Ross Douthat on Digital Alienation, Birth Rates, and Demographic Collapse
"I like Italy. I like South Korea. I enjoy the existence of distinctive human cultures. I would prefer that these cultures and countries not disappear," the New York Times columnist tells Reason.

In his April essay "An Age of Extinction Is Coming. Here's How to Survive," New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argues that falling birth rates and fraying cultural institutions signal a civilizational bottleneck—and that mastering our digital tools may be the only way through it. Douthat joined Reason's Just Asking Questions podcast in April to discuss demographic collapse, technological alienation, and whether the American suburbs might be more resilient than they seem.
Q: What are some of the biggest telltale signs that lead you to believe we're facing an age of extinction?
A: Digital existence is really hard on basic modes of cultural transmission and also the literal reproduction of the species. These two things are connected. The way we live digitally tends to distract us from the forms of creation and educational transmission of literature, art, religion—all the human culture that people take for granted.
It also tends to distract us and separate us from the real-life ways of hanging around with other people—making friendships, going on dates, finding romance, having sex, and having kids—that allow for the very literal continuation of the human species.
Q: The literal extinction we're facing is a falling birth rate—we're below replacement rate in the U.S., and it's worse in places like South Korea, Japan, and much of Western Europe. What are your anxieties about this?
A: I like Italy. I like South Korea. I enjoy the existence of distinctive human cultures. I would prefer that these cultures and countries not disappear. I think that's a reasonable impulse.
You'll have these societies that are emptied out. Actually, probably intensely concentrated—people will move to big cities—but there will be depopulated hinterlands, depopulated areas.
Yes, there will still be people speaking Italian in 50 years and people speaking Korean, but there will be a kind of actual collapse of real-world nations and cultures if this trend continues.
Q: Is the picture you're painting too bleak? Is it possible that the suburban middle class isn't disappearing, but simply evolving into something less familiar?
A: Yes, I think it's absolutely true that part of what will happen is that there will be adaptation, cultural evolution, and new modes of existence. Many of them will probably be suburban and not urban, because the suburbs are themselves a good technology for child rearing. One of the advantages in fertility the U.S. has over parts of Europe and East Asia is that we have a highly suburbanized society.
I'm not arguing that the bottleneck makes everything disappear. People who go through the bottleneck will use aspects of the new technology to enable forms of human flourishing. However, there will also be people—and you can see this right now—for whom the absence of the family restaurant or the local bar just means they don't see people anymore. They exist in a kind of virtual bubble in which they don't have enough friendships, they don't meet their future spouse, they don't do things in reality that are necessary. Those people are not going to make it.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the forms of creation and educational transmission of literature, art, religion—all the human culture that people take for granted.
The name you're searching for is God.
And yes, the way we live digitally tends to distract us from Him. In every way you can possibly imagine.
Family is the foundation of Society. Society is what allows a Nation to be. Culture is what derives from that Nation as it embraces its shared beliefs, traditions, and history.
This world and its foolish fallen people are so hellbent on upending that. The culture, the nation, the family - all of it. And, sorry not sorry, at the end of the day it's always all the same thing: rebellion against God. The sinful pride and lust and envy and greed and sloth and wrath and gluttony of man who wants to be his own god instead of realizing and embracing and appreciating and enjoying that there IS a natural order to things. A Design. A way things are supposed to be. Which we buck and ridicule and rage against in a maelstrom of misplaced values.
It boggles the mind every time I see it in contrast. The peace and happiness of the folks who work with God (or at least try to!) contrasted with the frustration and malcontent and perpetual contentiousness of those who refuse to. In a few hours, I'll go to Church and I and all the other parishioners will say the same thing we say every Sunday to each other: "Peace be with you." Because that's what Christ said to us. It's not a platitude. It's a declaration of our restoration by His sacrifice.
And it's what we have as a result. Peace. Romans 5. And what so many others rebuke in their belligerent arrogance.
If you're worried about a demographic collapse, then offer to others the peace and restoration of Christ. His - not yours - is the only way.
Let me guess: you have a specific "god", and religion in mind. All those other gods, since the first proto-human superstitions, were wrong. And did nothing to support morality.
All those other gods, since the first proto-human superstitions, were wrong.
Do you have a specific religion in mind? Because not even Christianity or Islam would frame it this way. What they assert is not that every other belief was wholly false, but that the one true creator—fundamentally distinct from the created world—has always been known in some form. Unlike lesser gods/watchers/angels who are his creations, this creator is not part of the universe but its source, existing beyond time and space.
Moreover, many traditions within these religions acknowledge that other spiritual beings—whether called gods, angels, spirits, or watchers—exist, but were created by the one supreme God. This is why missionaries often adopted and reinterpreted existing cultural concepts of a creator deity when translating scripture or explaining theology. Examples include Gitche Manitou among North American Indigenous peoples, Shangdi in ancient Chinese belief, and Khuda, the Persian term for God, which originally referred to Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.
The idea of a supreme Creator is not unique to Judaism—it appears in some form across nearly all human societies. From Baiame in the Australian Dreamtime to Ngewo among the Mendes of Sierra Leone, the concept of a transcendent intelligent source of all things is a near-universal feature of human spirituality.
What sets Christianity—and to some extent Islam—apart is the belief that one can have a direct, personal relationship with the universal Creator without the need for intermediaries such as lesser gods or priests. This Creator is not only transcendent but also takes a personal interest in each individual.
