In a recent episode of the Joe Rogan show, evolutionary biologist and public intellectual Bret Weinstein observed that two emerging features of contemporary societies, especially, though not exclusively in the West, are challenging the very meaning and purpose of human life: 1) the decoupling of human sexuality from human reproduction—defining sex primarily as recreational and 2) with the rise of AI and robotics, the real possibility that having a job will become entirely optional in the future. By secular standards, pursuing both of these goals seems entirely rational, if not laudable: raising children and going to work are, indeed, challenging, so why shouldn't we live in a world in which both become increasingly rare? Weinstein, however—who doesn't profess adherence to any religious tradition—suggests that humanity may lose something important, if not essential, if we continue down this path. Is he right to be concerned? Is it, in fact, wise to relegate having children and going to work—which defined how most people spent most of their adult lives throughout history—entirely to the realm of subjective preference? Or, in seeking ever greater freedom from these responsibilities, are we undermining what it means to live a fully human life?

A listener asks: How can I respond to "God loves me the way I am"?

Topics Covered:

Links:

Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae: Vatican website
Word on Fire Institute: https://institute.wordonfire.org/

NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a Word on Fire IGNITE member! Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners . . . like you! So become a part of this mission and join IGNITE today to become a Word on Fire insider and receive some special donor gifts for your generosity.

Why consumers' views on value are changing