Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church

[Doctor Steuss]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I guess "have done quite well" is a matter of perspective and time.

Nearly all of Europe has a native birth rate below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, the rate needed to maintain a stable population without immigration.  And while immigrants initially have higher birth rates, their rates tend to fall to native levels within one or two generations.

Europe is dying because they are not having enough children.  And I think that cratering birth rates are strongly correlated to secularization:

More:

Secularization and Low Fertility: How Declining Church Membership Changes Couples and Their Childbearing

A few more:

Religious have fewer children in secular countries

Declining birth rates linked to secularization, growing hostility toward religion

How fertility rates and religious adherence are connected

America’s Growing Religious-Secular Fertility Divide

Religion and Fertility: A Longitudinal Register Study Examining Differences by Sex, Parity, Partner’s Religion, and Religious Conversion in Finland

Again, Europe qua Europe is a pastiche of dead countries walking.  Same goes for many countries in Asia (South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.).  The countries are also increasingly secularized.

Thanks,

-Smac

Out of curiosity, how do you square the "strong correlation" with Malta and France?  Malta has the highest rate of belief in God of EU countries (94%), and second to lowest atheist belief (2%), with over 2/3 of the population identifying as Catholic.  It also has the lowest birth rate of an EU nation (1.08). 

There are only 3 EU countries with a lower belief of God than France (27%), and France has the highest rate of atheist belief (40%), yet also has the highest birth rate in the EU.

In other words, the inverse appears to be true, given that the highest religiosity has the lowest birthrate, and the lowest religiosity has the highest birthrate.  Or am I just not understanding your use of "secular"?

[Okrahomer]

5 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Out of curiosity, how do you square the "strong correlation" with Malta and France?  Malta has the highest rate of belief in God of EU countries (94%), and second to lowest atheist belief (2%), with over 2/3 of the population identifying as Catholic.  It also has the lowest birth rate of an EU nation (1.08). 

There are only 3 EU countries with a lower belief of God than France (27%), and France has the highest rate of atheist belief (40%), yet also has the highest birth rate in the EU.

In other words, the inverse appears to be true, given that the highest religiosity has the lowest birthrate, and the lowest religiosity has the highest birthrate.  Or am I just not understanding your use of "secular"?

My experience in Europe causes me to ask whether the birth rate from believing immigrant populations in France (Hindu/Indians and Muslims) skews the overall birth rate higher, so that the atheist/believer ratio is no longer a valid metric?

[Doctor Steuss]

13 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

My experience in Europe causes me to ask whether the birth rate from believing immigrant populations in France (Hindu/Indians and Muslims) skews the overall birth rate higher, so that the atheist/believer ratio is no longer a valid metric?

That would affect Malta similarly though, wouldn't it?  Almost a third of Malta's total population is made up of immigrants, compared to only about 10% of France.

[Okrahomer]

5 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

That would affect Malta similarly though, wouldn't it?  Almost a third of Malta's total population is made up of immigrants, compared to only about 10% of France.

My experience (totally anecdotal) is that a very large percentage of immigrants in Malta are from other European countries — especially the UK and Italy.  But that is only anecdotal experience.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know LDS who held their nose and voted for Trump and others who at least the first time around (haven’t had the chance or the desire really to discuss politics with them or anyone else offline the second time around) saw it as a duty to wholeheartedly support Trump once he got the nomination, any criticism of him was wrong.  In my experience the “hold the nose” were significantly more numerous...

NY Times just now: A Lonely Holdout Where Republicans Still Resist Trump: Utah

Quote

A Lonely Holdout Where Republicans Still Resist Trump: Utah
Bolstered by Mormon voters’ distaste for MAGA politics, the center-right is trying to reassert itself in a ruby-red state.

...

As President Trump pursues his right-wing agenda at breakneck speed, with Democrats in retreat and “Never Trump” conservatives making themselves scarce, one of the 50 states has remained a redoubt of a kinder, gentler and more civil kind of Republicanism.

Utah.

Traditionally deep red, Utah moved just one percentage point to the right in the 2024 election, the second-smallest statewide shift in the country after Washington. One big reason is that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who make up a vast — and once reliably conservative — segment of the Utah population, have been drifting away from the G.O.P.

The church, headquartered in Utah, counts 2.2 million people there as members — about three in five residents — though other estimates suggest only about 42 percent of Utahns are practicing Mormons.

Repelled by Mr. Trump’s language mocking immigrants and demeaning women, Latter-day Saint voters, who also have a sizable presence in Arizona, played a key role in flipping that swing state blue in 2020. Last year, 31 percent of L.D.S. voters nationwide backed former Vice President Kamala Harris, up from the 23 percent who voted Democratic in 2020, according to a Fox News analysis of Associated Press VoteCast data.

While Utah still backed Mr. Trump by 21 points, center-right Republicans who are uncomfortable with Mr. Trump’s confrontational brand of politics — and are more in sync with former Senator Mitt Romney, a fellow Latter-day Saint who defied Mr. Trump — have gained new momentum and are pushing to wrest voters in the state away from the party’s MAGA wing.

Though they are often reluctant to openly criticize the president, their efforts to nudge the state toward a courtlier kind of political engagement can be seen at every level of Utah politics.
...

A number of Utah leaders are also trying to promote civility in the next generation of political practitioners.

At the State Capitol, former Gov. Gary Herbert, a member of the church, lectured a group of college interns recently about the importance of moral character.

“We have some politicians who are good at calling people names, showing a lack of respect with a difference of opinion,” he said. Harsh language might help get candidates elected, he added, “but it doesn’t solve any problems.”

Mr. Herbert is also an adviser to a Utah-based initiative called the Dignity Index, which grades politicians’ speech on an eight-point scale. The lowest score is reserved for expressions of contempt and calls for violence against one’s opponents; the highest is awarded to those treating others with dignity. (In their presidential debate last fall, Ms. Harris earned a few threes, but Mr. Trump was twice tagged with a two.)

Latter-day Saints say they are more likely to be sympathetic to immigrants and refugees because many have served on missions overseas and because early Mormon pioneers were refugees themselves. And Mormon women have been at the forefront of the shift away from Mr. Trump; some have said they reconsidered lifelong opposition to abortion after seeing the consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Mormons also received a nudge from church leaders, who urged members in a 2023 letter not to reflexively vote for one party down the ballot without careful consideration — interpreted by some as a warning against blindly voting for Mr. Trump and the politicians he endorses.

Still, it’s easy to make too much of the anti-MAGA mood among Latter-day Saints.

Senator John Curtis, an L.D.S. member, has said he is unafraid to break with Mr. Trump, prompting some Utahns to hope he would take after Mr. Romney, whom he replaced in the Senate. But Mr. Curtis has opposed none of Mr. Trump’s most controversial Cabinet nominations.

And even Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah — a church member and longtime Trump critic who started an initiative called Disagree Better in 2023, urging Americans to work through political disputes in a positive way — endorsed Mr. Trump last summer.
...

On the campus of Brigham Young University, at least, there are subtle signs that the church is promoting a distinctly un-Trumpian style of politics.

Each Tuesday morning, students file into an arena for a spiritual-minded “devotional” address by a religious leader or academic, underscoring the importance of dignity and respect. The remarks rarely veer into overtly political territory. But some students say they see the messages being delivered each week as incompatible with Mr. Trump’s worldview.

Speakers “push the student body to be willing to engage with the world around them and have hope,” said Scott Sawaya, 23, a senior. “I believe that contrasts sharply with the current fear-mongering and scapegoating seen in the MAGA movement.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One big reason is that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who make up a vast — and once reliably conservative — segment of the Utah population, have been drifting away from the G.O.P.

Good.  I would rather people voted issue rather than party.

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Out of curiosity, how do you square the "strong correlation" with Malta and France?  Malta has the highest rate of belief in God of EU countries (94%), and second to lowest atheist belief (2%), with over 2/3 of the population identifying as Catholic.  It also has the lowest birth rate of an EU nation (1.08). 

I haven't examined the particulars of Malta, and have instead examined reports of broader trends.  

"Secularization" is not the only factor having deleterious effects on birth rates (and not all of these effects are, themselves, problematic).  

44 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

There are only 3 EU countries with a lower belief of God than France (27%), and France has the highest rate of atheist belief (40%), yet also has the highest birth rate in the EU.

Everything is relative, I suppose.  France's "highest birth rate" seems akin to the "tallest mountain in Kansas."  Per this article, in 2023, the total fertility rate in France was 1.68 per woman, a historic low, and well below even the replacement rate of 2.1. 

44 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

In other words, the inverse appears to be true, given that the highest religiosity has the lowest birthrate, and the lowest religiosity has the highest birthrate.  Or am I just not understanding your use of "secular"?