Do you have a specific religion in mind? Because not even Christianity or Islam would frame it this way. What they assert is not that every other belief was wholly false...
Sure, lets go with the Aztec. What parts did they get right?
Or how about the Norse pantheon, or Roman pantheon. I'm actually familiar with those, and I'm afraid I don't see the connection. At all.
In fact, just about every 'old timey' religion was not monotheistic at all. One supposes everyone before year 0, give or take, must have gone straight to hell.
Neither the Norse nor Roman pantheons are particularly ancient in their developed forms; both ultimately descend from earlier Proto-Indo-European (PIE) religious traditions, most likely carried westward by cultures such as the Yamnaya and Corded Ware.
The PIE sky-father deity, Dyēus Ph₂tḗr, meaning "Sky Father", evolved linguistically and mythologically into several prominent figures across Indo-European cultures. He became Tiwaz in Proto-Germanic, later appearing in Old Norse as Tyr (Tys-dagr), the god of war and law. In Greek tradition, he became Zeus, king of the gods, and in Latin he emerged as Jupiter (Deus Pater), the chief deity of the Roman pantheon. In the Baltic tradition, the name survives as Dievas in Lithuanian, although Dievas became merged with the Lithuanian supreme creator entity.
However, Dyēus Ph₂tḗr was not originally the supreme creator. In the Indo-European mythological framework, the role of ultimate creation was typically ascribed to more primordial beings -- cosmic progenitors often associated with sacrifice, dismemberment, or foundational transformation. These include figures such as Ymir, the frost giant in Norse myth whose body was used by Odin and his brothers to form the cosmos; Purusha, the cosmic man in the Vedic tradition whose sacrificial dismemberment gave rise to all elements of the universe; and Gaia, in Greek mythology who emerged from primordial Chaos and gave birth to the heavens and other foundational deities. Echoes found later in the Christian story of the universal creator avatartized as a man and redeeming the world through his sacrifice. In the Baltic tradition, Dievas, who's name originally derived from the PIE sky-father, came early on to occupy the role of supreme creator. Among the Anatolian Indo-Europeans, Alalu was remembered as a primordial creator and the original ruler of heaven.
All of these figures likely preserve the echoes of the older, pre-Proto-Indo-European conception of a supreme creative force rooted in the cosmic act of origination through body, sacrifice, or generative disintegration.
Look, I'm not about to debate the past 2000 years of justifications for why everything in world history links back to the Judeo-Christian faith but I will say that there is no connective tissue whatsoever between all the worlds religions. Perhaps if you trace them all back far enough you might find some common originating religions, but amusingly it would almost certainly be polytheistic no matter how strong of a central figure they might contain.
It's right up there with Christians claiming they are monotheistic when in fact their own religion has three distinct central figures, one of whom was added retroactively far later.
Which three figures are you referring to?
It can't be the Trinity. That would be a glaring misunderstanding of the most basic tenet of Christianity. Arguably it could be Jesus, Mary and John the Baptist - Raphael certainly considered them major figures - but nobody regards Mary or JTB as a deity in and of themselves. (Well, maybe some pagans do, I don't know). So, genuinely asking here - what other two deities do you think Christians are worshipping besides God?
I don't misunderstand it, I don't agree with it's characterization. There is a difference.
What don't you agree with?
We've had our back and forths before, BYO - but I'm coming at you with this in total sincerity assuming you're in it for a genuine discussion. Despite your... character flaws, you've illustrated some degree of open-mindedness on this subject today and before. Am I right in making that conclusion, or are you unwilling to consider that which is outside of what you clearly already have a mind about?
the trinity is incoherent pseudo-logical justification to cover the insecurity traditional Christianity has with certain seeming contradictions in the bible text.
Interestingly though, if you accept byodb's thesis that most religions would be traced back to polytheism it suggests certain [i would say more defective] religions had polytheism as a fundamental tenet and Judaeo-Christian did not. This might explain the apparent disparity between the manner of civilization that comes out of said traditions.
I would propose that the civilizations growing out of the Judaeo-Christian heritage are superior.
the trinity is incoherent pseudo-logical justification to cover the insecurity traditional Christianity has with certain seeming contradictions in the bible text.
Would you say the same about physics, as people marvel at how ice melts as a solid into liquid water which vaporizes as gas and then condenses back into liquid water and freezes back into solid ice - all without at any point changing what it is?
Now, admittedly, that's not the best analogy in the world - it's only for the demonstrative purpose that distinctions can be understood when talking about the exact same thing. God doesn't switch forms, the way H2O does states of matter; He simply is all three at once. They're not three "things" - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - they're one being. Different forms don't negate the central identity.
The "seeming contradictions" you refer to, I suspect, are the common tendency to regard the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct entities that do different things and serve different purposes. Going back to Raphael, I would challenge you to consider it another way: the Eucharist.
God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are in vertical succession in Raphael's masterpiece, clearly divided from the Earthly realm (though the Holy Spirit is the channel between Heaven and Earth that allows for the convergence that occurs with the divine mystery). On Earth, all three are met and found in the Eucharist. The Earthy manifestation - the True Presence of Christ the Son, actualized by the Holy Spirit, offered to God the Father - is the singular presence of the Trinity.
This is entirely consistent and in no way contradictory to what the Bible tells us about the actual life and death of Christ Jesus, and His subsequent redemption of mankind.
Physics is being used as a metaphor for the bogus explanation of how 3 people .... 3 distinct minds... can actually be one.
Thats the limitation of metaphors.
The physics of ice melting is a totally different thing. It is not metaphorical... not explanatory of another phenom. It is just the thing.
Now... I'm not trying to take divinity from the Christ. I just want to limit our twisting of a unity into a trinity. Think about the the Identity of indiscernibles.
Did you finish reading it all?
The concept of God having three aspects isn’t explicitly laid out in the Bible, but it can certainly be inferred from the text.
Christianity isn’t unique in this regard either—many Indo-European traditions include a triadic understanding of the divine. A clear example is the Hindu Trimūrti, in which it manifests as Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer.
There are various analogies that explain the Trinity, like St. Patrick’s clover or the image of a freezing lake that simultaneously produces steam, ice, and water.
Honestly, I can't tell where BYODB is trying to go with this. He seems to be under the impression that it's about three separate individuals, which completely misses the point.
And is factually incorrect.
nope - the trinity is a crap doctrine... but i'll grant you - it was inferred
.... just not correctly
hmmm ... missed the 'in' in your last word. I guess we agree there and I'm responding again to the comment above yours. I have to read more and skim less... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yikes.... now i'm more confused in rereading this. Are you saying Mother is incorrect? BYODB is incorrect? ...doesnt matter...
Just to try to extricate myself from a misunderstanding of my own creation.... i think the idea of 3 separate individuals is wrong because it is really only 2 individuals and an anthropomophizing of the spirit. AND I think 2 individuals (or 3 for that matter) cant be one thing in the way traditional christianity wants it to pass itself off as.
"I'm not about to debate the past 2000 years of justifications for why everything in world history links back to the Judeo-Christian faith
I hope not, because that isn't what I said. I pointed out how the "Judeo-Christian" worldview didn't see itself in tension with other culture' supreme creators like you originally implied.
" I will say that there is no connective tissue whatsoever between all the worlds religions."
That claim is frankly absurd. I just demonstrated clear “connective tissue” between the examples you gave using the Indo-European pantheon—but the similarities go much further back.
There is compelling evidence of shared religious motifs going back at least 30,000 years to the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a population whose genetic legacy is found in both Northern Europeans—via the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers and Yamnaya (up to 20 percent)—and in Native Americans (up to 40 percent). One of the most striking examples of this shared legacy is the widespread belief in a dog that guards or guides souls into the afterlife.
In Greek mythology, Cerberus is the multi-headed hound guarding the gates of Hades. In Norse belief, Garmr is the monstrous watchdog of Hel. Hindu tradition includes Yama, the god of death, who is attended by two four-eyed dogs. Egyptian religion gives us Anubis, the jackal-headed god who acts as both guardian and psychopomp. In Central American folklore, El Cadejo appears as a pair of supernatural dogs—one good, one evil—that protect or mislead wanderers. Welsh mythology includes the Cŵn Annwn, spectral hounds belonging to Arawn, the lord of the underworld Annwn. In Aztec belief, Xolotl is a dog-headed deity who guides souls through Mictlan, the land of the dead.
Even among Native American groups such as the Siouan, Algonquian, and Iroquoian, a recurring belief places a fierce guardian dog along the Milky Way, understood as the path of souls to the afterlife. Passing this creature was considered a spiritual test. The Chukchi and Tungus peoples of Siberia held similar beliefs in a sacred afterlife dog that would absorb the soul and guide it onward.
These shared mythemes suggest not cultural coincidence, but deep, inherited religious structure, likely rooted in the spiritual framework of the Ancient North Eurasians. As noted by Anthony and Brown, the “sacred dog” in the afterlife motif may be one of the oldest recoverable unified religious symbols.
https://www.academia.edu/123673285/The_Mytheme_of_Ancient_North_Eurasian_Sacred_Dog_belief_and_similar_motifs_are_found_in_Indo_European_Native_American_and_Siberian_comparative_mythology
Interestingly the ANE are the most likely candidates for dog domestication.
To sum up, the biggest mistake your making seems to be thinking that religion evolved ex nihilo in diverse locations without older influences.
It's right up there with Christians claiming they are monotheistic when in fact their own religion has three distinct central figures, one of whom was added retroactively far later.
Alright, you obviously know nothing about what you're talking about. I don't know where to even begin.
Why don't you break apart what you're trying to claim here and I'll help you figure it out.
It's an interesting day in the Liturgical Calendar he chose, don't you think Mother? ????
Also, swear on my life, I had no idea that today's second reading was - in fact - going to be Romans 5. Tell me how, of every book and chapter of the Bible, I would happen to have picked that specific one in my original post.
I was literally gobsmacked at Church today. Like literally a, "Whoa." moment. The Hand at work.
Neat.
Of course, never mind the irony of how many times I've seen you literally call for the death of your neighbors, sometimes wishing it was by your own hand.
Great example of Christianity, just from the wrong millennia.
It's not irony. It's simply the reality of being a flawed fallen mortal.
And it's not so much wishing for their death as it is prognosticating it among people who are really really asking for it. Like the LGBT Pedos and the illegals. I'm not going to go murder any of them. But I am telling you, with near certainty, that if they don't get back in their respective closets and countries, then bad things will inevitably follow - especially as the mechanism to deal with them on a social/legal level is being intentionally frustrated.
Or perhaps you're referring to Islam? That's not a call for the death of my neighbors either. That's a call of self-defense against a mortal enemy who has left no ambiguity about their desire to exterminate me, you, and everyone we've ever known. I truly wish every Muslim on the planet would accept Christ and renounce all their barbaric beliefs and practices. But if they're not, and they continue their attacks and genocidal efforts on the righteous - then yea, they gotta go. The Christian is not called to lay down his life in the name of God out of respect for butchering madmen. Ephesians 6. Take a good look at what depictions of St. Paul often has him holding.
Also, nice ad hominem. Usually you're somewhat better than that.
That claim is frankly absurd. I just demonstrated clear “connective tissue” between the examples you gave using the Indo-European pantheon—but the similarities go much further back.
No, you demonstrated that cultures and religions change and build over and on top of each other over time not that there is a consistent belief thread that runs throughout that represents some deeper proof that god exists.
The fact that most religions believe in some form of creator is not proof of a creator, especially when they largely disagree about who or what that creator is, how creation happened, when creation happened, or what creation even is.
Why don't you break apart what you're trying to claim here and I'll help you figure it out.
Sure, that part is easy. There is no god, but if there is one Christians get it just as wrong as every other religion ever conceived. The flying spaghetti monster is about as likely to be truth.
The word of long dead people who claimed to be the children of gods, not all that uncommon through the ages if we're honest, doesn't represent any kind of truth but rather it's heaping extra special status on people with good ideas or people who did great things for their people. It's the Nobel Prize of the ancient world.
"No, you demonstrated that cultures and religions change and build over and on top of each other over time not that there is a consistent belief thread that runs throughout that represents some deeper proof that god exists.
You either didn’t read what I wrote, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it. I clearly demonstrated that there are cognates across diverse global religions referencing a supreme creator. I also provided the example of the divine dog mytheme as evidence of how a consistent belief can stretch back tens of thousands of years.
As for your claim that I was trying to offer “proof that God exists”—I never said that. You know full well I didn’t make that claim, so why are you pretending I did?
If you’re going to start arguing in bad faith, don’t be surprised if I stop being polite.
"One supposes everyone before year 0, give or take, must have gone straight to hell."
Forgot to tackle this.
Not quite — Christian theology, particularly in its older and more traditional formulations, doesn't suggest that everyone before the birth of Christ automatically went to hell in the damned sense. In fact, the question of what happened to the righteous who lived before Christ is central to early Christian thought, and it’s addressed most explicitly through the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell.
According to this doctrine, after His crucifixion and before His resurrection, Christ descended into Sheol or Hades — not hell as a place of eternal torment, but rather the realm of the dead. There, He preached to the souls who had died before His coming, including the righteous of the Old Testament: figures like Abraham, Moses, David, and even Adam and Eve. This event is sometimes poetically referred to as Christ "breaking the gates of brass" and "shattering the iron bars" of death, liberating those who had awaited redemption.
The Apostles’ Creed affirms this belief in the line: “He descended into hell,” which early Christians understood as Christ entering the abode of the dead to free the just. This was not hell as in Gehenna, the place of final damnation, but a kind of limbo or abode of the righteous.
Theologically, those who lived before Christ were judged according to the light and law available to them. Romans 2:14-16 and Hebrews 11 provide support for the idea that faith, righteousness, and obedience to conscience mattered even before the Incarnation. They were not damned by default, but awaited the fulfillment of salvation. The same applies in Christian doctrine to those who lived after and were never given the chance to accept or reject.
So rather than picturing pre-Christian humanity as universally condemned, Christianity sees them as participants in a divine drama that spans time. They're waiting, in a sense, for the moment when the Redeemer would come not just to the living, but to the dead as well.
It's remarkable how little you seem to know about even the most basic concepts of the foundational religion of the culture you were raised in. Quite an achievement, really.
It's remarkable how little you seem to know about even the most basic concepts of the foundational religion of the culture you were raised in. Quite an achievement, really.
Nice dig, but it ignores that cultures with deity and belief systems that are disqualifying to Christianity but considered good by the people that follow it would indeed go to hell.
Last I checked the Christian god is a jealous god, and even worshipping an idol is cause for damnation let alone a totally different religion.
Was the Christian god wrong then, or are they wrong now? If I worship an idol of some random Sumarian god, according to you I'm worshipping the same guy but according to your own deity I'm not. In fact, that point is made very explicitly so it's curious you have no idea what your own book says. It explicitly mentions false gods.
Did you even actually read what I wrote?
"ignores that cultures with deity and belief systems that are disqualifying to Christianity but considered good by the people that follow it would indeed go to hell."
Such as?
Also, you still seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the core point of Christian doctrine. Salvation has already been accomplished—the penalty has been paid. The question is simply whether an individual chooses to accept it. It's not about earning rescue; it's about whether someone chooses to stay on the life raft or jump back into the sea.
Additionally, you appear to be shifting the goalposts from Earth-based's original claim, which was that Christianity and Islam don't acknowledge any cognates or parallels in other religious traditions.
I read what you wrote, it's merely that the things you are basing your opinion on do not agree with each other.
The first commandment to Moses, supposedly from god himself, makes it pretty clear that your deity does consider other gods, and specifically they are false ones. It's unclear why you think the death of Jesus invalidated the first commandment. Oh, it's because it wasn't written yet and early Christians or even Jesus himself needed some fig leaf regarding the billions of people who came before that never met him, or the people oversea's who never would.
but considered good by the people that follow it
This is precisely what I was getting at in my original post. THAT'S the rebellion against God. Those are the literal words of people who would appoint themselves their own gods. What the people "consider" good is irrelevant. They're not - and never could be - the arbiters of such a thing.
Last I checked the Christian god is a jealous god
When's the last time you checked? Because that statement makes no sense on its face. Jealously - aka envy - is sinful. God is incapable of sin. He doesn't have the capacity for jealousy. His condemnation of idolatry isn't about Him. It's a warning that if you take up other gods or worship things that aren't Him, that you're putting your own soul in very serious jeopardy.
And He does not ever want that for you. He shows you the path, but you have to choose it.
I don't have to explain it, ask the people who wrote the bible since apparently god refers to himself as jealous. Given it's many translations, you can probably safely blame that but I don't have to explain it since I don't believe it.
I didn't ask you to explain it.
God refers to Himself as qanna. That's not envy or covetousness. It's a reference to His absolute love for us, as reflected in His Covenant. Much like a husband jealously guards his wife, or a parent her child - such is the jealous love God has for us.
The Church, in fact, often refers to itself as The Bride of Christ. For the exact same reason. It's not a desire for something He lacks. It's a commitment that which is His. And it's why adultery - especially spiritual adultery (aka idolatry) - is a mortal sin.
Or, this. (Again, I love the serendipity of a scene like this somehow and suddenly making it into my feed, following a conversation I've had on the very subject. The Hand at work.)
She will guard him with her life - and she will destroy or die trying any that come to claim try and take him away. That is what God does for us. That's the jealousy that's being discussed. It's protective. It's defensive. It's an absolute desire to shield you from the evils that would take you away from Him, because He loves you - you personally - so dang much.
Sorry, he's right you are ignorant to your boots
Even the strictest Jews in creation had saints who were not Jews.
Like JOB
And a Catholic Cardinal wrote a book about how wrong you are
Holy Pagans of the Old Testament
Jean Daniélou
Finally it's right there in the Catholic Catechism
CCC 847
those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Christian theology, particularly in its older and more traditional formulations, doesn't suggest that everyone before the birth of Christ automatically went to hell in the damned sense.
It might help to explain to him what Hell is. It's romanticized with its tales of fire and brimstone and eternal suffering - which, yes, can be a part of it - but in fact it's the Eternal Separation from God's Presence. That's the punishment for unrepentant sin. (Heaven, by contrast, is the Beatific Vision - eternal communion with God, and in Him, perfect love, knowledge, harmony, and happiness.)
After the Fall of Man, this was the irredeemable state of mankind. Everyone in Original Sin. As you correctly point out, every single man woman and child who died in unrepentant sin before the death and resurrection of Christ went to hell. That was the only path open to mankind after Eve ate the apple. Heaven's doors were shut to them. But for the righteous, His prophets, those who obeyed His Commandments, those who were persecuted or martyred in His name, those who died sinless but unbaptized (ie. babies) - it wasn't a place of damnation, rather a place of natural happiness absent suffering. Still outside the presence of God - no Beatific Vision - but not eternally separated. Salvation was still on the table for them (as well as the genuinely ignorant - which some Christian scholars have argued could be corrected in the presence of the Patriarchs), a path to Heaven, but they needed someone to open the doors.
Christ reopened them (and, as you articulated, personally went down and got the righteous faithful). And Christ is the exclusive path to salvation for everyone who came after. We're still Fallen, and we will commit one sin or another every single day of our lives. But the road is open to us if we choose it - if we reject sin, repent for its commission, keep to the Covenant, and accept Christ in every facet of our lives. The Beatific Vision is possible for us again, through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
Now, instead of hell being a default for us, we have the choice. But Satan is still out there trying to convince us into making the wrong one. And, as the article suggests, doing a pretty successful job of it.
"But in fact it's the Eternal Separation from God's Presence."
Part of the confusion comes from the Christian layperson tendency to conflate Hades, which is a temporary state, with the second death, also known as the Lake of Fire, which is described as eternal.
“The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death— the lake of fire. And if anyone was found whose name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” — Revelation 20:13–15
But you're absolutely right that it’s better understood as eternal separation, rather than just metaphorical imagery. The idea of becoming an eternally decaying, disintegrating psychic entity—cut off from the source of all goodness and rejected by the universe itself—is not exactly comforting.
"Sure, lets go with the Aztec. What parts did they get right?"
There was no singular "Aztec religion" or even a unified Aztec people in the way that term is commonly used today. In fact, the name "Aztec" itself is a misnomer, retroactively applied to a political entity that was more accurately known as the Triple Alliance or the Tenochca Empire, a confederation of three city-states in the Valley of Mexico.
The religion practiced by the Triple Alliance was not unique to them but was shared broadly among Nahuatl-speaking peoples. At the heart of Nahua metaphysics was the concept of teotl, a single, dynamic, vivifying, eternally self-generating and self-regenerating sacred power, energy, or force. This was expressed through a kind of monistic pantheism, with teotl manifesting in many forms, including the supreme universe creator Ometeotl, a dualistic, primordial being.
While the priesthood and educated classes tended to interpret the divine through this more philosophical, monistic lens, the popular religion of the broader population focused more heavily on polytheistic and mythological expressions of the sacred.
The Triple Alliance, whose religious and political center was Tenochtitlan, emphasized the veneration of four powerful (though lesser than Ometeotl) deities: Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, and Tezcatlipoca. These gods, especially Huitzilopochtli and Tezcatlipoca, were associated with warfare and sacrifice. The rulers of the Triple Alliance believed their military strength, economic dominance, and societal stability were dependent on the continual offering of human lives to these deities.
TL;DR: The supreme creator deity in Nahua belief was Ometeotl, a dualistic, all-encompassing source of being. The more familiar pantheon, including gods like Huitzilopochtli and Quetzalcoatl, were secondary manifestations in a broader, metaphysically unified worldview.
>What sets Christianity—and to some extent Islam—apart is the belief that one can have a direct, personal relationship with the universal Creator without the need for intermediaries such as lesser gods or priests.
This sets *Protestantism* apart - not so much pre-Luther Christianity which explicitly maintained that the Church would act as intermediary in most things.
The Catholic Church’s doctrine refers to all baptized members, including the laity, as part of the “common priesthood,” in keeping with the biblical teaching that believers are now their own priests. At the same time, it maintains a distinct ministerial priesthood composed of ordained clergy—an institution which, in its modern form, has in some ways evolved in tension with that original ideal.
NO tension, St Augustine put things to rights
"What I am for you terrifies me; what I am with you consoles me. For you I am a bishop; but with you I am a Christian. The former is a duty; the latter a grace. The former is a danger; the latter, salvation."
Correct.
I don't have to guess. There is only one supreme God and for you to pretend that knowing nothing is better than knowing something but not all , marks you as a moron
"the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things"
TRUE
At least from what is written here (I’m not where I can listen to the recording), I think Douthat is ignoring the way these digital modes enable the very things he claims we are losing. I play some pretty obscure musical instruments where, forty years ago, even finding out they existed would have been a real challenge, much less procuring them and learning to play them. If you could do it, it would have been as an isolated individual.
But today, due to online communities, their viability and the number of players of these instruments are greater than ever. The relationships these tools engender extend into real life. I just spend a day in Belfast with a guy I knew only online before. We are in regular contact and that is a friendship that exists *only* because of these forces.
We often see things only in terms of a narrative of loss without seeing what we gain. Yes, birth rates are falling, but I don’t think we can attribute that to the internet. That’s too simplistic an explanation.
Yeah, this is pretty pants-on-head crazy stuff he's spouting here. I met my wife through internet dating. Before the internet there is zero chance we would have gotten together. Also, anyone who thinks the internet keeps people from having sex, let alone meeting up, is tripping balls. America has demographic troubles, but technology is largely working against them. It would be so much worse without the internet.
But it is fun, especially for old people, to cast some new technology as the devil and blame it for the impending downfall of civilization (as they imagine it). Just like "serious" people did with the printing press, radio, and--of course--TV.
Disclosure: actual old guy here, coming up on my 68th orbit around the sun.
Exactly.
Comic books
Pinball machines
Comic books
Hot Rods
Comic books
Motorcycles
Comic books
Rock and roll
Comic books
Dungeon and Dragons
Comic books
Video games
Comic books
Computer games
Comic books
A lot of comic books suck these days because they’re written by the same kind of far left scumbags that are out rioting.
IF before the internet there was zero chance you would have a spouse, it aint the Internet that's the problem or the solution.
It weirds me out when someone can use so general a word and reduce it to 'so much the worse without'
That’s a pretty weird reading of what he wrote. He didn’t say he wouldn’t have a spouse, but that he wouldn’t have the spouse he has now. *That* spouse was possible because of internet dating, not the possibility of having *a* spouse.
Even worse the way you put it.
Whatever wife he had would he think a technological connection makes a speck of difference? I met my spouse at a school but I don't credit shool for my spouse !!!!
Actually that is more enhanced by more population. As we get more people there are more available for specialized interests. More consumers for niche products, and more of everyone for hte multi-pronged extension of goodness, truth, and beauty - but it all depends on one man and one woman in a family.
I would prefer they not go extinct ? Way to get moral, ethical, religious and philandrous 🙂
Oppose gay marriage and trans and sexual promiscuity and abortion...Talking on Reason will do shtall
How would gay people remaining unmarried affect population growth?
I think he means that they should do their fucking for the purpose evolution intended it for.
What evolutionary purpose does gay fucking serve?
Yes. That was his point.
I'm not getting what their marital status has to do with it.
Marital status directly implicates a level of commitment towards the results of such unions. In other words a commitment towards the family unit that is established and the resultant children.
Say what you want about whether thats necessary today what with our enlightened views on what constitutes a family and if you need 'a piece of paper' to make these commitments.... stats sure dont lie about the overall efficacy of marriage in maintaining stable society and stable development of children.
How would gay people remaining unmarried lead to population growth?
not dealing with that here... just dealing with the deleterious effects of devaluing the traditional understanding of marriage and sex.
Kids need to see what a real marriage is , how it is modeled, its glory and worth. Gays degrade the meaning of mariage and parenthood and decency. The whole message of gays for many kids is "If I like something or someone it cannot be wrong" seeing that divorce is at the 50% mark all help is needed.
What interest does society have in whether gay people have long term monogamous relationships?
Opposing gay marriage isn't going to turn gay people hetero. All opposing gay marriage will do is make gay people who are within stable relationships unhappy because they can't see their partners when they are in the hospital, or put their partners on their health insurance. If you want less sexual promiscuity you should be for all types of marriage including gay marriage.
Opposing gay marriage isn't going to turn gay people hetero.
I can't speak for whomever or whatever is going on behind the gray box but that's not the point. I don't oppose gunplay because I want gun owners to be good soldiers. I oppose gunplay because gunplay gets people shot.
All opposing gay marriage will do is make gay people who are within stable relationships unhappy because they can't see their partners when they are in the hospital, or put their partners on their health insurance.
No it doesn't. Your lies are what does this. If it happens at all. This is as patently false and stupid as "Without section 230, the internet wouldn't exist." So, as above, why do you conflate the lies of people who support gunplay with the regimented and disciplined practice of recreational shooters if not to get more people shot?
To wit: As with "black people can't find their local DMV", do gay people's relationships become unhealthy and fall apart if they can't put each other on insurance? Unlike infertile heterosexual couples who have to adopt or use IVF, are gay couple's relationships somehow less stable because they aren't guaranteed to be in the OR when their partner's life is on the line?
You aren't making a logical argument, it's an appeal to emotion, and, for whatever else may be going on behind the gray box, you're backhandedly slandering the people you claim to be advocating for.
That is an argument for necrophilia pederasty and any sexual deviation to which someone can say "I am in a stable relationship with this dog"
No, you don't understand that perversion is not something that everybody says "how terrible!" to . Maybe we should give perverted arsonists some assist with safe fires.
Homosexual acts are perverted. Better not to add promiscuity to that but , come to think of it :Le'ts hear you say something about promiscuity. Cuz homosexual promiscuity runs in the hundreds for a not insignificant number of these people you say are not perverts
Interviewer is at a loss to address principles
Ross Douthat: I call myself a conservative, first, because I have fundamental political commitments that broadly align with the political right in the United States. My primary commitments are what gets called “religious conservatism,” a sort of pro-life, pro-family, socially conservative worldview.
But good Catholics do love some authoritarian rule, and mandatory wealth redistribution.
Okay, just a Rhetoric point to make for you:
Ther reason you didn't just say 'rule' was because you wanted to say "Authoritarian" and thus get away with dissing any rule. Am I getting warm ? 🙂
Smells suspiciously like Malthus > Gore: 'I'm so smart, I can see the end of the world'.
And in 20 years (assuming he has the intelligence - he IS a NYT writer), he will be embarrassed to find the world still doing just fine.
“The world is going to end”
*the world doesn’t end*
“It’s because I warned everyone!”
Then rinse and repeat.
But should we blame the idiot prophets or the sheeple who line up and follow?
The press who knows it's a lie but it fits their master's purposes so they push it anyway.
'"I like Italy. I like South Korea. I enjoy the existence of distinctive human cultures. I would prefer that these cultures and countries not disappear," the New York Times columnist tells Reason.'
How else can elite globalists enjoy their frequent international trips, to indulge their fascination with "exotic" (non-American) cultures? Of course, if our domestic fly-over cultures disappear then no big loss.
The guy didn’t mention leftists one which means he’s a leftist.
Poor leftist sarc. It's you're defending and use of their narratives dumdum. But you claim to criticize them all the time. Still waiting on that prediction to come true too.
Well, you're a leftist, so tell us what you think. Is he one of you?
If one wants to go searching for the reason birth rates are falling, one need not look any further than birth control and abortion. People in the U.S. didn't suddenly stop fucking.
At least, in the U.S. anyway. Our culture isn't in the same death spiral that, say, Japan or South Korea are.
To feel better because you are only halfway down the cliff and you can see dead bodies at the bottom --- I would not call that 'hope' 🙂
If one wants to go searching for the reason birth rates are falling, one need not look any further than birth control and abortion. People in the U.S. didn't suddenly stop fucking.
This is like the anti-theist, retarded declaration of immaculate conception.
STD rates are down (even STDs that contraceptives don't prevent and at rates that don't correlate with vaccines and/or contraception). Contraception use is stable and high (for over 3 decades) while birth rates continue to fall. Loneliness at all levels is up and happiness is down. Age of sexual debut is up and/or rate of first sexual encounter among 15-19 yr. olds is down. This is all within the US. Similar is seen across Europe and S. Asia. Even where the data isn't directly polled or tabulated, confirmational downstream results are seen.
Even if you had the proof you assert out of hand, which you don't, it's patently stupid to refute the relatively uncontroversial and impartial assertions and observations that porn consumption is up and correlates negatively or competes with direct physical sex.
Again, your assertion at each individual point might work and I might even agree with you on some of them (e.g. porn does displace some sex but doesn't broadly displace enough sex to affect population-level reproduction), but summarily your claim is just obvious, baseless, deny-biology-and-plain-facts pseudo-religion.
Our culture isn't in the same death spiral that, say, Japan or South Korea are.
So, at all kinds of levels across all kinds of borders all sorts of both direct and indirect markers of not just reproduction but ancillary consequences of sexual activity are down and, somehow, you proclaim to know an answer that not only refutes all the independent evidence but that, additionally, you couldn't possibly actually know?
Moreover, you say it in an obliquely false context that you should know to be irrelevant; that everyone everywhere having one, non-reproductive sexual encounter in their lives, or even hundreds of *mandatory*, non-reproductive sexual encounters in their sleep pods every day isn't the point.
Next you're going to say "I was only pretending to be retarded."
Every new tech scares the old fuddy duddies. I bet the first time the clan elders saw someone start a fire on his own, they freaked out and banished him.
Here's an interesting article on how wheels and axles may have been invented by miners, a slow gradual process beginning with rolling logs. It sounds plausible to me, and would have been too gradual to freak out the boomers of the day.
https://www.sciencealert.com/wheels-may-have-been-invented-to-solve-a-surprising-problem
But every disruptive invention, by nature of being disruptive, scares the piss out of the establishment who have the most to lose.
This guy is just another scared member of the elite who sees more disruption than his brain can handle.
Really good article, thanks.
We call it "the wheel" but as the article illustrates it was the invention of the fixed axle—rather than the wheel itself—that marked the true turning point in the development of wheeled transport. While disc-shaped objects and rudimentary wheels existed in earlier periods, it was the integration of a rotating wheel with a stable axle that rendered the technology genuinely functional for transportation and load-bearing purposes.
What remains particularly striking is the relatively late appearance of the wheel in the archaeological record. By the time the first wheeled carts began to emerge from the Eurasian steppes with the Yamnaya culture, many other complex technologies and social systems were already well established. Monumental architecture, paved roadways, domesticated livestock, intensive agriculture, metalworking, oceanic navigation, calendrical systems, weaving, and brewing had all been developed and refined over millennia beforehand.
Even more remarkable is that civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas constructed vast urban centres, engineered sophisticated infrastructure, and managed extensive empires—all without employing the wheel for practical transport. Their achievements underscore that while the wheel is often considered a hallmark of technological progress, it was neither inevitable nor universally adopted.
Yes, that difference between wheel and axle surprised me. So obvious in hindsight, but we've all been conditioned to think of the invention of the wheel.
What the article doesn't discuss is when wheels became separate from the axle -- when the axle did not have to rotate with the wheel. For those mining cars, a rotating axle rubbing against the bottom of the cart would have been a lot of drag and friction, wearing out parts. I doubt any would have started fires.
It made me realize I don't even know if covered wagons and stagecoaches had fixed axles with rotating wheels. I suppose the friction comes out the same if axles just have a couple of mounting points, unlike those miners' carts. Or maybe the miners noticed that and built mounting brackets on each side near the load.
It made me realize I don't even know if covered wagons and stagecoaches had fixed axles with rotating wheels.
Yes, they do.
http://www.oregonpioneers.com/wagon.htm
And, it should be noted that by the time of wagons and stage coaches, despite Stupid Is As Stupid Does, the various and relatively greater advantages and disadvantages of fixed axles and solid wheels (of any material) on a solid rail or path vs. a rotating wheel on a fixed axle on an open path were already well understood.
Analogously, Stupid's argument is akin to ENB's bootleggers and baptists stupidity, where the spokesperson of the bootleggers has to preach as though all the Baptists are teetotalers.
The technology "causing" falling birth rates isn't new nor itself really controversial in the context and the people aren't arguing against it specifically. The idea that every last person arguing about birth rates and/or demographic collapse doesn't watch porn, doesn't use birth control, has a dozen kids, etc., etc., etc. doesn't even make sense, let alone is realistically believable.
There's almost an element of "The people arguing against the Nazification of Germany were just Luddites."/("And then, for no particular reason at all, the German people decided to elect Adolf Hitler.") stupidity to it.
You are trying to hide your recent reading of Luddites but it isn't working. This is the classic logical tautology. You say 'by the nature of being disruptive' but you have no idea until it is disruptive. Like the evolution tautology. Ony the fittest survive...how can you tell ....because they survived.
And of course the logical/rhetorical ridiculousness of you claiming some special dispensation from the rest of humanity that allowed special you to see what the rest of mankind can't, and avoid being 'scared the piss out" because well you are just better and smarter
>"I like Italy. I like South Korea. I enjoy the existence of distinctive human cultures. I would prefer that these cultures and countries not disappear," the New York Times columnist tells Reason.
Sorry brother, but borders are meaningless, globalization is peak economic efficiency - which means global homogenization.
The only question right now is will the whole world be Woke American or Chinese CCP.
The US is going to be a lot more Mormon, Catholic, and Fundamentalist Christian. Those are the groups having the most babies. Wokesters tend to have 0 to 1 kids.
No, the Wokesters have lots of kids. They just kill them as soon as they can.
Or maim and rape them if they survive.
troo - dat
How do you do fellow kids? Isn't this collapsing population thing (and open borders) like... the worst thing ever?
Q: Is the picture you're painting too bleak? Is it possible that the suburban middle class isn't disappearing, but simply evolving into something less familiar?
Um, as one professional Atheist said in a debate I listened to some years ago, "What do I care if my culture gets diluted-- if it were up to me, we'd just eventually have a one-world government"
My response: Diluted into what, good sir?
Seattle Times discovers people like their borders.
It's the mass immigration that Reason supports, not depopulation, that is going to make some of these cultures disappear. 100 years ago, the population of Italy was about half what it is now, the population of South Korea was about one quarter. Yet there was still a thriving Italian and Korean culture.
But these cultures can't survive in any recognizable form if they take in 2 million+ migrants per year, as the US does.
That is not the point you think it is
Euronews
Italy has its 68th government in 76 years. Why such a high ...
https://www.euronews.com › ... › Europe Decoded
Oct 21, 2022 — Italy has had more than twice the number of governments than either the United Kingdom or Germany since WWII.
A society of any diversity must have shared value, what Lincoln calls political religion.
In USA we believe all men created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights and government exists to protect those rights.
If you are for child marriage, extermination of apostates, and Female Genital Mutilation you are not an American and should not be here. Trump is beyond reproach on that score.
It is somehow gratifying to learn that the guy you find insufferable via his writing, is equally insufferable via speech.
Consistency: Coincidentally both a virtue and a hobgoblin.