I've encouraged a few non-religious longtime friends to have kids, if I think they're cut out for it and they're on the fence over the issue. I don't think it's good to withhold good personal advice from people who seek it, regardless of whether they are Christian. And I've seen a few people who decide to re-engage with church after having kids.
But sure, I 100% agree that the church should be directing its pronatalist efforts primarily inward, towards other Christians, rather than trying to convince everyone else to have large families. Though there's also nothing wrong with lobbying for government benefits for families. I'd like to see money redirected from existing welfare and entitlement programs (including Social Security and Medicare) towards a monthly stipend for every child in America, regardless of income. If we're doing things right, this will land disproportionately on Christians, but plenty will also end up in the hands of non-Christians, and I think that's OK.
I don't disagree. Especially if the people in question are long time friends. I'm referring more to people who are hostile toward large families or hostile to Christianity. I wouldn't encourage them to reproduce.
If the government passes a general program that supports having children and it also simultaneously helps others, so be it. He causes the rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous. Although, I do think high fertility Christian subcultures will take most of the benefits from such a program.
Christians/Catholics love doing this (helping our enemy out when it’s not necessary). We have lost sight that we are in a spiritual war for our culture.
True. Christians in the Roman Empire adopted children of pagans who were left exposed to die, and raised them as their own. They didn't tell the pagans to have more children.
Great points. I've always wondered by certain NGOs (and utilitarians) seem to advocate for blindly increasing the amount of human biomass on the planet. This worldview would have been utterly baffling to just about every human society in history until now.
Non-selective pronatalism is probably just a mask pronatalists wear to deflect accusations of being eugenicists. Would Elon Musk be genuinely happy if Gazans or Bantu South Africans doubled their populations? There's no cost to wearing this mask because people reading or listening to pro-natalist discussions are highly selected.
I do think you misread Malcom and Simone somewhat. First, they call themselves "secular Calvinists" and engage in religious rituals of their own making. They are trying to create a durable culture with transcendent values such as hard work, industry, and settling other planets. I think they would view their descendants caring about the iphone 45 as a failure of their religion.
Excellent pushback. Perhaps Non-selective Pronatalissm it is an effective rhetorical front for more tribal based fertility desires that can’t be expressed in our current cultural milieu. However, it still feels to broad of a movement to be effective for the normie. I want that to be the metric. Does Normie Nellie want to have another kid after hearing Elon bemoan that civilization is going to end if we don’t get the birthrate up? I wager no.
In regard to the Collins, I find any attempt to construct a self-determined religion bizarre. I respect their attempt, but, again, I suspect it won’t raise birth rates outside a small group of EA adherents. I did come up with the iPhone example because they were quoted in a recent piece as saying economies will collapse without more kids. It appears consumption (although perhaps not conspicuous consumption) is at least a part of their rationale for raising the birth rate.
I've encouraged a few non-religious longtime friends to have kids, if I think they're cut out for it and they're on the fence over the issue. I don't think it's good to withhold good personal advice from people who seek it, regardless of whether they are Christian. And I've seen a few people who decide to re-engage with church after having kids.
But sure, I 100% agree that the church should be directing its pronatalist efforts primarily inward, towards other Christians, rather than trying to convince everyone else to have large families. Though there's also nothing wrong with lobbying for government benefits for families. I'd like to see money redirected from existing welfare and entitlement programs (including Social Security and Medicare) towards a monthly stipend for every child in America, regardless of income. If we're doing things right, this will land disproportionately on Christians, but plenty will also end up in the hands of non-Christians, and I think that's OK.
I don't disagree. Especially if the people in question are long time friends. I'm referring more to people who are hostile toward large families or hostile to Christianity. I wouldn't encourage them to reproduce.
If the government passes a general program that supports having children and it also simultaneously helps others, so be it. He causes the rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous. Although, I do think high fertility Christian subcultures will take most of the benefits from such a program.
"Have plenty of your own and convince your pagan atheist coworker that he should really stop at one heir."
Hilarious, and there's something to this. Don't interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Christians/Catholics love doing this (helping our enemy out when it’s not necessary). We have lost sight that we are in a spiritual war for our culture.
True. Christians in the Roman Empire adopted children of pagans who were left exposed to die, and raised them as their own. They didn't tell the pagans to have more children.
Great points. I've always wondered by certain NGOs (and utilitarians) seem to advocate for blindly increasing the amount of human biomass on the planet. This worldview would have been utterly baffling to just about every human society in history until now.
Non-selective pronatalism is probably just a mask pronatalists wear to deflect accusations of being eugenicists. Would Elon Musk be genuinely happy if Gazans or Bantu South Africans doubled their populations? There's no cost to wearing this mask because people reading or listening to pro-natalist discussions are highly selected.
I do think you misread Malcom and Simone somewhat. First, they call themselves "secular Calvinists" and engage in religious rituals of their own making. They are trying to create a durable culture with transcendent values such as hard work, industry, and settling other planets. I think they would view their descendants caring about the iphone 45 as a failure of their religion.
Excellent pushback. Perhaps Non-selective Pronatalissm it is an effective rhetorical front for more tribal based fertility desires that can’t be expressed in our current cultural milieu. However, it still feels to broad of a movement to be effective for the normie. I want that to be the metric. Does Normie Nellie want to have another kid after hearing Elon bemoan that civilization is going to end if we don’t get the birthrate up? I wager no.
In regard to the Collins, I find any attempt to construct a self-determined religion bizarre. I respect their attempt, but, again, I suspect it won’t raise birth rates outside a small group of EA adherents. I did come up with the iPhone example because they were quoted in a recent piece as saying economies will collapse without more kids. It appears consumption (although perhaps not conspicuous consumption) is at least a part of their rationale for raising the birth rate.
Please consider enabling TTS. I prefer passively listening as I do other things in general, it's more enjoyable. Thank you
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/7265753724692-How-do-I-listen-to-a-Substack-post-
(Request form)
https://airtable.com/shr11c70LRWq9saOb