I think you are thinking that I am proposing that "secularization" - the loss of religiosity in Europe - is the sole cause of its plummeting birth rate.  I am not saying that.  There are many factors involved (I think several are interrelated).  

I also think that you are comparing apples to other apples (one European country's fertility rate compared to another's), whereas I am comparing total apple yields over time (historical trends, which are plummeting, and the comparison of actual birth rates with the "replacement" rate of 2.1).

For my part, I am done having children, but I did my bit for God and country.  I and my wife have six wonderful children.  We had a big family because we wanted one, because our familial examples and church culture allowed/encouraged it, because we enjoyed having children, because we wanted our children to have plenty of siblings, because we were fortunate enough to have both the physical and economic capacity to have them (though not without real sacrifice), because we believe that “children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3), because we believe that “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28) is a commandment, and because the Church's counsel was sound: “When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions—decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.”

There were, of course, countervailing voices, but much of those were based on shame and fear and guilt, so we did not pay much attention to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess "have done quite well" is a matter of perspective and time.

Nearly all of Europe has a native birth rate below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, the rate needed to maintain a stable population without immigration.  And while immigrants initially have higher birth rates, their rates tend to fall to native levels within one or two generations.

Europe is dying because they are not having enough children.  And I think that cratering birth rates are strongly correlated to secularization:

More:

Secularization and Low Fertility: How Declining Church Membership Changes Couples and Their Childbearing

A few more:

Religious have fewer children in secular countries

Declining birth rates linked to secularization, growing hostility toward religion

How fertility rates and religious adherence are connected

America’s Growing Religious-Secular Fertility Divide

Religion and Fertility: A Longitudinal Register Study Examining Differences by Sex, Parity, Partner’s Religion, and Religious Conversion in Finland

Again, Europe qua Europe is a pastiche of dead countries walking.  Same goes for many countries in Asia (South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.).  The countries are also increasingly secularized.

Thanks,

-Smac

Birthrate is not the sole indicator of peace, prosperity and happiness. Declining birth rates can be reversed fairly easily. Why is it European nations consistently rate very high on the happiness scale than the USA, which is miserably low on most lists?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

France's "highest birth rate" seems akin to the "tallest mountain in Kansas."

Hey, Kansas has some great mountains, they are just underground. (I have to defend my daughter’s birthplace though I was quite happy to leave it two weeks after she was born as it’s windy and humid….favorite zoo though)

https://veronicasgarden.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/why-kansans-keep-our-mountains-buried-underground/

Edited February 19, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Birthrate is not the sole indicator of peace, prosperity and happiness.

I agree.  But it is a fundamental indicator of the overall health and longevity of a society/country.

Again, Europe qua Europe is a pastiche of dead countries walking.  Same goes with large swaths of Asia.

Speaking of France:

Quote

The phrase “Demography is destiny” is commonly attributed to the French philosopher and father of sociology, Auguste Comte (1798-1857). By coining this phrase, he argued that the size and composition of a country’s population will determine its future.

And even though a lot has happened on the technological front since Comte’s time which means that a country’s growth and prosperity potential does not depend solely on demography, there is reason to keep an extra eye on demographic developments these days. For example, demography will support the super-strong labour markets we have experienced with some surprise over the past few years.

Most folks pay attention to demographics because of economic or other "secular" reasons.  My view hews toward the religious/ideological.  

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Declining birth rates can be reversed fairly easily.

In the immortal words of John Cena: Are you sure about that?

I am happy to learn from you.  In the last, say, 40 years, which countries have succeeded in reversing declining birth rates (I'll let you off the hook with the "fairly easily" bit)?

My recollection is that some few countries, like Hungary and Poland, have sought to create financial "pro natal" incentives to encourage the citizenry to have more kids, but the results have been merely so-so.

Also, I notice the passive voice here ("can be reversed...").  Who is it that is doing this "reversing"?  The State?  Individuals?  Societal groups?

Personally, I think low birth rates are basically a fait accompli.  Death spirals.  No government program or subsidy is going to create a sufficient set of incentives for human beings to reverse plummeting birth rates.  Israel seems to be doing well, but I think it is very much an outlier, and because it has pre-existing strong cultural/religious emphases on family.  Sweden was doing sort of okay, but never enough to climb out of the death spiral (that is, reach or exceed the 2.1 replacement rate), but that's all gone and they are declining again.  Same with France.  And Hungary.  And Russia.  And South Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan.

