The link to the article on the Truth About Demographic Decline was excellent. The one major issue the author missed was the role of religion. While she said that desired fertility was the best indicator of having children, even beyond religion she didn't explore why there was an increased desire. I would submit that in truly devout Christians, desire is much higher which also leads to more stable families.
Lyman Stone, the author, is a man. He’s a conservative Lutheran and a very good demographer. Unfortunately on Twitter he also strikes me as annoyingly smug and condescending when disagreeing with people on a wide range of topics outside his area of expertise. But I still consider him worth following.
On your point about Christians, I’d agree, and I think that in contemporary material culture it’s just really difficult to justify more than 2 kids, which is enough to fulfill the basic need for children. You probably need to be somewhat countercultural and hold the creation of life as sacred in and of itself to go beyond 2, and certainly beyond 3.
Amen to that. We need to be countercultural and encourage and support our children and grandchildren to be the same. The was things appear to be heading right now is the wrongheaded overemphasis on “saving the planet” we may told by law to limit our offspring. Sort of like what the Communists did in China.
My personal take is that, while that's not impossible, it's pretty low on the list of leftist tyrannies that we should be prepared for. Technocratic types of all stripes are worried about the prospect of declining population, as are the forces of Capital. Even if, in both cases, they'd prefer more immigrants over more native births, which is why they won't do much to encourage them,they still see no reason to actively suppress them.
I would concur, but I’m not sure they are worried about declining populations. They see it as a good thing because it saves the planet.
The link to the article on the Truth About Demographic Decline was excellent. The one major issue the author missed was the role of religion. While she said that desired fertility was the best indicator of having children, even beyond religion she didn't explore why there was an increased desire. I would submit that in truly devout Christians, desire is much higher which also leads to more stable families.
Lyman Stone, the author, is a man. He’s a conservative Lutheran and a very good demographer. Unfortunately on Twitter he also strikes me as annoyingly smug and condescending when disagreeing with people on a wide range of topics outside his area of expertise. But I still consider him worth following.
On your point about Christians, I’d agree, and I think that in contemporary material culture it’s just really difficult to justify more than 2 kids, which is enough to fulfill the basic need for children. You probably need to be somewhat countercultural and hold the creation of life as sacred in and of itself to go beyond 2, and certainly beyond 3.
Amen to that. We need to be countercultural and encourage and support our children and grandchildren to be the same. The was things appear to be heading right now is the wrongheaded overemphasis on “saving the planet” we may told by law to limit our offspring. Sort of like what the Communists did in China.
My personal take is that, while that's not impossible, it's pretty low on the list of leftist tyrannies that we should be prepared for. Technocratic types of all stripes are worried about the prospect of declining population, as are the forces of Capital. Even if, in both cases, they'd prefer more immigrants over more native births, which is why they won't do much to encourage them,they still see no reason to actively suppress them.