The Illogic of Desire
The famous logic argument speaks of confusing ‘apples and oranges’. There is another, perhaps not so famous but, I believe, even more deadly, where we confuse ‘desire and truth’. When asked what the truth of something is, we reply with how we wish the world to be, not how the world actually is.
Triggernometry and Natalism
The ‘Triggernometry’ podcast recently had on Dr Paul Morland to talk about demographic issues. And I think the issues he raised are well worth talking about, and he speaks intelligently on them… most of the time. But in the middle of his discussion he confuses the facts with his desire.
Culture
The first example that I noticed was when he was discussing ‘culture’. To what extent does culture cause the demographic disaster that he was pointing out (And, indeed, that he minimized in a couple of spots)? And in the middle of his answer he provides this interesting cause:
there seems to be something about modernity which is depressing fertility rates and there are a whole range of explanations there's something to do clearly with women's aspirations and education…
So, there you go. There is ‘something to do clearly with women’s aspirations and education’. So, we have a demographic problem we have a potential cause. Truth and truth. Or, at least, proposed truth and proposed truth: proposed problem and proposed cause.
So, then, if this is a cause, then the solution would need to involve… fixing the cause, no? Not so much:
I always say you know I welcome women's education aspirations I'm the son my mother was the Prime earner when I was a child my wife has earned more than me my daughters have both got as good education as my son and they're leading their careers I don't want that to change…
He is literally addressing the issues of culture and fertility, pointing out the problem of fertility, pointing out a cause of that problem, and then saying ‘I don’t want that to change’.
Now it might be that the next word was ‘but’. IE I know this is a problem so even if I don’t like it it needs to change. Unfortunately… not:
we need to find a way to reconcile that with a producing a demographic future for ourselves so there's something about women's rights and feminism and education but we've got to I don't want to get rid of that we can't get rid of that and if the problem is too few people in the workforce it wouldn't help if we did…
The illogic here is staggering, unless you boil it down to the one logical problem… that of desire. The problem of desire getting introduced into a ‘fact’ issue.
And note how it even perverts his own thinking. He begins with the goal of ‘producing a demographic future for ourselves’ but ends with ‘the problem is too few people in the workforce’.
Decisions
He later admits that he stopped his wife from having more children. He doesn’t even seem to notice that he is bringing forward another cause. He said:
[Had] I known I was going to be a pronatalist sitting here banging the bully pulpit I would have exceeded to my wife's request and had another [child]
But in his discussion on culture he doesn’t mention this issue. Do you see the issue? In a discussion between someone who wanted more children, and someone who wanted fewer, the person who wanted fewer got their own way. And, no, I don’t think this is an example of male headship. I think this is an example of a cultural imperative: the one who doesn’t want the child get’s their way.
Religion
To be fair, I don’t know if this one involves his ‘desires’, but he does make another logic mistake when speaking of religion. He points out that it is the highly religious groups which are having children, and the non-religious groups which aren’t, but then seems to believe that Israel is an exception:
I don't think we can rely on religion to do it and in Israel whilst you're absolutely right if you divide the population according to um self-identifying religiosity the more religious the more children but even the self-identified seculars have two children so that's better than any other country in the oecd so I don't think it's inevitable that secular societies need be lay fertility
The difficulty with this logic is harder to see. Perhaps you have to have a certain kind of mind to grasp it. But it is this: When you are in a society where people are having five or six children… or even more… having two children is… having ‘few’ children.
Take those same people and put them in a society where people are having two children, and they will have one or no children. IE the having of children is not an absolute but a relative thing. Which means that, yes, you have to rely on religion. Or, more accurately, without a return to religion, or finding some alternative to religion that accomplish the same thing, we will continue to have demographic decline.
Conclusion
It was an interesting conversation, and I recommend you listen to it. But make sure you listen for the logic flaws.
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.
Von also writes as ‘Arthur Yeomans’. Under that name he writes children’s, YA, and adult fiction from a Christian perspective. His books are published by Wise Path Books and include the children’s/YA books:
The Bobtails meet the Preacher’s Kid
and
As well as GK Chesterton’s wonderful book, “What’s Wrong with the World”, for which ‘Arthur’ wrote most of the annotations.
Arthur also has a substack, and a website.
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Quotes taken from the Youtube transcript:
Studies over the past few decades have clearly shown that level of religious commitment increases fertility, and level of women's education decreases it. That simply doesn't mean, though, that we have to end women's education to attain a reasonable level of fertility. Among Orthodox Jews, women's education and work are very common, and coexist with high levels of fertility.
And yes, secular Jews in Israel have more children than do secular individuals elsewhere - but being a "secular Jew" in Israel isn't quite being "secular," as it is understood elsewhere. As noted, they tend to have more than the common numbers of children; they also participate in Jewish practices far more than do most "secular" folk, including paying some attention to the Sabbath. That is why Israel's average number of children per woman is well over replacement rate.