The Great Filter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2016, 10:47 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 10:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 10:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which still does not indicate population decline. Just slower growth.

You can momentum in a population that causes the population to increase for a short while even thought the fertility rate is below 2. But if it is below 2 consistently, the population will go extinct. This is inevitable. The math does not lie.

I'm not sure what you think the point you are making here is. Again, even your own sources do not project a population decrease in irreligious populations. The only point that I think you could be making is "well, if their birth rate was low enough that the population was decreasing, they would die out," which is true, but irrelevant.

Because it isn't.

Because even your own sources contradict your assertion that atheism leads to population decline.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
15-07-2016, 11:02 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 11:05 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 10:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm not sure what you think the point you are making here is. Again, even your own sources do not project a population decrease in irreligious populations. The only point that I think you could be making is "well, if their birth rate was low enough that the population was decreasing, they would die out," which is true, but irrelevant.

Because it isn't.

Because even your own sources contradict your assertion that atheism leads to population decline.

The pew research I cited claimed population unaffiliated with a religion(meaning atheists/agnostics and secularists) had a fertility rate of 1.7.

Quote:If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44, 45, or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.0 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK, for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[6] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

1.7 is below the 2.33 needed for a 0 population growth rate. Since it is below the 2.33 (closer to 2.0 in industrial nations) needed just to sustain the population at the current level, the population will decline and eventually go extinct. The math does not lie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 11:39 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 11:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The pew research I cited claimed population unaffiliated with a religion(meaning atheists/agnostics and secularists) had a fertility rate of 1.7.

Quote:If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44, 45, or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.0 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK, for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[6] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

1.7 is below the 2.33 needed for a 0 population growth rate. Since it is below the 2.33 (closer to 2.0 in industrial nations) needed just to sustain the population at the current level, the population will decline and eventually go extinct. The math does not lie.

And yet the math does not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, in any way support your contention that it is atheism (or, more generally, belonging to the religiously unaffiliated category) which causes this low birth rate.

In fact, the study goes well out of its way to stress that this is not the case. For example:

Europe is the only region where the total population is projected to decline. Europe’s Christian population is expected to shrink by about 100 million people in the coming decades, dropping from 553 million to 454 million. While Christians will remain the largest religious group in Europe, they are projected to drop from three-quarters of the population to less than two-thirds.

If it were the reproductive superiority of religion that were the determining factor here, this would not be the case. There is also this note in one of the appendices, which I have posted before:

Since religious change has never previously been projected on this scale, some cautionary words are in order. Population projections are estimates built on current population data and assumptions about demographic trends, such as declining birth rates and rising life expectancies in particular countries. The projections are what will occur if the current data are accurate and current trends continue. But many events – scientific discoveries, armed conflicts, social movements, political upheavals, natural disasters and changing economic conditions, to name just a few – can shift demographic trends in unforeseen ways. That is why the projections are limited to a 40-year time frame, and subsequent chapters of this report try to give a sense of how much difference it could make if key assumptions were different.

Bolding mine.

And this is followed immediately by another important note:

For example, China’s 1.3 billion people (as of 2010) loom very large in global trends. At present, about 5% of China’s population is estimated to be Christian, and more than 50% is religiously unaffiliated. Because reliable figures on religious switching in China are not available, the projections do not contain any forecast for conversions in the world’s most populous country.

China's population single-handedly makes up for fully half of the religiously unaffiliated in the Pew study's polls, and thus heavily weights the total fertility rate calculated for the entire demographic. But China's low birth rate has nothing to do with a lack of religion. Again, like Japan, the lack of new births is socioeconomic, not (ir)religious, in origin.

I am not sure why you have such a hard time grasping this.

EDIT: And for those wondering what the hell we're going on about, you can find the study in question here.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-07-2016, 03:56 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 04:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Great Filter
The populations of Northern Europe are not "dying out".
http://www.worldometers.info/world-popul...opulation/

Maybe you could buy a clue, Blowme.
It is a giant unsupported leap to go from "decline" to "die out/go extinct".
There is also no evidence that the groups in question are immutable.
People CHANGE their minds, and go from belief to unbelief, and the other way also.
Blowme has posted NOTHING that shows when, (before, during or after) childbearing/rearing age, the CHANGES happen, or that "once an atheist, always an atheist" or the reverse".

As posted above, (and as it was inconvenient, not replied to), RELIGIOUS women of childbearing age in the US, USE birth control.
"Some 68% of Catholics, 73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals who are at risk of unintended pregnancy use a highly effective method (i.e., sterilization, the pill or another hormonal method, or the IUD)."
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/co...ted-states

Blowme's assertions here are a series of unsupported falsehoods.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-07-2016, 04:15 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 04:21 AM by Vosur.)
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 05:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Can you explain how that graph addresses the question I asked?

Well you didn't give me any real data to answer your question. You should have provided the fertility rates of all the countries you had in mind. I was lazy and didn't really hunt for it.
I didn't post the exact numbers because they're not relevant to my question. All you need to know to answer it is that A > B where A is the fertility rate of women in the Czech Republic and B is the fertility rate of women in its much more religious neighboring countries. Here's all the data you need:

[Image: koSAm4.png]
Czech Republic: 23.3% Christian | 76.4% Unaffiliated
Germany: 68.7% Christian | 24.7% Unaffiliated
Slovak Republic: 85.3% Christian | 14.3% Unaffiliated
Poland: 94.3% Christian | 5.6% Unaffiliated

(15-07-2016 05:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The point I was trying to make is that fertility data is going to have some noise in it. Suppose there is a 24 hour black out in Prague in the middle of winter. Fertility might increase during that year. It might be that the fertility rate in the Czech republic is bouncing up due to noise and the neighboring countries are bouncing down due to noise and you observing an anomaly caused by happenstance.
That's not what the data shows. The trend has been consistent for at least a decade (see above).

(15-07-2016 05:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you agree with the premise that atheistic/secular families have less children than religious ones?
Sure. I don't share your simplistic view that atheism is the underlying cause, though. There's a strong correlation between religiosity and poverty and poverty and birth rates respectively. As I have demonstrated with the examples above, your hypothesis starts to fall apart quickly when you compare non-religious first world countries with religious first world countries rather than with dirt poor (i.e. extremely religious) third world ones that have high birth rates because their infant mortality rates are equally high.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
16-07-2016, 04:34 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 04:15 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 05:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you agree with the premise that atheistic/secular families have less children than religious ones?
Sure. I don't share your simplistic view that atheism is the underlying cause, though. There's a strong correlation between religiosity and poverty and poverty and birth rates respectively. As I have demonstrated with the examples above, your hypothesis starts to fall apart quickly when you compare non-religious first world countries with religious first world countries rather than with dirt poor third world ones whose population is extremely religious because they're poor and uneducated and whose birth rates are high because their infant mortality rates are high.

The problem with your data is it doesn't delineate the devoutly religious from the nominally religious. As I have said before, nominally religious people really belong in the secular category.

Now I will grant that atheism doesn't cause some physical change in humans. Being an atheist/secularist isn't going to translate into a lower sperm count for instance. Atheist don't feel the need to follow the command, "go forth an multiply". Devoutly religious people on the other hand often do take that command seriously. Because devoutly religious people are more likely to take that command seriously, a devoutly religious world view is more conducive to the long term survival of the species.

Like I said in the OP, given the choice, human beings will not reproduce in sufficient numbers to sustain the population. If you want to avoid extinction by low fertility rates, a devoutly religious world view is obviously superior to the atheistic/secular world view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 04:45 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 04:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 04:15 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Sure. I don't share your simplistic view that atheism is the underlying cause, though. There's a strong correlation between religiosity and poverty and poverty and birth rates respectively. As I have demonstrated with the examples above, your hypothesis starts to fall apart quickly when you compare non-religious first world countries with religious first world countries rather than with dirt poor third world ones whose population is extremely religious because they're poor and uneducated and whose birth rates are high because their infant mortality rates are high.

The problem with your data is it doesn't delineate the devoutly religious from the nominally religious. As I have said before, nominally religious people really belong in the secular category.

Now I will grant that atheism doesn't cause some physical change in humans. Being an atheist/secularist isn't going to translate into a lower sperm count for instance. Atheist don't feel the need to follow the command, "go forth an multiply". Devoutly religious people on the other hand often do take that command seriously. Because devoutly religious people are more likely to take that command seriously, a devoutly religious world view is more conducive to the long term survival of the species.

Like I said in the OP, given the choice, human beings will not reproduce in sufficient numbers to sustain the population. If you want to avoid extinction by low fertility rates, a devoutly religious world view is obviously superior to the atheistic/secular world view.

You have no evidence that a (supposed) *divine* command to reproduce is the driving factor in religious people's decision to reproduce.
Are Buddhist's not reproducing ? LMFAO
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/buddhists/
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
https://www.brainscape.com/flashcards/11...-today%3F-

You are SO fucking stupid, Blowme.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 05:06 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 04:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The problem with your data is it doesn't delineate the devoutly religious from the nominally religious. As I have said before, nominally religious people really belong in the secular category.
Why do you think that's a relevant point? Are you trying to say that you believe the number of devout Christians in Poland (94%+ Christian) to be lower than the number of devout Christians in the Czech Republic (23%+ Christian)?

(16-07-2016 04:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now I will grant that atheism doesn't cause some physical change in humans. Being an atheist/secularist isn't going to translate into a lower sperm count for instance. Atheist don't feel the need to follow the command, "go forth an multiply". Devoutly religious people on the other hand often do take that command seriously. Because devoutly religious people are more likely to take that command seriously, a devoutly religious world view is more conducive to the long term survival of the species.

Like I said in the OP, given the choice, human beings will not reproduce in sufficient numbers to sustain the population. If you want to avoid extinction by low fertility rates, a devoutly religious world view is obviously superior to the atheistic/secular world view.
Can you provide us with any statistics that support your hypothesis that this Biblical command is the reason why religious people have more children than their non-religious counterparts? I for one think that people in this thread have made a convincing case that the underlying issue is not a philosophical, but a cultural and economic one. Unbeliever's explanation of the circumstances surrounding Japan's low birthrate in particular was excellent.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 09:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:07 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  As for extinction I pretty much blew that out of the water showing how we could cut the population in half and “only” be back to what it was circa 1974.

You blew nothing out of the water. All you did was point out the obvious, which is if our population declines on a trajectory toward 0, it will inevitably pass through a point where it was the same as it was in 1974.

Duh.

And then if the downward trajectory continues, it will be a 0. The party is still over, the fact that we got to relive 1974 population levels doesn't change that.

You’re entire premise is a farce. You’re not very good with logic, either that or you are dishonest.

[Image: acid_picdump_25.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
16-07-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(16-07-2016 07:56 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You blew nothing out of the water. All you did was point out the obvious, which is if our population declines on a trajectory toward 0, it will inevitably pass through a point where it was the same as it was in 1974.

Duh.

And then if the downward trajectory continues, it will be a 0. The party is still over, the fact that we got to relive 1974 population levels doesn't change that.

You’re entire premise is a farce. You’re not very good with logic, either that or you are dishonest.

[Image: acid_picdump_25.jpg]

Why not both? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: