1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Alarming demographic trends: will religious people take over?

 
X1B
 
Avatar
 
 
X1B
Total Posts:  3
Joined  11-11-2019
 
 
 
12 November 2019 18:46
 

I’m currently reading a book by British demographer Eric Kaufmann. It’s called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? The book talks about a bleak, ominous future for humanity due to above-replacement fertility rates among religious people, super high fertility rates among fundamentalists, and failing fertility rates among secular liberals. Here is a quote from the book:

“When one considers the demographic deficit of liberalism, it is hard not to conclude that religious demography is its Achilles heel. Religious fundamentalism cannot conquer from the outside with guns blazing, but it can achieve power gradually, over generations, from within. Liberalism’s demographic contradiction—individualism leading to the choice not to reproduce—may well be the agent that destroys it.”

And another quote:

“In what follows, I hope to show how the demography of fundamentalism is beginning to transform the United States, Europe, Israel and the Muslim world. We are still in the early stages of the process, but once trends are in full swing, population momentum will carry them forward for generations. ‘If no solution is found,” warns Philip Longman in The Empty Cradle (2004), ‘the future will belong to those who reject markets, reject learning, reject modernity, and reject freedom. This will be the fundamentalist moment’. Our social environment is unlikely to change any time soon. Liberals are simply too committed to the ideal of presentist individualism for themselves and tolerance for others. In matters of demography, they insist on a politically correct laissez-faire. This redounds to the advantage of fundamentalists. Yet to do otherwise would be to act against liberal principles, selling one’s soil in order to win. Secular liberalism lies hoist on its own petard.”

When I described the book as bleak and ominous, I wasn’t understating things. We take social democracy, secular liberalism, and freedom for granted. I hate to admit this, but our society may lose these things a hundred years from now if religious people and fundamentalists continue outbreeding us. It’s scary, but it seems like it will happen.

What does everyone else think? Do you share my concerns?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21909
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 November 2019 19:08
 

It may very well happen.  Both Hispanics (Catholics) and Muslims have relatively high birthrates, and both those religions are good at keeping the faithful in the fold.

[ Edited: 17 November 2019 08:35 by EN]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2898
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
13 November 2019 00:47
 

Religion is a competitive disadvantage: just ask bankers who have to conform to Sharia law.
That is why very few people actual act according to their religion.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21909
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 November 2019 08:33
 
Twissel - 13 November 2019 12:47 AM

Religion is a competitive disadvantage: just ask bankers who have to conform to Sharia law.
That is why very few people actual act according to their religion.

Yet, it is a very successful meme.  And even if people don’t act according to it, they tend to vote/make decisions that perpetuate it. With respect to competition, families of one tribe having 5 kids each have a competitive advantage over those having 1 kid each. Over time, they overrun the less productive tribe.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2898
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
13 November 2019 10:40
 
EN - 13 November 2019 08:33 AM
Twissel - 13 November 2019 12:47 AM

Religion is a competitive disadvantage: just ask bankers who have to conform to Sharia law.
That is why very few people actual act according to their religion.

Yet, it is a very successful meme.  And even if people don’t act according to it, they tend to vote/make decisions that perpetuate it. With respect to competition, families of one tribe having 5 kids each have a competitive advantage over those having 1 kid each. Over time, they overrun the less productive tribe.

who cares?
Manpower doesn’t win wars anymore, nor does it mean prosperity through workforce in an automated economy.
Religious families with 5 kids will never be able to afford the level of education necessary to compete in the world.

 

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21909
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 November 2019 11:23
 
Twissel - 13 November 2019 10:40 AM
EN - 13 November 2019 08:33 AM
Twissel - 13 November 2019 12:47 AM

Religion is a competitive disadvantage: just ask bankers who have to conform to Sharia law.
That is why very few people actual act according to their religion.

Yet, it is a very successful meme.  And even if people don’t act according to it, they tend to vote/make decisions that perpetuate it. With respect to competition, families of one tribe having 5 kids each have a competitive advantage over those having 1 kid each. Over time, they overrun the less productive tribe.

who cares?
Manpower doesn’t win wars anymore, nor does it mean prosperity through workforce in an automated economy.
Religious families with 5 kids will never be able to afford the level of education necessary to compete in the world.

Uneducated people vote.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5731
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
13 November 2019 12:06
 
EN - 13 November 2019 11:23 AM
Twissel - 13 November 2019 10:40 AM
EN - 13 November 2019 08:33 AM
Twissel - 13 November 2019 12:47 AM

Religion is a competitive disadvantage: just ask bankers who have to conform to Sharia law.
That is why very few people actual act according to their religion.

Yet, it is a very successful meme.  And even if people don’t act according to it, they tend to vote/make decisions that perpetuate it. With respect to competition, families of one tribe having 5 kids each have a competitive advantage over those having 1 kid each. Over time, they overrun the less productive tribe.

who cares?
Manpower doesn’t win wars anymore, nor does it mean prosperity through workforce in an automated economy.
Religious families with 5 kids will never be able to afford the level of education necessary to compete in the world.

Uneducated people vote.

Uneducated people vote against their own interests, but remain happy as long as they feel their agenda is being implemented. Educated folks know how to manage the undesirable consequences of implementing that agenda, and do not mainly end up in lower socioeconomic strata that bear the brunt of the undesirable consequences of that agenda. It’s the dreamers with liberal ideals who are most frustrated by these outcomes, and I’m guessing that’s how we get books like Kaufman’s.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6849
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
13 November 2019 20:47
 

All the more reason to use up the earth’s resources as fast as possible. Live it up now, and leave all those future generations of religious people with nothing.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2898
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
13 November 2019 22:19
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 13 November 2019 08:47 PM

All the more reason to use up the earth’s resources as fast as possible. Live it up now, and leave all those future generations of religious people with nothing.

But that isn’t happening - global resource consumption has plateaued despite still rising population.

 

 

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6453
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
14 November 2019 06:46
 

100 years? It could happen in twenty.

The suggestion that folks can be genetically religious shows how desperate fans of secularism have become. Religious folk will reclaim the earth as they always have when secularism loses its way.

Something is clearly dividing people. Casting it as educated/non-educated seems dodgy. All involved are educated. Having a higher education is statistically indicated but many secularists and liberals do not have a higher education.

The contrast is easily conjured.

Imagine two groups of guests are invited to a large ballroom. One group is bussed in from a local trump rally. They are the special fans that get to stand behind the podium in matching shirts and caps. The other group is flown in from Aspen after attending a symposium on neural flakiness. Some get-acquainted time is followed by a short program that combines square dancing with guided meditation. Then, the servers roll in carts decked out with several hundred key-lime pies.

The objective for the observers behind the one-way glass is to determine what is different about the two groups before the glass is completely obscured by splats of key-lime.

Secularists and rationalists desire to live in world that the rally patrons find too demanding and often invisible to their perception. Trumpies will invent bizarre explanations for what secularists want. They are sincerely frightened. T-rumps prefer to live in a world that the eggheads dread because they would have nothing to do. They would perceive things that don’t matter and consequences that will not be avoided. The eggheads will invent cartoons of the religious trumpoids that are complacent, stubbornly emotional and intellectually lazy. Each group wants to take control to protect society from the other’s aspirations.

There is no middle ground or bringing us together as one. There never has been a way. Religious folks can have an easier win because their world is simpler. Everyone knows what a religious society looks like. It is easier for them to unify behind one bizarre explanation that does not stand up to scrutiny because it won’t be scrutinized.

Rationalists aren’t sure what their society looks like and all the blurry examples from the past were failures. If they hold out for impeccable ideas that can face brutal scrutiny, it might be a while before they can agree on what they are. A good start would be for the eggheads to recognize that they are not the solution. They are one half of the problem.

If too many lose or abandon their ability to scrutinize or are never encouraged to look beyond short and quick conclusions, the secular world will vanish from their sight.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21909
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
14 November 2019 07:52
 
Nhoj Morley - 14 November 2019 06:46 AM

There is no middle ground or bringing us together as one. There never has been a way.

Perhaps not a way of bringing us together, but there is middle ground.  That’s just to let people be what they are without imposing one’s view on them. Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses are on the opposite ends of the Christian spectrum, each secretly wanting to do away with the other, but they do live in society without violence and without oppressing each other.  No reason all groups, believers and non-believers, can’t do the same.  We can continue to talk and argue and even try to persuade, but as long as there is no coercion, we live and let live.  It is possible.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5731
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
14 November 2019 22:28
 
EN - 14 November 2019 07:52 AM
Nhoj Morley - 14 November 2019 06:46 AM

There is no middle ground or bringing us together as one. There never has been a way.

Perhaps not a way of bringing us together, but there is middle ground.  That’s just to let people be what they are without imposing one’s view on them. Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses are on the opposite ends of the Christian spectrum, each secretly wanting to do away with the other, but they do live in society without violence and without oppressing each other.  No reason all groups, believers and non-believers, can’t do the same.  We can continue to talk and argue and even try to persuade, but as long as there is no coercion, we live and let live.  It is possible.

Well, sure. However, I’d hate for us to lose the capacity for satirizing the foibles of ‘the Other’ without sprouting a desire to exterminate zem. There are folks who have lost that capacity, and we don’t generally find their motivations entirely secular, as when they get up to turning synagogues into shooting galleries instead of, y’know, just tossing around a slice of lime pie. It’s not just a simple weariness with the chardonnay-drinking whale-saving rainbow coalition’s rhetoric.

Nhoj Morley - 14 November 2019 06:46 AM

Casting it as educated/non-educated seems dodgy.

Yeah, OK, maybe “uninformed” would be better. “Educated” smacks of privilege, and should carry a trigger warning for those who need it. I do like the old adage that “school don’t make you smart”.

You have observed how attractive a simple world view is. It’s not that the “secular” or liberal ideals generally paid lip service are necessarily complex or informed, and you note that they’re not clearly articulated, either.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6453
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
14 November 2019 22:57
 
Traces Elk - 14 November 2019 10:28 PM

You have observed how attractive a simple world view is.

No, that is your take on it. You say it is attractive. I’m saying it is necessary and without an alternative. That is, not until you plug in the magical effect of the right kind of education.

It’s not that the “secular” or liberal ideals generally paid lip service are necessarily complex or informed, and you note that they’re not clearly articulated, either.

I will if you will note that ideas that are complex and informed tend to express secular or liberal ideals. We still count on you for the correct downside.

 

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5731
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
15 November 2019 04:22
 
Nhoj Morley - 14 November 2019 10:57 PM
Traces Elk - 14 November 2019 10:28 PM

You have observed how attractive a simple world view is.

No, that is your take on it. You say it is attractive.

For. Fuck’s. Sake. Nhoj. It’s not “my take”.

I did NOT say “it is attractive (to me)”. I didn’t even try to say it is attractive (to you). Try having a conversation with a real person instead of the one you’re imagining you’re talking to. You’re not imagining people adopt a simplistic world view because it’s unattractive to them, are you? You implied it’s easier for them to form a constituency or a sense of winning. Something’s attracting them. OK, maybe it’s just a case of their limited conception of community.

You point out it’s “an easier win” for those to whom it’s attractive. Another gem from the Department Of Tautology Department. You can look down your nose at the rationalists who aren’t sure, because, what is there to be sure about? It’s that the ground apes are fucked.

If EN does not understand that constituencies who promote laws such that the nearest women’s clinics are 500 miles away from them are not exactly ‘live and let live’ types, so be it.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3424
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
15 November 2019 07:11
 

To place Jehovah’s Witnesses and Roman Catholics on opposite sides of the Christian spectrum is about as productive as thinking of Endocannibals and Exocannibals on opposite sides of the Anthropophaginian spectrum.

The first communion allows the Catholics to partake in the holy sacrosanct while only the specially anointed Jehovah’s Witnesses receive the honour.  Like Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer on a spectrum of serial killing.

Put that in yer pope and smite it.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
15 November 2019 12:27
 
X1B - 12 November 2019 06:46 PM

I’m currently reading a book by British demographer Eric Kaufmann. It’s called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? The book talks about a bleak, ominous future for humanity due to above-replacement fertility rates among religious people, super high fertility rates among fundamentalists, and failing fertility rates among secular liberals.

This is the same argument about IQ that some people make.

Educated people with high IQ’s tend to have fewer children, and uneducated/lower IQ people tend to have more children.  Therefore, we can assume that IQ’s are generally falling over time.

Except this isn’t supported by the evidence.  By the only measurable statistic we have, IQ tests… IQ has risen over the past 50 years.  There is some evidence that this may have stopped, but it is conclusively true as every 10-20 years the scientists who make IQ tests have to revise the tests to make them harder in order to maintain the average at 100.

Now lets look at religion.  500 years ago we don’t have any statistics on the number of atheists and nonreligious people, but everything I’ve seen is pretty confident that the number was extremely low.  1000 or 2000 years ago, the concept of not believing in the gods was relegated to literally a handful of individuals in all the records that we have.  I’m talking like 10 or less.  Even people who didn’t care about gods/religion, didn’t disbelieve, they just didn’t consider it a primary factor in their lives.

So, that means that essentially all of Western society was religious.  All of it.  To any degree that impacted more than a village or two, atheism didn’t exist.  Heck, the word as we understand it today didn’t emerge until the 19th century (it is first recorded around the 16th century, but the meaning was more an anti-christian doctrine than not believing in a christian god).

What does this mean? That the number of atheist and nonreligious people who exist today represents an overall upward trend in nonreligious/atheist people.  We started with effectively 0% and it has increased to approximately 20% today.

If children raised by religious parents could only become religious adults, then these numbers would be impossible.  Since these numbers are the reality of the situation, we can safely discard any notion that religious parents will only produce religious children.  The fundamental basis of this concern is unfounded.

If there is an increase in religiosity, then we will have to examine other factors, because we’ve already proven that this potential one is false.

 
 1 2 3 >