http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html
"Infertility is killing off the secular world, a number of writers have observed, including Phillip Longman, whose 1994 book The Empty Cradle I reviewed last year. [1] 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."
I thought this was a good thing. Death by overpopulation is no fun.
> Death by overpopulation is no fun.
Yeah, that usually means starvation or killing off your population by invading other countries or civil war.
I wonder if there is a tie between secularism and abortion, resulting in these numbers.
If religion institutions in influential positions are going to prevent you from abortion under more or less all circumstances, then yes, sure, secularism will give rise to abortion numbers...
But it's just one factor, yknow? There's also education, economic background, private matters, etc. - all factors that must not be considered under a religious dogma of contra-abortions. So all of these, sometimes dynamically, play into the ammount of abortions.
> So all of these, sometimes dynamically, play into the ammount of abortions.
I meant: Eventually, when religious fundamentalism gives way, they will.
And obviously, it is not just abortions that is the cause. People usually have more of a want to live when they are religious. They have something solid that they can hold on to from birth. Secular people usually have to build such constructions if they do not have a good family.
Religion is something solid to hold on to?
Always seemed more like a thick and sticky spider web to me.
Without religion people can finally see the truth: that soon Great Cthulhu will rise from the eldritch depths to destroy the world and devour the human race. Who wants to bring children into that sort of existence?
> Religion is something solid to hold on to?
In the sense that it can't be taken away, yes.
I don't really see a problem with low birth rates.
Children are annoying – I'd rather we just import some people from the poorer areas of the world. Spread everyone around a little.
"Secular ideologies - socialism, positivism, and so forth - promised a world free of bigotry and hatred, and an unending vista of peace and prosperity. Humankind, however, has vomited up these ideologies. Secular Europe and radical Islam in that sense represent two sides of the same coin: both have rejected the secular order, the latter through open battle, and the former through fatal resignation."
That article is religious propaganda very thinly masked as science. Don't listen to it.
>>12 is secular propaganda very thinly masked as enlightenment. Don't listen to it.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Of course, without further elaboration on the procedure, there's no way to know whether the author has taken this into account. While the author drops some hints regarding further analysis, there just isn't enough in the article to decide if he or she is a barking loon or onto something.
The language used certainly doesn't instill much confidence though.
>>7 is imagining that religion is causing people to live longer. You'll find that secular countries with a strong history of secularism -- such as France -- have some of the longest lifespans around.
>>15
I was referring to happiness/satisfaction/comfortableness rather than how long people live. People who want to die don't kill themselves the next chance they get.
Also, more developed countries, with hospitals etc. (ie. higher life expectencies), tend to be more secular.
If you don't live in fear of dying from the next disease or injury you get, there's less to make you want to believe in a life after death.
Well fine, the article looks at the whole developed world and sees the US being different in two ways: "more religious" (I actually agree with this) and "higher population growth" (certainly true). It conveniently fails to mention things like large-scale immigration from the south and elsewhere. In essence one country is proof of this world-changing power (the article even says it ignores France and Britain not fitting into the scheme).
As >>14 said, the facts that pipe smoking and watching movies in theaters have both dramatically decreased post-WWII does not prove these two things are connected.
Does religous people have more children? Longer lifespans affects the longetivity of a population less compared to whether they reproduce. Religous people in developed countries don't have much more children than non-religous; probably because more of them are living in cities.
>>19
That kinda depends on what kind of stance your religon has concerning contraceptions, abortions, etc.
I dunno, maybe it's because some secular people don't want to give up their clubbing for a baby. Besides dipers smell funny and aren't fun to change.
Maybe the government needs to require warning signs on temples & churches?
"MAY CAUSE HIGHER RISK OF PREGNANCY!"