[diversionfactor]

In a developed country low birth rates are the norm. The exception is certain religious subgroups within these countries. Notably Mormons with 50% higher fertility rates than average in most counties surveyed:

https://rsc.byu.edu/latter-day-saint-social-life/religious-i...

And Orthodox Jews with over triple the birth rate of secular Jewish women:

https://en.idi.org.il/haredi/2020/?chapter=34272

These two groups also have high defection rates of around 50%, but if current trends continue (always a big if in demographic studies) most people in the future developed world will either belong to strongly religious groups or be former members of such groups.

I myself am secular, strongly so. My wife is just as strongly religious and her fertility rate is over three times our national average at her insistence which I voluntarily agreed to. I’m concerned that us secularists have no good answer to why anyone should have children and as I result I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy. If anyone has any answers I’d love to hear them, unless the only answer is, oddly enough Augustine’s religious and Schopenhauer’s secular retort that the voluntary extinction of humanity would be the most supreme achievement of the will:

https://theconversation.com/amp/solve-suffering-by-blowing-u...

Regardless of the validity of such arguments, in my mind they fail the Darwinian test and will be eliminated by the ruthless and indifferent force of biological evolution.

[anonylizard]

You should read books by Eric Kaufmann, specifically "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth". It predicts exactly as you say, that countries will continue to become more religious, not less, the current trend of secularization is but a short lived burst in history.

Irreligion is a demographic/social dead end, it will only dramatically accelerate with AI entertainment. Imagine a virtual AI harem on demand for any willing male, more beautiful than any human female, not only understands every nerdy random topic you can come up with, but is patient enough to discuss with you for hours, and of course no risk of divorce/disloyalty. A simple mirror will be found from the female side too.

The groups most resistant, are those who reject modern communications technology, like the Amish.

In the end it is natural selection at work. Irreligious people are maladapted to the modern environment. Its ironic, but also beautiful in a sense.

However, society generally doesn't function by having pure religious ultraconservatives (See starving Afghanis). Israel's secular workers produce most of the GDP and high-tech industries. In the end, the stable equilibrium, will be a majority religious population that continues to reproduce, but each generation, a substantial amount defect to secularism, and go work in the cities, to continue the economy. The secular won't really reproduce, but the nation as a whole does.

That's beautiful in its own way.

[zyang]

Everything you wrote contradicts history and reality in general.

[anonylizard]

I would love for you to present some counterexamples.

[sudosysgen]

The math doesn't work though. 50% defection rate and only 50% higher birth rates won't work. If the average woman has 2 children, the religious subgroup one would have 3. On average, 1.5 of those would defect, so the average woman produces more members of her group.

This is borne out by the data. If you look at the ASRI, from 1990 to 2008, the percentage of LDS (and other similar groups) has remained stable in the US.

Only Islam and Buddhism saw (very minor) growth, the rest was a massive surge in secularism.

[bigthymer]

> as I result I can see secularism dying out long term

It won't die out for the same reason homosexuality doesn't. Recruits will be poached from the other team.

[Dig1t]

Well, this generation is basically the first where being gay is socially acceptable.

Presumably a lot of gay people in the past mostly were forced to remain closeted and end up marrying/reproducing with the opposite sex.

Now that being gay is socially acceptable, it remains an open question of whether gay people will ultimately select themselves out of the gene pool or not. In my opinion, it seems likely that it will happen for the same reason that OP thinks it will happen for secular people.

[allset_]

> it remains an open question of whether gay people will ultimately select themselves out of the gene pool or not.

Being gay is not a genetic trait though.

[alvarezbjm-hn]

> Being gay is not a genetic trait though.

Beware

While there is no [identified] gene for gaiety, behaviour in general is a constellation of traits.

For instance, the tendency to alcoholism is hereditary. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-us...

[skissane]

According to one study, the causation of same-sex sexual behaviour is 8-25% genetic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082777/

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia – a group of genetic disorders – appears to increase rates of same-sex attraction in women, while possibly decreasing its incidence in men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082355/ (both findings make sense if we view it as a biological promoter of gynephilia, sexual attraction to women)

Not all biological causes are necessarily genetic: >=30% of cases of male homosexuality may be due to the impacts of the maternal immune system on in utero brain development – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21315103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777026/

There is also some evidence for social-environmental causation – see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/

I think it is likely a complex mixture of both biological and social causes, and the nature:nurture ratio likely varies between individual cases.

Selective pressures may alter the incidence of some of those biological causes over time, although there is no guarantee. Whatever social causative factors exist may also vary in incidence over time, in response to societal changes.

