Once we found out that there's no god, no afterlife, and no purpose to existence, it was inevitable that we would choose not to bring any more children into this nightmare.
> Conservatives and reactionaries see low fertility as a problem. They believe that it is caused by the imposition of new values, and that it would be fixed by restoring traditional values. They are wrong. Even if we could restore them, traditional values are not adaptive in the modern environment. They cannot solve the problems of modernity.
The higher fertility of Amish & ultra-Orthodox Jews you mentioned above suggests to me that such traditional values ARE adaptive now.
The Amish and Orthodox Jews are not traditional Christians and Jews. They are sects that have behaviors that are adaptive now, because there is abundant food and not much competition. What makes them adaptive is their cultural and social isolationism, and especially their restrictions on the use of birth control.
The adaptive value today is simply "I should reproduce". The funny hats, the strange dietary restrictions, and the belief in God are not necessary, although they help to create a community that is isolated and passes on its gene-meme complex.
Well, most I guess. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have retained more of the Christian traditions that arose during the Middle Ages. Most Protestants retain a protestant tradition that goes back to the 1500s, although it has evolved.
Nothing that makes the Amish stand out has anything to do with Christianity.
Christianity does not have a weird dress code. It doesn't tell people to avoid certain types of technology. It doesn't tell people to keep themselves apart from others, especially from other Christians. It doesn't encourage people to have large families. Christianity was generally somewhat antinatalist, because it places meaning and purpose inside the soul or in the afterlife, not in the material world.
The Amish started as an Anabaptist sect -- a radical break with the Christian tradition, as part of the Protestant reformation, which was a general break with traditional Christianity caused by the printing press.
It is a bundle of traditions, so you could say that they are traditional, but the traditions are relatively recent and not Christian in origin. The traditions started around 1700, and have evolved culturally since then.
The Amish population was very small until very recently, in the 20th century, when it started growing rapidly, especially relative to the declining fertility of the US population. The Amish way of life is adaptive within the context of modern civilization. It has emerged because of evolution, and because of changing conditions. When child mortality was high, being Amish wasn't very adaptive, so their population didn't explode until recently.
> Nothing that makes the Amish stand out has anything to do with Christianity.
Not even their pacifism?
> It doesn't tell people to keep themselves apart from others
It is a Christian idea to be "in this world, but not of this world".
> Christianity was generally somewhat antinatalist, because it places meaning and purpose inside the soul or in the afterlife, not in the material world.
I think it was pronatalist compared to the Roman pagans who practiced infanticide.
> The traditions started around 1700, and have evolved culturally since then.
I think Catholics have done more cultural evolution since then.
> The Amish population was very small until very recently
New sects start out small. They haven't grown by conversion, but instead mostly by natural increase, which takes time to compound.
> When child mortality was high, being Amish wasn't very adaptive, so their population didn't explode until recently.
I don't think their fitness was lower than average early on. Part of that is their religion binding them to their rural communities rather than drawing people off to cities, which have long been population sinks.
Christians haven't generally been pacifists. You could say that it is a Christian principle, but it's one that has traditionally been ignored, at least by those in power. Pacifism is a good strategy when others around you will protect you -- it's a kind of social parasitism. It requires a host society that allows you to be a free rider.
Yeah, it's a Christian idea to be in this world, engage with other people, proselytize, etc. It is not a Christian idea to form an isolated, exclusionary community.
At its core, Christianity is antinatalist. It views the celibate lifestyle as superior, hence celibate priests and nuns. However, antinatalism doesn't work as a traditional value, because it doesn't get passed down. So, in practice, the antinatalism was limited. The Protestants were probably more successful initially because they rejected it.
Yes, cultural evolution is always going on. Traditions evolve. Fashions emerge, spread, die out, etc. Catholicism has evolved, and the Amish cultural package has also evolved. Of course, those things are not equivalent, because Catholicism is a religion, while being Amish is a way of life.
Cities used to be population sinks due to disease, although not as much in the Americas. If the Amish were as reproductively successful in the past as they are today, they would be a much larger segment of the US population. According to Wikipedia, there were only 5,000 Amish in 1920. Their population barely grew in the 1700s and 1800s. Today, there are about 400,000.
Anabaptism is a religious movement. The Amish are part of a religion which places restrictions on their lifestyle. I would say that the Amish "cultural package" has evolved less than the Catholic one has since 1700.
> Their population barely grew in the 1700s and 1800s.
They started out with about 500 people, so 5000 is 10X growth, not "barely grew".
I have never seen a writer work so hard to reverse cause and effect and come to such an erroneous conclusion. Children - like almost all wealth - are a durable storage of energy and the only means 99% of the population had to ensure wealth and care in old age. *Central banking and durable, fungible assets are the primary cause of low fertility.* Stable currency always precludes "voluntary" reduction in fertility. Birth control was invented precisly because large families were seen as *reducing* fungible wealth in a modern world and reducing the number of children is seen as a way to *increase* individual wealth. Don't blame birth control, blame RRSPs.
‘Level of investment’ is relative. Drug cartels will forgo 50-60-70 percent of their cash value to convert their illicit cash into usable funds on the legal market. Your point is non-sequitur. If there is no alternative - which there historically was not - then you invest your time in offspring.
“Likewise, it is implausible that parents have extra children to compensate for child mortality. Would you have more children if you believed that they were likely to die young?” Yes, that's precisely why you continue to have children if you NEED THEM TO SURVIVE.
Yes, it's implausible that you would invest 10-15 years of support and protection, minimum, into a child, just because they might give you back a few years of much less support when you are older, if you live that long. You don't need children to survive, because you are going to die no matter what. But you believe that people throw away the best years of their life working to raise children, just so that they can have some support when they are old.
It's literally insane. Of course, cultures can have insane beliefs (e.g. religion), and some cultures might have that belief, but it's obviously false.
People have children, and invest energy in children, because we are reproducing machines, like every other organism. Every type of life invests in producing offspring. Energy flows from parents to children, not vice versa.
Try to get a minimal grasp on reality before you babble in public.
>Without birth control, most women would have at least 5 children. Fertility above 5 children per woman was the norm in premodern societies
Nah, this is a nonsense. Look up French higher nobility in 18th century. Albania also had same contraceptive availability in 20th century as Nigeria, but there was 5 kids per woman difference in birth rate.
No, it's not nonsense. Without birth control, most women would have at least 5 children.
There are multiple methods of birth control. It's not just the pill. Latex condoms became widely available in many places before the birth control pill. In some places, abortion is an important type of birth control. People can use traditional methods of birth control (withdrawal, rhythm method, delayed marriage, prolonged breastfeeding). Even those require some knowledge, which wasn't widespread before general education.
There are other factors, which I mentioned. Culture is important too. People are affected by those around them, and the values they get through media, etc. As more people chose to have fewer children, it became more acceptable.
High fertility was the norm in premodern societies. Yes, some educated upper classes had methods of birth control (going back to ancient Rome and before), but those methods weren't a effective or widespread as what we have now.
Albania now has one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe, despite being more "traditional" in some ways and relatively poor.
Your theses regarding the pill is a bit outdated. I would recommend arcotherium's piece overviewing the four phases of demographic transition (in the West). A quick rebuttal is to point to France's history.
Yeah, I've read it. He underestimates the importance of birth control. I don't think I mentioned the pill in the essay. Birth control is a more general notion, which includes many things, including the pill, condoms, abortion, the rhythm method, etc. E.g. in Japan, after WW2, they relied heavily on abortion to limit fertility. The point I'm making is that people have an increased ability to limit reproduction. Women also have an increased ability to delay marriage. There are multiple factors involved (which I described) but birth control is very important. There was a big collapse in fertility after the birth control pill was introduced in the West.
Once we found out that there's no god, no afterlife, and no purpose to existence, it was inevitable that we would choose not to bring any more children into this nightmare.
"Most people default to a moral frame when thinking about human beings."
You missed the point. The opposite of what you said is in fact inevitable.
Are you talking to me? I never said that, so where are you quoting it from?
From the article, where else.
I love this topic! Thank you for writing it, truly great as expected.