Having children is difficult on its own.  In post-agrarian societies, children are only a financial burden, not a benefit.  And we have spent many decades now conditioning society to view in utero babies as clumps of cells, parasites, etc., to be aborted for any reason or no reason at all.  The misanthropy inherent in elective abortion rhetoric has had, in my view, a permanently harmful effect.  That and the self-indulgent and money-centered mindsets that too many of us have.

In Matthew 24:12, we were told that in the last days "iniquity shall abound," and therefore that "the love of many shall wax cold."  The anti-natalism arising from secularism, self-centeredness, and abortion rhetoric is, in my view, a fulfillment of this prediction.  Moreover, I think it's a permanent thing.  There's no getting out of it.  The foregoing influences are only going to get stronger and stronger.  I will probably not live to see the peak of human population growth, but I think my children will.  And I also think they will see a drastic and rapid drop in world population after that.

There will be some silver linings to this, but also a lot of bad stuff.  Matthew 24:12 was a warning against difficult times.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I hadn't thought of that!  Jonathan Rauch is a bit of a Samuel the Lamanite character, isn't he?

It would be kinda funny if Christ tells them to go back and put the teachings of Jonathan the Gay Jewish Atheist into the D&C. 

(One of the things Jonathan demonstrates is that the teachings and example of Christ stand on their own merits, no dogma needed.) 

"Opposition in all things" has a LOT of implications we seldom understand.   For good to exist, there MUST be evil- by simple logic!  There is no meaning to the word "good" unless it there is something to contrast against it!!   Just look at this process of typing a response to someone's comment- like we are doing right now.  

First there must be "opposites" to even have a discussion on any topic.

Carrying the idea on, if the squiggles on the page are the same color as the background, text would not be visible!  One must have a background to have a foreground.

Every word has evolved because of a need to contrast another word, one idea to contrast with another, sadness vs happiness, beauty vs ugly and on and on.  Yin and yang stuff, ultimately!

Yes I think Samuel the Lamanite is yet another example of this principle.

I even take this principle in the creation of ANYTHING.   Painting?  Foreground and Background as well.

There is no need for Christ to advocate the "opposite" doctrine of what he has taught- it already exists everywhere- "naturally" because of this inherent principle of opposition.  

What IS needed is for people to UNDERSTAND the principles to have a deeper understanding symbology and semiotics !

I believe in evolution- this is the basis of all progression.  There is no progression unless there is a "before" and an "after"!

In creating the earth- the story goes that God worked through natural means-- first he needed "material" and "space" in opposition to create anything, just like letters against a background.   And on it goes.  

I believe that this Intelligence that permeates the universe aka the Light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, God, etc. knows what "tweaks" needs to be made done to the environment in order to naturally cause the desired changes in building worlds, or achieving any desired changes, by simply (For such a "Being" or "Intelligence" or "god"  or "Force"), altering an environment to CAUSE whatever EFFECTS are desired, in, say, the human brain, or hand, or whether or not- say-  bipedal is best the best locomotion design for the trials of being a particular type of what we call a 'primate".

And so perhaps there is a kind of "guided evolution" which causes changes in the environment - opposition- which pushes our pre-human to develop the ability to climb trees, and fingernails, say,  which are necessary to - for example- peel oranges. 😉

I apologize for the rather childlike way of explaining the ideas, but I am trying to express difficult concepts here, but I think that we all need to begin learning how to grow up in our concepts about the church and need to start thinking "celestially", and see things the way an intelligent Jewish Atheist teaches us to allow us to be able to "speak the language" of such a person so that eventually THEY will understand the incredible possibilities the gospel of Jesus Christ puts before us!!

We will never "convert the world" unless we learn they way THEY are thinking!

 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

But it is a fundamental indicator of the overall health and longevity of a society/country.

Not really.  Maybe look at number of children surviving past a certain age instead to see if there is an association as the countries with the highest birth rates in the world are not the healthiest and in fact are among the unhealthiest in terms of their society.  Somalia is tied for second place with Niger being the leader, with Chad and DR Congo in second with Somalia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate

Found a graph mapping fertility rate vs human development index and it indicates the opposite is true (it may be a fundamental indicator, but in a negative way).  I doubt birth rates will climb in developed countries until it makes economic sense to the family to have more children and women can have a number of children without giving up financial and physical independence.  The older a woman is and the more children she has, the harder it is on her physical health.   There are also the increased demands on parents’ time with additional children.  And if a woman  is left responsible for them on her own, the more kids the harder it will be to meet their needs, the less time she will have available to care for individual needs, the more poverty they will experience, etc.  Men run into the same time and limited resources issues if they end up being primary caregivers (though 80% of single parents are still women), so it’s not likely any more attractive to most men to have large families even without the physical burden of pregnancy.  Until those difficulties are overcome with better health care and medical advances to prevent or reverse the wear and tear of pregnancy and likely at least some subsidizing of child care costs by government, I don’t see women with access to birth control and no incentive to have more children besides wanting them very often seeing the costs of larger families outweighed by the benefits.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-vs-human-development-index

Edited February 19, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 2/17/2025 at 1:08 PM, smac97 said:

Disagreement alone, no matter how reasoned or on what grounds, is bigotry.

You’ve complained about this a couple of times in this thread. I think that’s fine, but don’t you call pro choice people baby killers? Which is worse? An accusation of bigotry or baby killing? Do you see the problem with how you view and present yourself? As willing to be reasonable and compromise? What was your proposed compromise on abortion again? Oh yeah, it was exactly your  position. That is not how compromise works. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But it is a fundamental indicator of the overall health and longevity of a society/country.

Again, Europe qua Europe is a pastiche of dead countries walking.  Same goes with large swaths of Asia.

They aren’t falling below replacement levels. What is the problem?

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of France:

Most folks pay attention to demographics because of economic or other "secular" reasons.  My view hews toward the religious/ideological.  

In the immortal words of John Cena: Are you sure about that?

I am happy to learn from you.  In the last, say, 40 years, which countries have succeeded in reversing declining birth rates (I'll let you off the hook with the "fairly easily" bit)?

My recollection is that some few countries, like Hungary and Poland, have sought to create financial "pro natal" incentives to encourage the citizenry to have more kids, but the results have been merely so-so.

Also, I notice the passive voice here ("can be reversed...").  Who is it that is doing this "reversing"?  The State?  Individuals?  Societal groups?

Why do they need to be reversed?

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Personally, I think low birth rates are basically a fait accompli.  Death spirals.  No government program or subsidy is going to create a sufficient set of incentives for human beings to reverse plummeting birth rates.  Israel seems to be doing well, but I think it is very much an outlier, and because it has pre-existing strong cultural/religious emphases on family.  Sweden was doing sort of okay, but never enough to climb out of the death spiral (that is, reach or exceed the 2.1 replacement rate), but that's all gone and they are declining again.  Same with France.  And Hungary.  And Russia.  And South Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan.

Having children is difficult on its own.  In post-agrarian societies, children are only a financial burden, not a benefit.  And we have spent many decades now conditioning society to view in utero babies as clumps of cells, parasites, etc., to be aborted for any reason or no reason at all.  The misanthropy inherent in elective abortion rhetoric has had, in my view, a permanently harmful effect.  That and the self-indulgent and money-centered mindsets that too many of us have.

Abortion is a relatively small number. The big reason for falling birth rates is access to reasonably reliable birth control. That wasn’t a thing 60 years ago.

The money-centered mindsets have more to do with survival in a high cost of living environment than it has to do with self-indulgence or greed. I know many couples choosing not to have children because they can’t afford them even with both parents working. They want them but it is not a realistic option. Those are the people you should be subsidizing if you want more children. Either that or take measures to make it so that working a full-time job means you can afford to live and support a child.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

In Matthew 24:12, we were told that in the last days "iniquity shall abound," and therefore that "the love of many shall wax cold."  The anti-natalism arising from secularism, self-centeredness, and abortion rhetoric is, in my view, a fulfillment of this prediction.  Moreover, I think it's a permanent thing.  There's no getting out of it.  The foregoing influences are only going to get stronger and stronger.  I will probably not live to see the peak of human population growth, but I think my children will.  And I also think they will see a drastic and rapid drop in world population after that.

There will be some silver linings to this, but also a lot of bad stuff.  Matthew 24:12 was a warning against difficult times.

Blame it all on abortion! It is abortion! The great SATAN!!!! It is not the oppression of the poor or the growing inequality that the Book of Mormon keeps going on about. Also that lunatic woke idiot Jesus went on and on about it but it is really all about abortion. Focus on the thing the scripture for our day never mentions. That is the great evil!

[Mfbnew]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

As in a living and having a perfected  and glorified resurrected body, and having come from the presence of God human?

Or do you mean a living but still mortal, still living on earth in the 18th century, and would eventually die human?

"Could" encompasses a lot.  I don't see how we could posit this "without changing doctrines in the church."

Could Jesus have just been an itinerant rabbi with some thoughtful things to day?  Sure, but that would utterly negate His role in our lives.

I think what is most important is whether "the foundational stories" are true.  If Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, then "stories" about him are nice, but not salvific.

"If."

Thanks,

-Smac

You appear to have no understanding of what I am saying.  Sorry I was not clear enough I suppose

Yes of course "IF"'- that is the whole point.   Odd folks like me get into philosophical "IF's" all the time and attorneys typically want to talk about arguments that will stand up to 12 random people in court

Ann Taves has some interesting views.   I was getting into her views but now I see that this topic is HUGE if you have never read her stuff. 

If you really want to get into it, I will be glad to do so, perhaps on a different thread.  It will be a major undertaking for me right now, but I will be glad to take it on if someone actually wants to get into that topic.   It will have to include getting into the nature of religion and faith vs science.  

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691010243/fits-trances-and-visions

https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Experience-Reconsidered-Building-Block-Approach/dp/0691140871

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2025 by Mfbnew

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

NY Times just now: A Lonely Holdout Where Republicans Still Resist Trump: Utah

That is really not resisting Trump in any meaningful way.

It is trying to keep some moral distance and slipping in some vague caveats about your support while still supporting him politically in every way it concretely matters. Hoping that will lead to some break or change is a long shot. Hoping it will transform American society and buttress democracy is an even longer shot.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The money-centered mindsets have more to do with survival in a high cost of living environment than it has to do with self-indulgence or greed. I know many couples choosing not to have children because they can’t afford them even with both parents working.

Health care is outrageous, my daughter has 2 drugs over $500 and another over $1000 a month. I have one over 600$.  And it’s been around 25 years and used to cost half that much. There is no reason for it to actually cost that much. I don’t see having much large families until those costs come down way down.  Especially if you see a need to build savings for retirement.  I have had one nephew and one niece out of a total of 9 having to have their newborn in ICU for months. One happened to be in the military and thankfully most was covered. But he was young and just graduating college and his wife did hair, so if he hadn’t already been in the military program, that could have been big trouble for them.  The other was a more established family, upper income, but had drained their savings with fertility treatments.  I don’t know how they managed. I am thinking a very compassionate rich relative stepped in (he is always offering to help, has established a school or two in Africa as well as other charitable programs) as he’s rescued quite a few in the family.

Edited February 19, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But it is a fundamental indicator of the overall health and longevity of a society/country.

Again, Europe qua Europe is a pastiche of dead countries walking.  Same goes with large swaths of Asia.

Speaking of France:

Most folks pay attention to demographics because of economic or other "secular" reasons.  My view hews toward the religious/ideological.  

In the immortal words of John Cena: Are you sure about that?

I am happy to learn from you.  In the last, say, 40 years, which countries have succeeded in reversing declining birth rates (I'll let you off the hook with the "fairly easily" bit)?

My recollection is that some few countries, like Hungary and Poland, have sought to create financial "pro natal" incentives to encourage the citizenry to have more kids, but the results have been merely so-so.

Also, I notice the passive voice here ("can be reversed...").  Who is it that is doing this "reversing"?  The State?  Individuals?  Societal groups?

Well maybe I should clarify. I said birth rates can be reversed not that they are being reversed. So it was more an opinion rather than an assertion of fact. It just seems that the declining birth rate could be reversed. I wonder how China is doing since their reversal of the one child policy.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Personally, I think low birth rates are basically a fait accompli.  Death spirals.  No government program or subsidy is going to create a sufficient set of incentives for human beings to reverse plummeting birth rates. 

Well maybe or maybe not. The US tax code has typically been pro family and children. I wonder if historically our birth rates would have dropped had such things not been in place.  And US birthrates are falling as well.  

Immigration can also make up lost ground for low birthrates but that can bring cultural issues.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I\

Having children is difficult on its own.  In post-agrarian societies, children are only a financial burden, not a benefit.  And we have spent many decades now conditioning society to view in utero babies as clumps of cells, parasites, etc., to be aborted for any reason or no reason at all. 

Oh brother. Over the top hyperbole. I am fairly certain even those who favor abortion as an option do not hold that view and there is a small but perhaps loud minority who would hold the ludicrous fictional position.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The misanthropy inherent in elective abortion rhetoric has had, in my view, a permanently harmful effect.  That and the self-indulgent and money-centered mindsets that too many of us have.

