Infertility is killing off the secular world

In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine.

Secular western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow.


Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise.

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality. In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.


A visual comparison of population growth rates and degree of religious belief shows strong correlation.

The World Christian Database (www.worldchristiandatabase.org) reports the percentage of individuals declaring themselves "atheists" or "non-religious" in more than 200 countries, as well as economic and demographic data.

Using the 2005 population projections published in February by the United Nations Economic and Social Council,these are a number of measures of population growth to the data for religious belief.

The results are shown below.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/images/spengler-population-growth.gif
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

Discuss.

According to the article, adult literacy rate affects the regression more than three times the amount secularism does.

[edit]
So that r-squared of 61% must also include secularism.

Hmm thats a valid point. Brb.

Nonetheless, religious belief (measured by the log of the percentage of non-religious in the population) remains a strong predictor even when adult literacy is introduced as a control variable (at the nearly 100% confidence level).

Same article.

What this proves is that statistics can be used to prove anything. My guess is that, if you dig out the statistics, the countries with the very highest birth rates also have the highest death rates, infant mortality rates, lowest literacy rates, etc. I further surmise that most of these will be in Africa. Conclusion: countries with the highest birth rates have far more to think about than whether God exists or not.

Wait, let me dig out the statistics and see if I'm right or not..

http://www.aneki.com/lists.html

Yes, of course I am.

Some interesting anomalies: Italy, Monaco and Malta are 'low birth' countries with devout Catholic populations. Malta is the world's most Catholic population with something like 95% being devotees. Germany has one of the world's largest Christian populations in terms of numbers - 60,712,000 - but the world's lowest birth rate.

In any case, I'm distrustful of official statistics on religious affiliation (according to which I'm a Protestant, as noted previously). Only self-reported affiliation is of any real use in these matters.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality, I have argue in the past. In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.
It does come as something of a shock to the system when it hits you that there's no God. It's a bit like finding out that there's no Santa Claus. Some magic is lost. Nevertheless secularism is on the rise and the most secular societies appear to be doing reasonably well. Death there seems far from imminent. Is this wishful thinking on the author's part?

Nevertheless secularism is on the rise and the most secular societies appear to be doing reasonably well

Wonder how you would define secular societies. Most of the ones used as examples are post-WWII and have already undergone their ethnic cleansing to reach a more or less stable demographic where ethnicity/race is concerned. Multiculturalism in such places is also not easy considering the discrimination faced by immigrants and the laws being formulated against religious groups.

So secularism is secondary to an established demographic. Will it survive ethnic influx from different cultures? Europe does have the worst history of racial intolerance after all.

I'm puzzled as to why the correlation, between secularism and population growth, is even relevant.
secular societies are usually at higher educational levels, so it would go without saying, they would concider all the variables before bringing a child into this world.
it's not a case of infertility is killing off the secular world, it's a case of the secular world is concidering the future, and over population, global warming, green house gases, ice caps melting. extinction, etc.....

on the opposite end, because of a lack of education, theres a lack of care, a lack of empathy for our planet and people, an ignorance, thus the complete opposite is occuring, non-secularists parents, just dont concider the possible pitfuls first.

Geezer is right. The better educated have fewer children than the uneducated.

Also many of the devout follow rules/guidelines that prohibit certain things such as contraception, abortion or place more importance in boys for example and so keep on going until they get one, (there's a rabbi that lives down the road who has 6 daughters. He's still after a son).

I for one would happily see the world less populated but smarter as opposed to mass populated and stupid.

Europe is among the most densely populated regions.

Geezer is right. The better educated have fewer children than the uneducated.Indeed - just look at the ant population. Under-educated b*****ds! Bleedin' gazillions of them! :D :p

Infertility is killing off the secular world

In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine.

Secular western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow.


Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise.

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality. In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.


A visual comparison of population growth rates and degree of religious belief shows strong correlation.

The World Christian Database (www.worldchristiandatabase.org) reports the percentage of individuals declaring themselves "atheists" or "non-religious" in more than 200 countries, as well as economic and demographic data.

