The Great Filter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2016, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 08:08 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 06:45 PM)julep Wrote:  As a female atheist-- not many of us participating in this discussion and I'm sure asshole OP will discount my view--I tried to have two, including multiple miscarriages, and was happy after those with having one. If you don't have to suffer the physical consequences of childbirth it's easy to be disapproving about birth control. I have no interest in stressing my body with pregnancy after pregnancy. (Neither do my religious friends; I know almost no one with more than three kids. So what? That's completely rational in a society where raising a kid requires an extra $150k to fund their education, rather than raising a bunch of kids destined to support a family farm.)
Technology makes it easier to support a smaller population. I don't think there is any danger of the birth rate falling to human population endangerment. If we kill ourselves as a species it will be with pollution and climate change and weapons, not with atheism.

Julep, I am sorry about your miscarriages but you have couple of things wrong. The fertility rate must be 2.0 or greater for a population to sustain itself. This assumes no infant/child mortality. If there is infant/child mortality(and there always is) then the fertility rate must be higher than 2.0 for a population to sustain itself. This is a fact of nature that technology cannot make go away.

Second, nobody is arguing that birth control is bad. The argument that is being made is that birth control can be overused to the point where continued overuse of it will lead to the elimination an entire population. This is what is happening in Japan. The Japanese will cease to be if they do not increase their fertility rate or assimilate large numbers of non native Japanese. Non religious people also have a fertility rate that isn't enough to sustain a population.

Third, I do understand that this is an emotional topic for you and so I forgive your unprovoked insult....but I am raising a valid point. Atheists do not reproduce in sufficient number to sustain their own population. Atheists populations depend on converts from religious population to grow/sustain themselves. If all the religious populations were converted to atheism, we would be doomed as a species. The math does not lie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 06:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The atheistic/secular populations do not have a fertility rate high enough to sustain the population.

Japan is not an atheist population.

I would say it is more atheistic than others, but really whether or not Japan is an atheist population is not important.

(15-07-2016 06:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Japan's low birth rate has nothing to do with religion or contraceptives.

Ban contraceptives in Japan and their fertility rate immediately increases. To say birth rate has nothing to do with contraceptives is ludicrous.

(15-07-2016 06:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is not even a correlation between atheism and population decline.

Except there is lots of research to indicate that non religious people have a lower fertility rate than religious people....it is you who are wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 08:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:45 PM)julep Wrote:  As a female atheist-- not many of us participating in this discussion and I'm sure asshole OP will discount my view--I tried to have two, including multiple miscarriages, and was happy after those with having one. If you don't have to suffer the physical consequences of childbirth it's easy to be disapproving about birth control. I have no interest in stressing my body with pregnancy after pregnancy. (Neither do my religious friends; I know almost no one with more than three kids. So what? That's completely rational in a society where raising a kid requires an extra $150k to fund their education, rather than raising a bunch of kids destined to support a family farm.)
Technology makes it easier to support a smaller population. I don't think there is any danger of the birth rate falling to human population endangerment. If we kill ourselves as a species it will be with pollution and climate change and weapons, not with atheism.

Julep, I am sorry about your miscarriages but you have couple of things wrong. The fertility rate must be 2.0 or greater for a population to sustain itself. This assumes no infant/child mortality. If there is infant/child mortality(and there always is) then the fertility rate must be higher than 2.0 for a population to sustain itself. This is a fact of nature that technology cannot make go away.

Second, nobody is arguing that birth control is bad. The argument that is being made is that birth control can be overused to the point where continued overuse of it will lead to the elimination an entire population. This is what is happening in Japan. The Japanese will cease to be if they do not increase their fertility rate or assimilate large numbers of non native Japanese. Non religious people also have a fertility rate that isn't enough to sustain a population.

Third, I do understand that this is an emotional topic for you and so I forgive your unprovoked insult....but I am raising a valid point. Atheists do not reproduce in sufficient number to sustain their own population. Atheists populations depend on converts from religious population to grow. If all the religious populations were converted to atheism, we would be doomed as a species. The math does not lie.

Again with ignoring questions and responses to only repeat the same thing with a tone of fallacious logic or omniscience.

Are you fine thinking slippery slopes are valid points of arguments?