I think you live in the Happy Valley bubble and have little to no experience interacting with people outside of the Mormon Corridor. My experience our in the "real" world and with people I interact with do not reflect this. The young people I interact with seem interested in family and children though they do not have the numbers of children that Latter-day Saints historically have. Most the child bearing people I know are having children and usually they have two or three and a few I know have 4.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

In Matthew 24:12, we were told that in the last days "iniquity shall abound," and therefore that "the love of many shall wax cold."  The anti-natalism arising from secularism, self-centeredness, and abortion rhetoric is, in my view, a fulfillment of this prediction.  Moreover, I think it's a permanent thing.  There's no getting out of it.  The foregoing influences are only going to get stronger and stronger.  I will probably not live to see the peak of human population growth, but I think my children will.  And I also think they will see a drastic and rapid drop in world population after that.

There will be some silver linings to this, but also a lot of bad stuff.  Matthew 24:12 was a warning against difficult times.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I certainly do not have the gloom and doom scenario you hold. It is a wonderful think not the be bound down by mythical "scripture" and such. It sure taints one's world view.

Any way, this topic is a tangent from your topic so perhaps we should get back to that.

[Teancum]

On 2/17/2025 at 1:13 PM, smac97 said:

I am working to avoid posting political commentary on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good idea though it kinda tough!🙃

[Teancum]

On 2/17/2025 at 2:14 PM, smac97 said:

I am working to avoid posting political commentary on this board.

Tough to do given the topic of the thread.

[Teancum]

On 2/17/2025 at 3:08 PM, smac97 said:

I am so much a part of the problem Rauch is describing that I have started two threads about, and complimenting and endorsing, Rauch:

It seems to me your praise of Rauch is based on his praise of Mormonism more than anything else. As I have noted, it seems to me that Mormonism being plagued and heading the way that Rauch describe Evangelical Christianity.  I think @SeekingUnderstandingis correct to note that you exhibit this as do so many Latter-day Saints.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And we have spent many decades now conditioning society to view in utero babies as clumps of cells, parasites, etc., to be aborted for any reason or no reason at all.  The misanthropy inherent in elective abortion rhetoric has had, in my view, a permanently harmful effect.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

We need to avoid hazardous over-simplifications of very complex issues, particularly when doing so involves passing moral judgments on individuals.

On 2/17/2025 at 3:42 PM, BlueDreams said:

🤔

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is really not resisting Trump in any meaningful way.

It is trying to keep some moral distance and slipping in some vague caveats about your support while still supporting him politically in every way it concretely matters. Hoping that will lead to some break or change is a long shot. Hoping it will transform American society and buttress democracy is an even longer shot.

I live here, it doesn't feel like Utah is hugely resisting Trump. With Mike Lee and now the Governor it's not feeling all that good. Especially when Governor Cox attended the Arlington National Cemetery with Trump when Trump got what looked like political photos that were not allowed to be done in the certain areas.

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well maybe I should clarify. I said birth rates can be reversed not that they are being reversed. So it was more an opinion rather than an assertion of fact. It just seems that the declining birth rate could be reversed. I wonder how China is doing since their reversal of the one child policy.

First, I would hesitate to call this a reversal. Moving to a 2-child policy will certainly have some impact, but, it isn't a reversal in the sense of removing restrictions. It's only been 10 years now (it kicked in at the beginning of 2016). And we have COVID in the middle of that which dramatically affected birth rates negatively across the board. I think that the jury is still out there.

Population growth is impacted by fertility rates in a very delayed fashion. Births today won't become deaths for decades - and the trend over the past century has been (at least in the developed and partially developed world) a rapid rise in population growth due primarily to increases in life expectancy and not due to exploding birth rates. For China, it was concerns about the exploding population due to increasing life expectancy (and sustainability concerns) that created the one-child policy. It was the secondary problem of cheap ultrasounds and the availability of abortion when combined with social patterns (the preference for male children) that shifted fertility rates more than expected. But, even with this, it wasn't until 2021/2022 (again, right in the middle of COVID) that deaths climbed above births for the first time. The population levels are going to decline at least steadily for the foreseeable future in China. If China has a population goal (and I don't have any idea if they do or do not), then the push to increase fertility rates should be seen in the context of that goal.

The US is in the same predicament - although not as badly. The reasons why it isn't as bad is a result of several issues. First, there wasn't as rapid an increase in life expectancy. US medical technology improved over a longer period of time, allowing life expectancy to scale up more gradually. China at first used medical technology advances innovated elsewhere to provide a huge boost in life expectancy over a fairly short period of time. Second, our fertility rates for Hispanics have buoyed up the overall fertility rates. This is heavily impacted by immigrant populations. Without immigrant populations, the U.S. would have experienced its first year of population loss in 2024 (which isn't that different from China's in 2022). Immigration is now the driver for population growth in the U.S. China, by comparison, has seen a net outflow of people over my entire lifetime (it's not a huge outflow - right now its just under 3 persons per 10,000 population) - the US currently sees an increase in population of a bit under 30 people per 10,000 population every year due to incoming immigrants - and typically, immigrants have higher fertility rates through the first and second generations in the U.S. Third, one group of women in the US that is seeing a growing fertility rate is women with college degrees. This number is growing (as more and more women are getting degrees) - there is a much more mild trend in China - with each year of college level education for women increasing the woman's total children on average by 10%. This suggests that like the US, the push to educate more women may result in higher fertility rates.

There are other differences that contribute in less direct ways. One of the differences that has badly impacted Chinese populations is the non-existence of national safety nets. While China has experimented with social security style programs, they never did so outside of urban centers. Since sons are obligated (socially) to take care of aging parents, this is part of what led to a preference for male children over female children - and part of the cause for the unanticipated gender imbalances associated with the one child policy.

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well maybe or maybe not. The US tax code has typically been pro family and children. I wonder if historically our birth rates would have dropped had such things not been in place.  And US birthrates are falling as well. 

This isn't really true. The US tax code was family friendly only in the context of the family wage. It was very beneficial (and still is today) when you have a primary wage earner and a secondary wage earner whose income is significantly below that primary wage earner's income. The tax code actually penalizes married partners who have similar earnings. It's an entirely different discussion to get into about the historical shifts that moved women into the workforce - but once they were there, the need for economic growth kept them there - and the eventual elimination of the family wage (which mainly occurred during my father's lifetime) created the economic pressure for women to continue entering the workforce in greater numbers. The economic instability this causes for the American household along with lowering retirement stability is a contributing factor to lower US fertility rates. Any benefits today that might come for children in the tax code are minuscule compared with the increased costs of raising children. The cost of raising children has exceeded inflation. To put that into perspective, the estimated total cost to raise a child in 1983 (not including college) was about $81,000. In 2023, the estimated cost to do the same is now $310,000. Of course, if we include 4 years of college, 4 years of room and board at a public in-state university ran about $12,000 in 1983. In 2023, you are looking at $53,000. So, we can talk about how the tax code helps families and children. But, the reality is that even with the recent upticks in Child tax credits, it certainly helps those with children - but it isn't enough to incentivize  having children.

I think that fertility rate declines could be reversed, but this would need to involve re-imagining how we incentivize children. We have been taking some positive steps - including work-force protections for pregnant women and child rearing - but, we need to do much more to eliminate the economic penalties that are associated with women having children. Making four year college education free (extending public education from K-12 to include a 4 year degree) would almost certainly be helpful (and relatively cost effective). If we expect women to both have children and to participate in the work force (and pulling women from the workforce is not going to be an option any more with our growth centered economics already reliant on them), then we need to require employers to make concessions to these women that are friendly toward childbirth and not detrimental to their potential earnings (apart from the broader problem of gender pay inequality) . These are just the kinds of things that we can see clearly in the data that we have. So, I think that Spencer is probably wrong on the question of whether we can reverse it or not - I think that we could find ways to increase birth rates. The problem is that in our current environment, there is no political motivation to do so. The things that are contributing to declining birthrates have much more to do with economics than anything else. And, unless we stop immigration into the country, we can all pretend like it isn't an issue, because our population and economy will continue to grow. But, just look at how difficult it is to try to get a free college for all program - which would have significant benefits including helping support fertility rate growth - at a relatively minimal cost. Education isn't exactly a political priority for many of our politicians ...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me your praise of Rauch is based on his praise of Mormonism more than anything else. As I have noted, it seems to me that Mormonism being plagued and heading the way that Rauch describe Evangelical Christianity.  I think @SeekingUnderstandingis correct to note that you exhibit this as do so many Latter-day Saints.

Not quite. Smac likes Rauch when he praises Latter-day Saints and when Rauch takes secularists to task! When Rauch criticizes SMAC’s evangelical friends and political allies? That’s where he draws the line.