Using the 2005 population projections published in February by the United Nations Economic and Social Council,these are a number of measures of population growth to the data for religious belief.



Discuss.

This doesnt surprise me at all. We atheists have never made up a big percentage of the world and never will IMO.

Isn't Europe mostly atheists?

No - Europe is mostly Christian.
England is predominantly Church of... er... England.
Spain is predominantly Catholic.

Not sure of the others - but certainly Christian.

Isn't Europe mostly atheists?
England for one is said to be mostly secular, but then if you poll the population I dont think you would get over 50% say they categorically dont believe they were intentionally created by a higher entity.

I wonder what percentage of Europe is Muslim?

I wonder what percentage of Europe is Muslim?

Why?

Curiosity, ok with you?

England for one is said to be mostly secular, but then if you poll the population I dont think you would get over 50% say they categorically dont believe they were intentionally created by a higher entity.According to the 2001 UK census, 70% of the population claimed to be Christian...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=460&Pos=1&ColRank=1&Rank=326

15% of the population stated they had "no religion" - which isn't the same as being atheist.

I haven't heard of any great British Christian preachers in years, where'd they go?

I haven't heard of any great British Christian preachers in years, where'd they go?

thats simple, there are none

According to the 2001 UK census, 70% of the population claimed to be Christian...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=460&Pos=1&ColRank=1&Rank=326

15% of the population stated they had "no religion" - which isn't the same as being atheist.

Yes, my point exactly.
While most of England have no regard for spirituality in their day to day life(they are secular). When polled they usually exhibit a degree of fear(respect) of a god.

Since the heyday of atheism, Stalinist Russia and all, atheism has gone the way of the dodo bird, thankfully, most realize there is a creator of the creation.

I haven't heard of any great British Christian preachers in years, where'd they go?British "preaching" is done in each local parish - not in some TV Evangelical way.
Why do you expect to hear of any?
What does a "great Christian preacher" do / sound like / act like in your opinion?

Just watch Charles Stanley or D. James Kennedy.

Since the heyday of atheism, Stalinist Russia and all, atheism has gone the way of the dodo bird, thankfully, most realize there is a creator of the creation.

*sigh*This isn't about god existing, it's about the tie with atheism and population decreases, isn't it?

isn't there other threads for bu^^sh*t "god" discussion?

Was Russia officially atheist for 70 years, what is their population growth?

Just watch Charles Stanley or D. James Kennedy.And are they, by any stretch of the imagination, from the Southern states of the US - believing in the inerrant word of God as written in the Bible?:rolleyes:

I agree with what redarmy11 said.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1267255&postcount=5

Of course they believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, otherwise, they wouldn't be Christian preachers.

Secular western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow.

Yea! when you have a majority claiming to be christians and yet have non-marital sexual relations it does create a larger population! ;)

Some hypocrites, oh no, you mean self-professing Christians are not Jesus Himself, perish the thought!

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality.
A necessary illusion?

Or not? Science (and Buddhism) reveals that life is practically immortal, the only reason people don't see it that way is due to our limited and inaccurate definition of self.

A necessary illusion?

Or not? Science (and Buddhism) reveals that life is practically immortal, the only reason people don't see it that way is due to our limited and inaccurate definition of self.

Semantics.
Even an atheist is immortal if he considers himself part of the circle of life.

What is the supposed "circle of life?"

What is the supposed "circle of life?"

It is a reference to the Disney animated film, "The Lion King", when Mufasa explains to his son, Simba, his philosophy of life, as concerning the hunting of other animals. Mufasa tells Simba that, as King, he cannot simply kill any and all the antelope he wishes. In essence, he explains, once he dies, he will "become" the grass, the antelope will eat him, and he will "become" the antelope.

It is symbolic immortality, which is why I say that immortality all boils down to semantics because it can be defined in several ways.

The "terror of mortality" is not a given, it is introduced through culture, so death is often associated with bad things like accident, disease and murder. Not every culture fears death, but it's understandable to fear dying. I could just as well postulate a "terror of immortality"; worse, because there is no end to it.

The "terror of mortality" is not a given, it is introduced through culture, so death is often associated with bad things like accident, disease and murder. Not every culture fears death, but it's understandable to fear dying. I could just as well postulate a "terror of immortality"; worse, because there is no end to it.

*************
M*W: When I was a christian, I feared death, but I believe that is contradictory to christian belief. One would think that being a christian would allay one's fear of death and dying.

Since I've been an atheist, I am more content with my own mortality. I don't have the fear I had as a christian. What I think that means is one's sub-conscious is telling oneself that christianity is a farce, because there is nothing in the hereafter. There is more self-content found in atheism. There's just simply no room for lies.

You then were not really a Christian, as the Bible says that once God "has your hand," even if you try to let go, He will not let you go.

What is the supposed "circle of life?"
Who gives a shit?
*sigh*This isn't about god existing, it's about the tie with atheism and population decreases, isn't it?

isn't there other threads for bu^^sh*t "god" discussion?
Wonder how you would define secular societies.

Most of the ones used as examples are post-WWII and have already undergone their ethnic cleansing to reach a more or less stable demographic where ethnicity/race is concerned. Multiculturalism in such places is also not easy considering the discrimination faced by immigrants and the laws being formulated against religious groups.

So secularism is secondary to an established demographic. Will it survive ethnic influx from different cultures?
Europe's been surviving 'influxes' since time immemorial. Go to any major city on the continent (or near it ;) ) and you'll find representatives of virtually every nation there. It's difficult to generalise about Europe as a whole because its constituent nations vary widely in immigration rates, attitudes to immigration, employment levels and other relevant factors - but most countries have an immigrant population of between 10% (Germany) to 20% (The Netherlands) and, for the most part, have absorbed them comfortably, with little evidence of the racial intolerance to which you allude. Remove a certain German madman from the equation and is the modern Europe really as intolerant as you imply? Far-right parties have had some notable successes in recent times but are still far from being accepted as part of the mainstream political landscape. Even wake-up calls like the following provide some grounds for optimism in their conclusions:

Europe needs more immigrants, but sees spike in racism
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1950.shtml

Among the new EU members, the Baltic nations were the most intolerant—in particular Latvia and Estonia—while Poland, Bulgaria and Romania were more inclusive. The study also found that xenophobia was directly linked to the GDP of each country: those with stronger per capita incomes showed a lower level of intolerance. In addition, the survey found that 80 percent of EU’s educated urbanites were tolerant toward immigrants. Among people who were illiterate and living in the countryside, however, less than 20 percent were tolerant.

“It doesn’t necessarily follow that less open attitudes are transferred into discriminatory and racist behavior,” commented Beate Winkler, EUMC director. “However, for members of minority communities, both the thoughts and actions of majority populations are important, particularly in relation to how they impact social inclusion in practical terms, such as equality at the workplace or in the education sector.”

We do seem to be reaching critical mass as far as immigration is concerned now though. I know this because the media tell me it is so, despite the fact that I rarely see a non-white face. Large immigrant populations in Britain are so far confined to the big cities - they've yet to impact on the towns and villages. But it should be interesting to see what happens in the future. It's possible that immigration will have to be curbed for a while if the growing pains - for that's exactly what they are - get too severe. I'm confident that Europe's administrators will handle things with the usual modicum of common sense.

So can we get back on topic now?

I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the correlation between birth rates and religious affiliation is anything other than coincidental - indeed, those anomalies I pointed out earlier (and it was by no means an exhaustive list) make me doubt that there's any noticeable correlation at all. I've said before, in an earlier thread on this subject, what's causing the low birth rates in certain countries but no-one paid much attention, so I'll say it again. It's nothing to do with religion. On the other hand it is closely related to literacy rates, as seems intuitive.

It is - are you all listening this time? - changing lifestyle choices. More and more women than ever before are going out to work or on to further education in high-literacy countries, and purposely delaying having children. And when they do have children they're having fewer than before. It's that simple really, without any need to invoke anything remotely supernatural. There are far more grounds for blaming feminism rather than atheism, if you're looking for an uncomplicated scapegoat. The trend will probably continue too, as literacy continues to improve. Immigration will rise as much as we allow it to in the short-term to fill the gaps but my guess is that, in the long-term, it's going to become a more sparsely-populated world. Surely this can only be a good thing in the long run?

http://astro.ic.ac.uk/~mortlock/party/vicar.jpg
A "great English preacher".
Yesterday.
OK, I'm lying.
He's Irish.

It doesn't make sense to equate fertility with survival. Too many people use up resources, leading to environmental devastation and extinction.

You then were not really a Christian, as the Bible says that once God "has your hand," even if you try to let go, He will not let you go.

*************
M*W: That's a very scary premise, but fortunately, it's only in your mind. There is no god to let go of you, anyway. So, yes, you could be right that I wasn't a christian in the first place. I just went through the motions of christianity, hoping, always hoping, there was a god and he would save me. So, not true.

Since the heyday of atheism, Stalinist Russia and all, atheism has gone the way of the dodo bird, thankfully, most realize there is a creator of the creation.People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

this is a common mistake made by theists, typically those of the fundy type, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!

the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that their religion is somehow equivalent with captialism.

Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing.

is christianity opposed to commuism? No, the opposite, actually. There is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for captialism, now is there.

quite a bit of what Jesus said supports many of the of socialism and even communism. He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:

Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

and here again in Acts:

Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."

their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
so we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.

so please lets get away from this silly reference to atheism and communism being the same, the bible is basically a communist manifesto.

Atheism and the end of the world
Huuumm..... about the stats presented at the beginning of the thread...

A correlation? Perhaps. But is there a causal relationship between the 2 variables?

One can find a correlation between the amount of peanuts the average elephant eat in a lifetime with the number of asteroids that hits the earth every century, but is there a causal relationship between the two variables? :D

Infertility is killing off the secular world

In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine.
Im curious,is atheism still their state policy?

SamCDKey:

I actually agree with your premise: Secularism is not good for humanity.

Accordingly, I suggest a return to a rational religion, to afford man his necessary mytho-poetic experience. Something like the old polytheisms of Europe seem to me ideal for the West, specifically as the pagan religions never debased science, society, family, philosophy, et cetera.

It was something a man, woman, and even a slave, could appreciate as a beautiful framework of cultural expression.

But the worse thing? If this trend continues, the West will die. There is simply no way a civilization can exist without births.

I pray to Odin, Zeus, Chu Chulainn, et cetera, et cetera, that this will not happen.

Gesser, it was communism among the new believers after Jesus' resurrection, not among the entire population.

Geeser, and the local churches should be communal to some degree, even today, but that is far different from such a set-up at the national level, for remember, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion," so if you really want to enforce Christianity for your national communism, then you'll have to amend the Constitution, good luck.

There is simply no way a civilization can exist without births.
True, but neither can it with exponential growth. The goal should be zero population growth, perhaps less until the Earth's population of humans is stabilized at a sustainable amount.

The Earth can sustain a far greater population than it can now.

It can sustain -at least- 50 billion people, with only moderate increases in farming techniques and land usage. In fact, it could even do so today - if we dealt with our land more.

Also, it would be reasonable for the world's hellholes to be taken over by better powers and those lands used more efficiently.

Actually the present population is not sustainable. Fisheries are depleting, soil is dying. "Efficiency" in agriculture means artificial fertilizers that are derived from oil. That alone is not sustainable, never mind the adverse effects that use of fertilizer has on soil and fisheries. Industrial agriculture assisted by petroleum products have given our time great riches, but this is a one-time deal. Thereafter, organic farming and a decrease of our impact on the ecosystem is necessary if we are to live as a species.

Fisheries are depleting not because we are using the fish too much, but that our fishing industry is focused way too much on excess.

Soil cannot "die". Soil can always be renitrated and left fallow for a growing season. We can also make more fertilizers to rejuvinate said soil.

Petroleum projects can and will be replaced by others -a s will the entire petroleum industry.

Use downhole heat from extant oil well-holes to power biodiesel production plants, and windmills can power them too.

SamCDKey:

I actually agree with your premise: Secularism is not good for humanity.

Accordingly, I suggest a return to a rational religion, to afford man his necessary mytho-poetic experience. Something like the old polytheisms of Europe seem to me ideal for the West, specifically as the pagan religions never debased science, society, family, philosophy, et cetera.

It was something a man, woman, and even a slave, could appreciate as a beautiful framework of cultural expression.

But the worse thing? If this trend continues, the West will die. There is simply no way a civilization can exist without births.

I pray to Odin, Zeus, Chu Chulainn, et cetera, et cetera, that this will not happen.

I kind of feel the same way. If people are to have religion, I wish it'd be a thing closer to people.

Something like the Romans had.

f you have ever come upon a thick grove of ancient trees which rise far above the usual height and block the view of the sky with their umbrella of intertwining branches, then the height of the forest and the seclusion of the spot and the wonder of so dense and uninterrupted a shade out of doors creates in you a belief in deity.... We venerate the sources of great rivers; we build altars where large streams of water suddenly burst forth from hidden regions; we worship hot springs; and we consecrate lakes because of their darkness or depth.

Well settle for worshipping trees, creeks, and lakes, when you can easily worship the Creator of those?

Nature? People do.

Roman:

Precisely. And great quote from Seneca.

i think the fact that education and atheism are correlated with each other, and both negatively correlated (overall) with global fertility, suggests a few things.

I propose that atheists tend to be better educated, and given that they've thought about the "god delusion" and realised its stupidity, have better critical thinking abilities. They are also probably better at planning when its best to have children, and give more thought to the quality of lives of those children, rather than just pushing them out willy nilly, and so are more likely to use contraception.

Doesn't fertility refer to ones ability to participate in the reproductive process - being separate from the use of contraception, which prevents conception (hence the term contraception)?

So wouldn't the use of contraception be the main factor in determining birth rate?

Oh and,
Atheists scream YOUR name during sex!!! :D

Well settle for worshipping trees, creeks, and lakes, when you can easily worship the Creator of those?

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams (1952-2001)

It can sustain -at least- 50 billion people, with only moderate increases in farming techniques and land usage.

Any chance you could explain how you arrived at that figure? Thanks.

The Earth can sustain a far greater population than it can now.

It can sustain -at least- 50 billion people, with only moderate increases in farming techniques and land usage. In fact, it could even do so today - if we dealt with our land more.

Also, it would be reasonable for the world's hellholes to be taken over by better powers and those lands used more efficiently.

This sounds like hooey at best. 50 billion?

Farming requires more land space per human than apartment buildings. From this observation ALONE, how in the hell could even a moderate increase in land space per individual lead to sustenance of 50 billion people?

Curiousity: what are the world's hellholes?

This ILEA document (http://www.ilea.org/leaf/richard2002.html) seems to be a more well done and interesting paper on the subject (keeping in mind that ILEA has been closed). I'm not verifying the accuracy, however the author gives sources. The maximum Earth population (in short) is dependant on many various factors.

Religion or lack thereof did not seem to be considered as one of those various factors however.

This sounds like hooey at best. 50 billion?

From what I've heard, everyone in the world right now could fit in southern california. That would leave plenty of room for farming.

50 billion could be sustained, if almost every arable land on the Earth was farmed to its utmost potential and with efficiency (as my Environmental Science textbook puts it - if we used our land like the Dutch).

Fisheries are depleting not because we are using the fish too much, but that our fishing industry is focused way too much on excess.
You mean, profit? Sure they could fish less, but the shortfall in protein would have to be made up somewhere else.

Soil cannot "die". Soil can always be renitrated and left fallow for a growing season. We can also make more fertilizers to rejuvinate said soil.
Yes, it can. After many years of artificial fertilizers, it becomes simply a medium, no longer capable of production without either more fertilizer, or through a long process of re-organification. Organic farming is less productive but more sustainable.

