It’s well-known that religious people reproduce more. I worry that if religious deconversion efforts succeed, they’ll lead the more sensible religious people to abandon their religion and become humanist hipster types, leaving the babymaking to the ones who are on average genetically more prone to dismiss uncomfortable thoughts. (I’m the oldest of 6 children. My parents prayed for a while and decided God wanted them to keep having more even after the first three.)
Think about all the humanist hipster types of previous eras, or the conscientious, altruistic couples who chose not to have kids so they could do their part to fight overpopulation. (Which isn’t looking like much of a problem these days.) Isn’t it a shame that the descendants of those people aren’t with us?
What exactly is the case for deconverting people from religion, anyway? It doesn’t particularly bother me to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions. Religious people are happier—my current characterization of Christianity is “a reasonably effective form of self-help that requires you to believe some nutty stuff”. “hbd chick” has an entire thesis that touches on how Christianity changed Europe by forbidding cousin marriage, increasing genetic diversity and decreasing tribalistic attitudes; monogamous marriage may also have been key to the West’s success. (Seems pretty clear that the West did something right, and if it’s not broke, don’t fix it, right?)
Religious people have reproduced more since at least antiquity. Try Rodney Stark’s excellent “The Rise of Christianity” for a well-founded argument about how much of a difference a ban on abortion and infanticide can make over dozens of generations. So it seems logical to assume that most atheists who have ever lived have been children of religious parents.
If you decide against having babies, you are effectively outsourcing the production of babies to religious and third-world people.
Babies produced by religious families can be deconverted. Between YouTube and The God Delusion, we’re getting a lot better at that lately. Babies produced in the third world need access to educational and economical opportunities, and we’re getting a bit better at that, too. In either case, you get someone who’s about as likely to contribute relevant insights to the knowledge of the species as your own child would.
Spreading atheism seems like an unusually inefficient way to raise the sanity waterline: people are highly resistant to it and it’s more of a group affiliation than a mental toolkit. Spreading rationality (e.g. the concepts listed in EY’s sanity waterline essay) and letting people deconvert on their own seems like a better path to me. (Deconverting on your own might make for a better rationality exercise, also.)
I’m not too worried about the reproduction of biological people. What I’d like to promote is the reproduction of good ideas. True, people usually indoctrinate their biological children with their own ideas, but that is not the only vector ideas use to spread themselves.
It’s well-known that religious people reproduce more. I worry that if religious deconversion efforts succeed, they’ll lead the more sensible religious people to abandon their religion and become humanist hipster types, leaving the babymaking to the ones who are on average genetically more prone to dismiss uncomfortable thoughts. (I’m the oldest of 6 children. My parents prayed for a while and decided God wanted them to keep having more even after the first three.)
Think about all the humanist hipster types of previous eras, or the conscientious, altruistic couples who chose not to have kids so they could do their part to fight overpopulation. (Which isn’t looking like much of a problem these days.) Isn’t it a shame that the descendants of those people aren’t with us?
What exactly is the case for deconverting people from religion, anyway? It doesn’t particularly bother me to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions. Religious people are happier—my current characterization of Christianity is “a reasonably effective form of self-help that requires you to believe some nutty stuff”. “hbd chick” has an entire thesis that touches on how Christianity changed Europe by forbidding cousin marriage, increasing genetic diversity and decreasing tribalistic attitudes; monogamous marriage may also have been key to the West’s success. (Seems pretty clear that the West did something right, and if it’s not broke, don’t fix it, right?)
Religious people have reproduced more since at least antiquity. Try Rodney Stark’s excellent “The Rise of Christianity” for a well-founded argument about how much of a difference a ban on abortion and infanticide can make over dozens of generations. So it seems logical to assume that most atheists who have ever lived have been children of religious parents.
If you decide against having babies, you are effectively outsourcing the production of babies to religious and third-world people.
Babies produced by religious families can be deconverted. Between YouTube and The God Delusion, we’re getting a lot better at that lately. Babies produced in the third world need access to educational and economical opportunities, and we’re getting a bit better at that, too. In either case, you get someone who’s about as likely to contribute relevant insights to the knowledge of the species as your own child would.
Raising the sanity waterline?
I think recognizing one’s mistakes of reasoning on religion can be good training for the rest of one’s life. Look at Luke, for instance.
Spreading atheism seems like an unusually inefficient way to raise the sanity waterline: people are highly resistant to it and it’s more of a group affiliation than a mental toolkit. Spreading rationality (e.g. the concepts listed in EY’s sanity waterline essay) and letting people deconvert on their own seems like a better path to me. (Deconverting on your own might make for a better rationality exercise, also.)
I’m not too worried about the reproduction of biological people. What I’d like to promote is the reproduction of good ideas. True, people usually indoctrinate their biological children with their own ideas, but that is not the only vector ideas use to spread themselves.
Intelligence is something like 0.85 heritable once people reach adulthood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Good ideas won’t solve that.
I wasn’t talking about intelligence, but about theism (or lack thereof). I doubt that belief in a particular god is 80% heritable.