> Conservatives and reactionaries see low fertility as a problem. They believe that it is caused by the imposition of new values, and that it would be fixed by restoring traditional values. They are wrong. Even if we could restore them, traditional values are not adaptive in the modern environment. They cannot solve the problems of modernity.
The higher fertility of Amish & ultra-Orthodox Jews you mentioned above suggests to me that such traditional values ARE adaptive now.
The Amish and Orthodox Jews are not traditional Christians and Jews. They are sects that have behaviors that are adaptive now, because there is abundant food and not much competition. What makes them adaptive is their cultural and social isolationism, and especially their restrictions on the use of birth control.
The adaptive value today is simply "I should reproduce". The funny hats, the strange dietary restrictions, and the belief in God are not necessary, although they help to create a community that is isolated and passes on its gene-meme complex.
What contemporary Christians & Jews are more traditional than them?
Well, most I guess. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have retained more of the Christian traditions that arose during the Middle Ages. Most Protestants retain a protestant tradition that goes back to the 1500s, although it has evolved.
Nothing that makes the Amish stand out has anything to do with Christianity.
Christianity does not have a weird dress code. It doesn't tell people to avoid certain types of technology. It doesn't tell people to keep themselves apart from others, especially from other Christians. It doesn't encourage people to have large families. Christianity was generally somewhat antinatalist, because it places meaning and purpose inside the soul or in the afterlife, not in the material world.
The Amish started as an Anabaptist sect -- a radical break with the Christian tradition, as part of the Protestant reformation, which was a general break with traditional Christianity caused by the printing press.
It is a bundle of traditions, so you could say that they are traditional, but the traditions are relatively recent and not Christian in origin. The traditions started around 1700, and have evolved culturally since then.
The Amish population was very small until very recently, in the 20th century, when it started growing rapidly, especially relative to the declining fertility of the US population. The Amish way of life is adaptive within the context of modern civilization. It has emerged because of evolution, and because of changing conditions. When child mortality was high, being Amish wasn't very adaptive, so their population didn't explode until recently.
> Nothing that makes the Amish stand out has anything to do with Christianity.
Not even their pacifism?
> It doesn't tell people to keep themselves apart from others
It is a Christian idea to be "in this world, but not of this world".
> Christianity was generally somewhat antinatalist, because it places meaning and purpose inside the soul or in the afterlife, not in the material world.
I think it was pronatalist compared to the Roman pagans who practiced infanticide.
> The traditions started around 1700, and have evolved culturally since then.
I think Catholics have done more cultural evolution since then.
> The Amish population was very small until very recently
New sects start out small. They haven't grown by conversion, but instead mostly by natural increase, which takes time to compound.
> When child mortality was high, being Amish wasn't very adaptive, so their population didn't explode until recently.
I don't think their fitness was lower than average early on. Part of that is their religion binding them to their rural communities rather than drawing people off to cities, which have long been population sinks.
Christians haven't generally been pacifists. You could say that it is a Christian principle, but it's one that has traditionally been ignored, at least by those in power. Pacifism is a good strategy when others around you will protect you -- it's a kind of social parasitism. It requires a host society that allows you to be a free rider.
Yeah, it's a Christian idea to be in this world, engage with other people, proselytize, etc. It is not a Christian idea to form an isolated, exclusionary community.
At its core, Christianity is antinatalist. It views the celibate lifestyle as superior, hence celibate priests and nuns. However, antinatalism doesn't work as a traditional value, because it doesn't get passed down. So, in practice, the antinatalism was limited. The Protestants were probably more successful initially because they rejected it.
Yes, cultural evolution is always going on. Traditions evolve. Fashions emerge, spread, die out, etc. Catholicism has evolved, and the Amish cultural package has also evolved. Of course, those things are not equivalent, because Catholicism is a religion, while being Amish is a way of life.
Cities used to be population sinks due to disease, although not as much in the Americas. If the Amish were as reproductively successful in the past as they are today, they would be a much larger segment of the US population. According to Wikipedia, there were only 5,000 Amish in 1920. Their population barely grew in the 1700s and 1800s. Today, there are about 400,000.
