Mormon Funerals

In times of grief and uncertainty, some forces within our culture encourage us to cling to comforting simplistic beliefs and spout empty platitudes. However, even in times of loss, not suppressing doubt or smothering your confidence in the afterlife over everyone else's experience can lead to having a real life, more authentic relationships, and a deeper understanding of reality. This essay will explore various quotes and perspectives that encourage questioning, curiosity, honesty, and healing from a perspective of extreme caution and respect for truth.

My mom passed away on April 8th, and the Mormons say how great it is that I will be with her again and that faith in God is helpful at times like this. 

For instance, a family member recently said, "My sweet Grandma passed away last month...More than anything, I’m grateful for a Savior that allows families to be together forever. Life sure is sweet with a family like mine."

My mom was more than sweet. She was complex, and so is life. 

Even some atheists and agnostics believe that belief gives Mormon mourners an advantage. But is this true, or do Mormon Morners avoid and shame those who mourn?  

1) Doubt and the Absurdity of Certainty

Socrates said: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" and “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Voltaire said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Is it better to be absurd (without doubt) than sad and confused? I think not. We should not give in to pressure to say God will fix everything.

2) The Courage to Admit Uncertainty and Open Honest Dialogue

Clarence Darrow said: "I don't pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of." Stephen Hawking said: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." These quotes highlight the importance of admitting uncertainty and being open to new ideas. But what does it mean to examine? Do people with all the answers examine life? Does a culture that has all the answers experience life? 

It's OK to admit that you are not OK now, as it is the first step to being OK in the future.

As Richard Feynman said: “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”

3) The Value of Examining Life and Embracing the Unknown

Are there risks that the "put on a happy face" and "God will take care of everything" perspectives will deprive us of genuine emotions and experiences in life, causing us to avoid facing the complexities of our existence and becoming strong enough to acknowledge, accept, and ultimately confront our emotions? Does this cultural norm encourage avoidance? Are shortcuts to easy answers and emotional distance toxic to personal growth and the development of meaningful emotional connections?

Rainer Maria Rilke said: “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

4) Balancing Belief and Authenticity

If you are happy and feel comfortable believing that families will be together forever, following all the rules is fine. However, we also need to be sure we are not promoting a culture that shortcuts the grieving process, makes people feel guilty for being sad, or whitewashing our existence, or masking our pain. Maya Angelou said: “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

Proverbs 14:15 (KJV) says: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I like the advice that we should prove things and not believe "every word."

Do not conform or encourage conformity. Be your authentic self. Feel your feelings, and don't try to paint over them with empty platitudes. Bertrand Russell said: "Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric." Ralph Waldo Emerson said "To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."

5) The Pursuit of Truth

Sam Harris said: “No society in human history has suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their beliefs.” Winston Churchill said: "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." Albert Einstein said: "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." These quotes emphasize the importance of the relentless pursuit of truth and evidence, even when it challenges our beliefs.

6) Quotes from Latter-day Saints Leaders on Inquiry and Investigation

Spencer W. Kimball said: "We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity. No one would have us become mere tape recorders of other people's thoughts." "Education for Eternity," Pre-School Address to BYU Faculty and Staff, September 12, 1967. Unfortunately, most LDS thoughts at funerals require unthinking conformity and "Vain Repetition" (Matthew 6:7), Rameumpt style, of the knowledge that we will see loved ones again (if we doubt our doubts). 

Hugh B. Brown, a counselor in the First Presidency, once said, “I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas and stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition, truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence nor any coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.” (Hugh B. Brown, counselor in First Presidency, Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958)

Similarly, President John Taylor encouraged open discussion, stating, "Some people will say; 'Oh, don't talk about it.' I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and for one, I want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation." President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 264

James E. Talmage quoted “The Intolerant Spirit" when he said: “The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.” ~ James E. Talmage, editorial. Pittsburgh Leader. November 13, 1919. This sentiment is echoed by President J. Reuben Clark, who stated, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed" (Clark). By embracing doubt and the pursuit of truth, we can foster authentic relationships and healing, even in times of loss.

Joseph Fielding Smith, a past President of the Church, encouraged honest investigation, stating, "The honest investigator must be prepared to follow wherever the search of truth may lead" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 388). Similarly, Spencer W. Kimball advised being "dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity" (Kimball, 1967). These perspectives empower individuals to face grief and uncertainty with courage and authenticity.

Hugh B. Brown said: "The Church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts." "An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown," p. 152.

These foster an adult approach to life, open dialogue, and proper understanding, even in grief and uncertainty. It's fine if you want to pretend you know you will see your loved ones again. However, a malnourished and immature culture only allows the vain repetition of the primary answers.

Maximizing Sanctions on Russia: A Stand Against Atrocities

Empowering entities that commit atrocities is a moral failure. Engaging in business with Russia indirectly fuels their capacity for violence, given that the Russian government taxes business activities. This revenue funds their military aggression and their domestic efforts to silence, jail, and repress free speech. Therefore, to uphold global justice and human rights, we must advocate for maximizing sanctions on Russia.

With every dollar that flows into the Russian government, their capacity to wage war and quell internal dissent increases. This is a chilling reality that we must confront. By maximizing sanctions, we can strangle the economic lifeline that enables these atrocities and take a definitive stand for justice and peace.

For more in-depth analysis and possible solutions to global conflicts, visit our work at Group Intel. For a tech-centric perspective on global issues, explore our projects at IdeaStockExchange.

In any functional system, we reward good behavior and penalize bad actions. It's a fundamental principle that rational actors respond to incentives, striving to maximize their benefits and reduce costs. It stands to reason, then, that it is counterproductive - and indeed, unjust - to support those who commit atrocities.

When we engage in business with nations known for their violations of human rights, we indirectly lend strength to their horrific actions. Consider Russia, a country where a portion of funds from international business deals is funneled into the machinery of oppression and violence. Is it justifiable for us to provide them with access to goods and services at the cost of indirectly supporting their atrocities?

The essence of our society lies in freedom, and our collective work should further the cause of humanity, not undermine it. Why should the West voluntarily support endeavors that finance the bombing of hospitals or the subjugation of civilians by foreign invaders?

The future of humanity rests on the downfall of societies that suppress freedom, violate human rights, and inflict harm on their neighbors. We need to stand firm against those who would silence free expression and employ their military to commit heinous acts.

Yet, it's crucial to remember that our Government must strike a balance between competency and compassion. While liberals often advocate for actions that seem to penalize good behavior and reward bad, the core of their argument lies in compassion and fairness. However, we must ensure that our drive for fairness doesn't destroy the spirit of competition, which fuels competency. The pursuit of equality of outcome has repeatedly proven to be an ineffective strategy. It's no longer naïve to support it; it's become a pathological approach.

We need to reward good behavior, penalize bad, and ensure that our actions align with our principles. This is a global responsibility that we must all shoulder.

Questioning the efficacy of sanctions against a regime like Putin's, especially when there's a risk of another country being obliterated, borders on irresponsibility. When the majority - 80% - of Russian citizens support Putin, they can't lay claim to guaranteed access to foreign luxury brands. Not while their country is laying siege to civilians, forcing them to starve in underground bunkers, and shooting those who attempt to flee. If they desire access to global brands like Nike or McDonald's, they must first seek to change their Government or at least be willing to fight for that change.

Critics of sanctions often argue that they don't always lead to policy or regime changes. However, it's indisputable that sanctions diminish the power, influence, and resources of the targeted country, thereby undermining its capacity to carry out atrocities.

Sanctions sit at one end of the spectrum of trade deals. If we visualize this spectrum as a knob ranging from 0 to 10, shouldn't we dial it down to 0 for countries that bomb hospitals?

While it might seem sophisticated to question the principle of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior, it's important to remember the real-world implications. Citizens of a country like Russia, currently engaged in horrific actions, cannot reasonably expect uninterrupted access to the products and services of nations horrified by their Government's actions.

a) Fundamental beliefs or principles one must reject to also reject this belief:

1. Indifference towards human rights, 
2. tolerance for state-sponsored atrocities, 
3. prioritizing profits over ethics. 

b) Alternate expressions(e.g., metatags, mottos, hashtags):

1.  #EthicsOverProfits, 
2. #RewardGoodPunishBad, 
3. #StandForJustice.
4. #PrioritizeHumanity
5. #SanctionsForJustice
6. #BeyondProfit
7. #EthicalEconomics
8. #LongTermOverShortTerm
9. #HumanityFirst
10. #StandAgainstAtrocities
11. #EthicalGlobalEngagement
12. #JusticeOverProfits
13. #TradeEthically
14. Prioritizing Humanity Over Short-Term Profits"
15. Sanctions for Justice: Prioritizing Global Humanity"
16. Beyond Profit: The Case for Ethical Global Engagement"
17. Sanctions: An Investment in Long-term Humanity Over Short-term Profits"
18. Ethical Economics: Why We Must Prioritize Humanity Over Immediate Profits"

c) Objective criteria to measure the strength of this belief:

1. Impact of sanctions on human rights violators, 
2. improvement in their human rights record, 
3. the ethical alignment of international business practices. 

d) Shared interests between those who agree/disagree:

1. Upholding human rights, 
2. maintaining global peace, 
3. promoting ethical business conduct.

e) Key opposing interests between those who agree/disagree (that must be addressed for mutual understanding):

1. Potential economic gains from unethical business, 
2. geopolitical alliances, 
3. potential backlash from sanctions.

f) Solutions:

1. Increase ethical scrutiny of international business, 
2. encourage nations to enforce sanctions, 
3. implement measures to ensure businesses comply with ethical standards.

g) Strategies for encouraging commitment to a resolution to evidence-based solutions:

1. Advocacy, 
2. public awareness campaigns, 
3. lobbying for stringent laws on international business.

A Case for One Billion Americans

The notion of housing one billion citizens within the United States may sound far-fetched, but it's far from impractical. In fact, the room for such a population boom is very much within our reach.

The vast expanse of America is largely unoccupied, presenting an opportunity for substantial population growth. The lower 48 states, even with a three-fold increase in population, would still have a population density less than half of what Germany has today. And, let's not forget, Germany, with its lush forests and expansive farmland, offers an exceptional quality of life.

Consider this: if the continental United States had the same population density as the European Union (EU), it could comfortably accommodate nearly a billion people. Granted, the aridity of the Western US may limit the population density to some extent, but that's no deal-breaker.

Even if only the states east of the Mississippi adopted a European-style population density, while the other states retained their current population, the United States would still house over 400 million people.

Currently, the EU, with approximately 300 people per square mile, exports more food than it imports. This density is similar to the ninth-densest US state, akin to Pennsylvania or Florida. In comparison, the continental United States has an overall density of about 110 people per square mile (if we exclude Alaska as an outlier).

So, the potential for one billion Americans isn't a flight of fancy. It's a pragmatic proposal that warrants serious consideration. America has the capacity to grow, and with careful planning and sustainable practices, a population boom could well be on the horizon.

Envisioning the United States with a billion people might seem an audacious proposition, but let's take a look at the numbers. If our population were to grow by 5% each year, it would take approximately 23 years to reach a billion citizens.

Today, we are at 330 million people. With a 5% growth rate, the projected population would increase as follows: 347 million after 1 year, 364 million after 2 years, 382 million after 3 years, and so on. After 23 years, we would reach a total of approximately 1.01 billion people.

This growth is achievable if we implement pro-family culture and legislation, supporting Americans in having the number of children they desire. Alongside this, a more open approach to immigration and refugee settlement could contribute to the 5% annual increase.

Housing is a crucial component of this growth, and deregulation of the industry would play a vital role. Eliminating unnecessary restrictions and limitations would open up the market, providing the foundation for housing a billion citizens.

By doing away with restrictive height limits for condominiums and apartment buildings, we could accommodate more people without needing more land. This approach aligns with the principles of a free-market economy and individual freedom - city regulators cannot dictate market demand, and excessive government regulation infringes on our liberties.

Allowing for higher-density housing construction not only makes financial sense, by potentially lowering home costs, but it also benefits young families, reduces urban sprawl, and promotes efficient transportation. Living in a seven-story apartment building with an elevator isn't drastically different from living in a two-story apartment complex.

A higher population density doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in the quality of life. We can learn from countries like Germany, where a higher population density has not compromised the availability of forests, farmland, and other natural spaces.

As we contemplate the idea of accommodating a billion Americans, let's remember that this is not just a numbers game. It's about creating an environment where every citizen can thrive. It's about growth, but it's also about ensuring that growth is sustainable, inclusive, and beneficial to all.

Ultimately, the prospect of one billion Americans is not just feasible; it also presents a unique opportunity for economic growth, cultural diversity, and societal progress. The journey there requires thoughtful planning and decisive action, particularly around family policies, immigration, and housing. But with the right approach, we can turn this ambitious vision into a reality.

Supporting Housing Growth for a Stronger Nation

The idea of slowing down the price growth of homes by allowing more apartment buildings in popular, growing cities might seem counterintuitive to some. However, artificially stifling growth to inflate property values harms those trying to start a family, undermines the American dream, and takes a toll on the environment. Ultimately, it weakens us as a nation.

Indeed, seven-story apartments aren't everyone's ideal living situation. However, the benefits of such density—a shorter commute, proximity to amenities, and a vibrant community—are trade-offs that many are willing to make. While you might prefer more open spaces, let's ensure that those who value a denser, urban lifestyle have the freedom to make that choice.

Feeding a Larger Population

Looking at our agricultural capacity, there's no reason to believe the U.S. can't support a larger population. Currently, we export 25% of the food we produce, which could directly feed an additional 82 million Americans without any changes to our agricultural practices.

Moreover, this figure doesn't account for the potential improvements in technology that could boost our agricultural yield or changes in our dietary habits that could reduce environmental impact. If we consumed locally what we now export, we could sustain a total population of over 411 million.

We are far from exhausting our agricultural capacity. With innovations like vertical farming, hydroponics, genetics, and automation, we can increase our efficiency and feed more people using less land and water. Even if land becomes scarce, it would simply lead to higher meat prices and incentivize a less resource-intensive diet. But at present, that's not a pressing concern.

Adapting to a Changing World: America's Future Population Strategy

We need to recognize that the global agricultural landscape is evolving. Currently, the developing world's agricultural yields are significantly lower than those in the United States. However, with the adoption of technology, these yields are expected to increase, reducing the world's reliance on American food exports.

The Call to Act: America's position in the world is not guaranteed, and it's essential we take proactive steps to secure our future. As China's influence grows, it's better for us to integrate a larger population into our society now, while we still have a comparative advantage.

Waiting until China surpasses us in power and wealth could have unforeseen risks. At that point, we might not be the top choice for potential immigrants, with many preferring the growing opportunities in China and India.

Historically, new waves of immigrants have faced challenges integrating into American society, with groups like the Irish, Polish, and Italians experiencing high crime rates, dysfunction, and discrimination. It's more strategic to tackle these issues now, while we still have a comfortable lead over our global competitors.

A New American Purpose: Achieving and maintaining a larger population than China could instill a noble, shared sense of purpose among Americans. The growth of China and India threatens our position as a leading power, making this an imperative goal.

Unlike China and Russia, which often resort to brutalizing and dominating their citizens and threatening their neighbors' territorial borders, America can grow stronger by welcoming citizens who voluntarily seek our freedom and opportunities.

By opening our doors wider, we are not just increasing our population; we're reaffirming our commitment to the core American values of liberty and opportunity. This approach will allow us to remain a global leader while staying true to our ideals.

A Vision for an Empowered America: Necessity of a Billion Citizens

To maintain its position as a global superpower, America must seriously consider its population strategy. To continue to compete effectively with China, India, and Russia, we will need to significantly increase our population.

In the future, a country's global influence will align more closely with its population size. America must not resign itself to fading into the background as these larger countries rise. Merely being "better" or more efficient won't suffice. For instance, China's population is over three times that of the U.S. It is improbable to assume that we could maintain a lead by being three times more efficient.

It's worth noting that nations learn and adapt from one another, leading to a leveling of the playing field. The growth rate in wealthier nations hasn't kept pace with that in developing countries. Depending on a reversal of this trend would be unwise.

Admittedly, America doesn't always outpace other nations in terms of efficiency, and we have struggled with addressing some solvable problems. Despite this, our commitment to freedom keeps us an attractive place to live. Countries like China may seem to solve problems more efficiently or outperform us in standardized test scores, but the value we place on freedom gives us an advantage. To stay relevant, however, our population needs to match those of our biggest competitors.

Therefore, envision an America that's home to one billion citizens. We must categorically reject the path taken by countries like Russia, which invaded and tried to conquer Georgia and Ukraine, or China, which annexed Tibet and threatens Taiwan. These actions are not just morally reprehensible but also strategically flawed. A smarter way to increase a nation's power is by making it a desirable place to live, embracing diversity, and welcoming those who seek prosperity and freedom.

The Path to Power: Becoming a Haven for Freedom and Prosperity

Our best chance of outpacing China and India lies in maintaining America as a desirable destination for all seeking a better life. We must continue to be open to outsiders and offer a haven where people can move freely in pursuit of prosperity.

The path of violence, dominance, and control that some nations take is not sustainable. Enforcing power over unwilling nations only breeds hatred and creates volatile governments that are met with opposition.

China's annexation of Tibet, their failure to honor commitments to Hong Kong, and threats towards Taiwan, all point towards a troubling pattern of disrespect towards freedom. Similarly, Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine mirror the same destructive path of totalitarian regimes like Hitler's Germany.

If we aspire for America to hold its own against these rising powers, increasing our population to one billion citizens is a viable strategy. As long as China and Russia continue to threaten their neighbors and suppress their own citizens, America will remain an attractive prospect for hard-working, freedom-loving immigrants.

We must beware the threat of a declining superpower becoming embittered and prone to manipulation. If China surpasses us in prosperity but we maintain our power through a larger population, we can sidestep the pitfalls of resentment and frustration.

While natural resources contribute to a country's wealth, they are not the only factor. The wealth of a nation lies in its people, their skills, and their industriousness. Thriving companies require people—innovators, entrepreneurs, and a robust workforce. Every working individual contributes to a nation's strength.

Embracing a future where our population amplifies our strength, America can continue to be a beacon of freedom and prosperity on the world stage.

Apple stands as the largest company globally, its wealth not stemming from selling American natural resources but from designing innovative products, utilizing resources worldwide. The wealth that Apple contributes to America is independent of the country's natural resources.

The fear surrounding increased immigration is often unfounded. Our competition with countries like China depends heavily on our ability to maintain the appeal of the United States as a desirable place to live, displaying openness towards outsiders, and welcoming individuals who wish to be part of our free and prosperous nation. To level the playing field, our population must be comparable to theirs. Otherwise, the contest won't be about different human rights approaches or economic philosophies. They may overshadow us simply due to their sheer size.

