Maybe evolution is to blame for the fact that people seem really interested in other people’s sex lives. If the survival of your species depends on reproductive success, you might feel justified, obligated even, to obsess over the success rate. Elon Musk has been outspoken about his worries over current sub-replacement reproduction levels in certain societies. Musk seems to have more than just evolutionary concerns on his mind. He often speaks for groups who are fearful of demographic “replacement”, foreign immigration, and other racist-, eugenicist-, and extractionist-adjacent fears.

Maybe I’m wrong, but the capital extraction motivation seems strongest. Larger populations means more and cheaper labor, a broader consumer base, and a bigger taxable workforce to pay support for aging retirees so wealth extractors can take more and pay less themselves.

Jesus identifies the kingdom of God with a social structure in which everyone has enough because no one has too much. Larger populations create conditions in which the illusion of scarcity can be maintained for the benefit of those who have more but are unwilling to share it. Larger populations also justify greater control by those in power, to maintain so-called law and order, social structure, etc. Whatever the challenges of “over-population” are, most could be addressed by Jesus’ simple advocacy for redistribution of resources away from competition and toward cooperation.

But what is even more ‘radical’ about Jesus is that he doesn’t seem concerned with reproductive success at all. In fact, some of his teachings seem to run counter to the goal of sexual reproduction. One way to interpret this is by ‘spiritualizing’ reproduction so that instead of ‘making babies’, followers of Jesus are told to ‘make disciples’. ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ is transformed into sowing the seed of the word, spreading the Gospel, gaining converts, and growing the church. The childless apostle Paul makes prolific use of this metaphor, referring to the believers in the churches he serves as his spiritual children.

As legitimate as the ‘spiritualizing’ move is, it is not the whole story, because Jesus makes direct references to sexual reproduction that aren’t metaphorical but literal. When he speaks about divorce, his disciples reply “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry” and Jesus basically agrees. To be fair, his agreement is more nuanced, but he clearly advocates childlessness as preferable for those who are willing to choose it. Paul makes a similar claim that he wishes all believers were spouse- and child-free, as he himself is.

If enough people took these sayings seriously, it could result in a smaller overall population. And if enough people follow Jesus in the distribution of resources, some of the rationale behind child-bearing might be undermined to such an extent as to diminish reproductive rates as well.

I already mentioned how some advocacy for higher reproductive rates is motivated by concerns that Jesus explicitly rejects. Racist, eugenicist, and extractionist justifications for larger populations or higher reproductive rates are completely ruled out by the ethics of Jesus. But other economic factors would be also. Communities of Jesus, devoutly committed to the flourishing of all, share resources to such a degree that, in so far as some child-bearing and family-size decisions are financially motivated, there would no longer be an economic impetus to have many children, either so children could provide additional labor to assist working parents or provide support (directly or indirectly through taxes) for elderly members of society. Communities of Jesus share resources to such a degree that concerns over having descendants to pass down generational wealth would also no longer apply.

The argument for decreased reproductive rates from the perspective of ‘normal’ evolution is that a smaller overall human population would be more environmentally sustainable. If collapse results from an excess of reproductive success (and therefore increased overall population) then a decrease in overall population through diminishing reproductive rates would stave off and maybe even eliminate some threats of future collapse.

On this view of ‘normal’ evolution, to preserve the term ‘reproductive success’ would require it to be re-interpreted to no longer mean ‘fitness to adapt and survive in order to pass along genetic information to subsequent generations through sexually reproductive replacement’ but something more like ‘fitness to fully participate in the flourishing of a resilient human community’.

Jesus wept at the gates of Jerusalem, lamenting: “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace”. Obviously rethinking the foundational assumptions of ‘normal’ evolution is not the only thing that might bring peace, but it might help.