The other factor to consider, is that with continuing advances in medical technology, it may be possible to interfere with some of these biological causal pathways: for example, if it is true that maternal anti-NLGN4Y antibodies are a major cause of having same-sex attracted sons, then if a test for those antibodies became widely available, it might influence the fertility decisions of some women; eventually, some kind of "anti-antibody" might be developed, so a woman who wished to reduce her odds of bearing same-sex attracted sons could take it to reduce her own anti-NLGN4Y levels.

[polski-g]

It is.

Genes for being gay are linked to 3 things: higher attractiveness, higher promiscuity, gayness. That is why its able to still exist after thousands of years. Its evolutionarily advantageous for gene propagation: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/10/18/139687/genes-lin...

[skissane]

I doubt non-religious people are ever going to die out completely.

But, it is plausible they are going to transition from being the population majority (in most rich countries) to being a minority. That is going to challenge popular narratives of secularism's "historical victory"

What if the eventual triumph of pro-fecundity religious conservatism results in runaway population growth? You can't fit 1 trillion humans on this planet, and it would be a living hell even if you could–but space colonisation might turn out to be a massive escape valve. In such a scenario, it is possible we could end up with secular people being a small minority of the total human population, yet simultaneously many times more of them (in absolute numbers) than currently exist.

[ars]

> These two groups also have high defection rates of around 50%

Not even close. Orthodox Jews is closer to 15%, and of those a majority stay within the Jewish community, but are less Orthodox. i.e. still religious just less so (eg. observe the major holidays, but not necessarily the day to day stuff, or maybe some of the day to day stuff that feels meaningful to them, but not everything).

> I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's something in between Orthodox and completely secular.

You are also ignoring the dynamics - people are constantly shifting, there is never a stable equilibrium.

[Zpalmtree]

If you see a non religious society as dying out, does that not make you think that perhaps secularism is incorrect? What functional society would let itself die out?

[skissane]

> These two groups also have high defection rates of around 50%,

Mormons and Modern Orthodox Judaism may well have high defection rates, but there are other conservative religious subcultures with much lower defection rates: both the Old Order Amish, and Hasidic/Haredi/ultra-Orthodox Judaism, have retention rates >80% (sometimes even >90%, depending on whose figures you go by).

Why the difference in defection/retention rates? I think a big factor is both groups are more segregated from the mainstream – linguistically, geographically, and by lifestyle – which makes defection more costly, and hence discourages it. A related factor is that they both ostracise apostates – although, contrary to some perceptions, neither (in practice) completely bans contact between apostates and their families still inside, but they do put various limitations and restrictions on it.

> but if current trends continue (always a big if in demographic studies)

The idea that Old Order Amish or ultra-Orthodox Jews are some day going to abandon their established way of life is rather low. I don't think it would happen without some major external stressor forcing them into it – and even then, many of them will do everything they can to resist.

I think current trends of secularisation and social liberalisation are likely to plateau at some point (probably very soon if not already). Secular progressive daydreams of "total victory" – religious conservatives dwindle and die out – are unlikely to ever come to pass.

> I’m concerned that us secularists have no good answer to why anyone should have children and as I result I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy. If anyone has any answers I’d love to hear them,

How do you define "secularism"? It is possible to believe in the existence of the "supernatural" yet also believe that mainstream society should strive for neutrality on questions about its nature – does that count as "secular"? In principle, I can't see why such a belief can't be pro-fecundity. It probably still can't compete at that with religious ultra-conservatives, but it still could do much better in that department than the current secular mainstream does.

[midoridensha]

>I myself am secular, strongly so. My wife is just as strongly religious and her fertility rate is over three times our national average at her insistence which I voluntarily agreed to. I’m concerned that us secularists have no good answer to why anyone should have children and as I result I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy.

Exactly: within a few centuries, most people will be extremely religious. However, with geopolitical struggles, the ubiquity of nuclear weapons, and the inability of religious extremists to get along with others, we'll end up with a planet-scale nuclear war that will extinguish human civilization.

[anonylizard]

Many ultra-religious groups, that survive and thrive long term, know to build 'pressure valves' that allow discontents to peacefully leave.

The Amish have a rumspringa that gives every youth a chance to see the outside world, and choose to come back or not. I think about 10% don't come back, and that statistic has been stable for a long time.

The ultra-religious don't tend to accumulate much economic power, regardless of population size. So the constant waves of secular defects, despite being minority, could continue to heavily affect political and technical decision making, moderating religious influences.

Now, there are also other ultra-religious groups, like the Haredim, who like to 1. Receive government benefits. 2. Reject military service 3. Grab political power These groups will heavily destabilize their host nation, as they have already done to Israel. An Israel dominated by the Haredim, who don't fight, and don't pay much in taxes, and where all the secular have fleed. Will probably quickly get defeated by its neighbours, and start the exile all over again.