For more information and debates on this topic, check the following links:

https://sites.google.com/view/forward-party/platform/1-billion-americans
https://www.kialo.com/america-should-strive-to-have-one-billion-citizens-as-a-way-to-compete-with-china-and-india-57465
https://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/America_should_strive_to_have_one_billion_citizens_as_a_way_to_compete_with_China_and_Indi
http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21958070/Immigration

a) Fundamental beliefs or principles one must reject to also reject this belief:

1. Belief in the strength of diversity and the enrichment it brings to society.
2. Belief that population growth directly contributes to economic and global power.
3. Acceptance of the idea of immigration as a critical factor in national growth and development.
4. Confidence in the capacity of the US to sustainably accommodate a significantly larger population.

b) Alternate expressions (e.g., metatags, mottos, hashtags):

1. #OneBillionAmericans
2. "Population Power"
3. "Growing Our Way to Global Relevance"
4. #EmbraceTheBillion

c) Objective criteria to measure the strength of this belief:

1. Public sentiment and opinion polls regarding population growth and immigration.
2. Legislative measures aimed at accommodating increased population or immigration.
3. Rates of population growth, both natural and via immigration.
4. Degree of societal and infrastructural readiness for significant population increase.

d) Shared interests between those who agree/disagree:

1. The desire for a prosperous, globally competitive nation.
2. The need for sustainable development and responsible use of resources.
3. Concern for the well-being and quality of life for American citizens.

e) Key opposing interests between those who agree/disagree (that must be addressed for mutual understanding):

1. Views on immigration - its impacts and value.
2. Varying concerns about environmental sustainability and resource utilization.
3. Divergent perspectives on cultural identity and social cohesion in an increasingly diverse society.

f) Solutions:

1. Comprehensive immigration reform to welcome more immigrants while ensuring proper systems for integration and support.
2. Proactive urban planning and infrastructure development to accommodate a larger population.
3. Policies encouraging higher birth rates, such as improved parental leave, affordable childcare, and financial incentives.
4. Investments in sustainable technologies to ensure resource efficiency and environmental sustainability.

g) Strategies for encouraging commitment to a resolution to evidence-based solutions:

1. Public education and awareness campaigns to highlight the potential benefits of a larger population.
2. Policies and laws grounded in comprehensive research and successful case studies.
3. Inclusive dialogues and debates to address concerns and bridge divides between opposing views.
4. Demonstrating successful models of higher-density living and thriving diverse communities.

1. Logical arguments:

• Population and Economic Growth: Larger populations often mean larger economies. More people equate to more consumers, workers, innovators, and entrepreneurs.
• Global Relevance: In the future, the world stage might be dominated by populous countries like India and China. Maintaining a comparable population might be key to retaining global influence.

2. Supporting evidence (data, studies):

• According to a United Nations report, countries with declining populations face economic stagnation and a shrinking workforce. Maintaining a steady or growing population could avoid such problems. (Source: "World Population Ageing 2019" by United Nations)

3. Supporting books:

• "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger" by Matthew Yglesias

4. Supporting videos (movies, YouTube, TikTok):

• TED Talk by Hans Rosling, "Global Population Growth, Box by Box."

5. Supporting organizations and their Websites:

• Pro-Immigration organizations like FWD.us (https://www.fwd.us) believe in the power of immigrants and immigration reform for economic and societal growth.
• Urban Land Institute (https://uli.org/) advocates for responsible land use and creating sustainable, thriving communities.

6. Supporting podcasts:

• The Weeds, particularly the episode "One Billion Americans?" where Matthew Yglesias explains his proposal.

7. Unbiased experts:

• Matthew Yglesias, author of "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."
• Lyman Stone, a demographic researcher and an adjunct fellow at AEI.

8. Benefits of belief acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):

• Physiological: An increased population could lead to more job opportunities, stimulating economic growth that can improve standards of living.
• Safety: A more populous nation could have a stronger international presence, improving national security.
• Belonging: Enhanced diversity could lead to a richer cultural tapestry and sense of global community.
• Esteem: A larger population could boost national prestige and maintain America's global status.
• Self-Actualization: A society that welcomes and integrates immigrants, and supports families to have the number of children they want, could be seen as more free, prosperous, and forward-thinking.