People are finally noticing that there aren’t as many children as there used to be.

Because demography is destiny when it comes to the future — as opposed to, say, climate science or fortune cookies — even people who don’t like children are alarmed. In case you’ve not heard, times have changed. We’ve gone from worrying about a population bomb to fretting about a population bust. The fertility rate is tanking.

We know what happened — we just don't want to admit it: Our society lost faith in God.

The math is simple: We need every woman to bear at least 2.1 children to maintain a steady population, or about two children to replace every man and woman alive. The 0.1 accounts for the sad fact that some children don’t live to see adulthood.

Let this sink in: I said every woman, not some women. Every. Single. Woman.

Of course, there have always been childless women. But other women have always made up the difference. We must be blunt: Our distaste for reality is acute. For every woman who does not bear children, there must be two women who have three or another who has four. You might not like the math, but too bad.

I know this is an unpopular message. Just mention the facts, and feminists clutch copies of "The Handmaid's Tale" to their breasts.

So how bad is it? Here are the numbers: Last year, the fertility rate in the United States dropped to 1.62 children per woman. But in the global race to zero, we're a laggard.

By comparison, here are a few other nations:

• The United Kingdom: 1.53
• Hungary: 1.5
• Switzerland: 1.44
• Greece: 1.34
• Chile: 1.17
• China: 1.02
• Singapore: 0.97
• South Korea: 0.75

While it is true that the global population continues to rise, that's because people are taking longer to die. And despite the best efforts of Bryan Johnson and Ray Kurzweil (a couple of "don't die" techno-utopians), the death rate is still 100%. This means that the global population, when it finally begins to do gown, will drop like a rock.

For some people, this is great news. They don't like kids anyway, and they're not too sure about the rest of us. But the implications are bad for everything from social welfare to technological innovation to even personal happiness.

We've been fooling ourselves. Social Security and your retirement savings are not replacements for children (i.e., the original retirement plan). Young adults with children to feed do most of the consuming and innovating in any economy. And with fewer children, we're likely to experience economic stagnation and decline for the foreseeable future.

There are naysayers — there always are. In this case, techno-utopians assure us that AI and robots will fill the gaps. But Elon Musk (of all people) isn't so sanguine. And while he is doing his part (with 14 children), no one would call him "Dad of the Year." He scatters his seed like Genghis Khan. His children will have the best of everything, I'm sure, but what they won't have is a father in the home. Honest sociologists and psychologists (not easy to find) say this is one of the most important factors when raising healthy children, a fact people don't like to admit.

So what do we do?

Recently, the Trump administration floated the idea of a $5,000 incentive for every baby born. Really? Back in 2017, a Department of Agriculture study estimated that raising a child to the age of 17 would cost a whopping $233,610. While that number is absurd in its own right, no one denies that children are expensive.

The U.S. is not the first to try to incentivize childbearing. Some countries, such as Hungary and South Korea, have been doing it for a while.

The question is: Does it work? But as you noticed from the fertility rate numbers above, no. The incentives have barely moved the needle in those countries.

But why doesn't it work? People desperate for answers wonder what is responsible for the declining birth rates. Sperm counts? Something in the air?

While environmental toxins do contribute to infertility, the real culprit is modernity itself. It is the most powerful sterilization drug ever invented. In our thoroughly modern "have it your way" world, people aren't even getting married — let alone having children. It's the same everywhere. In fact, it's even more the case in the Orient than in the Occident. Turns out, China did not need that "one-child" policy. They finally eliminated it, but modernity cemented it.

Let's get real. People don't have children for the money, and declining fertility can't be explained away by falling sperm counts. We know what happened — we just don't want to admit it.

Our society lost faith in God.

Secularists know this, but it makes them uneasy. In 2011, sociologist Eric Kaufmann wrote the book "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century." The book has barely received a modest four-star rating on Amazon. Not because he isn't right — but precisely because he is.

Kaufmann's message is clear: Even in the modern world, religious people have children — and lots of them. Because of their high fertility rates, the future belongs to them.

Religious people have a lot of children because they believe that life has meaning and purpose and that the sacrifices required to bring new life into the world are worth it. In the modern world, with its emphasis on markets and quantifiable things, religious faith is dismissed as nothing more than a matter of personal taste. But if you ask people of devout faith, they would never say it like that, because religious faith isn't concerned with personal preferences but with reality itself.

The faithful don't believe in their religions because they're "fulfilling." They believe in them because they think they're true.

Christianity doesn't have a corner on the pro-natal market, but it does have a long and illustrious history of encouraging childbearing and raising children in the faith. Recently, liberal churches have equivocated on this, and some are downright hostile to traditional forms of family life.

But those churches are dying. It won't be long before they're nothing more than cautionary tales.

I'm honored to serve a church in one of America's most liberal states. Despite this, our church has many large and growing families. I estimate the fertility rate in my congregation to be approximately four children per woman. Some women, of course, have more than four children. Fathers in my congregation take an active role in not only providing for their children, but raising them as well.

My church is not isolated. When I travel, I see the same phenomenon playing out in churches across the country. Churches are growing, those that believe children are a heritage from the Lord.

Our churches, of course, aren't heaven on earth, and we don't live in epistemic bubbles. My wife and I come from families made up largely of academics and artists, so we're accustomed to "alternative lifestyles." In fact, we have many childless relatives who are bitter, lonely, and oddly self-righteous. They think they can gin up the purpose of their lives out of their own desires. But they're failing — clearly.

The future doesn't belong to them, and, frankly, they don't care. Progressives don't live for tomorrow. They live for the present moment. Religious people, on the other hand — the traditionally religious — live for the future.

If demography is destiny, we will indeed inherit the earth.