Friday, January 08, 2016

Fertility by religion (United States)

The following table shows the mean number of children by religious identification. For contemporary relevance and to allow for family formation to have occurred, data are from 2004 onward and from those aged 35-65 at the time the survey was conducted*:


If never born, they'll never suffer!

And, using the same time period and age parameters, an updated look at the inverse relationship between grasping the biological concept of fitness and actually realizing it in practice (n = 2,967):

Evolution true?Kids

GSS variables used: RELIG(1-4,6,9), CHILDS, YEAR(2004-2014), AGE(35-65)

* Sample sizes, in the order they're presented in the table, are 45, 2115, 4530, 145, 1415, and 63.


Kevin Owens said...

Mormons Aged 30-59 have an average fertility rate of 3.4. (1)

There is some evidence to suggest that intelligent Mormons have more children on average than unintelligent children, which I suspect is caused by the common doctrine to "have as many children as you can afford."

With an average IQ slightly above the white average, and creeping slowly higher, the Mormons are one bright spot in a landscape of otherwise dysgenic breeding.


Audacious Epigone said...


Indeed, Mormons are, rather uniquely for a substantial sub-group in the US, both affluent and fertile.

G706 said...

It would be interesting to have the Amish fertility rates, I'm guessing it's even higher than for Mormons.

Audacious Epigone said...


I've seen estimates putting Amish fertility rates approaching historical maximums, the same levels that are seen in the most fecund sub-Saharan African countries today. This article, for example, reads: "The Amish shun contraception, and families average six to seven children."

Santoculto said...

Mormons eugenic salvation look delusional. "higher IQ" creationists tend to produce "scientist" creationists.

We go study who kill the dead sea!! ��

Dan said...

I thought mortality might be a bit eugenic. The life expectancy gap of 10-13 years is considerable, 12% shorter for less educated women and 16% shorter for less educated men.

"The latest estimate shows life expectancy for white women without a high school diploma was 73.5 years, compared with 83.9 years for white women with a college degree or more. For white men, the gap was even bigger: 67.5 years for the least educated white men compared with 80.4 for those with a college degree or better."

Unfortunately that eugenic force is very weak because mortality is quite low under the age of 40, when most fertility happens.

According to this table, by age 40, you still have 96% of men and 98% of women. Even if low educated women had 2x the under-40 mortality of high-educated women, that still would come to only perhaps a 1.5% extra chance of dying.

So not much help from the mortality side.


Audacious Epigone said...


At least (for the benefit of the third generation) the shorter life expectancies tend to be paired with shorter life cycles (earlier births, less time between generations). On the other hand, length of life cycle can disguise the consequences of TFRs. If family A and family B both have 2 children each, but family A births at 20 years and family B at 40 years (on average), 80 years in the A matriarch who we started with has 14 descendants compared to the B matriarch who only has 6.

Anonymous said...

Just for the record, I love evo-bio and find it difficult to believe Christianity, I prefer hippy-dippy crap like Eckhart Tolle, etc., but I'm also a fervent partisan for Western Civilization and, as such, made sure I more than replaced myself and my husband. Can't stand how most atheists throw the baby out with the bathwater and can't understand/acknowledge the role religion plays in group selection.

I guess my slogan would be, "Gnosticism with a touch of bigotry."

Without at least a dash of bigotry or tribalism, a people cannot survive.

The weird thing is, most people remain tribalists, as evidenced by the overwhelming revealed preference for mating within one's race and having your own biological children.

Santoculto said...

Most atheists are darwinian just to counterattack christianism dogmas... with post modern dogmas (and SOME truths as well).

To attack the race-enphasizer or realist( enphasizer, ;) ) atheists ''become'' completely lamarckian.

Audacious Epigone said...

"Revealed preference" is one of the most important, helpful phrases available as a method for understanding human biodiversity, and by extension, human natures.