doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[drumdude]

Basically, if you think we need to outbreed the religious, you’re probably going down a dark path.

Not necessarily outbreeding the religious, but secular people need to have more kids so they won't get replaced by religious people in the future.

According to an article I read, a few decades ago there was no difference between the fertility rate of liberals and conservatives.

However, that's not the case anymore, and we may see the consequences of that in the future.

The largest correlation I know of is the inverse relationship between high income, high education, and low birth rates. The higher up the socioeconomic ladder you go, the fewer children you have (statistically speaking.)

This will drive the majority of demographic change in the future. We can fairly easily provide cheap internet access to these people, and empower them to become informed voters and not spiral into pseudoscience, propaganda, and misinformation traps. Toddlers today, for example, have essentially unlimited free access to educational videos on YouTube. As no other time in history has there been so much ease of climbing out of poverty with the assistance of social safety nets and cheap educational technology.

Essentially, the way to escape fundamentalism is to educate and expand the middle class. Regardless of race, economic, or religious background.

[Bond]

It doesn't matter how many kids a fundamentalist family has if they have access to the Internet because access to knowledge and ideas is going to lead a few in every family out of religion.

[doubtingthomas]

This will drive the majority of demographic change in the future. We can fairly easily provide cheap internet access to these people, and empower them to become informed voters and not spiral into pseudoscience, propaganda, and misinformation traps.

Maybe, but Trump may end up winning again, he has a good chance. I am not so confident that the internet is going to save us, maybe A.I., but probably not the internet.

The largest correlation I know of is the inverse relationship between high income, high education, and low birth rates. The higher up the socioeconomic ladder you go, the fewer children you have (statistically speaking.)

According to family studies institute, "But by the 2000s, complete fertility for liberal women had decline markedly below that of conservative women. In recent years, the gap in childbearing between young conservative women and liberal women has really opened, which may portend a bigger gap in coming years."

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conserva ... -advantage

And as a reminder, immigrants tend to be against abortion. Many countries with a large number of Catholics have extreme anti-abortion laws based on religion. As for things in the US, I don't think the internet is going to bring back Roe vs Wade. I am very concerned about Europe, which is a pretty good place right now, but may end up with Sharia law 50 years from now, all because Europeans aren't having kids.

[drumdude]

This will drive the majority of demographic change in the future. We can fairly easily provide cheap internet access to these people, and empower them to become informed voters and not spiral into pseudoscience, propaganda, and misinformation traps.

Maybe, but Trump may end up winning again, he has a good chance. I am not so confident that the internet is going to save us, maybe A.I., but probably not the internet.

The largest correlation I know of is the inverse relationship between high income, high education, and low birth rates. The higher up the socioeconomic ladder you go, the fewer children you have (statistically speaking.)

According to family studies institute, "But by the 2000s, complete fertility for liberal women had decline markedly below that of conservative women. In recent years, the gap in childbearing between young conservative women and liberal women has really opened, which may portend a bigger gap in coming years."

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conserva ... -advantage

And as a reminder, immigrants tend to be against abortion. Many countries with a large number of Catholics have extreme anti-abortion laws based on religion. As for things in the US, I don't think the internet is going to bring back Roe vs Wade. I am very concerned about Europe, which is a pretty good place right now, but may end up with Sharia law 50 years from now, all because Europeans aren't having kids.

Consider the source of those statistics you cited. It's just a collection of static images from conservative think tank, with no references to any paper, author, or details on their statistical analysis. I trust their website about as much as I trust Interpreter Foundation's.

[doubtingthomas]

Consider the source of those statistics you cited. It's just a collection of static images from conservative think tank, with no references to any paper, author, or details on their statistical analysis. I trust their website about as much as I trust Interpreter Foundation's.

Regardless, it is true that educated, highly skilled women tend to be very liberal and less religious. Those who don't pursue high-paying jobs tend to have more kids. I think you are underestimating the power of genetics, much of our personality is dictated by our genes. You don't want women who aren't very feminist to contribute more to the birth rate.

[drumdude]

Consider the source of those statistics you cited. It's just a collection of static images from conservative think tank, with no references to any paper, author, or details on their statistical analysis. I trust their website about as much as I trust Interpreter Foundation's.

Regardless, it is true that educated, highly skilled women tend to be very liberal and less religious. Those who don't pursue high-paying jobs tend to have more kids. I think you are underestimating the power of genetics, much of our personality is dictated by our genes. You don't want women who aren't very feminist to contribute more to the birth rate.

You’re conflating a lot of variables. Again the largest one is wealth:

In an article published in Nature, Myrskylä et al. pointed out that "unprecedented increases" in social and economic development in the 20th century had been accompanied by considerable declines in population growth rates and fertility. This negative association between human fertility and socio-economic development has been "one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences"

This doesn’t have to do with genetics or religion, except to the extent that genetics and religion are themselves correlated to wealth.

Where are you getting these weird alt right talking points?

[doubtingthomas]

I was focusing on the point. People reason in circles when they express deeply held beliefs, such as beliefs about God or the Bible; beliefs they have difficulty justifying or even comprehending objectively.

That's BS, man. I wasn't engaging in circular reasoning. You seem to engage in confirmation bias. When I said, "There's no harm when a 26-year-old dates a 17-year-old, as long as the relationship is healthy and consensual," I was simply describing what I believe constitutes a non-harmful relationship, which is a healthy and consensual relationship. As I said, "no harm" and "healthy and consensual" don't mean the exact same thing.

You mean a barely eighteen and a fifty plus, in a situation where the fifty plus is in a position of authority over the barely eighteen as a teacher? Of course that's going to be controversial. Feel free to wish that it weren't.

I don't see a huge power imbalance; it's not a situation where the boss is taking advantage of desperate employees who are struggling to make ends meet. And I don't see how her age makes a difference. Eighteen-year-olds aren't as naïve as you might think, at least not for short-term things. They may be naïve about long-term situations, where an 18-year-old believes that things might get better in the future, but I don't think that the 18-year-old intended to marry her Professor.

But regardless, is an 18-year-old dating her professor more eye-opening than the sexualization of HS boys? Where are the news or magazine articles complaining about the sexualization of boys?

You mean the one where you misrepresented yet another study significantly? Yes, I read that thread. And by the way, violence isn't the only issue.

Here's what I said,

This is supported by studies showing that 46% of sexual assault perpetrators are under 25 ... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11995600/

How did I "significantly" misrepresent the study?

I agree that rape and violence aren't the only concerns. How else can an older man take advantage of a younger woman? Is a 30-year-old guy more likely to get a 20-year-old pregnant compared to other 20-year-olds? If so, please provide evidence.

Or are they more likely to scam them?

[doubtingthomas]

You’re conflating a lot of variables. Again the largest one is wealth:

In an article published in Nature, Myrskylä et al. pointed out that "unprecedented increases" in social and economic development in the 20th century had been accompanied by considerable declines in population growth rates and fertility. This negative association between human fertility and socio-economic development has been "one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences"

This doesn’t have to do with genetics or religion, except to the extent that genetics and religion are themselves correlated to wealth.

Let me try the NYT, a professor of sociology reports,

Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opin ... beral.html

It's true that wealthy people tend to have less children, and that's true for wealthy conservatives, liberals, religious, and secular people. Wealth is probably the biggest contributor to the declining fertility rate. However, the fertility rate is dropping a lot faster among educated and secular women, and that's a concern.

It's not a coincidence that Vermont has the lowest fertility rate among US states. It's a state with few immigrants and Latinos, and with a lot of people who are not religious.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... e-by-state

So, if educated women, who are typically liberal, are having fewer children, then that may not bode well for the future. Liberal white Americans will eventually have to depend on Latinos during elections, but liberal Latinos are having fewer children as well. While circumstances can certainly change, current trends are concerning. As mentioned earlier, there's a possibility that secular Europeans will be outnumbered by Muslims in the future.

Where are you getting these weird alt right talking points?

Certainly not from right-wing sources. The right wing tends to use scare tactics to their advantage, and most of them are unlikely to bring up the points I am highlighting here. They are more concerned about the perceived threat of white Christian nationalists being replaced by minorities.

[doubtingthomas]

Why, because the religious people would see this and magically stop reproducing?

Check this out.

In 2021, there were 5,798 more children born in Utah than in Oregon. However, Oregon is more racially diverse than Utah and has about a million more people. So, how can this be?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... e-by-state

Eight souls were aboard Noah’s Ark.

Apparently 8 really is enough.

This time departing for the New Earth.

It doesn't matter how many kids a fundamentalist family has if they have access to the Internet because access to knowledge and ideas is going to lead a few in every family out of religion.

I wouldn't be so confident about that.

[doubtingthomas]

UT is somewhat similar to Montana; both are conservative states and have approximately the same percentage of Christians and the same percentage of religiously unaffiliated individuals, according to Pew. Both have a large majority of white residents. However, their fertility rates differ: 54.8 for Montana and 63.6 for Utah.

Let's assume that in Utah, the fertility rate (per 1000 women) is 54.8 for non-LDS women and approximately 72 for super active LDS women. Unfortunately, the fertility rate of women who are not religious is a lot lower, probably closer to 40.

Thankfully, immigration is contributing a lot to the growth of Utah, primarily from California residents. However, how long will that trend last?

Lastly, liberal women tend to seek education at much higher rates than conservative women. One must wonder if educated women are more likely to leave Utah than women who don't have an education.

I wonder if non-LDS individuals are more likely to leave Utah than LDS individuals?