Petroleum projects can and will be replaced by others -a s will the entire petroleum industry
Wishful thinking. We have enjoyed many decades of cheap oil, and it's loss will be damaging. There won't just be a different brand to switch on. Petroleum is also the source of most of our fertilizer and plastics.

From what I've heard, everyone in the world right now could fit in southern california. That would leave plenty of room for farming.

Still hooey. Go try to farm the Amazon rain forest. Or the Gobi desert. Or anywhere in Antarctica. Or Mount Everest. Or the Grand Canyon. Or Mount Saint Helens. Should I continue? There are many such un-farmable spots on the planet.

50 billion is obviously a gross exaggeration.

And this does not matter. Religion or religious beliefs were not a factor in any of these studies.

They are farming the Amazon rain forests.

Everyone in the world might fit in California, but they couldn't live that way.

It seems to me with everything that is actually going on in the world today Drought, famine, overpopulation etc that reducing our population is actually a paramount concern for anyone who is seriously concerned with our future. There is no global problem with depopulation, in fact it's just the opposite the human population is higher than it has ever been. Depopulation is only a concern in regards to continuing on the path of unbridled consumerism and the security of our pensions. On the whole I see this as evidence that secular society behaves more responisibly when it comes to the future of the planet.
But never fear if we continue to be so responsible in the end there will only be the faithful and they will rejoice and say "see god said we would inherit/rule the earth and now we do", right before they all starve to death :eek:

In other words the entire premise of the thread is a joke.

I agree, the world is overpopulated. I predict that the religious shall wipe a lot of each other out with war, and the currrent and coming generations of children will observe and conclude rightly so that religion creates unnecessary conflict, and is unnecessary to begin with.

Of course, the religious survivors on each side will do everything they can to indoctrinate the children, spread the mind virus and feed them lies that it was entirely the "other" religions fault, but we must do everything in our power to teach them the truth.

IMO, The planet would do very well with 1 billion literate, educated, people with access to healthcare, who sustain both the numbers of their people and the needs of their people, and the environment.

From what I've heard, everyone in the world right now could fit in southern california. That would leave plenty of room for farming.

At what density? and with what living conditions?

Besides, if everyone lived in southern california, they'd be picked off by the gangs in no time. :(

A reason people live in cities is because of proximity to things they need.
But if availability increased, people wouldn't need to cram so tight.
Its kind of inhuman IMO. for humans to cram as tightly as they are crammed in some cities/ghettos of the world.

Infertility is killing off the secular worldI've thought this before too. Oh well. The secular world, or Atheism per sey, if the fastest growing belief system so in a sense it’s growing by conversion and will continue to claim new converts - forever. Think, 200 years ago there was very few Ahteists - now there are many. As we mature as a species so will our propensity for Atheism.

But it really doesn’t matter and I don’t care. So long as in my country our basic culture and traditions of democracy and personal and intellectual freedom are upheld it doesn’t matter if most people are Xian. It’s ok.

Also, the World is crammed with too many people. We will reach a breaking point. Countries around the equator and cities near the coast (where all the people are crammed) may be FUBARed when global warming makes life a little more unpredictable.

Or when the next pandemic hits.

The Chinese tend twards non-religion due to the legasy of Communism and they have to TRY to keep their population down.

In the coming decades humans will master the aging processes that underpin our mortality.

In the coming centuries humans will master the neural net that undermines out immortality.

In summary, I think you have a point, I think the world probably has too many people as it is.


This planet will melt in 100 million years - so it’s all OK
:)
Michael

Yeah, why do we need 50 billion people? Even if the Earth could support it - when shit hit the fan, boy would it. Also, I want to live on a large plot of land near the ocean and enjoy a bit of peace and nature - it's the reason I moved to AU. I don't want to live all hemmed in like chickens in a cage!

Spidergoat:

You mean, profit? Sure they could fish less, but the shortfall in protein would have to be made up somewhere else.

And it would be.

Yes, it can. After many years of artificial fertilizers, it becomes simply a medium, no longer capable of production without either more fertilizer, or through a long process of re-organification. Organic farming is less productive but more sustainable.

Yes, thus it is fertilized.

Wishful thinking. We have enjoyed many decades of cheap oil, and it's loss will be damaging. There won't just be a different brand to switch on. Petroleum is also the source of most of our fertilizer and plastics.

We have plenty of alternative energy sources available to us. Ethanol, hydrogen, solar, nuclear, coal, natural gas, wave and wind power, et cetera, et cetera.

Finding something to replace plastic won't be an issue as we'll be able to use petroleum for plastic production for longer than we can for fuel. But we will eventually find a nice synthetic to create a plastic substitute.

To everyone on my "50 billion" number:

Consider the implementation of genetic modification, skyscraper farming, anti-desertification, and various other techniques. We are not even -near- our maximum level of production.

Enterprise D:

World's Hell Holes = Middle East, Central Asia, South East Asia, much of South and Central America, and the entire continent of Africa.

Our exploitation of the Earth to feed 50 billion people would result in the (temporary) destruction of ecosystems. This has been played out over and over on smaller scales.

Prince James,
With Africa being such a Hell-Hole, why were the empires of Europe so keen to colonize it?

There be doymunds in that thar hellhole.

Infertility is killing off the secular world
could you list all the countries that are secular,
that would mean at least 51 % of their population being atheist,

In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine.
FYI many if not all Ukrainians happen to be very religious.
anyways I wouldnt worry about the Ruskies,they whopped Hitlers military mighty war machine with almost empty hands,and now have the biggest suply of oil and natural gas in the world,and the riches that will bring them will no doubt make em all rich fat and happy and ready to fuck and make as many kids as never before.

Secular western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population,
Europe is overpopulated,they would be dumb to increase their numbers

while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow.

are you sure its not b/c of the continous stream of mexicans sneaking in,and they have very LARGE familias,no?

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality.
In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor.

nonsence,religious propaganda.
I grew up in the 99% atheistic country and you havent seen happier people anywhere.and we werent monetarily rich either

Secular society therefore is an oxymoron,
no its not, oxymoron would be Christian science!

for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.
more krapola,show me any country where this has happened?

The World Christian Database (www.worldchristiandatabase.org) reports the percentage of individuals declaring themselves "atheists" or "non-religious" in more than 200 countries, as well as economic and demographic data.
.
pardon me, if I dont take a "Christian religious propaganda machine's statistics to be very accurate when it comes to atheism, and what it does to people.
all they are interested is in INCREASING the number of their folowers by scaring them with inacurate most likely made up numbers.

try www.atheists.org or www.secularhumanists.org for more honest statistics

“…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.”
Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation

Sam, are you wearing a sandwich board?

"THE END IS NIGH!"

They are farming the Amazon rain forests.

Everyone in the world might fit in California, but they couldn't live that way.

Granted (after a quick lookup ;) )...but it causes a press panic (even though strictly speaking, simple farming isn't doing much harm to the rainforest). At any rate, one strike doesn't take away from the fact that there are many areas that can't be "farmed" on the planet.

And correct, I forgot to type this one. Yeah by square footage all humans might fit in that state. But where'd the nearest grocery be? Nevada, Oregon or Arizona? LOL how about the nearest farm? It'd be a b*tch to go to the bathroom in such an arrangement huh...

All the people of the world could fit into the state of Arkansas for each to have half an acre.

Again...where would the nearest grocery be??? Mall? Where'd the offices be? Did you think all 6 billion humans would be satisfied to be farmers? How'd they get to another state via mass transit - can you build a train to fit a mere million (out of 6 billion) people at the same time? Or do you think everyone can chant "wingardium leviosa" and float their way wherever they want to go?

Like I said, square footage does not lead to feasibility.

I'm not proposing that all the world move to Arkansas, just illustrating that the world is not hopelessly packed with people as alarmists would have us believe.

The meek shall inherit the world in 6 x 3 plots.

Again...where would the nearest grocery be???
Underground


Mall?
Malls are bad for you. There are none.


Where'd the offices be?

An AI takes care of all the paperwork.


Did you think all 6 billion humans would be satisfied to be farmers?
No need to farm. We grow steaks our in vitro incubators in the kitchen.


How'd they get to another state via mass transit
There are no other states other than Kansas in the future. All the people are here. Not somewhere else.


- can you build a train to fit a mere million (out of 6 billion) people at the same time? Or do you think everyone can chant "wingardium leviosa" and float their way wherever they want to go?

It's a risk to venture out of kansas because there is nothing out there but nature. Wolves, bears, pumas, giant sloths.


Like I said, square footage does not lead to feasibility.
We will use the metric system in the future.

Exactly how much sci-fi do you look at? (Ironic question coming from a starship huh LOL).

Anyway...my point wasn't the literal answers of these questions. My point was that maybe, just maybe, a radical change like that...or even heading close to that, would be at the very least chaotic.

Spidergoat:

IT's a Hell Hole because of the people that live there (horrible violence and such). It's only a few parts that it is a Hell Hole for being what it is physically - such as much of the Sahara or the deepest of the jungles.

Moreover, I'd disagree with your hydrocarbon quoted fellow, on account of the fact that America is the largest producer of corn in the world, and can easily use said corn oil for ethanol. In fact, it is all ready implemented in some Mid-West states. We're also rapidly producing more hybrid cars, which are starting to get really snazzy. Even a Hybrid Hummer.

Spidergoat:

IT's a Hell Hole because of the people that live there (horrible violence and such). It's only a few parts that it is a Hell Hole for being what it is physically - such as much of the Sahara or the deepest of the jungles.
.

WTF??

Infertility is killing off the secular world

In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine.

Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise.


secularism or non-secularism got nothing to do with birth rate. In fact to contradict those predictions made...yes atheism reigned in Soviet Union...however under the atheistic shell...Russians were always orthodox christians...because when something is prohibited by the government...the citizens want that the most.

wsionynw:

Sorry about that. I omitted "it's only in a few parts". I had been up for 24 hours when I wrote that post.

I heard on NPR today that all German citizens pay a "church tax" which is then given to verious religious organizations. Not Scientologists, though, since Germany doesn't consider them a religion.

Which would lead me to conclude that Germans are hell religious.

You know what would be a better indicator of birth rates? 1. Literacy. 2. Female literacy and women's rights. 3. Presence of funtamentalism.

If women are property, like the Islams tell us, then of course they're squirting out kids! They're not allowed to say no!

Sam, are you wearing a sandwich board?

"THE END IS NIGH!"

Actually mine says

THE HEAT IS ON.;)

Sure is, as the people of the "religion of peace" keep trying to have us understand and appreciate their ways.

Actually mine says

THE HEAT IS ON.

Ooooh!! Baby come and keep me warm! ;)

Ooooh!! Baby come and keep me warm! ;)

There you go! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVe7mh86o0)

Oh! honey, it would take more than fans to cool me off! :o

Oh! honey, it would take more than fans to cool me off! :o
I suggest using liquid nitrogen
http://education.jlab.org/glossary/ln2.jpg

No, not the idea that I had ;)

more like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVwPUSnk0Bw&mode=related&search=

I heard on NPR today that all German citizens pay a "church tax" which is then given to verious religious organizations. Not Scientologists, though, since Germany doesn't consider them a religion.

Which would lead me to conclude that Germans are hell religious.

You know what would be a better indicator of birth rates? 1. Literacy. 2. Female literacy and women's rights. 3. Presence of funtamentalism.

If women are property, like the Islams tell us, then of course they're squirting out kids! They're not allowed to say no!

The Germans aren't forced to pay church tax though, they simply don't list a religion in their tax forms, and that's 0% for churches. I imagine that the church tax is buried in their taxation laws somewhere, so the easiest thing to do it to make it voluntary. And I guess no collection is taken at the churches' ceremonies. :p

Answer me, Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam.

In German class, my German teacher told me that German's are not religious at all. The Churches are almost never filled on any other days save holidays, and then too, the assembly is quite empty. Perhaps it has increased since his day, but whatever...

So I was right lol "no collection is taken at the churches' ceremonies" :)