No point in actual grasping of these trends is an absolute continuation of 1 or 2 generations of negative population growth to be inferred. Does that give logical clerence to say, well 5 generation later the 4sane applies, 100 generations later and it's now not enough babies... how does someone not grasp how that's fallacious logic?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:38 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 08:44 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 08:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Again with ignoring questions and responses to only repeat the same thing with a tone of fallacious logic or omniscience.

Are you fine thinking slippery slopes are valid points of arguments?

No point in actual grasping of these trends is an absolute continuation of 1 or 2 generations of negative population growth to be inferred. Does that give logical clerence to say, well 5 generation later the 4sane applies, 100 generations later and it's now not enough babies... how does someone not grasp how that's fallacious logic?

I have no reason to believe that non-religious people will increase their fertility rates in the future without some intervention.

The best counter argument you have is that nominally religious people have low fertility rates too, so the problem isn't exclusive to atheistic/secular people. That is true. But it is also true that devoutly religious people like conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, etc do have fertility rates high enough to sustain the population. I would also argue that nominally religious people more appropriately fall into the secular category.

If you could flip a lever and convert everyone in the world to atheism or everyone in the world to Chassidic Judaism, what action most insures that humans will be around 1 million years from now? You pick Chassidic Judaism and it is not even close.

Overpopulation can be self correcting, Human existence might be miserable from time to time, but it going to go on. To low of a birth rate for a long enough time leads to extinction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:54 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 08:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Overpopulation can be self correcting, Human existence might be miserable from time to time, but it going to go on.

You are a sick man.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
15-07-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 08:54 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Overpopulation can be self correcting, Human existence might be miserable from time to time, but it going to go on.

You are a sick man.

Why? Because I prefer occasional misery to extinction? You conveniently left that part out.

From my perspective, your thinking is warped at best....but likely you are just being dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 09:07 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 08:56 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:54 PM)Dom Wrote:  You are a sick man.

Why? Because I prefer occasional misery to extinction? You conveniently left that part out.

From my perspective, your thinking is warped at best....but likely you are just being dishonest.

It isn’t an either or proposition, this is where you go off the rails.

As for being warped, “I prefer occasional misery to extinction” says the guy who eats three squares a day. Dodgy

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.

As for being dishonest then I guess put me in that boat too since I agree with Dom, the company is certainly better. Yes

[Image: 103260411-LE180-Bn467-V3-MONTAGE-HR-Evol...1450797579]

“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
15-07-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 06:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 07:54 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  So if we're going to argue about the consequences of belief or non-belief, rather than which position is accurate, let's actually LOOK at the consequences.

The atheistic/secular populations do not have a fertility rate high enough to sustain the population. The ACTUAL consequence of that is the atheistic/secular populations will die out unless they bring in converts from the religious populations. If everyone becomes atheistic or secular we are doomed as a species unless some other intervention is made to increase fertility rates.

Some other intervention... such as atheists and secularists actually looking around at world population (as opposed to, say, the population of a few outliers like Japan), NOTICING it's shrinking... and not just down to sustainable and comfortable levels, but to dangerously low levels... and doing something about it? Like the steps mentioned in Japan to try to move enterprise out of Tokyo and away from the environmental factors that keep people from having children?

These are the same groups that are recognizing long-term, on-the-horizon risks such as climate change, while the religious are by and large the core of climate change denial.

These are the same groups that recognized the risks to the entirety of society represented by the AIDS virus, while your religious brethren (or more likely their parents) were celebrating all the gays that God had decided to kill with a plague.

And... returning to the example of Japan... these are the same groups who have ACTUALLY NOTICED THE PROBLEM AND ARE CALLING ATTENTION TO IT AND EVEN TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, and then religious people like you came along and started citing their research as if you deserve one iota of credit for cribbing someone else's notes. The only reason you know about it is because it was ALREADY KNOWN.

Given your track record, there is ZERO RISK that you Christian nutjobs will sound a trumpet alerting us to a real-world problem that we haven't already seen, and ZERO RISK that you'll have a better grasp of how to deal with it than we do. Some of the more staid Christians who can actually employ reality-based empiricism like rational people and then go home and take off their lab coat and put on their Christian hat, them, sure, they could do it. It's even pretty likely they'd be part of a team that did it along with atheist scientists and a few Jews and maybe a few Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims. But it won't be you and it won't be your ilk and it won't be anyone remotely like you.

MEANWHILE.

Religious people like you -- Christians who think faith is a virtue, who think the Bible and Christian teachings are a divine truth beyond anything reality can teach them -- are railing from the pulpit in the wake of the Orlando shooting about how NOT ENOUGH GAY PEOPLE DIED. This time it was a Muslim, but thanks to people like you, the next dozen shootings such murder sprees will likely be from Christians.

And then there's the Christian terrorists who target abortion clinics and doctors.

And then there's the Christian terrorists who murder Sikhs because they look like what they think Muslims look like.

And then there's the other branches of those who worship the Abrahamic god.

Judaism isn't quite as bad... mostly because it doesn't enjoy the same privilege as anyone else hardly anywhere, and also because it came through the Enlightement and into modernity as an out-group rather than an in-group. (Though parts of it have gotten nasty in the one place they DO have control.)

Islam... well, there's not much to say about Islam that hasn't been said already. It's part of the same pattern as Christianity, only a bit more so, because the nations where it holds sway never really had to come to terms with things like separation of church and state. Which, of course, implies ominous things about what happens if currently-secular states DO become more religious in character, to the point where religion gets incorporated into the government.

WEIGHING THESE CONSEQUENCES AGAINST EACH OTHER

We have, on the side of secularism, a movement towards lower population, or at least slower increase in population. Arguably this is a result of secularism and atheism, but it's just as easily argued that it's the result of industrialization, overpopulation, overcrowding, and overwork. If taken to an extreme, this could be problematic... but at present that's probably what the world actually needs. And there is absolutely zero basis to extrapolate beyond the present data set and assume that it would continue down well past a healthy level of population and into dangerously low levels. It's possible, but assuming that would be like assuming that fire fighters are going to flood the whole neighborhood if they keep spraying water on the burning house after the fire is out.

And, on the other side of the balance scale, as your proposed solution to this potential problem...

We have religion. Which has demonstrated its incapacity for recognizing real-world threats. Which has demonstrated its strong tendency for war, for murder, for divisiveness, for persecution, and for tearing societies apart. Your religion, Christianity in particular, has the longest history on record of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-egalitarianism, genocide, and... just about EVERY ATROCITY IMAGINABLE.

It's not hard to see how these consequences balance out. Or rather, DON'T balance out. One of these is a thing of nightmares. The other is a maybe-if-it-continues-it-will-be-a-problem. To call this a cure worse than the disease is an absurd understatement. It's a "disease" that might well be a beneficial cure under the present circumstances, and a "cure" that never has and never will be anything more than the vilest of poisons.

(And if any of these critiques strike you as unfair because not all Christians are like that, and maybe you specifically are not like that.... GO FIX IT! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE WHEN YOUR OWN HOUSE IS IN SUCH BAD NEED OF CLEANING??? You being here shows that you ACTUALLY THINK that addressing a few snarky atheists in an online forum on the subject of reproduction is MORE IMPORTANT than addressing Christian pastors who are LITERALLY CALLING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ROUND UP AND EXECUTE GAY PEOPLE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR PRIORITIES? What the actual fuck?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
15-07-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: The Great Filter
(15-07-2016 08:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I would say it is more atheistic than others, but really whether or not Japan is an atheist population is not important.

Seeing as your argument is about atheism being the thing that will kill humanity due to it leading to population decline, and your cited example is Japan, it is actually quite important.

Unless you're just making random, disconnected statements and hoping that something sticks, anyway.

(15-07-2016 08:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Ban contraceptives in Japan and their fertility rate immediately increases.

The population decline in Japan has nothing to do with fertility rates.

(15-07-2016 08:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To say birth rate has nothing to do with contraceptives is ludicrous.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

Neither is outright rejection of the facts.

(15-07-2016 08:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Except there is lots of research to indicate that non religious people have a lower fertility rate than religious people.

"Lower fertility rate", even assuming that it is true (and assuming that you meant "lower birth rate", as I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that your position is at least partially coherent), is not equivalent to "population decline".

(15-07-2016 08:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  it is you who are wrong.

It's really not.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: