|
Post by Séamus on May 2, 2022 9:35:27 GMT
Prof. Edward Dutton had a interesting video about how Fundamentalist Christian wombfare is going to take over what remains of western civilization. I don't agree with every thing he says but he raised a good question! Will the Religious in the west take over. Personally and statically people with conservative and strong religious believes have much larger families. USA Stats Amish 6.9 children per woman Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman Mormons 3.4 children per woman Muslim 2.9 children per woman New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman Atheists 1.6 children per woman Agnostics 1.3 children per woman I always have a chuckle when I see "traditionalist" Christians occasionally praise the high fecundity of Muslims while largely bemoaning and wailing what they perceive to be the "Islamic takeover of Europe" or some such the other 95% of the time. "Cutting the wildflowers, a team of shire horses evoked a bygone era at King's College Cambridge,famous for it's riverside lawn for 300 years. A section of the grass was turned into a stunning display of poppies,cornflowers and corn chamomile last year. Head gardener Steve Coghill said;'Grass monoculture have their place in horticulture but biodiversity does too. And in a time of climate change and fear of loss of species it is becoming more important'" (Steph Spyro,international express,about a year ago.) Anti-immigration sentiment can be an expression of preserving one's identity,if misguided or extreme at times. If it's worth chuckling at, I'd suggest that the opposite views seem funnier- zero-emissions,zero-population growth, political parties that promote virtual open borders,enevitibly from high-birth, strongly-ethical Muslim countries, and a multiculturalism that seems designed specifically to challenge the Judeo-Christian foundations. This describes the Australian Greens. I kept the above article as it speaks of one of many innovative and creative ways people are meeting the problem of urban planning. The same paper has shown images of old factories and similar being transformed into inner city residential use. As people around the world discover that spending less time in offices is an option,I suspect that large buildings erected for this purpose could follow the way of these Dickensian workhouses.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on May 4, 2022 17:26:48 GMT
Prof. Edward Dutton had a interesting video about how Fundamentalist Christian wombfare is going to take over what remains of western civilization. I don't agree with every thing he says but he raised a good question! Will the Religious in the west take over. Personally and statically people with conservative and strong religious believes have much larger families. USA Stats Amish 6.9 children per woman Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman Mormons 3.4 children per woman Muslim 2.9 children per woman New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman Atheists 1.6 children per woman Agnostics 1.3 children per woman I always have a chuckle when I see "traditionalist" Christians occasionally praise the high fecundity of Muslims while largely bemoaning and wailing what they perceive to be the "Islamic takeover of Europe" or some such the other 95% of the time. Why would that be funny? It would be like getting into a fight with someone who gives you a good trashing. You can admire their strength or ability as a fighter, but it doesn't mean you have to appreciate getting beaten to a pulp. Also, Western countries (last I checked) have abysmal TFRs, many of which fell below replacement rate (2.1) on several occasions (possibly in a row). Also, in regards to the pension argument, if the population suddenly drastically decreases, would that not lead to a massively aged population dependant on a less populated younger generation? I have to disagree with your point about a population explosion leading to the watering down of national identity, though I can see your point. I actually think a smaller world population - given current technology, etc - would lead to a world desperate to integrate itself more. I think a watering down of national identity due to population explosion is more down to if one group is having babies and the other isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on May 5, 2022 14:28:33 GMT
Prof. Edward Dutton had a interesting video about how Fundamentalist Christian wombfare is going to take over what remains of western civilization. I don't agree with every thing he says but he raised a good question! Will the Religious in the west take over. Personally and statically people with conservative and strong religious believes have much larger families. USA Stats Amish 6.9 children per woman Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman Mormons 3.4 children per woman Muslim 2.9 children per woman New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman Atheists 1.6 children per woman Agnostics 1.3 children per woman I always have a chuckle when I see "traditionalist" Christians occasionally praise the high fecundity of Muslims while largely bemoaning and wailing what they perceive to be the "Islamic takeover of Europe" or some such the other 95% of the time. Stating the obvious is hardly in conflict with having a problem with Islam and the problems of Europe. Anyone else find the above demographics interesting and any conclusions from them?
|
|
|
Post by hilary on May 5, 2022 22:33:47 GMT
Some of the Muslim children (and Mormons too maybe) would have only one-half or a third of a father, statistically speaking, so a higher birth rate for those religions is not the same as for say the traditional Catholic children, obviously. I heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about problems the sons of a second or third wife experience related to status etc.
I liked Prof Dutton's description of the people in North Finland (where he said he lives I think) - the woman with 23 children, and how they ask if everything's alright if you only have six children!
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 6, 2022 11:29:53 GMT
I always have a chuckle when I see "traditionalist" Christians occasionally praise the high fecundity of Muslims while largely bemoaning and wailing what they perceive to be the "Islamic takeover of Europe" or some such the other 95% of the time. Stating the obvious is hardly in conflict with having a problem with Islam and the problems of Europe. Anyone else find the above demographics interesting and any conclusions from them? My only query is that there is no guarantee that the children of any of these groups would remain in the faith.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on May 6, 2022 20:33:20 GMT
I've always been curious how a modern society/world would handle a large population drop. Yes, there are people who could be considered unproductive or even "drains" as they are unemployed or even homeless, etc, and I assume the argument would be that a smaller population would mean less people like that. But I wonder is that really true? Also, wouldn't a smaller world mean less choices for people to do what they want? That's something I find a bit odd about people who want a smaller world population, but simultaneously might do something very niche for a living. I don't think you'll have as much a say in a smaller world in regards to what you do, but I can't know for sure.
I know there is a conspiracy considering some standing stones about keeping the world population at five hundred million people. So I think that's between 1/14 - 1/15 of the current population. Assuming this conspiracy were true, but ignoring the more sordid implications for the sake of argument, I wonder how the world could transition into such a state without being unable to fill all necessary roles created by modern society. Maybe it's possible, but it seems like less people means you're less likely to fill those roles. Maybe if it were a very slow transition, but otherwise I don't think the world would cope well.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 7, 2022 12:13:43 GMT
I've always been curious how a modern society/world would handle a large population drop. Yes, there are people who could be considered unproductive or even "drains" as they are unemployed or even homeless, etc, and I assume the argument would be that a smaller population would mean less people like that. But I wonder is that really true? Also, wouldn't a smaller world mean less choices for people to do what they want? That's something I find a bit odd about people who want a smaller world population, but simultaneously might do something very niche for a living. I don't think you'll have as much a say in a smaller world in regards to what you do, but I can't know for sure. I know there is a conspiracy considering some standing stones about keeping the world population at five hundred million people. So I think that's between 1/14 - 1/15 of the current population. Assuming this conspiracy were true, but ignoring the more sordid implications for the sake of argument, I wonder how the world could transition into such a state without being unable to fill all necessary roles created by modern society. Maybe it's possible, but it seems like less people means you're less likely to fill those roles. Maybe if it were a very slow transition, but otherwise I don't think the world would cope well. I think that people should have as many children as they wish and there should be no restrictions. As you say, there is a great risk of unforeseen consequences if one was to drastically reduce the population via some method of social engineering. In China's one child policy abortion was rampant, particularly the abortion of female children, as a male child was often preferred. Now in China there is a problem with looking after older parents as there is only one child to take care of them. There is also a shortage of females for males in China to marry, leading to some unhappy males and also kidnapping of females from neighbouring countries to be taken to China and forced to marry Chinese men who are paying the kidnappers. It may seem cruel to say this, but I think nature (or unfortunately man made wars) eventually intervenes in some manner to reduce the population. In the early 1300s a great famine in Europe may have killed between 30 and 60 percent of the European population. That was followed in the mid 1300s by the bubonic plague (Black Death) which probably killed another 30 percent of the population in areas of Europe affected, and reportedly as many 50 percent of the population of the crowded cities like London, Paris and Florence. I would love to see research done to produce a more reliable natural family planning method. I don't think the establishment wants this as it may contradict their 'anything goes' attitude to sex. But we have seen that we can research and produce virus vaccines and tests within a short time so there is no excuse for not being able to apply this urgency to something else that may curb population growth in a more natural and disciplined way.
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 7, 2022 12:52:10 GMT
I've always been curious how a modern society/world would handle a large population drop. Yes, there are people who could be considered unproductive or even "drains" as they are unemployed or even homeless, etc, and I assume the argument would be that a smaller population would mean less people like that. But I wonder is that really true? Also, wouldn't a smaller world mean less choices for people to do what they want? That's something I find a bit odd about people who want a smaller world population, but simultaneously might do something very niche for a living. I don't think you'll have as much a say in a smaller world in regards to what you do, but I can't know for sure. I know there is a conspiracy considering some standing stones about keeping the world population at five hundred million people. So I think that's between 1/14 - 1/15 of the current population. Assuming this conspiracy were true, but ignoring the more sordid implications for the sake of argument, I wonder how the world could transition into such a state without being unable to fill all necessary roles created by modern society. Maybe it's possible, but it seems like less people means you're less likely to fill those roles. Maybe if it were a very slow transition, but otherwise I don't think the world would cope well. I think that people should have as many children as they wish and there should be no restrictions. As you say, there is a great risk of unforeseen consequences if one was to drastically reduce the population via some method of social engineering. In China's one child policy abortion was rampant, particularly the abortion of female children, as a male child was often preferred. Now in China there is a problem with looking after older parents as there is only one child to take care of them. There is also a shortage of females for males in China to marry, leading to some unhappy males and also kidnapping of females from neighbouring countries to be taken to China and forced to marry Chinese men who are paying the kidnappers. It may seem cruel to say this, but I think nature (or unfortunately man made wars) eventually intervenes in some manner to reduce the population. In the early 1300s a great famine in Europe may have killed between 30 and 60 percent of the European population. That was followed in the mid 1300s by the bubonic plague (Black Death) which probably killed another 30 percent of the population in areas of Europe affected, and reportedly as many 50 percent of the population of the crowded cities like London, Paris and Florence. You could also include the mass slaughter of two horrific world wars which predominantly affected young men. By and large , up to recently at least, mass death by war was a thing of the past. Factor in antibiotics after 1945 and better hygiene many more children survived diseases which killed their older siblings in previous generations. More of us survive childhood and most of us will live longer than any previous generation. This hasn't yet been adequately funded or planned for. We live in an age of short term thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on May 9, 2022 9:23:19 GMT
Stating the obvious is hardly in conflict with having a problem with Islam and the problems of Europe. Anyone else find the above demographics interesting and any conclusions from them? My only query is that there is no guarantee that the children of any of these groups would remain in the faith. Three examples from the list above are the Amish with a 85% to 90% retention rate (1) vs Mormon children with a retention of 64%(2) vs SSPX schools 85%(3). (1)https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iw6eCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (2)https://religionnews.com/2020/06/29/dear-mormon-parents-its-not-just-your-children-that-are-leaving-the-church/ (3)https://stmichaels-school.uk/en/about-st-michaels-school
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 14, 2022 17:06:51 GMT
My only query is that there is no guarantee that the children of any of these groups would remain in the faith. Three examples from the list above are the Amish with a 85% to 90% retention rate (1) vs Mormon children with a retention of 64%(2) vs SSPX schools 85%(3). (1)https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iw6eCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (2)https://religionnews.com/2020/06/29/dear-mormon-parents-its-not-just-your-children-that-are-leaving-the-church/ (3)https://stmichaels-school.uk/en/about-st-michaels-school I was thinking of forwarding this to Pope Francis
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on May 17, 2022 8:35:05 GMT
Three examples from the list above are the Amish with a 85% to 90% retention rate (1) vs Mormon children with a retention of 64%(2) vs SSPX schools 85%(3). (1)https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iw6eCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (2)https://religionnews.com/2020/06/29/dear-mormon-parents-its-not-just-your-children-that-are-leaving-the-church/ (3)https://stmichaels-school.uk/en/about-st-michaels-school I was thinking of forwarding this to Pope Francis I don't think he would be to interested in such rigid and pharisaical ideas. abu-dhabi-reveals-names-of-mosque-church-and-synagogue-in-its-abrahamic-family-house
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 8, 2023 10:37:45 GMT
I was discussing these statistics with a friend recently and he said I missed the Haredi Jews. Adding into the below list. Would be interesting to do a similar list for Ireland. At a recent Catholic (Traditionally minded) Event the figure was 4.8 rate. Sample size was small in fairness (20 families) USA Stat Amish 6.9 children per woman Haredi Jews 6.6 children per woman Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman Mormons 3.4 children per woman Muslim 2.9 children per woman New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman Atheists 1.6 children per woman Agnostics 1.3 children per woman
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on May 8, 2023 19:15:42 GMT
The problem with using birth rates to determine future group size is that the birth rates rarely stay at a high level otherwise you'd be having exponential growth ala grains of rice on a chess board.
Spreading religion by producing children is also a very slow way to spread a religious idea. It takes a lot of effort to ensure the religion takes. Typically, more people lose their religion than gain a religion when they become adults. Once people stop believing in the religion they were brought up in they typically don't adopt another. This is a sort of one-way filter. Once the chain of religion being passed from parents to child is broken then typically is broken for good. Of course there are exceptions - but these are the general trends.
I keep an eye on the Irish census results and you can see that through the last few that not only is there a youth bulge of those with no religion working its way along as individuals age, but there is also a universal increase in no religion in every age category i.e. people in their 40s, 50s, 60s are increasingly identifying as non-religious. These people we raised Catholic but a significant amount became non-religious or cultural Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on May 9, 2023 7:17:22 GMT
Demography is destiny is a phrase that has been about for many years. Two major demographic trends–an ageing population in developed and emerging economies, and high population growth in parts of the developing world will have an enormous impact. What do people think about this across the world from Ireland to Japan to Nigeria? There are vast areas of the globe not overpopulated and sterility is hardly a good thing ever despite any utilitarian aspect. Major problem is the slavery potential, the junk, the monstrous 20+ million "smart cities" along with the predicted future one-world-"religion" imposed on the beings locked inside there.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 14, 2023 7:02:23 GMT
The problem with using birth rates to determine future group size is that the birth rates rarely stay at a high level otherwise you'd be having exponential growth ala grains of rice on a chess board. Spreading religion by producing children is also a very slow way to spread a religious idea. It takes a lot of effort to ensure the religion takes. Typically, more people lose their religion than gain a religion when they become adults. Once people stop believing in the religion they were brought up in they typically don't adopt another. This is a sort of one-way filter. Once the chain of religion being passed from parents to child is broken then typically is broken for good. Of course there are exceptions - but these are the general trends. I keep an eye on the Irish census results and you can see that through the last few that not only is there a youth bulge of those with no religion working its way along as individuals age, but there is also a universal increase in no religion in every age category i.e. people in their 40s, 50s, 60s are increasingly identifying as non-religious. These people we raised Catholic but a significant amount became non-religious or cultural Catholics. I would disagree with your point that religion spreading through demographics is slow. A good example is the Amish population.In the USA the Amish population has doubled on average every 19.63 years. In the 1900 there was around 5000 Amish. “The North American Amish population grew by an estimated 183,565 since 2000, increasing from approximately 177,910 in 2000 to 361,475 in 2021, an increase of 103.2 percent.”
|
|