The Great Filter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2016, 02:36 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 02:14 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I understand that you dislike atheism for a number of reasons, but really, suggesting that it would cause the human race to die out from insufficient breeding is just silly.

The math does not lie about this. If the global fertility rate is below 2 for a long enough period, the population will go extinct.

This thread started out by suggesting that the reason we don't see or hear from extra solar intelligent technological civilizations is because there is a filter which causes those civilizations to go extinct shortly after they come into existence.

It is certainly possible that as these civilizations became secular, their fertility rates dropped below 2 (or 1 or 3 or what number of sexes are required to produce replacements) and they died out. If that hypothesis is true we should observe that as our populations become more secular, our fertility rates decrease. What do we observe? As populations become more secular fertility rates decrease to levels which lead to extinction.

This is a good reason to consider that it might be secularism that kills us off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 03:43 AM
RE: The Great Filter

7.5 billion humans on earth.

It is the bees and frogs dying that should concern you. The food supply is vitally important. And the oceans.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 04:42 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2016 04:53 AM by Chas.)
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 01:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  You want terse? Have my Chas imitation.

The choice isn't secularism or not-secularism. It's secularism or religion. Either make the case that the lower birth rate of secularism is WORSE than the atrocities of religion, or stop wasting time.

You being terse is better than Chas being terse because you can actually make a point.

You can actually say that after I've schooled you repeatedly on evolution and mathematics? You are ridiculous.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
17-07-2016, 05:26 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2016 06:34 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 02:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The math does not lie about this. If the global fertility rate is below 2 for a long enough period, the population will go extinct.

This thread started out by suggesting that the reason we don't see or hear from extra solar intelligent technological civilizations is because there is a filter which causes those civilizations to go extinct shortly after they come into existence.

It is certainly possible that as these civilizations became secular, their fertility rates dropped below 2 (or 1 or 3 or what number of sexes are required to produce replacements) and they died out. If that hypothesis is true we should observe that as our populations become more secular, our fertility rates decrease. What do we observe? As populations become more secular fertility rates decrease to levels which lead to extinction.

This is a good reason to consider that it might be secularism that kills us off.

1. The population of the Earth is INCREASING. No group is "dying out". There is no evidence for the hypothesis (and that is a generous term) of this idiotic thread.
2. Blowme has no evidence that secularism is the cause of the decrease in the birth rates of select population groups. It could just as well be EDUCATION levels.
3. Correlation is not causation.
4. Blowme has no evidence that a "divine command" drives reproduction, as a majority of religious women of child-bearing age USE birth control.
5. Blowme is dumber than a box of rocks.
6. The thing that may kill us off, is stupidity on the order Blowme demonstrates.
7. There is no such thing as "extra SOLAR intelligent technological civilizations". The term is idiotic. No "intelligent" civilization lives on a sun, in a sun or without a sun. We ARE "extra solar". We don't live on our sun.
Blowme is so fucking stupid, he uses words that sound "sciencey" but are, in fact, meaningless. He learned them at/from some stupid priest or Fundie weekend talk by some stupid religionist who tried to scare his audience, and Blowme thought "checkmate atheists".
8. The idea that belief in fake ancient absent deities would drive survival is SO fucking stupid, it defies comprehension. But one would expect nothing else from Blowme, whose stupidity is legendary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-07-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 01:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  You want terse? Have my Chas imitation.

The choice isn't secularism or not-secularism. It's secularism or religion. Either make the case that the lower birth rate of secularism is WORSE than the atrocities of religion, or stop wasting time.

You being terse is better than Chas being terse because you can actually make a point.

I agree it is secularism/religion comparison and not so much an atheism/religion comparison. The lower fertility rate of secularism is worse than the atrocities of religion because the lower fertility rate of secularism puts at risk the survival of human species. None of the atrocities of religion ever put humanity at risk. Humanity will cease to exist if the global fertility rate is below 2 over a long enough period. The math does not lie about this.

And my earlier point, where I pointed out that religion was not only in active denial of threats to humanity like climate change and destruction of environment through overpopulation, but is also impeding the rest of us from doing anything about it? Or where I contemplated what religious extremists might do with nuclear or biological weaponry?

Again, even were we to grant your point on birth rate (which is very premature and complicated by other variables), religion is still the bigger threat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 02:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The math does not lie about this. If the global fertility rate is below 2 for a long enough period, the population will go extinct.

The math also utterly fails to establish that atheism is the cause of low birth rates. In point of fact, the study goes out of its way, repeatedly, to ensure that people do not assume this.

Of course, you go ahead and do it anyway, because it's what you want to believe, but there's no helping some people.

"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
17-07-2016, 02:33 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  All we have is a measure of what people profess. We don't have data on how devout they are. I just know from my life experience that people were a lot more devout in the past than they are now.
The moment you move your goalpost from "religious" to "devoutly religious", you've ventured into the realm of pure speculation. We can safely disregard any and all arguments coming from that place because there is no data to support them.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its an assumption I make. But it isn't an important one because we have data that tells us unaffiliated fertility rates are much lower than affiliated with a religion fertility rates. My argument stands just assuming that data is true.
The problem is that that's not what it tells us. I've shown that the fertility rate of the least religious country in Europe is significantly higher than that of its very religious neighboring countries. Your argument can be dismissed based on that fact alone.

As I've pointed out before, the fertility rates of third and first world countries are not comparable because there is a big difference between their child mortality rates.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Unbeliever argued well, but I still find him unconvincing. Answer this question please. If Japan suddenly abandoned their work comes first culture and adopted say the Czech republics culture on work....do you think Japan's fertility rate would rise above 2.0? I asked myself that question and I answered it honestly. There is no reason to believe that if we changed the things Unbeliever claims are the cause of Japan's low fertility rate, that there fertility rate would increase.
I have nothing to add to Unbeliever's response to this part of your post.

