4 ms·

If trends continue, there will be 10 billion Amish in 100 years.

spullara 4y ago
It is not entirely without merit to say that religious folks that encourage large families like the Amish, Catholics and Mormons will dominate in the distant future. Hell, I have 45 first cousins (on one side) and they on average have 3+ kids so it might just be my extended family :)
- marshray 4y ago
  That experiment has been running for 50 generations already, by now it should have reached steady-state. Perhaps that's part of the reason that 84% of the world's population identifies with a religion.
- rapind 4y ago
  I can't help but wonder if large families also beget religion just as religion begets large families. Now I personally think every religion I've encountered is ridiculous fiction (no offence, just my opinion), but I will admit that there can be some pretty significant advantages in a community. Raising a ton of kids is probably just easier in a close community of similar minded families (a.k.a. the local church/temple/mosque). It's almost like it's intentionally engineered to be this way.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    Religion is subject to natural selection just like anything else. Religions which produce more offspring that stay in the religion will always win out over the ones that don't.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Until it becomes outweighed by splitting resources amongst too many children. Everything has pros and cons.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        So long as the children survive to give birth to more children it doesn't matter how poor they are. Evolution doesn't care for the comfort of anyone.
        bawolff 4y ago
        > So long as the children survive to give birth to more children Big if. In a true famine, the poor usually die first. > Evolution doesn't care for the comfort of anyone. Evolution cares about sexual desireability and fitness. Rich people usually have more. In nature we see these two strategies as well. Some species try and have as many babies as possible, where others have fewer but concentrate resources to make sure the few are more likely to survive. Neither strategy is optimal in all situations.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        You're mixing up personal fitness with the fitness of a meme. Sure rich people have more surviving children in the long run, but why don't we ask the rich Pagan Roman Senators how well their money protected them from the hungry Christian mob?

It is not entirely without merit to say that religious folks that encourage large families like the Amish, Catholics and Mormons will dominate in the distant future. Hell, I have 45 first cousins (on one side) and they on average have 3+ kids so it might just be my extended family :)

marshray 4y ago
That experiment has been running for 50 generations already, by now it should have reached steady-state. Perhaps that's part of the reason that 84% of the world's population identifies with a religion.
rapind 4y ago
I can't help but wonder if large families also beget religion just as religion begets large families. Now I personally think every religion I've encountered is ridiculous fiction (no offence, just my opinion), but I will admit that there can be some pretty significant advantages in a community. Raising a ton of kids is probably just easier in a close community of similar minded families (a.k.a. the local church/temple/mosque). It's almost like it's intentionally engineered to be this way.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Religion is subject to natural selection just like anything else. Religions which produce more offspring that stay in the religion will always win out over the ones that don't.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Until it becomes outweighed by splitting resources amongst too many children. Everything has pros and cons.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      So long as the children survive to give birth to more children it doesn't matter how poor they are. Evolution doesn't care for the comfort of anyone.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        > So long as the children survive to give birth to more children Big if. In a true famine, the poor usually die first. > Evolution doesn't care for the comfort of anyone. Evolution cares about sexual desireability and fitness. Rich people usually have more. In nature we see these two strategies as well. Some species try and have as many babies as possible, where others have fewer but concentrate resources to make sure the few are more likely to survive. Neither strategy is optimal in all situations.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        You're mixing up personal fitness with the fitness of a meme. Sure rich people have more surviving children in the long run, but why don't we ask the rich Pagan Roman Senators how well their money protected them from the hungry Christian mob?