Anabaptism is a religious movement. The Amish are part of a religion which places restrictions on their lifestyle. I would say that the Amish "cultural package" has evolved less than the Catholic one has since 1700.
> Their population barely grew in the 1700s and 1800s.
They started out with about 500 people, so 5000 is 10X growth, not "barely grew".
I have never seen a writer work so hard to reverse cause and effect and come to such an erroneous conclusion. Children - like almost all wealth - are a durable storage of energy and the only means 99% of the population had to ensure wealth and care in old age. *Central banking and durable, fungible assets are the primary cause of low fertility.* Stable currency always precludes "voluntary" reduction in fertility. Birth control was invented precisly because large families were seen as *reducing* fungible wealth in a modern world and reducing the number of children is seen as a way to *increase* individual wealth. Don't blame birth control, blame RRSPs.
People don't have children as a source of wealth. That's insane. We have always invested far more energy in children than we could ever get back.
We are reproducing machines, not "live comfortably in old age" machines. The only biological reason to have resources is to use them to reproduce.
I spend a little time debunking the notion that children are economic assets in this essay: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/01/demography-and-destiny.html
But it is just blatantly absurd.
‘Level of investment’ is relative. Drug cartels will forgo 50-60-70 percent of their cash value to convert their illicit cash into usable funds on the legal market. Your point is non-sequitur. If there is no alternative - which there historically was not - then you invest your time in offspring.
“Likewise, it is implausible that parents have extra children to compensate for child mortality. Would you have more children if you believed that they were likely to die young?” Yes, that's precisely why you continue to have children if you NEED THEM TO SURVIVE.
Yes, it's implausible that you would invest 10-15 years of support and protection, minimum, into a child, just because they might give you back a few years of much less support when you are older, if you live that long. You don't need children to survive, because you are going to die no matter what. But you believe that people throw away the best years of their life working to raise children, just so that they can have some support when they are old.
It's literally insane. Of course, cultures can have insane beliefs (e.g. religion), and some cultures might have that belief, but it's obviously false.
People have children, and invest energy in children, because we are reproducing machines, like every other organism. Every type of life invests in producing offspring. Energy flows from parents to children, not vice versa.
Try to get a minimal grasp on reality before you babble in public.
You’re not a genius. You’re an idiot that has cause and effect backwards. Go read history.
lol
>Without birth control, most women would have at least 5 children. Fertility above 5 children per woman was the norm in premodern societies
Nah, this is a nonsense. Look up French higher nobility in 18th century. Albania also had same contraceptive availability in 20th century as Nigeria, but there was 5 kids per woman difference in birth rate.
Do you have any sources to support what you're saying? I honestly can't find anything to support what you're talking about.
No, it's not nonsense. Without birth control, most women would have at least 5 children.
There are multiple methods of birth control. It's not just the pill. Latex condoms became widely available in many places before the birth control pill. In some places, abortion is an important type of birth control. People can use traditional methods of birth control (withdrawal, rhythm method, delayed marriage, prolonged breastfeeding). Even those require some knowledge, which wasn't widespread before general education.
There are other factors, which I mentioned. Culture is important too. People are affected by those around them, and the values they get through media, etc. As more people chose to have fewer children, it became more acceptable.
High fertility was the norm in premodern societies. Yes, some educated upper classes had methods of birth control (going back to ancient Rome and before), but those methods weren't a effective or widespread as what we have now.
Albania now has one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe, despite being more "traditional" in some ways and relatively poor.
Your theses regarding the pill is a bit outdated. I would recommend arcotherium's piece overviewing the four phases of demographic transition (in the West). A quick rebuttal is to point to France's history.
Yeah, I've read it. He underestimates the importance of birth control. I don't think I mentioned the pill in the essay. Birth control is a more general notion, which includes many things, including the pill, condoms, abortion, the rhythm method, etc. E.g. in Japan, after WW2, they relied heavily on abortion to limit fertility. The point I'm making is that people have an increased ability to limit reproduction. Women also have an increased ability to delay marriage. There are multiple factors involved (which I described) but birth control is very important. There was a big collapse in fertility after the birth control pill was introduced in the West.