(17-07-2016 01:34 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The more secular a society becomes the lower the fertility rate.
Have you ever taken a statistics course at university? The reason I ask is because the first lesson my professor hammered into our heads back then was that correlation does not equal causation. What's even more important, though, is that we have examples to the contrary. The Czech Republic has become more secular at a rapid rate in the past twenty years. Curiously enough, their fertility rate during that time has gone up instead of down. How do you explain that development?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vosur's post
17-07-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 02:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-07-2016 02:14 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I understand that you dislike atheism for a number of reasons, but really, suggesting that it would cause the human race to die out from insufficient breeding is just silly.

The math does not lie about this. If the global fertility rate is below 2 for a long enough period, the population will go extinct.

This thread started out by suggesting that the reason we don't see or hear from extra solar intelligent technological civilizations is because there is a filter which causes those civilizations to go extinct shortly after they come into existence.

It is certainly possible that as these civilizations became secular, their fertility rates dropped below 2 (or 1 or 3 or what number of sexes are required to produce replacements) and they died out. If that hypothesis is true we should observe that as our populations become more secular, our fertility rates decrease. What do we observe? As populations become more secular fertility rates decrease to levels which lead to extinction.

This is a good reason to consider that it might be secularism that kills us off.

Many Westernized societies (1st world) do indeed have lower birthrates than do non-Westernized societies as per my Africa example from many pages back. Repeating what Vosur already has pointed out, could it be because child mortality is considerably lower in 1st than in 3rd? Certainly a more probable possibility that saying that the reason is secularism. As BB said correlation is not causation. It is a fact that the higher a country’s GDP the lower the death rate. A lower death rate requires a lower birth rate to maintain a steady population.

Let’s once again look at some facts just for a thought exercise.

"Crude death rate – the total number of deaths per year per 1,000 people. As of 2014 the crude death rate for the whole world is 7.89 per 1,000 according to the current CIA World Factbook.”

The Crude Death Rate has been declining for decades.

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

The Crude Birth Rate has been declining for decades as well.

“The total (crude) birth rate (which includes all births)—typically indicated as births per 1,000 population.

World historical and projected crude birth rates (1950–2050).

Years CBR Years CBR
1950–1955 37.2 2000–2005 21.2
1955–1960 35.3 2005–2010 20.3
1960–1965 34.9 2010–2015 19.4
1965–1970 33.4 2015–2020 18.2
1970–1975 30.8 2020–2025 16.9
1975–1980 28.4 2025–2030 15.8
1980–1985 27.9 2030–2035 15.0
1985–1990 27.3 2035–2040 14.5
1990–1995 24.7 2040–2045 14.0
1995–2000 22.5 2045–2050 13.4

In 2012 the average global birth rate was 19.15 births per 1,000 total population

Per 1,000 people approximately 19 are born for every 8 that die. With a population of 7.4B that means we are adding about (7,400,000,000/1000x11) 81.4 million a year to the total world population.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that the rate drops to 1.5 or for every two that die only 1.5 take their place (forget the cause for now). Using the per 1000 figure that translates to 15 births to 20 deaths or a decrease of world population of 5,550,000 per year (7,400,000,000/1000x0.75). It would then take 1,333 years to hit 0 (7,400,000,000/5,550,000).

So mathematically a negative birthrate does lead to extinction.

Now back to the possible causes.
Assuming secular societies do have a 1.5 CBR why is that? Secularism is higher in societies with higher education and higher GDP. Secular societies have lower Crude Death Rates as well. But not all societies with higher education and higher GDP are proportionally higher in secularism. The world birthrate, as shown above, has been dropping collectively over the last 70 years across the globe (Africa is the major exception) and projected to continue dropping.

[Image: Income_death_in_logs_graph.JPG]

Could it be that birth control is being practiced by people of all beliefs or lack thereof and are choosing not to have a greater amount of children? Could the cause of a dropping birth rate be education? Globalization? Access to information? Rise in industrialized vs agrarian societies? Gender equality? A mixture? All of the above? Your original premise that secularism alone is going to drive the human species extinct is a flight of fancy at best.

BTW I’m OK trading in quantity for quality.

“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
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
17-07-2016, 05:36 PM
RE: The Great Filter
This shit is fucked up.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 06:47 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(17-07-2016 02:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The math does not lie about this.

No, but people who do math are often damned fine liars.

Quote:If the global fertility rate is below 2 for a long enough period, the population will go extinct.

There are 7.4 Billion people on Earth right now.

The Earth's maximum carrying capacity for humans is estimated at 10 Billion.

A sustainable population is estimated at ~100 million.

If the fertility rate falls to 1 then the population will halve every generation. Assuming a ~30 year generation, it will take 300 years to get our poulation down to a sustainable level. Call me in 300 years.

Quote:This thread started out by suggesting that the reason we don't see or hear from extra solar intelligent technological civilizations is because there is a filter which causes those civilizations to go extinct shortly after they come into existence.

No filter is necessary. Radio waves don't travel worth shit and the transmitting lifetime is <100 years. Our civilization is already going dark and it has nothing to do with birth control. Advances intechnology let us send more data faster using less microwave power and with less scattering. Ditto for Radar, military and civilian. At our brightest you couldn't have seen us from Alpha Centauri unless we'd pointed a signal straight at you. Now we fade and vanish except for the most deliberate signals flung into the void.

You haven't heard from ET because you're looking for a firefly on the rim of a spotlight a thousand miles away and the firefly isn't glowing.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: