. As such it doesn’t make sense to put forward an atheism versus X argument. Atheism is the rejection of various belief systems, not an alternative to them. It simply has none of the advantages or disadvantages of such belief systems. It does not even imply that the atheist has actually contended with any metaphysical questions.

kenneth 4y ago

If your goal is simply to increase population as the end goal, then sure I guess the Amish are winning. I know it's generally accepted that population growth is always desirable, but I am not at all convinced of it. I would love to see a significant reversal of the trend and see population decline — especially in deeply religious families. (It's my opinion that religion is a net negative for the world these days, some more than others.)