Currently the fertility rate is collapsing around the world. In most industrialized countries it is far below 2.1 children per woman. Which suggests that these societies will go extinct, if not some other magical AI solution appears. Even Mormon fertility rates are plummeting, but they are still higher than of most other people in the US. Which suggests Mormons are actually less misaligned with the “goal” of evolution than supposedly more rational people. Mormons are also less responsible for a potential future disappearance of the society they live in.
Do you think this gives Mormonism some practical, if not epistemic, justification?
No, I think it’s still a bad thing because (as with most religions) it fuels beliefs that prevent people from even considering trying to solve problems like aging and death because “heaven will be better than mortality”, “God will make everything better”, etc.
In addition, even while they have more children than the general population there’s an estimated 46-60% retention rate of young adults staying in the church. If you factor that in, even assuming 60% retention the overall birthrate of ~3.4 * 0.6 = 2.04 birthrate of those who stay Mormon[1], and so by that metric they are disappearing just like the majority of the developed world (this is not taking new converts into account).
That being said, population sustainability is a real economic and practical problem in the long-term. Any rationalist with a sufficiently stable economic situation should seriously consider having kids, if for no other reason so that more humans grow up in an intellectually healthy situation.
Thanks. My question wasn’t bait. It comes from repurposing the innocent but (for a two-boxer) uncomfortable “why ain’tcha winning?” question, by applying it to the population level. As a population, South Korea (TFR=0.72 and falling) doesn’t look like it’s winning the Malthusian game. 2.04 sounds almost sustainable. And Africa has a TFR>4.
No, I think it’s still a bad thing because (as with most religions) it fuels beliefs that prevent people from even considering trying to solve problems like aging and death because “heaven will be better than mortality”, “God will make everything better”, etc.
Yeah, fair enough. Something like that would be my response too. Though I would add that solving aging is not the quite the same as solving a low total fertility rate. There is also the broader issue of dysgenic trends, with a negative correlation between TFR and IQ, but that takes us too far here.
Currently the fertility rate is collapsing around the world. In most industrialized countries it is far below 2.1 children per woman. Which suggests that these societies will go extinct, if not some other magical AI solution appears. Even Mormon fertility rates are plummeting, but they are still higher than of most other people in the US. Which suggests Mormons are actually less misaligned with the “goal” of evolution than supposedly more rational people. Mormons are also less responsible for a potential future disappearance of the society they live in.
Do you think this gives Mormonism some practical, if not epistemic, justification?
This seems like bait but I’m answering anyway.
No, I think it’s still a bad thing because (as with most religions) it fuels beliefs that prevent people from even considering trying to solve problems like aging and death because “heaven will be better than mortality”, “God will make everything better”, etc.
In addition, even while they have more children than the general population there’s an estimated 46-60% retention rate of young adults staying in the church. If you factor that in, even assuming 60% retention the overall birthrate of ~3.4 * 0.6 = 2.04 birthrate of those who stay Mormon[1], and so by that metric they are disappearing just like the majority of the developed world (this is not taking new converts into account).
That being said, population sustainability is a real economic and practical problem in the long-term. Any rationalist with a sufficiently stable economic situation should seriously consider having kids, if for no other reason so that more humans grow up in an intellectually healthy situation.
Please correct me if this is the wrong way to estimate this.
Thanks. My question wasn’t bait. It comes from repurposing the innocent but (for a two-boxer) uncomfortable “why ain’tcha winning?” question, by applying it to the population level. As a population, South Korea (TFR=0.72 and falling) doesn’t look like it’s winning the Malthusian game. 2.04 sounds almost sustainable. And Africa has a TFR>4.
Yeah, fair enough. Something like that would be my response too. Though I would add that solving aging is not the quite the same as solving a low total fertility rate. There is also the broader issue of dysgenic trends, with a negative correlation between TFR and IQ, but that takes us too far here.